Ukraine: Hedges, Mearsheimer, and of course OLIGARCHS !!!

[icehorse]

No, I assume you are resorting to the standard conspiracy theory said about all wars ever and that rarely makes any sense beyond the purely superficial

I'm really lost here. Are you saying that the companies that make military stuff aren't immensely profitable? Are you saying that - for example - the defense budget in the US isn't loaded with pork?

Why do you think oligarchs need a war to make money from the arms business?

I never said that. But I would say it's an opportunity to make more money.

So, what are the rational reasons Putin et al. are getting richer from this war than they would be without it?

Based on the first 90% of your post, I'd say that you've set yourself up to be the one to answer that question. You don't like my answer, so what's yours?

 

[icehorse]

I believe in Angels and demonic Devils both are from Jinn. I believe Angels are on side of Putin and not US and Nato.

Good is taping into sustenance from God's light, evil is from demonic energy. I believe west follows caprice and their morality is debauched, they can't think straight.

Zooming out for a minute. Do you understand that you just made what are called "unfalsifiable claims"? In other words, claims that can never be proved or disproved? The problem with such claims is that no conversation is possible after such claims are introduced. You put yourself out of the conversation.

 

[Link]

Zooming out for a minute. Do you understand that you just made what are called "unfalsifiable claims"? In other words, claims that can never be proved or disproved? The problem with such claims is that no conversation is possible after such claims are introduced. You put yourself out of the conversation.

You doing it too. Not everyone is influenced by wealth and worldly desires. I don't believe Putin is.

 

[Augustus]

I'm really lost here. Are you saying that the companies that make military stuff aren't immensely profitable?

You said: "It's ALL about rich people who are happy to destroy the world if they can amass bigger fortunes along the way."

I'd say the current war has very little to do with that.

Are you saying that - for example - the defense budget in the US isn't loaded with pork?

Russia is not America.

The defence budget can be stuffed with as much pork as they like without wars if Vlad says its ok.

I never said that. But I would say it's an opportunity to make more money.

Peace and trade is a far better opportunity for oligarchs to make money, while getting fat off state contracts.

I doubt Putin cares all that much about vast fortunes tbh. He controls the state so can get whatever he likes. He just has to placate his cronies enough to prevent people wanting to replace him.

Based on the first 90% of your post, I'd say that you've set yourself up to be the one to answer that question. You don't like my answer, so what's yours?

Putin wants the war for whatever reasons: power, empire, security, greatness, self-preservation, because he can, etc.

I can't see inside his head so can't tell.

"Amassing bigger fortunes" makes no sense though, unless you can provide any reasons why they oligarchs make more from this war and its consequences than they could otherwise, and this additional income is likely to be more important than the significant costs and curtailed freedom that they could face from sanctions, etc.

 

[icehorse]

Putin wants the war for whatever reasons: power, empire, security, greatness, self-preservation, because he can, etc.

I can't see inside his head so can't tell.

"Amassing bigger fortunes" makes no sense though, unless you can provide any reasons why they oligarchs make more from this war and its consequences than they could otherwise, and this additional income is likely to be more important than the significant costs and curtailed freedom that they could face from sanctions, etc.

So you don't know what Putin's motivations are, but you know it can't be about money. Alrighty then!

 

[Revoltingest]

Zooming out for a minute. Do you understand that you just made what are called "unfalsifiable claims"? I

Your conspiracy theory about the MIC causing
leaders to go to war has the same flaw.

 

[icehorse]

Your conspiracy theory about the MIC causing
leaders to go to war has the same flaw.

How so? You think that no amount of research could determine whether or not my claim is true?

And, BTW, this - trying to be civil - conversation is only obfuscated when you keep using the word "conspiracy". Are we to gather that if you are not aware of some dot-connecting facts, a claim must be a conspiracy? That sounds awfully ego-centric of you, no?

 

[Revoltingest]

How so?

It's non-disprovable.

You think that no amount of research could determine whether or not my claim is true?

You've not presented a cogent evidence based argument,
just the claim that companies who profit from war are
directing leaders to do their bidding via lobbying.

And, BTW, this - trying to be civil....

Uh oh....my radar is activated.

....conversation is only obfuscated when you keep using the word "conspiracy". Are we to gather that if you are not aware of some dot-connecting facts, a claim must be a conspiracy?

It's a conspiracy theory because you don't have any
hard evidence of a company or association thereof
directing USA's going to war.
It's non-disprovable because companies will profit as
long as they exist. So going to war or not doesn't test
your theory. How would you test it?

Contrast that with my giving responsibility to the voters.
Look at all recent Presidents who waged war. Were
they re-elected after continuing to wage the useless wars?
Bush & Obama waged them in full force, & were re-elected.
Trump drew down the scale, & scheduled ending them.
He lost...his protestations of having won notwithstanding.
This is a pretty strong correlation. And it's causative too,
ie, politicians will do that which wins them votes. The
voters spoke by re-electing war mongers.

That sounds awfully ego-centric of you, no?

I'll spare you my psycho-analysis of
why you believe what you do.

 

[icehorse]

How so? You think that no amount of research could determine whether or not my claim is true?

It's non-disprovable.

Sure it is. It wouldn't be easy, it would require extensive auditing, but of course it's falsifiable.

It's a conspiracy theory because you don't have any
hard evidence of a company or association thereof
directing USA's going to war.

wow! that's a very sweeping definition for conspiracy theories. We might get a little further if you simply said "it's a theory whose evidence you have not yet provided". When you use the word "conspiracy" it would appear you're trying to attack me, not the idea. You might not think so, but your style frequently involves attacking the person as opposed to debating the ideas.

So when you say "conspiracy theory" when you mean "evidence not yet shown", you're hampering the discussion.

Next there is the question of what's common knowledge, and what's not. In this regard, your posts are self-servingly, conveniently incoherent. You present yourself as simultaneously quite the authority on some topics and in the next breathe gobsmackingly ignorant on others.

In these conversations and debates, we are ALL standing on the shoulders of giants. Asking posters to explain what's common knowledge is a really tiresome dodge. Over and over again your questions are answerable with an easy internet search.

In the end @Revoltingest, I think you've got some interesting and useful perspectives. But it appears that often all you want to do is throw spanners in the works of conversations you disagree with. It's not useful, please stop.

 

[Augustus]

So you don't know what Putin's motivations are, but you know it can't be about money. Alrighty then!

Horsey, you aren't that disingenuous surely?

I asked you to give a single rational reason why he was doing it to enrich himself, you failed to give any.

I gave you multiple reasons why it is highly unlikely to be about money, you ignored them in favour of a vapid strawman.

[it's a strawman because I said: "Amassing bigger fortunes" makes no sense though, unless you can provide any reasons why they oligarchs make more from this war and its consequences than they could otherwise...]

Now can you rationally justify your belief or not?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure it is. It wouldn't be easy, it would require extensive auditing, but of course it's falsifiable.

With the information provided, it's non-falsifiable.
To presume that the information is there is also
non-falsifiable. If this ever changes, then it enters
the realm of reality.

wow! that's a very sweeping definition for conspiracy theories.

I didn't define the term...just
dealt with an aspect of it.

We might get a little further if you simply said "it's a theory whose evidence you have not yet provided". When you use the word "conspiracy" it would appear you're trying to attack me, not the idea. You might not think so, but your style frequently involves attacking the person as opposed to debating the ideas.

So when you say "conspiracy theory" when you mean "evidence not yet shown", you're hampering the discussion.

I call a spade a spade.
But I'm willing to cut back a little on "conspiracy".

Next there is the question of what's common knowledge, and what's not. In this regard, your posts are self-servingly, conveniently incoherent.

Geeze, Louise....talk about "hampering the discussion".
You're fortunate that I'm not candid about your personal
shortcomings.

You present yourself as simultaneously quite the authority on some topics and in the next breathe gobsmackingly ignorant on others.

Again with the compliments, eh.
Perhaps I shouldn't cut back on "conspiracy".

In these conversations and debates, we are ALL standing on the shoulders of giants. Asking posters to explain what's common knowledge is a really tiresome dodge. Over and over again your questions are answerable with an easy internet search.

In the end @Revoltingest, I think you've got some interesting and useful perspectives. But it appears that often all you want to do is throw spanners in the works of conversations you disagree with. It's not useful, please stop.

I've nothing to add.

 

[icehorse]

Horsey, you aren't that disingenuous surely?

I asked you to give a single rational reason why he was doing it to enrich himself, you failed to give any.

I gave you multiple reasons why it is highly unlikely to be about money, you ignored them in favour of a vapid strawman.

[it's a strawman because I said: "Amassing bigger fortunes" makes no sense though, unless you can provide any reasons why they oligarchs make more from this war and its consequences than they could otherwise...]

Now can you rationally justify your belief or not?

Horsey, you aren't that disingenuous surely?

In what way was my summary of your post inaccurate?

Now can you rationally justify your belief or not?

First off, oligarchs are not infallible. This invasion might backfire.
Second, oligarchs often make plans that take some time to become profitable, so we can't just look at the next short time period when we try to figure out their plans. We might have to zoom out and take a more long term perspective.
Third, this entire line of questioning seems somewhat revolting-esque. Like I'm making well known claims that you're asking me to support? I guess I might concede that I wouldn't bet my life on the claims I've made in this thread. But I would bet some money on it. Let me lay out some trends, to see how aligned (or not we are):

- would you agree that traditionally the Superpowers have spent HUGE amounts of money on arms?
- would you agree that traditionally the arms business is highly profitable?

If you answer "yes", then it seems extremely plausible that THIS war is no different than previous, profitable wars. (As a corollary, are you aware how much money and wealth oligarchs have made during the pandemic?)

If your answer is something like "prove it", then I feel we're back in revoltistan - where which, for some reason, naysayers don't have to put any effort into learning some facts before casting aspersions.

If your answers are "no", then I'd ask you to spend 5 minutes using the search engine of your choice.

 

[icehorse]

With the information provided, it's non-falsifiable.
To presume that the information is there is also
non-falsifiable. If this ever changes, then it enters
the realm of reality.

your definition of "falsifiable" needs some sprucing up.

I've nothing to add

I'll be here when you're interested in holding up your end of the discussion

 

[Revoltingest]

If your answer is something like "prove it", then I feel we're back in revoltistan - where which, for some reason, naysayers don't have to put any effort into learning some facts before casting aspersions.

Trying to dis me without alerting me, eh.
I'll learn your facts if you ever provide some that
support a cogent argument. Until then, all you
have is a conspiracy theory.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll be here when you're interested in holding up your end of the discussion

IOW I'm expected to take your claims
on faith that you have the truth, eh.

 

[icehorse]

IOW I'm expected to take your claims
on faith that you have the truth, eh.

Not at all what I said.

 

[Augustus]

In what way was my summary of your post inaccurate?

It's literally explained in the post including bold text to make it even more obvious, just read it

Here you go, I'll copy it here for you:

[it's a strawman because I said: "Amassing bigger fortunes" makes no sense though, unless you can provide any reasons why the oligarchs make more from this war and its consequences than they could otherwise...]

First off, oligarchs are not infallible. This invasion might backfire.
Second, oligarchs often make plans that take some time to become profitable, so we can't just look at the next short time period when we try to figure out their plans. We might have to zoom out and take a more long term perspective.
Third, this entire line of questioning seems somewhat revolting-esque. Like I'm making well known claims that you're asking me to support? I guess I might concede that I wouldn't bet my life on the claims I've made in this thread. But I would bet some money on it. Let me lay out some trends, to see how aligned (or not we are):

- would you agree that traditionally the Superpowers have spent HUGE amounts of money on arms?
- would you agree that traditionally the arms business is highly profitable?

If you answer "yes", then it seems extremely plausible that THIS war is no different than previous, profitable wars. (As a corollary, are you aware how much money and wealth oligarchs have made during the pandemic?)

If your answer is something like "prove it", then I feel we're back in revoltistan - where which, for some reason, naysayers don't have to put any effort into learning some facts before casting aspersions.

If your answers are "no", then I'd ask you to spend 5 minutes using the search engine of your choice.

Out of interest, which are your examples of profitable wars and why do they resemble this one?

But the crux of the issue:

You are consistently failing to appreciate the fundamental difference between "oligarchs" as in rich people in the West, and oligarchs and Putin in Russia.

I have explained why this is fundamental, but you keep ignoring it.

If you don't understand this difference, then I suggest 5 minutes using the search engine of your choice, or 2 minute rereading my posts

After that, you can try to provide a rational reason why it makes sense from the perspective of Putin and Russian oligarchs seeing as Putin started the war.

Can you do that?

 

[Revoltingest]

Not at all what I said.

Sometimes what's said isn't the reality of things.

 

[icehorse]

You are consistently failing to appreciate the fundamental difference between "oligarchs" as in rich people in the West, and oligarchs and Putin in Russia.

I have explained why this is fundamental, but you keep ignoring it.

If you don't understand this difference, then I suggest 5 minutes using the search engine of your choice, or 2 minute rereading my posts

I did both. I did some internet searching AND I reread the posts you've made in this thread. I didn't see where you defined the difference between russian oligarchs and rich people in the west. Now what I found on the internet mostly confirmed my definitions. (Let me also explain (as I've done in other threads), that when I use the term oligarch to talk about rich people in the west, I understand that I'm using the word in an uncommon way.) But the internet basically said, a russian oligarch is not only wealthy, but they have a strong interest in politics. I have to say that I think that's also true for the vast majority of rich people in the west. so if there is an important distinction here, I'd ask you to make it, because I'm not seeing it beyond the superficial.

Out of interest, which are your examples of profitable wars and why do they resemble this one?

I never said (I don't think?), that "wars" are profitable. What I think I said (and meant to say), was that folks in the armaments industry typically find wars profitable for them. I think a better question would be - why would this war NOT be profitable for the armaments industry, given that most wars are?

After that, you can try to provide a rational reason why it makes sense from the perspective of Putin and Russian oligarchs seeing as Putin started the war.

Can you do that?

There could be any number of long term reasons for Putin and friends to imagine this war being profitable:

- more warm water sea ports
- more fertile land
- a larger workforce
- strategic geographical improvements

And so on.. Many wars throughout history were initiated for similar reasons.

 

[Augustus]

I did both. I did some internet searching AND I reread the posts you've made in this thread. I didn't see where you defined the difference between russian oligarchs and rich people in the west.

Putin (who I doubt cares that much for enriching himself more) can basically enrich himself or his cronies as much as he likes in peacetime.

He controls the state and all its resources.

He doesn't need a pretence, he can just enrich people as much as he likes.

He could do this far more easily in peace time as part of the global economy.

This is what you have failed to offer a single reason against.

There could be any number of long term reasons for Putin and friends to imagine this war being profitable:

- more warm water sea ports
- more fertile land
- a larger workforce
- strategic geographical improvements

And so on.. Many wars throughout history were initiated for similar reasons.

These are strategic positions, not "let's enrich a handful of people" positions.

Also a larger workforce means nothing in a global economy unless you want autarky, which is strategic.