What should Putin do? Crickets...
One discussion just happenned on Unz seems both vibrant and stillborn.
It started with Paul Craig Roberts asking whether "Can War Be Avoided and the Planet Saved?" https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/08/31/can-war-be-avoided-and-the-planet-saved/
The persons he addressed soon wrote their answers (and their readers as usual traded a lot of comments): http://www.unz.com/article/russia-as-a-cat/ and later http://thesaker.is/reply-to-paul-craig-roberts-crucial-question
They, in turn, were followed up by PCR first at http://www.unz.com/proberts/what-should-putin-do/ and then finally http://www.unz.com/proberts/i-agree-with-the-saker-as-far-as-he-goes/
This last PCR's article completely misses me.
The exchange started with PCR asking two ethnically Russian Americans whether Russia's government is acting wise in her meekness (real or alleged) or should find ways to cause ISA some sharp pain.
Side note: there was some psychology book saying that whatever lesson you want give to pets it should be immediate, during or directly after the pet's certain activity. The book then argued that while humans are more flexible and more capable of reasoning and retrospection, the strongest "feedback loops" still are tjose inherited from animals, immediate one. And immediate reaction is still best way to train people, even if by a lesser marging. The PCR's lamentations about Russia not giving USA immediate slap for every transgression, and he writes for yewrs about that, make me very sad: de facto PCR either tries to reduce Russia to a quite primitive animal having neither memory nor vision but only simplistic instincts, or he declares America being so. Both options are utterly pitiful.
Back to the track, though.
So, PCR asked Saker and SmoothieX12 to discuss whether Kremlin should be more of a short tempered bully. IOW he proposed to reflect upon how Russia should deal with America in oarticukar and the situation in general.
Smoothie and then Saker outlined their thoughts about Russia's dealing with the situation, their doubts and hopes.
It all revolved around everyone's interest to find a better practical approach for Moscow, or to at least to be soothed that it is already as good as it can be.
Then this article.
It is told to be the followup to the later Saker's reply, thus the next iteration of the "what can Russia do here" discussion. Except that it is not. The article hardly even touches Russian policy, but it repeats how dangerously ignorant American journalists and politicians are.
Well, yes, so they are, but isn't it flogging a dead horse after all the recent years? If this reflection should be adding some new background information to what Russia's policy could be, then i fail to extract one. Maybe a more experienced or refined person could.
How can they be so? Well, i am pretty sure such an experienced and smart man as PCR knows it.
One thing is called "Tragedy of Commons" and is unresolved paradox (if that is paradox) of individualism. Given how collectivism is demonized in America and the looming of the most extreme breeds of reflectionless individualism - how else it realistically could be? Dostoevsky remarked about having a cup of tea and an end of the world. Here it is, live action role playing of it.
Another thing, since Hitler was already mentioned, would be the famous excuses:
Hitler himself hardly killed a single person during WW2.
His subordinates just followed orders.
Similar to the "collective irresponsibility" trick of a gang of thugs beating a homeless to death. They all are ready and willing to be wrist-slapped for beating the man, but none of them, personally, did the killing. There was a fight but none of them is killer. "Prove it was my punch the fatal one" says everyone of them.
Now, modern presstitutes happily combine all those traits. They do not personally kill, they are a uniform homogenized mob, they are following orders.
The radical individualism of theirs became a coinsidence theory, when watching a car pierced by a machinegun, they would claim each bullet is exclusively and wholly owning its misdeeds while no correlation between their activities can be asserted. Thus if their article trigger some violence they are always innocent and all the blame lies with their readers who commited the physical harm.
The third thing maybe stems from that American artefact behind a phrase "not challenged in courts yet". The very concept of a trial where parties do not intend to prevail and win, but rather just to explore some terra incognita and charter it. Meeting the radical individualism it seems to mutate into some state of the mind considering any environment as something opressing by its very existense. "Offense culture" is the buzzword maybe. People feel some revulsion to even consider their limitations and potential agression from other parties. To concoct an obviously exagerrated example, to reduct to absurd, it would be a person strolling in a dead night over unlitten highway in dark clothes, because he damn has the right and the drivers damn must watch where they go. Any suggestion that this approach, maybe noble, is perhaps not practically the best one, would be met by natural anger and frustration. Those people seem to live just to "challenge in court" every potential conflict with the environment they may think of. They would - at least in internet holywars - go swinging golden chains into a worst of ghettos just to establish they do have the right. Every suggestion at cooperation (which necessarily includes conpromise) they switch into "who do you think may order me to give up on…." rants. Etc.
Slam these together, and you have the madhouse of American establishment.
Well, i do not think i spelled something new, that anyone here did not think himself ad nauseum already. It is all so glaring that i believe we all know it. And PCR with his vast experience knows it better than most.
However what should be Kremlin's behavior that would minimize math expectation of net damage we all receive from those "Clown Killers from Outer State" ? That was the question which sparkled the discussion, in both articles and comments, week ago. And that is what seems totally be evading me in this article, one expected to be a follow up but looking more like a twist in the tale.
It started with Paul Craig Roberts asking whether "Can War Be Avoided and the Planet Saved?" https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/08/31/can-war-be-avoided-and-the-planet-saved/
The persons he addressed soon wrote their answers (and their readers as usual traded a lot of comments): http://www.unz.com/article/russia-as-a-cat/ and later http://thesaker.is/reply-to-paul-craig-roberts-crucial-question
They, in turn, were followed up by PCR first at http://www.unz.com/proberts/what-should-putin-do/ and then finally http://www.unz.com/proberts/i-agree-with-the-saker-as-far-as-he-goes/
This last PCR's article completely misses me.
The exchange started with PCR asking two ethnically Russian Americans whether Russia's government is acting wise in her meekness (real or alleged) or should find ways to cause ISA some sharp pain.
Side note: there was some psychology book saying that whatever lesson you want give to pets it should be immediate, during or directly after the pet's certain activity. The book then argued that while humans are more flexible and more capable of reasoning and retrospection, the strongest "feedback loops" still are tjose inherited from animals, immediate one. And immediate reaction is still best way to train people, even if by a lesser marging. The PCR's lamentations about Russia not giving USA immediate slap for every transgression, and he writes for yewrs about that, make me very sad: de facto PCR either tries to reduce Russia to a quite primitive animal having neither memory nor vision but only simplistic instincts, or he declares America being so. Both options are utterly pitiful.
Back to the track, though.
So, PCR asked Saker and SmoothieX12 to discuss whether Kremlin should be more of a short tempered bully. IOW he proposed to reflect upon how Russia should deal with America in oarticukar and the situation in general.
Smoothie and then Saker outlined their thoughts about Russia's dealing with the situation, their doubts and hopes.
It all revolved around everyone's interest to find a better practical approach for Moscow, or to at least to be soothed that it is already as good as it can be.
Then this article.
It is told to be the followup to the later Saker's reply, thus the next iteration of the "what can Russia do here" discussion. Except that it is not. The article hardly even touches Russian policy, but it repeats how dangerously ignorant American journalists and politicians are.
Well, yes, so they are, but isn't it flogging a dead horse after all the recent years? If this reflection should be adding some new background information to what Russia's policy could be, then i fail to extract one. Maybe a more experienced or refined person could.
How can they be so? Well, i am pretty sure such an experienced and smart man as PCR knows it.
One thing is called "Tragedy of Commons" and is unresolved paradox (if that is paradox) of individualism. Given how collectivism is demonized in America and the looming of the most extreme breeds of reflectionless individualism - how else it realistically could be? Dostoevsky remarked about having a cup of tea and an end of the world. Here it is, live action role playing of it.
Another thing, since Hitler was already mentioned, would be the famous excuses:
Hitler himself hardly killed a single person during WW2.
His subordinates just followed orders.
Similar to the "collective irresponsibility" trick of a gang of thugs beating a homeless to death. They all are ready and willing to be wrist-slapped for beating the man, but none of them, personally, did the killing. There was a fight but none of them is killer. "Prove it was my punch the fatal one" says everyone of them.
Now, modern presstitutes happily combine all those traits. They do not personally kill, they are a uniform homogenized mob, they are following orders.
The radical individualism of theirs became a coinsidence theory, when watching a car pierced by a machinegun, they would claim each bullet is exclusively and wholly owning its misdeeds while no correlation between their activities can be asserted. Thus if their article trigger some violence they are always innocent and all the blame lies with their readers who commited the physical harm.
The third thing maybe stems from that American artefact behind a phrase "not challenged in courts yet". The very concept of a trial where parties do not intend to prevail and win, but rather just to explore some terra incognita and charter it. Meeting the radical individualism it seems to mutate into some state of the mind considering any environment as something opressing by its very existense. "Offense culture" is the buzzword maybe. People feel some revulsion to even consider their limitations and potential agression from other parties. To concoct an obviously exagerrated example, to reduct to absurd, it would be a person strolling in a dead night over unlitten highway in dark clothes, because he damn has the right and the drivers damn must watch where they go. Any suggestion that this approach, maybe noble, is perhaps not practically the best one, would be met by natural anger and frustration. Those people seem to live just to "challenge in court" every potential conflict with the environment they may think of. They would - at least in internet holywars - go swinging golden chains into a worst of ghettos just to establish they do have the right. Every suggestion at cooperation (which necessarily includes conpromise) they switch into "who do you think may order me to give up on…." rants. Etc.
Slam these together, and you have the madhouse of American establishment.
Well, i do not think i spelled something new, that anyone here did not think himself ad nauseum already. It is all so glaring that i believe we all know it. And PCR with his vast experience knows it better than most.
However what should be Kremlin's behavior that would minimize math expectation of net damage we all receive from those "Clown Killers from Outer State" ? That was the question which sparkled the discussion, in both articles and comments, week ago. And that is what seems totally be evading me in this article, one expected to be a follow up but looking more like a twist in the tale.