Jump to content

SL Xpress

Full Members
  • Posts

    5190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SL Xpress

  1. I think there's a lot of incompetence involved as well. The Russians consistently demonstrate ossified organizational thinking, which is systemic given the priority of the ruling class to make sure the military can't usurp their power. When you're in an organization that prioritizes following the rules and protocol above all else, shifting priorities due to changing circumstances is a terrible weakness. I'm sure most if not all of us have experienced that within our lifetimes. We don't have to move to Russia. But this is organizational handicaps writ in full. BTW, being in an organization that doesn't do a good job of following rules and protocol has its own problems. If the Russian military is tasked with taking a specific objective, then the organization bends its organizational structure towards that objective. Supply lines shift resources there without thought about the needs of other areas or how they should be prioritized within the context of the objective. The objective becomes all. The future of the organization is not considered. So trainers are sent to the front lines. All available material is sent, regardless of the ability to replace or repair it. No one is making healthy organizational decisions, because the only good organizational decision is to make sure you're not blamed when things go awry. Which also means leadership is promoted and incentivized on the basis of a) not being a threat to superiors, b) the ability to follow orders and parrot the party line, and c) the ability to find scapegoats when things go wrong. Russia is not alone in featuring these dynamics. It's a very human quality. But their whole culture is built around it. I have not understood the military experts who have been perplexed about this operation, nor all the people writing articles featuring this perspective. To me it's seemed brilliant. To quote brilliant military strategist Willie Keeler, "hit the ball where they ain't." Make them shift priorities, resources, and objectives, because for them it's like turning around an aircraft carrier. Not to mention the insane political wins this is creating. Where else in this conflict could this many men and material have had this kind of impact on the conflict? It has seemed like a well run and well thought out operation. This has been much better than what transpired on the left bank of Dnipro trying to create a bridgehead there. Probably in part because Russia completely deprioritized the area thinking their nuclear arsenal would ensure the US and other allies would prevent the Ukrainians from running such an operation. The whole thing has been wonderful from my perspective. I hope the Ukranians continue to enjoy success with this.
  2. It's a dumb thing to say. Encirclements and the propensity to overreach with encirclements are legitimate dangers, but the ability to completely annihilate the enemy force from all directions at once has proven over and over again to be a devastating strategy. But quote Sun Tzu and suddenly it's incontrovertible ancient wisdom. Like so many things, there's wisdom in both stances. Criticizing any and all pincer/encirclement maneuvers seems like a bold move, Cotton.
  3. By the way, they had a media event today with the team. Apparently it's burnt orange carpet premiere as the theme, with the players posing as Hollywood type stars walking the burnt orange carpet in glamorous outfits. Instagram has a reel featuring both Skinner and Swindle.
  4. I'd also say doing sideline reporting for the NFL is a career step up. She called volleyball a bunch for teams other than Texas. I wouldn't say she was universally liked on volleytalk, but it's a tough crowd. The key to her career path isn't necessarily insightful commentary anyway. It's being a hot chick who is passionate about sports and can be minimally articulate about them. I would be a little surprised if she didn't do any volleyball this fall. But if she has a choice between a volleyball match and being a sideline reporter for an NFL game, she'd be dumb not to choose the NFL game.
  5. That was my feeling when she made the national team. "Where is Yossiana Pressley? How is Avery Skinner the star professional from that Baylor team?" But this isn't something new. She's provided a spark numerous times, even while the US team as a whole has been disappointing in international competition. For one thing, it shows the extreme importance of being able to defend in 6 rotations when substitutions are so limited. Pressley couldn't do that. It's also Eggleston's current limitation. But yeah. I'm with you. I didn't see this coming at all.
  6. There's another factor, too. The more effort and resources invested in a course of action, the more invested the individual and organization are in that course of action. Even if a leader is adept at changing their mind and switching course - even reversing it - they now have to convince the people around them this is the right call to make. If they're really good at their jobs, they've done a great job of encouraging people to put in their all towards a direction that turns out to be a horrible mistake, and now need to get the same type of buy in or more in a completely different direction. The qualities it takes to do all of that effectively are exceedingly rare. In any case, it's why I'm all for a regime change, even if I'm convinced because of Russia's toxic culture that goes back centuries we're still going to end up with some asshole in charge of the country.
  7. It feels like a major mistake at this point for any country to agree to disarmament. If there's any lesson to be learned from the war for Ukraine, it's that one.
  8. I have no idea about the reality of any of this. But I do know that one of the biggest difficulties for any human apparatus is to admit when it's made a decision to go in the wrong direction. Oftentimes that simply requires a change in leadership, however it occurs. It's one of the real strengths of democracies, that regular changes in leadership allows the admission of a mistake in policy, resulting in a change in direction. It's also a big weakness, but that's how it goes. The strength of autocratic rule is a diminished reliance on popular support. While still necessary, it's not inherently necessary the way it is in a democracy, so it's possible to move decision making upstream against opposition, and to keep it going that way long past when a democracy would have to change directions. With the death of Putin and the rise of someone else, I can guarantee you Putin will be blamed for every ill that has befallen Russians. His most loyal people will be thrown out of windows, or otherwise imprisoned or killed. Anyone seen as a potential threat to the new leader will be disposed of. He can still be lifted up as a great leader, but his mistakes will be emphasized. Because this is what happens with the transfer of autocratic power unless the transfer is only legitimized by the previous ruler, like say in North Korea. Ukraine will always be in more danger than Georgia, the Baltic states, Finland, and others that Russia feels an entitlement to have firmly in its political sphere. It's the traditional source of the Russian people. Putin shares a general sentiment when he doesn't feel like Ukraine should exist as a separate entity. But this is Russia's best chance to keep Ukraine from the western fold. If they give up their efforts now, that's completely lost. At the very least they need to make sure Ukraine pays such a heavy price in terms of population, economic, resource, and territory losses that it reduces its effectiveness at being a successful nation state. I question whether the next leader is going to be so balls to the wall in their efforts. Speculatively it seems to me more likely they will concentrate their efforts in securing their power base. The likeliest scenario in some ways is a succession of leaders as each one tries to solidify control around their persona. In other words, I am firmly and wholeheartedly rooting for Putin's imminent death, regardless of means. Maybe not the best idea to send a missile to kill him, but I will not be saddened when hearing about his death regardless of means, and regardless of who ends up succeeding him. That they'll end up being another cocksucker seems de rigeur to me.
  9. Why in the world would anyone think that? Russia is a toxic culture, full stop. Even if someone more liberal takes power, they're not going to keep power. Nothing less than a full invasion and conquering, followed by a lengthy occupation is going to change anything all that much about Russia or its rulers. And with nuclear weapons, that option is off the table. The best case scenario is that they become less relevant. It would be helpful for their reduced relevancy for Ukraine to keep their identity and be aligned with the west. It would be even better if they had more of their territorial integrity returned, but I've started losing hope on that front. I'm unconvinced the West has the political will to see that through. Especially with Ukraine running out of manpower to some degree. I know things aren't going well in many ways for the Russians, but with Putin in charge the political will remains steadfast.
  10. *raises hand* Guilty as charged.
  11. The Soviet Union always had issues with any element of projection of power. Their biggest source was communist revolutionaries battling against incumbent, often western facing, authoritarian leadership of one kind or another. Mostly colonial occupation, but not necessarily. Their navy always had serious issues projecting competent power even at the height of the Soviet military. Their air force was designed for Eastern Europe, not projection to far away places. They heavily relied on multiple warhead ICBMs, in large part because of the cost effectiveness. Their ability to attack the continental United States with bombers was always virtually nonexistent. Their biggest successes in projecting power were the rise of Castro in Cuba, the support for various movements in Africa, the establishment of a naval support center in Syria (later upgraded to a base), and then, of course, the dominance of Eastern Europe following WWII. The biggest threat from the USSR militarily always came in the form of a massive invasion of Europe. There wasn't another theater where they were ever any real threat. Something similar could be said about China. I don't know if that changes. They're trying to change it. But I don't think it's changed, yet.
  12. I don't know the actual reasons, but one thing I'd point out is that what is rewarded in the military is staying in your lane, not showing too much initiative, and being ruthless. The FSB is not considered the same kind of potential threat to Putin's rule as the military. Not that people in the FSB and associated secret services are exempt from being culled, but it's possible to be promoted when conducting aspects of hybrid warfare in ways that initiative in the military is not. It is much safer to do what you're told and then be capable in finding a scapegoat when things go wrong than it is to change doctrine or advocate for a different plan of action because of serious concerns about capabilities - in this case the capability of defending the air field. The dynamics for handling the military change drastically when they're constantly seen as the greatest threat to the ruler's power. It's something we take for granted in this country in ways we really shouldn't.
  13. Thank you for the warning. I appreciate the nice comments. I do not consider the comments about white men this, white men that as shit posting. There are racial aspects of this war and certainly of Putin’s support in the US and Europe. I do not feel I’ve ever added a value judgement on whether that’s good or bad, other than the friction created, which absolutely is bad. 

    There are also absolutely racist tendencies in Ukraine as well, just as there pretty much always are in homogeneous societies. It’s particularly bad in the far western part of the country closest to Poland, where neo Nazi support is the greatest. 

    There absolutely is a feeling of disenfranchisement among white men in this society, and it absolutely is causing them to seek out a more extremist agenda. It is fundamental to Trump’s success and his continued hold on parts of the Republican Party. I’m not arguing in their favor. I am not in support of them. I also do not think the path is to demonize all of them. Same with the extreme side of the progressive wing. Tolerance of different races, sexual orientations, gender identifications and religions are all good things. But when you start painting the other side of the discussion as inherently evil, which absolutely happens when it comes to the view of white men by a large segment of that polity, it’s going to create an unhealthy reaction.

    Again, no value judgement intended for either side. The main thrust of my comments on the issue revolve around the idea of a destructive friction in our society, and how the collective path we’re taking will ultimately lead to our demise. No two ways about it. 

    For Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, these are root causes, even more than the potential resources in Ukraine. He sees himself as a messianic figure for what we would call traditional, stereotypical values, particularly when it comes to men and women and their roles in society, and the inherent decadence of the west, especially in terms of its tolerance for what he considers deviant sexual orientations, and absurd gender identification. His values, mind you. Not mine.

    Messianic figures act differently than pragmatic leaders. Not seeing him through that prism is missing a critical part of the picture. 

    Having said all that, it’s your site, and you’re the boss. I’m not arguing with your conclusion. It’s your conclusion. But I absolutely don’t see it the same way. I consider it extremely dangerous that it’s a subject so taboo many people can’t even handle the thought of bringing it up without wanting it to just go away. Or shut it down/cancel it. It’s the biggest problem we’re facing, IMO. But none of us are saving the world by posting on a sports-centric message board, and none of us, including me, should carry ourselves that way.

    I’m very grateful to you for giving me a mechanism to share my thoughts, both through this site and this messaging system. Thank you very much for your time. Moderating is an underrated necessity for dialogue, and it is inherently under-appreciated. This board is a reflection of you more than anyone else. You should be very proud of the community you have been central in creating. I know I am to be a small part of it. 

    Please continue to moderate me as need be. I know you will, but I also want to make clear I welcome it. I will not knowingly challenge you. That’s not my goal. I’m sorry I posted in a manner you saw as out of line. 

    As part of a solution, would you mind giving me access to Cloak room? I don’t know if I will post there or not, but it’s my impression it’s a bit more of a no holds barred environment. I’m not looking to go out of my way to antagonize anyone. That’s not my modus operandi. I’m pretty good at doing it naturally, anyway. But in an environment where that occurs on a regular basis, maybe posts/views of mine others consider shit posting would not stick out so much. 
     

    Again, thank you for your time.

    Shane

×
×
  • Create New...