info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
‘Naïve’ to think Russia will lose war, says Dr Jordan Peterson
28 views
Skip to first unread message
ltlee1
Sep 26, 2022, 7:33:50 AM9/26/22
to
stoney
Sep 26, 2022, 11:42:33 AM9/26/22
to
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 7:33:50 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnxxELn00gk
Looking at them, positive questions will drive viewers and raise rating, too. The thing is at this moment there is no way to know the strengths of Russian and Ukraine troops. Hence, it is reasonable to say naive to think Russia will lose war.
Seriously, the much of the winning strategy will depend on satellite intel to provide real time data to the commanders on both side. Constant stream of supply of air and ground weaponry and ammunitions will sustain them.
The outcome is that Russia is fighting from the positions of using of eastern captured Ukraine's regions. This is where the position of disadvantage is for Ukraine is fighting them forward and also defending their own soils, too.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnxxELn00gk
Looking at them, positive questions will drive viewers and raise rating, too. The thing is at this moment there is no way to know the strengths of Russian and Ukraine troops. Hence, it is reasonable to say naive to think Russia will lose war.
Seriously, the much of the winning strategy will depend on satellite intel to provide real time data to the commanders on both side. Constant stream of supply of air and ground weaponry and ammunitions will sustain them.
The outcome is that Russia is fighting from the positions of using of eastern captured Ukraine's regions. This is where the position of disadvantage is for Ukraine is fighting them forward and also defending their own soils, too.
ltlee1
Sep 28, 2022, 7:10:44 AM9/28/22
to
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 11:33:50 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnxxELn00gk
Peterson is certainly right in some aspects. For example, Ukraine is
the losing side from day one of the conflict. Its cities were bombed and
its economy was ruined.
Win or lose is a matter of perspective. For readers or views who do not
has direct access to what is actually happening. It is naive for outsiders
to think Russia lose. But it is not better to think Russia will win.
A military conflict is after all not a sport event which is a totally rule
based event and the context of the competition is often trivial for the people
involved. The two teams of players are competing for the sake of competition.
A military conflict, on the other hand is multi-dimensional and the results of
events which could be traced back to decades if not centuries. Winning or
losing, therefore cannot be narrowly judged on any one side's battlefield
achievements or its lack of.
To better understand the conflict and to get a handle on how to judge winning
or losing. One, at the minimum, has to understand how insiders with historical
perspective see the event
.
The following is how Dmitry V. Trenin, Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center,
a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (London, United Kingdom)
and of the Russian International Affairs Council (Moscow, Russia) see the crisis.
https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/russia-must-reinvent-itself/
"The stand-off between Russia and the Western nations, which has been developing
since 2014, escalated into an active confrontation with the start of the Russian military
operation in Ukraine, back in late February. In other words, the Great Game has ceased
to be a game. It has become total war, though a hybrid one so far, since the armed conflict
in Ukraine is not of a full-scale nature at present.
However, the danger of it intensifying towards a direct collision not only exists, but is
increasing.
The challenge Russia is facing has no equivalents in our history. It’s not just that we have
neither allies nor even potential partners left in the West. Frequent comparisons with the
Cold War of the mid and late 20th century are inaccurate and rather disorienting. In terms
of globalization and new technology, the modern form of confrontation is not only of a larger
scale than the previous one, it is also much more intense. Ultimately, the main field of the
ongoing battle is located inside the country.
The asymmetry between the opponents is huge, particularly the imbalance between the
forces and capabilities available to them. Based on this, the US and its allies have set much
more radical goals than the relatively conservative containment and deterrence strategies
used toward the Soviet Union. They are in fact striving to exclude Russia from world politics
as an independent factor, and to completely destroy the Russian economy.
The success of this strategy would allow the US-led West to finally resolve the «Russia
question» and create favorable prospects for victory in the confrontation with China.
Such an attitude on the part of the adversary does not imply room for any serious dialogue,
since there is practically no prospect of a compromise, primarily between the United States
and Russia, based on a balance of interests. The new dynamic of Russian-Western relations
involves a dramatic severance of all ties, and increased Western pressure on Russia (the state,
society, economy, science and technology, culture, and so on) on all fronts. This is no longer
a source of discord between the opponents of the Cold War period, who then became (unequal)
partners. It looks more like the drawing of a clearer dividing line between them, with the West
refusing to accept even the perfunctory neutrality of individual countries."
If Dmitry V. Trenin is correct, Russia and the Atlantists have a long history. Putin is desperate
before the first day of the special military operation. And every responsible Russian leader
would also be desperate because US and its allies are "striving to exclude Russia from world
politics as an independent factor, and to completely destroy the Russian economy. "
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnxxELn00gk
Peterson is certainly right in some aspects. For example, Ukraine is
the losing side from day one of the conflict. Its cities were bombed and
its economy was ruined.
Win or lose is a matter of perspective. For readers or views who do not
has direct access to what is actually happening. It is naive for outsiders
to think Russia lose. But it is not better to think Russia will win.
A military conflict is after all not a sport event which is a totally rule
based event and the context of the competition is often trivial for the people
involved. The two teams of players are competing for the sake of competition.
A military conflict, on the other hand is multi-dimensional and the results of
events which could be traced back to decades if not centuries. Winning or
losing, therefore cannot be narrowly judged on any one side's battlefield
achievements or its lack of.
To better understand the conflict and to get a handle on how to judge winning
or losing. One, at the minimum, has to understand how insiders with historical
perspective see the event
.
The following is how Dmitry V. Trenin, Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center,
a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (London, United Kingdom)
and of the Russian International Affairs Council (Moscow, Russia) see the crisis.
https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/russia-must-reinvent-itself/
"The stand-off between Russia and the Western nations, which has been developing
since 2014, escalated into an active confrontation with the start of the Russian military
operation in Ukraine, back in late February. In other words, the Great Game has ceased
to be a game. It has become total war, though a hybrid one so far, since the armed conflict
in Ukraine is not of a full-scale nature at present.
However, the danger of it intensifying towards a direct collision not only exists, but is
increasing.
The challenge Russia is facing has no equivalents in our history. It’s not just that we have
neither allies nor even potential partners left in the West. Frequent comparisons with the
Cold War of the mid and late 20th century are inaccurate and rather disorienting. In terms
of globalization and new technology, the modern form of confrontation is not only of a larger
scale than the previous one, it is also much more intense. Ultimately, the main field of the
ongoing battle is located inside the country.
The asymmetry between the opponents is huge, particularly the imbalance between the
forces and capabilities available to them. Based on this, the US and its allies have set much
more radical goals than the relatively conservative containment and deterrence strategies
used toward the Soviet Union. They are in fact striving to exclude Russia from world politics
as an independent factor, and to completely destroy the Russian economy.
The success of this strategy would allow the US-led West to finally resolve the «Russia
question» and create favorable prospects for victory in the confrontation with China.
Such an attitude on the part of the adversary does not imply room for any serious dialogue,
since there is practically no prospect of a compromise, primarily between the United States
and Russia, based on a balance of interests. The new dynamic of Russian-Western relations
involves a dramatic severance of all ties, and increased Western pressure on Russia (the state,
society, economy, science and technology, culture, and so on) on all fronts. This is no longer
a source of discord between the opponents of the Cold War period, who then became (unequal)
partners. It looks more like the drawing of a clearer dividing line between them, with the West
refusing to accept even the perfunctory neutrality of individual countries."
If Dmitry V. Trenin is correct, Russia and the Atlantists have a long history. Putin is desperate
before the first day of the special military operation. And every responsible Russian leader
would also be desperate because US and its allies are "striving to exclude Russia from world
politics as an independent factor, and to completely destroy the Russian economy. "
ltlee1
Sep 28, 2022, 7:14:55 AM9/28/22
to
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 3:42:33 PM UTC, stoney wrote:
> On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 7:33:50 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnxxELn00gk
>
> Looking at them, positive questions will drive viewers and raise rating, too. The thing is at this moment there is no way to know the strengths of Russian and Ukraine troops. Hence, it is reasonable to say naive to think Russia will lose war.
Jordan Peterson is a well established scholar. But he is not really a Russia expert. Skynews did the interview to entertain its viewers.
> On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 7:33:50 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnxxELn00gk
>
> Looking at them, positive questions will drive viewers and raise rating, too. The thing is at this moment there is no way to know the strengths of Russian and Ukraine troops. Hence, it is reasonable to say naive to think Russia will lose war.
stoney
Sep 28, 2022, 1:52:24 PM9/28/22
to
This would mean a battle of teeth between the West and Russia will happen eventually on the grounds of Ukraine, instead. In June 29, NATO's secretary-general announced they will have 300,000 troops on standby readiness. This means their troops in EU will have done their refreshers will be ready to fight Russia/
Seriously, US will become a direct participant in this war directly if conflict between NATO and Russia is engaged over Ukraine. Russia needs to take care of the rear door of Russia too - at the pacific ocean knowing the risk of invasion by US from US bases in Japan' and Guam and Hawaii.
Hence, today, 28 Sept, China and Russia conducted a joint sea exercise at the ISL islands, directly off Tokyo, Japan. In that possibility, Russia has to be prepared from distraction by US at the eastern side of Russia, that is facing Japan, Guam, and Hawaii.
Hence, Russia should get ready to preempt its nuke on US bases in Okinawa, Guam, and Hawaii, if they sensed volatile activity against them. These bases are forever dangerous threats to Russia and China. They are encirclements to them. It's better to nuke them first in order to wait for them beg on hands and knees and then talk, which can be too late, at all.
Just look at how Japan came down on hands and knees after two cities were nuked by US. Biden is senile might confuse in taking a wrong choice of recommended decisions made by Pentagon to him. He might end him taking the wrong choice to pre-empt nuke Russia and China on the eastern side at the same time.
Hence, China should be ready to fight and protect key cities on the eastern side of China and Russia, too. In war, always look out at protecting all sides of frontiers to avoid sneaky entry and sabotaged damages to your country. Need to have readiness as no one can protect you if you have nothing to protect or decide yourself, too.
Finally, in short, the 300,000 call ups by Russia could just be the beginning of call-ups. More troops from the 25 millions of reservists will be called up should the eastern side of Russia is invaded by US. China should be helping Russia in the east and hence will get ready its million of troops to finish them.
0 new messages