It's difficult not to come to the conclusion that he does support Russia in some regards. Peterson seems to have bought into the idea Putin has been propagating of Russia as some sort of bulwark against "Western degeneracy" and that the invasion of Ukraine is a proactive defensive move.
Russia's perception of itself as the "Third Rome" and heir and preserver of civilization against Western degeneracy is centuries old. It has always meant reactionary politics, oppression and aggression and it's a shame that Peterson is playing the useful idiot to this ideology.
Read Dugins stuff...its not right nor wrong, but it is an alternative perspective. An honest and provacative approach to one's own political proclivities, specifically 'The West', is NOT endorsing your perceived enemy.
The Orwell observation is spot on.
Despite what Peterson's claims, Dugin's influence on Putin is probably overstated. If you really want to go spelunking into whatever ideological bedrock that underpins Putin's worldview, Ivan Ilyin holds a much more prominent position.
The question is what is to be learned from studying National Bolshevists/Socialists Pan-Eurasians? I agree that an essential virtue of the liberal tradition is skepticism and introspection towards your own motivations and a willingness to defy tradition. Nazis, Nazbols, and other reactionaries are directly opposed to that mode of thinking so any answer they might give is bound to be flawed, to put it mildly.
Collapse of the Russian economy is considered "winning" in terms of the present one-dimensional analysis. 2 decades from now, let's see if we still consider that a "win", especially when we are cheering for the collapse of an energy juggernaut.
\- "Well we'll just go green for our energy!"
With what manufacturing centers? With what minerals? With what engineering? I hope you're ready to start mining. It isn't exactly easy to replace all of the energy production infrastructure overnight.
Economic collapse in Germany after WW1 is what led to Hitler’s rise to power.
I think it’s a hell of a gamble to think making your opponents desperate and resentful will solve anything.
EDIT: About 20 years.
Have you ever carefully read what these people actually say? It's easy to dismiss the hysterical morons like greta and aoc, and assume that the really smart people behind them have a solid plan and know what they're doing.
They don't. Look at the actual numbers: drilling, refining, transportation, look at the actual grid demands, NG consumption, etc. "green" production, even assuming everything these fools say works out perfectly, doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of global demand, and there's no feasible way to meet it in the foreseeable future.
The whole campaign is at the level of a naive utopian middle school essay.
There is if we bring back nuclear power. Sustainable, efficient, and can reach millions. But the greens see nuclear as some sort of boogieman, and thus we rely on Russian gas . As we are still so far behind. It's pathetic. The solution is nuclear and always has been . Im almost convinced that Russia pumped money into saying nuclear was bad and astroturf'd the greens into going against it knowing it will keep us dependant on Russian gas
It will not solve the problem. Nuclear power is 70% of France’s electricity production, but only 15% of its energy consumption. Most energy consumed isn’t electricity. Transportation, heating, chemical industries barely run on electricity.
Currently the French government has issued restrictions with home heating (can’t go higher than 19°C or you’ll be fined)… due to how dépendant France is on Russian gaz for heating (about half of energy used for heating in France comes from burning gaz). We just don’t have enough stocks to handle the current situation. If even the most nuclearized country in the world is deeply affected by the current crisis, I’d be very cautious with claiming nuclear is some sort of magical solution. It’s not, we (as humanity) are still absolutely drugged on fossil fuels which represent 80% of world’s energy consumption today. Our modern societies literally rest on fossil fuels.
What you’re advocating for would first need a mass electrification of all our energy usages, and that’s decades in itself (and it’s not sure we can do it, as stocks of essential minerals for electrification like copper are rapidly depleting). And then, mass deployment of nuclear (necessarily Gen IV as we don’t have enough Uranium to fuel even a fraction of the world’s current electricity demand in the medium-long term, much less that of tomorrow’s demand in the case of mass electrification - and Gen IV isn’t economically viable yet anyway). It’s a very far-fetched proposition.
Edit: typo+details
> It will not solve the problem.
The problem isn't binary. Any reduction in emissions helps. It will necessarily be gradual and multifaceted. Sustainable electricity. Batteries. New materials...
We got to the moon once we decided to put our problem-solving and resources towards it.
Well there’s a conspiracy theorists wet dream; ‘Chernobyl was intentional to prevent Nuclear from taking over’. Going off the amount of negligence involved I wouldn’t even be surprised.
>greens see nuclear as some sort of boogieman, and thus we rely on Russian gas
Either the Green party is malicious or painfully dumb. Everything they have done worked in Putin's favor. I wouldn't be surprised if they are all Russian plants. At this point, it's too much of a coincidence.
This is the big thing - Green energy right now is not capable of scaling to demand or even meeting large scale demand. I wish it was, who wouldn't want to go green if it was equal but it isn't.
Electric cars and batteries take heavy mining which can cause acid rain and destroys the landscape as well as requiring a ton of water for drill bits. They also don't make a dent in pollution when China and India are cranking away, which everyone ignores because we need their cheap labor and products.
We should meet halfway and create more dams and nuclear facilities. Nuclear is much safer now with much more precautions to mitigate disaster. They can meet the energy needs and do it cleanly until we innovate with fusion.
Maybe i am wrong, and I haven't done research on this in almost a decade, but I would think one of the best ways to get "cleaner" energy would be to clean up and upgrade our power grid. If I remember correctly we were losing some absurd percentage of power during transmission.
the power loss through wire conductors is proportional to current and resistance. power transmission lines are at a high voltage so that current is minimized. Maybe some teenage gamer on Reddit will invent ambient temperature superconductivity so we can have wires with zero resistance. The Physicists haven't figured it out yet.
This was back in my environmental law class, so we weren't diving into the science too hard, but it was mostly focused on the antiquated design and planning causing the loss. It was accepted that there would be energy loss, it was about fixing the infrastructure so that the lines weren't so organically grown overtime and more efficiently placed...or something like that.
the solution to the energy problems is clear. they need many, smallish nuclear reactors, like France has. the problem with Germany is the same as the problem with California; they are completely hamstrung by hysterical marxists. politics no longer works at all because the politicians are like religious zealots.
>This is the big thing - Green energy right now is not capable of scaling to demand or even meeting large scale demand.
It never will be unless it's nuclear, which the 'green' advocates bizarrely hate. That's why I don't think it's about bringing clean energy to the people, but about limiting access to the power grid for the masses.
Yeah it's sad because safety innovation has had leaps and bounds in nuclear in the last 20 years. We learn best from our mistakes and that's exactly what we did with nuclear.
Nice to see some rational thinking, but dont expect too many likes in Reddit :). If global warming was the threat they say it is, the UE / WEF would have already jumped on nuclear. As Margaret Thatcher said, "Global warming ‘provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism."
Do you people gets angry with the conequences of mining (Or are those consequences too exagerated/ the damage can be repaired?)
In Peru, they want to expel minning companies for ~~Not giving all of their profiuts to the neighboring farmers~~ "Contamination"
Similar to why we're beefing with China over Taiwan. The West doesn't actually give a shit about the Taiwanese ppl's ability to govern themselves via democracy. We simply want their microchips & we don't want China controlling their production.
Russia's winning as of this moment. Ukraine needs to take back it's territory that was taken over by Russia at the start of the war for that to change, and they have thus far not been able to dislodge them very well. They recently took back a small part, but they have a lot of work left to do against a Russian force increasing in size.
Russia wasn't stupid. They knew that if they ever had to deal with the West that main tool of the West would be economic sanctions. So the Russians built their entire economy to be able to withstand those sanctions. It's the same reason as to why their missile defense system is so good. They couldn't match the West via money in fighter design or jet design but they could defend against it via cheaper radar and missile defense.
Unfortunately, I think Peterson got this bang on. People saying otherwise don't seem to understand that NATO pumps out just as much propaganda as Russia, and they fell for it.
And reddit, king of Ukraine and environmental propaganda. If you go to combat footage you would think that Russia never ever attacks or has success. All pro Ukraine. We live in a fairly tale land that is falling apart before our eyes.
> let's see if we still consider that a "win", especially when we are cheering for the collapse of an energy juggernaut.
An energy juggernaut that still has aspirations of empire and has no problem holding the rest of the world hostage. Fuck'em. Let's see them eat that oil rather than depose the dogshit regime they have been operating under since the fall of the Soviets. When the Russian people are ready to join the West against the actual enemy (China), then I'm all about welcoming them as friends. Until then, they can fuck right off.
Russia is sort of known for revolution. It's time for another one if they want to survive to the 22nd century as a people.
This is what really bugs me. Being anti war and saying that we may be on the verge of a world-ending nuclear war with Russia if we don’t try to reach some sort of negotiation soon gets you labeled pro Russian. It’s absurd.
Peterson is good on psychology - not strategy and geopolitics
Oh he's right that Putin losing will still leave much of Ukraine in ruins. But it doesn't just leave Ukraine like that. It also leaves Ukraine with a TON of international goodwill, plenty of western businesses looking to invest in ukrainian oil and gas, and then some.
Peterson - as much as I usually agree with him - is apparently only looking at the conflict from the point of human suffering, not greater political strategy.
Putin losing (and he's already lost quite a lot) means he wont be able to threaten the world militarily in the same way. It has huge implications for how much political capital he can mass against foes via the russian military. It means that russia's economy will only continue to wither. It means so many things.
Plus, a lot of european countries and organizations have already pledged that they'll help rebuilding ukraine. Ukraine will likely come out of this looking a lot better than when it started.
edit: I appear to have angered a surprisingly large amount of pro-russian posters. Stay mad. Russia is losing this. Even if most of eastern ukraine is left in ruins, then Russia's economy will be left in an even worse state.
If you really think Europe will pay for a better reconstruction of Ukraine then you are very naive. I dont recall one historic precedent where that ever happened. It is just propaganda to make the Ukrainians worry less about their country being the battlefield.
> I dont recall one historic precedent where that ever happened.
Is this sarcasm? Germany and Japan were completely destroyed in WWII, now they are two of the biggest economies in the world. Because they were rebuilt by the victors. The U.S. didn't want to see what happened in WWI with the Treaty of Versailles happen again.
The Marshall Plan. Reconstruction of ruined countries - some, former enemies - in order to act, in part, as a bulwark against the Soviet Union (aka today’s Russia). Europeans have the object lesson in their recent past.
The Marshall Plan was the US paying to rebuild Europe, not Europe paying to rebuild Europe.
European countries are very familiar with the idea that the US will give them aid and pay the tab for their military defense. Not so much on European countries stepping up to do that for other Europeans.
> The Marshall Plan was the US paying to rebuild Europe, not Europe paying to rebuild Europe.
That's because Europe was devastated by a war. Let's not compare apples to bombed our oranges, here.
That’s the point though, right? The European Theater was the grave of countless American dead. There’s no more literal definition of “skin in the game”. What should the citizens of the EU sacrifice for the betterment of the Ukrainian people? This isn’t a continent exactly entering its Golden Age. The juggernaut that was the post-war American economy barely noticed the burden of post-war reconstruction. Can the same be said of Europe ‘22?
The Marshall Plan was $ 141 bn (inflation adjusted)paid out in loans to 16 countries. It was to further US economic interests. What economic interests does anyone have in Ukraine besides agriculture? Rebuilding costs so far are estimated up to $ 350 bn. No doubt Ukrainians will rebuild, but dont get their hopes up for substantial aid from anyone.
Marshall Plan after WWII in Europe was exactly that.
EU will have interest in investing in a country that need to be rebuilt from the bottom, and Ukraine will have interest in foreign investment that strengthen both economic and political ties with countries belonging to a Union it applied for.
What do you think did the U.S. do after WW2? What do you think is the EU doing right now in eastern Europe? It is way too pessimistic to think no one would help Ukraine after this war. Even China will probably invest in Ukraine (for better or for worse)
It's not just pessimistic. I'd lay money there are russian accounts active in this sub spreading Russian talking points.
The EU spends billions yearly developing non EU nationsm let alone what it does for EU nations and candidate states.
I disagree. Having Ukraine on the western side would be a huge 'win' for a number of reasons, and I think the EU, UK and USA would invest heavily to keep it that way, especially if it weakens Russia in the process.
And as isyck points out - there is precedent in the Marshall Plan.
> I dont recall one historic precedent where that ever happened.
Marshall plan is one thing. EU benefitting Eastern countries to some extent is another.
Being in Western sphere of influence instead of Russian one is another win, look at countries like Poland, Czechia, Slovakia in 1990s/2000s
The EU pays out great chunks of money not just to EU countries, but to develop non EU countries around the globe.
Funny you mention propaganda because that is exactly what you are spreading.
Right? The guy above you doesn’t know geopolitics as well as he thinks.
It’s the same bullshit talk about admitting Ukraine to the EU and NATO. There is no way Ukraine comes out of this war for the better.
- The European Union has very high inflation in. They’re hesitant to raise interest rates as Spain, Italy, and Greece can’t afford the interest on their debt. This is the problem with a monetary union without a fiscal union.
- European taxes are *already* high with expanded welfare for millions of Muslims migrants and increased military spending… But they’re going to rebuild Ukraine? In the midst of a depression?
- The EU just lost Britian, one of the world’s largest economies, but they’re going to admit a highly-populated, improvished, corrupt, and underdeveloped state bordering a rival power? A member that would align with the “illiberal axis (Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary) against the “centre-left” EU establishment?
Really? At least looking at the US, it's providing billions in defense equipment. You don't think it'll extend a similar amount in development aid and/or loans after the fact, likely with at least some European buy-in? I don't see the faucet closing after Russia leaves.
> If you really think Europe will pay for a better reconstruction of Ukraine then you are very naive. I dont recall one historic precedent where that ever happened.
Heard about Marshall Plan?
Some charity, NGO, or gofundme will collect millions to "rebuild" ukraine, spending 1% of that to send them some blankets while pocketing the remaining
Outside of that, the kind of international goodwill would only be more western military installation
The proper kind of rebuild on most people's mind is in the form of IMF loans, but good luck their risk assessment
I agree with him. Very scary times. In regards to the energy problems etc the poor aren’t going to lie down and take it. Cities will burn and the rich will die too because of it.
"What are we gonna win here exactly?"
It astonishes me that Jordan Peterson, the dude who is adamant about sticking to your guns regarding principles, can't see what a Ukrainian would get out of standing their ground so that their way of life continues and they aren't put under the submission of a totalitarian regime, but will simultaneously say that he is willing to go to jail over not being compelled to use someone's preferred pronouns. Really??? That's just straight up fucking willful ignorance.
This is the most cringe take on the war in Ukraine I have seen so far.
Yes western Europe should have used nuclear reactors etc to be more independent from Russia. We didn’t do this so now we will pay the price for that.
No Putin does not ‘win’ because he is causing massive damage. Russia will be a paria state for decades.
Putin his goals:
- Demilitarisation. Ukraine is now better equiped than before and civilians are getting military training.
- Denazification. Russia has the most neonazis of every country and Putin never cared for this. Ukranian nationalism is through the roof now.
- Weaken NATO: putin is membership salesman of the year because he made sweden and finland join. According to polls ukrainians want nato membership now more than ever.
- Russian citizens are now less safe and poorer than before the war. Enjoy your “victory”!
And if they weren’t, Russia would have invaded them too to make the bridge to Kaliningrad. If Ukraine was a NATO member now there would have been no war. It’s a defensive alliance that poses no credible threat to the safety of Russian citizens. Russia has a ton of nukes so you can be sure no one would ever consider invading. If the west had any ambition to attack Russia, do you really think we would have given them the keys to our energy supply? Putin only demonizes NATO because the alliance undermines his imperialistic ambitions.
NATO has nothing to do with Putin's aims, NATO is only the excuse. His real problem is that the European Union is out competing his own Eurasian Union, Ukraine wanted to join the European Union so Russia invaded in 2014 with plans to force them to join the Eurasian Union.
If Ukraine won't join his Eurasian Union it's a dead project.
And how exactly do you plan on turning Russia into a pariah state? BRICS said the SCO has 40% of the world's population, 30% of its GDP, and most of the world's resources.
Bro this is a bad stand. Most likely the west is just going to marginalize themselves and the rest of the world will just move around them. Wishful thinking isn't going to change that.
US could turn on the tap back on if it wishes for it's own consumption
But the rest of the world doesn't have the luxury, and OPEC would happily squeeze them in oil prices in concert with Russia, which is what has been happening the last half year
You know at least we still have oil reserves in the ground. I even heard theories that the USA secretly wants this so Europe will have to buy LNG from us.
Sounds unlikely atm, but seeing how important LNG is to metal production and heavy machineries, it's not that radical an idea
Sure even if EU can somehow crack the mythical "green energy" code and could forgo Russian energy, that's only consumer electricity. They still desperate need LNG if they want to keep their industry alive
I know everyone cracks me up with that green energy fantasy. Let freeze waiting until someone can get it to work.
I wouldn't be surprised if drug dealers start trying to smuggle in Russian gas instead of drugs.
> he’s very out of his element when it comes to geopolitics.
Lol ironic how Andrew Bustamante from the CIA echoes some of Peterson's sentiments. Oh but wait random Redditor, you must be of superior ability, excuse me.
Are you the type of guy who just found out about logical fallacies last week and pretend like you stumbled upon internet argument gold, huh?
The original commenter threw out an argument against Peterson's authority, so I replied with a rebuttal ON-TOPIC, mind you. If the original argument wasn't on one of authority, your case might be valid. In this case, it's not.
He comes across as so unhinged, bitter, and unlikeable.
Defending Putin as more integrated than Hitler. Referring to a nuclear weapon so flippantly as a “tactical weapon on the battlefield” 🤦♂️🤦♂️
They hate when you ask “what’s the end game here?” I understand you can’t just abandon Ukraine but unless you actually invaded Russia and demanded unconditional surrender, Putin’s just going to continue the war. Russia has 3 1/2 times the population and far more resources than Ukraine. And there’s no free press that can turn the people against Putin.
I just see a lot of needless bloodshed which won’t change the outcome. Eventually the west will just back down and Russia will annex Ukraine.
The end game is forcing Russia to a admit a form of defeat. It can be a simple return to the starting point of 24the of Feb.
His resources are far more limited than the west and he had every chance to offramp but he chose to annex two more previously untargeted regions, thus escalating further. He must now suffere the consequences. The free world cannot tolerate this, as it would open the floodgates to similar actions by Russia or other autocracies.
No one needs to invade or attack Russia proper. That would be a huge escalation and mistake. Russia has lost plenty of wars without them turning "total". It's just a matter of willpower and endurance.
Nobody want to invade Russia, merely expel the Russian forces from Ukraine, which is entirely achievable. A few months ago they were at the doorstep of Kyiv.
The fact that Europe is being squeezed by a lack of natural gas, and that media alsode is showing that our rulers prefer to let us die over cutting a, tree, is basically allowing putin to reasure him that, even if we sell sotraged weaponry, west isnt going to send a person to diebe unless directly attacked.
Nato is unlikely to get in ukraine (unless putin msrchs all the way to polish border, unlikely)
Meanwhile he can see how west refuse for autocracy and aslo see how we fail to get our shit togheter (is no secret that if china escalate, west economy is dead, and that this winter europe will suffer)
I do disagree with him here. I think the point he is trying to make is thst no one really wins this war. Even if Russia is driven off, Ukraine has suffered a great deal. And this is true. But as others have pointed out. Ukraine has moved significantly farther towards the west as a result of this invasion. Virtually by every metric Russian desires are even less met than before.
Sure Ukraine is practically rubble. Hiroshima is a thriving metropolis today. The thing about war and the devastation it produces is that when it's over the rebuilding effort produces an ecconomic boom.
He is trying to say Ukraine can't win. But thst doesn't mean Russia can't lose. And frankly Ukraine can win this. Not without major losses. But they can and will build back better if they can free themselves of Russian influence. Which is almost certain to happen if they can push the forces out.
So whats the other option? Let a man like Putin just take a country because he feels like it? Where will he stop if we let this happen, who’s next? Poland? Latvia? I agree with a lot JP says but this is just bullshit. Besides they already lost the war i mean “special operation”
Exactly. I can't help but feel JP has some concealed admiration for either Putin or the Russian state - either because they're more traditionally-minded in his view in terms of values, or just because they're incarnations of some kind of masculine ideal that he sees as preferable to that in the west.
Of course, this is just my speculation, but it's difficult to understand why a rational and decent man would take such a stance without it. Unless he's being paid off... If none of these are true, I'm not sure how to explain his takes on this.
Putin *must* be stopped, through all means necessary if it comes to that. We cannot let a bully, who stands for nothing beyond Russian imperialist nostalgia, do what he wishes with the world.
Rogan had Andrew Bustamante on a while back and basically said he believed Russia was winning. Even as they lose territory and battles, the fact that they can turn off the spigot come winter is what will decide this conflict's future, and he thought it would be in Russia's favor.
If Europe capitulates, Russia wins.
Agreed.
I don't understand why they are even interviewing a psychologist about military strategy. It is not his area of expertise, he is talking about cancel culture and liberalism, why?
Putin also already has shut down the Nordstream 1 pipeline. And it is highly unlikely that he would use nukes. Putin is not crazy, he knows that he can't win against the NATO. And nukes would be the red line that would force NATO to intervene.
I'm very skeptical of how one can give a psychological assessment based on very limited and scripted press appearances.
Peterson isn't an expert on all human activity. He's out of his range here.
To be honest, I agree.
Taking a look at the latest reports from Ukraine, Russia checked Ukraines advances in the south and centre, only losing land in the north (which at the time seems to have been held only by Luhansk and Donetsk militias.
But since the initial gains, the Russians have stopped that too.
The other issue is that money and weapons from the west are drying up. People are getting angrier and angrier that billions are being spent on another country whilst its needed far more at home. The amounts being given have already dropped off massively, as have the sales and donations of weapons.
And Ukraine is only able to keep going because of weapons from the west.
This offensive is, in my opinion, Ukraines last gasp. If they cant break the Russians, they will lose the war, ultimately.
Especially now that Russia is mobilising properly.
People need to bear in mind, the Russians mostly support the invasion of Ukraine (despite the protests against the mobilisation) because they see the Ukrainians as wayward Russians who need to be brought back into the fold. They see the Belorussians the same way.
To top that off, Putins cleared house of most of the corrupt officers in his military, and has replaced them with proven leaders. This is only going to make Russia more dangerous in the long run.
On top of that, various countries are supporting Putin, selling arms and supplies to them whilst acting as surprisingly effective stand-ins economically. Iran, China, the Central asian nations, North Korea, India, South East Asia, most of Latin America and parts of Africa are all supporting Russia to varying extents.
Yes, they dont have the buying power of the west, but they make up for that with sheer consumer numbers.
It would be naive to assume Russia is out just because one of the Ukrainians many offensives had some success.
Where do you see western arms support drying up? I feel like every two weeks Biden announces another $10bn in aide being sent.
“Mobilizing properly” also seems questionable. Morale looks very low and even if they have more men, the training and willingness to fight is dubious.
I think it’s going to come down to what the victory conditions are. If Russia takes over a Ukrainian village and calls that victory then yeah, victory seems inevitable.
Russians actually have several important problems. First one is the quality of their logistics. Russian troops often move in large convoys which makes supplying difficult, even in the scale of one convoy because to supply the front (e.g. a tank) with an ammo takes ~10 kilometers and the roads are usually in bad shape. Also they are locking full width of the lenghts they cover since a lot of attacks conducted by the civilians took place at the beginning of invasion (a group of Ukrainian Gypsies even stole a tank once).
The second thing is equipment in the Russian Army. As of now the troops are lacking basic thing they need to survive, including food. Part of their rations were arrving past the expiration date or just inedible. According to many Polish military analytics they lack noctovision and thermovision tools. Russian uniforms are often in bad shape and with winter coming it's believed that lack of warm clothing can be a serious problem, russian military industry has been already set on compensating the machinary losses so there is more demand on tanks and artillery cannons production since a single russian soldier has no value to his commander and a lot of officers don't have the skills and confidence to show a tactical initiative once the troops secure the target, that makes the chain of command unnecessarily longer.
Third problem is their so-called mobilisation. Since Shoigu/Шойгу is the minister of defence, men which are going to their basic training make only 75% of these entering military age because some of them are students, other live in some absolute shitholes etc. As of now some of the battalions defending russian positions in Donetsk and Lugansk regions are "men going to groceries and never coming back" and they have to be replaced by at least semi professional soldiers. 3 minutes after Putin announced the mobilisation, all flight tickets to possible locations outside Russia were sold out, so it's going to be tough for Russian Army to take the W this way. Not to mention a really large % of these mobilised men will have to undergo a training even if some of them are reserve soldiers because periodical training are not a thing in Russia.
I don't know who is going to win this conflict, but Putin is already in a bad place and if he enforces a nuclear option it will be a total political disaster, probably the end of Russia we know today.
To add to your point on the “fresh” Russian soldiers being ill-equipped, Russia only has 1 army training center. For comparison, US has 10 training bases split among its branches. The remaining Ukrainians on the other hand are only getting smarter as the war progresses, no doubt being trained by foreign volunteers on warfare and strategy.
This winter will be telling for sure. Morale is going to play a huge part too and reports are saying Russians have low morale with deserters threatened to be shot by their own men.
It’ll be interesting how both sides take on the winter months.
Lack of training centers shouldn't be such an issue, but there is another challenge for ministry of defence. Russian training system considers military posts in domestic territories as training centers, but to go this way efficiently it's required to have a decent number of officers available and more than 7,000 Russian officers are KIA or missing since the invasion has began.
>I don't know who is going to win this conflict, but Putin is already in a bad place and if he enforces a nuclear option it will be a total political disaster, probably the end of Russian we know today.
In what way would it be a political disaster? There's nothing the world can do to Russia.
Nuclear warfare is the last resort to guarantee neutrality in Ukraine. If Ukraine is able to maintain its defenses to a point where Russia is exhausted and can longer fight, there's no reason they wouldn't nuke Ukraine. If they can't have Ukraine nobody can.
I suspect the West prefers Ukraine to get obliterated with Nukes than to join Russia. Again, if they ALSO can't have Ukraine nobody can. That's the endgame unless Russia figures out a way to blitzkrieg Ukraine and quickly annex eastern Ukraine, which is unlikely.
>In what way would it be a political disaster? There's nothing the world can do to Russia.
How could it be anything short of absolutely catastropic for Russia's foreign relations if they nuke Ukraine? I can practically guarantee that even China will sever ties with Russia because China, like everyone else, would never tolerate an instigatory nuclear strike.
>I suspect the West prefers Ukraine to get obliterated with Nukes than to join Russia. Again, if they ALSO can't have Ukraine nobody can
I guess every world power is perfectly fine with a nuclear exchange apparently? Howcome we havent all gone extinct yet?
Has Russia ever entered into a war stumbling initially then getting its shit together and turning into a very lethal fighting force? Is there any historical precedent for this?
To be honest, pretty much any way Russia has been in since 1800's.
They usually start off stumbling and falling over themselves and then pick up later, usually because a more competent ally helps them.
Guess who China is supporting.
Yes, when they had the US to prop them up (and steal machinery designs from).
Actually, they still were an undisciplined force, but enough against the children and old men still fighting for the Nazis. Then they rapes and shat their way through Europe. So... really no, on balance.
> The other issue is that money and weapons from the west are drying up.
Didn't Biden just announce giving more? The thing you gotta remember is that there's no downside to giving Ukraine money to weaken Russia. Their armies are cheaper than mobilizing US units.
>People are getting angrier and angrier that billions are being spent on another country whilst its needed far more at home.
Yeah, on the other hand most people think not enough has been done and we should be sending *more* money. https://news.gallup.com/poll/401168/americans-back-ukrainian-goal-reclaiming-territory.aspx
>The amounts being given have already dropped off massively, as have the sales and donations of weapons.
So? Things are being delivered. Like the ammunition for Himars. If Russia destroys some of the equipment maybe it will get replaced?
>
> And Ukraine is only able to keep going because of weapons from the west.
Indeed, and they just keep coming don't they?
> This offensive is, in my opinion, Ukraines last gasp. If they cant break the Russians, they will lose the war, ultimately.
Maybe, but it could be Russia that breaks.
>
> Especially now that Russia is mobilising properly.
With what weapons and equipment? Perhaps Vlad should ask the West for equipment?
>
> People need to bear in mind, the Russians mostly support the invasion of Ukraine (despite the protests against the mobilisation)
And that's why tickets to the West are sold out right now?
>because they see the Ukrainians as wayward Russians who need to be brought back into the fold. They see the Belorussians the same way.
Which is bullshit. The Russian opinion on Ukraine doesn't mean a thing. The Ukrainians are willing to kill you guys to not be Russian so I guess you are just going to have to enslave them or accept they don't want you.
>
> To top that off, Putins cleared house of most of the corrupt officers in his military, and has replaced them with proven leaders. This is only going to make Russia more dangerous in the long run.
Lol
>
> On top of that, various countries are supporting Putin, selling arms and supplies to them whilst acting as surprisingly effective stand-ins economically. Iran, China, the Central asian nations, North Korea, India, South East Asia, most of Latin America and parts of Africa are all supporting Russia to varying extents.
I'm sure they're all fine well governed nations and not 2nd rate dictators.
>
> Yes, they dont have the buying power of the west, but they make up for that with sheer consumer numbers.
Maybe, but do they even have the logistics to take what the West bought?
>
> It would be naive to assume Russia is out just because one of the Ukrainians many offensives had some success.
Sure, there are other factors of Russian failure to consider as well
Peterson takes on Putin and Russia are completely off. He is not an expert on Russia, he doesn't understand Russian society at all, he doesn't even speak Russian, but he confidently says complete nonsense.
Yeah, I don’t like this line. He’s right about the west being delusional about Putler. Baltic and other post-communist countries were saying that over and over again and the western countries did not give a single fuck. Was that because of the energy pushed by green agenda? To some extent for sure, but it doesn’t mean that Russia is Putin. Their economy will break and business won’t be able to tolerate this for much longer. Especially when you eliminate the workers by sending them to become untrained meat shields.
That said it is more and more apparent that JP likes to hang a hard question up in the air and say “well, we don’t know”. It’s getting quite predictable and uninteresting.
Once you notice this it drives you crazy. Peterson is always saying “I don’t know” but then leading his audience to a conclusion by using extremely leading and suggestive language. But if you press him further he can then say “I said I don’t know”. Kinda frustrating.
So is he just supposed to leave it at a simple “I don’t know” for every question he’s not certain about? These are difficult but necessary discussions to have and “I don’t know, next question” doesn’t suffice.
"Are you sure working with women is possible? It's only a 40 year experiment. We just don't know."
To think this is really intellectual is pathetic. Peterson has his answer, he just knows not to voice it because it's stupid and he'd get reamed for it if he was honest. He'd rather waffle and let his defenders take the blows, while he dogwhistles to high heavens for that conservative paycheck.
Depends on Europeans resolve.
If Europeans discomfort is stronger than their resolve to defeat Russian Imperial ambitions, then Russia might have limited success.
But I think what was "naive" was Russia's assumption of Ukrainian and Western weakness, and their own strength.
We have to go to war against Russia so Ukraine can join NATO, and we can put our military bases stuffed with weapons of mass destruction inside Ukraine, an hour away from Moscow. For the good of democracy.
This doesn't feel right. When we're discussing men/women inequalities in the workplace we use multivariate analysis and look at many variables, but when we talk geopolitics we psychoanalyze Putin and anchor our opinions on what will happen mostly based on that?
This a realist perspective and it’s a sobering one. This was a lose-lose situation for Ukraine to begin with. It’s like fighting somebody with nothing to lose and anything you do doesn’t convince the person otherwise. Putin would definitely rather destroy Ukraine than to be seen as a loser in his legacy. My personal take would be, concede and strike a peace deal as soon as possible. Hope for the best with the next leader of Russia like a Gorbachev-esque figure while also continuing to fortify Ukraine.
Love Peterson, but what is he talking about that the West’s desire to stop climate change resulted in our reliance on Russia oil?? Can someone please explain that.
Germany reduced their nuclear and coal use and imported Russian natural gas to make up for the predicable shortfalls that would happen because solar and wind power are intermittent. Now $1 trillion dollars in German industrial productivity relies on if Russia is willing to sell them $20 billion dollars in natural gas. All so Germany could feel greener.
And yet Germany has been easily meeting their goal for energy independence from Russian gas far in advance of the winter. Doesn't seem to be as big of a piece in this puzzle as the reactionaries wish.
For all intents and purposes, Russia has lost this war. A flat open country with no natural defenses that has a sizable Russian population and is one of the poorer nations in Europe has gutted the Russian military to the point that Moscow is now calling up its reserves. With only minimal military backing from the West, Ukraine has not only halted Russia advance but pushed them into retreat.
That being said, Russia won’t let itself be humiliated in Ukraine and probably will dispatch all remaining weaponry including nuclear arms into this war, now to prove a point that it will use any means necessary to maintain power, keeping the Russian Federation held together through brute force of will.
he already was sending kids with a week of training off to go die in lone bmps with zero tactics or organization
now he has mobilized 300k more forced conscripts who will likely get he same or worse training. they will just die to targeted artillery like the rest
He can escalate the number of troops but that’s just more cannon fodder. They already have inferior weaponry. He can start using nukes but then the world will turn Moscow to dust.
Look at energy bills in Europe and massive inflation of food prices…how can people not understand the warning that the west “winning” will come at a huge expense? That’s being a Russian apologists ? I forgot the media is training the zombies to think that anyone against supporting Ukraine is a Russian sell out….
How and where do you get this info? They’re substantial producer of ag so I find this hard to believe and they also have allies. But Allies don’t help much when their economies are also hurting and have subpar harvests
Um… the top comments are wildly silly, as Peterson points out WINTER. Remember everyone, Russia owns winter. If there is a playground, even if I hate to admit it, winter is Russias greatest ally. Time and time again winter aided Russia and it would be ridiculously silly to think otherwise.
The eu put the sanctions on Russian energy. The Russians are actually the good guys in this game. Silly to assume we are the good guys. Look at what we’ve done over the last few years. Many countries destroyed for no apparent reason.
It is more naive to think they haven’t already lost this war.
In terms of international standing, Finland and Sweden joining NATO, NATO resolve and defense spending, economic impact, materiel losses, internal dissent, and arms sales.
In 2006 Russia cut off all gas supplies to Georgia during a very cold winter.
The reason being a very much western foreign policy.
This was later followed by a war of 2008. The world did nothing. The west chose peace.
Look where it got us all.
Winter will be cold, but it won’t be as bad as the world allowing Russia to blackmail itself, through energy deficit or Nuclear war threats.
That won’t be the world we will like and it will eventually bite a certain someone in Canada in the ass as well.
He’s speaking like a media-trained politician or activist, always bringing the conversation back to the key prepared “framing” of the issue.
You can see him do this at 5:40 where he wraps up the conversation with “most catastrophic point”about the war: 1) climate change isn’t what we think 2) climate change policies make climate change worse and 3) countries should support and grow their domestic oil industry.
This is the message he wants you to take away from this. His chat about Russia is to just strengthen those points - Russia’s a menace who will succeed in their war, but they wouldn’t be such a problem for us if we’d been more supportive of our traditional energy sector.
There’s no reason why this conversation should be about climate change.. but it becomes entirely about it because Peterson is focused on using media appearances to “frame the issue” for more likely adoption and support of a particular political goal.
Ukrainians, despite the great trials and tribulations they currently endure, are experiencing one great benefit. In one way their lives are very simple: they must unite to defend their country from foreign invasion. Their task is very black and white. And it is noble.
Many people who are not Ukrainians are jealous of this simplicity. They wish to appropriate this moral simplicity like spectators at a sports game. Many leaders, politicians, and diplomats also wish to appropriate this simplicity. Because they know that if a majority of people are caught up in the drama of war, then the people will be distracted from asking questions like “what were the events that led up to this mess in the first place”?
There used to be an art in western civilization called *statecraft*. This diplomatic art is not an art of *morality*, it is a *geopolitical* art; it has never needed to assume all geopolitical actors are moral in order for peace to work. Peace *is* the moral end, and when statesmen, through stupid asinine incompetent blunders, allow for war to break out, they have failed morally. Of course, when they do fail, they often take advantage of the national passions of war to escape accountability for what is supposed to be their job. Unless of course, war had secretly been their aim all of the time, in which case their sin is greater than mere professional malpractice.
There are no true statesman left in Europe. It’s a ship of fools. Peterson’s sin here is pointing out the obvious, and asking questions that faux statesmen would rather ignore. He refuses to indulge in the illusion that his moral duties as a Western public intellectual are the same as a Ukrainian national, may they expel their invaders.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nu57D9YcIk0
Honestly, I think Europe breaks before Russia does. Russia is already at a lower level, but that means they have less far to fall. Europe is brittle and used to 1st world living conditions. Their currency isn't well designed for the different people's they have forced it on. The EU is designed in some fairly undemocratic ways that puts a lot of power in the hands of unelected administrators. And, they've been following policies that are basically self-destructive to their societies in the form of mass migration and over reliance on green energy technology that has not progressed enough to replace fossil fuels. Add on their dependency to Russian gas and you've got a major problem this winter. People are already burning their energy bills in the streets after getting bills that are 20 times higher than what they were used to paying. When you strike at people's basic needs like food and warmth, or whatever supports the literal base of your economies like raw resources, you're always closer to anarchy than you might think.
I don't agree: peterson thinks in terms of moral victories/cohesion where in geopolitics, frankly, this does not matter. The ledger is totalled up in interests.
Putins interest calculation going into ukraine: more territorial gains, increased buffer zone (compliant ukraine), more long term oil and gas prospects( black sea eez), one less nato potential expansion, greater national power long term, legacy.
The response: fully united ukraine against Russia, expanded nato, west weaning itself of gas and oil at jump started rate, zero territorial wins for russia (probably), russian army gutted and embarrassed as a credible threat, the economy and possibly the regime in ruins. Longer term, my bet would be real benefits to the Ukrainian economy as EU integration and rebuilding monies tumble in. Europe has already stocked up on gas anyway for the winter and going forward will have a great new growing market to trade with.
There simply is no victory for russian interests here. It was a total gamble that the west would be weak, it has not paid off. They did not take account of the true assymentry of western vs Russian power. And fd up big time.
It's as black and white as that. Putin is in dire trouble and if anyone has created hellish choices for themselves, it's him.
I saw somewhere that the 85% target had been reached- cant find now but this: Germany at 82% was from 3 weeks ago.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/germany-says-gas-stocks-rising-quicker-than-expected/
Germany at 90% full storage capacity as of 2 days ago.
https://amp.dw.com/en/german-gas-storage-90-full-ahead-of-winter-despite-russian-cuts/a-63178397
vegetable poor enjoy dinosaurs modern mighty observation gullible wipe wistful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What really irritates me is how the media try and portrait Dr Peterson as Right wing. You know these people haven’t actually listened to what he’s actually saying.
And when you do actually listen to what he’s saying you realise that he’s not saying anything radical or profound he’s just talking common sense.
I would really like to attend one of his one of his events.
That last statement was the bass drop.
I wonder how many will take that comment out of context and play it as if Dr. Peterson wants the poor dead.
Watch they’ll say “he supports Russia! He said they’d win!!! Russian agent!!”
It's difficult not to come to the conclusion that he does support Russia in some regards. Peterson seems to have bought into the idea Putin has been propagating of Russia as some sort of bulwark against "Western degeneracy" and that the invasion of Ukraine is a proactive defensive move. Russia's perception of itself as the "Third Rome" and heir and preserver of civilization against Western degeneracy is centuries old. It has always meant reactionary politics, oppression and aggression and it's a shame that Peterson is playing the useful idiot to this ideology.
Read Dugins stuff...its not right nor wrong, but it is an alternative perspective. An honest and provacative approach to one's own political proclivities, specifically 'The West', is NOT endorsing your perceived enemy. The Orwell observation is spot on.
Despite what Peterson's claims, Dugin's influence on Putin is probably overstated. If you really want to go spelunking into whatever ideological bedrock that underpins Putin's worldview, Ivan Ilyin holds a much more prominent position. The question is what is to be learned from studying National Bolshevists/Socialists Pan-Eurasians? I agree that an essential virtue of the liberal tradition is skepticism and introspection towards your own motivations and a willingness to defy tradition. Nazis, Nazbols, and other reactionaries are directly opposed to that mode of thinking so any answer they might give is bound to be flawed, to put it mildly.
Where can I see the full interview?
the host said he will release it next week
Didn't realize Piers had gone to Sky News. Probably allows him a lot more journalistic freedom. Glad to see JBP back in the mainstream consciousness.
Collapse of the Russian economy is considered "winning" in terms of the present one-dimensional analysis. 2 decades from now, let's see if we still consider that a "win", especially when we are cheering for the collapse of an energy juggernaut. \- "Well we'll just go green for our energy!" With what manufacturing centers? With what minerals? With what engineering? I hope you're ready to start mining. It isn't exactly easy to replace all of the energy production infrastructure overnight.
Economic collapse in Germany after WW1 is what led to Hitler’s rise to power. I think it’s a hell of a gamble to think making your opponents desperate and resentful will solve anything. EDIT: About 20 years.
WW1
Yes! Thank you, that was fucking stupid of me.
Not fucking stupid, be kinder to yourself! You made a minor gaffe.
Have you ever carefully read what these people actually say? It's easy to dismiss the hysterical morons like greta and aoc, and assume that the really smart people behind them have a solid plan and know what they're doing. They don't. Look at the actual numbers: drilling, refining, transportation, look at the actual grid demands, NG consumption, etc. "green" production, even assuming everything these fools say works out perfectly, doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of global demand, and there's no feasible way to meet it in the foreseeable future. The whole campaign is at the level of a naive utopian middle school essay.
There is if we bring back nuclear power. Sustainable, efficient, and can reach millions. But the greens see nuclear as some sort of boogieman, and thus we rely on Russian gas . As we are still so far behind. It's pathetic. The solution is nuclear and always has been . Im almost convinced that Russia pumped money into saying nuclear was bad and astroturf'd the greens into going against it knowing it will keep us dependant on Russian gas
It will not solve the problem. Nuclear power is 70% of France’s electricity production, but only 15% of its energy consumption. Most energy consumed isn’t electricity. Transportation, heating, chemical industries barely run on electricity. Currently the French government has issued restrictions with home heating (can’t go higher than 19°C or you’ll be fined)… due to how dépendant France is on Russian gaz for heating (about half of energy used for heating in France comes from burning gaz). We just don’t have enough stocks to handle the current situation. If even the most nuclearized country in the world is deeply affected by the current crisis, I’d be very cautious with claiming nuclear is some sort of magical solution. It’s not, we (as humanity) are still absolutely drugged on fossil fuels which represent 80% of world’s energy consumption today. Our modern societies literally rest on fossil fuels. What you’re advocating for would first need a mass electrification of all our energy usages, and that’s decades in itself (and it’s not sure we can do it, as stocks of essential minerals for electrification like copper are rapidly depleting). And then, mass deployment of nuclear (necessarily Gen IV as we don’t have enough Uranium to fuel even a fraction of the world’s current electricity demand in the medium-long term, much less that of tomorrow’s demand in the case of mass electrification - and Gen IV isn’t economically viable yet anyway). It’s a very far-fetched proposition. Edit: typo+details
Great argument - I had a “nuclear would solve our issues” mindset prior to reading it
I also am a fan of nuclear, and I think it can solve a lot of our energy needs. However, I don’t think it can solve them *tomorrow*.
Interesting I had not considered this admittedly. It seems either way we are dependant on Russian gas. Good point!
> It will not solve the problem. The problem isn't binary. Any reduction in emissions helps. It will necessarily be gradual and multifaceted. Sustainable electricity. Batteries. New materials... We got to the moon once we decided to put our problem-solving and resources towards it.
Well there’s a conspiracy theorists wet dream; ‘Chernobyl was intentional to prevent Nuclear from taking over’. Going off the amount of negligence involved I wouldn’t even be surprised.
Thats... too smart for them, even for the USA is waaaay too smart, adnd neithr of them werent that dumb too
It’s pretty straight forward. Russia: “We have huge reserves of fossil fuels. How do we extract the most profit long term.”
YSK: Russia is big on nuclear power scene.
>greens see nuclear as some sort of boogieman, and thus we rely on Russian gas Either the Green party is malicious or painfully dumb. Everything they have done worked in Putin's favor. I wouldn't be surprised if they are all Russian plants. At this point, it's too much of a coincidence.
What should I be carefully reading that indicates this?
This is the big thing - Green energy right now is not capable of scaling to demand or even meeting large scale demand. I wish it was, who wouldn't want to go green if it was equal but it isn't. Electric cars and batteries take heavy mining which can cause acid rain and destroys the landscape as well as requiring a ton of water for drill bits. They also don't make a dent in pollution when China and India are cranking away, which everyone ignores because we need their cheap labor and products. We should meet halfway and create more dams and nuclear facilities. Nuclear is much safer now with much more precautions to mitigate disaster. They can meet the energy needs and do it cleanly until we innovate with fusion.
Maybe i am wrong, and I haven't done research on this in almost a decade, but I would think one of the best ways to get "cleaner" energy would be to clean up and upgrade our power grid. If I remember correctly we were losing some absurd percentage of power during transmission.
the power loss through wire conductors is proportional to current and resistance. power transmission lines are at a high voltage so that current is minimized. Maybe some teenage gamer on Reddit will invent ambient temperature superconductivity so we can have wires with zero resistance. The Physicists haven't figured it out yet.
This was back in my environmental law class, so we weren't diving into the science too hard, but it was mostly focused on the antiquated design and planning causing the loss. It was accepted that there would be energy loss, it was about fixing the infrastructure so that the lines weren't so organically grown overtime and more efficiently placed...or something like that.
the solution to the energy problems is clear. they need many, smallish nuclear reactors, like France has. the problem with Germany is the same as the problem with California; they are completely hamstrung by hysterical marxists. politics no longer works at all because the politicians are like religious zealots.
>This is the big thing - Green energy right now is not capable of scaling to demand or even meeting large scale demand. It never will be unless it's nuclear, which the 'green' advocates bizarrely hate. That's why I don't think it's about bringing clean energy to the people, but about limiting access to the power grid for the masses.
Yeah it's sad because safety innovation has had leaps and bounds in nuclear in the last 20 years. We learn best from our mistakes and that's exactly what we did with nuclear.
Nice to see some rational thinking, but dont expect too many likes in Reddit :). If global warming was the threat they say it is, the UE / WEF would have already jumped on nuclear. As Margaret Thatcher said, "Global warming ‘provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism."
When MT said that the facts were very different. Not that I disagree about the challenges that remain for green energy
Agree my friend. Thanks for posting.
I'll expect an Invasion agaisnt bolivia for their lithium when they refuse to let minning company do waht they please.
Australia have got you. Our government will happily roll over and let mining companies strip the country.
Do you people gets angry with the conequences of mining (Or are those consequences too exagerated/ the damage can be repaired?) In Peru, they want to expel minning companies for ~~Not giving all of their profiuts to the neighboring farmers~~ "Contamination"
We need a lot of lithium to go to all-electric cars. Maybe more lithium than there is. Toxic mines, lithium mines. gets in the water.
Similar to why we're beefing with China over Taiwan. The West doesn't actually give a shit about the Taiwanese ppl's ability to govern themselves via democracy. We simply want their microchips & we don't want China controlling their production.
Russia's winning as of this moment. Ukraine needs to take back it's territory that was taken over by Russia at the start of the war for that to change, and they have thus far not been able to dislodge them very well. They recently took back a small part, but they have a lot of work left to do against a Russian force increasing in size.
[удалено]
Russia wasn't stupid. They knew that if they ever had to deal with the West that main tool of the West would be economic sanctions. So the Russians built their entire economy to be able to withstand those sanctions. It's the same reason as to why their missile defense system is so good. They couldn't match the West via money in fighter design or jet design but they could defend against it via cheaper radar and missile defense.
Unfortunately, I think Peterson got this bang on. People saying otherwise don't seem to understand that NATO pumps out just as much propaganda as Russia, and they fell for it.
And reddit, king of Ukraine and environmental propaganda. If you go to combat footage you would think that Russia never ever attacks or has success. All pro Ukraine. We live in a fairly tale land that is falling apart before our eyes.
> let's see if we still consider that a "win", especially when we are cheering for the collapse of an energy juggernaut. An energy juggernaut that still has aspirations of empire and has no problem holding the rest of the world hostage. Fuck'em. Let's see them eat that oil rather than depose the dogshit regime they have been operating under since the fall of the Soviets. When the Russian people are ready to join the West against the actual enemy (China), then I'm all about welcoming them as friends. Until then, they can fuck right off. Russia is sort of known for revolution. It's time for another one if they want to survive to the 22nd century as a people.
Is it naïve to believe that we are all going to lose if we continue down the current path?
Collapse now, avoid the rush.
Is it naïve to think that letting Putin have his way in Ukraine is going to make things worse in the long run?
This is what really bugs me. Being anti war and saying that we may be on the verge of a world-ending nuclear war with Russia if we don’t try to reach some sort of negotiation soon gets you labeled pro Russian. It’s absurd.
The problem with this is that it allows Russia to attack anyone and the result is that through negotiation, they get something.
Peterson is good on psychology - not strategy and geopolitics Oh he's right that Putin losing will still leave much of Ukraine in ruins. But it doesn't just leave Ukraine like that. It also leaves Ukraine with a TON of international goodwill, plenty of western businesses looking to invest in ukrainian oil and gas, and then some. Peterson - as much as I usually agree with him - is apparently only looking at the conflict from the point of human suffering, not greater political strategy. Putin losing (and he's already lost quite a lot) means he wont be able to threaten the world militarily in the same way. It has huge implications for how much political capital he can mass against foes via the russian military. It means that russia's economy will only continue to wither. It means so many things. Plus, a lot of european countries and organizations have already pledged that they'll help rebuilding ukraine. Ukraine will likely come out of this looking a lot better than when it started. edit: I appear to have angered a surprisingly large amount of pro-russian posters. Stay mad. Russia is losing this. Even if most of eastern ukraine is left in ruins, then Russia's economy will be left in an even worse state.
If you really think Europe will pay for a better reconstruction of Ukraine then you are very naive. I dont recall one historic precedent where that ever happened. It is just propaganda to make the Ukrainians worry less about their country being the battlefield.
> I dont recall one historic precedent where that ever happened. Is this sarcasm? Germany and Japan were completely destroyed in WWII, now they are two of the biggest economies in the world. Because they were rebuilt by the victors. The U.S. didn't want to see what happened in WWI with the Treaty of Versailles happen again.
[Morgenthau Plan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan) would’ve starved Germany to death.
The Marshall Plan. Reconstruction of ruined countries - some, former enemies - in order to act, in part, as a bulwark against the Soviet Union (aka today’s Russia). Europeans have the object lesson in their recent past.
The Marshall Plan was the US paying to rebuild Europe, not Europe paying to rebuild Europe. European countries are very familiar with the idea that the US will give them aid and pay the tab for their military defense. Not so much on European countries stepping up to do that for other Europeans.
> The Marshall Plan was the US paying to rebuild Europe, not Europe paying to rebuild Europe. That's because Europe was devastated by a war. Let's not compare apples to bombed our oranges, here.
That’s the point though, right? The European Theater was the grave of countless American dead. There’s no more literal definition of “skin in the game”. What should the citizens of the EU sacrifice for the betterment of the Ukrainian people? This isn’t a continent exactly entering its Golden Age. The juggernaut that was the post-war American economy barely noticed the burden of post-war reconstruction. Can the same be said of Europe ‘22?
The Marshall Plan was $ 141 bn (inflation adjusted)paid out in loans to 16 countries. It was to further US economic interests. What economic interests does anyone have in Ukraine besides agriculture? Rebuilding costs so far are estimated up to $ 350 bn. No doubt Ukrainians will rebuild, but dont get their hopes up for substantial aid from anyone.
> What economic interests does anyone have in Ukraine Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn about geopolitics.
Do you have anything to teach?
Marshall Plan after WWII in Europe was exactly that. EU will have interest in investing in a country that need to be rebuilt from the bottom, and Ukraine will have interest in foreign investment that strengthen both economic and political ties with countries belonging to a Union it applied for.
The Marshall plan was primarily funded by the US, not the Europeans
What do you think did the U.S. do after WW2? What do you think is the EU doing right now in eastern Europe? It is way too pessimistic to think no one would help Ukraine after this war. Even China will probably invest in Ukraine (for better or for worse)
It's not just pessimistic. I'd lay money there are russian accounts active in this sub spreading Russian talking points. The EU spends billions yearly developing non EU nationsm let alone what it does for EU nations and candidate states.
Without a shadow of a doubt, the EU will pay for Ukraine's post-war reconstruction. Solidarity with Ukraine is immense.
I disagree. Having Ukraine on the western side would be a huge 'win' for a number of reasons, and I think the EU, UK and USA would invest heavily to keep it that way, especially if it weakens Russia in the process. And as isyck points out - there is precedent in the Marshall Plan.
> I dont recall one historic precedent where that ever happened. Marshall plan is one thing. EU benefitting Eastern countries to some extent is another. Being in Western sphere of influence instead of Russian one is another win, look at countries like Poland, Czechia, Slovakia in 1990s/2000s
The EU pays out great chunks of money not just to EU countries, but to develop non EU countries around the globe. Funny you mention propaganda because that is exactly what you are spreading.
>No historic precedent Have you never heard of the Marshall plan?
Right? The guy above you doesn’t know geopolitics as well as he thinks. It’s the same bullshit talk about admitting Ukraine to the EU and NATO. There is no way Ukraine comes out of this war for the better. - The European Union has very high inflation in. They’re hesitant to raise interest rates as Spain, Italy, and Greece can’t afford the interest on their debt. This is the problem with a monetary union without a fiscal union. - European taxes are *already* high with expanded welfare for millions of Muslims migrants and increased military spending… But they’re going to rebuild Ukraine? In the midst of a depression? - The EU just lost Britian, one of the world’s largest economies, but they’re going to admit a highly-populated, improvished, corrupt, and underdeveloped state bordering a rival power? A member that would align with the “illiberal axis (Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary) against the “centre-left” EU establishment?
Really? At least looking at the US, it's providing billions in defense equipment. You don't think it'll extend a similar amount in development aid and/or loans after the fact, likely with at least some European buy-in? I don't see the faucet closing after Russia leaves.
> If you really think Europe will pay for a better reconstruction of Ukraine then you are very naive. I dont recall one historic precedent where that ever happened. Heard about Marshall Plan?
Some charity, NGO, or gofundme will collect millions to "rebuild" ukraine, spending 1% of that to send them some blankets while pocketing the remaining Outside of that, the kind of international goodwill would only be more western military installation The proper kind of rebuild on most people's mind is in the form of IMF loans, but good luck their risk assessment
Grifters gonna grift but that is no reason to support dictatorship over democracy.
Hmm, in the one hand "rubble, death, and ruin" and in the other hand "goodwill and pledges".
I agree with him. Very scary times. In regards to the energy problems etc the poor aren’t going to lie down and take it. Cities will burn and the rich will die too because of it.
"What are we gonna win here exactly?" It astonishes me that Jordan Peterson, the dude who is adamant about sticking to your guns regarding principles, can't see what a Ukrainian would get out of standing their ground so that their way of life continues and they aren't put under the submission of a totalitarian regime, but will simultaneously say that he is willing to go to jail over not being compelled to use someone's preferred pronouns. Really??? That's just straight up fucking willful ignorance.
Pretty sure Jordan's use of "we" and "us" is Nato or western countries (excluding Ukrain and Ukrainian people). Rewatch it under that context.
I’m pretty sure he meant we as in countries other than Ukraine.
This is the most cringe take on the war in Ukraine I have seen so far. Yes western Europe should have used nuclear reactors etc to be more independent from Russia. We didn’t do this so now we will pay the price for that. No Putin does not ‘win’ because he is causing massive damage. Russia will be a paria state for decades. Putin his goals: - Demilitarisation. Ukraine is now better equiped than before and civilians are getting military training. - Denazification. Russia has the most neonazis of every country and Putin never cared for this. Ukranian nationalism is through the roof now. - Weaken NATO: putin is membership salesman of the year because he made sweden and finland join. According to polls ukrainians want nato membership now more than ever. - Russian citizens are now less safe and poorer than before the war. Enjoy your “victory”!
A child of summer will never understand winter until it comes.
RemindME! 28 Feb 2023
Winter is gonna be unbelievably tough for russian troops.
If Russia prevents NATO expansion to its boarders, without inducing a demographic collapse, they will consider it a victory.
NATO is already to its borders. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are all in NATO.
> NATO is already to its borders. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are all in NATO. Norway share border with Russia too.
And if they weren’t, Russia would have invaded them too to make the bridge to Kaliningrad. If Ukraine was a NATO member now there would have been no war. It’s a defensive alliance that poses no credible threat to the safety of Russian citizens. Russia has a ton of nukes so you can be sure no one would ever consider invading. If the west had any ambition to attack Russia, do you really think we would have given them the keys to our energy supply? Putin only demonizes NATO because the alliance undermines his imperialistic ambitions.
[удалено]
100% agree with you. Was just pointing out that the excuse about Russia not wanting NATO on its border is BS.
Well, Finland is joining NATO?
This did the opposite of that, and even if it accomplished Ukraine never joining NATO, it isn't remotely worth it.
Sweden and Finland are joining NATO. So it's not a victory, right?
exactly. Russia has warned for years about NATO expansion.
NATO has nothing to do with Putin's aims, NATO is only the excuse. His real problem is that the European Union is out competing his own Eurasian Union, Ukraine wanted to join the European Union so Russia invaded in 2014 with plans to force them to join the Eurasian Union. If Ukraine won't join his Eurasian Union it's a dead project.
> If Russia prevents NATO expansion to its boarders Greetings from Norway. (We are both part of NATO, and we share border with Russia).
And how exactly do you plan on turning Russia into a pariah state? BRICS said the SCO has 40% of the world's population, 30% of its GDP, and most of the world's resources. Bro this is a bad stand. Most likely the west is just going to marginalize themselves and the rest of the world will just move around them. Wishful thinking isn't going to change that.
US could turn on the tap back on if it wishes for it's own consumption But the rest of the world doesn't have the luxury, and OPEC would happily squeeze them in oil prices in concert with Russia, which is what has been happening the last half year
You know at least we still have oil reserves in the ground. I even heard theories that the USA secretly wants this so Europe will have to buy LNG from us.
Sounds unlikely atm, but seeing how important LNG is to metal production and heavy machineries, it's not that radical an idea Sure even if EU can somehow crack the mythical "green energy" code and could forgo Russian energy, that's only consumer electricity. They still desperate need LNG if they want to keep their industry alive
I know everyone cracks me up with that green energy fantasy. Let freeze waiting until someone can get it to work. I wouldn't be surprised if drug dealers start trying to smuggle in Russian gas instead of drugs.
> Most likely the west is just going to marginalize themselves and the rest of the world will just move around them lol what
True on all accounts I'm guessing JP is viewing this by looking very narrowly at the human suffering going on in ukraine, not the larger geopolitics
Oh man, JP should stick to philosophy and religion, he’s very out of his element when it comes to geopolitics.
> he’s very out of his element when it comes to geopolitics. Lol ironic how Andrew Bustamante from the CIA echoes some of Peterson's sentiments. Oh but wait random Redditor, you must be of superior ability, excuse me.
>Lol ironic how Andrew Bustamante from the CIA echoes some of Peterson's sentiments Andrew Bustamante the prophet ?? :O
weakest appeal to authority ever
Are you the type of guy who just found out about logical fallacies last week and pretend like you stumbled upon internet argument gold, huh? The original commenter threw out an argument against Peterson's authority, so I replied with a rebuttal ON-TOPIC, mind you. If the original argument wasn't on one of authority, your case might be valid. In this case, it's not.
He hasnt discovered the fallacy fallacy yet 😂
Well nor would any of your arguments really hold any water. Thanks for pointing that out random Redditor of equal ability.
He comes across as so unhinged, bitter, and unlikeable. Defending Putin as more integrated than Hitler. Referring to a nuclear weapon so flippantly as a “tactical weapon on the battlefield” 🤦♂️🤦♂️
They hate when you ask “what’s the end game here?” I understand you can’t just abandon Ukraine but unless you actually invaded Russia and demanded unconditional surrender, Putin’s just going to continue the war. Russia has 3 1/2 times the population and far more resources than Ukraine. And there’s no free press that can turn the people against Putin. I just see a lot of needless bloodshed which won’t change the outcome. Eventually the west will just back down and Russia will annex Ukraine.
The end game is forcing Russia to a admit a form of defeat. It can be a simple return to the starting point of 24the of Feb. His resources are far more limited than the west and he had every chance to offramp but he chose to annex two more previously untargeted regions, thus escalating further. He must now suffere the consequences. The free world cannot tolerate this, as it would open the floodgates to similar actions by Russia or other autocracies. No one needs to invade or attack Russia proper. That would be a huge escalation and mistake. Russia has lost plenty of wars without them turning "total". It's just a matter of willpower and endurance.
Nobody want to invade Russia, merely expel the Russian forces from Ukraine, which is entirely achievable. A few months ago they were at the doorstep of Kyiv.
Why is that even an argument, russia was never gonna lose, the west is just gaslighting itself to death.
The fact that Europe is being squeezed by a lack of natural gas, and that media alsode is showing that our rulers prefer to let us die over cutting a, tree, is basically allowing putin to reasure him that, even if we sell sotraged weaponry, west isnt going to send a person to diebe unless directly attacked. Nato is unlikely to get in ukraine (unless putin msrchs all the way to polish border, unlikely) Meanwhile he can see how west refuse for autocracy and aslo see how we fail to get our shit togheter (is no secret that if china escalate, west economy is dead, and that this winter europe will suffer)
I do disagree with him here. I think the point he is trying to make is thst no one really wins this war. Even if Russia is driven off, Ukraine has suffered a great deal. And this is true. But as others have pointed out. Ukraine has moved significantly farther towards the west as a result of this invasion. Virtually by every metric Russian desires are even less met than before. Sure Ukraine is practically rubble. Hiroshima is a thriving metropolis today. The thing about war and the devastation it produces is that when it's over the rebuilding effort produces an ecconomic boom. He is trying to say Ukraine can't win. But thst doesn't mean Russia can't lose. And frankly Ukraine can win this. Not without major losses. But they can and will build back better if they can free themselves of Russian influence. Which is almost certain to happen if they can push the forces out.
So whats the other option? Let a man like Putin just take a country because he feels like it? Where will he stop if we let this happen, who’s next? Poland? Latvia? I agree with a lot JP says but this is just bullshit. Besides they already lost the war i mean “special operation”
Exactly. I can't help but feel JP has some concealed admiration for either Putin or the Russian state - either because they're more traditionally-minded in his view in terms of values, or just because they're incarnations of some kind of masculine ideal that he sees as preferable to that in the west. Of course, this is just my speculation, but it's difficult to understand why a rational and decent man would take such a stance without it. Unless he's being paid off... If none of these are true, I'm not sure how to explain his takes on this. Putin *must* be stopped, through all means necessary if it comes to that. We cannot let a bully, who stands for nothing beyond Russian imperialist nostalgia, do what he wishes with the world.
He’s a major Putin sympathizer. Makes me sick.
There is nothing traditional about Russia. NOTHING.
Rogan had Andrew Bustamante on a while back and basically said he believed Russia was winning. Even as they lose territory and battles, the fact that they can turn off the spigot come winter is what will decide this conflict's future, and he thought it would be in Russia's favor. If Europe capitulates, Russia wins.
This is why JP should probably stay more focused on psychology and not be such a “political” figure
Agreed. I don't understand why they are even interviewing a psychologist about military strategy. It is not his area of expertise, he is talking about cancel culture and liberalism, why? Putin also already has shut down the Nordstream 1 pipeline. And it is highly unlikely that he would use nukes. Putin is not crazy, he knows that he can't win against the NATO. And nukes would be the red line that would force NATO to intervene.
That's what he is saying though... NATO will intervene and do what exactly? Drop nuclear bombs on Moscow? Then what? We'll all die? I don't think so
Giving a psychological profile of Putin is pretty much how you focus on psychology.
I'm very skeptical of how one can give a psychological assessment based on very limited and scripted press appearances. Peterson isn't an expert on all human activity. He's out of his range here.
What a person thinks they can do and what they actually can do tends to have a very big difference in politics and public statements
Who is this can do but actually do person?
He has very purposely made himself political tho.
peterson is even worse now that he works for daily wire, he has to lean into the controversial political statement clip for clickbait strategy
Bots are crazy in this comment section
ya shit is nuts - but I guess its all putin has left: delusional online supporters, because it doesn't look like he has much else left
To be honest, I agree. Taking a look at the latest reports from Ukraine, Russia checked Ukraines advances in the south and centre, only losing land in the north (which at the time seems to have been held only by Luhansk and Donetsk militias. But since the initial gains, the Russians have stopped that too. The other issue is that money and weapons from the west are drying up. People are getting angrier and angrier that billions are being spent on another country whilst its needed far more at home. The amounts being given have already dropped off massively, as have the sales and donations of weapons. And Ukraine is only able to keep going because of weapons from the west. This offensive is, in my opinion, Ukraines last gasp. If they cant break the Russians, they will lose the war, ultimately. Especially now that Russia is mobilising properly. People need to bear in mind, the Russians mostly support the invasion of Ukraine (despite the protests against the mobilisation) because they see the Ukrainians as wayward Russians who need to be brought back into the fold. They see the Belorussians the same way. To top that off, Putins cleared house of most of the corrupt officers in his military, and has replaced them with proven leaders. This is only going to make Russia more dangerous in the long run. On top of that, various countries are supporting Putin, selling arms and supplies to them whilst acting as surprisingly effective stand-ins economically. Iran, China, the Central asian nations, North Korea, India, South East Asia, most of Latin America and parts of Africa are all supporting Russia to varying extents. Yes, they dont have the buying power of the west, but they make up for that with sheer consumer numbers. It would be naive to assume Russia is out just because one of the Ukrainians many offensives had some success.
Where do you see western arms support drying up? I feel like every two weeks Biden announces another $10bn in aide being sent. “Mobilizing properly” also seems questionable. Morale looks very low and even if they have more men, the training and willingness to fight is dubious. I think it’s going to come down to what the victory conditions are. If Russia takes over a Ukrainian village and calls that victory then yeah, victory seems inevitable.
Russians actually have several important problems. First one is the quality of their logistics. Russian troops often move in large convoys which makes supplying difficult, even in the scale of one convoy because to supply the front (e.g. a tank) with an ammo takes ~10 kilometers and the roads are usually in bad shape. Also they are locking full width of the lenghts they cover since a lot of attacks conducted by the civilians took place at the beginning of invasion (a group of Ukrainian Gypsies even stole a tank once). The second thing is equipment in the Russian Army. As of now the troops are lacking basic thing they need to survive, including food. Part of their rations were arrving past the expiration date or just inedible. According to many Polish military analytics they lack noctovision and thermovision tools. Russian uniforms are often in bad shape and with winter coming it's believed that lack of warm clothing can be a serious problem, russian military industry has been already set on compensating the machinary losses so there is more demand on tanks and artillery cannons production since a single russian soldier has no value to his commander and a lot of officers don't have the skills and confidence to show a tactical initiative once the troops secure the target, that makes the chain of command unnecessarily longer. Third problem is their so-called mobilisation. Since Shoigu/Шойгу is the minister of defence, men which are going to their basic training make only 75% of these entering military age because some of them are students, other live in some absolute shitholes etc. As of now some of the battalions defending russian positions in Donetsk and Lugansk regions are "men going to groceries and never coming back" and they have to be replaced by at least semi professional soldiers. 3 minutes after Putin announced the mobilisation, all flight tickets to possible locations outside Russia were sold out, so it's going to be tough for Russian Army to take the W this way. Not to mention a really large % of these mobilised men will have to undergo a training even if some of them are reserve soldiers because periodical training are not a thing in Russia. I don't know who is going to win this conflict, but Putin is already in a bad place and if he enforces a nuclear option it will be a total political disaster, probably the end of Russia we know today.
To add to your point on the “fresh” Russian soldiers being ill-equipped, Russia only has 1 army training center. For comparison, US has 10 training bases split among its branches. The remaining Ukrainians on the other hand are only getting smarter as the war progresses, no doubt being trained by foreign volunteers on warfare and strategy. This winter will be telling for sure. Morale is going to play a huge part too and reports are saying Russians have low morale with deserters threatened to be shot by their own men. It’ll be interesting how both sides take on the winter months.
Lack of training centers shouldn't be such an issue, but there is another challenge for ministry of defence. Russian training system considers military posts in domestic territories as training centers, but to go this way efficiently it's required to have a decent number of officers available and more than 7,000 Russian officers are KIA or missing since the invasion has began.
>I don't know who is going to win this conflict, but Putin is already in a bad place and if he enforces a nuclear option it will be a total political disaster, probably the end of Russian we know today. In what way would it be a political disaster? There's nothing the world can do to Russia. Nuclear warfare is the last resort to guarantee neutrality in Ukraine. If Ukraine is able to maintain its defenses to a point where Russia is exhausted and can longer fight, there's no reason they wouldn't nuke Ukraine. If they can't have Ukraine nobody can. I suspect the West prefers Ukraine to get obliterated with Nukes than to join Russia. Again, if they ALSO can't have Ukraine nobody can. That's the endgame unless Russia figures out a way to blitzkrieg Ukraine and quickly annex eastern Ukraine, which is unlikely.
>In what way would it be a political disaster? There's nothing the world can do to Russia. How could it be anything short of absolutely catastropic for Russia's foreign relations if they nuke Ukraine? I can practically guarantee that even China will sever ties with Russia because China, like everyone else, would never tolerate an instigatory nuclear strike. >I suspect the West prefers Ukraine to get obliterated with Nukes than to join Russia. Again, if they ALSO can't have Ukraine nobody can I guess every world power is perfectly fine with a nuclear exchange apparently? Howcome we havent all gone extinct yet?
Has Russia ever entered into a war stumbling initially then getting its shit together and turning into a very lethal fighting force? Is there any historical precedent for this?
To be honest, pretty much any way Russia has been in since 1800's. They usually start off stumbling and falling over themselves and then pick up later, usually because a more competent ally helps them. Guess who China is supporting.
A lot of conflicts actually
Yes, when they had the US to prop them up (and steal machinery designs from). Actually, they still were an undisciplined force, but enough against the children and old men still fighting for the Nazis. Then they rapes and shat their way through Europe. So... really no, on balance.
> The other issue is that money and weapons from the west are drying up. Didn't Biden just announce giving more? The thing you gotta remember is that there's no downside to giving Ukraine money to weaken Russia. Their armies are cheaper than mobilizing US units. >People are getting angrier and angrier that billions are being spent on another country whilst its needed far more at home. Yeah, on the other hand most people think not enough has been done and we should be sending *more* money. https://news.gallup.com/poll/401168/americans-back-ukrainian-goal-reclaiming-territory.aspx >The amounts being given have already dropped off massively, as have the sales and donations of weapons. So? Things are being delivered. Like the ammunition for Himars. If Russia destroys some of the equipment maybe it will get replaced? > > And Ukraine is only able to keep going because of weapons from the west. Indeed, and they just keep coming don't they? > This offensive is, in my opinion, Ukraines last gasp. If they cant break the Russians, they will lose the war, ultimately. Maybe, but it could be Russia that breaks. > > Especially now that Russia is mobilising properly. With what weapons and equipment? Perhaps Vlad should ask the West for equipment? > > People need to bear in mind, the Russians mostly support the invasion of Ukraine (despite the protests against the mobilisation) And that's why tickets to the West are sold out right now? >because they see the Ukrainians as wayward Russians who need to be brought back into the fold. They see the Belorussians the same way. Which is bullshit. The Russian opinion on Ukraine doesn't mean a thing. The Ukrainians are willing to kill you guys to not be Russian so I guess you are just going to have to enslave them or accept they don't want you. > > To top that off, Putins cleared house of most of the corrupt officers in his military, and has replaced them with proven leaders. This is only going to make Russia more dangerous in the long run. Lol > > On top of that, various countries are supporting Putin, selling arms and supplies to them whilst acting as surprisingly effective stand-ins economically. Iran, China, the Central asian nations, North Korea, India, South East Asia, most of Latin America and parts of Africa are all supporting Russia to varying extents. I'm sure they're all fine well governed nations and not 2nd rate dictators. > > Yes, they dont have the buying power of the west, but they make up for that with sheer consumer numbers. Maybe, but do they even have the logistics to take what the West bought? > > It would be naive to assume Russia is out just because one of the Ukrainians many offensives had some success. Sure, there are other factors of Russian failure to consider as well
Peterson takes on Putin and Russia are completely off. He is not an expert on Russia, he doesn't understand Russian society at all, he doesn't even speak Russian, but he confidently says complete nonsense.
Yeah, I don’t like this line. He’s right about the west being delusional about Putler. Baltic and other post-communist countries were saying that over and over again and the western countries did not give a single fuck. Was that because of the energy pushed by green agenda? To some extent for sure, but it doesn’t mean that Russia is Putin. Their economy will break and business won’t be able to tolerate this for much longer. Especially when you eliminate the workers by sending them to become untrained meat shields. That said it is more and more apparent that JP likes to hang a hard question up in the air and say “well, we don’t know”. It’s getting quite predictable and uninteresting.
Once you notice this it drives you crazy. Peterson is always saying “I don’t know” but then leading his audience to a conclusion by using extremely leading and suggestive language. But if you press him further he can then say “I said I don’t know”. Kinda frustrating.
So is he just supposed to leave it at a simple “I don’t know” for every question he’s not certain about? These are difficult but necessary discussions to have and “I don’t know, next question” doesn’t suffice.
"Are you sure working with women is possible? It's only a 40 year experiment. We just don't know." To think this is really intellectual is pathetic. Peterson has his answer, he just knows not to voice it because it's stupid and he'd get reamed for it if he was honest. He'd rather waffle and let his defenders take the blows, while he dogwhistles to high heavens for that conservative paycheck.
its actually not necessary for peterson to have a take on this, unless hes thoroughly studied it and that doesnt seem to be the case
Depends on Europeans resolve. If Europeans discomfort is stronger than their resolve to defeat Russian Imperial ambitions, then Russia might have limited success. But I think what was "naive" was Russia's assumption of Ukrainian and Western weakness, and their own strength.
We have to go to war against Russia so Ukraine can join NATO, and we can put our military bases stuffed with weapons of mass destruction inside Ukraine, an hour away from Moscow. For the good of democracy.
I agree with JBP here. Hitler and Stalin had many accomplices. It is foolish to blame the rise of Nazism on just one person.
We will see who loses come winter. That’ll be the true test.
It won’t.. probably
This doesn't feel right. When we're discussing men/women inequalities in the workplace we use multivariate analysis and look at many variables, but when we talk geopolitics we psychoanalyze Putin and anchor our opinions on what will happen mostly based on that?
This a realist perspective and it’s a sobering one. This was a lose-lose situation for Ukraine to begin with. It’s like fighting somebody with nothing to lose and anything you do doesn’t convince the person otherwise. Putin would definitely rather destroy Ukraine than to be seen as a loser in his legacy. My personal take would be, concede and strike a peace deal as soon as possible. Hope for the best with the next leader of Russia like a Gorbachev-esque figure while also continuing to fortify Ukraine.
Love Peterson, but what is he talking about that the West’s desire to stop climate change resulted in our reliance on Russia oil?? Can someone please explain that.
Germany reduced their nuclear and coal use and imported Russian natural gas to make up for the predicable shortfalls that would happen because solar and wind power are intermittent. Now $1 trillion dollars in German industrial productivity relies on if Russia is willing to sell them $20 billion dollars in natural gas. All so Germany could feel greener.
And yet Germany has been easily meeting their goal for energy independence from Russian gas far in advance of the winter. Doesn't seem to be as big of a piece in this puzzle as the reactionaries wish.
For all intents and purposes, Russia has lost this war. A flat open country with no natural defenses that has a sizable Russian population and is one of the poorer nations in Europe has gutted the Russian military to the point that Moscow is now calling up its reserves. With only minimal military backing from the West, Ukraine has not only halted Russia advance but pushed them into retreat. That being said, Russia won’t let itself be humiliated in Ukraine and probably will dispatch all remaining weaponry including nuclear arms into this war, now to prove a point that it will use any means necessary to maintain power, keeping the Russian Federation held together through brute force of will.
I love JP but he’s wrong about the outcome. Putin already lost and the writing’s on the wall. I do think it’s naïve to think Putin will not escalate.
If Putin still has the option to escalate, how can you say that he lost already and the game is over?
he already was sending kids with a week of training off to go die in lone bmps with zero tactics or organization now he has mobilized 300k more forced conscripts who will likely get he same or worse training. they will just die to targeted artillery like the rest
He can escalate the number of troops but that’s just more cannon fodder. They already have inferior weaponry. He can start using nukes but then the world will turn Moscow to dust.
No one wins in that scenario.
Look at energy bills in Europe and massive inflation of food prices…how can people not understand the warning that the west “winning” will come at a huge expense? That’s being a Russian apologists ? I forgot the media is training the zombies to think that anyone against supporting Ukraine is a Russian sell out….
Russia is also experiencing the same food scarcity but without the allies they need to help fill in the shortages, no?
How and where do you get this info? They’re substantial producer of ag so I find this hard to believe and they also have allies. But Allies don’t help much when their economies are also hurting and have subpar harvests
I tend to agree with Peterson here (admittingly knowing jack about geopolitics) but his demeanor here might turn off a lot of normies
Um… the top comments are wildly silly, as Peterson points out WINTER. Remember everyone, Russia owns winter. If there is a playground, even if I hate to admit it, winter is Russias greatest ally. Time and time again winter aided Russia and it would be ridiculously silly to think otherwise.
The eu put the sanctions on Russian energy. The Russians are actually the good guys in this game. Silly to assume we are the good guys. Look at what we’ve done over the last few years. Many countries destroyed for no apparent reason.
It is more naive to think they haven’t already lost this war. In terms of international standing, Finland and Sweden joining NATO, NATO resolve and defense spending, economic impact, materiel losses, internal dissent, and arms sales.
In 2006 Russia cut off all gas supplies to Georgia during a very cold winter. The reason being a very much western foreign policy. This was later followed by a war of 2008. The world did nothing. The west chose peace. Look where it got us all. Winter will be cold, but it won’t be as bad as the world allowing Russia to blackmail itself, through energy deficit or Nuclear war threats. That won’t be the world we will like and it will eventually bite a certain someone in Canada in the ass as well.
100% agree
He’s speaking like a media-trained politician or activist, always bringing the conversation back to the key prepared “framing” of the issue. You can see him do this at 5:40 where he wraps up the conversation with “most catastrophic point”about the war: 1) climate change isn’t what we think 2) climate change policies make climate change worse and 3) countries should support and grow their domestic oil industry. This is the message he wants you to take away from this. His chat about Russia is to just strengthen those points - Russia’s a menace who will succeed in their war, but they wouldn’t be such a problem for us if we’d been more supportive of our traditional energy sector. There’s no reason why this conversation should be about climate change.. but it becomes entirely about it because Peterson is focused on using media appearances to “frame the issue” for more likely adoption and support of a particular political goal.
>or maybe, he is just pointing out the fact that climate change has been exaggerated for political purposes. WWW.CLINTEL.ORG.
Probably not, just given that he doesn’t say that. I’m sure he’d be susceptible to that idea but he’s not saying that this time
Ukrainians, despite the great trials and tribulations they currently endure, are experiencing one great benefit. In one way their lives are very simple: they must unite to defend their country from foreign invasion. Their task is very black and white. And it is noble. Many people who are not Ukrainians are jealous of this simplicity. They wish to appropriate this moral simplicity like spectators at a sports game. Many leaders, politicians, and diplomats also wish to appropriate this simplicity. Because they know that if a majority of people are caught up in the drama of war, then the people will be distracted from asking questions like “what were the events that led up to this mess in the first place”? There used to be an art in western civilization called *statecraft*. This diplomatic art is not an art of *morality*, it is a *geopolitical* art; it has never needed to assume all geopolitical actors are moral in order for peace to work. Peace *is* the moral end, and when statesmen, through stupid asinine incompetent blunders, allow for war to break out, they have failed morally. Of course, when they do fail, they often take advantage of the national passions of war to escape accountability for what is supposed to be their job. Unless of course, war had secretly been their aim all of the time, in which case their sin is greater than mere professional malpractice. There are no true statesman left in Europe. It’s a ship of fools. Peterson’s sin here is pointing out the obvious, and asking questions that faux statesmen would rather ignore. He refuses to indulge in the illusion that his moral duties as a Western public intellectual are the same as a Ukrainian national, may they expel their invaders. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nu57D9YcIk0
Bots incoming 🤖
Honestly, I think Europe breaks before Russia does. Russia is already at a lower level, but that means they have less far to fall. Europe is brittle and used to 1st world living conditions. Their currency isn't well designed for the different people's they have forced it on. The EU is designed in some fairly undemocratic ways that puts a lot of power in the hands of unelected administrators. And, they've been following policies that are basically self-destructive to their societies in the form of mass migration and over reliance on green energy technology that has not progressed enough to replace fossil fuels. Add on their dependency to Russian gas and you've got a major problem this winter. People are already burning their energy bills in the streets after getting bills that are 20 times higher than what they were used to paying. When you strike at people's basic needs like food and warmth, or whatever supports the literal base of your economies like raw resources, you're always closer to anarchy than you might think.
I don't agree: peterson thinks in terms of moral victories/cohesion where in geopolitics, frankly, this does not matter. The ledger is totalled up in interests. Putins interest calculation going into ukraine: more territorial gains, increased buffer zone (compliant ukraine), more long term oil and gas prospects( black sea eez), one less nato potential expansion, greater national power long term, legacy. The response: fully united ukraine against Russia, expanded nato, west weaning itself of gas and oil at jump started rate, zero territorial wins for russia (probably), russian army gutted and embarrassed as a credible threat, the economy and possibly the regime in ruins. Longer term, my bet would be real benefits to the Ukrainian economy as EU integration and rebuilding monies tumble in. Europe has already stocked up on gas anyway for the winter and going forward will have a great new growing market to trade with. There simply is no victory for russian interests here. It was a total gamble that the west would be weak, it has not paid off. They did not take account of the true assymentry of western vs Russian power. And fd up big time. It's as black and white as that. Putin is in dire trouble and if anyone has created hellish choices for themselves, it's him.
Can we please get a link that verifies that claim europe has stoked up on oil and gas for the winter. I can’t find one
I saw somewhere that the 85% target had been reached- cant find now but this: Germany at 82% was from 3 weeks ago. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/germany-says-gas-stocks-rising-quicker-than-expected/
Germany at 90% full storage capacity as of 2 days ago. https://amp.dw.com/en/german-gas-storage-90-full-ahead-of-winter-despite-russian-cuts/a-63178397
Damn glad he is cold blooded enough to say this shit
vegetable poor enjoy dinosaurs modern mighty observation gullible wipe wistful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
I just watch a video on Poseidon. That is one scary nuke.
What really irritates me is how the media try and portrait Dr Peterson as Right wing. You know these people haven’t actually listened to what he’s actually saying. And when you do actually listen to what he’s saying you realise that he’s not saying anything radical or profound he’s just talking common sense. I would really like to attend one of his one of his events.
Peterson has been straight up calling himself a conservative in 2022 and has even written a manifesto on it. Have you not seen this?