Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[TurkeyChew 383]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Considering that >60% of chip manufacturing capacity is located in Taiwan, I'd imagine we're going to give a shit eventually considering the pain that the chip shortage has brought to our economy for the last couple years.

We've been trying to decouple chips and geography for years-- I think TSMC got a lot of government money to build in AZ recently as a way to hedge against China, but it's a day late and a dollar short IMO. As well as Intel failing.

[BabaYaga 15532]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

China isn't going to invade Taiwan any time soon. First off, why invade an island that you already claim. Second, China has to worry about some level of a loss. China could put their full weight to take over Taiwan but that would still be embarrassing to them.

If I understand correctly, China's strategy is to continue to work on internal Taiwanese politics to convince younger generations to want to rejoin with China. Get Taiwan to come back willingly.

China has had a hard on for Taiwan for decades now.  Claiming it is one thing, occupying it is another.  

[crash_davis 23465]

12 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

China isn't going to invade Taiwan any time soon. First off, why invade an island that you already claim. Second, China has to worry about some level of a loss. China could put their full weight to take over Taiwan but that would still be embarrassing to them.

If I understand correctly, China's strategy is to continue to work on internal Taiwanese politics to convince younger generations to want to rejoin with China. Get Taiwan to come back willingly.

 

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

China has had a hard on for Taiwan for decades now.  Claiming it is one thing, occupying it is another.  

One China. They got back Hong Kong and are making sure that Honk Kong is Chinese in language, thought, and policy. They did this with Tibet. They are doing this with the Muslim western China. They view Taiwan as they viewed Hong Kong. Rightfully theirs. Taiwan is the missing piece in One China. Plus they are behind in microchip manufacturing. Taking over China leap frogs a few decades for them in technology.

Edited January 24, 2022 by crash_davis

[956 Worldwide 35516]

45 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Yep. Estonia and Latvia are in NATO and have large borders with Russia. I can understand that Russia doesn't want to see Ukraine join NATO but there is no indication that NATO was going to add Ukraine. 

Of course, if Russia effectively annexes Ukraine like what they currently have with Belarus, that just adds to the NATO countries that borders Russia and its satellites. It doesn't lower the #.

The NATO angle is just a fake campaign by Russia to find an excuse to take over Ukraine. No one here should assist them by spreading that bs.

A good analogy (instead of the tired “what if Russia stationed missiles in Canada”) is this— what if NATO Allies stationed 100,000 soldiers in Poland and the Baltics ordinarily resident elsewhere.  Then announced that joint Russian-Belarus training and exercises were unacceptable and that Russia had to promise never to integrate more with Belarus and in fact had to unwind from what it had already done. Oh yeah, and maybe we will announce that Grodno and Brest are historically Polish so let’s just start a little bit of insurgency there and deny that we did it and maybe shoot down some civilian airliners. And then say that all of it was Russia’s fault. 
 

THAT would be an accurate analogy, and it never has happened because no one in NATO wants a war with Russia or to tell Belarus what it can do (aside from strong statements about not locking up or killing every dissident).  

[Bateshorn 9989]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

China has had a hard on for Taiwan for decades now.  Claiming it is one thing, occupying it is another.  

The problem with occupying Taiwan is it exacerbates the global impression of China that started with the violation of its agreements with Hing Kong:  international partners increasingly see them as resorting to violence when they don’t get their way.  You are already seeing African nations turn away from Belt and Road initiatives.

[BabaYaga 15532]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The problem with occupying Taiwan is it exacerbates the global impression of China that started with the violation of its agreements with Hing Kong:  international partners increasingly see them as resorting to violence when they don’t get their way.  You are already seeing African nations turn away from Belt and Road initiatives.

I don't think China really gives a crap - they are playing the long game

[SimonBolivar 11031]

3 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The problem with occupying Taiwan is it exacerbates the global impression of China that started with the violation of its agreements with Hing Kong:  international partners increasingly see them as resorting to violence when they don’t get their way.  You are already seeing African nations turn away from Belt and Road initiatives.

Also Taiwan is armed. If they fought it wouldn't be a bloodless war for China.

 

[crash_davis 23465]

9 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Also Taiwan is armed. If they fought it wouldn't be a bloodless war for China.

 

Xi: "I have 1.4 BILLION people to feed. What do I care if I lose a few hundred thousand, especially if I cement my name is the one who brought One China to fruition?"

[Brisketexan 106618]

Xi: "I have 1.4 BILLION people to feed. What do I care if I lose a few hundred thousand, especially if I cement my name is the one who brought One China to fruition?"

While the reasoning isn’t exactly right, the conclusion is - China doesn’t care if a million body bags come home. It doesn’t matter to them.

[Bateshorn 9989]

27 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I don't think China really gives a crap - they are playing the long game

It’s not to say they won’t do it. But it costs them a lot of hard won international recognition as an alternative to USA/Europe.

[Samson's Wig 3222]

4 hours ago, Shady Ray said:

Not only does he own one, he rocks it when he meets the boss.

 

Short guys.  Can't trust 'em.

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2649]

3 hours ago, kevwun said:

I'm sure Spain wants California and Texas back too.

shit, i would love spanish citizenship. 

 

 

[SimonBolivar 11031]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

While the reasoning isn’t exactly right, the conclusion is - China doesn’t care if a million body bags come home. It doesn’t matter to them.

I dont think know if that's accurate in 2022. They might have the political power to pull it off, but the current youth values their middle class life. The Red Guards aren't running around causing problems anymore.

[crash_davis 23465]

12 minutes ago, ONE YARD said:

shit, i would love spanish citizenship. 

 

 

i could thart thaying all my ssstttthhh like thith.

[BabaYaga 15532]

25 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

It’s not to say they won’t do it. But it costs them a lot of hard won international recognition as an alternative to USA/Europe.

China is rounding up ethnic groups and placing them in forced concentration camps.  They are actively committing genocide and crimes against humanity TODAY (including rape, enforced sterilization, torture, imprisonment, persecution, deportation and enforced disappearance); while the world's nations prepare for them hosting the Olympics.  

They are so deep into so many pockets, I doubt they are worried about public perception.  Same with Russia.  They lock down Europe's dire energy concerns, they will get away with anything that they want.  

[staboner 5067]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Surprised it isn’t an adidas tracksuit. The bald and bankrupt YouTube channel has taught me about gopniks.

 

[SimonBolivar 11031]

21 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

i could thart thaying all my ssstttthhh like thith.

Grathhhhiasss

[4doorsMoreWhores 107]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The fact is that certain Euro countries may put themselves in the way of Russia, which in turn could pull the US into it. It's in our best interest to find a solution before Russia attacks. It most likely will mean some capitulation to Russia including a X year ban on bringing Ukraine into NATO even thought we all know that isn't the russian goal here.

However it's naïve to think we can talk or scare Russia into just going home. to do that, they have to get something. That isn't appeasement but international relations.

I feel supremely confident that whatever action our leaders take, it will be the wrong decision. 

[Rip76 5009]

Didn’t see this posted.

Right on time.

https://www.axios.com/pentagon-ukraine-eastern-europe-russia-troops-e3df265a-b48f-4348-9227-a3102de490d0.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab

“Pentagon: 8,500 troops on high alert for possible deployment to Eastern Europe”

[staboner 5067]

18 minutes ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

I feel supremely confident that whatever action our leaders take, it will be the wrong decision. 

i feel this. also, could say that all actions will fail anyway. 

a whole lotta inevitability Mr Anderson

[Brothahorn 10096]

While the reasoning isn’t exactly right, the conclusion is - China doesn’t care if a million body bags come home. It doesn’t matter to them.

Less mouths to feed.

[SimonBolivar 11031]

3 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

While the reasoning isn’t exactly right, the conclusion is - China doesn’t care if a million body bags come home. It doesn’t matter to them.

Less mouths to feed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-factories-are-having-labor-painswe-can-hardly-find-any-workers-11629883801

[InkaUtexas 26800]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

But does he own a track suit?

And an Audi with three stripes. Want a laugh watch this. His other song Gopnik is worth it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIjKijhv1OU

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

44 minutes ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

I feel supremely confident that whatever action our leaders take, it will be the wrong decision. 

Depends on your definition of "wrong". If you are in management at Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, or General Dynamics, your opinion might be different.

[South Austin 53154]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

While the reasoning isn’t exactly right, the conclusion is - China doesn’t care if a million body bags come home. It doesn’t matter to them.

[Biff Tannen 46061]

28 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

While the reasoning isn’t exactly right, the conclusion is - China doesn’t care if a million body bags come home. It doesn’t matter to them.

Less mouths to feed.

[InkaUtexas 26800]

We support OSCE as a client. Was just told to prepare plans to withdraw people in Eastern Ukraine and plans to increase the number of monitors. Going to be a few busy days. OSCE is scared of their personnel (all contract if US) being stuck in the east. Glad I have a damn good logistics planner. If OSCE is scared well shit. Worked with them in Bosnia and they never had a problem sending monitors into conflict areas. 

Here is their mandate. They sometimes have good stuff on Twitter

The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) was deployed on 21 March 2014, following a request to the OSCE by Ukraine’s government and a consensus decision by all 57 OSCE participating States. The SMM is an unarmed, civilian mission, present on the ground 24/7 in all regions of Ukraine. Its main tasks are to observe and report in an impartial and objective way on the situation in Ukraine; and to facilitate dialogue among all parties to the crisis.

Edited January 24, 2022 by InkaUtexas

[Amos Moses 795]

i could thart thaying all my ssstttthhh like thith.

Not all of Spain is Barthelona silly wrabbit. Lots of other plain for the rain.

[BabaYaga 15532]

38 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

We support OSCE as a client. Was just told to prepare plans to withdraw people in Eastern Ukraine and plans to increase the number of monitors. Going to be a few busy days. OSCE is scared of their personnel (all contract if US) being stuck in the east. Glad I have a damn good logistics planner. If OSCE is scared well shit. Worked with them in Bosnia and they never had a problem sending monitors into conflict areas. 

Here is their mandate. They sometimes have good stuff on Twitter

The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) was deployed on 21 March 2014, following a request to the OSCE by Ukraine’s government and a consensus decision by all 57 OSCE participating States. The SMM is an unarmed, civilian mission, present on the ground 24/7 in all regions of Ukraine. Its main tasks are to observe and report in an impartial and objective way on the situation in Ukraine; and to facilitate dialogue among all parties to the crisis.

Are you a spy?  You sound like a spy....

[crash_davis 23465]

15 minutes ago, Amos Moses said:

Not all of Spain is Barthelona silly wrabbit. Lots of other plain for the rain.

that's exactly what someone from Madrid would say. Catalan Independenthhh or death!

Edited January 24, 2022 by crash_davis

[atomheartbevo 90546]

6 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Then why was Putin and the rest of the Russian leaders so freaked out about Ukraine as a member of NATO?  Or are we going to just ignore thousands of years of Russian anxiety about invasion after invasion after invasion.

So Ukraine joins NATO and then NATO invades Russia, even though Russia would still have thousands of nukes, which they didn't have during their thousands of years of previous anxiety.

Or maybe, as @956 Worldwide said, Russia was worried that it couldn't interfere in its neighbors' affairs when it wanted to, and/or its own citizens might get ideas about wanting to be a little more Western-like if Ukraine proves they don't need a strongman running things.

 

[atomheartbevo 90546]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

China isn't going to invade Taiwan any time soon. First off, why invade an island that you already claim. Second, China has to worry about some level of a loss. China could put their full weight to take over Taiwan but that would still be embarrassing to them.

If I understand correctly, China's strategy is to continue to work on internal Taiwanese politics to convince younger generations to want to rejoin with China. Get Taiwan to come back willingly.

3 hours ago, TurkeyChew said:

We've been trying to decouple chips and geography for years-- I think TSMC got a lot of government money to build in AZ recently as a way to hedge against China, but it's a day late and a dollar short IMO. As well as Intel failing.

Countries/companies are already trying to get chip/etc. manufacturing up and running elsewhere as a hedge to China.  If China invaded Taiwan, that would cause a lot of countries/companies to really look at going elsewhere (Vietnam, back to the US, places like Brazil, etc.).  Vietnam has been quietly (and not so quietly) getting a lot of investment from chip manufacturers, and cheap labor can be had elsewhere in the world.

All of that that in turn puts a shitload of Chinese out of work and on the streets, and the Chinese government cannot handle tens of millions (or more) out of work and in the streets.

And China is the world's largest importer of food.  Wouldn't take many embargoes to really put the squeeze on them.  Put a bunch of Chinese out of work and starve some of them, and that's a FAFO situation.

 

[BabaYaga 15532]

17 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

So Ukraine joins NATO and then NATO invades Russia, even though Russia would still have thousands of nukes, which they didn't have during their thousands of years of previous anxiety.

Or maybe, as @956 Worldwide said, Russia was worried that it couldn't interfere in its neighbors' affairs when it wanted to, and/or its own citizens might get ideas about wanting to be a little more Western-like if Ukraine proves they don't need a strongman running things.

 

[BabaYaga 15532]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Countries/companies are already trying to get chip/etc. manufacturing up and running elsewhere as a hedge to China.  If China invaded Taiwan, that would cause a lot of countries/companies to really look at going elsewhere (Vietnam, back to the US, places like Brazil, etc.).  Vietnam has been quietly (and not so quietly) getting a lot of investment from chip manufacturers, and cheap labor can be had elsewhere in the world.

All of that that in turn puts a shitload of Chinese out of work and on the streets, and the Chinese government cannot handle tens of millions (or more) out of work and in the streets.

And China is the world's largest importer of food.  Wouldn't take many embargoes to really put the squeeze on them.  Put a bunch of Chinese out of work and starve some of them, and that's a FAFO situation.

 

Quote

According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, China is expected to have 69% of the globe's maize reserves in the first half of crop year 2022, 60% of its rice and 51% of its wheat.

They are clearly preparing for something.

[Baconboy 143]

Any word on how this is being portrayed by the Russian media?

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Are you a spy?  You sound like a spy....

I feel like he’s isn’t a spy, he’s an asset. 
 

5 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

We support OSCE as a client. Was just told to prepare plans to withdraw people in Eastern Ukraine and plans to increase the number of monitors. Going to be a few busy days. OSCE is scared of their personnel (all contract if US) being stuck in the east. Glad I have a damn good logistics planner. If OSCE is scared well shit. Worked with them in Bosnia and they never had a problem sending monitors into conflict areas. 

Here is their mandate. They sometimes have good stuff on Twitter

The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) was deployed on 21 March 2014, following a request to the OSCE by Ukraine’s government and a consensus decision by all 57 OSCE participating States. The SMM is an unarmed, civilian mission, present on the ground 24/7 in all regions of Ukraine. Its main tasks are to observe and report in an impartial and objective way on the situation in Ukraine; and to facilitate dialogue among all parties to the crisis.

I guess this tweet before you received that correspondence. 
 

With the US and Germany pulling out, it seems like the intel is there that things are about to happen. 
 

I guess all kinds of things could happen, the one that I think concerns us most directly is the threat of some cyber actions. I don’t really think they’re a threat, but my tinfoil hat self says that anything that happens will be blown up in media etc and then actions could be taken here that affect us. There’s been a lot of signaling that something cyber related could happen. Gives authorities reason to take aggressive measures. Is there a tin foil hat forum here? 😂 

[South Austin 53154]

1 minute ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I guess all kinds of things could happen, the one that I think concerns us most directly is the threat of some cyber actions.

It’s not like it’s going to be hard for the Russians to bork Surly.

[Sawbonz 28081]

9 minutes ago, South Austin said:

It’s not like it’s going to be hard for the Russians to bork Surly.

Yeah if Myanmar Muslims can do it it should be a piece of cake for the SVR

[Anastasis 23699]

15 minutes ago, South Austin said:

It’s not like it’s going to be hard for the Russians to bork Surly.

Hugo already an embedded operative. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

31 minutes ago, South Austin said:

It’s not like it’s going to be hard for the Russians to bork Surly.

Actually, Russians kind of dominate dryer vent cleaning. Kind of like Vietnamese and nail salons. They’re already here 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Immaculate Vibes

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, Baconboy said:

Any word on how this is being portrayed by the Russian media?

[washparkhorn 9967]

Level 10 Slav

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4998]

9 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I feel like he’s isn’t a spy, he’s an asset. 
 

I guess this tweet before you received that correspondence. 
 

With the US and Germany pulling out, it seems like the intel is there that things are about to happen. 
 

I guess all kinds of things could happen, the one that I think concerns us most directly is the threat of some cyber actions. I don’t really think they’re a threat, but my tinfoil hat self says that anything that happens will be blown up in media etc and then actions could be taken here that affect us. There’s been a lot of signaling that something cyber related could happen. Gives authorities reason to take aggressive measures. Is there a tin foil hat forum here? 😂 

I think it's called Cloak Room? 🤷‍♂️

[Parliament 14559]

10 hours ago, South Austin said:

It’s not like it’s going to be hard for the Russians to bork Surly.

...with bad plumber recommendations.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

Pretty thorough note on another front for Russia 

 

[atomheartbevo 90546]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

...with bad plumber recommendations.

And lots of information on tow truck signs.   Wait…

[atomheartbevo 90546]

3 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Pretty thorough note on another front for Russia 

So they will take on Ukraine and NATO.  

[956 Worldwide 35516]

The presence of battalion sized Enhanced Forward Presence multinational brigades in the Baltics and Poland is part of the response to the Suwalki Gap issue.  Russia hates having them there, and it's not because of the (absurd on its face) idea that a few battalion sized forces pose any threat to the Russian homeland or even the Kaliningrad enclave.  They are extended deterrence in action.  If Russia was to attack or send troops into those nation's territories, it is impossible to imagine that these forces-- representing almost every NATO Ally in one way or another-- are not involved.  And that makes a unified, military NATO response almost guaranteed.  If Russia goes to war in those member states, they are going to physical, kinetic war with all the other Allies.

Russia does not want this.  Russia would love nothing more than to at least have the option of a Baltic state as a "test case."  To retain the option of hitting them fast, moving in, and then sitting back to watch how Allies react without actually shooting any Americans or Brits or French or even Germans.  Will there be dithering in capitals and much exegesis of what Article 5 means? Will it snap the Alliance awake and result in almost immediate response?  Maybe so, but it might be worth a shot and it might even be worth climbing down if it appears so.  The important thing is that Russia wants to keep option the option to attack a vulnerable eastern European state without having to also physically attack the armed forces of the bigger players.  This is why they want all NATO infrastructure out of those states. 

It cannot be said enough, the force posture NATO Allies have maintained even after the 2014 annexation of Crimea can in no universe of a normal understanding of military affairs be considered a physical threat to Russia.  Remove from your brain the idea that Russia plausibly fears an attack from these territories.  When the Kremlin says they are threatened, what they mean is that they don't like having the option open to invade any of their neighbors. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

Interesting piece here. The cultural difference in conflict resolution is pretty telling. 
 

https://unherd.com/2022/01/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-putin/

 

Spoiler

In 1999, Vladimir Putin suddenly sprang from bureaucratic obscurity to the office of Prime Minister. When, a few months later, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and Putin was voted in as President, governments around the world were taken by surprise yet again. How could this unknown figure have amassed national voter support with so little media attention?

I had first met Putin seven years before and was not surprised by his rapid domination of the new Russia. We were introduced by Yevgeny Primakov, widely known as “Russia’s Kissinger”, who I had met in Moscow multiple times during the Cold War years when I advised Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Primakov was a no-nonsense thinker and writer. He was also a special emissary for the Kremlin in conducting secret discussions with national leaders around the world.

When Yeltsin tasked his advisor Anatoly Sobchak with identifying and recruiting Russia’s best and brightest, Putin, then a local politician in his hometown of St Petersburg, was top of his list — so Primakov took Putin under his wing to tutor him in global power and security issues. Eventually, Primakov introduced Kissinger to Putin, and they became close. That both Primakov and Kissinger took time to coach Putin on geopolitics and geosecurity was a clear demonstration that they saw in him the characteristics of a powerful leader. It also showed Putin’s capacity for listening to lengthy lessons on geopolitics — as I was soon to learn.

 

In 1992, I received a call from a meeting organiser at the CSIS think tank inviting me to join a US-Russia St Petersburg Commission to be chaired by Kissinger and Sobchak. The purpose would be to help the new Russian leadership in opening channels of business and banking with the West. Most of the Western members would be CEOs of major US and European companies, as well as key officials of the new Russian government. I would attend as an expert. I was told that a “Mr Primakov” had personally asked if I could make time to participate. I could hardly refuse such a request, and I was intensely curious about the emerging Russian leadership, especially about Putin.

Arriving at the first meeting, I saw several people gathered around Kissinger and a man I was told was Putin. An official identified himself to me and said he had been asked by Primakov to introduce me to Putin. He interrupted the conversation with Kissinger to announce my arrival; Putin warmly responded that he was looking forward to chatting with me about how I see the world from inside Washington.
 

We spoke on several occasions between meetings, and he arranged to sit next to me at a dinner, accompanied by his interpreter. At that dinner, he asked me: “What is the single most important obstacle between your Western businessmen and my fellow Russians in starting up business connections?”

Off the top of my head, I responded: “The absence of legally defined property rights — without those there is no basis for resolving disputes.”

“Ah yes,” he said, “in your system a dispute between businesses is resolved by attorneys paid by the hour representing each side, sometimes taking the dispute to the courts which normally takes months and accumulation of hourly attorney fees.”

“In Russia,” he continued, “disputes are usually resolved by common sense. If a dispute is about very significant money or property, then the two sides would typically send representatives to a dinner. Everyone attending arriving would be armed. Facing the possibility of a bloody, fatal outcome both sides always find a mutually agreeable solution. Fear provides the catalyst for common sense.”

He used his argument in the context of disputes between sovereign nations. Solutions often require an element of fear of disproportionate responses if no deal is struck. The idea of forcing adversaries to face horrific alternatives seemed to excite him. In essence, he was describing to me the current Ukraine impasse between the US and Russia. Putin knows Russia cannot afford a prolonged ground war with Ukraine. He also can see Biden is facing crucial midterm elections with a domestic congressional impasse, and cannot afford a major foreign crisis distraction. The two sides have no choice but to strike a deal.
 

On a different occasion, Putin asked me how decisions are really made in Washington, with its complex division of Presidential and Congressional powers. He said Kissinger could explain the broad parameters of a Presidential policy decision, but could not clarify how political consensus was achieved between the House, Senate, and the Executive Branch.

It was evident he had been given a deep intelligence brief on my career. He said Kissinger enjoys the public theatre of powerful people meeting in elaborate dinners or meetings with many aides ready to guide them. And he told me he had been informed that I preferred backroom meetings to shape consensus and provide room for negotiating details.

I tried to explain the elaborate process of balancing the interests of the many players in Washington, including Congress, the major agencies, and the intricate business arrangements that might be affected by any decision. I told him of my first personal meeting with Nixon, who had said he was impressed that I had strong personal support from leaders of both major parties. However, he added, this raised worries among his staff in the White House — so he really needed to know whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. To which I replied: “Yes.”

When Nixon asked what that meant, I explained that I was not a partisan warrior, but rather a problem solver. To get a solution I would always be ready to work with key players of both parties depending upon the specific problem. This seemed to amuse Putin.

The impression of Putin that I was left with was of a man who was more intelligent than most of the politicians I had met in Washington and in other capitals around the world. I was reminded of my childhood: I grew up in a predominantly Sicilian neighbourhood, with a mafia maintaining order. No disorganised crime allowed. Putin did seem to have the instincts of a Sicilian mafia boss: quick to reward but quick to pose mortal risk in the event of non-conformity to the family rules.
 

On a different occasion, Putin asked me how decisions are really made in Washington, with its complex division of Presidential and Congressional powers. He said Kissinger could explain the broad parameters of a Presidential policy decision, but could not clarify how political consensus was achieved between the House, Senate, and the Executive Branch.

It was evident he had been given a deep intelligence brief on my career. He said Kissinger enjoys the public theatre of powerful people meeting in elaborate dinners or meetings with many aides ready to guide them. And he told me he had been informed that I preferred backroom meetings to shape consensus and provide room for negotiating details.

I tried to explain the elaborate process of balancing the interests of the many players in Washington, including Congress, the major agencies, and the intricate business arrangements that might be affected by any decision. I told him of my first personal meeting with Nixon, who had said he was impressed that I had strong personal support from leaders of both major parties. However, he added, this raised worries among his staff in the White House — so he really needed to know whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. To which I replied: “Yes.”

When Nixon asked what that meant, I explained that I was not a partisan warrior, but rather a problem solver. To get a solution I would always be ready to work with key players of both parties depending upon the specific problem. This seemed to amuse Putin.

The impression of Putin that I was left with was of a man who was more intelligent than most of the politicians I had met in Washington and in other capitals around the world. I was reminded of my childhood: I grew up in a predominantly Sicilian neighbourhood, with a mafia maintaining order. No disorganised crime allowed. Putin did seem to have the instincts of a Sicilian mafia boss: quick to reward but quick to pose mortal risk in the event of non-conformity to the family rules.

Looking back to those times of growing disarray in Russia’s leadership, I can recall the prolonged, multi-year paralysis of the Brezhnev Presidency, which was followed by the brief Presidencies of Andropov and Chernenko. Gorbachev was not strong enough to impose his will. Yeltsin had good ideas but was easily distracted and lacked follow through. Russia was in urgent need of a strong leader — and so Putin stepped in.

As for how Putin sees himself, he did bring up several times his admiration for Peter the Great, so much so I was convinced he sees himself as his incarnation. I have not been a guest of the Kremlin since 1988, but I am told Putin had portraits of Peter the Great hung in several important meeting rooms there — rather than portraits of himself, as would be more customary. What this means for Biden, Nato and Ukraine is slowly becoming clear. There is more to Putin than meets the eye.

 

 

 

[Samson's Wig 3222]

36 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Interesting piece here. The cultural difference in conflict resolution is pretty telling. 
 

https://unherd.com/2022/01/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-putin/

 

  Hide contents

In 1999, Vladimir Putin suddenly sprang from bureaucratic obscurity to the office of Prime Minister. When, a few months later, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and Putin was voted in as President, governments around the world were taken by surprise yet again. How could this unknown figure have amassed national voter support with so little media attention?

I had first met Putin seven years before and was not surprised by his rapid domination of the new Russia. We were introduced by Yevgeny Primakov, widely known as “Russia’s Kissinger”, who I had met in Moscow multiple times during the Cold War years when I advised Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Primakov was a no-nonsense thinker and writer. He was also a special emissary for the Kremlin in conducting secret discussions with national leaders around the world.

When Yeltsin tasked his advisor Anatoly Sobchak with identifying and recruiting Russia’s best and brightest, Putin, then a local politician in his hometown of St Petersburg, was top of his list — so Primakov took Putin under his wing to tutor him in global power and security issues. Eventually, Primakov introduced Kissinger to Putin, and they became close. That both Primakov and Kissinger took time to coach Putin on geopolitics and geosecurity was a clear demonstration that they saw in him the characteristics of a powerful leader. It also showed Putin’s capacity for listening to lengthy lessons on geopolitics — as I was soon to learn.

 

In 1992, I received a call from a meeting organiser at the CSIS think tank inviting me to join a US-Russia St Petersburg Commission to be chaired by Kissinger and Sobchak. The purpose would be to help the new Russian leadership in opening channels of business and banking with the West. Most of the Western members would be CEOs of major US and European companies, as well as key officials of the new Russian government. I would attend as an expert. I was told that a “Mr Primakov” had personally asked if I could make time to participate. I could hardly refuse such a request, and I was intensely curious about the emerging Russian leadership, especially about Putin.

Arriving at the first meeting, I saw several people gathered around Kissinger and a man I was told was Putin. An official identified himself to me and said he had been asked by Primakov to introduce me to Putin. He interrupted the conversation with Kissinger to announce my arrival; Putin warmly responded that he was looking forward to chatting with me about how I see the world from inside Washington.
 

We spoke on several occasions between meetings, and he arranged to sit next to me at a dinner, accompanied by his interpreter. At that dinner, he asked me: “What is the single most important obstacle between your Western businessmen and my fellow Russians in starting up business connections?”

Off the top of my head, I responded: “The absence of legally defined property rights — without those there is no basis for resolving disputes.”

“Ah yes,” he said, “in your system a dispute between businesses is resolved by attorneys paid by the hour representing each side, sometimes taking the dispute to the courts which normally takes months and accumulation of hourly attorney fees.”

“In Russia,” he continued, “disputes are usually resolved by common sense. If a dispute is about very significant money or property, then the two sides would typically send representatives to a dinner. Everyone attending arriving would be armed. Facing the possibility of a bloody, fatal outcome both sides always find a mutually agreeable solution. Fear provides the catalyst for common sense.”

He used his argument in the context of disputes between sovereign nations. Solutions often require an element of fear of disproportionate responses if no deal is struck. The idea of forcing adversaries to face horrific alternatives seemed to excite him. In essence, he was describing to me the current Ukraine impasse between the US and Russia. Putin knows Russia cannot afford a prolonged ground war with Ukraine. He also can see Biden is facing crucial midterm elections with a domestic congressional impasse, and cannot afford a major foreign crisis distraction. The two sides have no choice but to strike a deal.
 

On a different occasion, Putin asked me how decisions are really made in Washington, with its complex division of Presidential and Congressional powers. He said Kissinger could explain the broad parameters of a Presidential policy decision, but could not clarify how political consensus was achieved between the House, Senate, and the Executive Branch.

It was evident he had been given a deep intelligence brief on my career. He said Kissinger enjoys the public theatre of powerful people meeting in elaborate dinners or meetings with many aides ready to guide them. And he told me he had been informed that I preferred backroom meetings to shape consensus and provide room for negotiating details.

I tried to explain the elaborate process of balancing the interests of the many players in Washington, including Congress, the major agencies, and the intricate business arrangements that might be affected by any decision. I told him of my first personal meeting with Nixon, who had said he was impressed that I had strong personal support from leaders of both major parties. However, he added, this raised worries among his staff in the White House — so he really needed to know whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. To which I replied: “Yes.”

When Nixon asked what that meant, I explained that I was not a partisan warrior, but rather a problem solver. To get a solution I would always be ready to work with key players of both parties depending upon the specific problem. This seemed to amuse Putin.

The impression of Putin that I was left with was of a man who was more intelligent than most of the politicians I had met in Washington and in other capitals around the world. I was reminded of my childhood: I grew up in a predominantly Sicilian neighbourhood, with a mafia maintaining order. No disorganised crime allowed. Putin did seem to have the instincts of a Sicilian mafia boss: quick to reward but quick to pose mortal risk in the event of non-conformity to the family rules.
 

On a different occasion, Putin asked me how decisions are really made in Washington, with its complex division of Presidential and Congressional powers. He said Kissinger could explain the broad parameters of a Presidential policy decision, but could not clarify how political consensus was achieved between the House, Senate, and the Executive Branch.

It was evident he had been given a deep intelligence brief on my career. He said Kissinger enjoys the public theatre of powerful people meeting in elaborate dinners or meetings with many aides ready to guide them. And he told me he had been informed that I preferred backroom meetings to shape consensus and provide room for negotiating details.

I tried to explain the elaborate process of balancing the interests of the many players in Washington, including Congress, the major agencies, and the intricate business arrangements that might be affected by any decision. I told him of my first personal meeting with Nixon, who had said he was impressed that I had strong personal support from leaders of both major parties. However, he added, this raised worries among his staff in the White House — so he really needed to know whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. To which I replied: “Yes.”

When Nixon asked what that meant, I explained that I was not a partisan warrior, but rather a problem solver. To get a solution I would always be ready to work with key players of both parties depending upon the specific problem. This seemed to amuse Putin.

The impression of Putin that I was left with was of a man who was more intelligent than most of the politicians I had met in Washington and in other capitals around the world. I was reminded of my childhood: I grew up in a predominantly Sicilian neighbourhood, with a mafia maintaining order. No disorganised crime allowed. Putin did seem to have the instincts of a Sicilian mafia boss: quick to reward but quick to pose mortal risk in the event of non-conformity to the family rules.

Looking back to those times of growing disarray in Russia’s leadership, I can recall the prolonged, multi-year paralysis of the Brezhnev Presidency, which was followed by the brief Presidencies of Andropov and Chernenko. Gorbachev was not strong enough to impose his will. Yeltsin had good ideas but was easily distracted and lacked follow through. Russia was in urgent need of a strong leader — and so Putin stepped in.

As for how Putin sees himself, he did bring up several times his admiration for Peter the Great, so much so I was convinced he sees himself as his incarnation. I have not been a guest of the Kremlin since 1988, but I am told Putin had portraits of Peter the Great hung in several important meeting rooms there — rather than portraits of himself, as would be more customary. What this means for Biden, Nato and Ukraine is slowly becoming clear. There is more to Putin than meets the eye.

 

 

 

Definitely interesting, thanks for posting.  The takeaway is ultimately that yes, Putin is little more than a thug.  But he's a smart thug.