4 ms·

bret devereaux is a great follow on twitter, uh ... X, as well. his thoughts on the ukraine/russia conflict are very interesting to me

pphysch 3y ago
I was curious, so I looked. He's out there boosting Timothy Snyder. Oof. I'll pass.
- lying4fun 3y ago
  I’m not familiar with Timothy’s persona/work, why did that repel you?
- _whiteCaps_ 3y ago
  Can you explain further? I see on his Wikipedia page: "Since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the bombing of its energy infrastructure, Snyder has spoken and written widely on the history of Ukraine and its worldwide importance for democracy, on the disastrous geopolitical effects of the invasion, and on the need for other nations and individuals to stand for the protection of territory belonging to that state." which seems reasonable to me.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    Snyder leans heavily on moralizing and evidence-free psychoanalysis to explain current events. It's far too much "trust me I'm an established intellectual" and far too little evidence-based reasoning for me. To each their own.
ethbr1 3y ago
His modern stuff is more... eh. E.g. I thought there were a lot of flaws in his early-war "NATO can't supply X, because Russia will threaten nukes" positions, as he completed ignored the obvious opposite "Russia can't escalate, because NATO will threaten nukes" 110% love his Roman-period deep dives though. There's probably a smarter quip than me out there to the effect of "Great people share their brilliance on many matters, while the greatest speak on but a few."
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  To be fair, it took a while for people to figure out how much MAD was still in play, since before the invasion most punditry thought Russia was bluffing and would never try to invade Kyiv with tanks, so what else had they gotten wrong?
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Those who had access to classified information did not think Russia was bluffing. They are acting like they think MAD is still in play - while they are not talking and may have other reasons for acting like this, I think it is safe to assume MAD is in play.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    If a shoe fits on one foot, it fits on the other too. Aka the "M". The "Russia is a madman, but we're not" is... difficult to square logically and historically. Beneath all the political and PR charades, during the Cold War the Soviet Union was generally as terrified of the West pre-emptively nuking them as vice versus.
    - galaxyofdoom 3y ago
      Presently, it is not during the Cold War. The idea that Putin is terrified of nuclear annihilation is ridiculous.
      - eru 3y ago
        Just speculating: I'm fairly sure Putin knows that the West won't do any nuclear first strikes. But if he tries anything even remotely nuclear, the West would just annihilate his empire. And the West wouldn't even need to go nuclear. (Especially if the West got serious and opened the money floodgates. I suspect even in the current state of the Ukrainian war, if they offered any Russian defector 100k USD and a new identity under a EU passport, they could meld away the Russian army fairly quickly.) Russia would most likely also lose the tacit support of India and China, if the bear were to use nukes first.

pphysch 3y ago

I was curious, so I looked. He's out there boosting Timothy Snyder. Oof. I'll pass.

lying4fun 3y ago
I’m not familiar with Timothy’s persona/work, why did that repel you?
_whiteCaps_ 3y ago
Can you explain further? I see on his Wikipedia page: "Since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the bombing of its energy infrastructure, Snyder has spoken and written widely on the history of Ukraine and its worldwide importance for democracy, on the disastrous geopolitical effects of the invasion, and on the need for other nations and individuals to stand for the protection of territory belonging to that state." which seems reasonable to me.
- pphysch 3y ago
  Snyder leans heavily on moralizing and evidence-free psychoanalysis to explain current events. It's far too much "trust me I'm an established intellectual" and far too little evidence-based reasoning for me. To each their own.

ethbr1 3y ago

His modern stuff is more... eh. E.g. I thought there were a lot of flaws in his early-war "NATO can't supply X, because Russia will threaten nukes" positions, as he completed ignored the obvious opposite "Russia can't escalate, because NATO will threaten nukes" 110% love his Roman-period deep dives though. There's probably a smarter quip than me out there to the effect of "Great people share their brilliance on many matters, while the greatest speak on but a few."

bobthepanda 3y ago
To be fair, it took a while for people to figure out how much MAD was still in play, since before the invasion most punditry thought Russia was bluffing and would never try to invade Kyiv with tanks, so what else had they gotten wrong?
- bluGill 3y ago
  Those who had access to classified information did not think Russia was bluffing. They are acting like they think MAD is still in play - while they are not talking and may have other reasons for acting like this, I think it is safe to assume MAD is in play.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  If a shoe fits on one foot, it fits on the other too. Aka the "M". The "Russia is a madman, but we're not" is... difficult to square logically and historically. Beneath all the political and PR charades, during the Cold War the Soviet Union was generally as terrified of the West pre-emptively nuking them as vice versus.
  - galaxyofdoom 3y ago
    Presently, it is not during the Cold War. The idea that Putin is terrified of nuclear annihilation is ridiculous.
    - eru 3y ago
      Just speculating: I'm fairly sure Putin knows that the West won't do any nuclear first strikes. But if he tries anything even remotely nuclear, the West would just annihilate his empire. And the West wouldn't even need to go nuclear. (Especially if the West got serious and opened the money floodgates. I suspect even in the current state of the Ukrainian war, if they offered any Russian defector 100k USD and a new identity under a EU passport, they could meld away the Russian army fairly quickly.) Russia would most likely also lose the tacit support of India and China, if the bear were to use nukes first.