Elite opinion on Trump vs Putin

Started by Baruch, May 10, 2019, 04:01:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Some people are hoping for elite opinion, rather than the more proletarian kind ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot4OPfWZubM

This was done right after the inauguration, but still holds, this guy is a major modern history guy on Russia.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Apologists/Sophists for Trump and Russian political and electoral cooperation who formerly were rabidly anti-Soviet/Russian are beyond  contempt.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on May 16, 2019, 04:52:00 AM
Apologists/Sophists for Trump and Russian political and electoral cooperation who formerly were rabidly anti-Soviet/Russian are beyond  contempt.

This is an experienced "Soviet" analyst from the Cold War.  Non-partisan.  Your response doesn't match the person or the quality (Machiavellian) of he presentation.  I didn't know of this guy more than a month ago, but I am highly impressed.

Or are you saying you were a "fellow traveler" during your time during the Cold War?  Obama and Hillary did more with Russia in 2012-2016 than Trump did.  And Clinton/Bush/Obama rolled over and let China walk all over us.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2019, 07:20:18 AM
This is an experienced "Soviet" analyst from the Cold War.  Non-partisan.  Your response doesn't match the person or the quality (Machiavellian) of he presentation.  I didn't know of this guy more than a month ago, but I am highly impressed.

Or are you saying you were a "fellow traveler" during your time during the Cold War?  Obama and Hillary did more with Russia in 2012-2016 than Trump did.  And Clinton/Bush/Obama rolled over and let China walk all over us.

So much to which to respond...

I'm not much impressed by professional analysts these days.  Too many have agendas clouding their analyses. 

I was more left in college than I am today, but I never was a "fellow traveller" in any sense.  I thought the Soviet Union )and China and puppets) were evil dictators then and I do now.  There was a brief time (Yeltsin and even Gorbochev) where I thought a democracy might finally emerge, but we all know how THAT went.

China has always been "interesting".  Progress comes and goes.  But ultimately, it is and will stay for a long time, a dictatorship.  But they have an odd mix of a control economy and low-level unadulterated capitalism.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Lenin had to liberalize to save himself from the Russian civil war (the NEP).  It wasn't just Trotsky running the Red Army.  Then Stalin messed it all up.  China has managed to end their 1949 civil war quickly (no outside interference unlike Russia 1917-1921).  But Mao was no genius, just an icon.  They had to wait for him to die, before Deng followed Lenin with the Chinese NEP (New Economic Policy).

OK, so you don't like policy wonks.  They can be rather Machiavellian.  This particular guy is.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2019, 10:32:22 AM
Lenin had to liberalize to save himself from the Russian civil war (the NEP).  It wasn't just Trotsky running the Red Army.  Then Stalin messed it all up.  China has managed to end their 1949 civil war quickly (no outside interference unlike Russia 1917-1921).  But Mao was no genius, just an icon.  They had to wait for him to die, before Deng followed Lenin with the Chinese NEP (New Economic Policy).

OK, so you don't like policy wonks.  They can be rather Machiavellian.  This particular guy is.

What a strange view of history you have...

Lenin got lucky when the Russian sailors joined the revolution.  He didn't have to "liberalize" himself.  Trotsky was killed by a Stalin agent.  The Soviets were already messed up before Stalin; he was the natural outcome of the irrational revolution.

China had a decade's long civil war.  It wsn't "quickly" and indeed it is not over so long as Taiwan (aka whatever) exists.

I agree Mao was not a political genius, just a very good political leader.  Like Ho Chi Min of Vietnam, he sought US help.  So much for ideology. 

What on Earth makes you think I don't like policy wonks.  It is practically all I speak.  Ah, but you do like Trumpian tactics...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on May 16, 2019, 11:11:34 AM
What a strange view of history you have...

Lenin got lucky when the Russian sailors joined the revolution.  He didn't have to "liberalize" himself.  Trotsky was killed by a Stalin agent.  The Soviets were already messed up before Stalin; he was the natural outcome of the irrational revolution.

China had a decade's long civil war.  It wsn't "quickly" and indeed it is not over so long as Taiwan (aka whatever) exists.

I agree Mao was not a political genius, just a very good political leader.  Like Ho Chi Min of Vietnam, he sought US help.  So much for ideology. 

What on Earth makes you think I don't like policy wonks.  It is practically all I speak.  Ah, but you do like Trumpian tactics...

Lenin was working for the Kaiser.  He couldn't get to Petrograd without the German Army (and a sealed train).

Mao was lucky that Stalin died first.  Stalin was even more interested in killing other Communist leaders than he was in killing capitalist ones.  The Soviets nearly nuked China in 1968, but LBJ told them no, and they listened.  LBJ wasn't totally useless, just cruel to his dog, and Vietnamese.

You just said .. you don't trust experts.  Are you saying policy wonks aren't experts?  If they aren't, then that is double reason to ignore them.

Yes, the long civil war where Taiwan invades the mainland again and again ... which never happened.  There mere existence isn't even a threat, never has been.

Yes, the Kronstadt sailors rebelled ... but so was most of the Tsarist military at that time.  They were tired of being murdered.  French soldiers mutinied the same year (1917) for the same reason.  But the Germans failed to ship a French communist to France in time ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2019, 11:18:07 AM
Lenin was working for the Kaiser.  He couldn't get to Petrograd without the German Army (and a sealed train).

Mao was lucky that Stalin died first.  Stalin was even more interested in killing other Communist leaders than he was in killing capitalist ones.  The Soviets nearly nuked China in 1968, but LBJ told them no, and they listened.  LBJ wasn't totally useless, just cruel to his dog, and Vietnamese.

You just said .. you don't trust experts.  Are you saying policy wonks aren't experts?  If they aren't, then that is double reason to ignore them.

Yes, the long civil war where Taiwan invades the mainland again and again ... which never happened.  There mere existence isn't even a threat, never has been.

Yes, the Kronstadt sailors rebelled ... but so was most of the Tsarist military at that time.  They were tired of being murdered.  French soldiers mutinied the same year (1917) for the same reason.  But the Germans failed to ship a French communist to France in time ;-)

Oh jeez, Lenin wasn't "working" for the Kaiser.  He was a willing tool seeking goals beyond what the Kaiser imagined..  Do you not understand anything?

You might have something there about Stalin and Mao.  They DID hate each other, thinking the other had the idea of Communism all wrong (it was supposed to be an industrialized society revolution).  I smile about that occurring only in undeveloped agrarian societies. 

The Germans did not want a communist nation in Europe, or did the French.  Viva La Republique and Da Fadderland...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on May 16, 2019, 11:45:40 AM
Oh jeez, Lenin wasn't "working" for the Kaiser.  He was a willing tool seeking goals beyond what the Kaiser imagined..  Do you not understand anything?

You might have something there about Stalin and Mao.  They DID hate each other, thinking the other had the idea of Communism all wrong (it was supposed to be an industrialized society revolution).  I smile about that occurring only in undeveloped agrarian societies. 

The Germans did not want a communist nation in Europe, or did the French.  Viva La Republique and Da Fadderland...

If Lenin realized that the Germans would turn around and nearly destroy the Soviet Union, would he have still committed treason with the Kaiser?

Labor anarchists in France and Germany, even before WW I, wanted communism.  The Kaiser and the French Establishment didn't want communism.

Soviet Union and Red China were updated versions of peasant revolts, not real Communism.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2019, 02:18:23 PM
If Lenin realized that the Germans would turn around and nearly destroy the Soviet Union, would he have still committed treason with the Kaiser?

Labor anarchists in France and Germany, even before WW I, wanted communism.  The Kaiser and the French Establishment didn't want communism.

Soviet Union and Red China were updated versions of peasant revolts, not real Communism.

First, it isn't treason when you win, LOL!

Second, "nearly" was sufficient.  Lenin knew the Russian government was about to fall. 

Third, proved my point.  The Kaiser got what he wanted (Russia out of WWI) and the French thought they had the Germans blocked out with their military lines.  They were wrong, but that's what they thought.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on May 16, 2019, 02:51:22 PM
First, it isn't treason when you win, LOL!

Second, "nearly" was sufficient.  Lenin knew the Russian government was about to fall. 

Third, proved my point.  The Kaiser got what he wanted (Russia out of WWI) and the French thought they had the Germans blocked out with their military lines.  They were wrong, but that's what they thought.

Your total moral relativism puts you in good stead with Machiavelli.  No wonder you survived Washington DC so long ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2019, 04:11:55 PM
Your total moral relativism puts you in good stead with Machiavelli.  No wonder you survived Washington DC so long ;-)

It wasn't moral relativism.  Treason is defined by the winners.  For example, in the US Civil War, had the South Won, Lincoln and Grant might well have been considered "treasonous" to the successful Confederate takeover of the North.  And hanged.

As the losers Jefferson Davis, Lee, and others should have been.

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 02:36:42 AM
It wasn't moral relativism.  Treason is defined by the winners.  For example, in the US Civil War, had the South Won, Lincoln and Grant might well have been considered "treasonous" to the successful Confederate takeover of the North.  And hanged.

As the losers Jefferson Davis, Lee, and others should have been.

And that is why your reincarnation will be unfavorable.  You have blood on your soul (I do to).  You simply are Machiavellian ... why can't you say that?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 04:10:37 AM
And that is why your reincarnation will be unfavorable.  You have blood on your soul (I do to).  You simply are Machiavellian ... why can't you say that?

I can't say what I am not.  Machiavellian is "1. cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics.
"a whole range of outrageous Machiavellian manoeuvres" synonyms: devious, cunning, crafty, artful, wily, sly, scheming, designing, conniving, opportunistic, insidious, treacherous, perfidious, two-faced, Janus-faced, tricky, double-dealing, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest; informal foxy.  "there were press accusations of Machiavellian deception"

That is exactly what I am not.  Being Machivellian is entirely too complicated for simple old me...  I'm right out there with my thoughts on my sleeves.  I don't have the talent for it.  Nor the desire.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Typical virtue signaling SJW ... are you 25 years old?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.