William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 5:27:34 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:

> the Versailles
>> really WEREN'T outside the normal range.
>
> Compared to Brest-Litovsk, no. But it was still a terrible set of treaties.

Versailles was extraordinarily stupid. (I'm following Haffner
"Anmerkungen zu Hitler" here, his explanations make a lot of sense).

Before WW I, there were five major powers in Europe - Britain,
France, Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary.

The war had demonstrated that Britain and France alone could not
contain Germany in a war, they needed the help of the US to do it.

Versailles left three major powers - Britain, France and Germany.
Austria-Hungary was split up, and the newly-formed Soviet Union,
which was out of the concert. And the US was out of Europe again,
driven by isolationist sentiment.

That left Germany the dominating power in Europe. This was delayed
somewhat by the provisions, but the fundamentals were unchanged.

And the treaty, and the way it was handed, made sure that Germans
were pissed off to the maximum extent possible: The war guilt
question, keeping up the blockade of Germany during the inter-Allied
negotiations (which caused numerous hunger deaths in Germany),
the reparations, loss of territory, etc.

German politicians set out to restore the country's position.
With Rapallo, the two pariahs of Europe found common ground.
Locarno was another step in that direction.

For his first few years, Hitler continued this policy, but he did
it with different rhethoric - confrontation instead of compromise.
This was popular because Germans still harbored a lot of resentment
towards the victors of WW I.

Haffer argues that, by 1938, Germany had effectively won the first
World War. It was unquestionably the prime power of Europe.
In other words, Versailles had resulted in the exact opposite
of what it was intended to do. "Terrible set of treaties"
sums it up pretty well.

A sane politician with Germany's interest at heart (Hitler
fulfilled neither criterion) would not have started a war under
these circumstances. Hitler, of course, felled compelled to
to this because he viewed war as the natural stte of affairs,
with peace only interlude for rearmament, and because he wanted
to fullfill his ideological dreams in his lifetime, and because
his financial house of cards was about to fall down on him.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 14:31:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> Actually I myself have a killfile though one does have to be pretty
>> obnoxious to get into it and unlike some I do NOT (normally) mention
>> it.
>
>The point is that you don't go out of your way to make remarks to or
>about people in your killfile...
>
>...or do you?
>
>:-)

Nope you have to be extraordinarily obnoxious (usually spammers) to
get into mine and when you get there you stay there.

With spammers I often killfile them for 30 days (one of the more
pleasant features of Agent) since I figure by then they've either
stopped spamming or used a new account name.

Very few people see my killfile simply for their postings - it
requires an epic effort to get there :)

Being a complete idiot is not enough - you have to be actively abusive
:)

On 19/03/2022 16.35, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:33:36 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Which WAS what Wisconsin Joe was alleging back in the day.
>>
>> "Tail-gunner Joe", if you please.
>
> If you please - in any case you know who I'm discussingn

Through a combination of discussion context and the fact that I
live in Wisconsin. But, I'd really rather view him as a symptom
of the times in which he was elected, rather than a damning of
my home state. (Admittedly, we have had our whack job quotient
upped considerably in recent years.)

That cognomen appears to be unique to you. Searching for it
gave zero relevant pages. Searching for "Tail Gunner Joe" gave
lots of them.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 16:18:58 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 19/03/2022 16.35, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:33:36 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
>> <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Which WAS what Wisconsin Joe was alleging back in the day.
>>>
>>> "Tail-gunner Joe", if you please.
>>
>> If you please - in any case you know who I'm discussingn
>
>Through a combination of discussion context and the fact that I
>live in Wisconsin. But, I'd really rather view him as a symptom
>of the times in which he was elected, rather than a damning of
>my home state. (Admittedly, we have had our whack job quotient
>upped considerably in recent years.)
>
>That cognomen appears to be unique to you. Searching for it
>gave zero relevant pages. Searching for "Tail Gunner Joe" gave
>lots of them.

Well if you're actually FROM WI I might cut you a pass as I can think
of a few more prominent people from there I'd rather claim a
connection to. Liberace, Gene Wilder, Spencer Tracy who at least were
far more interesting and entertaining than the Senator...

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 5:40:33 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:40:51 -0400, J. Clarke
> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>What would you call it if the blackmail was of a politician being told
> >>that those pictures of him and the 'honey trap' in his last trip to
> >>Moscow would be published? Not everybody is as forthright as that
> >>Canadian diplomat in the 1950s who when so confronted asked to order
> >>more copies to show his buddies back home.
> >
> >This is the same logic that says that homosexuality should be outlawed
> >because homosexuals present a security risk because they can be
> >blakmailed because homosexuality is illegal.
> The incident referred to was in fact rather flamboyantly heterosexual.
>
> My understanding (at least concerning Canada) is that foreign service
> officers today are ONLY in trouble today if they are "in the closet"
> since the official view is that they're vulnerable to foreign
> blackmail though if they're "out" that's OK since blackmail is no
> longer a risk
>
> It's the 'vulnerable to foreign blackmail' part that is considered
> problematic not their sexuality.
>
> That's now - obviously things were different 60 years ago.

Back in the early 90s, when I got my first clearance, it was already
like now - if you were 'out', it was ok.

Pt

On 20/03/2022 18.51, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 16:18:58 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2022 16.35, The Horny Goat wrote:

>>> If you please - in any case you know who I'm discussingn
>>
>> Through a combination of discussion context and the fact that I
>> live in Wisconsin. But, I'd really rather view him as a symptom
>> of the times in which he was elected, rather than a damning of
>> my home state. (Admittedly, we have had our whack job quotient
>> upped considerably in recent years.)

> Well if you're actually FROM WI I might cut you a pass as I can think
> of a few more prominent people from there I'd rather claim a
> connection to. Liberace, Gene Wilder, Spencer Tracy who at least were
> far more interesting and entertaining than the Senator...

They're fine, but more on topic would be:
- August Derleth (born, raised, and lived in Sauk City)
- Clifford D. Simak (born in Millville)
- Cordwainer Smith (born in Milwaukee)
- Doc Smith (born in Sheboygan)
- Vernor Vinge (born in Waukesha)

--
Michael F. Stemper
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at
<http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm>
Please read it before posting.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
news:mfic3hl970k1om83ki015eka16d8dulqoq@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:08:16 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Excessive requirements for reparations imposed on Germany at the
>>end of WWI was a major contributor to WWII.
>>
>>I have zero doubt that the US will, if it can, excatly duplicate
>>this genocidal mistake.
>>
> Point 1: reparations were pretty much a component of EVERY peace
> treaty between the time of Napoleon and 1914-18 and when you
> compare what was assessed the loser in 19th century wars what
> was imposed at Versailles was not at all out of the norm. Sure
> it was couched in terms of national self-determination etc but
> if you compare Brest-Litovsky 1918, the treaties that ended the
> Franco-Prussian War and the Crimean war (and a couple more in
> that era) the Versailles really WEREN'T outside the normal
> range.

How common it was isn't related to whether or not it's feasible.
>
> Point 2: when you say 'genocidal' what exactly do you mean?
> Versailles 1919 has been called many things but I've never heard
> it called genocidal before...

It was more cultural than ethnic, but the end effect was economic
brutality that was a major contirbuting cause of the rise to power of
the Nazis.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:44:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
> that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
> somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.

This is not as effective an argument as you may think.

I had proposed, before the invasion of the Ukraine took
place, that the United States should have placed its troops
in Ukraine, with the permission and co-operation of the
Ukrainian government, where they would perform the same
function as U.S. troops stationed on West Germany's border
with East Germany during the Cold War.

You opposed this.

So I now claim that the invasion of Ukraine proves I was
right and you were wrong: if the course of action I suggested
was taken by the U.S., Ukraine wouild have no more been a
place Russia _could_ invade than, say, Poland. No risk of
a nuclear war would need to be taken.

I understand what you have written to mean that, oh,
Russia could still have invaded Ukraine even if the U.S.
had done that, so my idea would just have meant we would
be having a nuclear war now.

Well, I certainly agree that a nuclear war is a bad idea.

But *if* Putin is really that nuts, then when he gets around
to Poland, we will have a nuclear war anyways. So far, there
is no evidence that Putin is really that nuts.

John Savard

On the general political subject, here's a conspiracy theory on
why the invasion of the Ukraine failed...

https://www.thelowdownblog.com/2022/03/is-putins-invasion-failing-because.html

Basically, the story is that Russia tried to bribe everybody in
sight to ensure a smooth invasion of Ukraine, and that the agents
tasked with those bribes, down from the head of the FSB's 5th
branch, pocketed every single Kopek, because nobody would ever
invade the Ukraine so the money would basically be wasted, right?
And when it was becoming clear that there were, in fact, invasion
plans underway and their little scheme was about to be exposed,
they supplied the US with detailed information in an attempt to
derail the invasion.

This could be close to the truth, or it could be a carefully
fabricated story, tailored to fit the known facts and to make
Russia appear in the worst possible light.

Not sure if this makes me laugh or cry.

To bring this back on-topic - is there an SF story along these
lines? Sounds like something that Weber would write about
the Solarian League.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 2:30:28 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:

> This could be close to the truth, or it could be a carefully
> fabricated story, tailored to fit the known facts and to make
> Russia appear in the worst possible light.

While that sounds like a very amusing story, unless the people Putin
was intending to bribe were in the Ukraine, I'm not at all inclined to give
it the slightest credence. I mean, who is he going to bribe? Joe Biden?
Queen Elizabeth?

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 2:30:28 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>> This could be close to the truth, or it could be a carefully
>> fabricated story, tailored to fit the known facts and to make
>> Russia appear in the worst possible light.
>
> While that sounds like a very amusing story, unless the people Putin
> was intending to bribe were in the Ukraine, I'm not at all inclined to give
> it the slightest credence.

Yes, the bribes were supposed to be for Ukraine, to not resist in
case of an invasion. The story goes that he relied on it for
them to lay down arms for a fast invasion.

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>On the general political subject, here's a conspiracy theory on
>why the invasion of the Ukraine failed...
>
>https://www.thelowdownblog.com/2022/03/is-putins-invasion-failing-because.html

I don't think you really need a conspiracy theory. The Russian
army hasn't fought a real war against a sophisticated
opponent since 1945.

They're woefully unprepared; their tanks are basically useless;
they won't fly their top-of-the-line aircraft (what few they have)
over eastern Ukraine for fear of losing them and their tactics
are straight out of WWII.

Their "fearsome" hypersonic missile is just a standard surface
to surface ballistic missile hung from the wing of a Su-34.

On 3/24/2022 1:30 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> On the general political subject, here's a conspiracy theory on
> why the invasion of the Ukraine failed...
>
> https://www.thelowdownblog.com/2022/03/is-putins-invasion-failing-because.html
>
> Basically, the story is that Russia tried to bribe everybody in
> sight to ensure a smooth invasion of Ukraine, and that the agents
> tasked with those bribes, down from the head of the FSB's 5th
> branch, pocketed every single Kopek, because nobody would ever
> invade the Ukraine so the money would basically be wasted, right?
> And when it was becoming clear that there were, in fact, invasion
> plans underway and their little scheme was about to be exposed,
> they supplied the US with detailed information in an attempt to
> derail the invasion.
>
> This could be close to the truth, or it could be a carefully
> fabricated story, tailored to fit the known facts and to make
> Russia appear in the worst possible light.
>
Or it could just be insane ravings of someone in need of psychiatric
treatment. Does that plan include bribing the huge majority of the
population of Ukraine?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
> On 3/24/2022 1:30 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> On the general political subject, here's a conspiracy theory on
>> why the invasion of the Ukraine failed...
>>
>> https://www.thelowdownblog.com/2022/03/is-putins-invasion-failing-because.html
>>
>> Basically, the story is that Russia tried to bribe everybody in
>> sight to ensure a smooth invasion of Ukraine, and that the agents
>> tasked with those bribes, down from the head of the FSB's 5th
>> branch, pocketed every single Kopek, because nobody would ever
>> invade the Ukraine so the money would basically be wasted, right?
>> And when it was becoming clear that there were, in fact, invasion
>> plans underway and their little scheme was about to be exposed,
>> they supplied the US with detailed information in an attempt to
>> derail the invasion.
>>
>> This could be close to the truth, or it could be a carefully
>> fabricated story, tailored to fit the known facts and to make
>> Russia appear in the worst possible light.
>>
> Or it could just be insane ravings of someone in need of psychiatric
> treatment. Does that plan include bribing the huge majority of the
> population of Ukraine?

No, just the key decision makers (military, secret service, internal
security, politicians) needed to give the orders not to resist (or
not to give the orders to resist).

There actually is some corroboration for this, in far less graphic
terms. https://cepa.org/putin-places-spies-under-house-arrest/
writes, and I quote

"The Fifth Service of the FSB, Russia’s main intelligence service,
has been targeted and the leadership placed under house arrest,
according to the authors’ sources.

Its head, Colonel-General Sergei Beseda, and his deputy were being
held after allegations of misusing operational funds earmarked for
subversive activities and for providing poor intelligence ahead
of Russia’s now-stuttering invasion."

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:44:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
>> that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
>> somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.
>
>This is not as effective an argument as you may think.
>
>I had proposed, before the invasion of the Ukraine took
>place, that the United States should have placed its troops
>in Ukraine, with the permission and co-operation of the
>Ukrainian government, where they would perform the same
>function as U.S. troops stationed on West Germany's border
>with East Germany during the Cold War.
>
>You opposed this.
>
>So I now claim that the invasion of Ukraine proves I was
>right and you were wrong: if the course of action I suggested
>was taken by the U.S., Ukraine wouild have no more been a
>place Russia _could_ invade than, say, Poland. No risk of
>a nuclear war would need to be taken.
>
>I understand what you have written to mean that, oh,
>Russia could still have invaded Ukraine even if the U.S.
>had done that, so my idea would just have meant we would
>be having a nuclear war now.
>
>Well, I certainly agree that a nuclear war is a bad idea.
>
>But *if* Putin is really that nuts, then when he gets around
>to Poland, we will have a nuclear war anyways. So far, there
>is no evidence that Putin is really that nuts.

It occurred to me last night that, if Putin actually believes that
Ukraine joining NATO is an /existential threat/ to Russia, this may
mean he believes NATO plans to attack Russia (which is very unlikely,
no matter how cold Europe gets) -- which might suggest that, in
addition to being a magalomaniac, he is also disconnected from
reality.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 14:01:42 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>On the general political subject, here's a conspiracy theory on
>>why the invasion of the Ukraine failed...
>>
>>https://www.thelowdownblog.com/2022/03/is-putins-invasion-failing-because.html
>
>I don't think you really need a conspiracy theory. The Russian
>army hasn't fought a real war against a sophisticated
>opponent since 1945.
>
>They're woefully unprepared; their tanks are basically useless;
>they won't fly their top-of-the-line aircraft (what few they have)
>over eastern Ukraine for fear of losing them and their tactics
>are straight out of WWII.
>
>Their "fearsome" hypersonic missile is just a standard surface
>to surface ballistic missile hung from the wing of a Su-34.

An article I read a few days back asserted that the Russians are
showing a surprising lack of co-ordination [1], and that NATO is
having problems identifying an overall commander. Who, if he existed,
would qualify for the descriptor "inept".

Well, bribing Ukrainians would fit right in with military ineptness.
And Putin as an overall commander would fit a well-known pattern. And,
IIRC, he may have experience with having thugs make arrests in the
middle of the night, but actual military experience is not in his
background.

The use of a hypersonic missile was taken, in perhaps other articles,
as an indication that they were running out of precisely-targetable
modern weapons, leaving them with old-style lots-of-collateral-damage
versions. And the hypersonics.

That's one of the problems with those modern weapons, BTW -- they cost
so much that only so many are made. When they're gone, they're gone
and it may take (compared to the needs of an ongoing war) a very long
time to restart production. If they can even be afforded.

[1] Not just what appear to be uncoordinated attacks by the Army, but
a lack of coordination with the Air Force and Navy as well. NATO, in
the 80s & 90s, developed the AirLand Battle, with Army and Air Force
coordinated. And the West has enjoyed Naval fire support for quite
some time.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:44:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
>> that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
>> somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.
>
>This is not as effective an argument as you may think.
>
>I had proposed, before the invasion of the Ukraine took
>place, that the United States should have placed its troops
>in Ukraine, with the permission and co-operation of the
>Ukrainian government, where they would perform the same
>function as U.S. troops stationed on West Germany's border
>with East Germany during the Cold War.

And so you function under the misconception that the presence of "US
troops" will somehow magically prevent an attack or invasion. When,
in the entirety of the history of the United States, has that been
demonstrated? Didn't work in the Revolution, didn't work in the War
of 1812, didn't work in the Mexican-American War, didn't work in WWII,
didn't work in Vietnam, didn't work in Kuwait, didn't work in Iran, so
what leads you to believe that all of a sudden, _now_, it's going to
start working?

>You opposed this.
>
>So I now claim that the invasion of Ukraine proves I was
>right and you were wrong: if the course of action I suggested
>was taken by the U.S., Ukraine wouild have no more been a
>place Russia _could_ invade than, say, Poland. No risk of
>a nuclear war would need to be taken.

Sorry, but history disagrees with you.

>I understand what you have written to mean that, oh,
>Russia could still have invaded Ukraine even if the U.S.
>had done that, so my idea would just have meant we would
>be having a nuclear war now.

No, your idea is bullshit.

>Well, I certainly agree that a nuclear war is a bad idea.
>
>But *if* Putin is really that nuts, then when he gets around
>to Poland, we will have a nuclear war anyways. So far, there
>is no evidence that Putin is really that nuts.

I hate to break it to you, but killing an American soldier doesn't
result in nuclear retaliation. If it did then North Korea, North
Vietnam, Somalia, and many other places would have experienced nuclear
retaliation. In fact in Somalia it led to the US taking its ball and
going home.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:20:00 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> And so you function under the misconception that the presence of "US
> troops" will somehow magically prevent an attack or invasion. When,
> in the entirety of the history of the United States, has that been
> demonstrated?

Well, those U.S. troops stationed at the border between East and West
Germany seemed to demonstrate it quite well. I don't think the presence
of troops from other NATO partners made much difference.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:20:00 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> And so you function under the misconception that the presence of "US
>> troops" will somehow magically prevent an attack or invasion. When,
>> in the entirety of the history of the United States, has that been
>> demonstrated?
>
> Well, those U.S. troops stationed at the border between East and West
> Germany seemed to demonstrate it quite well. I don't think the presence
> of troops from other NATO partners made much difference.

There was the little matter of German troops, twice as many as US
troops in Europe overall. Plus British, Belgian, Danish, Dutch,
Canadian, ...

It was quite a collection. The Bundeswehr alone had 11 divisions
then. At the time, I served in PzGrenBtl 323, part of the 11th
Panzergrenadier Division.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:924b7089-5045-4178-9a4b-f9d8e0e8a3c9n@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:20:00 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
> wrote:
>> And so you function under the misconception that the presence
>> of "US troops" will somehow magically prevent an attack or
>> invasion. When, in the entirety of the history of the United
>> States, has that been demonstrated?
>
> Well, those U.S. troops stationed at the border between East and
> West Germany seemed to demonstrate it quite well. I don't think
> the presence of troops from other NATO partners made much
> difference.
>
Britain and France are also nuclear powers.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 2:52:43 PM UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> schrieb:
> > On 3/24/2022 1:30 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >> On the general political subject, here's a conspiracy theory on
> >> why the invasion of the Ukraine failed...
> >>
> >> https://www.thelowdownblog.com/2022/03/is-putins-invasion-failing-because.html
> >>
> >> Basically, the story is that Russia tried to bribe everybody in
> >> sight to ensure a smooth invasion of Ukraine, and that the agents
> >> tasked with those bribes, down from the head of the FSB's 5th
> >> branch, pocketed every single Kopek, because nobody would ever
> >> invade the Ukraine so the money would basically be wasted, right?
> >> And when it was becoming clear that there were, in fact, invasion
> >> plans underway and their little scheme was about to be exposed,
> >> they supplied the US with detailed information in an attempt to
> >> derail the invasion.
> >>
> >> This could be close to the truth, or it could be a carefully
> >> fabricated story, tailored to fit the known facts and to make
> >> Russia appear in the worst possible light.
> >>
> > Or it could just be insane ravings of someone in need of psychiatric
> > treatment. Does that plan include bribing the huge majority of the
> > population of Ukraine?
> No, just the key decision makers (military, secret service, internal
> security, politicians) needed to give the orders not to resist (or
> not to give the orders to resist).
>
> There actually is some corroboration for this, in far less graphic
> terms. https://cepa.org/putin-places-spies-under-house-arrest/
> writes, and I quote
>
> "The Fifth Service of the FSB, Russia’s main intelligence service,
> has been targeted and the leadership placed under house arrest,
> according to the authors’ sources.
>
> Its head, Colonel-General Sergei Beseda, and his deputy were being
> held after allegations of misusing operational funds earmarked for
> subversive activities and for providing poor intelligence ahead
> of Russia’s now-stuttering invasion."

It has now become routine for dictatorships to fix corruption charges on those that they disapprove of, so another possible explanation of the facts is that the spies erred only in the classic problem of dictatorships (such as Boskonia) of telling the boss what they wanted to hear.

OTOH treacherous intelligence officers and security officials did exist in real life - Kim Philby, "StakeKnife" (whom I should perhaps regard as a patriot) and possibly Sir Roger Hollis. Bujold's "Memory" considers the question as to whether you can trust somebody whose core professional skill is to deceive others. I can no longer remember the source, but I do remember somebody saying that CIA case officers in fact had to be of unusually good character, precisely because their job required them to transfer sums of money without the usual accounting checks and balances.

On 3/24/2022 11:14 AM, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 2:52:43 PM UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> schrieb:
>>> On 3/24/2022 1:30 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>> On the general political subject, here's a conspiracy theory on
>>>> why the invasion of the Ukraine failed...
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thelowdownblog.com/2022/03/is-putins-invasion-failing-because.html
>>>>
>>>> Basically, the story is that Russia tried to bribe everybody in
>>>> sight to ensure a smooth invasion of Ukraine, and that the agents
>>>> tasked with those bribes, down from the head of the FSB's 5th
>>>> branch, pocketed every single Kopek, because nobody would ever
>>>> invade the Ukraine so the money would basically be wasted, right?
>>>> And when it was becoming clear that there were, in fact, invasion
>>>> plans underway and their little scheme was about to be exposed,
>>>> they supplied the US with detailed information in an attempt to
>>>> derail the invasion.
>>>>
>>>> This could be close to the truth, or it could be a carefully
>>>> fabricated story, tailored to fit the known facts and to make
>>>> Russia appear in the worst possible light.
>>>>
>>> Or it could just be insane ravings of someone in need of psychiatric
>>> treatment. Does that plan include bribing the huge majority of the
>>> population of Ukraine?
>> No, just the key decision makers (military, secret service, internal
>> security, politicians) needed to give the orders not to resist (or
>> not to give the orders to resist).
>>
>> There actually is some corroboration for this, in far less graphic
>> terms. https://cepa.org/putin-places-spies-under-house-arrest/
>> writes, and I quote
>>
>> "The Fifth Service of the FSB, Russia’s main intelligence service,
>> has been targeted and the leadership placed under house arrest,
>> according to the authors’ sources.
>>
>> Its head, Colonel-General Sergei Beseda, and his deputy were being
>> held after allegations of misusing operational funds earmarked for
>> subversive activities and for providing poor intelligence ahead
>> of Russia’s now-stuttering invasion."
>
> It has now become routine for dictatorships to fix corruption charges on those that they disapprove of, so another possible explanation of the facts is that the spies erred only in the classic problem of dictatorships (such as Boskonia) of telling the boss what they wanted to hear.
>
There's that. There's also wanting to advance in a country that can
credibly be described as a kleptocracy. Maybe they just weren't
providing the expected kickbacks to those above them, maybe they just
weren't using the approved methods of stealing the money so as to
provide the illusion of deniability. ;)

> OTOH treacherous intelligence officers and security officials did exist in real life - Kim Philby, "StakeKnife" (whom I should perhaps regard as a patriot) and possibly Sir Roger Hollis. Bujold's "Memory" considers the question as to whether you can trust somebody whose core professional skill is to deceive others. I can no longer remember the source, but I do remember somebody saying that CIA case officers in fact had to be of unusually good character, precisely because their job required them to transfer sums of money without the usual accounting checks and balances.

Remindd of some US Congresscritter once saying something like "A billion
here, a billion there, do that long enough and eventually you're talking
real money."

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:20:00 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> And so you function under the misconception that the presence of "US
>> troops" will somehow magically prevent an attack or invasion. When,
>> in the entirety of the history of the United States, has that been
>> demonstrated?
>
>Well, those U.S. troops stationed at the border between East and West
>Germany seemed to demonstrate it quite well. I don't think the presence
>of troops from other NATO partners made much difference.

You're assuming targets standing on a border carry more weight than a
treaty that says that attacking West Germany will be treated as an
attack on the United States.

On 2022-03-24 10:19 a.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:44:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
>>> that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
>>> somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.
>>
>> This is not as effective an argument as you may think.
>>
>> I had proposed, before the invasion of the Ukraine took
>> place, that the United States should have placed its troops
>> in Ukraine, with the permission and co-operation of the
>> Ukrainian government, where they would perform the same
>> function as U.S. troops stationed on West Germany's border
>> with East Germany during the Cold War.
>
> And so you function under the misconception that the presence of "US
> troops" will somehow magically prevent an attack or invasion. When,
> in the entirety of the history of the United States, has that been
> demonstrated?

About forty years of Cold War confrontation in Germany. And about 60
years glaring at North Korea.

>Didn't work in the Revolution,

The Americans were the attackers, not the defenders.

didn't work in the War
> of 1812,

The War of 1812 was a war in which the Americans were the attackers, and
were emboldened by a relative lack of defending forces on the other side
of the border.

>didn't work in the Mexican-American War,

Wasn't intended to work. The Americans sent a relatively small force to
use as bait.

>didn't work in WWII,

The Japanese leadership were in a peculiar position where they had to
attack or die.

> didn't work in Vietnam,

American troops only arrived well after the war started in Vietnam.

>didn't work in Kuwait,

There were no American troops on the Kuwait/Iraq border.

>didn't work in Iran,

No troops there either.

The big problem is that it takes time to move a substantial force into a
new country

On 3/24/2022 10:59 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> An article I read a few days back asserted that the Russians are
> showing a surprising lack of co-ordination [1], and that NATO is
> having problems identifying an overall commander. Who, if he existed,
> would qualify for the descriptor "inept".

Major part of the problem is that their communications suck. Their
radios are no better maintained than their vehicles and very little
appears to be encrypted. On top of that, Ukrainian jamming seems to be
very effective. Russians have resorted to using cell phones and since
those calls have to go though Ukrainian cell phone towers it might as
well be a party line. And at critical moments the towers are turned off.

And they lack a core of experienced NCOs so that officers are having to
do those jobs instead of commanding.

And then there's the Russian's loss of five generals.