No worries.
His mindset of territory, unification, and religion among a common people (the definition of which seems mostly based on what is useful at any given point) reminds me most of kings from European history.
I think he calculated he could expand or set up a buffer state, neutralize a perceived threat, and deal a blow to the US. I think, like most leaders now and in the past, he doesn’t really factor in human lives except to the extent that the domestic populace will revolt or it will weaken the states’ ability to project power in the future.
The fact that the madman portrayal was the chosen narrative by the same group with direct experience interacting with Putin is inexcusable unless they believed that he would never appear in media in the West. If they had chosen to use the ex-KGB ruthless killer that became dictator portrayal it would have made more sense, been far closer to the truth imho, and avoided all of the problems they will now have. It seems to me the choice to go with the madman frame was made to preclude negotiations.
Frankly this whole thing reminds me of WWI. An ultimately pointless conflict between arrogant powers. It was entirely avoidable, but no one with an ability to influence the outcome cared enough about the people affected to try.
gotham_now /
npub1hs…wd0eq
2024-02-09 17:09:18
in reply to nevent1q…6jt0
Author Public Key
npub1hsmldrz2cj4gqeg07h6fvysd5l6slszpeuah9pjaydd8gxmu7nhs5wd0eqPublished at
2024-02-09 17:09:18Event JSON
{
"id": "1fee4e92ac459de9cbf49f105241da3f442042891ff7ce56659cc6a0d51e344b",
"pubkey": "bc37f68c4ac4aa80650ff5f496120da7f50fc041cf3b72865d235a741b7cf4ef",
"created_at": 1707498558,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1857d97ea63079eaa0c23d27540b5eeecf004062c11dcca0037c85ff6e0e4ac9"
],
[
"e",
"0d5cb7e62622e9e6e5026d61b1558dbc18db5fda9297db063cdafa08119f649f"
],
[
"p",
"da761b4153a1844dc03ad505fc08d125d4bb054d7cf4a4fe06de3df77a45fd85"
]
],
"content": "No worries. \n\nHis mindset of territory, unification, and religion among a common people (the definition of which seems mostly based on what is useful at any given point) reminds me most of kings from European history. \n\nI think he calculated he could expand or set up a buffer state, neutralize a perceived threat, and deal a blow to the US. I think, like most leaders now and in the past, he doesn’t really factor in human lives except to the extent that the domestic populace will revolt or it will weaken the states’ ability to project power in the future. \n\nThe fact that the madman portrayal was the chosen narrative by the same group with direct experience interacting with Putin is inexcusable unless they believed that he would never appear in media in the West. If they had chosen to use the ex-KGB ruthless killer that became dictator portrayal it would have made more sense, been far closer to the truth imho, and avoided all of the problems they will now have. It seems to me the choice to go with the madman frame was made to preclude negotiations.\n\nFrankly this whole thing reminds me of WWI. An ultimately pointless conflict between arrogant powers. It was entirely avoidable, but no one with an ability to influence the outcome cared enough about the people affected to try.",
"sig": "d9196bd6b734e1f35ba9d25f92568025e932f17f4d054cdba5ee1cbf5634ba91dedbafc5b4618db6b21a79614d7d03b897be6010277c42f60d61ba1c5f84fca1"
}