Military Bullshit – Escaping from Bullshit

What is the probability that Ukraine sends a ballistic missle on the parade in Moscow on may 9?

ChatGPT said:

There is no publicly available evidence or credible indication suggesting that Ukraine intends to launch a ballistic missile strike on the May 9 parade in Moscow. The probability of such an event is extremely low, for several reasons:

Escalation Risk: A direct strike on a high-profile event in Moscow would likely trigger a severe escalation from Russia, including broader military retaliation. Ukraine and its allies have strong incentives to avoid this.
Western Constraints: Ukraine relies heavily on Western military and political support. Many Western countries have imposed strict limitations on the use of weapons they supply, especially prohibiting attacks deep within Russian territory to avoid broadening the conflict.
Strategic Doctrine: Ukraine’s military strategy has focused more on disrupting supply lines, targeting military infrastructure near the front lines, and hitting logistics hubs in occupied Ukrainian territories — not symbolic attacks in the Russian capital.
Defensive Capabilities: Moscow has advanced air defense systems. Any missile launch toward the city would likely be intercepted and used as a propaganda opportunity by Russia.

In summary, while the war is unpredictable and Ukraine has shown growing capabilities, the likelihood of a ballistic missile attack on the May 9 parade is remote due to military, political, and strategic considerations.

Would you like a broader assessment of potential security incidents on May 9?

You said:

yes

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a broader assessment of potential security incidents on May 9 (“Victory Day”) in Russia, with a focus on Moscow and other key cities, especially in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine and domestic tensions:

1. Symbolic Importance and Heightened Security

Victory Day is one of the most politically important holidays in Russia, commemorating the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany.
The Kremlin uses the day for domestic unity and military signaling.
Security in Moscow and other major cities is always extraordinarily tight, and even more so during wartime.

2. Possible Types of Incidents

a. Drone Attacks

Most likely threat given Ukraine’s past use of drones on Russian territory.
Low-cost, harder to detect, and capable of symbolic strikes (e.g., previous incidents at the Kremlin and oil refineries).
Russia has extensive anti-drone systems deployed, especially in Moscow, but full prevention is difficult.

b. Cyberattacks

Cyber operations targeting media broadcasts, parade coordination, or online propaganda are a realistic risk.
Ukrainian or pro-Ukrainian groups could attempt hacks during live events for psychological impact.

c. Sabotage/Partisan Activity

Low-level sabotage in border regions or occupied Ukrainian territories (like Crimea or Donetsk) is more plausible than action in Moscow.
Russian authorities have arrested multiple alleged saboteurs in recent months.

d. Missile/Long-Range Strikes

Unlikely in Moscow, as discussed earlier. Ukraine has conducted strikes on Russian military targets in occupied territories or border regions like Belgorod or Bryansk.
Ballistic or long-range cruise missile strikes deep inside Russia remain extremely rare.

e. False Flag Operations

There is a non-zero risk of staged or misrepresented attacks being used for domestic propaganda or to justify escalation.
Such incidents have been speculated upon during prior phases of the war.

3. Russian Domestic Measures

Public access to Victory Day parades has been restricted or canceled in some regions in recent years due to security concerns.
Drone bans and airspace closures may be enforced around key cities on or near May 9.
Military and police presence will be elevated, and facial recognition systems in Moscow are already used to monitor potential threats.

4. Ukrainian and Western Posture

Ukraine tends to time strikes and messaging to counter Russian narratives, but generally avoids acts that could cause a sharp escalation.
NATO and Western intelligence agencies monitor the situation closely and often discourage Ukraine from crossing red lines like attacks on Red Square or civilian targets in Moscow.

Summary Outlook for May 9, 2025

Threat Type	Likelihood	Notes
Drone Attack (symbolic)	Moderate	Possible in border areas or symbolic infrastructure, not the parade itself
Cyberattack	Moderate-High	Non-lethal but potentially disruptive
Sabotage	Low-Moderate	More likely in occupied territories or logistics hubs
Missile Strike (Moscow)	Very Low	Politically and strategically risky for Ukraine
False Flag Incident	Unknown	Historically plausible in Russia’s playbook

Wars and the Will of single individuals

Is it true that wars have been started mostly by the will of single individuals?

ChatGPT said:

It is partially true, but it oversimplifies a complex reality.

Many wars have indeed been initiated under the strong influence—or even direct orders—of single individuals, especially autocrats, monarchs, or dictators. For example:

Adolf Hitler played a central role in starting World War II.
Napoleon Bonaparte was instrumental in the Napoleonic Wars.
Genghis Khan personally led the Mongol conquests.

However, most wars are not solely the product of one person’s will. They typically result from a confluence of factors:

Political structures: Even kings and dictators often rely on a supporting elite, military apparatus, or bureaucracy.
Economic pressures: Competition for resources, trade routes, or wealth often plays a role.
Ideologies and nationalism: Beliefs about race, religion, or national destiny can motivate entire populations.
Security dilemmas: Mutual fear and preemptive logic (e.g., “they might attack first”) can lead to war even without a clear aggressor.
Historical grievances: Longstanding territorial or cultural conflicts often underlie wars.

In democracies or republics, war decisions usually go through collective political processes, making them less dependent on a single individual’s will (though charismatic or forceful leaders still influence outcomes).

In summary: individuals can catalyze or accelerate war, especially in centralized systems, but wars usually emerge from broader systemic conditions.

Would you like examples from a specific historical period?

You said:

the conditions you speak of are factors which encourage leaders to go to war. no?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, exactly — the conditions I mentioned are enabling or encouraging factors, not causes in themselves unless someone acts on them. Wars don’t happen unless someone—usually a leader or small group—chooses to go to war, even if the choice is pressured by circumstances.

So, you’re right to suggest that:

Conditions like economic stress, nationalism, or fear don’t start wars on their own.
It still takes intentional human agency, typically at the level of leadership, to initiate war.

In that sense, the will of individuals—especially those with power—is the decisive cause, while broader conditions form the context or justification.

This is especially clear when leaders ignore peaceful alternatives or escalate situations that could have been de-escalated.

Do you think this implies that war is more a moral decision than a structural inevitability?

You said:

yes

ChatGPT said:

That’s a strong and philosophically important position—and one many thinkers have argued: that war is fundamentally a moral choice, not a historical or structural necessity.

If you see war as a moral decision, then:

Responsibility rests squarely with those who choose violence, even if pressures exist.
Structural causes (economics, alliances, historical grievances) are not excuses, but challenges to be overcome by moral restraint.
Leaders who wage war do so because they will it, not because they must.

This idea resonates with thinkers like Leo Tolstoy, who argued against deterministic views of history, insisting that human free will and moral accountability shape events. It’s also echoed in Just War Theory, which assumes war must be morally justified, and not just historically inevitable.

Some critics, though, might argue that leaders themselves are shaped by systemic forces—and their decisions are constrained by what’s politically or socially possible.

Create image

The Russian Invasion: for appeasement and against

It is agreed by most people that Russia invaded Ukraine. Some consider this a war crime against international law. But some want Ukraine to capitulate to Russia, while others want Russia to withdraw. List the prominent figures on one side and the other, name at least 10

ChatGPT said:

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has sparked intense debates, with prominent figures on both sides expressing strong opinions. Below is a list of individuals and figures who have been associated with the major positions on either side of the conflict:

Those Advocating for Ukraine’s Resistance and Russia’s Withdrawal:

Volodymyr Zelenskyy – President of Ukraine, leading the Ukrainian resistance and advocating for Russia’s withdrawal.
Joe Biden – President of the United States, supporting Ukraine with military aid and sanctions against Russia.
Boris Johnson – Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, a strong advocate for Ukraine, providing military aid and support.
Emmanuel Macron – President of France, while advocating for diplomacy, he has generally supported Ukraine’s sovereignty and criticized Russia’s actions.
Ursula von der Leyen – President of the European Commission, pushing for sanctions on Russia and support for Ukraine’s defense.
Olaf Scholz – Chancellor of Germany, initially hesitant but now providing significant military aid and backing sanctions against Russia.
Justin Trudeau – Prime Minister of Canada, offering military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
Annalena Baerbock – German Foreign Minister, a vocal advocate for Ukraine, calling for strong measures against Russia.
Andriy Yermak – Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, an important figure in Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts to gain international support.
David Petraeus – Former CIA Director and military officer, has supported Ukraine’s resistance and the necessity of military aid to counter Russia’s aggression.

Those Advocating for Diplomatic Solutions, De-escalation, or Favoring Russia:

Vladimir Putin – President of Russia, the key figure behind the invasion of Ukraine, advocating for Ukraine’s capitulation or alignment with Russian interests.
Alexander Dugin – Russian philosopher and political theorist, a strong supporter of Russia’s expansionist policies.
Marine Le Pen – Leader of the French far-right party, National Rally, has expressed sympathetic views toward Russia and has been critical of Western support for Ukraine.
Donald Trump – Former President of the United States, has made statements suggesting that he would pursue better relations with Russia and criticized Biden’s approach to the war.
Sergei Lavrov – Russian Foreign Minister, a key advocate for Russia’s justification of the invasion and its diplomatic stance.
Rand Paul – U.S. Senator, a vocal critic of excessive U.S. aid to Ukraine, advocating for diplomatic negotiations to end the conflict.
Tucker Carlson – American television personality, has expressed views critical of U.S. involvement in the conflict and has been sympathetic to Russia’s stance.
Bashar al-Assad – Syrian President, a close ally of Russia, has supported Russia’s actions in Ukraine and criticized the West’s response.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán – A European leader critical of EU sanctions on Russia and advocating for dialogue and a negotiated settlement.
Jair Bolsonaro – Former President of Brazil, maintained a neutral stance and expressed admiration for Russia’s leadership during the conflict.

These figures represent a range of geopolitical, ideological, and strategic viewpoints on the conflict, from advocating for Ukraine’s sovereignty and support for international law, to questioning the role of the West in the conflict and seeking a negotiated settlement or a shift in alignment.

You said:

name 10 commentators and historians

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a list of 10 prominent commentators and historians who have provided insights on the Russia-Ukraine conflict from various perspectives:

Commentators Supporting Ukraine and Opposing Russia:

Anne Applebaum – Historian and journalist, known for her commentary on Eastern Europe, Russia, and Ukraine. She has strongly criticized Russia’s invasion and supports Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Timothy Snyder – Historian and author of Bloodlands and The Road to Unfreedom, Snyder has written extensively about the historical context of Eastern Europe and Russia’s actions, condemning the invasion.
Masha Gessen – Russian-American journalist and author, Gessen has been outspoken in criticizing Russia’s authoritarianism and its invasion of Ukraine.
David Remnick – Editor of The New Yorker and a noted journalist, Remnick has written critically about Putin and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Michael McFaul – Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, McFaul is a scholar of Russian politics and has provided expert commentary on the conflict, supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and U.S. involvement.
Fiona Hill – Former U.S. National Security Council official and expert on Russia, Hill has offered insights into Putin’s worldview and the implications of the invasion of Ukraine.
Angela Stent – Author and expert on Russian foreign policy, Stent has written extensively about the Putin regime and has criticized Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Ivo Daalder – Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Daalder has provided commentary on the importance of NATO’s role in the conflict and has supported Ukraine’s right to self-determination.
Richard Haass – President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Haass has been vocal about the need for a strong Western response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and has written about the broader implications for global order.
Steven Pifer – Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and expert on Ukrainian and Russian affairs, Pifer has been a vocal advocate for Ukraine’s sovereignty and has written about the importance of U.S. and Western support.

Commentators or Historians Sympathetic to Russia or Critical of Western Support:

John Mearsheimer – Political scientist and international relations scholar, Mearsheimer has argued that NATO’s expansion provoked Russia’s aggression and has suggested that the West played a role in escalating the conflict.
Stephen F. Cohen – Late historian of Russia, Cohen was one of the most prominent critics of U.S. policies towards Russia and Ukraine, arguing for a more diplomatic approach and engaging with Russian concerns.
Gilbert Doctorow – Political analyst and commentator, Doctorow has been critical of Western policies towards Russia and has advocated for a more balanced approach in dealing with the conflict.
Peter Hitchens – British journalist and commentator, Hitchens has been critical of NATO and Western involvement in the conflict, arguing that the West is exacerbating tensions with Russia.
George Friedman – Geopolitical analyst and founder of Stratfor, Friedman has provided a nuanced take on the geopolitical dimensions of the conflict, often highlighting Russia’s strategic concerns and the dangers of NATO’s eastward expansion.
Sergei Karaganov – Russian political scientist, Karaganov has been a vocal advocate for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, supporting Russia’s right to protect its interests and security.
Vladimir Pozner – Russian-American television personality and journalist, Pozner has been critical of Western media portrayals of the conflict and has supported Russia’s stance on the issue.
Alexander Mercouris – British lawyer and commentator, Mercouris has been a prominent voice on YouTube and other platforms, offering commentary that tends to support Russia’s narrative and criticize Western involvement.
Mikhail Gorbachev – The last leader of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev has expressed concerns over NATO’s expansion and its role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, though he did not justify the invasion itself.
Eugene Rumer – Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Rumer has provided a critical perspective on the role of the U.S. and NATO in the conflict, advocating for a diplomatic resolution that takes Russian concerns into account.

These commentators and historians bring a range of perspectives on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, reflecting both Western and Russian views, as well as varied positions on NATO, international law, and the broader geopolitical implications.Attach

Reason

How is Ukraine doing with its war with Russia?

ChatGPT said:

As of March 5, 2025, Ukraine’s conflict with Russia has seen significant developments:

U.S. Military Aid and Intelligence Sharing Paused: The United States has suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed this pause, which stems from President Trump’s concerns over Ukraine’s commitment to peace negotiations and disputes regarding a minerals investment deal. New York Post
European Union’s Response: In reaction to the U.S. stance, European Union leaders are convening emergency talks to discuss increasing defense budgets and reducing reliance on U.S. military support. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized the need for the EU to manage its defense independently. apnews.com
Diplomatic Efforts for Peace: French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are collaborating on a peace plan for Ukraine. Macron has also expressed openness to extending France’s nuclear deterrent to European allies, highlighting concerns over Russia’s threat to Europe. theguardian.com
Ukrainian Offensive in Kursk: Since August 2024, Ukraine has been conducting an offensive into Russia’s Kursk Oblast, marking a significant escalation in the conflict. This incursion has diverted Russian military resources and exposed vulnerabilities in Russia’s border defenses. en.wikipedia.org

These developments underscore a complex and evolving situation, with shifting alliances and ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the conflict.

Global Reactions Intensify Amid Ukraine-Russia Conflict

thetimes.co.uk

Ukraine war latest: Washington and Kyiv to hold more talks on peace efforts

Today

apnews.comEU leaders to hold emergency Ukraine talks, seeking to adapt to new security demands without the USToday theguardian.comMacron open to extending France’s nuclear umbrella to European allies as US reconsiders Ukraine funding – liveToday

Sources

Russian hybrid warfare

ChatGPT said:

Russian hybrid warfare refers to a strategy that blends conventional military force with irregular tactics, cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, economic pressure, and other non-military means to achieve political and strategic objectives. It’s a form of warfare that doesn’t rely solely on traditional methods like battlefield engagements, but instead uses a variety of instruments to undermine a target without triggering a full-scale war.

One key aspect is the use of disinformation and propaganda, which aims to destabilize the political environment of the target country, confuse the public, and influence elections or public opinion. The Russian government, for example, has been accused of using social media bots and fake news during elections in the U.S. and Europe.

Cyberattacks are another major component of hybrid warfare. These include hacking into critical infrastructure, stealing sensitive data, or disrupting communication systems to create chaos. A notable example is the 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia, widely attributed to Russian hackers, which targeted government, banking, and media systems.

Proxy forces also play a big role. Russia has been known to support separatist movements or insurgent groups in places like Ukraine (Eastern Ukraine conflict) and Syria. By using proxy groups, Russia can act with deniability, avoiding direct confrontation while still achieving its goals.

Economic leverage is often used, such as through the manipulation of energy supplies or sanctions, to pressure governments into submission or compliance. Russia has used its control over energy pipelines to influence the political climate in Europe, particularly when it comes to gas supplies.

The term “hybrid warfare” gained wider attention after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, where a combination of unmarked soldiers (often referred to as “little green men”), cyberattacks, media manipulation, and political destabilization tactics were employed to achieve territorial expansion with minimal direct military engagement.

Russia’s approach to hybrid warfare is strategic in nature, aiming to create ambiguity and blur the lines between war and peace, making it harder for opponents to respond effectively within traditional frameworks. It’s a flexible and adaptable strategy, making it difficult for adversaries to prepare or retaliate in a conventional sense.

Warmongering Netanjahu

I am against giving power to any single individual – be it a monarch, a president, or prime minister. I prefer the government of Switzerland, where power is diffused among seven members of a Federal Council.

The history of wars is predominantly a history of single leaders.

The current war against Ukraine is the decision of one man: Putin.

And the current genocide of Gaza is also the decision of a single leader: Benjamin Netanjahu, the Prime Minister of Israel.

But he has recently tried to deflect world attention from his genocide of Gaza by destroying the Iranian consulate in Syria on April 1, 2024. This was a deliberate attempt to get Iran to respond, which it did.

For many years now, Netanjahu has tried to get the US to attack Iran for harboring a nuclear weapons program – akin to the charge against Iraq for harboring a program for weapons of mass destruction.

If this lunatic is not removed, he may plunge the world into World War III.

750+ U.S. Military Bases around the world

David Vine, Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World – August 25, 2015.

The study of American bases was extesively studied previously by Chalmers Johnson in the following trilogy:

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of the American Empire, 2000.

The Sorrow of Empire; Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, 2004.

Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, 2006.

Thinking about assassinations

Yesterday’s assassination of Jovenal Moise, the President of Haiti, on July 7, 2021, made me think about assassinations in general.

To begin, what is an assassination? Of course, it is a type of killing. But whereas unjustified intentional killings are called “murders,” an assassination in some sense transcends that label. It is a targeted killing for some political, economic, or ideological reason; normally, of some prominent individual.

By contrast, in warfare, a sniper’s killing of a general or a king is not likely to be called an assassination.

Let me distinguish bottom-up and top-down assassinations. The assassination of a President or some government official is a bottom-up assassination, and these are the assassinations which we are familiar with. Here is a list: List of assassinations

However, when a ruler targets someone to assassinate, this goes by the euphemistic phrase of “targeted killing.” Lists of such attempted and successful assassinations (“targeted killings”) can be found here:List of assassinations by the United States; List of Soviet and Russian assassinations; List of Israeli assassinations.

See: Nils Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law, 2008; Claire Finkelstein, Jens David Ohlin, and Andrew Altman (ed.), Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, 2012; Ronen Bergman, Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations, 2018.

Most such “targeted killings” have been covert. The first nearly overt one which caught my attention was the U.S. invasion of Panama by President George H. W. Bush on Dec. 20, 1989 in order to capture Manuel Noriega. To me this was worse than any “targeted killing,” because it involved the killing of needless American soldiers and some 500 Panamanian civilians.

After 9/11, with the so-called “war on terror” and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, “targeted killings” became something like a common practice. Under President Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden, Answar al-Awlaki and his son were assassinated, and killing by the use of drones became a standard procedure.

The other assassination which looms large in my mind was that of Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, approved by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman.

This practice of “targeted killings” as a strategy, rather than being a “war on terror,” has tended to create something approaching a totalitarian state of terror!

Bottom-Up Assassinations

Given that most governments are in the hands of single rulers (be they monarchs, presidents, or prime-ministers), they tend to be ambitious, greedy, inept, or ruthless. And the intent of most assassinations of prominent officials is simply to get rid of a perceived evil vermin.

There is one prominent exception that I can think of. It is the assassination of Emperor Alexander II of Russia in 1881 by Narodnaya Volya. Their hope was not to kill a man, but to kill a system — to start a revolution, which did not materialize.

What is the difference between a Mercenary and a Paid Soldier?

“People view soldiers like wives and mercenaries as prostitutes, who turn love into a transaction. But every soldier has a little mercenary in him, and vice versa. Troops often reenlist for big bonuses, a transactional practice common in most militaries. For example, the U.S. Army sometimes offers up to $90,000 for Soldiers to reenlist, enough to make modern mercenaries salivate. The author has also seen mercenaries refuse jobs on political grounds. Some American-hired guns will never take money from Russia, China, Iran, or a terrorist group; America’s enemies are their enemies. The line between soldier and mercenary is fuzzy.” Sean McFate, Mercenaries and War: Understanding Private Armies Today, National Defense University Press, 2019.

Interview with Sean McFate about mercenaries