The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Open Thread 227

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Here’s a new Open Thread for all of you. To minimize the load, please continue to limit your Tweets or place them under a MORE tag.

Meanwhile, I’d also recommend a couple of my recent pieces, one on Race/IQ and the other on the new revelations regarding the origins of Covid:

https://www.unz.com/runz/the-forbidden-topic-race-and-iq/

https://www.unz.com/runz/secret-intelligence-leaks-vs-basic-common-sense/

On the latter point, I’d recommend watching this Tucker Carlson interview with RFK Jr.:

https://youtu.be/lKkanHZBTFg?t=2220

Video Link

And I’d strongly recommend this Jeffrey Sachs interview from a couple of days ago:


Video Link

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Ukraine 
Hide 1016 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Peter Zeihan may not have the academic credentials of the thoroughly discredited Jeffery Sachs. However, Zeihan does have a better track record of accuracy. (1)

    • Product that was normally produced for export from China is now being locked up within the Chinese system at the same time that the population is purchasing less. You have an oversupply of goods and an under demand, both at home and abroad. With all those extra goods prices go down, and you get deflation.”

    • “The Chinese economic system isn’t really based on exports or consumption, it’s based on investment, the idea that the state fosters mass borrowing in order to build industrial plant infrastructure. Based on whose numbers you’re using, those are somewhere between 40-70% of the entirety of the Chinese economy, and has generated the vast majority of economic growth.”

    • “You can only do that for so long. Eventually you don’t need any more bridges, or any more factories, and I would argue the Chinese reached that point before Covid. Again, there’s been this three, four year lag between reality and the data finally manifesting.”
    More spending won’t help.

    It is also important to note that gradual decoupling from CCP goods is NOT inflationary. (2)

    New Trade Analysis Shows Longevity of President Trump’s Tariffs Diminishing Chinese Imports – China fell from 21.6% of U.S. imports in 2017 to 16.5% in 2022

    New analysis of the long-term impact from Section 301 tariffs triggered by President Trump against China, shows just how consequential economic nationalism can become.

    Our own analysis of U.S. consumer prices in 2019 showed that prices of imported goods actually declined despite the tariffs. A recent report from CPA takes a look at the impact to Chinese exports to the U.S. Bottom line, the tariffs worked to reduce Chinese imports.

    With the leading opponent to President Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, not supporting tariffs on behalf of the multinationals and Club for Growth donors who stand behind him, it’s worth revisiting the actual outcome to American consumers to dispel the popular myths about tariffs raising prices here at home.

    Most of the analysis is, for obvious reasons, looking at data before the CCP lost control of their WUHAN-19 virus. There are more detailed statistics in the article.

    Did CCP officials intentionally release the virus to cover up their own poor economic performance? That is much more plausible than a shady international conspiracy. All it takes is an idiot with more authority than competence. Plus, an easily cowed workforce trained to blindly obey government/party authority.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=55592

    (2) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/07/01/new-trade-analysis-shows-longevity-of-president-trumps-tariffs-diminishing-chinese-imports-china-fell-from-21-6-of-u-s-imports-in-2017-to-16-5-in-2022/

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • LOL: Sean
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @A123

    On some issues. On Russia related matters of recent note, Zeihan isn't.

    Replies: @A123

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @A123

    Zeihan is Lockheed Boeing whore. Your comment is idiotic.

    Replies: @A123

    , @Wokechoke
    @A123

    This is grasping at straws.

    The Chinks are back after 300 years of hurt.

  2. @A123
    Peter Zeihan may not have the academic credentials of the thoroughly discredited Jeffery Sachs. However, Zeihan does have a better track record of accuracy. (1)


    https://youtu.be/A9-wfHgjTB8

    • Product that was normally produced for export from China is now being locked up within the Chinese system at the same time that the population is purchasing less. You have an oversupply of goods and an under demand, both at home and abroad. With all those extra goods prices go down, and you get deflation.”

    • “The Chinese economic system isn’t really based on exports or consumption, it’s based on investment, the idea that the state fosters mass borrowing in order to build industrial plant infrastructure. Based on whose numbers you’re using, those are somewhere between 40-70% of the entirety of the Chinese economy, and has generated the vast majority of economic growth.”

    • “You can only do that for so long. Eventually you don’t need any more bridges, or any more factories, and I would argue the Chinese reached that point before Covid. Again, there’s been this three, four year lag between reality and the data finally manifesting.”
    More spending won’t help.
     
    It is also important to note that gradual decoupling from CCP goods is NOT inflationary. (2)

    New Trade Analysis Shows Longevity of President Trump’s Tariffs Diminishing Chinese Imports – China fell from 21.6% of U.S. imports in 2017 to 16.5% in 2022

     

    New analysis of the long-term impact from Section 301 tariffs triggered by President Trump against China, shows just how consequential economic nationalism can become.

    Our own analysis of U.S. consumer prices in 2019 showed that prices of imported goods actually declined despite the tariffs. A recent report from CPA takes a look at the impact to Chinese exports to the U.S. Bottom line, the tariffs worked to reduce Chinese imports.

    With the leading opponent to President Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, not supporting tariffs on behalf of the multinationals and Club for Growth donors who stand behind him, it’s worth revisiting the actual outcome to American consumers to dispel the popular myths about tariffs raising prices here at home.
     
    Most of the analysis is, for obvious reasons, looking at data before the CCP lost control of their WUHAN-19 virus. There are more detailed statistics in the article.

    Did CCP officials intentionally release the virus to cover up their own poor economic performance? That is much more plausible than a shady international conspiracy. All it takes is an idiot with more authority than competence. Plus, an easily cowed workforce trained to blindly obey government/party authority.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=55592

    (2) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/07/01/new-trade-analysis-shows-longevity-of-president-trumps-tariffs-diminishing-chinese-imports-china-fell-from-21-6-of-u-s-imports-in-2017-to-16-5-in-2022/

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Wokechoke

    On some issues. On Russia related matters of recent note, Zeihan isn’t.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Mikhail


    On some issues. On Russia related matters of recent note, Zeihan isn’t.
     
    It would be better if Zeihan "stuck to his lane". His expertise are commercial technology and Asia. The further he gets away from those topics the more likely he is to stumble into error.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC

  3. • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    That's a fascinating lineup of known Putin supporters that are here to give us the weekly report on how Russia moving backwards is actually forward progress.

    The Ukrainians have actually pushed far enough to where they can attack remaining Crimean supply lines with artillery:

    https://youtu.be/YcgK4eNnOXM?t=17

    Oh and Alexander Mercouris is a disbarred lawyer who was caught engaging in fraud:
    https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/07/barrister-who-was-disbarred-after-forging-lady-hale-letter-sued-for-200000-by-ex-client/

    He has since switched to bootin' for Putin.

    Putin really attracts some quality defenders.

    A convicted sex offender, a disbarred lawyer, and of course Steven Seagal.

    Just a dream team line up to defend a mass murdering dwarf.

    Oh and we could add Anglin, a self-described White nationalist who openly hates White women and fled to Asia after being ordered to pay restitution over harassing a small town Jew in a completely pointless and stupid case.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  4. Here is the most recent poll showing Trump’s strength with independents (1).

    If you go into the cross tabs for INDEPENDENTS only:

    Trump — 35.1%
    Biden — 29.7%
    Cornell West — 6.9%
    Undecided — 28.3%

    Really it is too early for these numbers to be particularly meaningful. However, it debunks the obviously bogus claim that Trump is unappealing to moderate swing voters. They are clearly up for grabs. Trump has a great deal of time to improve his popularity further.

    At some point, the DNC will have to stop hiding the Veggie-in-Chief away from the public. So, there is a highly likely Democrat down side when the gaffes start flowing like manna.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://emersoncollegepolling.com/august-2023-national-poll-trump-debate-snub-may-open-door-for-other-candidates/

  5. @A123
    Peter Zeihan may not have the academic credentials of the thoroughly discredited Jeffery Sachs. However, Zeihan does have a better track record of accuracy. (1)


    https://youtu.be/A9-wfHgjTB8

    • Product that was normally produced for export from China is now being locked up within the Chinese system at the same time that the population is purchasing less. You have an oversupply of goods and an under demand, both at home and abroad. With all those extra goods prices go down, and you get deflation.”

    • “The Chinese economic system isn’t really based on exports or consumption, it’s based on investment, the idea that the state fosters mass borrowing in order to build industrial plant infrastructure. Based on whose numbers you’re using, those are somewhere between 40-70% of the entirety of the Chinese economy, and has generated the vast majority of economic growth.”

    • “You can only do that for so long. Eventually you don’t need any more bridges, or any more factories, and I would argue the Chinese reached that point before Covid. Again, there’s been this three, four year lag between reality and the data finally manifesting.”
    More spending won’t help.
     
    It is also important to note that gradual decoupling from CCP goods is NOT inflationary. (2)

    New Trade Analysis Shows Longevity of President Trump’s Tariffs Diminishing Chinese Imports – China fell from 21.6% of U.S. imports in 2017 to 16.5% in 2022

     

    New analysis of the long-term impact from Section 301 tariffs triggered by President Trump against China, shows just how consequential economic nationalism can become.

    Our own analysis of U.S. consumer prices in 2019 showed that prices of imported goods actually declined despite the tariffs. A recent report from CPA takes a look at the impact to Chinese exports to the U.S. Bottom line, the tariffs worked to reduce Chinese imports.

    With the leading opponent to President Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, not supporting tariffs on behalf of the multinationals and Club for Growth donors who stand behind him, it’s worth revisiting the actual outcome to American consumers to dispel the popular myths about tariffs raising prices here at home.
     
    Most of the analysis is, for obvious reasons, looking at data before the CCP lost control of their WUHAN-19 virus. There are more detailed statistics in the article.

    Did CCP officials intentionally release the virus to cover up their own poor economic performance? That is much more plausible than a shady international conspiracy. All it takes is an idiot with more authority than competence. Plus, an easily cowed workforce trained to blindly obey government/party authority.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=55592

    (2) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/07/01/new-trade-analysis-shows-longevity-of-president-trumps-tariffs-diminishing-chinese-imports-china-fell-from-21-6-of-u-s-imports-in-2017-to-16-5-in-2022/

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Wokechoke

    Zeihan is Lockheed Boeing whore. Your comment is idiotic.

    • Agree: LondonBob
    • LOL: A123
    • Replies: @A123
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    The CCP buys Boeing: (1)


    China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd. is the likely customer to take delivery of the first Max upon resumption, he said.

    As of the end of July, Boeing has 118 unfilled Max orders all destined for China, 34 of which are for China Southern. Boeing also has orders for 25 777 widebody jets as well as as 11 787 “Dreamliner” from Chinese airlines, Herbert said.

     

    Your comment is lobotomite gibbering.

    PEACE 😇
    ___________

    (1) https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/boeing-s-737-max-sales-to-china-is-a-significant-positive-for-jet-maker/ar-AA1fMG56
  6. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @A123

    Zeihan is Lockheed Boeing whore. Your comment is idiotic.

    Replies: @A123

    The CCP buys Boeing: (1)

    China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd. is the likely customer to take delivery of the first Max upon resumption, he said.

    As of the end of July, Boeing has 118 unfilled Max orders all destined for China, 34 of which are for China Southern. Boeing also has orders for 25 777 widebody jets as well as as 11 787 “Dreamliner” from Chinese airlines, Herbert said.

    Your comment is lobotomite gibbering.

    PEACE 😇
    ___________

    (1) https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/boeing-s-737-max-sales-to-china-is-a-significant-positive-for-jet-maker/ar-AA1fMG56

  7. @Mikhail
    @A123

    On some issues. On Russia related matters of recent note, Zeihan isn't.

    Replies: @A123

    On some issues. On Russia related matters of recent note, Zeihan isn’t.

    It would be better if Zeihan “stuck to his lane”. His expertise are commercial technology and Asia. The further he gets away from those topics the more likely he is to stumble into error.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @A123

    Zeihan strikes me as one of the biggest Gen-X blowhards I have ever listed to [I haven't listened to your link yet]. To be fair I have scrupulously avoided TED talks as tempting as they may be. Some initial comments Zeihan has made in past talks were sensible but after a while the big picture seemed so far off I felt dirty :(

  8. Iraqi Information Minister reviews
    Forbidden Science 5; the journals of Jacques Vallee 2000-2009
    Anomalist Books, 2023, 562 pages

    If you would like one book which encapsulates everything important in UFO’s currently in the newspapers and on the television and on the internet news, you cannot do better than this book. There are no reliable narrators in this subject, but Jacques Vallee is the least unreliable. He has first hand reports on all the major issues. In order of importance:

    1. The Advanced Aerospace Weapons Program. This was a program funded by the U. S. Government beginning in 2008. Multiple tens millions dollars funding and contracted out to credentialed civilian research scientists. The instigator was Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. The chief manager was Harry Reid’s long time personal friend and rich campaign donor Robert Bigelow. The technical lead was Colm Kelleher who previously supervised Bigelow’s private research effort at Skinwalker Ranch. Vallee was involved from day one, intermittently, with limited enthusiasm. Much of the subject was classified top secret government data controlled by intelligence officers who have burned Jacques Vallee on previous occasions countless times. For the bad faith behavior of these maximally unreliable individuals see the previous four volumes of Vallee’s journals.

    2. The tic tac Nimitz incident. Covered ad nauseum in other outlets but Vallee knew about it as soon as anybody who wasn’t there. One of the pilots was subsequently employed by Bigelow in the 2008-? project. Doug Kerth. This episode is short and not conclusive.

    3. The Wilson-Davis memo leak of the century. Richard Dolan’s terminology. Vallee just calls it the Wilson-Davis memo. There is a memo that was written by Eric Davis quoting an interview with former DIA head Thomas Wilson reporting a conversation with an anonymous civilian defense contractor manager from an unnamed civilian defense contractor claiming he knew of a recovered space ship “clearly not of this earth and not made by human hands” the contractor is working to reverse engineer. This is supposedly worthy of much fuss but Vallee is not impressed. Davis from Wilson from closest hand is at minimum third hand information.

    This is utterly worthless and if Dolan really believes it is the leak of the century we ain’t doing that hot.

    _______________________________________________________________________

    There is a bunch of other great information in the book padded with the mundane details of Vallee’s life. His wife died in January 2010 from glioblastoma. This is 100% terminal and takes you out quick. It is not known as Ted Kennedy’s disease but it was the last disease of Ted Kennedy.

    The physical reality of a transcendent unknown cannot yet be formulated into a scientific statement that makes sense.

    p. 415

    Anybody says otherwise is mistaken. Unless they are a government spook. In which case they are more likely lying their ass off.

    A huge batch of government reports went into a landfill when they went to computer files. The single best data base of every incident report ever anywhere on earth is probably Vallee’s. With the caveat that he only has investigated or credited reports where stuff was visible up in the sky or on the ground to somebody. If an alien comes into Whitley Strieber’s bedroom in the middle of the night and telepaths great dope into his mind, that is not something that Vallee takes note of. Nothing on the huge abductee contactee population with no UFO attached. So, nothing on the CIA officer (there are actually two) who reports he was visited.

  9. I don’t believe that Prigozhin faked his own death, but just to use it as a springboard… I wonder how difficult it would be to seed human remains with your own DNA, such that the bog standard forensics tests would identify the corpse as you.

    I’m thinking it might possible with a skeleton, but difficult with a cadaver.

    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
    @songbird

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnS20_YwBF4


    Prigozhin is still alive, thats how he did it

    Replies: @QCIC, @Emil Nikola Richard

    , @Wokechoke
    @songbird

    That’s one dead Jew.

  10. @songbird
    I don't believe that Prigozhin faked his own death, but just to use it as a springboard... I wonder how difficult it would be to seed human remains with your own DNA, such that the bog standard forensics tests would identify the corpse as you.

    I'm thinking it might possible with a skeleton, but difficult with a cadaver.

    Replies: @(((They))) Live, @Wokechoke

    Prigozhin is still alive, thats how he did it

    • LOL: songbird
    • Replies: @QCIC
    @(((They))) Live

    There is no reason to believe DNA test results in this intrigue-filled scenario. Could it be true? Sure. Could they fool us? Duh.



    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epic-drug-lab-scandal-results-more-20-000-convictions-dropped-n747891

    Someone needs fake DNA test results. Prigozhin says "I know a guy" which probably sounds way cooler in Russian.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @(((They))) Live

    Now is not the time for fear!

    That comes later.

  11. @A123
    @Mikhail


    On some issues. On Russia related matters of recent note, Zeihan isn’t.
     
    It would be better if Zeihan "stuck to his lane". His expertise are commercial technology and Asia. The further he gets away from those topics the more likely he is to stumble into error.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC

    Zeihan strikes me as one of the biggest Gen-X blowhards I have ever listed to [I haven’t listened to your link yet]. To be fair I have scrupulously avoided TED talks as tempting as they may be. Some initial comments Zeihan has made in past talks were sensible but after a while the big picture seemed so far off I felt dirty 🙁

  12. @(((They))) Live
    @songbird

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnS20_YwBF4


    Prigozhin is still alive, thats how he did it

    Replies: @QCIC, @Emil Nikola Richard

    There is no reason to believe DNA test results in this intrigue-filled scenario. Could it be true? Sure. Could they fool us? Duh.

    [MORE]

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epic-drug-lab-scandal-results-more-20-000-convictions-dropped-n747891

    Someone needs fake DNA test results. Prigozhin says “I know a guy” which probably sounds way cooler in Russian.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @QCIC

    A hypothetical fake death of Prigozhin, would be a story like in some of the famous mafia films. For example, the story of the film "Once Upon in America".

    However, I'm not sure it would be too easy for him to hide after as he was one of the most famous celebrities in the world. In Russia or Belarus people would probably immediately identify him if he goes out. Probably even in Miami.

    He would need at least somewhere few people follow about the war in Ukraine, which might not be so many parts of the world. Maybe some distant parts of Africa or Latin America.

    Replies: @QCIC, @John Johnson

  13. @(((They))) Live
    @songbird

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnS20_YwBF4


    Prigozhin is still alive, thats how he did it

    Replies: @QCIC, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Now is not the time for fear!

    That comes later.

  14. What if China decides to transition from quantity to quality? Maybe they would turn their back on the Western world and let things catch up after the frenzied growth and prosperity of the past 30 years. What do they really need? Food and energy plus a few other things. Maybe they just need to produce enough to support the basics in terms of imports and exports and stay focussed on internal prosperity. In a productive sense they already have too much of almost everything. Maybe they need to prune a lot of the businesses they don’t need and go to the 30 hour work week, leaving more time for health, welfare and intellectual and spiritual pursuits. They have a lot of billionaires but the CPC can just tell them to go up the country if they don’t like it.

    If they keep increasing productivity it seems they may soon get to the point of having to give stuff away and then why bother?

    For energy maybe they should just clone Starship and put up solar power satellites.

    • Replies: @Adept
    @QCIC


    What if China decides to transition from quantity to quality?
     
    If you were in the market for industrial equipment 15 or 20 years ago, there was a trade-off: Chinese stuff was cheap and abundant but didn't perform as well, or as reliably, as what you could get from Japan or Europe. (Even then, America wasn't in the running.) Today, Chinese goods are not only still cheaper, they're also better in most cases.

    As a general rule: If you do high-volume manufacturing for long enough, and you stay in business and remain profitable for long enough, process improvements will eventually catch-up with you, and quality will improve.

    When it comes to making cars, the Chinese are no slouches, either. See:
    https://sundries.com.ua/en/the-most-reliable-chinese-car-brands-have-been-named/

    Chinese brands compare very well on reliability with global and American brands. And when it comes to electric car reliability, Tesla is trounced by many Chinese firms.

    This "Chinese = low quality" meme is out of date and doesn't really reflect reality.

    Replies: @Sean, @Emil Nikola Richard

    , @Dmitry
    @QCIC

    There are some better quality brands or products in some areas from China nowadays.

    The issue with middle income trap, is it even possible to transfer a significant part of the manufacturing to a more labor cost invariant areas.

    Also China is a very large economy, so this could be more difficult than for smaller countries, because probably most of the manufacturing in the world is labor cost variant and China's advantage is a low cost of labor. So, would there be enough demand in the world economy for the labor cost invariant manufacturing for a country as large as China to escape middle income trap.

  15. Ben Hodges on RT

    Re: https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/581941-ben-hodges-nato-proxy-war/

    The interviewer Afshin Rattansi, is a very good journalist, but not a military analyst (I can think of a few) who’d do an even better job at challenging the anti-Russian/pro-Kiev regime shill, who is on record for saying that the Kiev regime will retake Crimea by the end of this year – something not mentioned on this show.

    When the OSCE was brought up, no mention that said org noted an increase in Kiev regime firings on Donbass rebel territory in the weeks leading up to the start of Russia’s special military operation.

    Ben Hodges’ “Russia’s war against Ukraine” characterization isn’t as accurate as NATO’s proxy war against Russia. Russia patiently waited seven years for the Minsk Accords to be honored. The Kiev regime acknowledged it didn’t intend to honor the UN approved settlement plan. NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said that a war situation was evident on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR, in the years prior to 2022, with NATO arming and training the Kiev regime.

    Russia was content with a neutral Ukraine within its Communist drawn boundary. The Kiev regime’s persecution of a long-standing Ukrainian church, while allowing other churches to honor Stepan Bandera, is one of many examples of what the likes of Hodges choose to ignore.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Mikhail

    Hodges predicted that Russian invasion would not work. I think he is correct that the US could give Ukraine sufficient arm for them to win the war, but it is wishful thinking by him to assume Russia would probably not resort to nuclear weapon in order to stave off such a defeat.

    There were hegemonic dynamics on both sides in the run up to the invasion. Russia had relied on the threat of invasion to make Ukraine abide by the Russian interpretation of Minsk, but the level of US arms supply and training had all but removed that wedge by late 2021. So Russia decided it was now or never.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Mikhail

    , @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    Interesting interview, thanks for posting.

    To me the conversation played like a job interview for Hodges which he passed with flying colors.

    I am sympathetic to the notion that Hodges had an active role in planning this entire Ukraine mess.

    He seems like a late cold warrior who never learned the big lessons of that conflict and does not weight the risks of nuclear conflict correctly. I think he is extremely dangerous.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  16. @QCIC
    What if China decides to transition from quantity to quality? Maybe they would turn their back on the Western world and let things catch up after the frenzied growth and prosperity of the past 30 years. What do they really need? Food and energy plus a few other things. Maybe they just need to produce enough to support the basics in terms of imports and exports and stay focussed on internal prosperity. In a productive sense they already have too much of almost everything. Maybe they need to prune a lot of the businesses they don't need and go to the 30 hour work week, leaving more time for health, welfare and intellectual and spiritual pursuits. They have a lot of billionaires but the CPC can just tell them to go up the country if they don't like it.

    If they keep increasing productivity it seems they may soon get to the point of having to give stuff away and then why bother?

    For energy maybe they should just clone Starship and put up solar power satellites.

    Replies: @Adept, @Dmitry

    What if China decides to transition from quantity to quality?

    If you were in the market for industrial equipment 15 or 20 years ago, there was a trade-off: Chinese stuff was cheap and abundant but didn’t perform as well, or as reliably, as what you could get from Japan or Europe. (Even then, America wasn’t in the running.) Today, Chinese goods are not only still cheaper, they’re also better in most cases.

    As a general rule: If you do high-volume manufacturing for long enough, and you stay in business and remain profitable for long enough, process improvements will eventually catch-up with you, and quality will improve.

    When it comes to making cars, the Chinese are no slouches, either. See:
    https://sundries.com.ua/en/the-most-reliable-chinese-car-brands-have-been-named/

    Chinese brands compare very well on reliability with global and American brands. And when it comes to electric car reliability, Tesla is trounced by many Chinese firms.

    This “Chinese = low quality” meme is out of date and doesn’t really reflect reality.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Adept

    Yes, and in a couple of decades China will have worked out how to make things that will be on the cutting edge. The US sanctions against China are a huge impetus for it developing its own productive capacity for such state of the art advanced products. So America is in effect getting China into those businesses.

    Replies: @QCIC, @John Johnson

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Adept

    When do the Chinks win the Indianapolis 500?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  17. @Mikhail
    Ben Hodges on RT

    Re: https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/581941-ben-hodges-nato-proxy-war/

    The interviewer Afshin Rattansi, is a very good journalist, but not a military analyst (I can think of a few) who'd do an even better job at challenging the anti-Russian/pro-Kiev regime shill, who is on record for saying that the Kiev regime will retake Crimea by the end of this year - something not mentioned on this show.

    When the OSCE was brought up, no mention that said org noted an increase in Kiev regime firings on Donbass rebel territory in the weeks leading up to the start of Russia's special military operation.

    Ben Hodges' "Russia's war against Ukraine" characterization isn't as accurate as NATO's proxy war against Russia. Russia patiently waited seven years for the Minsk Accords to be honored. The Kiev regime acknowledged it didn't intend to honor the UN approved settlement plan. NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said that a war situation was evident on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR, in the years prior to 2022, with NATO arming and training the Kiev regime.

    Russia was content with a neutral Ukraine within its Communist drawn boundary. The Kiev regime's persecution of a long-standing Ukrainian church, while allowing other churches to honor Stepan Bandera, is one of many examples of what the likes of Hodges choose to ignore.

    Replies: @Sean, @QCIC

    Hodges predicted that Russian invasion would not work. I think he is correct that the US could give Ukraine sufficient arm for them to win the war, but it is wishful thinking by him to assume Russia would probably not resort to nuclear weapon in order to stave off such a defeat.

    There were hegemonic dynamics on both sides in the run up to the invasion. Russia had relied on the threat of invasion to make Ukraine abide by the Russian interpretation of Minsk, but the level of US arms supply and training had all but removed that wedge by late 2021. So Russia decided it was now or never.

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Sean


    Russia had relied on the threat of invasion to make Ukraine abide by the Russian interpretation of Minsk, but the level of US arms supply and training had all but removed that wedge by late 2021. So Russia decided it was now or never.
     
    What do other countries do to make the side that signs a treaty after losing a war and refuses to fulfill it? Don't they also use a "threat of invasion"?

    Kiev lost the war against Donbas in 2014-15 and signed Minsk to get out of the total defeat. There is no "Russian interpretation of Minsk" - it is 1-page treaty that Donbas gets an autonomy within Ukraine. Kiev simply refused to implement it and instead armed heavily with Nato.

    None of that matters now: winner of the war will dictate the settlement. The odds are Russia will win and the peace treaty will be an order of magnitude worse for Kiev than Minsk would be.

    The question is not whether Hodges is a gambler and a fool. The question is why would rational people in Kiev provoke a war they can't win? Hodges plays with others' chips, so he ultimately doesn't care - but Ukies are dying for this bet, and their country is slowly being destroyed.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Mikhail
    @Sean


    Hodges predicted that Russian invasion would not work. I think he is correct that the US could give Ukraine sufficient arm for them to win the war, but it is wishful thinking by him to assume Russia would probably not resort to nuclear weapon in order to stave off such a defeat.

    There were hegemonic dynamics on both sides in the run up to the invasion. Russia had relied on the threat of invasion to make Ukraine abide by the Russian interpretation of Minsk, but the level of US arms supply and training had all but removed that wedge by late 2021. So Russia decided it was now or never.

     

    Hodges predicted that the Kiev regime will take Crimea by the end of this year.

    The Kiev regime can't win on account of it having no substantive arms producing capacity combined with its comparative (to Russia) limit in having armed personnel, especially in a war of attrition where it's losing badly. In addition, the collective West is only able to provide a limited amount of arms to the Kiev regime.

    Based on numerous accounts, a deal could've very well have been reached at the Istanbul March 2022 talks, which were nixed on account of neocon-neolib Anglo-American meddling.

    That mischief making prolongs the agony, well short of a Kiev regime victory.

  18. @Adept
    @QCIC


    What if China decides to transition from quantity to quality?
     
    If you were in the market for industrial equipment 15 or 20 years ago, there was a trade-off: Chinese stuff was cheap and abundant but didn't perform as well, or as reliably, as what you could get from Japan or Europe. (Even then, America wasn't in the running.) Today, Chinese goods are not only still cheaper, they're also better in most cases.

    As a general rule: If you do high-volume manufacturing for long enough, and you stay in business and remain profitable for long enough, process improvements will eventually catch-up with you, and quality will improve.

    When it comes to making cars, the Chinese are no slouches, either. See:
    https://sundries.com.ua/en/the-most-reliable-chinese-car-brands-have-been-named/

    Chinese brands compare very well on reliability with global and American brands. And when it comes to electric car reliability, Tesla is trounced by many Chinese firms.

    This "Chinese = low quality" meme is out of date and doesn't really reflect reality.

    Replies: @Sean, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Yes, and in a couple of decades China will have worked out how to make things that will be on the cutting edge. The US sanctions against China are a huge impetus for it developing its own productive capacity for such state of the art advanced products. So America is in effect getting China into those businesses.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Sean

    This is close to what I meant, a future China focussing more on high-end products like Switzerland or Germany. Higher value added. Fewer workers, smaller factories, more automation.

    China still makes a lot of junk.

    Many Chinese products have lots of features but have also been cost engineered to the bare minimum of reliability. Admittedly some of the design process involves Western engineers and management. These people are descendants of the idiots who killed Detroit.

    , @John Johnson
    @Sean

    Yes, and in a couple of decades China will have worked out how to make things that will be on the cutting edge.

    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?

    They were also supposed to overtake the Japanese and Koreans in electronics.

    Year of the Chinese and End of the Dollar predictions are made every single year.

    Good luck to this year's contenders.

    Replies: @Adept, @Sean

  19. @Adept
    @QCIC


    What if China decides to transition from quantity to quality?
     
    If you were in the market for industrial equipment 15 or 20 years ago, there was a trade-off: Chinese stuff was cheap and abundant but didn't perform as well, or as reliably, as what you could get from Japan or Europe. (Even then, America wasn't in the running.) Today, Chinese goods are not only still cheaper, they're also better in most cases.

    As a general rule: If you do high-volume manufacturing for long enough, and you stay in business and remain profitable for long enough, process improvements will eventually catch-up with you, and quality will improve.

    When it comes to making cars, the Chinese are no slouches, either. See:
    https://sundries.com.ua/en/the-most-reliable-chinese-car-brands-have-been-named/

    Chinese brands compare very well on reliability with global and American brands. And when it comes to electric car reliability, Tesla is trounced by many Chinese firms.

    This "Chinese = low quality" meme is out of date and doesn't really reflect reality.

    Replies: @Sean, @Emil Nikola Richard

    When do the Chinks win the Indianapolis 500?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Does not compute. The Brits are pretty damn good at making Formula One cars, but can't make a quality car for everyman anymore (not helped by their government going electric car mad, which the Brits are even less able to make than petrol/diesel cars) without help from Nissan/Ford/GM.

    I drove a Chinese van last year, a Ford Transit "white van man" equivalent vehicle. It was pretty damn good.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxus_V90

    Half the medical kit in Brit hospitals is Chinese. Not looked at big-ticket things like MRI scanners, but the x-ray machines with "General Electric" on the side are made in China.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @Dmitry

  20. @Sean
    @Adept

    Yes, and in a couple of decades China will have worked out how to make things that will be on the cutting edge. The US sanctions against China are a huge impetus for it developing its own productive capacity for such state of the art advanced products. So America is in effect getting China into those businesses.

    Replies: @QCIC, @John Johnson

    This is close to what I meant, a future China focussing more on high-end products like Switzerland or Germany. Higher value added. Fewer workers, smaller factories, more automation.

    China still makes a lot of junk.

    Many Chinese products have lots of features but have also been cost engineered to the bare minimum of reliability. Admittedly some of the design process involves Western engineers and management. These people are descendants of the idiots who killed Detroit.

  21. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Adept

    When do the Chinks win the Indianapolis 500?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    Does not compute. The Brits are pretty damn good at making Formula One cars, but can’t make a quality car for everyman anymore (not helped by their government going electric car mad, which the Brits are even less able to make than petrol/diesel cars) without help from Nissan/Ford/GM.

    I drove a Chinese van last year, a Ford Transit “white van man” equivalent vehicle. It was pretty damn good.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxus_V90

    Half the medical kit in Brit hospitals is Chinese. Not looked at big-ticket things like MRI scanners, but the x-ray machines with “General Electric” on the side are made in China.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    @YetAnotherAnon

    That van looks a lot like a Ford, maybe a little bit like a Nissan, too.

    , @Dmitry
    @YetAnotherAnon

    EVs are a lot easier to enter market, easier to build, than ICEVs. The transition to EVs means more countries' companies could enter the automobile export market.

    Tesla already showed the EV transition allows for entry to previously closed industry for new companies, as one of the first new automobile companies in America which is making profit since many years earlier.

    Even Vietnam has domestic EV companies now, with "Vin Fast".

    There was a kind of crazy hype with their stock launching this month.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIe26EBlHes

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

  22. @Mikhail
    Ben Hodges on RT

    Re: https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/581941-ben-hodges-nato-proxy-war/

    The interviewer Afshin Rattansi, is a very good journalist, but not a military analyst (I can think of a few) who'd do an even better job at challenging the anti-Russian/pro-Kiev regime shill, who is on record for saying that the Kiev regime will retake Crimea by the end of this year - something not mentioned on this show.

    When the OSCE was brought up, no mention that said org noted an increase in Kiev regime firings on Donbass rebel territory in the weeks leading up to the start of Russia's special military operation.

    Ben Hodges' "Russia's war against Ukraine" characterization isn't as accurate as NATO's proxy war against Russia. Russia patiently waited seven years for the Minsk Accords to be honored. The Kiev regime acknowledged it didn't intend to honor the UN approved settlement plan. NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said that a war situation was evident on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR, in the years prior to 2022, with NATO arming and training the Kiev regime.

    Russia was content with a neutral Ukraine within its Communist drawn boundary. The Kiev regime's persecution of a long-standing Ukrainian church, while allowing other churches to honor Stepan Bandera, is one of many examples of what the likes of Hodges choose to ignore.

    Replies: @Sean, @QCIC

    Interesting interview, thanks for posting.

    To me the conversation played like a job interview for Hodges which he passed with flying colors.

    I am sympathetic to the notion that Hodges had an active role in planning this entire Ukraine mess.

    He seems like a late cold warrior who never learned the big lessons of that conflict and does not weight the risks of nuclear conflict correctly. I think he is extremely dangerous.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @QCIC

    How someone else put it -

    It's sad to see how the general is lying about Russia, Georgia, Iraq, Syria... It's obvious he knows that he is lying. He does not have brain to understand that it's a different time now, it's not 1970 when people could not check the facts themselves. Now it's not a problem.

    Anyway, I understand why President Eisenhower did not trust the MIC and appointed a civilian to be his Secretary of Defense.

    Active military-former military versus civilian doesn't necessarily make for a good separation from the MIC. After all, Eisenhower was former military when he made that observation. Thinking of all of the neocon chicken hawks with little if any military background, willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @QCIC

  23. Don’t eat salad!

    [MORE]

    (At least, if it hasn’t been sufficiently irradiated.)

    BTW, it is a bit surprising to me that an Australian worm could infect a person, but I guess there are a lot of mammals there that are non-marsupial. Though, it was a snake parasite.

    We can hope that the poor woman had some significant immune deficiency that wasn’t reported.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    Central Bank Digital Currency is the most exciting fear porn on the internet.

    You need to sun your balls!

  24. Had a dream last night I was in Panama. (Possibly influenced by the drought affecting the canal)

    My Spanish has sadly deteriorated due to disuse. Had trouble communicating. But I can remember just enough of a snatch of one exchange to understand, when I awoke, that at least one of my interlocutors, who I had trouble understanding, was speaking gibberish.

    Of course, for all I know, that could be exactly the sort they speak down there (never been), but probably not.

  25. @songbird
    Don't eat salad!

    https://youtu.be/fGmXD7NPftY?si=9xKoGVMLlgXW0UZz

    (At least, if it hasn't been sufficiently irradiated.)

    BTW, it is a bit surprising to me that an Australian worm could infect a person, but I guess there are a lot of mammals there that are non-marsupial. Though, it was a snake parasite.

    We can hope that the poor woman had some significant immune deficiency that wasn't reported.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    Central Bank Digital Currency is the most exciting fear porn on the internet.

    You need to sun your balls!

  26. @Sean
    @Mikhail

    Hodges predicted that Russian invasion would not work. I think he is correct that the US could give Ukraine sufficient arm for them to win the war, but it is wishful thinking by him to assume Russia would probably not resort to nuclear weapon in order to stave off such a defeat.

    There were hegemonic dynamics on both sides in the run up to the invasion. Russia had relied on the threat of invasion to make Ukraine abide by the Russian interpretation of Minsk, but the level of US arms supply and training had all but removed that wedge by late 2021. So Russia decided it was now or never.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Mikhail

    Russia had relied on the threat of invasion to make Ukraine abide by the Russian interpretation of Minsk, but the level of US arms supply and training had all but removed that wedge by late 2021. So Russia decided it was now or never.

    What do other countries do to make the side that signs a treaty after losing a war and refuses to fulfill it? Don’t they also use a “threat of invasion“?

    Kiev lost the war against Donbas in 2014-15 and signed Minsk to get out of the total defeat. There is no “Russian interpretation of Minsk” – it is 1-page treaty that Donbas gets an autonomy within Ukraine. Kiev simply refused to implement it and instead armed heavily with Nato.

    None of that matters now: winner of the war will dictate the settlement. The odds are Russia will win and the peace treaty will be an order of magnitude worse for Kiev than Minsk would be.

    The question is not whether Hodges is a gambler and a fool. The question is why would rational people in Kiev provoke a war they can’t win? Hodges plays with others’ chips, so he ultimately doesn’t care – but Ukies are dying for this bet, and their country is slowly being destroyed.

    • Agree: James of Africa
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Beckow

    Kiev lost the war against Donbas in 2014-15 and signed Minsk to get out of the total defeat. There is no “Russian interpretation of Minsk” – it is 1-page treaty that Donbas gets an autonomy within Ukraine. Kiev simply refused to implement it and instead armed heavily with Nato.

    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?

    Here is the Minsk agreement and I'm not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:
    https://www.unian.info/politics/1043394-minsk-agreement-full-text-in-english.html

    Which point are you referring to?

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn't Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?

    You do acknowledge that Russia is currently fighting for territory that was not part of the Minsk agreement?

    Replies: @Beckow, @Sean

  27. @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    Interesting interview, thanks for posting.

    To me the conversation played like a job interview for Hodges which he passed with flying colors.

    I am sympathetic to the notion that Hodges had an active role in planning this entire Ukraine mess.

    He seems like a late cold warrior who never learned the big lessons of that conflict and does not weight the risks of nuclear conflict correctly. I think he is extremely dangerous.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    How someone else put it –

    It’s sad to see how the general is lying about Russia, Georgia, Iraq, Syria… It’s obvious he knows that he is lying. He does not have brain to understand that it’s a different time now, it’s not 1970 when people could not check the facts themselves. Now it’s not a problem.

    Anyway, I understand why President Eisenhower did not trust the MIC and appointed a civilian to be his Secretary of Defense.

    Active military-former military versus civilian doesn’t necessarily make for a good separation from the MIC. After all, Eisenhower was former military when he made that observation. Thinking of all of the neocon chicken hawks with little if any military background, willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Mikhail

    So there's no misunderstanding, I didn't say the following which should've been italicized -

    Anyway, I understand why President Eisenhower did not trust the MIC and appointed a civilian to be his Secretary of Defense.

    , @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    I think Hodges believes in power. He strikes me as a "If you have power and don't use it, what's the point?"

    Replies: @Mikhail

  28. @Sean
    @Mikhail

    Hodges predicted that Russian invasion would not work. I think he is correct that the US could give Ukraine sufficient arm for them to win the war, but it is wishful thinking by him to assume Russia would probably not resort to nuclear weapon in order to stave off such a defeat.

    There were hegemonic dynamics on both sides in the run up to the invasion. Russia had relied on the threat of invasion to make Ukraine abide by the Russian interpretation of Minsk, but the level of US arms supply and training had all but removed that wedge by late 2021. So Russia decided it was now or never.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Mikhail

    Hodges predicted that Russian invasion would not work. I think he is correct that the US could give Ukraine sufficient arm for them to win the war, but it is wishful thinking by him to assume Russia would probably not resort to nuclear weapon in order to stave off such a defeat.

    There were hegemonic dynamics on both sides in the run up to the invasion. Russia had relied on the threat of invasion to make Ukraine abide by the Russian interpretation of Minsk, but the level of US arms supply and training had all but removed that wedge by late 2021. So Russia decided it was now or never.

    Hodges predicted that the Kiev regime will take Crimea by the end of this year.

    The Kiev regime can’t win on account of it having no substantive arms producing capacity combined with its comparative (to Russia) limit in having armed personnel, especially in a war of attrition where it’s losing badly. In addition, the collective West is only able to provide a limited amount of arms to the Kiev regime.

    Based on numerous accounts, a deal could’ve very well have been reached at the Istanbul March 2022 talks, which were nixed on account of neocon-neolib Anglo-American meddling.

    That mischief making prolongs the agony, well short of a Kiev regime victory.

  29. @Mikhail
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsXCbsGJYos

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA2EDvX16hA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpFsIr_wfs

    Replies: @John Johnson

    That’s a fascinating lineup of known Putin supporters that are here to give us the weekly report on how Russia moving backwards is actually forward progress.

    The Ukrainians have actually pushed far enough to where they can attack remaining Crimean supply lines with artillery:

    Oh and Alexander Mercouris is a disbarred lawyer who was caught engaging in fraud:
    https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/07/barrister-who-was-disbarred-after-forging-lady-hale-letter-sued-for-200000-by-ex-client/

    He has since switched to bootin’ for Putin.

    Putin really attracts some quality defenders.

    A convicted sex offender, a disbarred lawyer, and of course Steven Seagal.

    Just a dream team line up to defend a mass murdering dwarf.

    Oh and we could add Anglin, a self-described White nationalist who openly hates White women and fled to Asia after being ordered to pay restitution over harassing a small town Jew in a completely pointless and stupid case.

    • Troll: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    BBC said over 50 thousand Kiev regime KIA in their so-called counter-offensive. Russian defense ministry has it at 43 thousand.

    Zelensky now harping on a prolonged conflict with Euromaidan Press showing photos of age 50 and over conscripts.

    You rail against CNN which nonetheless seems to have a linking to your pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian slant.

    This should be good -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yrJ-SNN2as

    Replies: @Wielgus, @John Johnson

  30. @Sean
    @Adept

    Yes, and in a couple of decades China will have worked out how to make things that will be on the cutting edge. The US sanctions against China are a huge impetus for it developing its own productive capacity for such state of the art advanced products. So America is in effect getting China into those businesses.

    Replies: @QCIC, @John Johnson

    Yes, and in a couple of decades China will have worked out how to make things that will be on the cutting edge.

    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?

    They were also supposed to overtake the Japanese and Koreans in electronics.

    Year of the Chinese and End of the Dollar predictions are made every single year.

    Good luck to this year’s contenders.

    • Replies: @Adept
    @John Johnson


    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?
     
    In 2022, 5.9M electric vehicles were sold in China -- more than the rest of the world combined. The overwhelming majority of these were domestic models. China is leading the world in electric car production, and frankly it's not even close.

    Why aren't they dominating the US electric vehicle market? Why do you think?

    ...The short answer is protectionism. There's a 27.5% tariff on Chinese vehicle imports. See, e.g.: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/china-electric-cars

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson

    , @Sean
    @John Johnson

    There have also been predictions of imminent Chinese collapse, and supposedly savvy speculators who lost a lot of money kinda believing it. Good luck to those shorting China in various ways. There may be a period of stagnation for China, but is the US going to be ahead in the sanction-sensitive technology in fifty years; how about thirty? Whether the US is capable of out innovating China is questionable, so effectively incentivizing their getting into key areas of production they are currently dependent on the West for is not obviously harmless in the long term. Quite apart from their ancient history and recent trajectory, China has all sorts of formidable economies of scale.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  31. @Mikhail
    @QCIC

    How someone else put it -

    It's sad to see how the general is lying about Russia, Georgia, Iraq, Syria... It's obvious he knows that he is lying. He does not have brain to understand that it's a different time now, it's not 1970 when people could not check the facts themselves. Now it's not a problem.

    Anyway, I understand why President Eisenhower did not trust the MIC and appointed a civilian to be his Secretary of Defense.

    Active military-former military versus civilian doesn't necessarily make for a good separation from the MIC. After all, Eisenhower was former military when he made that observation. Thinking of all of the neocon chicken hawks with little if any military background, willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @QCIC

    So there’s no misunderstanding, I didn’t say the following which should’ve been italicized –

    Anyway, I understand why President Eisenhower did not trust the MIC and appointed a civilian to be his Secretary of Defense.

  32. @Beckow
    @Sean


    Russia had relied on the threat of invasion to make Ukraine abide by the Russian interpretation of Minsk, but the level of US arms supply and training had all but removed that wedge by late 2021. So Russia decided it was now or never.
     
    What do other countries do to make the side that signs a treaty after losing a war and refuses to fulfill it? Don't they also use a "threat of invasion"?

    Kiev lost the war against Donbas in 2014-15 and signed Minsk to get out of the total defeat. There is no "Russian interpretation of Minsk" - it is 1-page treaty that Donbas gets an autonomy within Ukraine. Kiev simply refused to implement it and instead armed heavily with Nato.

    None of that matters now: winner of the war will dictate the settlement. The odds are Russia will win and the peace treaty will be an order of magnitude worse for Kiev than Minsk would be.

    The question is not whether Hodges is a gambler and a fool. The question is why would rational people in Kiev provoke a war they can't win? Hodges plays with others' chips, so he ultimately doesn't care - but Ukies are dying for this bet, and their country is slowly being destroyed.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Kiev lost the war against Donbas in 2014-15 and signed Minsk to get out of the total defeat. There is no “Russian interpretation of Minsk” – it is 1-page treaty that Donbas gets an autonomy within Ukraine. Kiev simply refused to implement it and instead armed heavily with Nato.

    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?

    Here is the Minsk agreement and I’m not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:
    https://www.unian.info/politics/1043394-minsk-agreement-full-text-in-english.html

    Which point are you referring to?

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?

    You do acknowledge that Russia is currently fighting for territory that was not part of the Minsk agreement?

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @John Johnson


    Which point are you referring to?
     
    How about 11. - and don't try to play stupid like with Nato in Kiev Constitution:

    11. Conducting constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the new constitution coming into force by the end of 2015, providing for decentralization as a key element (taking into account the characteristics of individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, agreed with representatives of these areas), as well as the adoption of the permanent legislation on the special status
     
    It is also mentioned in points 4,9,12. (You should read the Russian version for clarity.)

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?
     
    If Nato invasion of Serbia was about Kosovo, why did they brutally bomb Beograd and the rest of Serbia? I suppose the answer is that wars are like that - nobody respects 'boundaries', they just want to win.

    do you acknowledge that Russia is currently fighting for territory that was not part of the Minsk agreement?
     
    Yes, absolutely - I said it many times. Kiev refused painful but fair concessions - neutral Ukraine with Donbas having an autonomy. Now it is for as many marbles as the winner can take. That's my point - Kiev screwed up. It is not clear why they would if they had Ukraine's well-being as their first priority. It looks like they didn't.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Sean
    @John Johnson


    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?
     
    The rebels were losing and to rescue the situation a couple of formed up battalion tactical groups of the Russian army crossed the border and cut a swath though Ukraine, leading Kiev to agree to Minsk in order to stop the rout of their forces. When Ukraine began dragging their heels Germany and France brokered Minsk2 , and Merkel said that the objective of it was to stop the Russians military going into action again before Ukraine had built up their forces to a reasonable level.

    Here is the Minsk agreement and I’m not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:
     
    Far more autonomy that they had before, and crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?
     

    In 2015 Russia could rely on the threat of it making huge inroads into Ukrainian territory with a few battalion tactical groups and staying there, because Ukraine was lacking in weapons and determined leadership. The position did not alter much even after there was a widespread perception that Trump had kept back arms from Ukraine.

    Biden entering the White House and back when he was VP Biden had been a super Hawk on Ukraine as was Blinken, so when Biden became president he initiated an acceleration of US arms to Ukraine, which had much more resolute professional officers leading it. The capabilities of Ukraine had by 2021 increased greatly and were continuing to improve , which was an ongoing erosion of Russia's ability to present a meaningful and valid threat to initiate either a limited or full scale invasion and landgrab. Doing nothing was losing Russia its wedge of military dominance Russia decided Ukraine was not going to compromise and was begining to be a match for Russia, so it was now or never. That is a long winded way of saying that Russia's preferred solution was not invading Ukraine but threatening to do so as a means to the end of sidelining Ukraine's Nato ambitions. Biden's policy obviated Russia's policy of hybrid pressure, so there was no choice but to do what was only threatened and use the full scale invasion option before it completely disappeared.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Mikel

  33. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    That's a fascinating lineup of known Putin supporters that are here to give us the weekly report on how Russia moving backwards is actually forward progress.

    The Ukrainians have actually pushed far enough to where they can attack remaining Crimean supply lines with artillery:

    https://youtu.be/YcgK4eNnOXM?t=17

    Oh and Alexander Mercouris is a disbarred lawyer who was caught engaging in fraud:
    https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/07/barrister-who-was-disbarred-after-forging-lady-hale-letter-sued-for-200000-by-ex-client/

    He has since switched to bootin' for Putin.

    Putin really attracts some quality defenders.

    A convicted sex offender, a disbarred lawyer, and of course Steven Seagal.

    Just a dream team line up to defend a mass murdering dwarf.

    Oh and we could add Anglin, a self-described White nationalist who openly hates White women and fled to Asia after being ordered to pay restitution over harassing a small town Jew in a completely pointless and stupid case.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    BBC said over 50 thousand Kiev regime KIA in their so-called counter-offensive. Russian defense ministry has it at 43 thousand.

    Zelensky now harping on a prolonged conflict with Euromaidan Press showing photos of age 50 and over conscripts.

    You rail against CNN which nonetheless seems to have a linking to your pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian slant.

    This should be good –

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Mikhail

    Boris Johnson, or those behind him, have killed a lot of people. Talks could have succeeded in the spring of 2022 and avoided the bloodshed.

    , @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    BBC said over 50 thousand Kiev regime KIA in their so-called counter-offensive. Russian defense ministry has it at 43 thousand.

    Not sure of your point.

    Are you trying to tell me the counter-offensive has been costly? Yes that seems to be the case.

    I think you might be again projecting your own fanboyism. I never once said that the counter-offensive will be a smashing success with few casualties. In fact I was critical of the US for demanding a counter-offensive. I think they should have stayed quiet and prodded at the lines. If they were doing well defensively in Bakhmut then the US/UK should have left them alone. Talk of a grand counter offensive only spurred Russia to dig in. I also think they should have waited until some of the M1s and F16s arrived. Waiting a little longer also makes it harder for Russia to counter-attack once it rains. But I also think the US is correct in that Ukraine is spreading their forces too thin and should focus on destroying supply lines to Crimea.

    Unlike Putin's fanboys I can actually criticize everyone. I don't have an emotional attachment to Putin or any politician for that matter. Trump Tribe here in fact would get angry when I would criticize Trump out of concern that he wouldn't be re-elected. Well I guess their blind fanboyism won in the end. Oh wait.

    You rail against CNN which nonetheless seems to have a linking to your pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian slant.

    CNN normally gets the weather correct.

    That doesn't mean they are "my side" or something. The majority of the world takes the side of Ukraine. Maybe you missed the 143-5 vote against Russia.

    I rail against CNN because they are dishonest and hold too much influence over the US public. That was proven beyond a shadow of the doubt with the hunter laptop story and the 50 CIA experts nonsense. But it's nothing specific to CNN. All major US media is garbage. Fox News is among the worst. However turning to pro-Russian sources is not the answer. It's changing one biased source for another.

    This should be good –

    Patrick Lancaster works for Russian media. As with Ritter he takes a paycheck to be the "US military voice" for propaganda.

    Judge Napotino only interviews pro-Russian sources and never asks real questions. Napolitano is a very short man like Putin. Do short bitter men vibe off Putin? Does he fulfill some fantasy of a cruel small man getting revenge against the world?

    Serious question: Is there a publicly known US defender of Putin that is at least 5'8 and has a stable career? Without any convictions?

    Replies: @Mikhail

  34. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    BBC said over 50 thousand Kiev regime KIA in their so-called counter-offensive. Russian defense ministry has it at 43 thousand.

    Zelensky now harping on a prolonged conflict with Euromaidan Press showing photos of age 50 and over conscripts.

    You rail against CNN which nonetheless seems to have a linking to your pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian slant.

    This should be good -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yrJ-SNN2as

    Replies: @Wielgus, @John Johnson

    Boris Johnson, or those behind him, have killed a lot of people. Talks could have succeeded in the spring of 2022 and avoided the bloodshed.

  35. Spectator:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ukraines-real-killing-fields-an-investigation-into-the-wars-first-aid-crisis/

    I am told by those working here that many of those lost in the war die while they are being moved back to safety rather than on the front line. The long journeys to hospital, sometimes up to ten hours, can be lethal, and the availability of adequate first aid is the difference between life and death.

    Ukrainians believed that the very best care would be available for their soldiers. But the stark truth is emerging: soldiers are dying in their hundreds or even thousands due to poor medical provision. The problem is being ignored by the military hierarchy, whose focus is on sourcing weapons and pushing the counteroffensive rather than prioritising injured fighters.

    Another problem is that corruption has been allowed to flourish. One example is the proliferation of low-quality medical supplies being used to treat Ukrainian soldiers. A few weeks ago Volodymyr Prudnikov, the head of Ukraine’s Medical Forces Command’s procurement department, was accused of supplying 11,000 uncertified Chinese tactical medical kits to the front line. It is alleged that Prudnikov awarded £1.5 million-worth of contracts to a company co-founded by his daughter-in-law and was attempting to pass the Chinese kits off as Nato standard. He has been fired and now faces an investigation, but has yet to comment.

    It is just one example of the profiteering that is needlessly risking the lives of soldiers. Another example of corruption occurred last year in Lviv, where 10,000 tactical first aid kits worth £700,000 were sent by American volunteers and then mysteriously disappeared. It was recently reported that the US is investigating this case.

    Tourniquets are perhaps the most-needed first aid tool, particularly when the evacuation process is prolonged. But if tourniquets are badly made, they can be lethal. There have been complaints from the front line about Chinese-made tourniquets that either gradually lose pressure or come apart, leading to renewed bleeding with fatal consequences. A Chinese tourniquet costs just £2, while a Ukrainian ‘Sich’ tourniquet is £15. An authentic American CAT tourniquet comes in at around £35.

    Investing in decent tourniquets is money well spent. The medics I speak to say that two-thirds of Ukrainian soldiers die from blood loss. I meet Bilka, 24, a medic in the 243rd Territorial Defence Battalion, who has just returned from Bakhmut. She explains what happens to the injured person on the front line: ‘You have to drag a person with your hands approximately three to five kilometres. You can’t drive there even in armoured vehicles because of the heavy shellings and mines.’

    Medics, she says, try to avoid using the official first aid supplies issued to them, because of the admin that is involved. Each component of a government-issued medical kit must be accounted for, including equipment that is obviously sub-standard. ‘If a drug has expired, the write-off procedure is so difficult that it is easier to record that it has been destroyed by fire,’ she says.

    Some medical staff are funding equipment with contributions from their own salaries even though the average doctor in Ukraine only earns about £300 a month and a nurse half that sum. The situation has become so bad recently that medics at one hospital in Dnipro, which was overloaded with injured men from the front line, had to raise money to buy antibiotics, analgesics, gauze and even gloves needed for treatments. Meanwhile some £3 billion a month is spent on warfare.

  36. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66581217

    “There has been a dramatic rise in Ukraine’s number of dead, according to new estimates by unnamed US officials. The BBC’s Quentin Sommerville has been on the front line in the east, where the grim task of counting the dead has become a daily reality.

    The unknown soldiers lie piled high in a small brick mortuary, not very far from the front line in Donetsk, where 26-year-old Margo says she speaks to the dead.

    “It may sound weird… but I’m the one who wants to apologise for their deaths. I want to thank them somehow. It’s as if they can hear, but they can’t respond.”

    At her cluttered desk outside the mortuary’s heavy door, she sits, pen in hand. It is her job to record the particulars of the fallen.

    Ukraine gives no official toll of its war dead – the Ukrainian armed forces have reiterated that their war casualty numbers are a state secret – but Margo knows the losses are huge.”

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xpSA6T1LszM

  37. @John Johnson
    @Beckow

    Kiev lost the war against Donbas in 2014-15 and signed Minsk to get out of the total defeat. There is no “Russian interpretation of Minsk” – it is 1-page treaty that Donbas gets an autonomy within Ukraine. Kiev simply refused to implement it and instead armed heavily with Nato.

    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?

    Here is the Minsk agreement and I'm not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:
    https://www.unian.info/politics/1043394-minsk-agreement-full-text-in-english.html

    Which point are you referring to?

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn't Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?

    You do acknowledge that Russia is currently fighting for territory that was not part of the Minsk agreement?

    Replies: @Beckow, @Sean

    Which point are you referring to?

    How about 11. – and don’t try to play stupid like with Nato in Kiev Constitution:

    11. Conducting constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the new constitution coming into force by the end of 2015, providing for decentralization as a key element (taking into account the characteristics of individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, agreed with representatives of these areas), as well as the adoption of the permanent legislation on the special status

    It is also mentioned in points 4,9,12. (You should read the Russian version for clarity.)

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?

    If Nato invasion of Serbia was about Kosovo, why did they brutally bomb Beograd and the rest of Serbia? I suppose the answer is that wars are like that – nobody respects ‘boundaries’, they just want to win.

    do you acknowledge that Russia is currently fighting for territory that was not part of the Minsk agreement?

    Yes, absolutely – I said it many times. Kiev refused painful but fair concessions – neutral Ukraine with Donbas having an autonomy. Now it is for as many marbles as the winner can take. That’s my point – Kiev screwed up. It is not clear why they would if they had Ukraine’s well-being as their first priority. It looks like they didn’t.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Beckow


    Which point are you referring to?
     
    How about 11. – and don’t try to play stupid like with Nato in Kiev Constitution:

    Conducting constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the new constitution coming into force by the end of 2015, providing for decentralization as a key element (taking into account the characteristics of individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, agreed with representatives of these areas), as well as the adoption of the permanent legislation on the special status

    Special status does not mean autonomy. Washington DC has special status but that does not make it an autonomous region.

    Here is a paper describing that special status:
    Ukrainian authorities did agree to extensive provisions on the "special status" of the self-proclaimed republics, which would grant them, among others, rights to linguistic self-determination and creation of separate police units
    https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/through-ashes-minsk-agreements

    Furthermore:
    the updated Minsk II stipulated that local elections would be allowed when Ukraine deemed that the security conditions were sufficient or “right.” And after the local elections were held, Ukraine would take full control of the border.

    Which means they were never granted political autonomy as security conditions were never met. Russian troops never left.

    You keep speaking of Minsk as if Ukraine is the side that ended it.

    Would you like to tell us which side attacked the Donetsk Airport in September 2014?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Beckow

  38. Just idly browsing the 2019 Rand report on “Extending Russia”:

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

    “Continuing to expand U.S. energy production in all forms, including renewables, and encouraging other countries to do the same would maximize pressure on Russia’s export receipts and thus on its national and defense budgets. Alone among the many measures looked at in this report, this one comes with the least cost or risk.”

    It’s almost risk-free to blow up Europe’s main energy pipeline, because they’re so supine AND they’ll buy American LPG. But… the Saudis cut production and the oil price is rising again. Coal use was a record in 2022, and oil use will be a record in 2023.

    The Saudis seem to be belatedly coming to the conclusion that permanent war in the M.E. maybe isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

    Must say the Brit tanks are being well hidden. No firework videos yet. I guess they’re being held back for the blitzkrieg thrust to Melitopol 😉

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @YetAnotherAnon

    In reality renewables have a very heavy cost.

    I have always wondered if there isn't some ulterior motive to the renewables nonsense, apart from the grift.

  39. @John Johnson
    @Sean

    Yes, and in a couple of decades China will have worked out how to make things that will be on the cutting edge.

    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?

    They were also supposed to overtake the Japanese and Koreans in electronics.

    Year of the Chinese and End of the Dollar predictions are made every single year.

    Good luck to this year's contenders.

    Replies: @Adept, @Sean

    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?

    In 2022, 5.9M electric vehicles were sold in China — more than the rest of the world combined. The overwhelming majority of these were domestic models. China is leading the world in electric car production, and frankly it’s not even close.

    Why aren’t they dominating the US electric vehicle market? Why do you think?

    …The short answer is protectionism. There’s a 27.5% tariff on Chinese vehicle imports. See, e.g.: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/china-electric-cars

    • Replies: @A123
    @Adept

    How many of those "Chinese EV's" never existed?

    How many have been abandoned?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1SEfwoqKRU8

    The CCP centrally planned economy has huge problems. A significant amount of theoretical GDP does not actually translate to real world productivity.
    ____

    Protecting American jobs from subsidied foreign SOE competitors is High-IQ industrial policy in the interest of America's citizen/workers.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Adept

    , @John Johnson
    @Adept


    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?
     
    In 2022, 5.9M electric vehicles were sold in China — more than the rest of the world combined. The overwhelming majority of these were domestic models. China is leading the world in electric car production, and frankly it’s not even close.

    Your stat is wrong.

    Top 5 companies make up for 52% of EV sales.
    https://insideevs.com/news/651978/world-top-ev-oem-sales-2022q4/

    In any case it doesn't change the fact that we have seen many predictions in the past about China dominating various US markets including EV and compact cars. They were supposed to overtake KIA and they don't even have a foot in the market. These were predictions about the US market and not Chinese production.

    The Chinese in America are not as cunning or aggressive in business as other ethnic groups. I don't see why so many view the Chinese as capitalist gods that are waiting to be unleashed.

    Maybe they will dominate some future market, maybe they won't. But we have been hearing for over a decade on how the Year of China domination is right around the corner.

    Any day now just like the End of the Dollar.

    Oh and EV sales are on the decline so the Chinese takeover is even less likely.
    https://jalopnik.com/dealers-are-turning-away-ev-inventory-report-1850771467

    Electric vehicles in the US are mostly for wealthy liberals that want to virtue signal. That is why so many of them cost over $60. They are status symbols. I support EVs but not as a status toy for liberals with too much money.

    Replies: @Adept

  40. @Adept
    @John Johnson


    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?
     
    In 2022, 5.9M electric vehicles were sold in China -- more than the rest of the world combined. The overwhelming majority of these were domestic models. China is leading the world in electric car production, and frankly it's not even close.

    Why aren't they dominating the US electric vehicle market? Why do you think?

    ...The short answer is protectionism. There's a 27.5% tariff on Chinese vehicle imports. See, e.g.: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/china-electric-cars

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson

    How many of those “Chinese EV’s” never existed?

    How many have been abandoned?

    The CCP centrally planned economy has huge problems. A significant amount of theoretical GDP does not actually translate to real world productivity.
    ____

    Protecting American jobs from subsidied foreign SOE competitors is High-IQ industrial policy in the interest of America’s citizen/workers.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Adept
    @A123

    Seriously, you're posting serpentza vids? And Zeihan? Come on.



    A significant amount of theoretical GDP does not actually translate to real world productivity.

     

    Case in point: Nearly 20% (!!) of the US GDP is in healthcare, of all things. Think about that one for a minute. And then consider that in spite of this, life expectancy in the US has been falling to laughably low levels, and life expectancy in China has recently surpassed it.

    The Chinese are not doing that bad. I'd say that they're playing their hand more or less correctly. The US, in contrast, is self-sabotaging in ways that people just 20 years ago would hardly even believe possible.

    Replies: @A123

  41. In his life, it was not enough that he was bald, suffered from arthritis, atherosclerosis, Lyme disease, whipworm, Helicobacter pylori, gum disease, tooth decay and gallstones – poor Ötzi was the first victim of lynching!

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    My Economics 1 professor was very fond of a joke.

    Ask a doctor how do you describe a healthy patient. The answer they give is he hasn't had a complete workup yet!

    Every one of us is going to die. Helicopter pylon is going to win.

    Replies: @songbird

  42. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    BBC said over 50 thousand Kiev regime KIA in their so-called counter-offensive. Russian defense ministry has it at 43 thousand.

    Zelensky now harping on a prolonged conflict with Euromaidan Press showing photos of age 50 and over conscripts.

    You rail against CNN which nonetheless seems to have a linking to your pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian slant.

    This should be good -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yrJ-SNN2as

    Replies: @Wielgus, @John Johnson

    BBC said over 50 thousand Kiev regime KIA in their so-called counter-offensive. Russian defense ministry has it at 43 thousand.

    Not sure of your point.

    Are you trying to tell me the counter-offensive has been costly? Yes that seems to be the case.

    I think you might be again projecting your own fanboyism. I never once said that the counter-offensive will be a smashing success with few casualties. In fact I was critical of the US for demanding a counter-offensive. I think they should have stayed quiet and prodded at the lines. If they were doing well defensively in Bakhmut then the US/UK should have left them alone. Talk of a grand counter offensive only spurred Russia to dig in. I also think they should have waited until some of the M1s and F16s arrived. Waiting a little longer also makes it harder for Russia to counter-attack once it rains. But I also think the US is correct in that Ukraine is spreading their forces too thin and should focus on destroying supply lines to Crimea.

    Unlike Putin’s fanboys I can actually criticize everyone. I don’t have an emotional attachment to Putin or any politician for that matter. Trump Tribe here in fact would get angry when I would criticize Trump out of concern that he wouldn’t be re-elected. Well I guess their blind fanboyism won in the end. Oh wait.

    You rail against CNN which nonetheless seems to have a linking to your pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian slant.

    CNN normally gets the weather correct.

    That doesn’t mean they are “my side” or something. The majority of the world takes the side of Ukraine. Maybe you missed the 143-5 vote against Russia.

    I rail against CNN because they are dishonest and hold too much influence over the US public. That was proven beyond a shadow of the doubt with the hunter laptop story and the 50 CIA experts nonsense. But it’s nothing specific to CNN. All major US media is garbage. Fox News is among the worst. However turning to pro-Russian sources is not the answer. It’s changing one biased source for another.

    This should be good –

    Patrick Lancaster works for Russian media. As with Ritter he takes a paycheck to be the “US military voice” for propaganda.

    Judge Napotino only interviews pro-Russian sources and never asks real questions. Napolitano is a very short man like Putin. Do short bitter men vibe off Putin? Does he fulfill some fantasy of a cruel small man getting revenge against the world?

    Serious question: Is there a publicly known US defender of Putin that is at least 5’8 and has a stable career? Without any convictions?

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @John Johnson


    Not sure of your point.

    Are you trying to tell me the counter-offensive has been costly? Yes that seems to be the case.

    I think you might be again projecting your own fanboyism. I never once said that the counter-offensive will be a smashing success with few casualties. In fact I was critical of the US for demanding a counter-offensive. I think they should have stayed quiet and prodded at the lines. If they were doing well defensively in Bakhmut then the US/UK should have left them alone. Talk of a grand counter offensive only spurred Russia to dig in. I also think they should have waited until some of the M1s and F16s arrived. Waiting a little longer also makes it harder for Russia to counter-attack once it rains. But I also think the US is correct in that Ukraine is spreading their forces too thin and should focus on destroying supply lines to Crimea.

    Unlike Putin’s fanboys I can actually criticize everyone. I don’t have an emotional attachment to Putin or any politician for that matter. Trump Tribe here in fact would get angry when I would criticize Trump out of concern that he wouldn’t be re-elected. Well I guess their blind fanboyism won in the end. Oh wait.

    You rail against CNN which nonetheless seems to have a linking to your pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian slant.

    CNN normally gets the weather correct.

    That doesn’t mean they are “my side” or something. The majority of the world takes the side of Ukraine. Maybe you missed the 143-5 vote against Russia.

    I rail against CNN because they are dishonest and hold too much influence over the US public. That was proven beyond a shadow of the doubt with the hunter laptop story and the 50 CIA experts nonsense. But it’s nothing specific to CNN. All major US media is garbage. Fox News is among the worst. However turning to pro-Russian sources is not the answer. It’s changing one biased source for another.

    This should be good –

    Patrick Lancaster works for Russian media. As with Ritter he takes a paycheck to be the “US military voice” for propaganda.

    Judge Napotino only interviews pro-Russian sources and never asks real questions. Napolitano is a very short man like Putin. Do short bitter men vibe off Putin? Does he fulfill some fantasy of a cruel small man getting revenge against the world?

    Serious question: Is there a publicly known US defender of Putin that is at least 5’8 and has a stable career? Without any convictions?
     

    Pragmatic advocacy on my part which is the opposite of what you spew.

    Zelensky is listed as the same height as Putin. Size is irrelevant when it comes to numerous things including opinions regarding Russia-Ukraine. Not sure of how tall Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson are. Napolitano has had on at least two people with pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian sentiment. Much better than CNN, MSNBC and post-Tucker Fox News. You inaccurately categorize Napolitano's show with the pro-Putin designation. Are Tony Shaffer and Danny Davis "pro-Putin"? Johnson and McGovern will likely object to your simplistically inaccurate categorization.

    The majority of the world isn't supporting the collective West sanctions against Russia. Over time, more and more are realizing that the Kiev regimes is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22.

    F-16s aren't a game changer for several obvious reasons.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  43. @songbird
    In his life, it was not enough that he was bald, suffered from arthritis, atherosclerosis, Lyme disease, whipworm, Helicobacter pylori, gum disease, tooth decay and gallstones - poor Ötzi was the first victim of lynching!

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-otzi-iceman-dna-ancestry-genome

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    My Economics 1 professor was very fond of a joke.

    Ask a doctor how do you describe a healthy patient. The answer they give is he hasn’t had a complete workup yet!

    Every one of us is going to die. Helicopter pylon is going to win.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Perhaps, the whipworm reduced his inflammation.

  44. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Does not compute. The Brits are pretty damn good at making Formula One cars, but can't make a quality car for everyman anymore (not helped by their government going electric car mad, which the Brits are even less able to make than petrol/diesel cars) without help from Nissan/Ford/GM.

    I drove a Chinese van last year, a Ford Transit "white van man" equivalent vehicle. It was pretty damn good.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxus_V90

    Half the medical kit in Brit hospitals is Chinese. Not looked at big-ticket things like MRI scanners, but the x-ray machines with "General Electric" on the side are made in China.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @Dmitry

    That van looks a lot like a Ford, maybe a little bit like a Nissan, too.

  45. @A123
    @Adept

    How many of those "Chinese EV's" never existed?

    How many have been abandoned?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1SEfwoqKRU8

    The CCP centrally planned economy has huge problems. A significant amount of theoretical GDP does not actually translate to real world productivity.
    ____

    Protecting American jobs from subsidied foreign SOE competitors is High-IQ industrial policy in the interest of America's citizen/workers.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Adept

    Seriously, you’re posting serpentza vids? And Zeihan? Come on.

    A significant amount of theoretical GDP does not actually translate to real world productivity.

    Case in point: Nearly 20% (!!) of the US GDP is in healthcare, of all things. Think about that one for a minute. And then consider that in spite of this, life expectancy in the US has been falling to laughably low levels, and life expectancy in China has recently surpassed it.

    The Chinese are not doing that bad. I’d say that they’re playing their hand more or less correctly. The US, in contrast, is self-sabotaging in ways that people just 20 years ago would hardly even believe possible.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Adept


    Seriously, you’re posting serpentza vids? And Zeihan?
     
    Zeihan has a solid track record accurately documenting CCP dysfunction.

    serpentza was a fairly random grab. He must be skilled at playing the YT algorithm. There are hundreds of videos on the catastrophic "ghost car" fiasco in the CCP auto industry. Here is an alternative source. The same fact set is everywhere.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CVYZSDpouH8


    The Chinese are not doing that bad. I’d say that they’re playing their hand more or less correctly.
     
    Failed property developer Evergrande tried to access markets recently. This went exceedingly poorly. And, this is not a unique situation. All of the large CCP linked or SOE property companies have one foot in the grave.

    The US ... is self-sabotaging in ways that people just 20 years ago would hardly even believe possible.
     
    No doubt, the U.S. has some serious problems. Most notably deindustrialization. The concept of "free trade" is actually "unilateral disarmament".

    The answer is MAGA Reindustrialization. If rebuilding America requires tariffs and aggressive industrial policy, those are High-IQ MAGA decisions.

    PEACE 😇

  46. @Adept
    @John Johnson


    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?
     
    In 2022, 5.9M electric vehicles were sold in China -- more than the rest of the world combined. The overwhelming majority of these were domestic models. China is leading the world in electric car production, and frankly it's not even close.

    Why aren't they dominating the US electric vehicle market? Why do you think?

    ...The short answer is protectionism. There's a 27.5% tariff on Chinese vehicle imports. See, e.g.: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/china-electric-cars

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson

    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?

    In 2022, 5.9M electric vehicles were sold in China — more than the rest of the world combined. The overwhelming majority of these were domestic models. China is leading the world in electric car production, and frankly it’s not even close.

    Your stat is wrong.

    Top 5 companies make up for 52% of EV sales.
    https://insideevs.com/news/651978/world-top-ev-oem-sales-2022q4/

    In any case it doesn’t change the fact that we have seen many predictions in the past about China dominating various US markets including EV and compact cars. They were supposed to overtake KIA and they don’t even have a foot in the market. These were predictions about the US market and not Chinese production.

    The Chinese in America are not as cunning or aggressive in business as other ethnic groups. I don’t see why so many view the Chinese as capitalist gods that are waiting to be unleashed.

    Maybe they will dominate some future market, maybe they won’t. But we have been hearing for over a decade on how the Year of China domination is right around the corner.

    Any day now just like the End of the Dollar.

    Oh and EV sales are on the decline so the Chinese takeover is even less likely.
    https://jalopnik.com/dealers-are-turning-away-ev-inventory-report-1850771467

    Electric vehicles in the US are mostly for wealthy liberals that want to virtue signal. That is why so many of them cost over $60. They are status symbols. I support EVs but not as a status toy for liberals with too much money.

    • Replies: @Adept
    @John Johnson

    I was looking at this, which paints a different picture: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/01/plugin-electric-vehicles-get-30-share-of-auto-market-in-another-record-month-in-china/

    Replies: @QCIC

  47. @Beckow
    @John Johnson


    Which point are you referring to?
     
    How about 11. - and don't try to play stupid like with Nato in Kiev Constitution:

    11. Conducting constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the new constitution coming into force by the end of 2015, providing for decentralization as a key element (taking into account the characteristics of individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, agreed with representatives of these areas), as well as the adoption of the permanent legislation on the special status
     
    It is also mentioned in points 4,9,12. (You should read the Russian version for clarity.)

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?
     
    If Nato invasion of Serbia was about Kosovo, why did they brutally bomb Beograd and the rest of Serbia? I suppose the answer is that wars are like that - nobody respects 'boundaries', they just want to win.

    do you acknowledge that Russia is currently fighting for territory that was not part of the Minsk agreement?
     
    Yes, absolutely - I said it many times. Kiev refused painful but fair concessions - neutral Ukraine with Donbas having an autonomy. Now it is for as many marbles as the winner can take. That's my point - Kiev screwed up. It is not clear why they would if they had Ukraine's well-being as their first priority. It looks like they didn't.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Which point are you referring to?

    How about 11. – and don’t try to play stupid like with Nato in Kiev Constitution:

    Conducting constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the new constitution coming into force by the end of 2015, providing for decentralization as a key element (taking into account the characteristics of individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, agreed with representatives of these areas), as well as the adoption of the permanent legislation on the special status

    Special status does not mean autonomy. Washington DC has special status but that does not make it an autonomous region.

    Here is a paper describing that special status:
    Ukrainian authorities did agree to extensive provisions on the “special status” of the self-proclaimed republics, which would grant them, among others, rights to linguistic self-determination and creation of separate police units
    https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/through-ashes-minsk-agreements

    Furthermore:
    the updated Minsk II stipulated that local elections would be allowed when Ukraine deemed that the security conditions were sufficient or “right.” And after the local elections were held, Ukraine would take full control of the border.

    Which means they were never granted political autonomy as security conditions were never met. Russian troops never left.

    You keep speaking of Minsk as if Ukraine is the side that ended it.

    Would you like to tell us which side attacked the Donetsk Airport in September 2014?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson


    Ukrainian authorities did agree to extensive provisions on the “special status” of the self-proclaimed republics, which would grant them, among others, rights to linguistic self-determination and creation of separate police units
     
    So, more than South Tyrol has? But no veto power over national Ukrainian policies like Russia wanted?
    , @Beckow
    @John Johnson

    You are incoherent: special status is now not autonomy? Your DC example is way off - it has special status as the capital city, as do many capitals around the world. In Europe there are plenty of autonomous, specials status, territories, many federations - get a map, maybe you will find a few. Not everything is about "DC" and you...:)

    You show desperation - it is dawning on you how big a disaster this could be for Kiev and the West. How much better would they be if they acted normally and gave their Russian minority normal rights and stayed neutral in the geopolitics they simply can't win. All of these reasons will be eventually published in the West and then the nature of how disastrously provocative the neo-con policies in Ukraine have been will be well known. That is what worries you.

    But not yet, we are in the war-making mode. Morale has to be kept up. Right? Any lie is good for fighting a war.

    Replies: @AP, @Mikhail

  48. @Adept
    @A123

    Seriously, you're posting serpentza vids? And Zeihan? Come on.



    A significant amount of theoretical GDP does not actually translate to real world productivity.

     

    Case in point: Nearly 20% (!!) of the US GDP is in healthcare, of all things. Think about that one for a minute. And then consider that in spite of this, life expectancy in the US has been falling to laughably low levels, and life expectancy in China has recently surpassed it.

    The Chinese are not doing that bad. I'd say that they're playing their hand more or less correctly. The US, in contrast, is self-sabotaging in ways that people just 20 years ago would hardly even believe possible.

    Replies: @A123

    Seriously, you’re posting serpentza vids? And Zeihan?

    Zeihan has a solid track record accurately documenting CCP dysfunction.

    serpentza was a fairly random grab. He must be skilled at playing the YT algorithm. There are hundreds of videos on the catastrophic “ghost car” fiasco in the CCP auto industry. Here is an alternative source. The same fact set is everywhere.

    The Chinese are not doing that bad. I’d say that they’re playing their hand more or less correctly.

    Failed property developer Evergrande tried to access markets recently. This went exceedingly poorly. And, this is not a unique situation. All of the large CCP linked or SOE property companies have one foot in the grave.

    The US … is self-sabotaging in ways that people just 20 years ago would hardly even believe possible.

    No doubt, the U.S. has some serious problems. Most notably deindustrialization. The concept of “free trade” is actually “unilateral disarmament”.

    The answer is MAGA Reindustrialization. If rebuilding America requires tariffs and aggressive industrial policy, those are High-IQ MAGA decisions.

    PEACE 😇

  49. @John Johnson
    @Beckow


    Which point are you referring to?
     
    How about 11. – and don’t try to play stupid like with Nato in Kiev Constitution:

    Conducting constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the new constitution coming into force by the end of 2015, providing for decentralization as a key element (taking into account the characteristics of individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, agreed with representatives of these areas), as well as the adoption of the permanent legislation on the special status

    Special status does not mean autonomy. Washington DC has special status but that does not make it an autonomous region.

    Here is a paper describing that special status:
    Ukrainian authorities did agree to extensive provisions on the "special status" of the self-proclaimed republics, which would grant them, among others, rights to linguistic self-determination and creation of separate police units
    https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/through-ashes-minsk-agreements

    Furthermore:
    the updated Minsk II stipulated that local elections would be allowed when Ukraine deemed that the security conditions were sufficient or “right.” And after the local elections were held, Ukraine would take full control of the border.

    Which means they were never granted political autonomy as security conditions were never met. Russian troops never left.

    You keep speaking of Minsk as if Ukraine is the side that ended it.

    Would you like to tell us which side attacked the Donetsk Airport in September 2014?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Beckow

    Ukrainian authorities did agree to extensive provisions on the “special status” of the self-proclaimed republics, which would grant them, among others, rights to linguistic self-determination and creation of separate police units

    So, more than South Tyrol has? But no veto power over national Ukrainian policies like Russia wanted?

  50. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    My Economics 1 professor was very fond of a joke.

    Ask a doctor how do you describe a healthy patient. The answer they give is he hasn't had a complete workup yet!

    Every one of us is going to die. Helicopter pylon is going to win.

    Replies: @songbird

    Perhaps, the whipworm reduced his inflammation.

  51. @John Johnson
    @Adept


    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?
     
    In 2022, 5.9M electric vehicles were sold in China — more than the rest of the world combined. The overwhelming majority of these were domestic models. China is leading the world in electric car production, and frankly it’s not even close.

    Your stat is wrong.

    Top 5 companies make up for 52% of EV sales.
    https://insideevs.com/news/651978/world-top-ev-oem-sales-2022q4/

    In any case it doesn't change the fact that we have seen many predictions in the past about China dominating various US markets including EV and compact cars. They were supposed to overtake KIA and they don't even have a foot in the market. These were predictions about the US market and not Chinese production.

    The Chinese in America are not as cunning or aggressive in business as other ethnic groups. I don't see why so many view the Chinese as capitalist gods that are waiting to be unleashed.

    Maybe they will dominate some future market, maybe they won't. But we have been hearing for over a decade on how the Year of China domination is right around the corner.

    Any day now just like the End of the Dollar.

    Oh and EV sales are on the decline so the Chinese takeover is even less likely.
    https://jalopnik.com/dealers-are-turning-away-ev-inventory-report-1850771467

    Electric vehicles in the US are mostly for wealthy liberals that want to virtue signal. That is why so many of them cost over $60. They are status symbols. I support EVs but not as a status toy for liberals with too much money.

    Replies: @Adept

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Adept

    EVs in China = Coal Powered Cars. LOL

  52. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    BBC said over 50 thousand Kiev regime KIA in their so-called counter-offensive. Russian defense ministry has it at 43 thousand.

    Not sure of your point.

    Are you trying to tell me the counter-offensive has been costly? Yes that seems to be the case.

    I think you might be again projecting your own fanboyism. I never once said that the counter-offensive will be a smashing success with few casualties. In fact I was critical of the US for demanding a counter-offensive. I think they should have stayed quiet and prodded at the lines. If they were doing well defensively in Bakhmut then the US/UK should have left them alone. Talk of a grand counter offensive only spurred Russia to dig in. I also think they should have waited until some of the M1s and F16s arrived. Waiting a little longer also makes it harder for Russia to counter-attack once it rains. But I also think the US is correct in that Ukraine is spreading their forces too thin and should focus on destroying supply lines to Crimea.

    Unlike Putin's fanboys I can actually criticize everyone. I don't have an emotional attachment to Putin or any politician for that matter. Trump Tribe here in fact would get angry when I would criticize Trump out of concern that he wouldn't be re-elected. Well I guess their blind fanboyism won in the end. Oh wait.

    You rail against CNN which nonetheless seems to have a linking to your pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian slant.

    CNN normally gets the weather correct.

    That doesn't mean they are "my side" or something. The majority of the world takes the side of Ukraine. Maybe you missed the 143-5 vote against Russia.

    I rail against CNN because they are dishonest and hold too much influence over the US public. That was proven beyond a shadow of the doubt with the hunter laptop story and the 50 CIA experts nonsense. But it's nothing specific to CNN. All major US media is garbage. Fox News is among the worst. However turning to pro-Russian sources is not the answer. It's changing one biased source for another.

    This should be good –

    Patrick Lancaster works for Russian media. As with Ritter he takes a paycheck to be the "US military voice" for propaganda.

    Judge Napotino only interviews pro-Russian sources and never asks real questions. Napolitano is a very short man like Putin. Do short bitter men vibe off Putin? Does he fulfill some fantasy of a cruel small man getting revenge against the world?

    Serious question: Is there a publicly known US defender of Putin that is at least 5'8 and has a stable career? Without any convictions?

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Not sure of your point.

    Are you trying to tell me the counter-offensive has been costly? Yes that seems to be the case.

    I think you might be again projecting your own fanboyism. I never once said that the counter-offensive will be a smashing success with few casualties. In fact I was critical of the US for demanding a counter-offensive. I think they should have stayed quiet and prodded at the lines. If they were doing well defensively in Bakhmut then the US/UK should have left them alone. Talk of a grand counter offensive only spurred Russia to dig in. I also think they should have waited until some of the M1s and F16s arrived. Waiting a little longer also makes it harder for Russia to counter-attack once it rains. But I also think the US is correct in that Ukraine is spreading their forces too thin and should focus on destroying supply lines to Crimea.

    Unlike Putin’s fanboys I can actually criticize everyone. I don’t have an emotional attachment to Putin or any politician for that matter. Trump Tribe here in fact would get angry when I would criticize Trump out of concern that he wouldn’t be re-elected. Well I guess their blind fanboyism won in the end. Oh wait.

    You rail against CNN which nonetheless seems to have a linking to your pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian slant.

    CNN normally gets the weather correct.

    That doesn’t mean they are “my side” or something. The majority of the world takes the side of Ukraine. Maybe you missed the 143-5 vote against Russia.

    I rail against CNN because they are dishonest and hold too much influence over the US public. That was proven beyond a shadow of the doubt with the hunter laptop story and the 50 CIA experts nonsense. But it’s nothing specific to CNN. All major US media is garbage. Fox News is among the worst. However turning to pro-Russian sources is not the answer. It’s changing one biased source for another.

    This should be good –

    Patrick Lancaster works for Russian media. As with Ritter he takes a paycheck to be the “US military voice” for propaganda.

    Judge Napotino only interviews pro-Russian sources and never asks real questions. Napolitano is a very short man like Putin. Do short bitter men vibe off Putin? Does he fulfill some fantasy of a cruel small man getting revenge against the world?

    Serious question: Is there a publicly known US defender of Putin that is at least 5’8 and has a stable career? Without any convictions?

    Pragmatic advocacy on my part which is the opposite of what you spew.

    Zelensky is listed as the same height as Putin. Size is irrelevant when it comes to numerous things including opinions regarding Russia-Ukraine. Not sure of how tall Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson are. Napolitano has had on at least two people with pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian sentiment. Much better than CNN, MSNBC and post-Tucker Fox News. You inaccurately categorize Napolitano’s show with the pro-Putin designation. Are Tony Shaffer and Danny Davis “pro-Putin”? Johnson and McGovern will likely object to your simplistically inaccurate categorization.

    The majority of the world isn’t supporting the collective West sanctions against Russia. Over time, more and more are realizing that the Kiev regimes is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22.

    F-16s aren’t a game changer for several obvious reasons.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Pragmatic advocacy on my part which is the opposite of what you spew.

    Zelensky is listed as the same height as Putin. Size is irrelevant when it comes to numerous things including opinions regarding Russia-Ukraine.

    It's not at all irrelevant when a dictator wears shoe lifts.

    He is clearly insecure about his height if he feels the need to add 4" heels and won't allow himself to be photographed with tall Western women.

    Zelensky is short but has actual confidence.

    This war would not exist if Putin was 5'10. It is classic Napolean syndrome.

    I also can't help but notice that his close associates like Medvedev and Kadyrov are also very short. Stalin also preferred short henchmen. Tall and handsome officers had no chance during the purge. Stalin was very insecure about his height and kept it a secret from the public. Russia has created quite a few short and murderous men.

    Napolitano has had on at least two people with pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian sentiment.

    The guy is a pro-Russian hack. He sits and nods like a robot when Larry C or MacGregor ramble. A real journalist is supposed to ask questions that challenges the expert. Napolitano gives them a platform and doesn't question any of their past claims.

    Are Tony Shaffer and Danny Davis “pro-Putin”? Johnson and McGovern will likely object to your simplistically inaccurate categorization.

    Shaffer went on his show and talked about how Russia is going to win.

    I've seen dozens of Napolitano interviews where he just sits there and snickers while his guest rambles about how Russia is winning. He has been doing this since the invasion.

    He has a right to softball pro-Putin guests and I have the right to call him out on it. He is a pro-Putin hack that is afraid to ask MacGregor real questions.

    The majority of the world isn’t supporting the collective West sanctions against Russia. Over time, more and more are realizing that the Kiev regimes is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22.

    The majority of the world is non-White, poor to middle income and wants cheap oil from Russia. The 143-5 vote however makes it clear that the world does not view Putin's war as justified. There were multiple votes in fact and the only consistent supporters of Putin have been dictatorships like Belarus and North Korea.

    F-16s aren’t a game changer for several obvious reasons.

    I never said they were a game changer. I've said that Ukraine should have waited for them and the m1s to arrive before launching a counter-offensive.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  53. Concerning neocon-neolib and svido delusions –

    Norway Slaughters Treacherous Reindeer Who Crossed Border into Russia, Kiev Regime Forces Claim to Take Hamlet of Rabotino After 3 Months, Zelensky Asks West to Pay for “Elections” Amidst War, more…
    https://marksleboda.substack.com/p/norway-slaughters-treacherous-reindeer?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2#details

  54. @John Johnson
    @Beckow


    Which point are you referring to?
     
    How about 11. – and don’t try to play stupid like with Nato in Kiev Constitution:

    Conducting constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the new constitution coming into force by the end of 2015, providing for decentralization as a key element (taking into account the characteristics of individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, agreed with representatives of these areas), as well as the adoption of the permanent legislation on the special status

    Special status does not mean autonomy. Washington DC has special status but that does not make it an autonomous region.

    Here is a paper describing that special status:
    Ukrainian authorities did agree to extensive provisions on the "special status" of the self-proclaimed republics, which would grant them, among others, rights to linguistic self-determination and creation of separate police units
    https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/through-ashes-minsk-agreements

    Furthermore:
    the updated Minsk II stipulated that local elections would be allowed when Ukraine deemed that the security conditions were sufficient or “right.” And after the local elections were held, Ukraine would take full control of the border.

    Which means they were never granted political autonomy as security conditions were never met. Russian troops never left.

    You keep speaking of Minsk as if Ukraine is the side that ended it.

    Would you like to tell us which side attacked the Donetsk Airport in September 2014?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Beckow

    You are incoherent: special status is now not autonomy? Your DC example is way off – it has special status as the capital city, as do many capitals around the world. In Europe there are plenty of autonomous, specials status, territories, many federations – get a map, maybe you will find a few. Not everything is about “DC” and you…:)

    You show desperation – it is dawning on you how big a disaster this could be for Kiev and the West. How much better would they be if they acted normally and gave their Russian minority normal rights and stayed neutral in the geopolitics they simply can’t win. All of these reasons will be eventually published in the West and then the nature of how disastrously provocative the neo-con policies in Ukraine have been will be well known. That is what worries you.

    But not yet, we are in the war-making mode. Morale has to be kept up. Right? Any lie is good for fighting a war.

    • Agree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    You are incoherent: special status is now not autonomy?
     
    Zelensky hoped that this would be interpreted in a way that would not cancel Ukraine's independence. But Russia refused.

    how big a disaster this could be for Kiev and the West
     
    Beckow is starting to hedge a little bit - "could."

    For Ukrainians the disasters were having Russia as a neighbor, and Putin stupidly underestimated Ukrainian resolve and launching an ill-fated invasion. Defending one's independence was not a "disaster." I understand that your people of course allied with the Nazis and did nothing against the Soviets, and when Putin looked to be strong you personally hoped for his victory.

    Russia is just grinding its military to dust in Ukraine. But not only there - it just lost 5% of its transport fleet in one night, due to drone attacks within Russia itself. Russia will kill a handful of civilians in retaliation, it's all that the weak can really do. And hide behind their minefields, hoping that they aren't breached and that in the end they can keep as much as they can of what had been stolen more than a year ago. I still give 50/50 odds of Ukraine retaking the Crimea corridor as I did many months ago. In your ignorance you didn't think Ukrainians would fight to defend themselves, and also in your ignorance you didn't know that Ukrainians were the best fighters amongst the eastern Slavs. You stupidly thought Soviet or Russian Empire military prowess and success was about Great Russians and called World War II a Russian victory, leading to the moronic prediction that this war would be just another easy victory of a Russian juggernaut, rather than the larger and more populous but weaker Great Russians trying to defeat the less numerous, but superior, "Little Russians" Ukrainian fighters.

    How much better would they be if they acted normally and gave their Russian minority normal rights and stayed neutral in the geopolitics they simply can’t win
     
    "Acted normally" - allowed a foreign country to dictate their internal and external policies.

    For you, being a lackey and collaborator, this is indeed quite normal. Capitulate without a fight and hope that someone else saves you. And maybe be sneaky and whine about it. But not for others.

    You are upset that the Ukrainians did not surrender their sovereignty without a fight, as you surely would have done. It highlights your inferiority to peoples such as Poles, Ukrainians, Finns. etc. And your parasitism vis a vis these peoples. They were the ones who prevented Hitler from winning and the ones who later caused the downfall of the Soviet system. While you benefited form their efforts. Clever, but nothing to be proud of. Your lack of gratitude, like your chronic dishonesty, speaks to your inferior character.

    Any lie is good for fighting a war.
     
    You inadvertently confess something about yourself here.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Beckow

    , @Mikhail
    @Beckow

    Dig the crapola about WW II Slovakia. Dubcek and Husak weren't Nazi allied along with numerous other Slovaks. Much like how the French and for that matter the Ukrainians among others had noticeable numbers with either the Axis or Allies.

    https://www.mzv.sk/documents/10182/2369491/BROZURA_70_VYROCIE_SNP_indd.pdf/007d0f33-4aa1-4e3a-95ae-5ef5096360d3

    Replies: @AP, @Beckow

  55. Some common sense from current House majority instead of quite frequent bootlicking of Putler these days – US trade deficit will be contracting while EU dependence on capricious Kremlin schackles could be extinguished fully:

    U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has revealed he plans to promote U.S. natural gas exports at an upcoming G7 meeting. McCarthy will frame his agenda in the context of Europe buying more U.S. gas as a way for the continent to wean itself off Russian gas following its war in Ukraine.

    “If we just replace Russian natural gas with American in Europe alone for one year, we would lower 218 billion tons of CO2 emissions because our natural gas is cleaner. America would be economically stronger, our prices would be lower and the world would be safer,” McCarthy said on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures.
    Earlier in the current year, U.S. secretary of State Antony Blinken revealed that they had discussed with EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell regarding the U.S. and the EU’s unprecedented cooperation on energy security.

    “We share our commitment to prevent a climate catastrophe through accelerating the global clean energy transition, building resilient, secure and diversified supply chains for renewable energy, and doing it in a way that creates good paying jobs and lowers costs for people on both sides of the Atlantic,” Blinken said.

    Last year, U.S. LNG exports to Europe jumped 140%Y/Y to 56 billion cubic meters (bcm) as Europe ditched Russian gas. Also, for the first time ever, U.S. LNG exports exceeded pipeline exports of natural gas on an annual basis.

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/US-LNG-Exports-to-Take-Center-Stage-At-G7-Meeting.html

    Also should be reminded that average price of RF natgas for core EU was roughly around 330$ for 1000m3 during last decade prior Covid, so current market price of 350EUR for LNG is not anyhow more costly when accounting inflation, the only problem is still existing EU LNG import facilities bottlenecks. Prior Covid EU imported roughly about 170 billion bcm from RF, so far US has managed to replace roughly third of this amount with 56 billions bcm last year.

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @sudden death


    MOSCOW, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM) said on Tuesday it generated a net loss of 18.6 billion roubles ($197 million) in the second quarter of 2023 after a net profit of 1.03 trillion roubles a year earlier following the collapse of gas exports to Europe.

    Gazprom has suspended the disclosure of its exports data, but according to Reuters calculations, supplies to Europe, once its key source of earnings, were about 15 billion cubic metres (bcm) in January-July compared with 62 bcm for the whole 2022.

    "The decline in exports to Europe was partially offset by supplies to China, which continue to grow as part of contractual obligations, as well as the efficient operation of the oil business," Famil Sadygov, Gazprom's Deputy CEO, said on Telegram messaging app.

    He also said the earnings were impacted by the rouble rate, which weakened 24% against the U.S. dollar in the first six months of this year.

    The Kremlin-controlled company also said its net income for the first six months of the year fell to 296 billion roubles from 2.5 trillion roubles in January-June 2022, while its base for dividend payment reached 618 billion roubles for the period.
     

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-says-it-swings-q2-net-loss-exports-europe-slump-2023-08-29/

    So in 2023 Gazprom pipeline natgas exports in EU will be roughly about 30-35 billion m3 compared with 170 billion m3 before Covid, but exports in China last year reached "record" of 15 billion m3, this year might be more, maybe 20-25 billion m3, so the overall cumulative loss of pipeline natgas export volume still remains in tune of 100 billion m3 for RF.

    Replies: @QCIC

  56. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson


    Not sure of your point.

    Are you trying to tell me the counter-offensive has been costly? Yes that seems to be the case.

    I think you might be again projecting your own fanboyism. I never once said that the counter-offensive will be a smashing success with few casualties. In fact I was critical of the US for demanding a counter-offensive. I think they should have stayed quiet and prodded at the lines. If they were doing well defensively in Bakhmut then the US/UK should have left them alone. Talk of a grand counter offensive only spurred Russia to dig in. I also think they should have waited until some of the M1s and F16s arrived. Waiting a little longer also makes it harder for Russia to counter-attack once it rains. But I also think the US is correct in that Ukraine is spreading their forces too thin and should focus on destroying supply lines to Crimea.

    Unlike Putin’s fanboys I can actually criticize everyone. I don’t have an emotional attachment to Putin or any politician for that matter. Trump Tribe here in fact would get angry when I would criticize Trump out of concern that he wouldn’t be re-elected. Well I guess their blind fanboyism won in the end. Oh wait.

    You rail against CNN which nonetheless seems to have a linking to your pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian slant.

    CNN normally gets the weather correct.

    That doesn’t mean they are “my side” or something. The majority of the world takes the side of Ukraine. Maybe you missed the 143-5 vote against Russia.

    I rail against CNN because they are dishonest and hold too much influence over the US public. That was proven beyond a shadow of the doubt with the hunter laptop story and the 50 CIA experts nonsense. But it’s nothing specific to CNN. All major US media is garbage. Fox News is among the worst. However turning to pro-Russian sources is not the answer. It’s changing one biased source for another.

    This should be good –

    Patrick Lancaster works for Russian media. As with Ritter he takes a paycheck to be the “US military voice” for propaganda.

    Judge Napotino only interviews pro-Russian sources and never asks real questions. Napolitano is a very short man like Putin. Do short bitter men vibe off Putin? Does he fulfill some fantasy of a cruel small man getting revenge against the world?

    Serious question: Is there a publicly known US defender of Putin that is at least 5’8 and has a stable career? Without any convictions?
     

    Pragmatic advocacy on my part which is the opposite of what you spew.

    Zelensky is listed as the same height as Putin. Size is irrelevant when it comes to numerous things including opinions regarding Russia-Ukraine. Not sure of how tall Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson are. Napolitano has had on at least two people with pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian sentiment. Much better than CNN, MSNBC and post-Tucker Fox News. You inaccurately categorize Napolitano's show with the pro-Putin designation. Are Tony Shaffer and Danny Davis "pro-Putin"? Johnson and McGovern will likely object to your simplistically inaccurate categorization.

    The majority of the world isn't supporting the collective West sanctions against Russia. Over time, more and more are realizing that the Kiev regimes is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22.

    F-16s aren't a game changer for several obvious reasons.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Pragmatic advocacy on my part which is the opposite of what you spew.

    Zelensky is listed as the same height as Putin. Size is irrelevant when it comes to numerous things including opinions regarding Russia-Ukraine.

    It’s not at all irrelevant when a dictator wears shoe lifts.

    He is clearly insecure about his height if he feels the need to add 4″ heels and won’t allow himself to be photographed with tall Western women.

    Zelensky is short but has actual confidence.

    This war would not exist if Putin was 5’10. It is classic Napolean syndrome.

    I also can’t help but notice that his close associates like Medvedev and Kadyrov are also very short. Stalin also preferred short henchmen. Tall and handsome officers had no chance during the purge. Stalin was very insecure about his height and kept it a secret from the public. Russia has created quite a few short and murderous men.

    Napolitano has had on at least two people with pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian sentiment.

    The guy is a pro-Russian hack. He sits and nods like a robot when Larry C or MacGregor ramble. A real journalist is supposed to ask questions that challenges the expert. Napolitano gives them a platform and doesn’t question any of their past claims.

    Are Tony Shaffer and Danny Davis “pro-Putin”? Johnson and McGovern will likely object to your simplistically inaccurate categorization.

    Shaffer went on his show and talked about how Russia is going to win.

    I’ve seen dozens of Napolitano interviews where he just sits there and snickers while his guest rambles about how Russia is winning. He has been doing this since the invasion.

    He has a right to softball pro-Putin guests and I have the right to call him out on it. He is a pro-Putin hack that is afraid to ask MacGregor real questions.

    The majority of the world isn’t supporting the collective West sanctions against Russia. Over time, more and more are realizing that the Kiev regimes is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22.

    The majority of the world is non-White, poor to middle income and wants cheap oil from Russia. The 143-5 vote however makes it clear that the world does not view Putin’s war as justified. There were multiple votes in fact and the only consistent supporters of Putin have been dictatorships like Belarus and North Korea.

    F-16s aren’t a game changer for several obvious reasons.

    I never said they were a game changer. I’ve said that Ukraine should have waited for them and the m1s to arrive before launching a counter-offensive.

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    Just like I've the right to call you out for the neocon-neolib svido troll that you are.

    On one of your many empty calories comments (have better things to do), the Kiev regime isn't in a good can wait mode regarding F-16s or any other weapon. Russia waited seven years. Russia is winning and will ultimately win.

    Replies: @sudden death, @John Johnson

  57. The Pacific cycle El Nino is in force so out comes the tropes of “warmer then average temperatures!”

    Now average is made up of all collected temperature readings, high and low, divided by the number of readings.

    I would consider a long run of average daily temperatures to be the anomaly and this would be something to be investigated!

  58. @Mikhail
    @QCIC

    How someone else put it -

    It's sad to see how the general is lying about Russia, Georgia, Iraq, Syria... It's obvious he knows that he is lying. He does not have brain to understand that it's a different time now, it's not 1970 when people could not check the facts themselves. Now it's not a problem.

    Anyway, I understand why President Eisenhower did not trust the MIC and appointed a civilian to be his Secretary of Defense.

    Active military-former military versus civilian doesn't necessarily make for a good separation from the MIC. After all, Eisenhower was former military when he made that observation. Thinking of all of the neocon chicken hawks with little if any military background, willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @QCIC

    I think Hodges believes in power. He strikes me as a “If you have power and don’t use it, what’s the point?”

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @QCIC

    Hodges believes in the disingenuously stated rules based international order, which allows for one side to make moves that another party can't. This very point concerns how Western mass media is very selective on its use of illegal.

  59. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Pragmatic advocacy on my part which is the opposite of what you spew.

    Zelensky is listed as the same height as Putin. Size is irrelevant when it comes to numerous things including opinions regarding Russia-Ukraine.

    It's not at all irrelevant when a dictator wears shoe lifts.

    He is clearly insecure about his height if he feels the need to add 4" heels and won't allow himself to be photographed with tall Western women.

    Zelensky is short but has actual confidence.

    This war would not exist if Putin was 5'10. It is classic Napolean syndrome.

    I also can't help but notice that his close associates like Medvedev and Kadyrov are also very short. Stalin also preferred short henchmen. Tall and handsome officers had no chance during the purge. Stalin was very insecure about his height and kept it a secret from the public. Russia has created quite a few short and murderous men.

    Napolitano has had on at least two people with pro-Kiev regime/anti-Russian sentiment.

    The guy is a pro-Russian hack. He sits and nods like a robot when Larry C or MacGregor ramble. A real journalist is supposed to ask questions that challenges the expert. Napolitano gives them a platform and doesn't question any of their past claims.

    Are Tony Shaffer and Danny Davis “pro-Putin”? Johnson and McGovern will likely object to your simplistically inaccurate categorization.

    Shaffer went on his show and talked about how Russia is going to win.

    I've seen dozens of Napolitano interviews where he just sits there and snickers while his guest rambles about how Russia is winning. He has been doing this since the invasion.

    He has a right to softball pro-Putin guests and I have the right to call him out on it. He is a pro-Putin hack that is afraid to ask MacGregor real questions.

    The majority of the world isn’t supporting the collective West sanctions against Russia. Over time, more and more are realizing that the Kiev regimes is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22.

    The majority of the world is non-White, poor to middle income and wants cheap oil from Russia. The 143-5 vote however makes it clear that the world does not view Putin's war as justified. There were multiple votes in fact and the only consistent supporters of Putin have been dictatorships like Belarus and North Korea.

    F-16s aren’t a game changer for several obvious reasons.

    I never said they were a game changer. I've said that Ukraine should have waited for them and the m1s to arrive before launching a counter-offensive.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Just like I’ve the right to call you out for the neocon-neolib svido troll that you are.

    On one of your many empty calories comments (have better things to do), the Kiev regime isn’t in a good can wait mode regarding F-16s or any other weapon. Russia waited seven years. Russia is winning and will ultimately win.

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @Mikhail

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4t2qFkW0AAhw-k.jpg

    Replies: @Mikhail

    , @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Just like I’ve the right to call you out for the neocon-neolib svido troll that you are.

    Neocon-neolib? Well that's a new one anyways.

    On one of your many empty calories comments (have better things to do), the Kiev regime isn’t in a good can wait mode regarding F-16s or any other weapon. Russia waited seven years. Russia is winning and will ultimately win.

    Ukraine made the mistake of launching a counter-offensive before all the hardware arrived but Russia made the bigger mistake of trying to take the entire country instead of Donbas.

    What is a win for Russia? Marching on Kiev? Putin signaled that he is no longer interested. He just wants Donbas and his "mission accomplished" banner that he can fly for State TV. They won't point out that he originally said the war is about preventing NATO expansion and Sweden/Finland joined as a result of the invasion.

    In any case the world views Putin as a loser. No reason to get personally frustrated with me over it.

    Just read the comments on any Russia/Ukraine video on youtube. The world views him as a second rate Hitler. In fact the Germans will get a break in all this. They won't be the most recent European country to have a psychopathic dictator start a needless war. Russians are the new Germans.

    Replies: @Sean, @Mikhail

  60. @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    I think Hodges believes in power. He strikes me as a "If you have power and don't use it, what's the point?"

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Hodges believes in the disingenuously stated rules based international order, which allows for one side to make moves that another party can’t. This very point concerns how Western mass media is very selective on its use of illegal.

  61. @Adept
    @John Johnson

    I was looking at this, which paints a different picture: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/01/plugin-electric-vehicles-get-30-share-of-auto-market-in-another-record-month-in-china/

    Replies: @QCIC

    EVs in China = Coal Powered Cars. LOL

    • LOL: John Johnson, A123
  62. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    Just like I've the right to call you out for the neocon-neolib svido troll that you are.

    On one of your many empty calories comments (have better things to do), the Kiev regime isn't in a good can wait mode regarding F-16s or any other weapon. Russia waited seven years. Russia is winning and will ultimately win.

    Replies: @sudden death, @John Johnson

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @sudden death

    Substantiating that is another matter. PBS should be known just as BS with Christiane Amanpour as a prime example. Russia should've run out of missiles by now according to the crock that was uncritically presented awhile back. Meantime, the Kiev regime is the side more dependent on armed personnel over the age of 50 and younger than 18.

  63. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    Just like I've the right to call you out for the neocon-neolib svido troll that you are.

    On one of your many empty calories comments (have better things to do), the Kiev regime isn't in a good can wait mode regarding F-16s or any other weapon. Russia waited seven years. Russia is winning and will ultimately win.

    Replies: @sudden death, @John Johnson

    Just like I’ve the right to call you out for the neocon-neolib svido troll that you are.

    Neocon-neolib? Well that’s a new one anyways.

    On one of your many empty calories comments (have better things to do), the Kiev regime isn’t in a good can wait mode regarding F-16s or any other weapon. Russia waited seven years. Russia is winning and will ultimately win.

    Ukraine made the mistake of launching a counter-offensive before all the hardware arrived but Russia made the bigger mistake of trying to take the entire country instead of Donbas.

    What is a win for Russia? Marching on Kiev? Putin signaled that he is no longer interested. He just wants Donbas and his “mission accomplished” banner that he can fly for State TV. They won’t point out that he originally said the war is about preventing NATO expansion and Sweden/Finland joined as a result of the invasion.

    In any case the world views Putin as a loser. No reason to get personally frustrated with me over it.

    Just read the comments on any Russia/Ukraine video on youtube. The world views him as a second rate Hitler. In fact the Germans will get a break in all this. They won’t be the most recent European country to have a psychopathic dictator start a needless war. Russians are the new Germans.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @John Johnson


    What is a win for Russia?
     
    To feel compelled to fight it is not necessary to believe you'll win.
    , @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    More like the Kiev regime are the new Nazis with their pro-Bandera tilt, increased repression and dream of wonder weapons saving them from defeat.

    Put mildly, Kiev regime controlled Ukraine not likely to get into NATO. Perhaps if it just consists of Galicia and Trans-Carpathia or a portion of that territory.

    I can understand why neocon-neolib, svido leaning folks are frustrated with the reality that the sanctions have backfired with the Kiev regime losing and being incapable of winning.

    Somewhat amusing BS:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzbGA6II0mM

    Replies: @John Johnson

  64. @John Johnson
    @Sean

    Yes, and in a couple of decades China will have worked out how to make things that will be on the cutting edge.

    China was actually supposed to dominate both the US electric vehicle and compact auto market by now if we go by past predictions. How many Chinese auto lots have you seen?

    They were also supposed to overtake the Japanese and Koreans in electronics.

    Year of the Chinese and End of the Dollar predictions are made every single year.

    Good luck to this year's contenders.

    Replies: @Adept, @Sean

    There have also been predictions of imminent Chinese collapse, and supposedly savvy speculators who lost a lot of money kinda believing it. Good luck to those shorting China in various ways. There may be a period of stagnation for China, but is the US going to be ahead in the sanction-sensitive technology in fifty years; how about thirty? Whether the US is capable of out innovating China is questionable, so effectively incentivizing their getting into key areas of production they are currently dependent on the West for is not obviously harmless in the long term. Quite apart from their ancient history and recent trajectory, China has all sorts of formidable economies of scale.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Sean

    I wonder what China are doing on AI, which threatens to make a lot of things easier (but could also destroy education for many)?

    Only just realised how much depends at present on NVidia.

    NVIDIA A100, to be exact, at £7,000 a pop on Amazon. And I thought processing power was getting cheaper!

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/23/nvidias-a100-is-the-10000-chip-powering-the-race-for-ai-.html


    “A year ago we had 32 A100s,” Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque wrote on Twitter in January. “Dream big and stack moar GPUs kids. Brrr.” Stability AI is the company that helped develop Stable Diffusion, an image generator that drew attention last fall, and reportedly has a valuation of over $1 billion.

    Now, Stability AI has access to over 5,400 A100 GPUs, according to one estimate from the State of AI report, which charts and tracks which companies and universities have the largest collection of A100 GPUs.
     
    I think the people behind ChatGPT have 10,000 of them.

    Could this be America's Wunderwaffen, it's A-bomb equivalent? I imagine a bunch of bright Chinese are beavering away at creating an equivalent or better. Or perhaps they just work at NVidia.

    Imagine a military version, trained on maps, terrain, radar sites, real-time aircraft and satellite locations, plotting launch times and routes into Russia for drones. Almost certainly exists right now. I hope Russia are thinking about this.

    Replies: @Adept, @Emil Nikola Richard, @YetAnotherAnon

  65. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Just like I’ve the right to call you out for the neocon-neolib svido troll that you are.

    Neocon-neolib? Well that's a new one anyways.

    On one of your many empty calories comments (have better things to do), the Kiev regime isn’t in a good can wait mode regarding F-16s or any other weapon. Russia waited seven years. Russia is winning and will ultimately win.

    Ukraine made the mistake of launching a counter-offensive before all the hardware arrived but Russia made the bigger mistake of trying to take the entire country instead of Donbas.

    What is a win for Russia? Marching on Kiev? Putin signaled that he is no longer interested. He just wants Donbas and his "mission accomplished" banner that he can fly for State TV. They won't point out that he originally said the war is about preventing NATO expansion and Sweden/Finland joined as a result of the invasion.

    In any case the world views Putin as a loser. No reason to get personally frustrated with me over it.

    Just read the comments on any Russia/Ukraine video on youtube. The world views him as a second rate Hitler. In fact the Germans will get a break in all this. They won't be the most recent European country to have a psychopathic dictator start a needless war. Russians are the new Germans.

    Replies: @Sean, @Mikhail

    What is a win for Russia?

    To feel compelled to fight it is not necessary to believe you’ll win.

    • Thanks: QCIC
  66. @Beckow
    @John Johnson

    You are incoherent: special status is now not autonomy? Your DC example is way off - it has special status as the capital city, as do many capitals around the world. In Europe there are plenty of autonomous, specials status, territories, many federations - get a map, maybe you will find a few. Not everything is about "DC" and you...:)

    You show desperation - it is dawning on you how big a disaster this could be for Kiev and the West. How much better would they be if they acted normally and gave their Russian minority normal rights and stayed neutral in the geopolitics they simply can't win. All of these reasons will be eventually published in the West and then the nature of how disastrously provocative the neo-con policies in Ukraine have been will be well known. That is what worries you.

    But not yet, we are in the war-making mode. Morale has to be kept up. Right? Any lie is good for fighting a war.

    Replies: @AP, @Mikhail

    You are incoherent: special status is now not autonomy?

    Zelensky hoped that this would be interpreted in a way that would not cancel Ukraine’s independence. But Russia refused.

    how big a disaster this could be for Kiev and the West

    Beckow is starting to hedge a little bit – “could.”

    For Ukrainians the disasters were having Russia as a neighbor, and Putin stupidly underestimated Ukrainian resolve and launching an ill-fated invasion. Defending one’s independence was not a “disaster.” I understand that your people of course allied with the Nazis and did nothing against the Soviets, and when Putin looked to be strong you personally hoped for his victory.

    Russia is just grinding its military to dust in Ukraine. But not only there – it just lost 5% of its transport fleet in one night, due to drone attacks within Russia itself. Russia will kill a handful of civilians in retaliation, it’s all that the weak can really do. And hide behind their minefields, hoping that they aren’t breached and that in the end they can keep as much as they can of what had been stolen more than a year ago. I still give 50/50 odds of Ukraine retaking the Crimea corridor as I did many months ago. In your ignorance you didn’t think Ukrainians would fight to defend themselves, and also in your ignorance you didn’t know that Ukrainians were the best fighters amongst the eastern Slavs. You stupidly thought Soviet or Russian Empire military prowess and success was about Great Russians and called World War II a Russian victory, leading to the moronic prediction that this war would be just another easy victory of a Russian juggernaut, rather than the larger and more populous but weaker Great Russians trying to defeat the less numerous, but superior, “Little Russians” Ukrainian fighters.

    How much better would they be if they acted normally and gave their Russian minority normal rights and stayed neutral in the geopolitics they simply can’t win

    “Acted normally” – allowed a foreign country to dictate their internal and external policies.

    For you, being a lackey and collaborator, this is indeed quite normal. Capitulate without a fight and hope that someone else saves you. And maybe be sneaky and whine about it. But not for others.

    You are upset that the Ukrainians did not surrender their sovereignty without a fight, as you surely would have done. It highlights your inferiority to peoples such as Poles, Ukrainians, Finns. etc. And your parasitism vis a vis these peoples. They were the ones who prevented Hitler from winning and the ones who later caused the downfall of the Soviet system. While you benefited form their efforts. Clever, but nothing to be proud of. Your lack of gratitude, like your chronic dishonesty, speaks to your inferior character.

    Any lie is good for fighting a war.

    You inadvertently confess something about yourself here.

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    You are upset that the Ukrainians did not surrender their sovereignty without a fight, as you surely would have done. It highlights your inferiority to peoples such as Poles, Ukrainians, Finns. etc. And your parasitism vis a vis these peoples. They were the ones who prevented Hitler from winning and the ones who later caused the downfall of the Soviet system. While you benefited form their efforts. Clever, but nothing to be proud of. Your lack of gratitude, like your chronic dishonesty, speaks to your inferior character.
     
    Would Poles have still fought Hitler without the Anglo-French guarantees or would they have capitulated like the Czechs and Slovaks did?

    Replies: @AP

    , @Beckow
    @AP


    Zelensky hoped that this would be interpreted in a way that would not cancel Ukraine’s independence.
     
    Did he also interpret the meaning of "we will win the war against Russia and conquer Crimea"? He is quite a creative guy, but maybe in the wrong profession now.

    Minsk didn't cancel Ukraine’s independence: it was a normal autonomy deal that exists all over Europe. You create straw-men to fight. That shows bad will, you know that your case is otherwise indefensible.


    allowed a foreign country to dictate their internal and external policies.
     
    By your definition US-EU have been dictating to all others what they can do for decades - often with bombs. Doesn't that bother you? They say it is for "human rights" and "security". Why is it different when others ask for human rights and some security? We know the answer: you are brainwashed narcissists who focus razor-sharp only on yourself and are unable to others as equal. That's why there is this war - but now you must prove your superiority. So far you have come up short.

    It highlights your inferiority to peoples such as Poles, Ukrainians,
     
    That is fascist language - get hold of yourself. You are drinking poison hoping that others will suffer - it never works that way, you only poison yourself. But I suspect you are too dumb to understand that. (On to more teary myths, crying over losses and being a lot less than what you could have been.)

    On a practical level, it is the Ukies and Poles who are swarming to live among us, begging us to let them be like us, many wanting to forget who they are, women crying, children learning a new language - all of them happily living normal lives.

    Killing and dying to keep others from speaking Russian and to join Nato to fight more wars is about as stupid and self-denying as it gets. Enjoy and don't forget a few heroic poems, that's what it is all about? Or is it? The bottomless self-hatred that is willing to destroy it all just not to be who you are? Maybe instead move to the ultimate "West", maybe Iceland? (Hey, they are also in Nato and I am sure Russian language is frowned upon there.)

    Replies: @AP

  67. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Just like I’ve the right to call you out for the neocon-neolib svido troll that you are.

    Neocon-neolib? Well that's a new one anyways.

    On one of your many empty calories comments (have better things to do), the Kiev regime isn’t in a good can wait mode regarding F-16s or any other weapon. Russia waited seven years. Russia is winning and will ultimately win.

    Ukraine made the mistake of launching a counter-offensive before all the hardware arrived but Russia made the bigger mistake of trying to take the entire country instead of Donbas.

    What is a win for Russia? Marching on Kiev? Putin signaled that he is no longer interested. He just wants Donbas and his "mission accomplished" banner that he can fly for State TV. They won't point out that he originally said the war is about preventing NATO expansion and Sweden/Finland joined as a result of the invasion.

    In any case the world views Putin as a loser. No reason to get personally frustrated with me over it.

    Just read the comments on any Russia/Ukraine video on youtube. The world views him as a second rate Hitler. In fact the Germans will get a break in all this. They won't be the most recent European country to have a psychopathic dictator start a needless war. Russians are the new Germans.

    Replies: @Sean, @Mikhail

    More like the Kiev regime are the new Nazis with their pro-Bandera tilt, increased repression and dream of wonder weapons saving them from defeat.

    Put mildly, Kiev regime controlled Ukraine not likely to get into NATO. Perhaps if it just consists of Galicia and Trans-Carpathia or a portion of that territory.

    I can understand why neocon-neolib, svido leaning folks are frustrated with the reality that the sanctions have backfired with the Kiev regime losing and being incapable of winning.

    Somewhat amusing BS:

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    More like the Kiev regime are the new Nazis with their pro-Bandera tilt, increased repression and dream of wonder weapons saving them from defeat.

    You and the Russians can keep calling them Nazis but no one is buying it.

    Where is your evidence of this pro-Bandera tilt? I've never heard a single Ukrainian politician reference Bandera. Just because something is repeated at Moon of Alabama or Russian TV doesn't make it true.

    Put mildly, Kiev regime controlled Ukraine not likely to get into NATO.

    Ukraine was not likely to get into NATO before the war and they had no intention of applying. They didn't qualify and they didn't have the votes of France or Germany. Zelensky won on a neutral platform. Putin attacked Ukraine because his time is running out and not because Ukraine was in the process of joining.

    Finland joined NATO and they have more border with Russian than Ukraine. How is that not a loss if the war is about NATO?

    Perhaps if it just consists of Galicia and Trans-Carpathia or a portion of that territory.

    So you think it is possible for Russia to march on Kiev? Is that right?

    Why hasn't Belarus joined the war if this is all such a great idea?

    Replies: @Mikhail

  68. @sudden death
    @Mikhail

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4t2qFkW0AAhw-k.jpg

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Substantiating that is another matter. PBS should be known just as BS with Christiane Amanpour as a prime example. Russia should’ve run out of missiles by now according to the crock that was uncritically presented awhile back. Meantime, the Kiev regime is the side more dependent on armed personnel over the age of 50 and younger than 18.

  69. @Beckow
    @John Johnson

    You are incoherent: special status is now not autonomy? Your DC example is way off - it has special status as the capital city, as do many capitals around the world. In Europe there are plenty of autonomous, specials status, territories, many federations - get a map, maybe you will find a few. Not everything is about "DC" and you...:)

    You show desperation - it is dawning on you how big a disaster this could be for Kiev and the West. How much better would they be if they acted normally and gave their Russian minority normal rights and stayed neutral in the geopolitics they simply can't win. All of these reasons will be eventually published in the West and then the nature of how disastrously provocative the neo-con policies in Ukraine have been will be well known. That is what worries you.

    But not yet, we are in the war-making mode. Morale has to be kept up. Right? Any lie is good for fighting a war.

    Replies: @AP, @Mikhail

    Dig the crapola about WW II Slovakia. Dubcek and Husak weren’t Nazi allied along with numerous other Slovaks. Much like how the French and for that matter the Ukrainians among others had noticeable numbers with either the Axis or Allies.

    https://www.mzv.sk/documents/10182/2369491/BROZURA_70_VYROCIE_SNP_indd.pdf/007d0f33-4aa1-4e3a-95ae-5ef5096360d3

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikhail

    Note that this poster, Mikhail, is a supporter of the Nazi collaborator Vlasov.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    , @Beckow
    @Mikhail

    In March 1939 Germans - Hitler personally - told Slovak leaders to either declare independence or be split between Hungary and Poland. They were clerical fascists, similar to people who run Poland most of the time. They took the deal and then went too far. They are despised by almost all Slovaks, like Petain in France - we have no Waffen SS marchers or Bandera stadiums. We understand WW2, AP doesn't.

    In the 1944 uprising most people fought against Germany - Minister of Defense, generals, officers, villagers...Husak was one of the leaders, Dubcek's older brother died in the fighting. People like AP understand nothing - he is driven by hatred. You can't cure hatred and with additional losses it only gets worse. They are a sorry case and they are slowly losing again.

  70. Why Retired U.S. Generals Are So Often WRONG w/Larry Johnson fmr CIA

  71. @AP
    @Beckow


    You are incoherent: special status is now not autonomy?
     
    Zelensky hoped that this would be interpreted in a way that would not cancel Ukraine's independence. But Russia refused.

    how big a disaster this could be for Kiev and the West
     
    Beckow is starting to hedge a little bit - "could."

    For Ukrainians the disasters were having Russia as a neighbor, and Putin stupidly underestimated Ukrainian resolve and launching an ill-fated invasion. Defending one's independence was not a "disaster." I understand that your people of course allied with the Nazis and did nothing against the Soviets, and when Putin looked to be strong you personally hoped for his victory.

    Russia is just grinding its military to dust in Ukraine. But not only there - it just lost 5% of its transport fleet in one night, due to drone attacks within Russia itself. Russia will kill a handful of civilians in retaliation, it's all that the weak can really do. And hide behind their minefields, hoping that they aren't breached and that in the end they can keep as much as they can of what had been stolen more than a year ago. I still give 50/50 odds of Ukraine retaking the Crimea corridor as I did many months ago. In your ignorance you didn't think Ukrainians would fight to defend themselves, and also in your ignorance you didn't know that Ukrainians were the best fighters amongst the eastern Slavs. You stupidly thought Soviet or Russian Empire military prowess and success was about Great Russians and called World War II a Russian victory, leading to the moronic prediction that this war would be just another easy victory of a Russian juggernaut, rather than the larger and more populous but weaker Great Russians trying to defeat the less numerous, but superior, "Little Russians" Ukrainian fighters.

    How much better would they be if they acted normally and gave their Russian minority normal rights and stayed neutral in the geopolitics they simply can’t win
     
    "Acted normally" - allowed a foreign country to dictate their internal and external policies.

    For you, being a lackey and collaborator, this is indeed quite normal. Capitulate without a fight and hope that someone else saves you. And maybe be sneaky and whine about it. But not for others.

    You are upset that the Ukrainians did not surrender their sovereignty without a fight, as you surely would have done. It highlights your inferiority to peoples such as Poles, Ukrainians, Finns. etc. And your parasitism vis a vis these peoples. They were the ones who prevented Hitler from winning and the ones who later caused the downfall of the Soviet system. While you benefited form their efforts. Clever, but nothing to be proud of. Your lack of gratitude, like your chronic dishonesty, speaks to your inferior character.

    Any lie is good for fighting a war.
     
    You inadvertently confess something about yourself here.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Beckow

    You are upset that the Ukrainians did not surrender their sovereignty without a fight, as you surely would have done. It highlights your inferiority to peoples such as Poles, Ukrainians, Finns. etc. And your parasitism vis a vis these peoples. They were the ones who prevented Hitler from winning and the ones who later caused the downfall of the Soviet system. While you benefited form their efforts. Clever, but nothing to be proud of. Your lack of gratitude, like your chronic dishonesty, speaks to your inferior character.

    Would Poles have still fought Hitler without the Anglo-French guarantees or would they have capitulated like the Czechs and Slovaks did?

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mr. XYZ


    Would Poles have still fought Hitler without the Anglo-French guarantees or would they have capitulated like the Czechs and Slovaks did?
     
    Making that alliance rather than accepting a more convenient one with Hitler who had wanted one but who was refused by Poland was itself an example of Polish “stubbornness.”

    Without Anglo-French guarantees Poland would have had pursued some other anti-German alliance. Maybe not have demanded Polish-inhabited lands back from Czechoslovakia as a condition for an alliance with that state. I doubt Poland would have voluntarily given up its lands to anyone, without a fight.

    Population ratio of Finland to USSR was worse than Germany-Poland and Finns chose to fight Soviets without an alliance.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Mr. XYZ

  72. @Sean
    @John Johnson

    There have also been predictions of imminent Chinese collapse, and supposedly savvy speculators who lost a lot of money kinda believing it. Good luck to those shorting China in various ways. There may be a period of stagnation for China, but is the US going to be ahead in the sanction-sensitive technology in fifty years; how about thirty? Whether the US is capable of out innovating China is questionable, so effectively incentivizing their getting into key areas of production they are currently dependent on the West for is not obviously harmless in the long term. Quite apart from their ancient history and recent trajectory, China has all sorts of formidable economies of scale.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    I wonder what China are doing on AI, which threatens to make a lot of things easier (but could also destroy education for many)?

    Only just realised how much depends at present on NVidia.

    NVIDIA A100, to be exact, at £7,000 a pop on Amazon. And I thought processing power was getting cheaper!

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/23/nvidias-a100-is-the-10000-chip-powering-the-race-for-ai-.html

    “A year ago we had 32 A100s,” Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque wrote on Twitter in January. “Dream big and stack moar GPUs kids. Brrr.” Stability AI is the company that helped develop Stable Diffusion, an image generator that drew attention last fall, and reportedly has a valuation of over $1 billion.

    Now, Stability AI has access to over 5,400 A100 GPUs, according to one estimate from the State of AI report, which charts and tracks which companies and universities have the largest collection of A100 GPUs.

    I think the people behind ChatGPT have 10,000 of them.

    Could this be America’s Wunderwaffen, it’s A-bomb equivalent? I imagine a bunch of bright Chinese are beavering away at creating an equivalent or better. Or perhaps they just work at NVidia.

    Imagine a military version, trained on maps, terrain, radar sites, real-time aircraft and satellite locations, plotting launch times and routes into Russia for drones. Almost certainly exists right now. I hope Russia are thinking about this.

    • Replies: @Adept
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Working on domestic GPU development, which has been making great progress of late if this is to be believed: https://www.techspot.com/news/99948-huawei-alleged-have-ai-gpu-matches-nvidia-a100.html


    America’s Wunderwaffen
     
    The A100 is made at TSMC, in Taiwan. Whether it can viably be made in America -- with its diverse workforce and anti-discrimination laws -- is an open question.
    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Could this be America’s Wunderwaffen, it’s A-bomb equivalent?
     
    Yes Wunderwaffen.

    No A-bomb.

    More like Haunebu.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Naziufo-large.png
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @YetAnotherAnon

    I'm behind the tech, the P100 at $30k seems to be the thing, and the big tech companies are snaffling them all!

    https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/29/googles-new-a3-gpu-supercomputer-with-nvidia-h100-gpus-will-be-generally-available-next-month


    "Despite their $30,000+ price, Nvidia’s H100 GPUs are a hot commodity — to the point where they are typically back-ordered. Earlier this year, Google Cloud announced the private preview launch of its H100-powered A3 GPU virtual machines, which combines Nvidia’s chips with Google’s custom-designed 200 Gpbs Infrastructure Processing Units (IPUs). Now, at its Cloud Next conference, Google announced that it will launch the A3 into general availability next month."
     
    https://www.techspot.com/news/99903-ai-surge-propels-nvidia-revenue-staggering-135-billion.html

    AI surge propels Nvidia's revenue to a staggering $13.5 billion
     
    The new chips have 80 billion transistors. Mind, a modern £110 CPU can have 11 billion.
  73. Two little news items

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/30/eu-fossil-fuel-burning-for-electricity-fell-to-lowest-on-record-in-2023-data-shows

    The European Union is stoking its power plants with fewer lumps of coal and barrels of oil and gas than it has ever recorded, data shows.

    The 27 member states burned 17% less fossil fuel to make electricity between January and June 2023 than over the same period the year before, a study from the clean energy thinktank Ember found. The EU made 410TWh of electricity from sources that release planet-heating gases, which analysts say is the lowest level since 2015 – the first year for which they have monthly data – and “very likely” since 2000.

    The drop in fossil fuel generation was driven by a fall in demand for electricity, as well as some growth in clean power, the study found.

    “We’re glad to see fossil fuels down, but in the long-term it is not going to be sustainable to rely on the fall in demand to do this,” said Matt Ewen, a data analyst at Ember and author of the report. “We have to be replacing this energy rather than just expecting it to go away and not be used.”

    If you whack up the price, demand will fall.

    Ctrl-F “Nord Stream” returns nothing, what a surprise!

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/29/china-coal-plants-climate-goals-carbon

    …after regional power crunches in 2022, China started a spree of approving new projects and restarting suspended ones. In 2022 the government approved a record-breaking 86 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity. One gigawatt is the equivalent of a large coal power plant.

    This run of approvals is continuing, potentially on track to break last year’s record

    … in the first half of 2023, authorities granted approvals for 52GW of new coal power, began construction on 37GW of new coal power, announced 41GW-worth of new projects, and revived 8GW of previously shelved projects. It said about half of the plants permitted in 2022 had started construction by summer.

    China is the world’s biggest carbon emitter, contributing almost a third of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2020.

    They’ll use the cheap coal to sell expensive panels, storage batteries and windmills to the EU, not to mention powering the BASF plants moved from Germany.

    • Replies: @A123
    @YetAnotherAnon



    In 2022 the [Chinese] government approved a record-breaking 86 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity. One gigawatt is the equivalent of a large coal power plant.
     
    They’ll use the cheap coal to sell expensive panels, storage batteries and windmills to the EU, not to mention powering the BASF plants moved from Germany.
     
    Not-The-President Biden's ill conceived "Inflation Reduction Act" insists on making these in the America. This has to be among the worst New Deal efforts ever, but at least there is some domestic job creation.

    America is being unintentionally saved from the scourge of wind & solar largely by power grid limitations. These inefficient methods require specific geography often well away from population centers. There is now an ~10 year wait to add new intermittent sources to the grid across much of the country.
    ___

    The first new nuclear plants in the U.S. Vogtle 3 has opened. Unit 4 is loading fuel and will soon join its sibling (1)

    August 17, 2023

    Georgia Power announced today the process to load fuel into the Vogtle Unit 4 reactor core has begun at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga. Loading fuel marks a pivotal milestone toward startup and commercial operation of the second new unit at Plant Vogtle. Vogtle Unit 3 – the first newly-constructed nuclear unit in the U.S. in more than 30 years – entered commercial operation on July 31, and is providing customers and the State of Georgia with reliable, emissions-free energy.
     
    Each unit will supply 1.1 Gigawatts of carbon free electricity for at least 40 and up to 80 years.

    The construction of Vogtle 3&4 were screwed up by government design changes after concrete was already poured. Then the prime contractor went bankrupt. Hopefully, this will push the industry towards Small Modular Reactors [SMR] that come with less project completion risk.

    Nuclear is the future, not wind and solar.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.georgiapower.com/company/news-center/2023-articles/vogtle-unit-4-starts-nuclear-fuel-load.html

    Replies: @John Johnson

  74. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Sean

    I wonder what China are doing on AI, which threatens to make a lot of things easier (but could also destroy education for many)?

    Only just realised how much depends at present on NVidia.

    NVIDIA A100, to be exact, at £7,000 a pop on Amazon. And I thought processing power was getting cheaper!

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/23/nvidias-a100-is-the-10000-chip-powering-the-race-for-ai-.html


    “A year ago we had 32 A100s,” Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque wrote on Twitter in January. “Dream big and stack moar GPUs kids. Brrr.” Stability AI is the company that helped develop Stable Diffusion, an image generator that drew attention last fall, and reportedly has a valuation of over $1 billion.

    Now, Stability AI has access to over 5,400 A100 GPUs, according to one estimate from the State of AI report, which charts and tracks which companies and universities have the largest collection of A100 GPUs.
     
    I think the people behind ChatGPT have 10,000 of them.

    Could this be America's Wunderwaffen, it's A-bomb equivalent? I imagine a bunch of bright Chinese are beavering away at creating an equivalent or better. Or perhaps they just work at NVidia.

    Imagine a military version, trained on maps, terrain, radar sites, real-time aircraft and satellite locations, plotting launch times and routes into Russia for drones. Almost certainly exists right now. I hope Russia are thinking about this.

    Replies: @Adept, @Emil Nikola Richard, @YetAnotherAnon

    Working on domestic GPU development, which has been making great progress of late if this is to be believed: https://www.techspot.com/news/99948-huawei-alleged-have-ai-gpu-matches-nvidia-a100.html

    America’s Wunderwaffen

    The A100 is made at TSMC, in Taiwan. Whether it can viably be made in America — with its diverse workforce and anti-discrimination laws — is an open question.

    • Thanks: YetAnotherAnon
  75. @sudden death
    Some common sense from current House majority instead of quite frequent bootlicking of Putler these days - US trade deficit will be contracting while EU dependence on capricious Kremlin schackles could be extinguished fully:

    U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has revealed he plans to promote U.S. natural gas exports at an upcoming G7 meeting. McCarthy will frame his agenda in the context of Europe buying more U.S. gas as a way for the continent to wean itself off Russian gas following its war in Ukraine.

    “If we just replace Russian natural gas with American in Europe alone for one year, we would lower 218 billion tons of CO2 emissions because our natural gas is cleaner. America would be economically stronger, our prices would be lower and the world would be safer,” McCarthy said on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures.
    Earlier in the current year, U.S. secretary of State Antony Blinken revealed that they had discussed with EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell regarding the U.S. and the EU's unprecedented cooperation on energy security.

    "We share our commitment to prevent a climate catastrophe through accelerating the global clean energy transition, building resilient, secure and diversified supply chains for renewable energy, and doing it in a way that creates good paying jobs and lowers costs for people on both sides of the Atlantic," Blinken said.

    Last year, U.S. LNG exports to Europe jumped 140%Y/Y to 56 billion cubic meters (bcm) as Europe ditched Russian gas. Also, for the first time ever, U.S. LNG exports exceeded pipeline exports of natural gas on an annual basis.
     

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/US-LNG-Exports-to-Take-Center-Stage-At-G7-Meeting.html

    Also should be reminded that average price of RF natgas for core EU was roughly around 330$ for 1000m3 during last decade prior Covid, so current market price of 350EUR for LNG is not anyhow more costly when accounting inflation, the only problem is still existing EU LNG import facilities bottlenecks. Prior Covid EU imported roughly about 170 billion bcm from RF, so far US has managed to replace roughly third of this amount with 56 billions bcm last year.

    Replies: @sudden death

    MOSCOW, Aug 29 (Reuters) – Russia’s Gazprom (GAZP.MM) said on Tuesday it generated a net loss of 18.6 billion roubles ($197 million) in the second quarter of 2023 after a net profit of 1.03 trillion roubles a year earlier following the collapse of gas exports to Europe.

    Gazprom has suspended the disclosure of its exports data, but according to Reuters calculations, supplies to Europe, once its key source of earnings, were about 15 billion cubic metres (bcm) in January-July compared with 62 bcm for the whole 2022.

    “The decline in exports to Europe was partially offset by supplies to China, which continue to grow as part of contractual obligations, as well as the efficient operation of the oil business,” Famil Sadygov, Gazprom’s Deputy CEO, said on Telegram messaging app.

    He also said the earnings were impacted by the rouble rate, which weakened 24% against the U.S. dollar in the first six months of this year.

    The Kremlin-controlled company also said its net income for the first six months of the year fell to 296 billion roubles from 2.5 trillion roubles in January-June 2022, while its base for dividend payment reached 618 billion roubles for the period.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-says-it-swings-q2-net-loss-exports-europe-slump-2023-08-29/

    So in 2023 Gazprom pipeline natgas exports in EU will be roughly about 30-35 billion m3 compared with 170 billion m3 before Covid, but exports in China last year reached “record” of 15 billion m3, this year might be more, maybe 20-25 billion m3, so the overall cumulative loss of pipeline natgas export volume still remains in tune of 100 billion m3 for RF.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @sudden death

    I think this was expected from day 1 of the SMO. In the short run it is impossible to sell more gas if the available pipelines are full. Does Gazprom also sell gas inside Russia?

    I wonder how much natural gas Russia is supplying to Ukraine these days?

    I read that Russia is still supplying significant amounts of uranium to the USA but have not confirmed the details.

  76. @Mikhail
    @Beckow

    Dig the crapola about WW II Slovakia. Dubcek and Husak weren't Nazi allied along with numerous other Slovaks. Much like how the French and for that matter the Ukrainians among others had noticeable numbers with either the Axis or Allies.

    https://www.mzv.sk/documents/10182/2369491/BROZURA_70_VYROCIE_SNP_indd.pdf/007d0f33-4aa1-4e3a-95ae-5ef5096360d3

    Replies: @AP, @Beckow

    Note that this poster, Mikhail, is a supporter of the Nazi collaborator Vlasov.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @AP

    Note that idiot poster AP doesn't distinguish between those among the Nazi supported (to whatever degree) and their opponents. The USSR was on the Allied side but brutally totalitarian. Conversely, Vlasov's army didn't come close to having the negative baggage of Bandera's forces.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/16122019-czech-russian-relations-and-the-roa-conflicting-historical-narratives-analysis/

    Replies: @AP

  77. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    You are upset that the Ukrainians did not surrender their sovereignty without a fight, as you surely would have done. It highlights your inferiority to peoples such as Poles, Ukrainians, Finns. etc. And your parasitism vis a vis these peoples. They were the ones who prevented Hitler from winning and the ones who later caused the downfall of the Soviet system. While you benefited form their efforts. Clever, but nothing to be proud of. Your lack of gratitude, like your chronic dishonesty, speaks to your inferior character.
     
    Would Poles have still fought Hitler without the Anglo-French guarantees or would they have capitulated like the Czechs and Slovaks did?

    Replies: @AP

    Would Poles have still fought Hitler without the Anglo-French guarantees or would they have capitulated like the Czechs and Slovaks did?

    Making that alliance rather than accepting a more convenient one with Hitler who had wanted one but who was refused by Poland was itself an example of Polish “stubbornness.”

    Without Anglo-French guarantees Poland would have had pursued some other anti-German alliance. Maybe not have demanded Polish-inhabited lands back from Czechoslovakia as a condition for an alliance with that state. I doubt Poland would have voluntarily given up its lands to anyone, without a fight.

    Population ratio of Finland to USSR was worse than Germany-Poland and Finns chose to fight Soviets without an alliance.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @AP


    Population ratio of Finland to USSR was worse than Germany-Poland and Finns chose to fight Soviets without an alliance.
     
    As was their choice, the Finns refused a land swap agreement to avert war. The Soviets (Stalin in particular) sensed Finland would be a Nazi ally in a Nazi-Soviet war. Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed as a pause in conjunction wit the Soviets not ready to successfully combat Nazi Germany. On the subject of Stalin, the Military History Channel runs a documentary on best wartime leaders. Roosevelt number 6, Hitler at 5, Ho Chi Minh 4, Churchill 3, Mao 2 and Stalin 1.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Making that alliance rather than accepting a more convenient one with Hitler who had wanted one but who was refused by Poland was itself an example of Polish “stubbornness.”
     
    Yep, but one indeed has to wonder whether Poland would have been better off trying to make a deal with Hitler. Millions of Polish citizens perished in WWII, after all. Had Poland allied with Hitler, ethnic Poles could have fared much better, and ditto for Polish Jews since Hitler gave his loyal allies more leeway in dealing with their Jewish problem than he gave to his enemies. A Nazi alliance would have been an especially good thing for Poland had Poland not been asked to participate in a Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and had Poland not been asked to engage in either mass murder or forced sterilizations by the Nazis.

    Such a scenario would have been worse for the Soviets in the medium-term, but I'm unsure about the short-term or the long-term because the Soviets might not have been as bled dry in this scenario and I also don't know just how capable the Nazis would be in regards to holding onto the Soviet Union indefinitely without a large-scale permanent Nazi troop presence there. And mass deportations of tens of millions of Slavs are going to be quite logistically challenging to execute in and of themselves. Though Soviet Jews would get deported en masse to Siberia or Central Asia or wherever rather than having millions of them get murdered, most likely.


    Without Anglo-French guarantees Poland would have had pursued some other anti-German alliance. Maybe not have demanded Polish-inhabited lands back from Czechoslovakia as a condition for an alliance with that state. I doubt Poland would have voluntarily given up its lands to anyone, without a fight.
     
    Danzig was not Polish territory and thus could have been given up without sacrificing Poland's territorial integrity. Hitler did not demand the Polish Corridor before Poland accepted the British Guarantee. Rather, Hitler simply wanted an elevated extraterritorial road through the Polish Corridor, according to what I have read on the Axis History Forum. Similar to this:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Yan%27an_Elevated_Road_Huashan_Road_Jingan_Park.jpeg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevated_highway

    Danzig and an elevated road through the Polish Corridor were reasonable Nazi demands, frankly. Poland already had its own port at Gdynia by then and the Nazis were apparently willing to give Poland trading rights at Danzig as well.


    Population ratio of Finland to USSR was worse than Germany-Poland and Finns chose to fight Soviets without an alliance.
     
    TBF, the Soviets killed millions during peacetime (either directly or indirectly), whereas the Nazis did not. That probably made Soviet occupation seem more intolerable relative to Nazi occupation, before one could actually foresee the Holocaust. Nazi occupation in Czechia pre-WWII was probably brutal but nevertheless did not involve mass murder yet. Finns, on the other hand, could have quite reasonably expected the mass murder or at least the gulagization of anyone who resisted any new Soviet-imposed Communist order in Finland.

    Interestingly enough, since Poland decided to resist the Nazis, allying with both the Anglo-French and the Soviet Union would have probably been the best move. At the very least, Poland could have asked for written guarantees from the Anglo-French that they would be willing to fight the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union would have refused to withdraw from Poland after an Allied victory over Nazi Germany. Simultaneously pissing off both of its powerful neighbors was not a smart move for Poland!

    As for Teschen, I think that Poland unnecessarily made a big deal out of it. AFAIK, a major railroad ran through there, so it made sense for Czechoslovakia to want it and to want to keep it. Once Czechoslovakia gave territory to Nazi Germany, I could understand why Poland would want its own small share, but Poland should not have made the return of Teschen a precondition for an alliance with Czechoslovakia beforehand.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  78. @AP
    @Mikhail

    Note that this poster, Mikhail, is a supporter of the Nazi collaborator Vlasov.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Note that idiot poster AP doesn’t distinguish between those among the Nazi supported (to whatever degree) and their opponents. The USSR was on the Allied side but brutally totalitarian. Conversely, Vlasov’s army didn’t come close to having the negative baggage of Bandera’s forces.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/16122019-czech-russian-relations-and-the-roa-conflicting-historical-narratives-analysis/

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikhail

    You are a supporter of the Nazi collaborator Vlasov. So it’s just funny when you accuse and criticize others of collaborating with the Nazis.

    Replies: @A123

  79. @AP
    @Mr. XYZ


    Would Poles have still fought Hitler without the Anglo-French guarantees or would they have capitulated like the Czechs and Slovaks did?
     
    Making that alliance rather than accepting a more convenient one with Hitler who had wanted one but who was refused by Poland was itself an example of Polish “stubbornness.”

    Without Anglo-French guarantees Poland would have had pursued some other anti-German alliance. Maybe not have demanded Polish-inhabited lands back from Czechoslovakia as a condition for an alliance with that state. I doubt Poland would have voluntarily given up its lands to anyone, without a fight.

    Population ratio of Finland to USSR was worse than Germany-Poland and Finns chose to fight Soviets without an alliance.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Mr. XYZ

    Population ratio of Finland to USSR was worse than Germany-Poland and Finns chose to fight Soviets without an alliance.

    As was their choice, the Finns refused a land swap agreement to avert war. The Soviets (Stalin in particular) sensed Finland would be a Nazi ally in a Nazi-Soviet war. Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed as a pause in conjunction wit the Soviets not ready to successfully combat Nazi Germany. On the subject of Stalin, the Military History Channel runs a documentary on best wartime leaders. Roosevelt number 6, Hitler at 5, Ho Chi Minh 4, Churchill 3, Mao 2 and Stalin 1.

  80. @YetAnotherAnon
    Two little news items

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/30/eu-fossil-fuel-burning-for-electricity-fell-to-lowest-on-record-in-2023-data-shows


    The European Union is stoking its power plants with fewer lumps of coal and barrels of oil and gas than it has ever recorded, data shows.

    The 27 member states burned 17% less fossil fuel to make electricity between January and June 2023 than over the same period the year before, a study from the clean energy thinktank Ember found. The EU made 410TWh of electricity from sources that release planet-heating gases, which analysts say is the lowest level since 2015 – the first year for which they have monthly data – and “very likely” since 2000.

    The drop in fossil fuel generation was driven by a fall in demand for electricity, as well as some growth in clean power, the study found.

    “We’re glad to see fossil fuels down, but in the long-term it is not going to be sustainable to rely on the fall in demand to do this,” said Matt Ewen, a data analyst at Ember and author of the report. “We have to be replacing this energy rather than just expecting it to go away and not be used.”
     

    If you whack up the price, demand will fall.

    Ctrl-F "Nord Stream" returns nothing, what a surprise!

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/29/china-coal-plants-climate-goals-carbon


    …after regional power crunches in 2022, China started a spree of approving new projects and restarting suspended ones. In 2022 the government approved a record-breaking 86 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity. One gigawatt is the equivalent of a large coal power plant.

    This run of approvals is continuing, potentially on track to break last year’s record

    … in the first half of 2023, authorities granted approvals for 52GW of new coal power, began construction on 37GW of new coal power, announced 41GW-worth of new projects, and revived 8GW of previously shelved projects. It said about half of the plants permitted in 2022 had started construction by summer.

    China is the world’s biggest carbon emitter, contributing almost a third of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2020.
     

    They’ll use the cheap coal to sell expensive panels, storage batteries and windmills to the EU, not to mention powering the BASF plants moved from Germany.

    Replies: @A123

    In 2022 the [Chinese] government approved a record-breaking 86 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity. One gigawatt is the equivalent of a large coal power plant.

    They’ll use the cheap coal to sell expensive panels, storage batteries and windmills to the EU, not to mention powering the BASF plants moved from Germany.

    Not-The-President Biden’s ill conceived “Inflation Reduction Act” insists on making these in the America. This has to be among the worst New Deal efforts ever, but at least there is some domestic job creation.

    America is being unintentionally saved from the scourge of wind & solar largely by power grid limitations. These inefficient methods require specific geography often well away from population centers. There is now an ~10 year wait to add new intermittent sources to the grid across much of the country.
    ___

    The first new nuclear plants in the U.S. Vogtle 3 has opened. Unit 4 is loading fuel and will soon join its sibling (1)

    August 17, 2023

    Georgia Power announced today the process to load fuel into the Vogtle Unit 4 reactor core has begun at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga. Loading fuel marks a pivotal milestone toward startup and commercial operation of the second new unit at Plant Vogtle. Vogtle Unit 3 – the first newly-constructed nuclear unit in the U.S. in more than 30 years – entered commercial operation on July 31, and is providing customers and the State of Georgia with reliable, emissions-free energy.

    Each unit will supply 1.1 Gigawatts of carbon free electricity for at least 40 and up to 80 years.

    The construction of Vogtle 3&4 were screwed up by government design changes after concrete was already poured. Then the prime contractor went bankrupt. Hopefully, this will push the industry towards Small Modular Reactors [SMR] that come with less project completion risk.

    Nuclear is the future, not wind and solar.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.georgiapower.com/company/news-center/2023-articles/vogtle-unit-4-starts-nuclear-fuel-load.html

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @A123

    Nuclear is the future, not wind and solar.

    Not in America.

    We have only had 6 new reactors come online since 1990

    Nuclear is a waste of time in America.

    Democrats don't like them and Republicans don't want "big government" aka the Feds to build them.

    Utility companies risk endless lawsuits when trying to build one. Solar, wind and natural gas are safer.

    Solar efficiency will have increased 50% by the time nuclear advocates get ONE new plant built. The South is the ideal place for new reactors and most of their Republicans don't give a flying F if they burn natural gas and most believe in the apocalypse anyways. Meaning this world is temporary so no need to spend time on trying to get a nuke plant built. Better to golf and pray.

  81. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Sean

    I wonder what China are doing on AI, which threatens to make a lot of things easier (but could also destroy education for many)?

    Only just realised how much depends at present on NVidia.

    NVIDIA A100, to be exact, at £7,000 a pop on Amazon. And I thought processing power was getting cheaper!

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/23/nvidias-a100-is-the-10000-chip-powering-the-race-for-ai-.html


    “A year ago we had 32 A100s,” Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque wrote on Twitter in January. “Dream big and stack moar GPUs kids. Brrr.” Stability AI is the company that helped develop Stable Diffusion, an image generator that drew attention last fall, and reportedly has a valuation of over $1 billion.

    Now, Stability AI has access to over 5,400 A100 GPUs, according to one estimate from the State of AI report, which charts and tracks which companies and universities have the largest collection of A100 GPUs.
     
    I think the people behind ChatGPT have 10,000 of them.

    Could this be America's Wunderwaffen, it's A-bomb equivalent? I imagine a bunch of bright Chinese are beavering away at creating an equivalent or better. Or perhaps they just work at NVidia.

    Imagine a military version, trained on maps, terrain, radar sites, real-time aircraft and satellite locations, plotting launch times and routes into Russia for drones. Almost certainly exists right now. I hope Russia are thinking about this.

    Replies: @Adept, @Emil Nikola Richard, @YetAnotherAnon

    Could this be America’s Wunderwaffen, it’s A-bomb equivalent?

    Yes Wunderwaffen.

    No A-bomb.

    More like Haunebu.

  82. @Mikhail
    @AP

    Note that idiot poster AP doesn't distinguish between those among the Nazi supported (to whatever degree) and their opponents. The USSR was on the Allied side but brutally totalitarian. Conversely, Vlasov's army didn't come close to having the negative baggage of Bandera's forces.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/16122019-czech-russian-relations-and-the-roa-conflicting-historical-narratives-analysis/

    Replies: @AP

    You are a supporter of the Nazi collaborator Vlasov. So it’s just funny when you accuse and criticize others of collaborating with the Nazis.

    • Replies: @A123
    @AP

    You are a supporter of the Azov neo-Nazi collaborator Zelensky. So it’s just funny when you accuse and criticize others of collaborating with the Nazis.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @sudden death, @AP, @Mikhail

  83. @AP
    @Mikhail

    You are a supporter of the Nazi collaborator Vlasov. So it’s just funny when you accuse and criticize others of collaborating with the Nazis.

    Replies: @A123

    You are a supporter of the Azov neo-Nazi collaborator Zelensky. So it’s just funny when you accuse and criticize others of collaborating with the Nazis.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @A123

    Says the supporter of Charlotsville rallies supporting president Trump - guess that's quite funny too;)

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right%27_Rally_%2835780274914%29_crop.jpg

    Replies: @A123

    , @AP
    @A123

    Azov are not as Nazi as Hitler, and Vlasov whom Mikhail is a supporter of placed himself under Nazi command whereas Zelensky did not place himself under Azov command.

    Thanks for voluntarily showing your ignorance though.

    Btw, any Nazis supporting Trump?

    Replies: @A123, @Mikhail

    , @Mikhail
    @A123

    He's a cyber dumbbell with an autistic trait.

  84. @John Johnson
    @Beckow

    Kiev lost the war against Donbas in 2014-15 and signed Minsk to get out of the total defeat. There is no “Russian interpretation of Minsk” – it is 1-page treaty that Donbas gets an autonomy within Ukraine. Kiev simply refused to implement it and instead armed heavily with Nato.

    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?

    Here is the Minsk agreement and I'm not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:
    https://www.unian.info/politics/1043394-minsk-agreement-full-text-in-english.html

    Which point are you referring to?

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn't Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?

    You do acknowledge that Russia is currently fighting for territory that was not part of the Minsk agreement?

    Replies: @Beckow, @Sean

    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?

    The rebels were losing and to rescue the situation a couple of formed up battalion tactical groups of the Russian army crossed the border and cut a swath though Ukraine, leading Kiev to agree to Minsk in order to stop the rout of their forces. When Ukraine began dragging their heels Germany and France brokered Minsk2 , and Merkel said that the objective of it was to stop the Russians military going into action again before Ukraine had built up their forces to a reasonable level.

    Here is the Minsk agreement and I’m not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:

    Far more autonomy that they had before, and crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?

    In 2015 Russia could rely on the threat of it making huge inroads into Ukrainian territory with a few battalion tactical groups and staying there, because Ukraine was lacking in weapons and determined leadership. The position did not alter much even after there was a widespread perception that Trump had kept back arms from Ukraine.

    Biden entering the White House and back when he was VP Biden had been a super Hawk on Ukraine as was Blinken, so when Biden became president he initiated an acceleration of US arms to Ukraine, which had much more resolute professional officers leading it. The capabilities of Ukraine had by 2021 increased greatly and were continuing to improve , which was an ongoing erosion of Russia’s ability to present a meaningful and valid threat to initiate either a limited or full scale invasion and landgrab. Doing nothing was losing Russia its wedge of military dominance Russia decided Ukraine was not going to compromise and was begining to be a match for Russia, so it was now or never. That is a long winded way of saying that Russia’s preferred solution was not invading Ukraine but threatening to do so as a means to the end of sidelining Ukraine’s Nato ambitions. Biden’s policy obviated Russia’s policy of hybrid pressure, so there was no choice but to do what was only threatened and use the full scale invasion option before it completely disappeared.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Sean


    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?
     
    The rebels were losing and to rescue the situation a couple of formed up battalion tactical groups of the Russian army crossed the border and cut a swath though Ukraine, leading Kiev to agree to Minsk in order to stop the rout of their forces.

    Not even 2.5% of Ukrainian forces were used. It was mostly militia fighting by both sides.

    This is one of the largest battles and only 200 Ukrainians soldiers/militia men were killed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport

    Ukraine was trying to minimize the fighting on both sides. They made the mistake of not hammering Donbas hard to being with. Same mistake they made with Crimea.

    Not sending in a serious AFU force was the mistake. To suggest that they were near defeat is ridiculous. They had over 1 million infantry that were not involved. Ukraine made the mistake of thinking they could make peace with a region that was being undermined by Russia.


    Here is the Minsk agreement and I’m not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:
     
    Far more autonomy that they had before, and crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    So you acknowledge that an unresolved border disqualified them from applying to NATO? Then why did Putin claim that he had to invade because of NATO?


    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?
     
    In 2015 Russia could rely on the threat of it making huge inroads into Ukrainian territory with a few battalion tactical groups and staying there, because Ukraine was lacking in weapons and determined leadership.

    I'm talking about 2022. Why not send the same force to Donbas and dig in? Why was he trying to take the whole country?

    That is a long winded way of saying that Russia’s preferred solution was not invading Ukraine but threatening to do so as a means to the end of sidelining Ukraine’s Nato ambitions.

    The preferred solution was to not invade over NATO even though Ukraine didn't qualify because of Donbas? Which means the preferred solution was working and an invasion wasn't needed.

    Replies: @Sean

    , @Mikel
    @Sean


    crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato
     
    I have never doubted AP and others when they said that but in reality that point was never part of the Minsk Agreements themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

    So I'm not sure where it comes from. With Minsk-2 in place, as I hoped Zelensky would achieve, parts of Donbas would get a special self-government status inside of Ukraine and Ukraine would recover control of the border with Russia but I don't see how an autonomous Donbas could ever hope to prevent Kiev from signing multinational treaties.

    Replies: @AP

  85. @A123
    @AP

    You are a supporter of the Azov neo-Nazi collaborator Zelensky. So it’s just funny when you accuse and criticize others of collaborating with the Nazis.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @sudden death, @AP, @Mikhail

    Says the supporter of Charlotsville rallies supporting president Trump – guess that’s quite funny too;)

    • Replies: @A123
    @sudden death

    You are confusing me with someone else.... How very Nazi of you.

    Did you place your Swastika band on your neck instead of arm? It seems to be cutting off oxygen to your brain.

    Let me offer you some free life advice -- Be Less Fascist.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @sudden death

  86. @sudden death
    @A123

    Says the supporter of Charlotsville rallies supporting president Trump - guess that's quite funny too;)

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right%27_Rally_%2835780274914%29_crop.jpg

    Replies: @A123

    You are confusing me with someone else…. How very Nazi of you.

    Did you place your Swastika band on your neck instead of arm? It seems to be cutting off oxygen to your brain.

    Let me offer you some free life advice — Be Less Fascist.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @A123

    You've stopped supporting Trump? That would be some new flash development indeed, which is excusable reason to be out of the loop;)

    Replies: @A123

  87. @A123
    @sudden death

    You are confusing me with someone else.... How very Nazi of you.

    Did you place your Swastika band on your neck instead of arm? It seems to be cutting off oxygen to your brain.

    Let me offer you some free life advice -- Be Less Fascist.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @sudden death

    You’ve stopped supporting Trump? That would be some new flash development indeed, which is excusable reason to be out of the loop;)

    • Replies: @A123
    @sudden death

    I continue to support Trump.

    You support the Charlotte Nazis. Why are you such a Zelensky/Hitler fan boy? ;)

    PEACE 😇

  88. @sudden death
    @A123

    You've stopped supporting Trump? That would be some new flash development indeed, which is excusable reason to be out of the loop;)

    Replies: @A123

    I continue to support Trump.

    You support the Charlotte Nazis. Why are you such a Zelensky/Hitler fan boy? 😉

    PEACE 😇

  89. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    More like the Kiev regime are the new Nazis with their pro-Bandera tilt, increased repression and dream of wonder weapons saving them from defeat.

    Put mildly, Kiev regime controlled Ukraine not likely to get into NATO. Perhaps if it just consists of Galicia and Trans-Carpathia or a portion of that territory.

    I can understand why neocon-neolib, svido leaning folks are frustrated with the reality that the sanctions have backfired with the Kiev regime losing and being incapable of winning.

    Somewhat amusing BS:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzbGA6II0mM

    Replies: @John Johnson

    More like the Kiev regime are the new Nazis with their pro-Bandera tilt, increased repression and dream of wonder weapons saving them from defeat.

    You and the Russians can keep calling them Nazis but no one is buying it.

    Where is your evidence of this pro-Bandera tilt? I’ve never heard a single Ukrainian politician reference Bandera. Just because something is repeated at Moon of Alabama or Russian TV doesn’t make it true.

    Put mildly, Kiev regime controlled Ukraine not likely to get into NATO.

    Ukraine was not likely to get into NATO before the war and they had no intention of applying. They didn’t qualify and they didn’t have the votes of France or Germany. Zelensky won on a neutral platform. Putin attacked Ukraine because his time is running out and not because Ukraine was in the process of joining.

    Finland joined NATO and they have more border with Russian than Ukraine. How is that not a loss if the war is about NATO?

    Perhaps if it just consists of Galicia and Trans-Carpathia or a portion of that territory.

    So you think it is possible for Russia to march on Kiev? Is that right?

    Why hasn’t Belarus joined the war if this is all such a great idea?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    You reveal your sheer ignorance on this one regarding Bandera and neo-Nazi influence in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine. On another dopey point of yours, Patrick Lancaster appears more independent than the likes of the BBC's James Waterhouse.

    As I've reasonably noted, the longer the conflict, the greater the chance of the Kiev regime losing more territory. Finland and Sweden were already on their way of becoming either NATO members or pretty much being such. They're not more secure by being in NATO.

    Russia attacked the Kiev regime on account of the latter's failure to implement the Minsk Accords, while building up its forces in conjunction with the OSCE report of increased Kiev regime attacks on Donbass rebel territory.

  90. @Sean
    @John Johnson


    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?
     
    The rebels were losing and to rescue the situation a couple of formed up battalion tactical groups of the Russian army crossed the border and cut a swath though Ukraine, leading Kiev to agree to Minsk in order to stop the rout of their forces. When Ukraine began dragging their heels Germany and France brokered Minsk2 , and Merkel said that the objective of it was to stop the Russians military going into action again before Ukraine had built up their forces to a reasonable level.

    Here is the Minsk agreement and I’m not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:
     
    Far more autonomy that they had before, and crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?
     

    In 2015 Russia could rely on the threat of it making huge inroads into Ukrainian territory with a few battalion tactical groups and staying there, because Ukraine was lacking in weapons and determined leadership. The position did not alter much even after there was a widespread perception that Trump had kept back arms from Ukraine.

    Biden entering the White House and back when he was VP Biden had been a super Hawk on Ukraine as was Blinken, so when Biden became president he initiated an acceleration of US arms to Ukraine, which had much more resolute professional officers leading it. The capabilities of Ukraine had by 2021 increased greatly and were continuing to improve , which was an ongoing erosion of Russia's ability to present a meaningful and valid threat to initiate either a limited or full scale invasion and landgrab. Doing nothing was losing Russia its wedge of military dominance Russia decided Ukraine was not going to compromise and was begining to be a match for Russia, so it was now or never. That is a long winded way of saying that Russia's preferred solution was not invading Ukraine but threatening to do so as a means to the end of sidelining Ukraine's Nato ambitions. Biden's policy obviated Russia's policy of hybrid pressure, so there was no choice but to do what was only threatened and use the full scale invasion option before it completely disappeared.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Mikel

    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?

    The rebels were losing and to rescue the situation a couple of formed up battalion tactical groups of the Russian army crossed the border and cut a swath though Ukraine, leading Kiev to agree to Minsk in order to stop the rout of their forces.

    Not even 2.5% of Ukrainian forces were used. It was mostly militia fighting by both sides.

    This is one of the largest battles and only 200 Ukrainians soldiers/militia men were killed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport

    Ukraine was trying to minimize the fighting on both sides. They made the mistake of not hammering Donbas hard to being with. Same mistake they made with Crimea.

    Not sending in a serious AFU force was the mistake. To suggest that they were near defeat is ridiculous. They had over 1 million infantry that were not involved. Ukraine made the mistake of thinking they could make peace with a region that was being undermined by Russia.

    Here is the Minsk agreement and I’m not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:

    Far more autonomy that they had before, and crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    So you acknowledge that an unresolved border disqualified them from applying to NATO? Then why did Putin claim that he had to invade because of NATO?

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?

    In 2015 Russia could rely on the threat of it making huge inroads into Ukrainian territory with a few battalion tactical groups and staying there, because Ukraine was lacking in weapons and determined leadership.

    I’m talking about 2022. Why not send the same force to Donbas and dig in? Why was he trying to take the whole country?

    That is a long winded way of saying that Russia’s preferred solution was not invading Ukraine but threatening to do so as a means to the end of sidelining Ukraine’s Nato ambitions.

    The preferred solution was to not invade over NATO even though Ukraine didn’t qualify because of Donbas? Which means the preferred solution was working and an invasion wasn’t needed.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @John Johnson


    They had over 1 million infantry that were not involved ...Ukraine was trying to minimize the fighting on both sides. They made the mistake of not hammering Donbas hard to being with. Same mistake they made with Crimea.
     
    If they signed the Minsk agreement, Kiev thought it had to halt formed up Russia army units advancing.

    I’m talking about 2022. Why not send the same force to Donbas and dig in? Why was he trying to take the whole country?
     
    Because Ukraine was on track to becoming a Western security asset and they had already tried limited or hybrid military operations before Minsk made them think their geopolitical objective had been achieved, which had resulted in freezing of the front line. However the agreement did not pan out the way Russia anticipated in the several years following because the carrot of Donbass being returned was not sufficient to entice Ukraine into giving Donbass the effective veto over Ukraine entering alliances with the West. Russia also realised that, especially after Biden and Blinken came in and altered US policy, Ukraine was becoming a match for Russia. By 2021 Russia could see its strategy of military pressure to obtain geopolitical concessions had failed, and they would soon no longer have a usable military option. So they had to take a decision.

    The preferred solution was to not invade over NATO even though Ukraine didn’t qualify because of Donbas? Which means the preferred solution was working and an invasion wasn’t needed.
     
    That is a fair point. I suppose Russia was not happy with the way Ukraine was integrating with Nato without becoming a formal member, and thought such interoperability cooperation in the context of an annually reiterated 'Ukraine will join someday Nato announcement and indicated Ukraine and Nato's future intentions. Yes, Russia could go on the assumption that Washington's influence as 'he who pays the piper' notwithstanding, it would be unable get the qualifications for entry altered down the line.

    But no matter now nice that would be for everyone, accurate predictions about others require us to think about what we would in the others situation. Russians' own intent in Kiev's 's situation would be to the Kremlin to sleep. Why wouldn't the Russians think with Ukraine's inside track due to the Trump impeachment and President Biden hawkish, Kiev intended to to lull the Kremlin into passivity?
  91. @A123
    @AP

    You are a supporter of the Azov neo-Nazi collaborator Zelensky. So it’s just funny when you accuse and criticize others of collaborating with the Nazis.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @sudden death, @AP, @Mikhail

    Azov are not as Nazi as Hitler, and Vlasov whom Mikhail is a supporter of placed himself under Nazi command whereas Zelensky did not place himself under Azov command.

    Thanks for voluntarily showing your ignorance though.

    Btw, any Nazis supporting Trump?

    • Replies: @A123
    @AP

    Alas, humour seems beyond you.

    Thanks for voluntarily showing your ignorance though.


    any Nazis supporting Trump?
     
    Trump is a Judeo-Christian who supports the rights of indigenous Jews in Jewish Palestine. One of his children converted & married into Judaism.

    I suppose it is possible, but there are probably more anti-Semitic Nazis supporting Not-The-President Biden. After all, the White House occupant trained his German Shepard to bite black people.

    PEACE 😇
    , @Mikhail
    @AP

    Your false equivalency whataboutism is quite telling of what a fool you are. Vlasov doesn't have the bloody baggage of Bandera who the likes of Azov honor. Vlasov is a more ethical figure to honor than Bandera. Bandera is honored in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine in a way that Vlasov isn't in Russia.

    Replies: @AP

  92. @A123
    @YetAnotherAnon



    In 2022 the [Chinese] government approved a record-breaking 86 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity. One gigawatt is the equivalent of a large coal power plant.
     
    They’ll use the cheap coal to sell expensive panels, storage batteries and windmills to the EU, not to mention powering the BASF plants moved from Germany.
     
    Not-The-President Biden's ill conceived "Inflation Reduction Act" insists on making these in the America. This has to be among the worst New Deal efforts ever, but at least there is some domestic job creation.

    America is being unintentionally saved from the scourge of wind & solar largely by power grid limitations. These inefficient methods require specific geography often well away from population centers. There is now an ~10 year wait to add new intermittent sources to the grid across much of the country.
    ___

    The first new nuclear plants in the U.S. Vogtle 3 has opened. Unit 4 is loading fuel and will soon join its sibling (1)

    August 17, 2023

    Georgia Power announced today the process to load fuel into the Vogtle Unit 4 reactor core has begun at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga. Loading fuel marks a pivotal milestone toward startup and commercial operation of the second new unit at Plant Vogtle. Vogtle Unit 3 – the first newly-constructed nuclear unit in the U.S. in more than 30 years – entered commercial operation on July 31, and is providing customers and the State of Georgia with reliable, emissions-free energy.
     
    Each unit will supply 1.1 Gigawatts of carbon free electricity for at least 40 and up to 80 years.

    The construction of Vogtle 3&4 were screwed up by government design changes after concrete was already poured. Then the prime contractor went bankrupt. Hopefully, this will push the industry towards Small Modular Reactors [SMR] that come with less project completion risk.

    Nuclear is the future, not wind and solar.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.georgiapower.com/company/news-center/2023-articles/vogtle-unit-4-starts-nuclear-fuel-load.html

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Nuclear is the future, not wind and solar.

    Not in America.

    We have only had 6 new reactors come online since 1990

    Nuclear is a waste of time in America.

    Democrats don’t like them and Republicans don’t want “big government” aka the Feds to build them.

    Utility companies risk endless lawsuits when trying to build one. Solar, wind and natural gas are safer.

    Solar efficiency will have increased 50% by the time nuclear advocates get ONE new plant built. The South is the ideal place for new reactors and most of their Republicans don’t give a flying F if they burn natural gas and most believe in the apocalypse anyways. Meaning this world is temporary so no need to spend time on trying to get a nuke plant built. Better to golf and pray.

  93. @AP
    @A123

    Azov are not as Nazi as Hitler, and Vlasov whom Mikhail is a supporter of placed himself under Nazi command whereas Zelensky did not place himself under Azov command.

    Thanks for voluntarily showing your ignorance though.

    Btw, any Nazis supporting Trump?

    Replies: @A123, @Mikhail

    Alas, humour seems beyond you.

    Thanks for voluntarily showing your ignorance though.

    any Nazis supporting Trump?

    Trump is a Judeo-Christian who supports the rights of indigenous Jews in Jewish Palestine. One of his children converted & married into Judaism.

    I suppose it is possible, but there are probably more anti-Semitic Nazis supporting Not-The-President Biden. After all, the White House occupant trained his German Shepard to bite black people.

    PEACE 😇

  94. @Sean
    @John Johnson


    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?
     
    The rebels were losing and to rescue the situation a couple of formed up battalion tactical groups of the Russian army crossed the border and cut a swath though Ukraine, leading Kiev to agree to Minsk in order to stop the rout of their forces. When Ukraine began dragging their heels Germany and France brokered Minsk2 , and Merkel said that the objective of it was to stop the Russians military going into action again before Ukraine had built up their forces to a reasonable level.

    Here is the Minsk agreement and I’m not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:
     
    Far more autonomy that they had before, and crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?
     

    In 2015 Russia could rely on the threat of it making huge inroads into Ukrainian territory with a few battalion tactical groups and staying there, because Ukraine was lacking in weapons and determined leadership. The position did not alter much even after there was a widespread perception that Trump had kept back arms from Ukraine.

    Biden entering the White House and back when he was VP Biden had been a super Hawk on Ukraine as was Blinken, so when Biden became president he initiated an acceleration of US arms to Ukraine, which had much more resolute professional officers leading it. The capabilities of Ukraine had by 2021 increased greatly and were continuing to improve , which was an ongoing erosion of Russia's ability to present a meaningful and valid threat to initiate either a limited or full scale invasion and landgrab. Doing nothing was losing Russia its wedge of military dominance Russia decided Ukraine was not going to compromise and was begining to be a match for Russia, so it was now or never. That is a long winded way of saying that Russia's preferred solution was not invading Ukraine but threatening to do so as a means to the end of sidelining Ukraine's Nato ambitions. Biden's policy obviated Russia's policy of hybrid pressure, so there was no choice but to do what was only threatened and use the full scale invasion option before it completely disappeared.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Mikel

    crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    I have never doubted AP and others when they said that but in reality that point was never part of the Minsk Agreements themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

    So I’m not sure where it comes from. With Minsk-2 in place, as I hoped Zelensky would achieve, parts of Donbas would get a special self-government status inside of Ukraine and Ukraine would recover control of the border with Russia but I don’t see how an autonomous Donbas could ever hope to prevent Kiev from signing multinational treaties.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikel


    crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    I have never doubted AP and others when they said that but in reality that point was never part of the Minsk Agreements themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

    So I’m not sure where it comes from
     
    The nature of the autonomy was kept vague in the original document, with various possible interpretations. It could have simply meant that the locals choose their own governors. This is roughly how the Ukrainian side saw it and wanted it to be. The important thing, however, was how Russian sponsor of the Donbas rebels interpreted it. This is how:

    https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine-0/minsk-2-agreement

    Surkov coordinated the drafting of extra demands (published on 13 May as proposals from the DNR/LNR). These would give the occupied regions even greater powers: responsibility for legal regulation of the Ukraine/Russia border; the right to conclude agreements with foreign states; their own charters (which would, for example, prevent the president of Ukraine from dismissing local executive organs); their own budgets to ensure ‘financial autonomy’; and rights to introduce states of emergency and hold elections and referendums. Lastly, Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution

    :::::::::

    So for example, allowing autonomous Donbas to sign a free trade zone agreement with Russia would effectively veto Ukraine’s integration with the EU.

    Replies: @Mikel

  95. @AP
    @Beckow


    You are incoherent: special status is now not autonomy?
     
    Zelensky hoped that this would be interpreted in a way that would not cancel Ukraine's independence. But Russia refused.

    how big a disaster this could be for Kiev and the West
     
    Beckow is starting to hedge a little bit - "could."

    For Ukrainians the disasters were having Russia as a neighbor, and Putin stupidly underestimated Ukrainian resolve and launching an ill-fated invasion. Defending one's independence was not a "disaster." I understand that your people of course allied with the Nazis and did nothing against the Soviets, and when Putin looked to be strong you personally hoped for his victory.

    Russia is just grinding its military to dust in Ukraine. But not only there - it just lost 5% of its transport fleet in one night, due to drone attacks within Russia itself. Russia will kill a handful of civilians in retaliation, it's all that the weak can really do. And hide behind their minefields, hoping that they aren't breached and that in the end they can keep as much as they can of what had been stolen more than a year ago. I still give 50/50 odds of Ukraine retaking the Crimea corridor as I did many months ago. In your ignorance you didn't think Ukrainians would fight to defend themselves, and also in your ignorance you didn't know that Ukrainians were the best fighters amongst the eastern Slavs. You stupidly thought Soviet or Russian Empire military prowess and success was about Great Russians and called World War II a Russian victory, leading to the moronic prediction that this war would be just another easy victory of a Russian juggernaut, rather than the larger and more populous but weaker Great Russians trying to defeat the less numerous, but superior, "Little Russians" Ukrainian fighters.

    How much better would they be if they acted normally and gave their Russian minority normal rights and stayed neutral in the geopolitics they simply can’t win
     
    "Acted normally" - allowed a foreign country to dictate their internal and external policies.

    For you, being a lackey and collaborator, this is indeed quite normal. Capitulate without a fight and hope that someone else saves you. And maybe be sneaky and whine about it. But not for others.

    You are upset that the Ukrainians did not surrender their sovereignty without a fight, as you surely would have done. It highlights your inferiority to peoples such as Poles, Ukrainians, Finns. etc. And your parasitism vis a vis these peoples. They were the ones who prevented Hitler from winning and the ones who later caused the downfall of the Soviet system. While you benefited form their efforts. Clever, but nothing to be proud of. Your lack of gratitude, like your chronic dishonesty, speaks to your inferior character.

    Any lie is good for fighting a war.
     
    You inadvertently confess something about yourself here.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Beckow

    Zelensky hoped that this would be interpreted in a way that would not cancel Ukraine’s independence.

    Did he also interpret the meaning of “we will win the war against Russia and conquer Crimea”? He is quite a creative guy, but maybe in the wrong profession now.

    Minsk didn’t cancel Ukraine’s independence: it was a normal autonomy deal that exists all over Europe. You create straw-men to fight. That shows bad will, you know that your case is otherwise indefensible.

    allowed a foreign country to dictate their internal and external policies.

    By your definition US-EU have been dictating to all others what they can do for decades – often with bombs. Doesn’t that bother you? They say it is for “human rights” and “security”. Why is it different when others ask for human rights and some security? We know the answer: you are brainwashed narcissists who focus razor-sharp only on yourself and are unable to others as equal. That’s why there is this war – but now you must prove your superiority. So far you have come up short.

    It highlights your inferiority to peoples such as Poles, Ukrainians,

    That is fascist language – get hold of yourself. You are drinking poison hoping that others will suffer – it never works that way, you only poison yourself. But I suspect you are too dumb to understand that. (On to more teary myths, crying over losses and being a lot less than what you could have been.)

    On a practical level, it is the Ukies and Poles who are swarming to live among us, begging us to let them be like us, many wanting to forget who they are, women crying, children learning a new language – all of them happily living normal lives.

    Killing and dying to keep others from speaking Russian and to join Nato to fight more wars is about as stupid and self-denying as it gets. Enjoy and don’t forget a few heroic poems, that’s what it is all about? Or is it? The bottomless self-hatred that is willing to destroy it all just not to be who you are? Maybe instead move to the ultimate “West”, maybe Iceland? (Hey, they are also in Nato and I am sure Russian language is frowned upon there.)

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    Minsk didn’t cancel Ukraine’s independence: it was a normal autonomy deal that exists all over Europe
     
    Minsk meant that Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.

    That is a cancellation of independence.

    allowed a foreign country to dictate their internal and external policies.

    By your definition US-EU have been dictating to all others what they can do for decades
     
    Review the word dictate.

    The closest parallel would be occupied Germany and Japan getting constitutions from the American occupiers. Except of course you demanded that Ukraine give in to Russia without even an occupation. A preemptive surrender, like Czechoslovakia in the 1930s.

    On a practical level, it is the Ukies and Poles who are swarming to live among us, begging us to let them be like us

     

    It’s really remarkable how you have the need to throw a lie into every post.

    This is a rather exotic lie.

    There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia, mostly moving due to marriage:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339092648_Migration_of_the_poles_to_Slovakia_after_World_War_II

    Otherwise no point in moving. Average wages are lower (1,200 Euros in Poland versus 1,000 Euros in Slovakia):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage

    And unemployment is higher - 2.7% in Poland versus 6% in Slovakia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

    Ukrainians are fleeing the war, but Poles swarming into Slovakia? What a weird thing to lie about.

    Replies: @Beckow

  96. How Scholz & Merkel killed Germany: (1)

    WELL, LIKE MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD THEY HAVE LOUSY POLITICAL LEADERSHIP: Germany Is Losing Its Mojo. Finding It Again Won’t Be Easy. Europe’s biggest economy is sliding into stagnation, and a weakening political system is struggling to find an answer.

    Two decades ago, Germany revived its moribund economy and became a manufacturing powerhouse of an era of globalization.

    Times changed. Germany didn’t keep up. Now Europe’s biggest economy has to reinvent itself again. But its fractured political class is struggling to find answers to a dizzying conjunction of long-term headaches and short-term crises, leading to a growing sense of malaise.

    Germany will be the world’s only major economy to contract in 2023, with even sanctioned Russia experiencing growth, according to the International Monetary Fund. . . .The problems aren’t new. Germany’s manufacturing output and its gross domestic product have stagnated since 2018, suggesting that its long-successful model has lost its mojo. (2)

    You have to read pretty far into the article before you see a reference to Germany’s “irrational energy policy.”

    The German Greens killed NordStream long before the industrial accident that destroyed 3 out of 4 tubes.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://instapundit.com/603028/

    (2) pay wall — https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/germany-is-losing-its-mojo-finding-it-again-wont-be-easy-c4b46761

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @A123

    I guess post-WW2 Germany just got too uppity for the powers that be. Is a recurring pattern, Russia seems to be caught in a similar cycle. It looks the USA is still falling into round one, though I suppose the Civil War could have been the first round.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mikhail, @A123

  97. @Mikhail
    @Beckow

    Dig the crapola about WW II Slovakia. Dubcek and Husak weren't Nazi allied along with numerous other Slovaks. Much like how the French and for that matter the Ukrainians among others had noticeable numbers with either the Axis or Allies.

    https://www.mzv.sk/documents/10182/2369491/BROZURA_70_VYROCIE_SNP_indd.pdf/007d0f33-4aa1-4e3a-95ae-5ef5096360d3

    Replies: @AP, @Beckow

    In March 1939 Germans – Hitler personally – told Slovak leaders to either declare independence or be split between Hungary and Poland. They were clerical fascists, similar to people who run Poland most of the time. They took the deal and then went too far. They are despised by almost all Slovaks, like Petain in France – we have no Waffen SS marchers or Bandera stadiums. We understand WW2, AP doesn’t.

    In the 1944 uprising most people fought against Germany – Minister of Defense, generals, officers, villagers…Husak was one of the leaders, Dubcek’s older brother died in the fighting. People like AP understand nothing – he is driven by hatred. You can’t cure hatred and with additional losses it only gets worse. They are a sorry case and they are slowly losing again.

    • Agree: Mikhail
  98. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Sean

    I wonder what China are doing on AI, which threatens to make a lot of things easier (but could also destroy education for many)?

    Only just realised how much depends at present on NVidia.

    NVIDIA A100, to be exact, at £7,000 a pop on Amazon. And I thought processing power was getting cheaper!

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/23/nvidias-a100-is-the-10000-chip-powering-the-race-for-ai-.html


    “A year ago we had 32 A100s,” Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque wrote on Twitter in January. “Dream big and stack moar GPUs kids. Brrr.” Stability AI is the company that helped develop Stable Diffusion, an image generator that drew attention last fall, and reportedly has a valuation of over $1 billion.

    Now, Stability AI has access to over 5,400 A100 GPUs, according to one estimate from the State of AI report, which charts and tracks which companies and universities have the largest collection of A100 GPUs.
     
    I think the people behind ChatGPT have 10,000 of them.

    Could this be America's Wunderwaffen, it's A-bomb equivalent? I imagine a bunch of bright Chinese are beavering away at creating an equivalent or better. Or perhaps they just work at NVidia.

    Imagine a military version, trained on maps, terrain, radar sites, real-time aircraft and satellite locations, plotting launch times and routes into Russia for drones. Almost certainly exists right now. I hope Russia are thinking about this.

    Replies: @Adept, @Emil Nikola Richard, @YetAnotherAnon

    I’m behind the tech, the P100 at $30k seems to be the thing, and the big tech companies are snaffling them all!

    https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/29/googles-new-a3-gpu-supercomputer-with-nvidia-h100-gpus-will-be-generally-available-next-month

    “Despite their $30,000+ price, Nvidia’s H100 GPUs are a hot commodity — to the point where they are typically back-ordered. Earlier this year, Google Cloud announced the private preview launch of its H100-powered A3 GPU virtual machines, which combines Nvidia’s chips with Google’s custom-designed 200 Gpbs Infrastructure Processing Units (IPUs). Now, at its Cloud Next conference, Google announced that it will launch the A3 into general availability next month.”

    https://www.techspot.com/news/99903-ai-surge-propels-nvidia-revenue-staggering-135-billion.html

    AI surge propels Nvidia’s revenue to a staggering $13.5 billion

    The new chips have 80 billion transistors. Mind, a modern £110 CPU can have 11 billion.

  99. @John Johnson
    @Sean


    How would Kiev be at near total defeat in 2014-2015 if the fighting was almost entirely by militias?
     
    The rebels were losing and to rescue the situation a couple of formed up battalion tactical groups of the Russian army crossed the border and cut a swath though Ukraine, leading Kiev to agree to Minsk in order to stop the rout of their forces.

    Not even 2.5% of Ukrainian forces were used. It was mostly militia fighting by both sides.

    This is one of the largest battles and only 200 Ukrainians soldiers/militia men were killed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport

    Ukraine was trying to minimize the fighting on both sides. They made the mistake of not hammering Donbas hard to being with. Same mistake they made with Crimea.

    Not sending in a serious AFU force was the mistake. To suggest that they were near defeat is ridiculous. They had over 1 million infantry that were not involved. Ukraine made the mistake of thinking they could make peace with a region that was being undermined by Russia.


    Here is the Minsk agreement and I’m not seeing anything that says Donbas gets autonomy:
     
    Far more autonomy that they had before, and crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    So you acknowledge that an unresolved border disqualified them from applying to NATO? Then why did Putin claim that he had to invade because of NATO?


    If the invasion is about Minsk then why didn’t Russia simply move forces to the LPR/DPR lines? Why were they trying to take Kiev in a brutal invasion?
     
    In 2015 Russia could rely on the threat of it making huge inroads into Ukrainian territory with a few battalion tactical groups and staying there, because Ukraine was lacking in weapons and determined leadership.

    I'm talking about 2022. Why not send the same force to Donbas and dig in? Why was he trying to take the whole country?

    That is a long winded way of saying that Russia’s preferred solution was not invading Ukraine but threatening to do so as a means to the end of sidelining Ukraine’s Nato ambitions.

    The preferred solution was to not invade over NATO even though Ukraine didn't qualify because of Donbas? Which means the preferred solution was working and an invasion wasn't needed.

    Replies: @Sean

    They had over 1 million infantry that were not involved …Ukraine was trying to minimize the fighting on both sides. They made the mistake of not hammering Donbas hard to being with. Same mistake they made with Crimea.

    If they signed the Minsk agreement, Kiev thought it had to halt formed up Russia army units advancing.

    I’m talking about 2022. Why not send the same force to Donbas and dig in? Why was he trying to take the whole country?

    Because Ukraine was on track to becoming a Western security asset and they had already tried limited or hybrid military operations before Minsk made them think their geopolitical objective had been achieved, which had resulted in freezing of the front line. However the agreement did not pan out the way Russia anticipated in the several years following because the carrot of Donbass being returned was not sufficient to entice Ukraine into giving Donbass the effective veto over Ukraine entering alliances with the West. Russia also realised that, especially after Biden and Blinken came in and altered US policy, Ukraine was becoming a match for Russia. By 2021 Russia could see its strategy of military pressure to obtain geopolitical concessions had failed, and they would soon no longer have a usable military option. So they had to take a decision.

    The preferred solution was to not invade over NATO even though Ukraine didn’t qualify because of Donbas? Which means the preferred solution was working and an invasion wasn’t needed.

    That is a fair point. I suppose Russia was not happy with the way Ukraine was integrating with Nato without becoming a formal member, and thought such interoperability cooperation in the context of an annually reiterated ‘Ukraine will join someday Nato announcement and indicated Ukraine and Nato’s future intentions. Yes, Russia could go on the assumption that Washington’s influence as ‘he who pays the piper’ notwithstanding, it would be unable get the qualifications for entry altered down the line.

    But no matter now nice that would be for everyone, accurate predictions about others require us to think about what we would in the others situation. Russians’ own intent in Kiev’s ‘s situation would be to the Kremlin to sleep. Why wouldn’t the Russians think with Ukraine’s inside track due to the Trump impeachment and President Biden hawkish, Kiev intended to to lull the Kremlin into passivity?

  100. @A123
    @AP

    You are a supporter of the Azov neo-Nazi collaborator Zelensky. So it’s just funny when you accuse and criticize others of collaborating with the Nazis.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @sudden death, @AP, @Mikhail

    He’s a cyber dumbbell with an autistic trait.

    • Agree: A123
  101. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    More like the Kiev regime are the new Nazis with their pro-Bandera tilt, increased repression and dream of wonder weapons saving them from defeat.

    You and the Russians can keep calling them Nazis but no one is buying it.

    Where is your evidence of this pro-Bandera tilt? I've never heard a single Ukrainian politician reference Bandera. Just because something is repeated at Moon of Alabama or Russian TV doesn't make it true.

    Put mildly, Kiev regime controlled Ukraine not likely to get into NATO.

    Ukraine was not likely to get into NATO before the war and they had no intention of applying. They didn't qualify and they didn't have the votes of France or Germany. Zelensky won on a neutral platform. Putin attacked Ukraine because his time is running out and not because Ukraine was in the process of joining.

    Finland joined NATO and they have more border with Russian than Ukraine. How is that not a loss if the war is about NATO?

    Perhaps if it just consists of Galicia and Trans-Carpathia or a portion of that territory.

    So you think it is possible for Russia to march on Kiev? Is that right?

    Why hasn't Belarus joined the war if this is all such a great idea?

    Replies: @Mikhail

    You reveal your sheer ignorance on this one regarding Bandera and neo-Nazi influence in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine. On another dopey point of yours, Patrick Lancaster appears more independent than the likes of the BBC’s James Waterhouse.

    As I’ve reasonably noted, the longer the conflict, the greater the chance of the Kiev regime losing more territory. Finland and Sweden were already on their way of becoming either NATO members or pretty much being such. They’re not more secure by being in NATO.

    Russia attacked the Kiev regime on account of the latter’s failure to implement the Minsk Accords, while building up its forces in conjunction with the OSCE report of increased Kiev regime attacks on Donbass rebel territory.

  102. @AP
    @A123

    Azov are not as Nazi as Hitler, and Vlasov whom Mikhail is a supporter of placed himself under Nazi command whereas Zelensky did not place himself under Azov command.

    Thanks for voluntarily showing your ignorance though.

    Btw, any Nazis supporting Trump?

    Replies: @A123, @Mikhail

    Your false equivalency whataboutism is quite telling of what a fool you are. Vlasov doesn’t have the bloody baggage of Bandera who the likes of Azov honor. Vlasov is a more ethical figure to honor than Bandera. Bandera is honored in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine in a way that Vlasov isn’t in Russia.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikhail

    You are too dumb to realize that we aren’t talking about Bandera or about the Ukrainian government.

    We are talking about the fact that Vlasov was a Nazi collaborator who served under Hitler and that it is very funny that you, a Vlasovite, are criticizing others for working with Nazis or whatever.

    The other stuff may or may not be true but is irrelevant to the point. You are a fanboy of a Russian Nazi collaborator even as you whine about Nazis. That’s funny. :-)

    But we know that you can’t get it, you are too slow.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  103. @sudden death
    @sudden death


    MOSCOW, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM) said on Tuesday it generated a net loss of 18.6 billion roubles ($197 million) in the second quarter of 2023 after a net profit of 1.03 trillion roubles a year earlier following the collapse of gas exports to Europe.

    Gazprom has suspended the disclosure of its exports data, but according to Reuters calculations, supplies to Europe, once its key source of earnings, were about 15 billion cubic metres (bcm) in January-July compared with 62 bcm for the whole 2022.

    "The decline in exports to Europe was partially offset by supplies to China, which continue to grow as part of contractual obligations, as well as the efficient operation of the oil business," Famil Sadygov, Gazprom's Deputy CEO, said on Telegram messaging app.

    He also said the earnings were impacted by the rouble rate, which weakened 24% against the U.S. dollar in the first six months of this year.

    The Kremlin-controlled company also said its net income for the first six months of the year fell to 296 billion roubles from 2.5 trillion roubles in January-June 2022, while its base for dividend payment reached 618 billion roubles for the period.
     

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-says-it-swings-q2-net-loss-exports-europe-slump-2023-08-29/

    So in 2023 Gazprom pipeline natgas exports in EU will be roughly about 30-35 billion m3 compared with 170 billion m3 before Covid, but exports in China last year reached "record" of 15 billion m3, this year might be more, maybe 20-25 billion m3, so the overall cumulative loss of pipeline natgas export volume still remains in tune of 100 billion m3 for RF.

    Replies: @QCIC

    I think this was expected from day 1 of the SMO. In the short run it is impossible to sell more gas if the available pipelines are full. Does Gazprom also sell gas inside Russia?

    I wonder how much natural gas Russia is supplying to Ukraine these days?

    I read that Russia is still supplying significant amounts of uranium to the USA but have not confirmed the details.

  104. @Beckow
    @AP


    Zelensky hoped that this would be interpreted in a way that would not cancel Ukraine’s independence.
     
    Did he also interpret the meaning of "we will win the war against Russia and conquer Crimea"? He is quite a creative guy, but maybe in the wrong profession now.

    Minsk didn't cancel Ukraine’s independence: it was a normal autonomy deal that exists all over Europe. You create straw-men to fight. That shows bad will, you know that your case is otherwise indefensible.


    allowed a foreign country to dictate their internal and external policies.
     
    By your definition US-EU have been dictating to all others what they can do for decades - often with bombs. Doesn't that bother you? They say it is for "human rights" and "security". Why is it different when others ask for human rights and some security? We know the answer: you are brainwashed narcissists who focus razor-sharp only on yourself and are unable to others as equal. That's why there is this war - but now you must prove your superiority. So far you have come up short.

    It highlights your inferiority to peoples such as Poles, Ukrainians,
     
    That is fascist language - get hold of yourself. You are drinking poison hoping that others will suffer - it never works that way, you only poison yourself. But I suspect you are too dumb to understand that. (On to more teary myths, crying over losses and being a lot less than what you could have been.)

    On a practical level, it is the Ukies and Poles who are swarming to live among us, begging us to let them be like us, many wanting to forget who they are, women crying, children learning a new language - all of them happily living normal lives.

    Killing and dying to keep others from speaking Russian and to join Nato to fight more wars is about as stupid and self-denying as it gets. Enjoy and don't forget a few heroic poems, that's what it is all about? Or is it? The bottomless self-hatred that is willing to destroy it all just not to be who you are? Maybe instead move to the ultimate "West", maybe Iceland? (Hey, they are also in Nato and I am sure Russian language is frowned upon there.)

    Replies: @AP

    Minsk didn’t cancel Ukraine’s independence: it was a normal autonomy deal that exists all over Europe

    Minsk meant that Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.

    That is a cancellation of independence.

    allowed a foreign country to dictate their internal and external policies.

    By your definition US-EU have been dictating to all others what they can do for decades

    Review the word dictate.

    The closest parallel would be occupied Germany and Japan getting constitutions from the American occupiers. Except of course you demanded that Ukraine give in to Russia without even an occupation. A preemptive surrender, like Czechoslovakia in the 1930s.

    On a practical level, it is the Ukies and Poles who are swarming to live among us, begging us to let them be like us

    It’s really remarkable how you have the need to throw a lie into every post.

    This is a rather exotic lie.

    There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia, mostly moving due to marriage:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339092648_Migration_of_the_poles_to_Slovakia_after_World_War_II

    Otherwise no point in moving. Average wages are lower (1,200 Euros in Poland versus 1,000 Euros in Slovakia):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage

    And unemployment is higher – 2.7% in Poland versus 6% in Slovakia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

    Ukrainians are fleeing the war, but Poles swarming into Slovakia? What a weird thing to lie about.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AP


    ...Review the word dictate.
     
    All right: must be in Nato, must assist US in its military adventures, must use US dollars and keep its earnings (reserves) in either London or US, must vote with US in "UN", must privatise and sell to 'investors', a lot more... and the US embassy insists on rainbow parades and open borders. Is that enough dictating for you?

    Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.
     
    No, only a small part about the Russian minority having autonomy in its region and Ukraine remaining neutral - what's wrong with that? If Kiev agreed there would be no war, we all know that. So you lie about 'sky-is-falling' made-up things that were not even discussed before the war.

    There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia
     
    We see Poles daily in their beat-up cars trying to sell old bicycles, rotten meat and home-made booze - they don't look prosperous to us, but we seldom venture to the dreary flatlands over the mountains, usually not much there. If they are getting better, good for you - just don't try to sell us your crap. And the Ukies begging us to stay are everywhere - refugees? no, most don't ever want to go back and it is not the "Russians" they are running away from - it is their miserable, corrupt, foreign-dominated country.

    Replies: @Wielgus, @AP

  105. @A123
    How Scholz & Merkel killed Germany: (1)

    WELL, LIKE MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD THEY HAVE LOUSY POLITICAL LEADERSHIP: Germany Is Losing Its Mojo. Finding It Again Won’t Be Easy. Europe’s biggest economy is sliding into stagnation, and a weakening political system is struggling to find an answer.

    Two decades ago, Germany revived its moribund economy and became a manufacturing powerhouse of an era of globalization.

    Times changed. Germany didn’t keep up. Now Europe’s biggest economy has to reinvent itself again. But its fractured political class is struggling to find answers to a dizzying conjunction of long-term headaches and short-term crises, leading to a growing sense of malaise.

    Germany will be the world’s only major economy to contract in 2023, with even sanctioned Russia experiencing growth, according to the International Monetary Fund. . . .The problems aren’t new. Germany’s manufacturing output and its gross domestic product have stagnated since 2018, suggesting that its long-successful model has lost its mojo. (2)
     
    You have to read pretty far into the article before you see a reference to Germany’s “irrational energy policy.”
     
    The German Greens killed NordStream long before the industrial accident that destroyed 3 out of 4 tubes.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://instapundit.com/603028/

    (2) pay wall -- https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/germany-is-losing-its-mojo-finding-it-again-wont-be-easy-c4b46761

    Replies: @QCIC

    I guess post-WW2 Germany just got too uppity for the powers that be. Is a recurring pattern, Russia seems to be caught in a similar cycle. It looks the USA is still falling into round one, though I suppose the Civil War could have been the first round.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @QCIC

    Do not mis under estimate Germany. Nordstream is not destroyed. It is in need of some expensive repair. They still have great engineers. The first cause of all of this is prospective Germany Russia partnership terrifies London and New York goons.

    Replies: @Sean

    , @Mikhail
    @QCIC

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ACX9xqMsRM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bq4njrUlsQ&t=1971s

    , @A123
    @QCIC



    The German Greens killed NordStream long before the industrial accident that destroyed 3 out of 4 tubes.
     
    I guess post-WW2 Germany just got too uppity for the powers that be
     
    Are you suggesting that the German Greens are the ultimate "powers that be" within the European Empire?

    And, that they became "uppity" with physical reality? For example, in their "uppitiness" the tried to ignore that energy is required to manufacture goods?

    You do provide a decent description of how the German Greens are taking down the German people with no outside intervention.

    PEACE 😇
  106. @Mikhail
    @AP

    Your false equivalency whataboutism is quite telling of what a fool you are. Vlasov doesn't have the bloody baggage of Bandera who the likes of Azov honor. Vlasov is a more ethical figure to honor than Bandera. Bandera is honored in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine in a way that Vlasov isn't in Russia.

    Replies: @AP

    You are too dumb to realize that we aren’t talking about Bandera or about the Ukrainian government.

    We are talking about the fact that Vlasov was a Nazi collaborator who served under Hitler and that it is very funny that you, a Vlasovite, are criticizing others for working with Nazis or whatever.

    The other stuff may or may not be true but is irrelevant to the point. You are a fanboy of a Russian Nazi collaborator even as you whine about Nazis. That’s funny. 🙂

    But we know that you can’t get it, you are too slow.

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @AP

    I'm not the dummy with an autistic trait, unlike yourself who has yet to successfully refute any of my points concerning Vlasov and Bandera

    Replies: @AP

  107. Talking about how the Church has changed:

    In 1722, the Superior of Missions wrote in his official report about how the increasing numbers of mulattoes, illegitimate or not, was exposing the colonies “to the terrible punishment of those famous cities of abomination, which were destroyed by the fire of Heaven.” To him, the mingling of the races was “a criminal coupling of men and women of different species, whence comes a fruit which is one of Nature’s monsters.”

  108. @Mikel
    @Sean


    crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato
     
    I have never doubted AP and others when they said that but in reality that point was never part of the Minsk Agreements themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

    So I'm not sure where it comes from. With Minsk-2 in place, as I hoped Zelensky would achieve, parts of Donbas would get a special self-government status inside of Ukraine and Ukraine would recover control of the border with Russia but I don't see how an autonomous Donbas could ever hope to prevent Kiev from signing multinational treaties.

    Replies: @AP

    crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    I have never doubted AP and others when they said that but in reality that point was never part of the Minsk Agreements themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

    So I’m not sure where it comes from

    The nature of the autonomy was kept vague in the original document, with various possible interpretations. It could have simply meant that the locals choose their own governors. This is roughly how the Ukrainian side saw it and wanted it to be. The important thing, however, was how Russian sponsor of the Donbas rebels interpreted it. This is how:

    https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine-0/minsk-2-agreement

    Surkov coordinated the drafting of extra demands (published on 13 May as proposals from the DNR/LNR). These would give the occupied regions even greater powers: responsibility for legal regulation of the Ukraine/Russia border; the right to conclude agreements with foreign states; their own charters (which would, for example, prevent the president of Ukraine from dismissing local executive organs); their own budgets to ensure ‘financial autonomy’; and rights to introduce states of emergency and hold elections and referendums. Lastly, Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution

    :::::::::

    So for example, allowing autonomous Donbas to sign a free trade zone agreement with Russia would effectively veto Ukraine’s integration with the EU.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @AP

    Some demands from the rebels on what the Law on Special Status would look like is totally different from what the Minsk Agreements say. Minsk-2 did not include the agreement that Ukraine would not be able to join any military or economic alliance. It's just not there in the Agreement signed by the parties and guarantors.

    This is not to say that Minsk-2 was not a poison pill meant to destabilize Ukraine. Probably none of the signatories had much intention of fulfilling their part of the deal, not even the Western guarantors, we now know. But Ukraine never complied with the legal changes that should precede the rest of the points so the rebels and Russians didn't have the chance to dishonor the agreement themselves.

    In any case, saying that Minsk prevented Ukraine from joining NATO is wrong. At most, that's what the Russian side hoped but, not being in the Agreement, Ukraine had no obligation to meet that demand.

    Replies: @AP

  109. @QCIC
    @A123

    I guess post-WW2 Germany just got too uppity for the powers that be. Is a recurring pattern, Russia seems to be caught in a similar cycle. It looks the USA is still falling into round one, though I suppose the Civil War could have been the first round.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mikhail, @A123

    Do not mis under estimate Germany. Nordstream is not destroyed. It is in need of some expensive repair. They still have great engineers. The first cause of all of this is prospective Germany Russia partnership terrifies London and New York goons.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Biden allowed Nordstream to go ahead because Germany was to help with China, which is the enemy. Russians are regarded as an annoyance and not taken seriously by Washington. Germany's manufacturing and capital goods export (China) strategy is totally screwed without cheap energy and the digital transformation is passing them by.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

  110. @AP
    @Beckow


    Minsk didn’t cancel Ukraine’s independence: it was a normal autonomy deal that exists all over Europe
     
    Minsk meant that Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.

    That is a cancellation of independence.

    allowed a foreign country to dictate their internal and external policies.

    By your definition US-EU have been dictating to all others what they can do for decades
     
    Review the word dictate.

    The closest parallel would be occupied Germany and Japan getting constitutions from the American occupiers. Except of course you demanded that Ukraine give in to Russia without even an occupation. A preemptive surrender, like Czechoslovakia in the 1930s.

    On a practical level, it is the Ukies and Poles who are swarming to live among us, begging us to let them be like us

     

    It’s really remarkable how you have the need to throw a lie into every post.

    This is a rather exotic lie.

    There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia, mostly moving due to marriage:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339092648_Migration_of_the_poles_to_Slovakia_after_World_War_II

    Otherwise no point in moving. Average wages are lower (1,200 Euros in Poland versus 1,000 Euros in Slovakia):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage

    And unemployment is higher - 2.7% in Poland versus 6% in Slovakia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

    Ukrainians are fleeing the war, but Poles swarming into Slovakia? What a weird thing to lie about.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …Review the word dictate.

    All right: must be in Nato, must assist US in its military adventures, must use US dollars and keep its earnings (reserves) in either London or US, must vote with US in “UN”, must privatise and sell to ‘investors’, a lot more… and the US embassy insists on rainbow parades and open borders. Is that enough dictating for you?

    Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.

    No, only a small part about the Russian minority having autonomy in its region and Ukraine remaining neutral – what’s wrong with that? If Kiev agreed there would be no war, we all know that. So you lie about ‘sky-is-falling’ made-up things that were not even discussed before the war.

    There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia

    We see Poles daily in their beat-up cars trying to sell old bicycles, rotten meat and home-made booze – they don’t look prosperous to us, but we seldom venture to the dreary flatlands over the mountains, usually not much there. If they are getting better, good for you – just don’t try to sell us your crap. And the Ukies begging us to stay are everywhere – refugees? no, most don’t ever want to go back and it is not the “Russians” they are running away from – it is their miserable, corrupt, foreign-dominated country.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Beckow

    I am a little curious - what language is used in these exchanges? Do they speak Polish, Slovak or a mixture? Are the languages close enough to make it irrelevant which is used? Or is it a case of resorting to probably bad English?

    , @AP
    @Beckow


    …Review the word dictate.

    All right: must be in Nato, must assist US in its military adventures, must use US dollars and keep its earnings (reserves) in either London or US, must vote with US in “UN”, must privatise and sell to ‘investors’, a lot
     

    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom?

    Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO? Poland?


    Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.

    No, only a small part about the Russian minority having autonomy in its region and Ukraine remaining neutral
     

    So Russia, a foreign country, would only determine a "small part" of Ukraine's constitution and internal laws and policies.

    So, no longer an independent state.

    And "autonomy", according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine's ability to, say, link itself with the EU.


    "There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia"

    We see Poles daily in their beat-up cars trying to sell old bicycles, rotten meat and home-made booze
     

    According to Beckow-the-serial-liar.

    Meantime, there are more Czechs, Hungarians, and Romanians in Slovakia then there are Poles. Despite Poland having a huge border and many more people who could move there.


    we seldom venture to the dreary flatlands over the mountains
     
    About 1,000 Slovaks have moved to Poland.

    That's 1/3 of the number of Poles living in Slovakia (3,000)

    Yet Poland has almost 7 times the population of Slovakia.

    So per capita, Slovaks are far more likely to go to Poland than vice versa.

    Poland is of course mostly flat, as is half of Germany (including most of the DDR), the Baltics, Belarus, most of Russia and Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, half of France, etc.

    Not sure about dreary. Poland is sunnier than much of northern Europe, including most of Slovakia:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Europe_sunshine_hours_map.png

    Replies: @Mikel, @Beckow

  111. @QCIC
    @A123

    I guess post-WW2 Germany just got too uppity for the powers that be. Is a recurring pattern, Russia seems to be caught in a similar cycle. It looks the USA is still falling into round one, though I suppose the Civil War could have been the first round.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mikhail, @A123

  112. @QCIC
    @A123

    I guess post-WW2 Germany just got too uppity for the powers that be. Is a recurring pattern, Russia seems to be caught in a similar cycle. It looks the USA is still falling into round one, though I suppose the Civil War could have been the first round.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mikhail, @A123

    The German Greens killed NordStream long before the industrial accident that destroyed 3 out of 4 tubes.

    I guess post-WW2 Germany just got too uppity for the powers that be

    Are you suggesting that the German Greens are the ultimate “powers that be” within the European Empire?

    And, that they became “uppity” with physical reality? For example, in their “uppitiness” the tried to ignore that energy is required to manufacture goods?

    You do provide a decent description of how the German Greens are taking down the German people with no outside intervention.

    PEACE 😇

  113. @Beckow
    @AP


    ...Review the word dictate.
     
    All right: must be in Nato, must assist US in its military adventures, must use US dollars and keep its earnings (reserves) in either London or US, must vote with US in "UN", must privatise and sell to 'investors', a lot more... and the US embassy insists on rainbow parades and open borders. Is that enough dictating for you?

    Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.
     
    No, only a small part about the Russian minority having autonomy in its region and Ukraine remaining neutral - what's wrong with that? If Kiev agreed there would be no war, we all know that. So you lie about 'sky-is-falling' made-up things that were not even discussed before the war.

    There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia
     
    We see Poles daily in their beat-up cars trying to sell old bicycles, rotten meat and home-made booze - they don't look prosperous to us, but we seldom venture to the dreary flatlands over the mountains, usually not much there. If they are getting better, good for you - just don't try to sell us your crap. And the Ukies begging us to stay are everywhere - refugees? no, most don't ever want to go back and it is not the "Russians" they are running away from - it is their miserable, corrupt, foreign-dominated country.

    Replies: @Wielgus, @AP

    I am a little curious – what language is used in these exchanges? Do they speak Polish, Slovak or a mixture? Are the languages close enough to make it irrelevant which is used? Or is it a case of resorting to probably bad English?

  114. On higher level unfortunately it is bad English – the 500-word illiterate version that so much of the world lives in today. The lower ones are a mixture of Polish-Slovak-Czech, even a few Russian, German and English words. Or they just wave arms.

    The Ukies we have don’t seem to do a lot of business, many expect to be taken care off while they wait for overseas visas. The ones working do menial jobs – but all Ukie cleaning ladies in Prague hotels claim they were educated ‘office workers’ back home. How this is a “win” for the ordinary Ukrainians I will never understand. Did they live such miserable lives before?

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Beckow

    "The 500-word illiterate version that so much of the world lives in today"
    The lingua franca of North London, in other words...

  115. @AP
    @Mikel


    crucially what was in effect an East Donbass veto over Ukraine ever joining Nato

    I have never doubted AP and others when they said that but in reality that point was never part of the Minsk Agreements themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

    So I’m not sure where it comes from
     
    The nature of the autonomy was kept vague in the original document, with various possible interpretations. It could have simply meant that the locals choose their own governors. This is roughly how the Ukrainian side saw it and wanted it to be. The important thing, however, was how Russian sponsor of the Donbas rebels interpreted it. This is how:

    https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine-0/minsk-2-agreement

    Surkov coordinated the drafting of extra demands (published on 13 May as proposals from the DNR/LNR). These would give the occupied regions even greater powers: responsibility for legal regulation of the Ukraine/Russia border; the right to conclude agreements with foreign states; their own charters (which would, for example, prevent the president of Ukraine from dismissing local executive organs); their own budgets to ensure ‘financial autonomy’; and rights to introduce states of emergency and hold elections and referendums. Lastly, Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution

    :::::::::

    So for example, allowing autonomous Donbas to sign a free trade zone agreement with Russia would effectively veto Ukraine’s integration with the EU.

    Replies: @Mikel

    Some demands from the rebels on what the Law on Special Status would look like is totally different from what the Minsk Agreements say. Minsk-2 did not include the agreement that Ukraine would not be able to join any military or economic alliance. It’s just not there in the Agreement signed by the parties and guarantors.

    This is not to say that Minsk-2 was not a poison pill meant to destabilize Ukraine. Probably none of the signatories had much intention of fulfilling their part of the deal, not even the Western guarantors, we now know. But Ukraine never complied with the legal changes that should precede the rest of the points so the rebels and Russians didn’t have the chance to dishonor the agreement themselves.

    In any case, saying that Minsk prevented Ukraine from joining NATO is wrong. At most, that’s what the Russian side hoped but, not being in the Agreement, Ukraine had no obligation to meet that demand.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikel


    Some demands from the rebels on what the Law on Special Status would look like is totally different from what the Minsk Agreements say
     
    The Minsk agreements state "decentralization" but don't specify what that means. The Russian rebels/Russians consistently have stated that this means that Donbas gets to sign trade agreements with Russia, effectively cancelling EU association or membership. This doesn't contradict the vague "decentralization" stated in the agreement.

    Zelensky, when he sought peace at first, wanted to work out "decentralization" in a way that would be acceptable to a sovereign state (such as allowing local elections for governors rather than have the central government appoint them), but the Russian side wasn't interested in that.

    But Ukraine never complied with the legal changes that should precede the rest of the points
     
    IIRC neither side withdrew their weapons.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  116. @AP
    @Mikhail

    You are too dumb to realize that we aren’t talking about Bandera or about the Ukrainian government.

    We are talking about the fact that Vlasov was a Nazi collaborator who served under Hitler and that it is very funny that you, a Vlasovite, are criticizing others for working with Nazis or whatever.

    The other stuff may or may not be true but is irrelevant to the point. You are a fanboy of a Russian Nazi collaborator even as you whine about Nazis. That’s funny. :-)

    But we know that you can’t get it, you are too slow.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    I’m not the dummy with an autistic trait, unlike yourself who has yet to successfully refute any of my points concerning Vlasov and Bandera

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikhail

    You are clearly autistic, it is evident in your writing style, your linguistic impairment, and your personal life (poor social skills, never married). I don't make fun of you for that, it just is. At least you are fairly high functioning.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikhail

  117. @Beckow
    @AP


    ...Review the word dictate.
     
    All right: must be in Nato, must assist US in its military adventures, must use US dollars and keep its earnings (reserves) in either London or US, must vote with US in "UN", must privatise and sell to 'investors', a lot more... and the US embassy insists on rainbow parades and open borders. Is that enough dictating for you?

    Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.
     
    No, only a small part about the Russian minority having autonomy in its region and Ukraine remaining neutral - what's wrong with that? If Kiev agreed there would be no war, we all know that. So you lie about 'sky-is-falling' made-up things that were not even discussed before the war.

    There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia
     
    We see Poles daily in their beat-up cars trying to sell old bicycles, rotten meat and home-made booze - they don't look prosperous to us, but we seldom venture to the dreary flatlands over the mountains, usually not much there. If they are getting better, good for you - just don't try to sell us your crap. And the Ukies begging us to stay are everywhere - refugees? no, most don't ever want to go back and it is not the "Russians" they are running away from - it is their miserable, corrupt, foreign-dominated country.

    Replies: @Wielgus, @AP

    …Review the word dictate.

    All right: must be in Nato, must assist US in its military adventures, must use US dollars and keep its earnings (reserves) in either London or US, must vote with US in “UN”, must privatise and sell to ‘investors’, a lot

    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom?

    Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO? Poland?

    Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.

    No, only a small part about the Russian minority having autonomy in its region and Ukraine remaining neutral

    So Russia, a foreign country, would only determine a “small part” of Ukraine’s constitution and internal laws and policies.

    So, no longer an independent state.

    And “autonomy”, according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine’s ability to, say, link itself with the EU.

    “There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia”

    We see Poles daily in their beat-up cars trying to sell old bicycles, rotten meat and home-made booze

    According to Beckow-the-serial-liar.

    Meantime, there are more Czechs, Hungarians, and Romanians in Slovakia then there are Poles. Despite Poland having a huge border and many more people who could move there.

    we seldom venture to the dreary flatlands over the mountains

    About 1,000 Slovaks have moved to Poland.

    That’s 1/3 of the number of Poles living in Slovakia (3,000)

    Yet Poland has almost 7 times the population of Slovakia.

    So per capita, Slovaks are far more likely to go to Poland than vice versa.

    Poland is of course mostly flat, as is half of Germany (including most of the DDR), the Baltics, Belarus, most of Russia and Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, half of France, etc.

    Not sure about dreary. Poland is sunnier than much of northern Europe, including most of Slovakia:

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @AP

    That sunshine duration map of Europe looks quite unreliable. Just a few examples:

    Vitoria-Gasteiz is inside the 2000-2500 hours sector but in fact it only has 1,886/year:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitoria-Gasteiz#Climate

    Bordeaux is well inside the 1800-2000 sector but it exceeds 2000 at 2,069/year:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordeaux#Climate

    Warsaw is in the 1600-1800 sector but is almost 2000 at 1,998/year:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw#Climate

    Sorry. My climate nuttiness didn't allow me to let that pass.

    , @Beckow
    @AP


    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom? Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO?
     
    All of them. We were told that without being in Nato we can't be in EU. Period.

    You have double standards when it comes to applying the term dictate. The inconsistency you display - some can, others can't - is a sign of poor mental health. Or desperate losing ideology: Russia having any say is a "dictat", but your side is all saints. Right? St. Augustine said that all saints have past...are you so unaware?


    And “autonomy”, according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine’s ability to, say, link itself with the EU....So, no longer an independent state.
     
    Complete nonsense. The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent? South Tyrol in Italy, endless other examples of regions that have trade and cultural links to others. You are making up a straw-man because you know there was no reason for Kiev to reject Minsk and provoke the war. It will end much worse for them now. You medicate yourself with scary lies.

    Poland having a huge border and many more people who could move there.
     
    And yet, almost nobody did until the luckless Ukies showed up. You are mixing what I said: Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do 'business' and people who permanently migrate to live in other countries. You either lack logic or you are intentionally deceptive.

    Finally, a guy who claims that Poland is a sunny paradise...have you been there? Or better, have you visited other places? But contra gustos no hay disputas...

    Replies: @LatW, @A123, @AP

  118. • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Why is Putin's propagandist calling for a tactical nuke if everything is going so well?
    https://www.newsweek.com/putin-state-tv-host-russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapons-1821567

    Napolitano is a sad Putin hack who has been cheering the Russians since the war started. He isn't as overt as Ritter but his position is obvious by the show format where he lets pro-Putin guests ramble while he nods and makes cracks about Zelenksy. As with other Putin defenders he is obsessed with Zelensky and Nuland. It's all about the Jews to him but he doesn't have the balls to say it.

    I did some research into Napolitano and turns out that he is a closet homo who was kicked out of Fox News for sexually harassing young men:
    https://news.yahoo.com/andrew-napolitano-fox-sexual-harassment-224300192.html

    Are self-hating men just somehow attracted to Putin?

    No wife or kids and has been accused of sexually harassing men.

    Closet homo.

    The Putin US Dream Team is unreal. A convicted sex offender, a closeted homo, some America hater who makes fake war videos, Steven Seagal. Just an amazing lineup.

    Replies: @LatW, @Mikhail, @QCIC

  119. @Mikhail
    @AP

    I'm not the dummy with an autistic trait, unlike yourself who has yet to successfully refute any of my points concerning Vlasov and Bandera

    Replies: @AP

    You are clearly autistic, it is evident in your writing style, your linguistic impairment, and your personal life (poor social skills, never married). I don’t make fun of you for that, it just is. At least you are fairly high functioning.

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    Honestly, autists should get married if they will have the opportunity to do so. Maybe it would be easiest for them to marry other autists, though then they might need IVF and genetic screening for their kids in order to prevent their kids from becoming non-functional autists (as in, in order to significantly reduce this possibility).

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Mikhail
    @AP

    Your svido way of having lost on your idiotically stated dumb ass comments.

  120. @Mikel
    @AP

    Some demands from the rebels on what the Law on Special Status would look like is totally different from what the Minsk Agreements say. Minsk-2 did not include the agreement that Ukraine would not be able to join any military or economic alliance. It's just not there in the Agreement signed by the parties and guarantors.

    This is not to say that Minsk-2 was not a poison pill meant to destabilize Ukraine. Probably none of the signatories had much intention of fulfilling their part of the deal, not even the Western guarantors, we now know. But Ukraine never complied with the legal changes that should precede the rest of the points so the rebels and Russians didn't have the chance to dishonor the agreement themselves.

    In any case, saying that Minsk prevented Ukraine from joining NATO is wrong. At most, that's what the Russian side hoped but, not being in the Agreement, Ukraine had no obligation to meet that demand.

    Replies: @AP

    Some demands from the rebels on what the Law on Special Status would look like is totally different from what the Minsk Agreements say

    The Minsk agreements state “decentralization” but don’t specify what that means. The Russian rebels/Russians consistently have stated that this means that Donbas gets to sign trade agreements with Russia, effectively cancelling EU association or membership. This doesn’t contradict the vague “decentralization” stated in the agreement.

    Zelensky, when he sought peace at first, wanted to work out “decentralization” in a way that would be acceptable to a sovereign state (such as allowing local elections for governors rather than have the central government appoint them), but the Russian side wasn’t interested in that.

    But Ukraine never complied with the legal changes that should precede the rest of the points

    IIRC neither side withdrew their weapons.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    The Minsk agreements state “decentralization” but don’t specify what that means. The Russian rebels/Russians consistently have stated that this means that Donbas gets to sign trade agreements with Russia, effectively cancelling EU association or membership. This doesn’t contradict the vague “decentralization” stated in the agreement.
     
    I suppose that Russia could have argued that Ukraine could sign its own agreements with the EU but that these agreements with the EU simply wouldn't apply to the Donbass? But then the Donbass would have been independent in all but name, no?

    But Yeah, as I have said for years, it's rather difficult to get a sovereign state to give 10-20% of its population veto power in determining its domestic and foreign policies. Interestingly enough, federalization was unpopular even in Novorossiya outside of the Donbass even back in early and mid-2014. And even in the Donbass, support for it was only about 50-50 at best back then. Though AFAIK, this Ukrainian polling didn't actually define what "federalization" meant, so people could have had their own impressions of this term.
  121. @AP
    @Mr. XYZ


    Would Poles have still fought Hitler without the Anglo-French guarantees or would they have capitulated like the Czechs and Slovaks did?
     
    Making that alliance rather than accepting a more convenient one with Hitler who had wanted one but who was refused by Poland was itself an example of Polish “stubbornness.”

    Without Anglo-French guarantees Poland would have had pursued some other anti-German alliance. Maybe not have demanded Polish-inhabited lands back from Czechoslovakia as a condition for an alliance with that state. I doubt Poland would have voluntarily given up its lands to anyone, without a fight.

    Population ratio of Finland to USSR was worse than Germany-Poland and Finns chose to fight Soviets without an alliance.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Mr. XYZ

    Making that alliance rather than accepting a more convenient one with Hitler who had wanted one but who was refused by Poland was itself an example of Polish “stubbornness.”

    Yep, but one indeed has to wonder whether Poland would have been better off trying to make a deal with Hitler. Millions of Polish citizens perished in WWII, after all. Had Poland allied with Hitler, ethnic Poles could have fared much better, and ditto for Polish Jews since Hitler gave his loyal allies more leeway in dealing with their Jewish problem than he gave to his enemies. A Nazi alliance would have been an especially good thing for Poland had Poland not been asked to participate in a Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and had Poland not been asked to engage in either mass murder or forced sterilizations by the Nazis.

    Such a scenario would have been worse for the Soviets in the medium-term, but I’m unsure about the short-term or the long-term because the Soviets might not have been as bled dry in this scenario and I also don’t know just how capable the Nazis would be in regards to holding onto the Soviet Union indefinitely without a large-scale permanent Nazi troop presence there. And mass deportations of tens of millions of Slavs are going to be quite logistically challenging to execute in and of themselves. Though Soviet Jews would get deported en masse to Siberia or Central Asia or wherever rather than having millions of them get murdered, most likely.

    Without Anglo-French guarantees Poland would have had pursued some other anti-German alliance. Maybe not have demanded Polish-inhabited lands back from Czechoslovakia as a condition for an alliance with that state. I doubt Poland would have voluntarily given up its lands to anyone, without a fight.

    Danzig was not Polish territory and thus could have been given up without sacrificing Poland’s territorial integrity. Hitler did not demand the Polish Corridor before Poland accepted the British Guarantee. Rather, Hitler simply wanted an elevated extraterritorial road through the Polish Corridor, according to what I have read on the Axis History Forum. Similar to this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevated_highway

    Danzig and an elevated road through the Polish Corridor were reasonable Nazi demands, frankly. Poland already had its own port at Gdynia by then and the Nazis were apparently willing to give Poland trading rights at Danzig as well.

    Population ratio of Finland to USSR was worse than Germany-Poland and Finns chose to fight Soviets without an alliance.

    TBF, the Soviets killed millions during peacetime (either directly or indirectly), whereas the Nazis did not. That probably made Soviet occupation seem more intolerable relative to Nazi occupation, before one could actually foresee the Holocaust. Nazi occupation in Czechia pre-WWII was probably brutal but nevertheless did not involve mass murder yet. Finns, on the other hand, could have quite reasonably expected the mass murder or at least the gulagization of anyone who resisted any new Soviet-imposed Communist order in Finland.

    Interestingly enough, since Poland decided to resist the Nazis, allying with both the Anglo-French and the Soviet Union would have probably been the best move. At the very least, Poland could have asked for written guarantees from the Anglo-French that they would be willing to fight the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union would have refused to withdraw from Poland after an Allied victory over Nazi Germany. Simultaneously pissing off both of its powerful neighbors was not a smart move for Poland!

    As for Teschen, I think that Poland unnecessarily made a big deal out of it. AFAIK, a major railroad ran through there, so it made sense for Czechoslovakia to want it and to want to keep it. Once Czechoslovakia gave territory to Nazi Germany, I could understand why Poland would want its own small share, but Poland should not have made the return of Teschen a precondition for an alliance with Czechoslovakia beforehand.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mr. XYZ

    Honestly, I wonder if the three million Polish Jews that were murdered during the Holocaust would have preferred a Nazi-Polish alliance, but with many more of them surviving, over real life. They would have likely most of all preferred an Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance against Nazi Germany, though.

  122. @AP
    @Mikel


    Some demands from the rebels on what the Law on Special Status would look like is totally different from what the Minsk Agreements say
     
    The Minsk agreements state "decentralization" but don't specify what that means. The Russian rebels/Russians consistently have stated that this means that Donbas gets to sign trade agreements with Russia, effectively cancelling EU association or membership. This doesn't contradict the vague "decentralization" stated in the agreement.

    Zelensky, when he sought peace at first, wanted to work out "decentralization" in a way that would be acceptable to a sovereign state (such as allowing local elections for governors rather than have the central government appoint them), but the Russian side wasn't interested in that.

    But Ukraine never complied with the legal changes that should precede the rest of the points
     
    IIRC neither side withdrew their weapons.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    The Minsk agreements state “decentralization” but don’t specify what that means. The Russian rebels/Russians consistently have stated that this means that Donbas gets to sign trade agreements with Russia, effectively cancelling EU association or membership. This doesn’t contradict the vague “decentralization” stated in the agreement.

    I suppose that Russia could have argued that Ukraine could sign its own agreements with the EU but that these agreements with the EU simply wouldn’t apply to the Donbass? But then the Donbass would have been independent in all but name, no?

    But Yeah, as I have said for years, it’s rather difficult to get a sovereign state to give 10-20% of its population veto power in determining its domestic and foreign policies. Interestingly enough, federalization was unpopular even in Novorossiya outside of the Donbass even back in early and mid-2014. And even in the Donbass, support for it was only about 50-50 at best back then. Though AFAIK, this Ukrainian polling didn’t actually define what “federalization” meant, so people could have had their own impressions of this term.

  123. @AP
    @Mikhail

    You are clearly autistic, it is evident in your writing style, your linguistic impairment, and your personal life (poor social skills, never married). I don't make fun of you for that, it just is. At least you are fairly high functioning.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikhail

    Honestly, autists should get married if they will have the opportunity to do so. Maybe it would be easiest for them to marry other autists, though then they might need IVF and genetic screening for their kids in order to prevent their kids from becoming non-functional autists (as in, in order to significantly reduce this possibility).

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mr. XYZ

    Honestly, autists should get married if they will have the opportunity to do so. Maybe it would be easiest for them to marry other autists, though then they might need IVF and genetic screening for their kids in order to prevent their kids from becoming non-functional autists (as in, in order to significantly reduce this possibility).

    It's probably something in the environment.

    There was a pretty significant increase since the late 90s.

    Replies: @sudden death

  124. @AP
    @Mikhail

    You are clearly autistic, it is evident in your writing style, your linguistic impairment, and your personal life (poor social skills, never married). I don't make fun of you for that, it just is. At least you are fairly high functioning.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikhail

    Your svido way of having lost on your idiotically stated dumb ass comments.

  125. @AP
    @Beckow


    …Review the word dictate.

    All right: must be in Nato, must assist US in its military adventures, must use US dollars and keep its earnings (reserves) in either London or US, must vote with US in “UN”, must privatise and sell to ‘investors’, a lot
     

    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom?

    Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO? Poland?


    Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.

    No, only a small part about the Russian minority having autonomy in its region and Ukraine remaining neutral
     

    So Russia, a foreign country, would only determine a "small part" of Ukraine's constitution and internal laws and policies.

    So, no longer an independent state.

    And "autonomy", according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine's ability to, say, link itself with the EU.


    "There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia"

    We see Poles daily in their beat-up cars trying to sell old bicycles, rotten meat and home-made booze
     

    According to Beckow-the-serial-liar.

    Meantime, there are more Czechs, Hungarians, and Romanians in Slovakia then there are Poles. Despite Poland having a huge border and many more people who could move there.


    we seldom venture to the dreary flatlands over the mountains
     
    About 1,000 Slovaks have moved to Poland.

    That's 1/3 of the number of Poles living in Slovakia (3,000)

    Yet Poland has almost 7 times the population of Slovakia.

    So per capita, Slovaks are far more likely to go to Poland than vice versa.

    Poland is of course mostly flat, as is half of Germany (including most of the DDR), the Baltics, Belarus, most of Russia and Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, half of France, etc.

    Not sure about dreary. Poland is sunnier than much of northern Europe, including most of Slovakia:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Europe_sunshine_hours_map.png

    Replies: @Mikel, @Beckow

    That sunshine duration map of Europe looks quite unreliable. Just a few examples:

    Vitoria-Gasteiz is inside the 2000-2500 hours sector but in fact it only has 1,886/year:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitoria-Gasteiz#Climate

    Bordeaux is well inside the 1800-2000 sector but it exceeds 2000 at 2,069/year:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordeaux#Climate

    Warsaw is in the 1600-1800 sector but is almost 2000 at 1,998/year:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw#Climate

    Sorry. My climate nuttiness didn’t allow me to let that pass.

  126. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Making that alliance rather than accepting a more convenient one with Hitler who had wanted one but who was refused by Poland was itself an example of Polish “stubbornness.”
     
    Yep, but one indeed has to wonder whether Poland would have been better off trying to make a deal with Hitler. Millions of Polish citizens perished in WWII, after all. Had Poland allied with Hitler, ethnic Poles could have fared much better, and ditto for Polish Jews since Hitler gave his loyal allies more leeway in dealing with their Jewish problem than he gave to his enemies. A Nazi alliance would have been an especially good thing for Poland had Poland not been asked to participate in a Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and had Poland not been asked to engage in either mass murder or forced sterilizations by the Nazis.

    Such a scenario would have been worse for the Soviets in the medium-term, but I'm unsure about the short-term or the long-term because the Soviets might not have been as bled dry in this scenario and I also don't know just how capable the Nazis would be in regards to holding onto the Soviet Union indefinitely without a large-scale permanent Nazi troop presence there. And mass deportations of tens of millions of Slavs are going to be quite logistically challenging to execute in and of themselves. Though Soviet Jews would get deported en masse to Siberia or Central Asia or wherever rather than having millions of them get murdered, most likely.


    Without Anglo-French guarantees Poland would have had pursued some other anti-German alliance. Maybe not have demanded Polish-inhabited lands back from Czechoslovakia as a condition for an alliance with that state. I doubt Poland would have voluntarily given up its lands to anyone, without a fight.
     
    Danzig was not Polish territory and thus could have been given up without sacrificing Poland's territorial integrity. Hitler did not demand the Polish Corridor before Poland accepted the British Guarantee. Rather, Hitler simply wanted an elevated extraterritorial road through the Polish Corridor, according to what I have read on the Axis History Forum. Similar to this:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Yan%27an_Elevated_Road_Huashan_Road_Jingan_Park.jpeg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevated_highway

    Danzig and an elevated road through the Polish Corridor were reasonable Nazi demands, frankly. Poland already had its own port at Gdynia by then and the Nazis were apparently willing to give Poland trading rights at Danzig as well.


    Population ratio of Finland to USSR was worse than Germany-Poland and Finns chose to fight Soviets without an alliance.
     
    TBF, the Soviets killed millions during peacetime (either directly or indirectly), whereas the Nazis did not. That probably made Soviet occupation seem more intolerable relative to Nazi occupation, before one could actually foresee the Holocaust. Nazi occupation in Czechia pre-WWII was probably brutal but nevertheless did not involve mass murder yet. Finns, on the other hand, could have quite reasonably expected the mass murder or at least the gulagization of anyone who resisted any new Soviet-imposed Communist order in Finland.

    Interestingly enough, since Poland decided to resist the Nazis, allying with both the Anglo-French and the Soviet Union would have probably been the best move. At the very least, Poland could have asked for written guarantees from the Anglo-French that they would be willing to fight the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union would have refused to withdraw from Poland after an Allied victory over Nazi Germany. Simultaneously pissing off both of its powerful neighbors was not a smart move for Poland!

    As for Teschen, I think that Poland unnecessarily made a big deal out of it. AFAIK, a major railroad ran through there, so it made sense for Czechoslovakia to want it and to want to keep it. Once Czechoslovakia gave territory to Nazi Germany, I could understand why Poland would want its own small share, but Poland should not have made the return of Teschen a precondition for an alliance with Czechoslovakia beforehand.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Honestly, I wonder if the three million Polish Jews that were murdered during the Holocaust would have preferred a Nazi-Polish alliance, but with many more of them surviving, over real life. They would have likely most of all preferred an Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance against Nazi Germany, though.

  127. @QCIC
    @(((They))) Live

    There is no reason to believe DNA test results in this intrigue-filled scenario. Could it be true? Sure. Could they fool us? Duh.



    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epic-drug-lab-scandal-results-more-20-000-convictions-dropped-n747891

    Someone needs fake DNA test results. Prigozhin says "I know a guy" which probably sounds way cooler in Russian.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    A hypothetical fake death of Prigozhin, would be a story like in some of the famous mafia films. For example, the story of the film “Once Upon in America”.

    However, I’m not sure it would be too easy for him to hide after as he was one of the most famous celebrities in the world. In Russia or Belarus people would probably immediately identify him if he goes out. Probably even in Miami.

    He would need at least somewhere few people follow about the war in Ukraine, which might not be so many parts of the world. Maybe some distant parts of Africa or Latin America.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Dmitry

    One possible approach is modest cosmetic surgery combined with a new life story as a long lost brother named Boris who looks surprisingly like the infamous Yevgeny.

    , @John Johnson
    @Dmitry

    A hypothetical fake death of Prigozhin, would be a story like in some of the famous mafia films. For example, the story of the film “Once Upon in America”.

    They already DNA'd him.

    Prigozhin had a deathwish. I'm not at all surprised that he returned to Moscow.

    Making a deal to enter Belarus was nuts given that he tried to start an insurrection.

    He needed to exit Eastern Europe entirely. The guy had over a billion dollars. He could have built a fortress in Argentina with thousands of guards and waited out the war.

    I don't think we will ever understand the real Prigozhin.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  128. @QCIC
    What if China decides to transition from quantity to quality? Maybe they would turn their back on the Western world and let things catch up after the frenzied growth and prosperity of the past 30 years. What do they really need? Food and energy plus a few other things. Maybe they just need to produce enough to support the basics in terms of imports and exports and stay focussed on internal prosperity. In a productive sense they already have too much of almost everything. Maybe they need to prune a lot of the businesses they don't need and go to the 30 hour work week, leaving more time for health, welfare and intellectual and spiritual pursuits. They have a lot of billionaires but the CPC can just tell them to go up the country if they don't like it.

    If they keep increasing productivity it seems they may soon get to the point of having to give stuff away and then why bother?

    For energy maybe they should just clone Starship and put up solar power satellites.

    Replies: @Adept, @Dmitry

    There are some better quality brands or products in some areas from China nowadays.

    The issue with middle income trap, is it even possible to transfer a significant part of the manufacturing to a more labor cost invariant areas.

    Also China is a very large economy, so this could be more difficult than for smaller countries, because probably most of the manufacturing in the world is labor cost variant and China’s advantage is a low cost of labor. So, would there be enough demand in the world economy for the labor cost invariant manufacturing for a country as large as China to escape middle income trap.

  129. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Does not compute. The Brits are pretty damn good at making Formula One cars, but can't make a quality car for everyman anymore (not helped by their government going electric car mad, which the Brits are even less able to make than petrol/diesel cars) without help from Nissan/Ford/GM.

    I drove a Chinese van last year, a Ford Transit "white van man" equivalent vehicle. It was pretty damn good.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxus_V90

    Half the medical kit in Brit hospitals is Chinese. Not looked at big-ticket things like MRI scanners, but the x-ray machines with "General Electric" on the side are made in China.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @Dmitry

    EVs are a lot easier to enter market, easier to build, than ICEVs. The transition to EVs means more countries’ companies could enter the automobile export market.

    Tesla already showed the EV transition allows for entry to previously closed industry for new companies, as one of the first new automobile companies in America which is making profit since many years earlier.

    Even Vietnam has domestic EV companies now, with “Vin Fast”.

    There was a kind of crazy hype with their stock launching this month.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Dmitry

    https://www.ft.com/content/c5af0740-7fba-4c9d-962d-8a1b563196e3

    Vietnamese EV maker worth more than Ford or GM after US listing

    No paywall: https://archive.li/TX86r#selection-1819.0-1821.2

    I posted this in newslinks a couple weeks ago.

  130. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @QCIC

    Do not mis under estimate Germany. Nordstream is not destroyed. It is in need of some expensive repair. They still have great engineers. The first cause of all of this is prospective Germany Russia partnership terrifies London and New York goons.

    Replies: @Sean

    Biden allowed Nordstream to go ahead because Germany was to help with China, which is the enemy. Russians are regarded as an annoyance and not taken seriously by Washington. Germany’s manufacturing and capital goods export (China) strategy is totally screwed without cheap energy and the digital transformation is passing them by.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Sean

    If your digital revolution is the FAGM's + AI then everybody it passes by may be at an advantage real soon now. : )

    Replies: @Sean

  131. @YetAnotherAnon
    Just idly browsing the 2019 Rand report on "Extending Russia":

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

    "Continuing to expand U.S. energy production in all forms, including renewables, and encouraging other countries to do the same would maximize pressure on Russia's export receipts and thus on its national and defense budgets. Alone among the many measures looked at in this report, this one comes with the least cost or risk."
     
    It's almost risk-free to blow up Europe's main energy pipeline, because they're so supine AND they'll buy American LPG. But... the Saudis cut production and the oil price is rising again. Coal use was a record in 2022, and oil use will be a record in 2023.

    The Saudis seem to be belatedly coming to the conclusion that permanent war in the M.E. maybe isn't all it's cracked up to be.

    Must say the Brit tanks are being well hidden. No firework videos yet. I guess they're being held back for the blitzkrieg thrust to Melitopol ;-)

    Replies: @LondonBob

    In reality renewables have a very heavy cost.

    I have always wondered if there isn’t some ulterior motive to the renewables nonsense, apart from the grift.

  132. (((Grant Shapps))), who under a false identity wrote and sold a £400 booklet on the internet on how to run a Ponzi scheme, becomes Defence Secretary. Impotently spouts some nonsense about Ukraine in his first statement.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @LondonBob

    I didn't realize that Grant is a Jewish name:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Shapps

    Replies: @LondonBob

  133. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:

    Replying to John Johnson from the other thread:

    I dislike many aspects of Mormon religion and life, but nevertheless anyone who has had any contact with them must admit they are an interesting group with some features that stand out in modern America.

    (I am basing my impressions on a job I had in my twenties which had me visit Utah on and off for a year, and later random trips).

    Of all Whites, they seem the only group that has retained some genuine corporate self-confidence and vitality (there are plenty of supremely self-confident Whites among the elites, but as individuals). I’ve seen Mormons get angry, and act with self-assertion, in a way I rarely see with other Whites – they seem to have retained some connection to the thymotic side of life. I’ve also seen frequent acts of explicit politeness and kindness that reflect a self-conscious striving after “virtue” that stands out in the cynical wasteland of modernity. And there is an interest in dressing at least somewhat decorously and attractively that suggests the hint of a connection to a concern with aesthetics, however attenuated.

    They are also the only Whites I’ve seen who are almost as interested in money as Jews 🙂 And who will be unashamed to clearly act with money interests in mind in a way that’s unusual among Whites and more common among Jews and Chinese (and perhaps certain subcontinentals).

    The connection to money is interesting. I’m on record for thinking money is one of the great evils of life, but on “lower” levels it can reflect a desire to live and flourish for a minority group that does not have the same level of access to the standard forms of power as the majority.

    It’s likely forgotten today, but the Scottish were known for being extreme misers and money hoarders (anyone remember Scrooge McDuck lol?), and having an obsession with money. The Scots were a conquered minority within the United Kingdom – and that probably likewise accounts for the explosion of Scottish genius starting in the 18th century and the truly outsized contribution the Scots made both to the intellectual development of Great Britain and the practical tasks of administering the Empire and developing the physical infrastructure of modernity.

    Of course there is a dark and disturbing side to Mormon life, and there is often a vulgar and gross materialism, and egotistic selfishness – and one can easily see how others can be antagonized by a group that is excessively self-regarding. And Mormon religion contains many extremely unattractive elements, and I am not offering them up as a perfect example of spiritual health.

    Like everyone else in modernity, Mormons are a deeply sick community – and even the good things are often more lower level approaches to and reflections – often even distortions – of a more distant true good than their full realization, but it may be that one can learn some lesson from them.

    The one White American community that is imperfectly assimilated to modern life but still participates in it, that has retained some vital connection to the “irrational”, seems to have avoided at least some of the worst and most advanced excesses of the dysfunctions afflicting most everyone else.

    Interesting.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @AaronB

    Did you see the South Park episode on them?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaRsv1xNT3A

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWoePkBt31g

    , @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    I’ve seen Mormons get angry, and act with self-assertion, in a way I rarely see with other Whites – they seem to have retained some connection to the thymotic side of life. I’ve also seen frequent acts of explicit politeness and kindness that reflect a self-conscious striving after “virtue” that stands out in the cynical wasteland of modernity.

    Yes they can be friendly until they want something from you. If you are non-Mormon then you will be subject to a different set of rules.

    The one White American community that is imperfectly assimilated to modern life but still participates in it, that has retained some vital connection to the “irrational”, seems to have avoided at least some of the worst and most advanced excesses of the dysfunctions afflicting most everyone else.

    I think you are over-idealizing them. In no way would I describe them as being in more touch with spirituality than say average Catholics.

    Their morality that they claim to be spiritual is a front. There is nothing in the Bible that says to be honest and fair until you start doing business with non-Mormons. Christianity is not supposed to "turn off" when the business day starts.

    They only participate in non-Mormon life when required.

    I was warned about doing business with them but assumed it was just mainstream Christian bigotry. Wouldn't these pro-family Mormons extend their strong morals into business and daily life? I figured they have a bad rep from Christians that are offended by their additional beliefs.

    I was wrong. I fully admit that.

    They are not simply obsessed with greed or drive for money. They actually wouldn't be that bad if they were simply materialistic. The problem is that they view non-Mormons with complete disdain and not as fellow Americans that are deserving of some basic level of business ethics.

    They view the current world as a spiritual test and the successful enter heaven to manage their own world where at most we get to be their servants. So by rejecting the Mormon faith we prove that we have utterly failed the divine calling and thus we might as well be exploited on earth and in heaven. Secular Americans don't even get to be servants. They go to hell.

    Mormon door knockers might seem friendly but they haven't reached the period where they are under pressure to have a large family and modern house which in the current economy can be difficult. The men look to cut corners in business which leads to their reputation.

    Their religion is extremely controlling and most likely dysgenic. It started out as polygamous but without a plan for what to do with the excess men. The origin story reads like an SNL sketch where a man actually tells his wife that an angel told him to take multiple wives.

    As a religion it selects for submission and ex-communicates the rebellious and independently minded. Women are not allowed to select non-Mormons and are under pressure to choose their husband early. This leads to them selecting from a limited gene pool and often for non-physical characteristics. Meaning they are not selecting the strongest or healthiest men in a mixed community. In many ways it functions like a nerd mafia. I actually don't think half the men buy into the beliefs. They like that the women are locked down and they get a lot of business connections.

    Replies: @AaronB, @AP

  134. @AaronB
    Replying to John Johnson from the other thread:

    I dislike many aspects of Mormon religion and life, but nevertheless anyone who has had any contact with them must admit they are an interesting group with some features that stand out in modern America.

    (I am basing my impressions on a job I had in my twenties which had me visit Utah on and off for a year, and later random trips).

    Of all Whites, they seem the only group that has retained some genuine corporate self-confidence and vitality (there are plenty of supremely self-confident Whites among the elites, but as individuals). I've seen Mormons get angry, and act with self-assertion, in a way I rarely see with other Whites - they seem to have retained some connection to the thymotic side of life. I've also seen frequent acts of explicit politeness and kindness that reflect a self-conscious striving after "virtue" that stands out in the cynical wasteland of modernity. And there is an interest in dressing at least somewhat decorously and attractively that suggests the hint of a connection to a concern with aesthetics, however attenuated.

    They are also the only Whites I've seen who are almost as interested in money as Jews :) And who will be unashamed to clearly act with money interests in mind in a way that's unusual among Whites and more common among Jews and Chinese (and perhaps certain subcontinentals).

    The connection to money is interesting. I'm on record for thinking money is one of the great evils of life, but on "lower" levels it can reflect a desire to live and flourish for a minority group that does not have the same level of access to the standard forms of power as the majority.

    It's likely forgotten today, but the Scottish were known for being extreme misers and money hoarders (anyone remember Scrooge McDuck lol?), and having an obsession with money. The Scots were a conquered minority within the United Kingdom - and that probably likewise accounts for the explosion of Scottish genius starting in the 18th century and the truly outsized contribution the Scots made both to the intellectual development of Great Britain and the practical tasks of administering the Empire and developing the physical infrastructure of modernity.

    Of course there is a dark and disturbing side to Mormon life, and there is often a vulgar and gross materialism, and egotistic selfishness - and one can easily see how others can be antagonized by a group that is excessively self-regarding. And Mormon religion contains many extremely unattractive elements, and I am not offering them up as a perfect example of spiritual health.

    Like everyone else in modernity, Mormons are a deeply sick community - and even the good things are often more lower level approaches to and reflections - often even distortions - of a more distant true good than their full realization, but it may be that one can learn some lesson from them.

    The one White American community that is imperfectly assimilated to modern life but still participates in it, that has retained some vital connection to the "irrational", seems to have avoided at least some of the worst and most advanced excesses of the dysfunctions afflicting most everyone else.

    Interesting.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @John Johnson

    Did you see the South Park episode on them?

    • LOL: AaronB
  135. Watched Hitchcock’s Lifeboat (1944). (Slight spoilers)

    [MORE]

    His war propaganda films definitely weren’t his best work. But at least this one didn’t have a tranny (for such I count a ‘bearded lady’) speaking about American values and democracy. (See: 1942’s Sabateur.)

    Still, it was very hamfisted, and I think about 20 minutes too long for its concept.

    What I find most interesting about it is some of the press response. The film was criticized for its depiction of the German villain having too many admirable traits (really he was depicted as unrealistically evil)

    And the film was also criticized for its subservient depiction of the black character. (The only black I can recall in a Hitchcock film, off the top of my head.) This I find even more bizarre. IMO, the black character is depicted as being slightly numinous.

    In dialogue, it is revealed he saved a baby from a crazy mother trying to drown it – really sounds physically impossible on the high seas. He seems to be the only man depicted with a nuclear family (via photo.). When a prayer is needed, everyone else bumbles, but it is first to his lips. He provides the music to cheer everyone’s spirits, and is the means to reveal the German’s plot – curiously enough, through his skillful pickpocketing that he has sworn off.

    Steinbeck, who helped write the screenplay, publicly distanced himself from the film for these two press criticisms.

    During filming one of the actors was caught below a wave-maker and broke a few ribs.

  136. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    Honestly, autists should get married if they will have the opportunity to do so. Maybe it would be easiest for them to marry other autists, though then they might need IVF and genetic screening for their kids in order to prevent their kids from becoming non-functional autists (as in, in order to significantly reduce this possibility).

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Honestly, autists should get married if they will have the opportunity to do so. Maybe it would be easiest for them to marry other autists, though then they might need IVF and genetic screening for their kids in order to prevent their kids from becoming non-functional autists (as in, in order to significantly reduce this possibility).

    It’s probably something in the environment.

    There was a pretty significant increase since the late 90s.

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @John Johnson

    It might be something like this discovered as culprit, like earlier lead toxicity, maybe some microplastics or yet unknown materials which are considered as not harmful so far:


    Asian-Americans have nearly twice the levels of toxic 'forever chemicals' in their blood compared to other ethnicities.

    A study that tested the blood and urine of more than 3,000 Americans found the average levels of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were 89 percent higher in Asian-Americans.

    Researchers said it is unclear why, but it could be due to a diet that is high in seafood, which is a major source of PFAS contamination.

    PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals present in food packaging, clothes and thousands of other products in the US.

    Because of their ubiquity, they leach into soil, drinking water, the air and food, exposing Americans to the toxins almost everywhere.

    They have been deemed 'forever chemicals' because they don't break down in the environment or human body.
     

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12441343/Asian-Americans-exposed-toxic-PFAS-forever-chemicals.html

    Replies: @John Johnson

  137. U.S. Seeking Perpetual War in Ukraine? w/ Alastair Crooke fmr Brit ambassador

    • Replies: @A123
    @Mikhail


    U.S. Seeking Perpetual War in Ukraine? w/ Alastair Crooke fmr Brit ambassador
     
    What does the U.S. gain from perpetual war? Little to nothing. Funding cuts are coming.

    What does the German led European Empire gain from perpetual war? More channels for MENA and sub Saharan migration.

    "Follow the Money" often works, but in this case it is a false lead. The brain damaged Veggie-in-Chief is a puppet run by Macron and Scholz.

    PEACE 😇
  138. Saw a tiny snake the other day that was just over an inch long.

    Gave me the idea that wildlife officials ought to try to stock snakes, they like do with fish. I’m not taking about posionous stuff, but a lot of the bigger snakes seem to be getter rarer in these parts.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @songbird

    They've some big mother pythons in Florida. There's also the matter of the super wild pigs in the US - the apparent result of a cross bread with a Eurasian variant.

    Replies: @songbird

  139. @Dmitry
    @YetAnotherAnon

    EVs are a lot easier to enter market, easier to build, than ICEVs. The transition to EVs means more countries' companies could enter the automobile export market.

    Tesla already showed the EV transition allows for entry to previously closed industry for new companies, as one of the first new automobile companies in America which is making profit since many years earlier.

    Even Vietnam has domestic EV companies now, with "Vin Fast".

    There was a kind of crazy hype with their stock launching this month.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIe26EBlHes

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    https://www.ft.com/content/c5af0740-7fba-4c9d-962d-8a1b563196e3

    Vietnamese EV maker worth more than Ford or GM after US listing

    No paywall: https://archive.li/TX86r#selection-1819.0-1821.2

    I posted this in newslinks a couple weeks ago.

  140. @Sean
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Biden allowed Nordstream to go ahead because Germany was to help with China, which is the enemy. Russians are regarded as an annoyance and not taken seriously by Washington. Germany's manufacturing and capital goods export (China) strategy is totally screwed without cheap energy and the digital transformation is passing them by.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    If your digital revolution is the FAGM’s + AI then everybody it passes by may be at an advantage real soon now. : )

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    If your ambition is to live like a Russian and die like a man (ie in mid fifties of alcoholic poisoning).

    Start at 1:46

    https://youtu.be/T8rDqKAQ290?t=106

    Replies: @A123

  141. @Mikhail
    U.S. Seeking Perpetual War in Ukraine? w/ Alastair Crooke fmr Brit ambassador
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33A0GIrLT1Q

    Replies: @A123

    U.S. Seeking Perpetual War in Ukraine? w/ Alastair Crooke fmr Brit ambassador

    What does the U.S. gain from perpetual war? Little to nothing. Funding cuts are coming.

    What does the German led European Empire gain from perpetual war? More channels for MENA and sub Saharan migration.

    “Follow the Money” often works, but in this case it is a false lead. The brain damaged Veggie-in-Chief is a puppet run by Macron and Scholz.

    PEACE 😇

  142. @Dmitry
    @QCIC

    A hypothetical fake death of Prigozhin, would be a story like in some of the famous mafia films. For example, the story of the film "Once Upon in America".

    However, I'm not sure it would be too easy for him to hide after as he was one of the most famous celebrities in the world. In Russia or Belarus people would probably immediately identify him if he goes out. Probably even in Miami.

    He would need at least somewhere few people follow about the war in Ukraine, which might not be so many parts of the world. Maybe some distant parts of Africa or Latin America.

    Replies: @QCIC, @John Johnson

    One possible approach is modest cosmetic surgery combined with a new life story as a long lost brother named Boris who looks surprisingly like the infamous Yevgeny.

  143. Is there some kind of timeline-graph of US presidential candidates mentioning Israel in debates, over the decades? If not, someone should make one.

    I personally should like to know the exact time when ideas like “America needs Israel” exploded, and became part of an echo chamber.

    • Replies: @A123
    @songbird


    I personally should like to know the exact time when ideas like “America needs Israel” exploded
     
    One date springs immediately to mind -- October 23, 1983. A literal Muslim explosion that senselessly killed over 200 Americans in Beirut. That solidified the Judeo-Christian bond of opposition to degenerate Allah Ahkbar death screamers.

    That incident pressed Christian American values to have meaning. Defending Jewish Palestine from the forces of Satan/Allah/Lucifer is a duty placed upon us by God.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @songbird

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    Pat Buchanan was cancelled for opposing Iraq war 1 and mentioning Israel in same sentence. ~ Jan 1991.

    https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/pat-buchanan-his-own-words

  144. @AaronB
    Replying to John Johnson from the other thread:

    I dislike many aspects of Mormon religion and life, but nevertheless anyone who has had any contact with them must admit they are an interesting group with some features that stand out in modern America.

    (I am basing my impressions on a job I had in my twenties which had me visit Utah on and off for a year, and later random trips).

    Of all Whites, they seem the only group that has retained some genuine corporate self-confidence and vitality (there are plenty of supremely self-confident Whites among the elites, but as individuals). I've seen Mormons get angry, and act with self-assertion, in a way I rarely see with other Whites - they seem to have retained some connection to the thymotic side of life. I've also seen frequent acts of explicit politeness and kindness that reflect a self-conscious striving after "virtue" that stands out in the cynical wasteland of modernity. And there is an interest in dressing at least somewhat decorously and attractively that suggests the hint of a connection to a concern with aesthetics, however attenuated.

    They are also the only Whites I've seen who are almost as interested in money as Jews :) And who will be unashamed to clearly act with money interests in mind in a way that's unusual among Whites and more common among Jews and Chinese (and perhaps certain subcontinentals).

    The connection to money is interesting. I'm on record for thinking money is one of the great evils of life, but on "lower" levels it can reflect a desire to live and flourish for a minority group that does not have the same level of access to the standard forms of power as the majority.

    It's likely forgotten today, but the Scottish were known for being extreme misers and money hoarders (anyone remember Scrooge McDuck lol?), and having an obsession with money. The Scots were a conquered minority within the United Kingdom - and that probably likewise accounts for the explosion of Scottish genius starting in the 18th century and the truly outsized contribution the Scots made both to the intellectual development of Great Britain and the practical tasks of administering the Empire and developing the physical infrastructure of modernity.

    Of course there is a dark and disturbing side to Mormon life, and there is often a vulgar and gross materialism, and egotistic selfishness - and one can easily see how others can be antagonized by a group that is excessively self-regarding. And Mormon religion contains many extremely unattractive elements, and I am not offering them up as a perfect example of spiritual health.

    Like everyone else in modernity, Mormons are a deeply sick community - and even the good things are often more lower level approaches to and reflections - often even distortions - of a more distant true good than their full realization, but it may be that one can learn some lesson from them.

    The one White American community that is imperfectly assimilated to modern life but still participates in it, that has retained some vital connection to the "irrational", seems to have avoided at least some of the worst and most advanced excesses of the dysfunctions afflicting most everyone else.

    Interesting.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @John Johnson

    I’ve seen Mormons get angry, and act with self-assertion, in a way I rarely see with other Whites – they seem to have retained some connection to the thymotic side of life. I’ve also seen frequent acts of explicit politeness and kindness that reflect a self-conscious striving after “virtue” that stands out in the cynical wasteland of modernity.

    Yes they can be friendly until they want something from you. If you are non-Mormon then you will be subject to a different set of rules.

    The one White American community that is imperfectly assimilated to modern life but still participates in it, that has retained some vital connection to the “irrational”, seems to have avoided at least some of the worst and most advanced excesses of the dysfunctions afflicting most everyone else.

    I think you are over-idealizing them. In no way would I describe them as being in more touch with spirituality than say average Catholics.

    Their morality that they claim to be spiritual is a front. There is nothing in the Bible that says to be honest and fair until you start doing business with non-Mormons. Christianity is not supposed to “turn off” when the business day starts.

    They only participate in non-Mormon life when required.

    I was warned about doing business with them but assumed it was just mainstream Christian bigotry. Wouldn’t these pro-family Mormons extend their strong morals into business and daily life? I figured they have a bad rep from Christians that are offended by their additional beliefs.

    I was wrong. I fully admit that.

    They are not simply obsessed with greed or drive for money. They actually wouldn’t be that bad if they were simply materialistic. The problem is that they view non-Mormons with complete disdain and not as fellow Americans that are deserving of some basic level of business ethics.

    They view the current world as a spiritual test and the successful enter heaven to manage their own world where at most we get to be their servants. So by rejecting the Mormon faith we prove that we have utterly failed the divine calling and thus we might as well be exploited on earth and in heaven. Secular Americans don’t even get to be servants. They go to hell.

    Mormon door knockers might seem friendly but they haven’t reached the period where they are under pressure to have a large family and modern house which in the current economy can be difficult. The men look to cut corners in business which leads to their reputation.

    Their religion is extremely controlling and most likely dysgenic. It started out as polygamous but without a plan for what to do with the excess men. The origin story reads like an SNL sketch where a man actually tells his wife that an angel told him to take multiple wives.

    As a religion it selects for submission and ex-communicates the rebellious and independently minded. Women are not allowed to select non-Mormons and are under pressure to choose their husband early. This leads to them selecting from a limited gene pool and often for non-physical characteristics. Meaning they are not selecting the strongest or healthiest men in a mixed community. In many ways it functions like a nerd mafia. I actually don’t think half the men buy into the beliefs. They like that the women are locked down and they get a lot of business connections.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @John Johnson

    I'm not defending their religion or practices.

    There's lots of bad there, the point is, there might be something interesting that has saved them partially from some of the worse excesses of modern nihilism, at least for a time (and perhaps not that much longer), and that can be useful to learn from, at least for secular Americans - while still rejecting most of their religion and practices.

    I could never in a million years be a Mormon, but I try and look at the larger picture. I've learned things from people, who, on the whole, I've despised.

    Replies: @Mikel, @John Johnson

    , @AP
    @John Johnson

    Interesting. I once lived in the southwest and visited Utah frequently. Mormons made a fairly strong but positive impression:

    1. Very nice and friendly.

    2. Surprisingly cosmopolitan, due to missionary work. For example, we chatted with a family in Russian in some small town, the son had done missionary work in one of the former Soviet republics, so the entire family learned the language. And somehow they managed to learn it well enough to be conversational.

    3. Physically attractive, in a specific way. Not like Eastern Europeans, or pretty French or Italian girls. Physically fit, conservatively dressed, often blond, skillful use of makeup, at times a sort of 1950s "beauty queen" aesthetic. A marked contrast to the overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America (I mean no offense). I personally prefer the appearance of European women, but the Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    4. Mormons appreciate and perpetuate solid, classical architecture styles for their temples, which as a result usually look very nice for newly-built buildings. This matches Mormons' personal classic physical appearance.

    5. Their communities are well-run, well-organized and clean. In northern Nevada one can see a stark contrast between Mormon towns (neat little houses, neat fenced yards, clean and organized - a bit like New England though not as rich and more plain) and non-Mormon towns (more run down, organized haphazardly, brothels and bars). Mormon towns are an interesting contrast to the surrounding frontier.

    Of course, I have never had business dealings with Mormons so I can't speak to their business practices and competition with "gentiles." And their religion is bizarre, with very shady origins.

    The Mormon polygamists in northern Arizona were less attractive, less friendly and more suspicious. We tried talking to some of them and didn't get far.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson, @Dmitry

  145. @songbird
    Is there some kind of timeline-graph of US presidential candidates mentioning Israel in debates, over the decades? If not, someone should make one.

    I personally should like to know the exact time when ideas like "America needs Israel" exploded, and became part of an echo chamber.

    Replies: @A123, @Emil Nikola Richard

    I personally should like to know the exact time when ideas like “America needs Israel” exploded

    One date springs immediately to mind — October 23, 1983. A literal Muslim explosion that senselessly killed over 200 Americans in Beirut. That solidified the Judeo-Christian bond of opposition to degenerate Allah Ahkbar death screamers.

    That incident pressed Christian American values to have meaning. Defending Jewish Palestine from the forces of Satan/Allah/Lucifer is a duty placed upon us by God.

    PEACE 😇

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @songbird
    @A123


    That solidified the Judeo-Christian bond
     
    Shouldn't that be the "Hindu-Judeo-Christian" bond, as Vivek has said he believes in those values more than most Christians? And he was a member of Shabtai, while at Yale?

    @Emil
    Curious how they don't quote Buchanan referencing the ADL. (As I imagine he must have done.)
  146. @songbird
    Is there some kind of timeline-graph of US presidential candidates mentioning Israel in debates, over the decades? If not, someone should make one.

    I personally should like to know the exact time when ideas like "America needs Israel" exploded, and became part of an echo chamber.

    Replies: @A123, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Pat Buchanan was cancelled for opposing Iraq war 1 and mentioning Israel in same sentence. ~ Jan 1991.

    https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/pat-buchanan-his-own-words

  147. @Dmitry
    @QCIC

    A hypothetical fake death of Prigozhin, would be a story like in some of the famous mafia films. For example, the story of the film "Once Upon in America".

    However, I'm not sure it would be too easy for him to hide after as he was one of the most famous celebrities in the world. In Russia or Belarus people would probably immediately identify him if he goes out. Probably even in Miami.

    He would need at least somewhere few people follow about the war in Ukraine, which might not be so many parts of the world. Maybe some distant parts of Africa or Latin America.

    Replies: @QCIC, @John Johnson

    A hypothetical fake death of Prigozhin, would be a story like in some of the famous mafia films. For example, the story of the film “Once Upon in America”.

    They already DNA’d him.

    Prigozhin had a deathwish. I’m not at all surprised that he returned to Moscow.

    Making a deal to enter Belarus was nuts given that he tried to start an insurrection.

    He needed to exit Eastern Europe entirely. The guy had over a billion dollars. He could have built a fortress in Argentina with thousands of guards and waited out the war.

    I don’t think we will ever understand the real Prigozhin.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @John Johnson

    It wouldn't be fake death organized by Prigozhin, it would be a fake death as part of the agreement to exit the march on Moscow and restore authority, to exit politics etc.

    I.e. like in a Witness Protection Program.

    About the postsoviet politics of the last 30 years, it's a secretive mafia world, so outsiders only guess about the real situation from their PR or theater performances.

    Prigozhin's story is one of the most strange postsoviet circus, especially in the last week when he was posting suddenly a video about fighting in Africa as preparation for the next theatre.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  148. @Mikhail
    Ben is setting himself up again:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-breakthrough-could-come-in-weeks-former-u-s-general-says/ar-AA1fZGMF?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=c5bd392ff7c14e819137974059051521&ei=9

    Tony Shaffer gets a well deserved thrashing in the comments section:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uPBqFbFBrY

    German DW Aired Propaganda:

    https://marksleboda.substack.com/p/debunking-german-propagandas-absurd?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2#details

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Why is Putin’s propagandist calling for a tactical nuke if everything is going so well?
    https://www.newsweek.com/putin-state-tv-host-russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapons-1821567

    Napolitano is a sad Putin hack who has been cheering the Russians since the war started. He isn’t as overt as Ritter but his position is obvious by the show format where he lets pro-Putin guests ramble while he nods and makes cracks about Zelenksy. As with other Putin defenders he is obsessed with Zelensky and Nuland. It’s all about the Jews to him but he doesn’t have the balls to say it.

    I did some research into Napolitano and turns out that he is a closet homo who was kicked out of Fox News for sexually harassing young men:
    https://news.yahoo.com/andrew-napolitano-fox-sexual-harassment-224300192.html

    Are self-hating men just somehow attracted to Putin?

    No wife or kids and has been accused of sexually harassing men.

    Closet homo.

    The Putin US Dream Team is unreal. A convicted sex offender, a closeted homo, some America hater who makes fake war videos, Steven Seagal. Just an amazing lineup.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @John Johnson


    The Putin US Dream Team is unreal. A convicted sex offender, a closeted homo, some America hater who makes fake war videos, Steven Seagal. Just an amazing lineup.
     
    You know what's really funny is that Girkin (Strelkov) himself before he got arrested, when his precious rants were still publicly available, said that McGregor is full of it. He totally dismissed his "insights" as unserious. LOL

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    You sure know how to cherry pick while being quite okay with instances like this:

    https://www.washingtonblade.com/2023/08/08/transgender-soldier-from-us-named-ukrainian-military-spokesperson/

    https://thepressunited.com/updates/german-gay-pride-event-celebrates-nazi-collaborator-video/

    , @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    The West and the USA are pressuring Russia using Ukraine as a battering ram. Serious military conflicts between the USA and Russia are intrinsically nuclear conflicts. The Russian government media plan seems to include periodic reminders of this very important issue for Western audiences.

    Russia is not leveling new nuclear threats against the West. Both sides have thousands of nuclear weapons which can used on short notice if not immediately. Don't forget, we had crucial nuclear arms control treaties which the West has been unilaterally dismantling.

    The West has been unilaterally dismantling nuclear arms control treaties. What could be more dangerous?

    The Ukraine war is not really about Ukraine. It is a proxy war of the West against Russia. I would hope that Unz commenters can understand this, even if they have valid reasons to hate or fear Russia. Just recognize how dangerous this Western-created conflict actually is!

  149. @Beckow
    On higher level unfortunately it is bad English - the 500-word illiterate version that so much of the world lives in today. The lower ones are a mixture of Polish-Slovak-Czech, even a few Russian, German and English words. Or they just wave arms.

    The Ukies we have don't seem to do a lot of business, many expect to be taken care off while they wait for overseas visas. The ones working do menial jobs - but all Ukie cleaning ladies in Prague hotels claim they were educated 'office workers' back home. How this is a "win" for the ordinary Ukrainians I will never understand. Did they live such miserable lives before?

    Replies: @Wielgus

    “The 500-word illiterate version that so much of the world lives in today”
    The lingua franca of North London, in other words…

  150. @A123
    @songbird


    I personally should like to know the exact time when ideas like “America needs Israel” exploded
     
    One date springs immediately to mind -- October 23, 1983. A literal Muslim explosion that senselessly killed over 200 Americans in Beirut. That solidified the Judeo-Christian bond of opposition to degenerate Allah Ahkbar death screamers.

    That incident pressed Christian American values to have meaning. Defending Jewish Palestine from the forces of Satan/Allah/Lucifer is a duty placed upon us by God.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @songbird

    That solidified the Judeo-Christian bond

    Shouldn’t that be the “Hindu-Judeo-Christian” bond, as Vivek has said he believes in those values more than most Christians? And he was a member of Shabtai, while at Yale?

    @Emil
    Curious how they don’t quote Buchanan referencing the ADL. (As I imagine he must have done.)

    • LOL: A123
  151. @AP
    @Beckow


    …Review the word dictate.

    All right: must be in Nato, must assist US in its military adventures, must use US dollars and keep its earnings (reserves) in either London or US, must vote with US in “UN”, must privatise and sell to ‘investors’, a lot
     

    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom?

    Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO? Poland?


    Russia would decide the nature of Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia would set Ukraine’s internal language policy.

    No, only a small part about the Russian minority having autonomy in its region and Ukraine remaining neutral
     

    So Russia, a foreign country, would only determine a "small part" of Ukraine's constitution and internal laws and policies.

    So, no longer an independent state.

    And "autonomy", according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine's ability to, say, link itself with the EU.


    "There are only about 3,000 Poles in Slovakia"

    We see Poles daily in their beat-up cars trying to sell old bicycles, rotten meat and home-made booze
     

    According to Beckow-the-serial-liar.

    Meantime, there are more Czechs, Hungarians, and Romanians in Slovakia then there are Poles. Despite Poland having a huge border and many more people who could move there.


    we seldom venture to the dreary flatlands over the mountains
     
    About 1,000 Slovaks have moved to Poland.

    That's 1/3 of the number of Poles living in Slovakia (3,000)

    Yet Poland has almost 7 times the population of Slovakia.

    So per capita, Slovaks are far more likely to go to Poland than vice versa.

    Poland is of course mostly flat, as is half of Germany (including most of the DDR), the Baltics, Belarus, most of Russia and Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, half of France, etc.

    Not sure about dreary. Poland is sunnier than much of northern Europe, including most of Slovakia:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Europe_sunshine_hours_map.png

    Replies: @Mikel, @Beckow

    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom? Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO?

    All of them. We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU. Period.

    You have double standards when it comes to applying the term dictate. The inconsistency you display – some can, others can’t – is a sign of poor mental health. Or desperate losing ideology: Russia having any say is a “dictat“, but your side is all saints. Right? St. Augustine said that all saints have past…are you so unaware?

    And “autonomy”, according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine’s ability to, say, link itself with the EU….So, no longer an independent state.

    Complete nonsense. The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent? South Tyrol in Italy, endless other examples of regions that have trade and cultural links to others. You are making up a straw-man because you know there was no reason for Kiev to reject Minsk and provoke the war. It will end much worse for them now. You medicate yourself with scary lies.

    Poland having a huge border and many more people who could move there.

    And yet, almost nobody did until the luckless Ukies showed up. You are mixing what I said: Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’ and people who permanently migrate to live in other countries. You either lack logic or you are intentionally deceptive.

    Finally, a guy who claims that Poland is a sunny paradise…have you been there? Or better, have you visited other places? But contra gustos no hay disputas…

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Beckow


    We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU
     
    Were you explicitly told that in the media? Do you have verifiable information that that's what the government was explicitly told?

    The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent?
     
    Well, the difference is that Sweden has given up on its imperial "rights" to Finland, doesn't hold any grudges or resentments against their former colony, doesn't hold any revanchist or territorial claims, and they don't meddle with Finland's internal affairs (unlike Russia with Ukraine, they don't place their assets in Finland's internal power structures and institutions the way that Russia did with Ukraine (or at least they don't do it as aggressively), they don't try to dominate their culture and language (yes, they do have bilingualism, which Finns hate by the way, but it is fading away). They are on good terms, amicable, trust each other. They don't call each other ethnic slurs. They are both part of the West (or the Northern European community). Whereas Ukraine doesn't want to be with Russia. You deliberately ignore these vital differences.

    All the former colonial powers have pretty much given up on their former colonies, except Russia. And even Russia has a skewed view of its colonial past, because the Russian nation was not the only builder of the Empire.


    Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’
     
    Well, Polish goods are well known to be overall cheaper (which isn't bad, btw), but, once again, you deliberately choose to ignore the more affluent or middle-class Poles, by far, most Poles are not what you describe. Those are just slightly more lower middle class folks that are trying to get by. You are deliberately ignoring successful Poles or even the middle class types.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Emil Nikola Richard

    , @A123
    @Beckow


    We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU. Period
     
    This has never made sense to me.

    Germany and France keep talking about building a military alternative to NATO. That goal would be strengthened by obtaining EU members who are non-NATO. Consider Türkiye, a member of NATO. They have been stuck in the EU queue for decades. This suggests that it is easier to join the EU if one is not in NATO.

    Given legitimate Russian concerns about militarization, the most likely post conflict path is the new, more compact Ukraine will join the EU only. No NATO Ever would be locked in via treaty.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Beckow

    , @AP
    @Beckow


    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom? Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO?

    All of them. We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU. Period.
     
    Slovakia's accession treaty was signed in 2003 but it didn't become a member of NATO until 2004.

    Even if what you claimed was true, where was the coercion? Were you forced to be in the EU? You wanted to be. And so, you wanted to be in NATO, as a way of getting into the EU. There was no "force" involved.

    You have double standards when it comes to applying the term dictate...Russia having any say is a “dictat“,
     
    Russia invaded and bombed Ukraine because Ukraine did not capitulate to Russia's demands.

    Was the EU going to bomb Slovakia if Slovakia didn't join NATO or the EU?

    Are you really too stupid to notice the difference?

    And “autonomy”, according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine’s ability to, say, link itself with the EU….So, no longer an independent state.

    Complete nonsense
     
    Russians themselves were quite about how autonomy (decentalization) was defined by them.

    Surkov coordinated the drafting of extra demands (published on 13 May as proposals from the DNR/LNR). These would give the occupied regions even greater powers: responsibility for legal regulation of the Ukraine/Russia border; the right to conclude agreements with foreign states; their own charters (which would, for example, prevent the president of Ukraine from dismissing local executive organs); their own budgets to ensure ‘financial autonomy’; and rights to introduce states of emergency and hold elections and referendums. Lastly, Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution

    Could Ukraine join the EU or EU AA if two of its autonomous provinces had a free trade agreement with Russia?

    The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent?
     
    Both of those countries are in EU so it's a stupid analogy. If all of Ukraine were part of the Eurasian Customs Union the Donbas arrangement wouldn't have mattered, either.

    You are mixing what I said: Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’ and people who permanently migrate to live in other countries.
     
    You have no proof of your claim, but a record of lying all the time.

    However we do know that Polish salaries are higher than Slovak salaries and the unemployment rate is lower in Poland than in Slovakia, we also know that very few Poles actually move to Slovakia, and that relative to population far more Slovaks move to Poland than vice versa. So your claim about Poles going to Slovakia to make money is unrealistic.

    Finally, a guy who claims that Poland is a sunny paradise
     
    I never said Poland was a "sunny paradise." I said it was sunnier than most of northern Europe. Including most of Slovakia. Warsaw is sunnier than Berlin, Paris, London, Stockholm, Amsterdam, etc.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Beckow

  152. @John Johnson
    @Mr. XYZ

    Honestly, autists should get married if they will have the opportunity to do so. Maybe it would be easiest for them to marry other autists, though then they might need IVF and genetic screening for their kids in order to prevent their kids from becoming non-functional autists (as in, in order to significantly reduce this possibility).

    It's probably something in the environment.

    There was a pretty significant increase since the late 90s.

    Replies: @sudden death

    It might be something like this discovered as culprit, like earlier lead toxicity, maybe some microplastics or yet unknown materials which are considered as not harmful so far:

    Asian-Americans have nearly twice the levels of toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in their blood compared to other ethnicities.

    A study that tested the blood and urine of more than 3,000 Americans found the average levels of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were 89 percent higher in Asian-Americans.

    Researchers said it is unclear why, but it could be due to a diet that is high in seafood, which is a major source of PFAS contamination.

    PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals present in food packaging, clothes and thousands of other products in the US.

    Because of their ubiquity, they leach into soil, drinking water, the air and food, exposing Americans to the toxins almost everywhere.

    They have been deemed ‘forever chemicals’ because they don’t break down in the environment or human body.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12441343/Asian-Americans-exposed-toxic-PFAS-forever-chemicals.html

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @sudden death

    I would bet on PFAS over pesticides or herbicides.

    It would have shown up in farm kids if it were the latter.

  153. Are the Saudis building an arcology?
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaab
    _______
    What would Sikhs do to these people on YouTube who play jazz to cows?

  154. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Why is Putin's propagandist calling for a tactical nuke if everything is going so well?
    https://www.newsweek.com/putin-state-tv-host-russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapons-1821567

    Napolitano is a sad Putin hack who has been cheering the Russians since the war started. He isn't as overt as Ritter but his position is obvious by the show format where he lets pro-Putin guests ramble while he nods and makes cracks about Zelenksy. As with other Putin defenders he is obsessed with Zelensky and Nuland. It's all about the Jews to him but he doesn't have the balls to say it.

    I did some research into Napolitano and turns out that he is a closet homo who was kicked out of Fox News for sexually harassing young men:
    https://news.yahoo.com/andrew-napolitano-fox-sexual-harassment-224300192.html

    Are self-hating men just somehow attracted to Putin?

    No wife or kids and has been accused of sexually harassing men.

    Closet homo.

    The Putin US Dream Team is unreal. A convicted sex offender, a closeted homo, some America hater who makes fake war videos, Steven Seagal. Just an amazing lineup.

    Replies: @LatW, @Mikhail, @QCIC

    The Putin US Dream Team is unreal. A convicted sex offender, a closeted homo, some America hater who makes fake war videos, Steven Seagal. Just an amazing lineup.

    You know what’s really funny is that Girkin (Strelkov) himself before he got arrested, when his precious rants were still publicly available, said that McGregor is full of it. He totally dismissed his “insights” as unserious. LOL

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @LatW

    You know what’s really funny is that Girkin (Strelkov) himself before he got arrested, when his precious rants were still publicly available, said that McGregor is full of it. He totally dismissed his “insights” as unserious. LOL

    That is indeed funny but the Putin club would never discuss it in their sphere just as they never discuss MacGregor's long list of failed predictions.

    Napolino is one of those self hating gays like Rohm. A modern day Ernst Rohm if there ever was one.

    (Inside Napolino's basement where he and another ex Fox employee are dressed in leather)

    Yea go ahead and use that whip over there...no the other one.....yea with the spikes....as I was saying earlier it is Jews like that little faggy prince Zelensky that are behind this war. Did you see him prance around in that video? They bring their corruption to YEAAOOOOWWW take it easy back there! Not enough lube! Look you need to hurry up and finish because I have a show with MacGregor in about 30 minutes. I can meet you later after Mass.

    Replies: @LatW

  155. @Beckow
    @AP


    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom? Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO?
     
    All of them. We were told that without being in Nato we can't be in EU. Period.

    You have double standards when it comes to applying the term dictate. The inconsistency you display - some can, others can't - is a sign of poor mental health. Or desperate losing ideology: Russia having any say is a "dictat", but your side is all saints. Right? St. Augustine said that all saints have past...are you so unaware?


    And “autonomy”, according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine’s ability to, say, link itself with the EU....So, no longer an independent state.
     
    Complete nonsense. The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent? South Tyrol in Italy, endless other examples of regions that have trade and cultural links to others. You are making up a straw-man because you know there was no reason for Kiev to reject Minsk and provoke the war. It will end much worse for them now. You medicate yourself with scary lies.

    Poland having a huge border and many more people who could move there.
     
    And yet, almost nobody did until the luckless Ukies showed up. You are mixing what I said: Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do 'business' and people who permanently migrate to live in other countries. You either lack logic or you are intentionally deceptive.

    Finally, a guy who claims that Poland is a sunny paradise...have you been there? Or better, have you visited other places? But contra gustos no hay disputas...

    Replies: @LatW, @A123, @AP

    We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU

    Were you explicitly told that in the media? Do you have verifiable information that that’s what the government was explicitly told?

    The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent?

    Well, the difference is that Sweden has given up on its imperial “rights” to Finland, doesn’t hold any grudges or resentments against their former colony, doesn’t hold any revanchist or territorial claims, and they don’t meddle with Finland’s internal affairs (unlike Russia with Ukraine, they don’t place their assets in Finland’s internal power structures and institutions the way that Russia did with Ukraine (or at least they don’t do it as aggressively), they don’t try to dominate their culture and language (yes, they do have bilingualism, which Finns hate by the way, but it is fading away). They are on good terms, amicable, trust each other. They don’t call each other ethnic slurs. They are both part of the West (or the Northern European community). Whereas Ukraine doesn’t want to be with Russia. You deliberately ignore these vital differences.

    All the former colonial powers have pretty much given up on their former colonies, except Russia. And even Russia has a skewed view of its colonial past, because the Russian nation was not the only builder of the Empire.

    Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’

    Well, Polish goods are well known to be overall cheaper (which isn’t bad, btw), but, once again, you deliberately choose to ignore the more affluent or middle-class Poles, by far, most Poles are not what you describe. Those are just slightly more lower middle class folks that are trying to get by. You are deliberately ignoring successful Poles or even the middle class types.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @LatW

    It is hard to stereotype. I am sure there are less business-minded Poles, we just don't see too many. Poor Polish hustlers selling shoddy goods is what we encounter. They also seem desperate. It is the same image that most people in UK and other places have.


    They don’t call each other ethnic slurs.
     
    Actually they do, in the usual lame Scandie way...:) If you have a problem with ethnic slurs, maybe jumping up and down about "Moskali" is not a good way to show it.

    They are both part of the West...whereas Ukraine doesn’t want to be with Russia.

     

    Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, about the same as Russians, Georgians, Romanians, etc...part of the same overall region. Some more, some less, and some dream of being something else. You can't stage a "revolution" to force others to obey you new invented identity. That has never worked - geography tends to stay the same.

    The reason for the war is the Ukie fanatical unwillingness to treat their fellow Russian citizens as equal, to accept that they have cultural and economic rights. Majority can't disposes millions of people who want to stay who they are and import military conflict into Ukraine with Nato. That would eventually lead to a much bigger war.

    It is something that you pretend not to see - out of atavistic hatred of Russia. It will not end well for the Ukies - there is no realistic scenario that is better for Kiev than what Minsk offered, or how things were pre-Maidan. You are just in a denial and anger stage.

    Replies: @LatW

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @LatW


    We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU

    Were you explicitly told that in the media? Do you have verifiable information that that’s what the government was explicitly told?
     
    One of the sad/hilarious episodes in Jacques Vallee's new journal is when the French voters rejected the EU constitution referendum. Which he praised as a triumph for democracy and celebration of the spirit of the French people. : (

    If there was a follow up entry when the voters were told to go jump in the lake I missed it.

    Replies: @LatW

  156. @sudden death
    @John Johnson

    It might be something like this discovered as culprit, like earlier lead toxicity, maybe some microplastics or yet unknown materials which are considered as not harmful so far:


    Asian-Americans have nearly twice the levels of toxic 'forever chemicals' in their blood compared to other ethnicities.

    A study that tested the blood and urine of more than 3,000 Americans found the average levels of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were 89 percent higher in Asian-Americans.

    Researchers said it is unclear why, but it could be due to a diet that is high in seafood, which is a major source of PFAS contamination.

    PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals present in food packaging, clothes and thousands of other products in the US.

    Because of their ubiquity, they leach into soil, drinking water, the air and food, exposing Americans to the toxins almost everywhere.

    They have been deemed 'forever chemicals' because they don't break down in the environment or human body.
     

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12441343/Asian-Americans-exposed-toxic-PFAS-forever-chemicals.html

    Replies: @John Johnson

    I would bet on PFAS over pesticides or herbicides.

    It would have shown up in farm kids if it were the latter.

  157. @LatW
    @John Johnson


    The Putin US Dream Team is unreal. A convicted sex offender, a closeted homo, some America hater who makes fake war videos, Steven Seagal. Just an amazing lineup.
     
    You know what's really funny is that Girkin (Strelkov) himself before he got arrested, when his precious rants were still publicly available, said that McGregor is full of it. He totally dismissed his "insights" as unserious. LOL

    Replies: @John Johnson

    You know what’s really funny is that Girkin (Strelkov) himself before he got arrested, when his precious rants were still publicly available, said that McGregor is full of it. He totally dismissed his “insights” as unserious. LOL

    That is indeed funny but the Putin club would never discuss it in their sphere just as they never discuss MacGregor’s long list of failed predictions.

    Napolino is one of those self hating gays like Rohm. A modern day Ernst Rohm if there ever was one.

    (Inside Napolino’s basement where he and another ex Fox employee are dressed in leather)

    Yea go ahead and use that whip over there…no the other one…..yea with the spikes….as I was saying earlier it is Jews like that little faggy prince Zelensky that are behind this war. Did you see him prance around in that video? They bring their corruption to YEAAOOOOWWW take it easy back there! Not enough lube! Look you need to hurry up and finish because I have a show with MacGregor in about 30 minutes. I can meet you later after Mass.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @John Johnson


    That is indeed funny but the Putin club would never discuss it in their sphere just as they never discuss MacGregor’s long list of failed predictions.
     
    The Putin club would rather trash or dismiss Strelkov (someone who knows the front inside out or at least used to until very recently) than MacGregor - that is super delusional and grotesquely funny. I haven't followed MacGregor enough to judge his "predictions", he doesn't interest me much. He seemed somewhat biased.

    The few times I watched his videos I was more interested in the Scots Irish regalia he had in his background. It seemed like he really wanted to appear "warlike" and martial. It's ok, that's not a bad thing, but you also have to be somewhat informed about the particular things on the ground. I don't expect him to understand the intricacies of Eastern Slav battle culture either.


    Napolino is one of those self hating gays like Rohm.
     
    Oh, but he's just another contrarian (which, again, is not bad and can be really cool, but you have to follow at least some of the facts), he just wants to trash the establishment. I used to watch Alex Jones for a while (for entertainment purposes - not for updates on current affairs, lol) and "The Judge" use to be on Alex a lot. No idea about his closet gayness, that is too creepy to even think about. But it is not surprising they sided with Russia, they distrust the US establishment (and they try to make money with their shows, it's their niche - although these days it can actually do harm because of the war).
  158. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:
    @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    I’ve seen Mormons get angry, and act with self-assertion, in a way I rarely see with other Whites – they seem to have retained some connection to the thymotic side of life. I’ve also seen frequent acts of explicit politeness and kindness that reflect a self-conscious striving after “virtue” that stands out in the cynical wasteland of modernity.

    Yes they can be friendly until they want something from you. If you are non-Mormon then you will be subject to a different set of rules.

    The one White American community that is imperfectly assimilated to modern life but still participates in it, that has retained some vital connection to the “irrational”, seems to have avoided at least some of the worst and most advanced excesses of the dysfunctions afflicting most everyone else.

    I think you are over-idealizing them. In no way would I describe them as being in more touch with spirituality than say average Catholics.

    Their morality that they claim to be spiritual is a front. There is nothing in the Bible that says to be honest and fair until you start doing business with non-Mormons. Christianity is not supposed to "turn off" when the business day starts.

    They only participate in non-Mormon life when required.

    I was warned about doing business with them but assumed it was just mainstream Christian bigotry. Wouldn't these pro-family Mormons extend their strong morals into business and daily life? I figured they have a bad rep from Christians that are offended by their additional beliefs.

    I was wrong. I fully admit that.

    They are not simply obsessed with greed or drive for money. They actually wouldn't be that bad if they were simply materialistic. The problem is that they view non-Mormons with complete disdain and not as fellow Americans that are deserving of some basic level of business ethics.

    They view the current world as a spiritual test and the successful enter heaven to manage their own world where at most we get to be their servants. So by rejecting the Mormon faith we prove that we have utterly failed the divine calling and thus we might as well be exploited on earth and in heaven. Secular Americans don't even get to be servants. They go to hell.

    Mormon door knockers might seem friendly but they haven't reached the period where they are under pressure to have a large family and modern house which in the current economy can be difficult. The men look to cut corners in business which leads to their reputation.

    Their religion is extremely controlling and most likely dysgenic. It started out as polygamous but without a plan for what to do with the excess men. The origin story reads like an SNL sketch where a man actually tells his wife that an angel told him to take multiple wives.

    As a religion it selects for submission and ex-communicates the rebellious and independently minded. Women are not allowed to select non-Mormons and are under pressure to choose their husband early. This leads to them selecting from a limited gene pool and often for non-physical characteristics. Meaning they are not selecting the strongest or healthiest men in a mixed community. In many ways it functions like a nerd mafia. I actually don't think half the men buy into the beliefs. They like that the women are locked down and they get a lot of business connections.

    Replies: @AaronB, @AP

    I’m not defending their religion or practices.

    There’s lots of bad there, the point is, there might be something interesting that has saved them partially from some of the worse excesses of modern nihilism, at least for a time (and perhaps not that much longer), and that can be useful to learn from, at least for secular Americans – while still rejecting most of their religion and practices.

    I could never in a million years be a Mormon, but I try and look at the larger picture. I’ve learned things from people, who, on the whole, I’ve despised.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @AaronB

    Sorry Aaron but what what you're doing here is wrong. First you're debating a person who has possibly forgotten what your religious background is, even though you told him the other day, and may start saying that you are a Mormon any moment now. You're not going to convince him of anything. Second, and this is even worse for me, you're giving him the opportunity of posting a lot of crap for the umpteenth time to explain how much he despises Mormons and how evil they are (because he allegedly had some bad business experience with some Mormon but has obviously never lived close to real Mormons).

    JJ is not even Dmitry, too proud to admit that his knowledge acquired online may not be as reliable as daily real life experience, but at least he does his research and comes back with some sort of novel ideas. No chance of that with JJ.

    Anyway, I think that your description of Mormons is quite accurate. I would just add a couple of caveats. First, it is true that making money in Utah is important and there are quite a lot of successful Mormon businessmen. But I'm not sure how different this is from any other state or traditional religion in the US. Where in America is it not important to make money and be materially successful? Besides, it is quite remarkable how among Mormons material concerns seldom if ever get in the way of religious practice. In fact, I even know a few Mormon families who most definitely put their religion way above money. They keep having children, as their religion commands, in spite of living with modest salaries and very tight budgets. One of them, with pioneer origins on both sides, could pay off their mortgage just by selling a vacant plot of land adjacent to their house but they prefer to keep the land and have an old-style 1-acre property. This is a family that doesn't have the money to go on vacation or drive modern cars. They buy second-hand clothes and clearance food. Having no mortgage or, most definitely, less children, would allow them to live much closer to the standards of their own relatives and neighbors but they just won't do it. I obviously don't know everybody in Utah but the sample of those I do tells me that such cases must be very common.

    The second caveat is that, behind all the wealth and business activity you see in Utah, a strong communitarian (even socialist) element remains in the society here. One little known aspect of Mormonism is that originally they built a semi-Communist society where the Church led all aspects of people's lives and practically owned the majority of the land. Fundamentalist Mormons on the border with Arizona still live like that, even renting their houses form the Church. Even though the majority of Mormons have always had British origins, with their high trust but individualist tendencies, I have the strong impression that the big contingent of Scandinavians that came here during the 19th century, especially from Denmark and Sweden, had a big influence in shaping social life in Utah by adding a much more communitarian approach than what is typical among pure Anglos. I don't have the time to expand on this now and I guess it's of little interest to most people but let that be known.

    PS- JJ sometimes manages to make some good points here and there and I guess we're all just a bunch a weirdos here anyway but I can't forget his faux passes with me. It's just not worth debating him.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @AaronB

    , @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    I’m not defending their religion or practices.

    I know. I'm not a fan and need to vent at times. I live in rural America and we have them.

    There’s lots of bad there, the point is, there might be something interesting that has saved them partially from some of the worse excesses of modern nihilism, at least for a time (and perhaps not that much longer), and that can be useful to learn from, at least for secular Americans – while still rejecting most of their religion and practices.

    Children of secular Whites are much more likely to engage in drugs and self-destructive behavior. I don't deny that at all.

    Teaching children that the universe is pointless will have negative consequences. But I also don't think we should teach them that their neighbors are their future slaves.

  159. @LatW
    @Beckow


    We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU
     
    Were you explicitly told that in the media? Do you have verifiable information that that's what the government was explicitly told?

    The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent?
     
    Well, the difference is that Sweden has given up on its imperial "rights" to Finland, doesn't hold any grudges or resentments against their former colony, doesn't hold any revanchist or territorial claims, and they don't meddle with Finland's internal affairs (unlike Russia with Ukraine, they don't place their assets in Finland's internal power structures and institutions the way that Russia did with Ukraine (or at least they don't do it as aggressively), they don't try to dominate their culture and language (yes, they do have bilingualism, which Finns hate by the way, but it is fading away). They are on good terms, amicable, trust each other. They don't call each other ethnic slurs. They are both part of the West (or the Northern European community). Whereas Ukraine doesn't want to be with Russia. You deliberately ignore these vital differences.

    All the former colonial powers have pretty much given up on their former colonies, except Russia. And even Russia has a skewed view of its colonial past, because the Russian nation was not the only builder of the Empire.


    Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’
     
    Well, Polish goods are well known to be overall cheaper (which isn't bad, btw), but, once again, you deliberately choose to ignore the more affluent or middle-class Poles, by far, most Poles are not what you describe. Those are just slightly more lower middle class folks that are trying to get by. You are deliberately ignoring successful Poles or even the middle class types.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Emil Nikola Richard

    It is hard to stereotype. I am sure there are less business-minded Poles, we just don’t see too many. Poor Polish hustlers selling shoddy goods is what we encounter. They also seem desperate. It is the same image that most people in UK and other places have.

    They don’t call each other ethnic slurs.

    Actually they do, in the usual lame Scandie way…:) If you have a problem with ethnic slurs, maybe jumping up and down about “Moskali” is not a good way to show it.

    They are both part of the West…whereas Ukraine doesn’t want to be with Russia.

    Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, about the same as Russians, Georgians, Romanians, etc…part of the same overall region. Some more, some less, and some dream of being something else. You can’t stage a “revolution” to force others to obey you new invented identity. That has never worked – geography tends to stay the same.

    The reason for the war is the Ukie fanatical unwillingness to treat their fellow Russian citizens as equal, to accept that they have cultural and economic rights. Majority can’t disposes millions of people who want to stay who they are and import military conflict into Ukraine with Nato. That would eventually lead to a much bigger war.

    It is something that you pretend not to see – out of atavistic hatred of Russia. It will not end well for the Ukies – there is no realistic scenario that is better for Kiev than what Minsk offered, or how things were pre-Maidan. You are just in a denial and anger stage.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Beckow


    Actually they do, in the usual lame Scandie way…:)
     
    They do not. Whatever insinuations they very seldomly use (often only in private) - are not meant in a hostile and deeply condescending way the way that the Russian talk down on the Ukrainian. Right now it's too late anyway and it has gone to complete hell, it's over it's going to be like Armenians and Azeris or Serbs and Croats (or even worse) but I was referring to the period before the full scale war or even 2014, where it was already bad. If the intention had been to be like Scandies, that's when the issues should've been worked out. If not, separate and move on. No need to co-habit with those you despise. But Russia cannot do what Sweden did.

    The way the Scandies talk to each other is much more subdued, careful, reserved, sure the Swedes do look down on the Finns inside, but they do not show it (or maybe they have moved on at this point and no longer look down on them) - the Russians go out of their way to show their contempt for all the others. The difference is also that in some ways the Swedes are perceived as superior to Finns (at least according to standard European cultural norms or the ideal European behavior, although this is, of course, debatable - I personally don't necessarily agree with that), while Russians are not seen as superior to Ukrainians (based on EE cultural norms), no matter how much they tell themselves they are.

    Ukraine is in Eastern Europe
     
    Right, so they are allying with other Eastern Europeans. That's not even what I meant - I wasn't talking about the geopolitical or even geographic or cultural alignment but about the relationship dynamics. The relationship dynamics have to be in a good place for things to work. In those other European examples you provided, the very core relationship is resolved and at peace.

    You can’t stage a “revolution” to force others to obey you new invented identity.
     
    It's not invented but real - and this was the original mistake of the Russians to oversee that (they knew all along, just didn't want to admit it and accept it) as well as Russophile Westerners who made the same mistake (claiming Ukraine was "fake and gay").

    The reason for the war is the Ukie fanatical unwillingness to treat their fellow Russian citizens as equal, to accept that they have cultural and economic rights.
     
    Again, you choose to ignore the elephant in the room - the Russian pseudo-imperialistic tendencies. But that's your choice.

    Majority can’t disposes millions of people who want to stay who they are and import military conflict into Ukraine with Nato.
     
    Were the Germans not once expelled from their old colonial lands in Eastern Europe? Is it how things should be? No. But it is not impossible. There have been examples in the past.

    That would eventually lead to a much bigger war.
     
    Actually, it can be contained (even if that is bad, as it is, it's an enormous tragedy). Most of the world is not interested in a bigger war over these issues. The Americans are ok with prolonging the war (unfortunately), but they are not interested in expanding it into NATO territory - that is vital. China (and the so called global south) are not interested in any war at all.

    Only Russia and Ukraine would be interested in expanding the war - Russia so that they wouldn't have to lose to Ukraine, but would lose to NATO (and make NATO pay at least some for helping Ukraine), and Ukraine - to be able to attract Russia's attention to a second front and expend their resources elsewhere. Although for Ukraine that's not their main wish - their main wish is just to get all of the weapons that were promised so they can recover more territory and push the war further away from their territory.


    out of atavistic hatred of Russia
     
    It is not "atavistic" but based on every day facts from the most recent 30 years and the things that the Russian side says TODAY. If it was about some past issues, we wouldn't have a war as neither side would care enough to have a physical war. Everyone was ready to move on after 1991, except the Russian side.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Beckow

  160. @John Johnson
    @LatW

    You know what’s really funny is that Girkin (Strelkov) himself before he got arrested, when his precious rants were still publicly available, said that McGregor is full of it. He totally dismissed his “insights” as unserious. LOL

    That is indeed funny but the Putin club would never discuss it in their sphere just as they never discuss MacGregor's long list of failed predictions.

    Napolino is one of those self hating gays like Rohm. A modern day Ernst Rohm if there ever was one.

    (Inside Napolino's basement where he and another ex Fox employee are dressed in leather)

    Yea go ahead and use that whip over there...no the other one.....yea with the spikes....as I was saying earlier it is Jews like that little faggy prince Zelensky that are behind this war. Did you see him prance around in that video? They bring their corruption to YEAAOOOOWWW take it easy back there! Not enough lube! Look you need to hurry up and finish because I have a show with MacGregor in about 30 minutes. I can meet you later after Mass.

    Replies: @LatW

    That is indeed funny but the Putin club would never discuss it in their sphere just as they never discuss MacGregor’s long list of failed predictions.

    The Putin club would rather trash or dismiss Strelkov (someone who knows the front inside out or at least used to until very recently) than MacGregor – that is super delusional and grotesquely funny. I haven’t followed MacGregor enough to judge his “predictions”, he doesn’t interest me much. He seemed somewhat biased.

    The few times I watched his videos I was more interested in the Scots Irish regalia he had in his background. It seemed like he really wanted to appear “warlike” and martial. It’s ok, that’s not a bad thing, but you also have to be somewhat informed about the particular things on the ground. I don’t expect him to understand the intricacies of Eastern Slav battle culture either.

    Napolino is one of those self hating gays like Rohm.

    Oh, but he’s just another contrarian (which, again, is not bad and can be really cool, but you have to follow at least some of the facts), he just wants to trash the establishment. I used to watch Alex Jones for a while (for entertainment purposes – not for updates on current affairs, lol) and “The Judge” use to be on Alex a lot. No idea about his closet gayness, that is too creepy to even think about. But it is not surprising they sided with Russia, they distrust the US establishment (and they try to make money with their shows, it’s their niche – although these days it can actually do harm because of the war).

  161. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Why is Putin's propagandist calling for a tactical nuke if everything is going so well?
    https://www.newsweek.com/putin-state-tv-host-russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapons-1821567

    Napolitano is a sad Putin hack who has been cheering the Russians since the war started. He isn't as overt as Ritter but his position is obvious by the show format where he lets pro-Putin guests ramble while he nods and makes cracks about Zelenksy. As with other Putin defenders he is obsessed with Zelensky and Nuland. It's all about the Jews to him but he doesn't have the balls to say it.

    I did some research into Napolitano and turns out that he is a closet homo who was kicked out of Fox News for sexually harassing young men:
    https://news.yahoo.com/andrew-napolitano-fox-sexual-harassment-224300192.html

    Are self-hating men just somehow attracted to Putin?

    No wife or kids and has been accused of sexually harassing men.

    Closet homo.

    The Putin US Dream Team is unreal. A convicted sex offender, a closeted homo, some America hater who makes fake war videos, Steven Seagal. Just an amazing lineup.

    Replies: @LatW, @Mikhail, @QCIC

  162. @songbird
    Saw a tiny snake the other day that was just over an inch long.

    Gave me the idea that wildlife officials ought to try to stock snakes, they like do with fish. I'm not taking about posionous stuff, but a lot of the bigger snakes seem to be getter rarer in these parts.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    They’ve some big mother pythons in Florida. There’s also the matter of the super wild pigs in the US – the apparent result of a cross bread with a Eurasian variant.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Mikhail

    One of my favorite YouTubers, Casual Earth, who specializes in geography, put out a video on the pythons in Florida.

    He notes that North America is a very different environment because there isn't a mountain chain blocking the cold air from Canada, and even the deep South gets occasional cold snaps.

    He does not seem to think the worst predictions about their spread will come true, but leaves open the possibility that they will evolve to better deal with the cold.
    https://youtu.be/nHRTwbs95uA?si=h1BWuCqDRme77pbu

  163. Tucker’s recent interview with Orban was quite informative, unlike the foreign policy drivel peddled by the likes of Amanpour, O’Reilly, Velshi, Cuomo, Haley, Pense and Christie.

  164. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Why is Putin's propagandist calling for a tactical nuke if everything is going so well?
    https://www.newsweek.com/putin-state-tv-host-russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapons-1821567

    Napolitano is a sad Putin hack who has been cheering the Russians since the war started. He isn't as overt as Ritter but his position is obvious by the show format where he lets pro-Putin guests ramble while he nods and makes cracks about Zelenksy. As with other Putin defenders he is obsessed with Zelensky and Nuland. It's all about the Jews to him but he doesn't have the balls to say it.

    I did some research into Napolitano and turns out that he is a closet homo who was kicked out of Fox News for sexually harassing young men:
    https://news.yahoo.com/andrew-napolitano-fox-sexual-harassment-224300192.html

    Are self-hating men just somehow attracted to Putin?

    No wife or kids and has been accused of sexually harassing men.

    Closet homo.

    The Putin US Dream Team is unreal. A convicted sex offender, a closeted homo, some America hater who makes fake war videos, Steven Seagal. Just an amazing lineup.

    Replies: @LatW, @Mikhail, @QCIC

    The West and the USA are pressuring Russia using Ukraine as a battering ram. Serious military conflicts between the USA and Russia are intrinsically nuclear conflicts. The Russian government media plan seems to include periodic reminders of this very important issue for Western audiences.

    Russia is not leveling new nuclear threats against the West. Both sides have thousands of nuclear weapons which can used on short notice if not immediately. Don’t forget, we had crucial nuclear arms control treaties which the West has been unilaterally dismantling.

    The West has been unilaterally dismantling nuclear arms control treaties. What could be more dangerous?

    The Ukraine war is not really about Ukraine. It is a proxy war of the West against Russia. I would hope that Unz commenters can understand this, even if they have valid reasons to hate or fear Russia. Just recognize how dangerous this Western-created conflict actually is!

  165. @LatW
    @Beckow


    We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU
     
    Were you explicitly told that in the media? Do you have verifiable information that that's what the government was explicitly told?

    The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent?
     
    Well, the difference is that Sweden has given up on its imperial "rights" to Finland, doesn't hold any grudges or resentments against their former colony, doesn't hold any revanchist or territorial claims, and they don't meddle with Finland's internal affairs (unlike Russia with Ukraine, they don't place their assets in Finland's internal power structures and institutions the way that Russia did with Ukraine (or at least they don't do it as aggressively), they don't try to dominate their culture and language (yes, they do have bilingualism, which Finns hate by the way, but it is fading away). They are on good terms, amicable, trust each other. They don't call each other ethnic slurs. They are both part of the West (or the Northern European community). Whereas Ukraine doesn't want to be with Russia. You deliberately ignore these vital differences.

    All the former colonial powers have pretty much given up on their former colonies, except Russia. And even Russia has a skewed view of its colonial past, because the Russian nation was not the only builder of the Empire.


    Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’
     
    Well, Polish goods are well known to be overall cheaper (which isn't bad, btw), but, once again, you deliberately choose to ignore the more affluent or middle-class Poles, by far, most Poles are not what you describe. Those are just slightly more lower middle class folks that are trying to get by. You are deliberately ignoring successful Poles or even the middle class types.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Emil Nikola Richard

    We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU

    Were you explicitly told that in the media? Do you have verifiable information that that’s what the government was explicitly told?

    One of the sad/hilarious episodes in Jacques Vallee’s new journal is when the French voters rejected the EU constitution referendum. Which he praised as a triumph for democracy and celebration of the spirit of the French people. : (

    If there was a follow up entry when the voters were told to go jump in the lake I missed it.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    One of the sad/hilarious episodes in Jacques Vallee’s new journal is when the French voters rejected the EU constitution referendum.
     
    That project was probably too ambitious. Most European populations aren't really ready for that (if they will ever be). It turned into an experiment (but they must have spent a lot of money on the public debates). That was still during the period of a sort of a federalist idealism - before the schisms and some of the tougher issues became visible. Not sure they would realistically draft something like this today. Although who knows.

    But, yes, it is funny how it essentially came from a Frenchman and then was discarded by the French themselves. At least it was an exercise in democracy. :)

    Replies: @Mikel

  166. @Beckow
    @LatW

    It is hard to stereotype. I am sure there are less business-minded Poles, we just don't see too many. Poor Polish hustlers selling shoddy goods is what we encounter. They also seem desperate. It is the same image that most people in UK and other places have.


    They don’t call each other ethnic slurs.
     
    Actually they do, in the usual lame Scandie way...:) If you have a problem with ethnic slurs, maybe jumping up and down about "Moskali" is not a good way to show it.

    They are both part of the West...whereas Ukraine doesn’t want to be with Russia.

     

    Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, about the same as Russians, Georgians, Romanians, etc...part of the same overall region. Some more, some less, and some dream of being something else. You can't stage a "revolution" to force others to obey you new invented identity. That has never worked - geography tends to stay the same.

    The reason for the war is the Ukie fanatical unwillingness to treat their fellow Russian citizens as equal, to accept that they have cultural and economic rights. Majority can't disposes millions of people who want to stay who they are and import military conflict into Ukraine with Nato. That would eventually lead to a much bigger war.

    It is something that you pretend not to see - out of atavistic hatred of Russia. It will not end well for the Ukies - there is no realistic scenario that is better for Kiev than what Minsk offered, or how things were pre-Maidan. You are just in a denial and anger stage.

    Replies: @LatW

    Actually they do, in the usual lame Scandie way…:)

    They do not. Whatever insinuations they very seldomly use (often only in private) – are not meant in a hostile and deeply condescending way the way that the Russian talk down on the Ukrainian. Right now it’s too late anyway and it has gone to complete hell, it’s over it’s going to be like Armenians and Azeris or Serbs and Croats (or even worse) but I was referring to the period before the full scale war or even 2014, where it was already bad. If the intention had been to be like Scandies, that’s when the issues should’ve been worked out. If not, separate and move on. No need to co-habit with those you despise. But Russia cannot do what Sweden did.

    The way the Scandies talk to each other is much more subdued, careful, reserved, sure the Swedes do look down on the Finns inside, but they do not show it (or maybe they have moved on at this point and no longer look down on them) – the Russians go out of their way to show their contempt for all the others. The difference is also that in some ways the Swedes are perceived as superior to Finns (at least according to standard European cultural norms or the ideal European behavior, although this is, of course, debatable – I personally don’t necessarily agree with that), while Russians are not seen as superior to Ukrainians (based on EE cultural norms), no matter how much they tell themselves they are.

    Ukraine is in Eastern Europe

    Right, so they are allying with other Eastern Europeans. That’s not even what I meant – I wasn’t talking about the geopolitical or even geographic or cultural alignment but about the relationship dynamics. The relationship dynamics have to be in a good place for things to work. In those other European examples you provided, the very core relationship is resolved and at peace.

    You can’t stage a “revolution” to force others to obey you new invented identity.

    It’s not invented but real – and this was the original mistake of the Russians to oversee that (they knew all along, just didn’t want to admit it and accept it) as well as Russophile Westerners who made the same mistake (claiming Ukraine was “fake and gay”).

    The reason for the war is the Ukie fanatical unwillingness to treat their fellow Russian citizens as equal, to accept that they have cultural and economic rights.

    Again, you choose to ignore the elephant in the room – the Russian pseudo-imperialistic tendencies. But that’s your choice.

    Majority can’t disposes millions of people who want to stay who they are and import military conflict into Ukraine with Nato.

    Were the Germans not once expelled from their old colonial lands in Eastern Europe? Is it how things should be? No. But it is not impossible. There have been examples in the past.

    That would eventually lead to a much bigger war.

    Actually, it can be contained (even if that is bad, as it is, it’s an enormous tragedy). Most of the world is not interested in a bigger war over these issues. The Americans are ok with prolonging the war (unfortunately), but they are not interested in expanding it into NATO territory – that is vital. China (and the so called global south) are not interested in any war at all.

    Only Russia and Ukraine would be interested in expanding the war – Russia so that they wouldn’t have to lose to Ukraine, but would lose to NATO (and make NATO pay at least some for helping Ukraine), and Ukraine – to be able to attract Russia’s attention to a second front and expend their resources elsewhere. Although for Ukraine that’s not their main wish – their main wish is just to get all of the weapons that were promised so they can recover more territory and push the war further away from their territory.

    out of atavistic hatred of Russia

    It is not “atavistic” but based on every day facts from the most recent 30 years and the things that the Russian side says TODAY. If it was about some past issues, we wouldn’t have a war as neither side would care enough to have a physical war. Everyone was ready to move on after 1991, except the Russian side.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @LatW

    I would say it was probably more economic reasons, Sweden has been more idealized than Finland in the second half of the 20th century. If you exclude things like a strange early 20th century legacy of the ideology based in "Aryan vs non-Aryan" difference between Sweden and Finland.

    In the recent years, Sweden has only a slightly higher nominal income than Finland. But it's also a much larger nation with twice Finland's population, more culture power, more utopian ideology.

    Although the difference in the nominal income is quite small and they have been both some of the wealthiest countries in the world in the per capita indicator.

    https://i.imgur.com/oEVrQTt.jpeg

    Sweden's GDP overall is twice Finland.

    https://i.imgur.com/OjKGNzN.jpg

    Interesting, until recently Sweden's population have been a lot more physically healthy than the population in Finland in terms of life expectancy.

    Maybe there could be some differences of public health policy, smoking rates, genetics, diet etc.
    https://i.imgur.com/LAfIswj.jpg

    Replies: @LatW

    , @Beckow
    @LatW


    Whatever insinuations they very seldomly use (often only in private) – are not meant in a hostile...
     
    You see inside Scandie souls? You are the only one, tell us how you do it... The mutual Scandie dislikes exist, they hide it better because they are dull, scared and conformist people. They have again lamely switched to hating "Russia!", seeing Russian subs underwater - a good reflection of their fearful and indirect personalities.

    Ukies were jumping up and down in 2014 about "killing Moskali", it was openly embraced by Maidanistas - can you find a better example of ethnic hostility? In Russia, UK...? Don't preach.


    Were the Germans not once expelled from their old colonial lands in Eastern Europe? Is it how things should be? No. But it is not impossible. There have been examples in the past.
     
    The idea that you will expel millions of Russians is quite ugly and dangerous. Germany killed tens of millions in and lost the war. It is not a good analogy. That it comes to you so easily is worrisome. It is a mutual road to hell. Don't pine for it.

    ...it can be contained (even if that is bad, as it is, it’s an enormous tragedy). Most of the world is not interested in a bigger war over these issues.
     
    I agree. But EE has been falling. Some experience it as exhilaration, they dream of 'others' who are hurt more, but the falling has not slowed and it affects everyone. To contain it you need to stop the idiotic dreams about weakening Russia and expelling Russians.

    It is very simple: Ukraine needs to be neutral and has to treat its millions of Russian citizens as equal - or they allow them to secede and join Russia. Or we can fight this to the last standing Ukie or possibly go nuclear. But nobody is "marching on Moscow", or taking Crimea and expelling 2 million people there.

    It will take some time before it sinks in, but the way it will end is a neutral rump-Ukraine with more rational leaders. Or we pretty much all perish, at least in Central-Eastern Europe.

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW, @Thulean Friend

  167. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @LatW


    We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU

    Were you explicitly told that in the media? Do you have verifiable information that that’s what the government was explicitly told?
     
    One of the sad/hilarious episodes in Jacques Vallee's new journal is when the French voters rejected the EU constitution referendum. Which he praised as a triumph for democracy and celebration of the spirit of the French people. : (

    If there was a follow up entry when the voters were told to go jump in the lake I missed it.

    Replies: @LatW

    One of the sad/hilarious episodes in Jacques Vallee’s new journal is when the French voters rejected the EU constitution referendum.

    That project was probably too ambitious. Most European populations aren’t really ready for that (if they will ever be). It turned into an experiment (but they must have spent a lot of money on the public debates). That was still during the period of a sort of a federalist idealism – before the schisms and some of the tougher issues became visible. Not sure they would realistically draft something like this today. Although who knows.

    But, yes, it is funny how it essentially came from a Frenchman and then was discarded by the French themselves. At least it was an exercise in democracy. 🙂

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @LatW


    At least it was an exercise in democracy. 🙂
     
    Yes, sure. Feeling this time unable to blatantly ignore the popular votes in two countries, they just renamed the Constitution to Treaty of Lisbon and went ahead with it anyway :-)

    Speaking of which, I don't know why you doubt that EE nations were forced to join NATO if they wanted to join the EU. That policy was already in place 20 years earlier when Spain was also strongarmed to join NATO, contrary to what the new Spanish Government had promised to the electorate just a year prior. Another one of those exercises in democracy by shadowy forces, some of them surely across the Atlantic, that nobody has ever met, let alone voted for. But at least there was a Cold War to win then. What Western countries gained by expanding NATO towards Russia in 1999 and 2004 is totally unclear to this day. Nobody ever bothered to explain it to us plebes.

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death

  168. @Mikhail
    @songbird

    They've some big mother pythons in Florida. There's also the matter of the super wild pigs in the US - the apparent result of a cross bread with a Eurasian variant.

    Replies: @songbird

    One of my favorite YouTubers, Casual Earth, who specializes in geography, put out a video on the pythons in Florida.

    He notes that North America is a very different environment because there isn’t a mountain chain blocking the cold air from Canada, and even the deep South gets occasional cold snaps.

    He does not seem to think the worst predictions about their spread will come true, but leaves open the possibility that they will evolve to better deal with the cold.

    [MORE]

  169. @John Johnson
    @Dmitry

    A hypothetical fake death of Prigozhin, would be a story like in some of the famous mafia films. For example, the story of the film “Once Upon in America”.

    They already DNA'd him.

    Prigozhin had a deathwish. I'm not at all surprised that he returned to Moscow.

    Making a deal to enter Belarus was nuts given that he tried to start an insurrection.

    He needed to exit Eastern Europe entirely. The guy had over a billion dollars. He could have built a fortress in Argentina with thousands of guards and waited out the war.

    I don't think we will ever understand the real Prigozhin.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    It wouldn’t be fake death organized by Prigozhin, it would be a fake death as part of the agreement to exit the march on Moscow and restore authority, to exit politics etc.

    I.e. like in a Witness Protection Program.

    About the postsoviet politics of the last 30 years, it’s a secretive mafia world, so outsiders only guess about the real situation from their PR or theater performances.

    Prigozhin’s story is one of the most strange postsoviet circus, especially in the last week when he was posting suddenly a video about fighting in Africa as preparation for the next theatre.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Dmitry

    It wouldn’t be fake death organized by Prigozhin, it would be a fake death as part of the agreement to exit the march on Moscow and restore authority, to exit politics etc.

    I.e. like in a Witness Protection Program.

    How would you trust someone like Prigozhin to stay hidden? He loves attention.

    Simplest explanation fits best. Putin had him killed.

    Putin had an oligarch killed for simply stating he was against the war. One sentence.

    Prigozhin actually defied him and said the war was based on lies. He also called Putin a bunker grandpa and implied that he is clueless about war tactics.

    You think Putin would let that pass with a deal? His former chef defying and insulting him? What would Putin get out of it over killing him?

  170. @AaronB
    @John Johnson

    I'm not defending their religion or practices.

    There's lots of bad there, the point is, there might be something interesting that has saved them partially from some of the worse excesses of modern nihilism, at least for a time (and perhaps not that much longer), and that can be useful to learn from, at least for secular Americans - while still rejecting most of their religion and practices.

    I could never in a million years be a Mormon, but I try and look at the larger picture. I've learned things from people, who, on the whole, I've despised.

    Replies: @Mikel, @John Johnson

    Sorry Aaron but what what you’re doing here is wrong. First you’re debating a person who has possibly forgotten what your religious background is, even though you told him the other day, and may start saying that you are a Mormon any moment now. You’re not going to convince him of anything. Second, and this is even worse for me, you’re giving him the opportunity of posting a lot of crap for the umpteenth time to explain how much he despises Mormons and how evil they are (because he allegedly had some bad business experience with some Mormon but has obviously never lived close to real Mormons).

    JJ is not even Dmitry, too proud to admit that his knowledge acquired online may not be as reliable as daily real life experience, but at least he does his research and comes back with some sort of novel ideas. No chance of that with JJ.

    Anyway, I think that your description of Mormons is quite accurate. I would just add a couple of caveats. First, it is true that making money in Utah is important and there are quite a lot of successful Mormon businessmen. But I’m not sure how different this is from any other state or traditional religion in the US. Where in America is it not important to make money and be materially successful? Besides, it is quite remarkable how among Mormons material concerns seldom if ever get in the way of religious practice. In fact, I even know a few Mormon families who most definitely put their religion way above money. They keep having children, as their religion commands, in spite of living with modest salaries and very tight budgets. One of them, with pioneer origins on both sides, could pay off their mortgage just by selling a vacant plot of land adjacent to their house but they prefer to keep the land and have an old-style 1-acre property. This is a family that doesn’t have the money to go on vacation or drive modern cars. They buy second-hand clothes and clearance food. Having no mortgage or, most definitely, less children, would allow them to live much closer to the standards of their own relatives and neighbors but they just won’t do it. I obviously don’t know everybody in Utah but the sample of those I do tells me that such cases must be very common.

    The second caveat is that, behind all the wealth and business activity you see in Utah, a strong communitarian (even socialist) element remains in the society here. One little known aspect of Mormonism is that originally they built a semi-Communist society where the Church led all aspects of people’s lives and practically owned the majority of the land. Fundamentalist Mormons on the border with Arizona still live like that, even renting their houses form the Church. Even though the majority of Mormons have always had British origins, with their high trust but individualist tendencies, I have the strong impression that the big contingent of Scandinavians that came here during the 19th century, especially from Denmark and Sweden, had a big influence in shaping social life in Utah by adding a much more communitarian approach than what is typical among pure Anglos. I don’t have the time to expand on this now and I guess it’s of little interest to most people but let that be known.

    PS- JJ sometimes manages to make some good points here and there and I guess we’re all just a bunch a weirdos here anyway but I can’t forget his faux passes with me. It’s just not worth debating him.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikel

    he despises Mormons and how evil they are (because he allegedly had some bad business experience with some Mormon but has obviously never lived close to real Mormons).

    I live in rural America. We have Mormons.

    My opinions of Mormons are not merely based on my experiences. As with Islam I simply think it is unhealthy for children.

    Do you think it is healthy to teach children that:
    1. Non Mormon neighbors will be your future slaves for eternity
    2. Magic underwear is needed to enter the temple
    3. Jesus visited Israeli tribes in America around 33 AD
    4. All other Christian churches are corrupt
    5. An angel told the prophet that polygamy is A-OK

    This religion is a mess. It is clearly the work of a single bullshitter who in fact had a reputation of lying.
    https://www.patheos.com/editorial/podcasts/book-of-mormon-central/2021/why-was-joseph-smith-accused-of-being-a-disorderly-person-in-1826-594

    I don't believe in lying to children about history. There were no Israeli tribes in 33 AD America. That is ridiculous.

    I also have Mennonite neighbors and think they are great. I have zero problems with them and they don't have the creepy vibe that you can sense in unstable Mormons. The Mormon religion is not good for the men. They are rarely allowed a break from it all and of course can't sit down and have a beer or coffee. Well not in front of other Mormons anyways.

    , @AaronB
    @Mikel

    Lol, I hear :) JJ does seem to be very stubborn, and to have a very simple black and white view of things, and to frequently misunderstand others comments, but he makes some interesting comments sometimes and is far from the worst here. As you say, another Unz weirdo like all of us - and I try and talk to everyone except the most creepy and sinister, and perhaps even them :)

    But I was primarily trying to "awaken" JJ to the possibility of nuance and complexity of thinking - that something may be "bad" but also on another level "good", or a step on the path to good. Or that a situation that contains much more bad things overall than another situation, may on the whole, contain more good things as well and be worth learning from to some degree, whereas another situation may not be so bad but also have nothing particularly good in it.

    JJ strikes me as a very extreme case of simplistic left-hemisphere thinking, which I was trying to "snap him out of" and learn to see things with nuance and depth.

    You make good points re the religion of money in America and perhaps the cultural contribution of Swedes to the Mormon community, although I think all religious communities by definition practice some form of altruism.

    And thanks for providing examples of moral conviction trumping self-interest among Mormons - that can only happen in a religious context, of course.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Mikel

  171. @Beckow
    @AP


    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom? Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO?
     
    All of them. We were told that without being in Nato we can't be in EU. Period.

    You have double standards when it comes to applying the term dictate. The inconsistency you display - some can, others can't - is a sign of poor mental health. Or desperate losing ideology: Russia having any say is a "dictat", but your side is all saints. Right? St. Augustine said that all saints have past...are you so unaware?


    And “autonomy”, according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine’s ability to, say, link itself with the EU....So, no longer an independent state.
     
    Complete nonsense. The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent? South Tyrol in Italy, endless other examples of regions that have trade and cultural links to others. You are making up a straw-man because you know there was no reason for Kiev to reject Minsk and provoke the war. It will end much worse for them now. You medicate yourself with scary lies.

    Poland having a huge border and many more people who could move there.
     
    And yet, almost nobody did until the luckless Ukies showed up. You are mixing what I said: Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do 'business' and people who permanently migrate to live in other countries. You either lack logic or you are intentionally deceptive.

    Finally, a guy who claims that Poland is a sunny paradise...have you been there? Or better, have you visited other places? But contra gustos no hay disputas...

    Replies: @LatW, @A123, @AP

    We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU. Period

    This has never made sense to me.

    Germany and France keep talking about building a military alternative to NATO. That goal would be strengthened by obtaining EU members who are non-NATO. Consider Türkiye, a member of NATO. They have been stuck in the EU queue for decades. This suggests that it is easier to join the EU if one is not in NATO.

    Given legitimate Russian concerns about militarization, the most likely post conflict path is the new, more compact Ukraine will join the EU only. No NATO Ever would be locked in via treaty.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @A123

    You misunderstand it completely. France occasionally talks about EU military force as a complement to Nato - not a replacement. It is a sop to their population. French talk a lot but they are in reality complete patsies. It is only attitude. There is no such thing as Euro military.

    Turkey will never be in EU, it is just a charade to keep them in Nato. Turkey joined Nato in 1960 (?) - before the institutions were properly organized. Turkey is also strategically super-important, it is a game we play - everyone understands the rules.


    the most likely post conflict path is the new, more compact Ukraine will join the EU only.
     
    Possibly, if the rump leftover Ukraine is very small and has no strategic importance. But Ukraine in EU would come with huge costs for the current EU members - endless subsidies, cheap labor, impact on agriculture, etc... The Nato membership (having a knife on Russia's throat) was supposed to compensate for it. There was also hope to access the Russian market through Ukraine. This may very well end up as a lose-lose for Ukraine, they have played their cards very badly.

    Replies: @Wielgus

  172. @LatW
    @Beckow


    Actually they do, in the usual lame Scandie way…:)
     
    They do not. Whatever insinuations they very seldomly use (often only in private) - are not meant in a hostile and deeply condescending way the way that the Russian talk down on the Ukrainian. Right now it's too late anyway and it has gone to complete hell, it's over it's going to be like Armenians and Azeris or Serbs and Croats (or even worse) but I was referring to the period before the full scale war or even 2014, where it was already bad. If the intention had been to be like Scandies, that's when the issues should've been worked out. If not, separate and move on. No need to co-habit with those you despise. But Russia cannot do what Sweden did.

    The way the Scandies talk to each other is much more subdued, careful, reserved, sure the Swedes do look down on the Finns inside, but they do not show it (or maybe they have moved on at this point and no longer look down on them) - the Russians go out of their way to show their contempt for all the others. The difference is also that in some ways the Swedes are perceived as superior to Finns (at least according to standard European cultural norms or the ideal European behavior, although this is, of course, debatable - I personally don't necessarily agree with that), while Russians are not seen as superior to Ukrainians (based on EE cultural norms), no matter how much they tell themselves they are.

    Ukraine is in Eastern Europe
     
    Right, so they are allying with other Eastern Europeans. That's not even what I meant - I wasn't talking about the geopolitical or even geographic or cultural alignment but about the relationship dynamics. The relationship dynamics have to be in a good place for things to work. In those other European examples you provided, the very core relationship is resolved and at peace.

    You can’t stage a “revolution” to force others to obey you new invented identity.
     
    It's not invented but real - and this was the original mistake of the Russians to oversee that (they knew all along, just didn't want to admit it and accept it) as well as Russophile Westerners who made the same mistake (claiming Ukraine was "fake and gay").

    The reason for the war is the Ukie fanatical unwillingness to treat their fellow Russian citizens as equal, to accept that they have cultural and economic rights.
     
    Again, you choose to ignore the elephant in the room - the Russian pseudo-imperialistic tendencies. But that's your choice.

    Majority can’t disposes millions of people who want to stay who they are and import military conflict into Ukraine with Nato.
     
    Were the Germans not once expelled from their old colonial lands in Eastern Europe? Is it how things should be? No. But it is not impossible. There have been examples in the past.

    That would eventually lead to a much bigger war.
     
    Actually, it can be contained (even if that is bad, as it is, it's an enormous tragedy). Most of the world is not interested in a bigger war over these issues. The Americans are ok with prolonging the war (unfortunately), but they are not interested in expanding it into NATO territory - that is vital. China (and the so called global south) are not interested in any war at all.

    Only Russia and Ukraine would be interested in expanding the war - Russia so that they wouldn't have to lose to Ukraine, but would lose to NATO (and make NATO pay at least some for helping Ukraine), and Ukraine - to be able to attract Russia's attention to a second front and expend their resources elsewhere. Although for Ukraine that's not their main wish - their main wish is just to get all of the weapons that were promised so they can recover more territory and push the war further away from their territory.


    out of atavistic hatred of Russia
     
    It is not "atavistic" but based on every day facts from the most recent 30 years and the things that the Russian side says TODAY. If it was about some past issues, we wouldn't have a war as neither side would care enough to have a physical war. Everyone was ready to move on after 1991, except the Russian side.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Beckow

    I would say it was probably more economic reasons, Sweden has been more idealized than Finland in the second half of the 20th century. If you exclude things like a strange early 20th century legacy of the ideology based in “Aryan vs non-Aryan” difference between Sweden and Finland.

    In the recent years, Sweden has only a slightly higher nominal income than Finland. But it’s also a much larger nation with twice Finland’s population, more culture power, more utopian ideology.

    Although the difference in the nominal income is quite small and they have been both some of the wealthiest countries in the world in the per capita indicator.

    Sweden’s GDP overall is twice Finland.

    Interesting, until recently Sweden’s population have been a lot more physically healthy than the population in Finland in terms of life expectancy.

    Maybe there could be some differences of public health policy, smoking rates, genetics, diet etc.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Dmitry


    Interesting, until recently Sweden’s population have been a lot more physically healthy than the population in Finland in terms of life expectancy.
     
    This is generally what I was alluding to - not the economic or even past imperial factors. Swedish habits and behaviors have traditionally been more aligned with the contemporary European ideal (even though this is probably a stereotype and maybe not entirely fair to the Finns who have historically had it more rough than Swedes). Although they both have an overall well balanced demeanor.

    The Swedes used to have better health metrics although Finns are very healthy and robust as well, the Swedes tend to be a little bit more refined (which traditionally Finns consider a bit effeminate).

    Either way, these differences seem to be fading out (while they continue to maintain their distinct ethnic cultures and even phenotypes). My point was more about how two nations that used to be in a colonial relationship have been able to move on, especially the respective "bigger brother" nation in that relationship.

    This is why pointing to them as an example for certain Eastern Slavs is not all that accurate or even applicable (even if it were desirable).

    Replies: @LatW, @Dmitry

  173. @Dmitry
    @LatW

    I would say it was probably more economic reasons, Sweden has been more idealized than Finland in the second half of the 20th century. If you exclude things like a strange early 20th century legacy of the ideology based in "Aryan vs non-Aryan" difference between Sweden and Finland.

    In the recent years, Sweden has only a slightly higher nominal income than Finland. But it's also a much larger nation with twice Finland's population, more culture power, more utopian ideology.

    Although the difference in the nominal income is quite small and they have been both some of the wealthiest countries in the world in the per capita indicator.

    https://i.imgur.com/oEVrQTt.jpeg

    Sweden's GDP overall is twice Finland.

    https://i.imgur.com/OjKGNzN.jpg

    Interesting, until recently Sweden's population have been a lot more physically healthy than the population in Finland in terms of life expectancy.

    Maybe there could be some differences of public health policy, smoking rates, genetics, diet etc.
    https://i.imgur.com/LAfIswj.jpg

    Replies: @LatW

    Interesting, until recently Sweden’s population have been a lot more physically healthy than the population in Finland in terms of life expectancy.

    This is generally what I was alluding to – not the economic or even past imperial factors. Swedish habits and behaviors have traditionally been more aligned with the contemporary European ideal (even though this is probably a stereotype and maybe not entirely fair to the Finns who have historically had it more rough than Swedes). Although they both have an overall well balanced demeanor.

    The Swedes used to have better health metrics although Finns are very healthy and robust as well, the Swedes tend to be a little bit more refined (which traditionally Finns consider a bit effeminate).

    Either way, these differences seem to be fading out (while they continue to maintain their distinct ethnic cultures and even phenotypes). My point was more about how two nations that used to be in a colonial relationship have been able to move on, especially the respective “bigger brother” nation in that relationship.

    This is why pointing to them as an example for certain Eastern Slavs is not all that accurate or even applicable (even if it were desirable).

    • Replies: @LatW
    @LatW


    This is why pointing to them as an example for certain Eastern Slavs is not all that accurate or even applicable (even if it were desirable).
     
    In fact, there is one big reason why this wasn't a good example (or even applicable): Finland was never one of the founding elements of Sweden (it was more of a buffer and one of the lands in the Swedish realm, similar to Ingria) or even a big part in defining the historic Swedish identity, whereas Ukraine has been one of the foundational elements of the Russian Empire, and the Ukrainian nation has probably been the biggest demographic donor to the Russian nation (from all the outside Euro nations, I'm not counting Tatar or Asian here).

    The dynamic is quite different there. It is strange but Russia sees Ukraine as another E.Slavic nation that could become a competitor (while simultaneously viewing it as inferior - "Kiev in 3 days" thinking, etc). Sweden doesn't see Finland that way at all. Muscovy used to swallow all the competing Slavic nations in its vicinity (Novgorod, Pskov, etc).

    Kiev was very much the founding principle of the Russian identity and they are right now fighting over who is the true heir of the Kievan Rus'. In the case of Finland and Sweden (or other Euro nations with traditional minority enclaves) this is not so. This is crucial.

    , @Dmitry
    @LatW


    Swedes used to have better health metrics
     
    In Western Europe, in general Northern countries are less healthy than the Southern countries in terms of life expectancy.

    Countries with the longest life expectancy in the world include South-West Europe, Japan and South Korea.

    But there is exception with Sweden/Norway/Iceland, who are competitive with Southern Europe, while in Northern Europe.

    Although Denmark is in the more typical Northern European level.

    https://i.imgur.com/rr5Niej.jpg


    although Finns are very healthy and robust as well
     
    In the 20th century, Finland had the highest heart disease in the world. In Karelia, the highest rate of heart disease in Finland.

    But they responded like a developed country and reformed the lifestyle. You can see how they attained this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6062761/ They reduced the heart disease mortality by almost seven times in some regions between 1972 and 2011.

    "Coronary mortality, especially among middle age men, was extremely high across Finland (about 500/100,000) and in North Karelia, the most eastern province of the country, 700 / 100,000."

    "This is the highest ever measured coronary mortality in any population in the world. Local people in North Karelia had become accustomed to young men dying from heart attacks at the age of 40 and 50."

    https://i.imgur.com/ent3VH7.jpg

  174. @LatW
    @Dmitry


    Interesting, until recently Sweden’s population have been a lot more physically healthy than the population in Finland in terms of life expectancy.
     
    This is generally what I was alluding to - not the economic or even past imperial factors. Swedish habits and behaviors have traditionally been more aligned with the contemporary European ideal (even though this is probably a stereotype and maybe not entirely fair to the Finns who have historically had it more rough than Swedes). Although they both have an overall well balanced demeanor.

    The Swedes used to have better health metrics although Finns are very healthy and robust as well, the Swedes tend to be a little bit more refined (which traditionally Finns consider a bit effeminate).

    Either way, these differences seem to be fading out (while they continue to maintain their distinct ethnic cultures and even phenotypes). My point was more about how two nations that used to be in a colonial relationship have been able to move on, especially the respective "bigger brother" nation in that relationship.

    This is why pointing to them as an example for certain Eastern Slavs is not all that accurate or even applicable (even if it were desirable).

    Replies: @LatW, @Dmitry

    This is why pointing to them as an example for certain Eastern Slavs is not all that accurate or even applicable (even if it were desirable).

    In fact, there is one big reason why this wasn’t a good example (or even applicable): Finland was never one of the founding elements of Sweden (it was more of a buffer and one of the lands in the Swedish realm, similar to Ingria) or even a big part in defining the historic Swedish identity, whereas Ukraine has been one of the foundational elements of the Russian Empire, and the Ukrainian nation has probably been the biggest demographic donor to the Russian nation (from all the outside Euro nations, I’m not counting Tatar or Asian here).

    The dynamic is quite different there. It is strange but Russia sees Ukraine as another E.Slavic nation that could become a competitor (while simultaneously viewing it as inferior – “Kiev in 3 days” thinking, etc). Sweden doesn’t see Finland that way at all. Muscovy used to swallow all the competing Slavic nations in its vicinity (Novgorod, Pskov, etc).

    Kiev was very much the founding principle of the Russian identity and they are right now fighting over who is the true heir of the Kievan Rus’. In the case of Finland and Sweden (or other Euro nations with traditional minority enclaves) this is not so. This is crucial.

  175. @AaronB
    @John Johnson

    I'm not defending their religion or practices.

    There's lots of bad there, the point is, there might be something interesting that has saved them partially from some of the worse excesses of modern nihilism, at least for a time (and perhaps not that much longer), and that can be useful to learn from, at least for secular Americans - while still rejecting most of their religion and practices.

    I could never in a million years be a Mormon, but I try and look at the larger picture. I've learned things from people, who, on the whole, I've despised.

    Replies: @Mikel, @John Johnson

    I’m not defending their religion or practices.

    I know. I’m not a fan and need to vent at times. I live in rural America and we have them.

    There’s lots of bad there, the point is, there might be something interesting that has saved them partially from some of the worse excesses of modern nihilism, at least for a time (and perhaps not that much longer), and that can be useful to learn from, at least for secular Americans – while still rejecting most of their religion and practices.

    Children of secular Whites are much more likely to engage in drugs and self-destructive behavior. I don’t deny that at all.

    Teaching children that the universe is pointless will have negative consequences. But I also don’t think we should teach them that their neighbors are their future slaves.

  176. @Mikel
    @AaronB

    Sorry Aaron but what what you're doing here is wrong. First you're debating a person who has possibly forgotten what your religious background is, even though you told him the other day, and may start saying that you are a Mormon any moment now. You're not going to convince him of anything. Second, and this is even worse for me, you're giving him the opportunity of posting a lot of crap for the umpteenth time to explain how much he despises Mormons and how evil they are (because he allegedly had some bad business experience with some Mormon but has obviously never lived close to real Mormons).

    JJ is not even Dmitry, too proud to admit that his knowledge acquired online may not be as reliable as daily real life experience, but at least he does his research and comes back with some sort of novel ideas. No chance of that with JJ.

    Anyway, I think that your description of Mormons is quite accurate. I would just add a couple of caveats. First, it is true that making money in Utah is important and there are quite a lot of successful Mormon businessmen. But I'm not sure how different this is from any other state or traditional religion in the US. Where in America is it not important to make money and be materially successful? Besides, it is quite remarkable how among Mormons material concerns seldom if ever get in the way of religious practice. In fact, I even know a few Mormon families who most definitely put their religion way above money. They keep having children, as their religion commands, in spite of living with modest salaries and very tight budgets. One of them, with pioneer origins on both sides, could pay off their mortgage just by selling a vacant plot of land adjacent to their house but they prefer to keep the land and have an old-style 1-acre property. This is a family that doesn't have the money to go on vacation or drive modern cars. They buy second-hand clothes and clearance food. Having no mortgage or, most definitely, less children, would allow them to live much closer to the standards of their own relatives and neighbors but they just won't do it. I obviously don't know everybody in Utah but the sample of those I do tells me that such cases must be very common.

    The second caveat is that, behind all the wealth and business activity you see in Utah, a strong communitarian (even socialist) element remains in the society here. One little known aspect of Mormonism is that originally they built a semi-Communist society where the Church led all aspects of people's lives and practically owned the majority of the land. Fundamentalist Mormons on the border with Arizona still live like that, even renting their houses form the Church. Even though the majority of Mormons have always had British origins, with their high trust but individualist tendencies, I have the strong impression that the big contingent of Scandinavians that came here during the 19th century, especially from Denmark and Sweden, had a big influence in shaping social life in Utah by adding a much more communitarian approach than what is typical among pure Anglos. I don't have the time to expand on this now and I guess it's of little interest to most people but let that be known.

    PS- JJ sometimes manages to make some good points here and there and I guess we're all just a bunch a weirdos here anyway but I can't forget his faux passes with me. It's just not worth debating him.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @AaronB

    he despises Mormons and how evil they are (because he allegedly had some bad business experience with some Mormon but has obviously never lived close to real Mormons).

    I live in rural America. We have Mormons.

    My opinions of Mormons are not merely based on my experiences. As with Islam I simply think it is unhealthy for children.

    Do you think it is healthy to teach children that:
    1. Non Mormon neighbors will be your future slaves for eternity
    2. Magic underwear is needed to enter the temple
    3. Jesus visited Israeli tribes in America around 33 AD
    4. All other Christian churches are corrupt
    5. An angel told the prophet that polygamy is A-OK

    This religion is a mess. It is clearly the work of a single bullshitter who in fact had a reputation of lying.
    https://www.patheos.com/editorial/podcasts/book-of-mormon-central/2021/why-was-joseph-smith-accused-of-being-a-disorderly-person-in-1826-594

    I don’t believe in lying to children about history. There were no Israeli tribes in 33 AD America. That is ridiculous.

    I also have Mennonite neighbors and think they are great. I have zero problems with them and they don’t have the creepy vibe that you can sense in unstable Mormons. The Mormon religion is not good for the men. They are rarely allowed a break from it all and of course can’t sit down and have a beer or coffee. Well not in front of other Mormons anyways.

    • Troll: Mikel
  177. @Beckow
    @AP


    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom? Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO?
     
    All of them. We were told that without being in Nato we can't be in EU. Period.

    You have double standards when it comes to applying the term dictate. The inconsistency you display - some can, others can't - is a sign of poor mental health. Or desperate losing ideology: Russia having any say is a "dictat", but your side is all saints. Right? St. Augustine said that all saints have past...are you so unaware?


    And “autonomy”, according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine’s ability to, say, link itself with the EU....So, no longer an independent state.
     
    Complete nonsense. The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent? South Tyrol in Italy, endless other examples of regions that have trade and cultural links to others. You are making up a straw-man because you know there was no reason for Kiev to reject Minsk and provoke the war. It will end much worse for them now. You medicate yourself with scary lies.

    Poland having a huge border and many more people who could move there.
     
    And yet, almost nobody did until the luckless Ukies showed up. You are mixing what I said: Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do 'business' and people who permanently migrate to live in other countries. You either lack logic or you are intentionally deceptive.

    Finally, a guy who claims that Poland is a sunny paradise...have you been there? Or better, have you visited other places? But contra gustos no hay disputas...

    Replies: @LatW, @A123, @AP

    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom? Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO?

    All of them. We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU. Period.

    Slovakia’s accession treaty was signed in 2003 but it didn’t become a member of NATO until 2004.

    Even if what you claimed was true, where was the coercion? Were you forced to be in the EU? You wanted to be. And so, you wanted to be in NATO, as a way of getting into the EU. There was no “force” involved.

    You have double standards when it comes to applying the term dictate…Russia having any say is a “dictat“,

    Russia invaded and bombed Ukraine because Ukraine did not capitulate to Russia’s demands.

    Was the EU going to bomb Slovakia if Slovakia didn’t join NATO or the EU?

    Are you really too stupid to notice the difference?

    And “autonomy”, according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine’s ability to, say, link itself with the EU….So, no longer an independent state.

    Complete nonsense

    Russians themselves were quite about how autonomy (decentalization) was defined by them.

    Surkov coordinated the drafting of extra demands (published on 13 May as proposals from the DNR/LNR). These would give the occupied regions even greater powers: responsibility for legal regulation of the Ukraine/Russia border; the right to conclude agreements with foreign states; their own charters (which would, for example, prevent the president of Ukraine from dismissing local executive organs); their own budgets to ensure ‘financial autonomy’; and rights to introduce states of emergency and hold elections and referendums. Lastly, Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution

    Could Ukraine join the EU or EU AA if two of its autonomous provinces had a free trade agreement with Russia?

    The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent?

    Both of those countries are in EU so it’s a stupid analogy. If all of Ukraine were part of the Eurasian Customs Union the Donbas arrangement wouldn’t have mattered, either.

    You are mixing what I said: Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’ and people who permanently migrate to live in other countries.

    You have no proof of your claim, but a record of lying all the time.

    However we do know that Polish salaries are higher than Slovak salaries and the unemployment rate is lower in Poland than in Slovakia, we also know that very few Poles actually move to Slovakia, and that relative to population far more Slovaks move to Poland than vice versa. So your claim about Poles going to Slovakia to make money is unrealistic.

    Finally, a guy who claims that Poland is a sunny paradise

    I never said Poland was a “sunny paradise.” I said it was sunnier than most of northern Europe. Including most of Slovakia. Warsaw is sunnier than Berlin, Paris, London, Stockholm, Amsterdam, etc.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Surkov coordinated the drafting of extra demands (published on 13 May as proposals from the DNR/LNR). These would give the occupied regions even greater powers: responsibility for legal regulation of the Ukraine/Russia border; the right to conclude agreements with foreign states; their own charters (which would, for example, prevent the president of Ukraine from dismissing local executive organs); their own budgets to ensure ‘financial autonomy’; and rights to introduce states of emergency and hold elections and referendums. Lastly, Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution

    Could Ukraine join the EU or EU AA if two of its autonomous provinces had a free trade agreement with Russia?
     
    Interestingly enough, based on what I read, Hitler actually tried a similar strategy with the Sudetenland back in 1938 (a Sudeten German "state within a state" within Czechoslovakia) before deciding that supporting Sudeten secession and destroying Czechoslovakia that way was apparently more optimal.

    Also, by 13 May, you mean 13 May 2022, right?
    , @Beckow
    @AP


    treaty was signed in 2003 but it didn’t become a member of NATO until 2004...you wanted to be in NATO, as a way of getting into the EU. There was no “force” involved.
     
    You seem blissfully unaware of how it works :) You are told that you can have your business only if you join a 'security club', is there 'force'? It happened simultaneously, don't play with dates. No country in EE was considered for EU without first agreeing to join Nato. If the shoe was on the other foot, I doubt you would play stupid.

    By the way, Nato bombed Serbia in 1999 to make sure the message was clear.


    Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution...Could Ukraine join the EU or EU AA if two of its autonomous provinces had a free trade agreement with Russia?
     
    Yes, but they had to negotiate with both sides. Ukraine had free trade with Russia since 1991. Therefore joining EU required a renegotiation with Russia: Kiev and EU refused to even discuss it hoping to use Ukraine is a backdoor to the Russian market.

    It was a simple case of connected vessels: if A is open to B, and B is open to C, then A is open to C. Russia naturally refused to go along and started to put restrictions on Ukie trade. Do you think that Russians are too stupid to protect their markets? Didn't UK just do it with regard to Northern Ireland after leaving EU? For God's sake, stop pretending to be so dense, this is Unz, not NY Times.


    Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’...
     
    Haha...do you seriously deny that it is happening? Come over, we can have a drink and a good laugh as they mumble bardzo dobrze... Or we can try in the poorer parts of London. They are harmless, but definitely not "rich"...your numbers are meaningless, Poles use zlotys, nobody has any idea how much they are really worth or how to adjust the purchasing power. You are comparing apples and oranges. As always.
  178. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Sean

    If your digital revolution is the FAGM's + AI then everybody it passes by may be at an advantage real soon now. : )

    Replies: @Sean

    If your ambition is to live like a Russian and die like a man (ie in mid fifties of alcoholic poisoning).

    Start at 1:46

    • Replies: @A123
    @Sean

    Beer Is Food -- Bluegrass Brewing Company, Louisville, KY

     
    https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/08/4d/ec/3e/bluegrass-brewing-company.jpg
     

    Also, my bacon is trying to communicate with me.

     
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YdJsXaw6FQI/maxresdefault.jpg
     

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Sean, @Wielgus

  179. @Dmitry
    @John Johnson

    It wouldn't be fake death organized by Prigozhin, it would be a fake death as part of the agreement to exit the march on Moscow and restore authority, to exit politics etc.

    I.e. like in a Witness Protection Program.

    About the postsoviet politics of the last 30 years, it's a secretive mafia world, so outsiders only guess about the real situation from their PR or theater performances.

    Prigozhin's story is one of the most strange postsoviet circus, especially in the last week when he was posting suddenly a video about fighting in Africa as preparation for the next theatre.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    It wouldn’t be fake death organized by Prigozhin, it would be a fake death as part of the agreement to exit the march on Moscow and restore authority, to exit politics etc.

    I.e. like in a Witness Protection Program.

    How would you trust someone like Prigozhin to stay hidden? He loves attention.

    Simplest explanation fits best. Putin had him killed.

    Putin had an oligarch killed for simply stating he was against the war. One sentence.

    Prigozhin actually defied him and said the war was based on lies. He also called Putin a bunker grandpa and implied that he is clueless about war tactics.

    You think Putin would let that pass with a deal? His former chef defying and insulting him? What would Putin get out of it over killing him?

  180. You think Putin would let that pass with a deal?

    Also applies to Ukraine.

  181. @Sean
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    If your ambition is to live like a Russian and die like a man (ie in mid fifties of alcoholic poisoning).

    Start at 1:46

    https://youtu.be/T8rDqKAQ290?t=106

    Replies: @A123

    Beer Is Food — Bluegrass Brewing Company, Louisville, KY

     

     

    Also, my bacon is trying to communicate with me.

     

     

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Sean
    @A123


    EXCLUSIVE! Captured Ukrainian Soldiers Speak Out, Forced to Take Drugs To Fight | Redacted News
     
    Ukraine like WW1 there is even a Spanish Flu redux

    Case report: Ukrainian soldier riddled with extensively drug-resistant bacteria
    News brief July 6, 2023
     
    Re Beer, and bacon communicating . Very moderate amounts of beer may be beneficial and bacon is OK for it but if you are over 58 and need the utmost amount of the premier signaling molecule for brain and:- https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNzAyMTA4ODEyM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDM4MDE1OA@@._V1_.jpg

    [Then] canned ham is the thing because it contains a lot of sodium nitrate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZ_vWxI3bQ

    A bit of sun exposure helps too. If vegetarian of any age, avoid antibacterial/ fluoride mouthwash and toothpaste so you can profitably chew your spinach (of all things).
    , @Wielgus
    @A123

    Repent! Repent! But incidentally, bacon is kosher...

  182. As many cannot spend $200+ on a sword, here is a sub $30 knife review:

    I bought one.

    The proper D2 steel, micarta scales, and smooth action are wins. It is a manly fidget spinner… that I have to remember not use on camera during Zoom calls. Some of the co-workers are not Sikhs or Southerners.

    The pocket clip is a serious design weakness. There is no comfortable grip for hours of use. Solid for EDC & light jobs. Not a work knife.

    PEACE 😇

  183. @LatW
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    One of the sad/hilarious episodes in Jacques Vallee’s new journal is when the French voters rejected the EU constitution referendum.
     
    That project was probably too ambitious. Most European populations aren't really ready for that (if they will ever be). It turned into an experiment (but they must have spent a lot of money on the public debates). That was still during the period of a sort of a federalist idealism - before the schisms and some of the tougher issues became visible. Not sure they would realistically draft something like this today. Although who knows.

    But, yes, it is funny how it essentially came from a Frenchman and then was discarded by the French themselves. At least it was an exercise in democracy. :)

    Replies: @Mikel

    At least it was an exercise in democracy. 🙂

    Yes, sure. Feeling this time unable to blatantly ignore the popular votes in two countries, they just renamed the Constitution to Treaty of Lisbon and went ahead with it anyway 🙂

    Speaking of which, I don’t know why you doubt that EE nations were forced to join NATO if they wanted to join the EU. That policy was already in place 20 years earlier when Spain was also strongarmed to join NATO, contrary to what the new Spanish Government had promised to the electorate just a year prior. Another one of those exercises in democracy by shadowy forces, some of them surely across the Atlantic, that nobody has ever met, let alone voted for. But at least there was a Cold War to win then. What Western countries gained by expanding NATO towards Russia in 1999 and 2004 is totally unclear to this day. Nobody ever bothered to explain it to us plebes.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikel


    Yes, sure. Feeling this time unable to blatantly ignore the popular votes in two countries
     
    The French vote was actually somewhat close - it wasn't close close but it wasn't an entirely blatant rejection either (55% to 45%). And the public debate process was long and took place at various levels so overall that part can be considered democratic (even if one considers information sponsored by the EU institutions as "brainwashing").

    they just renamed the Constitution to Treaty of Lisbon and went ahead with it anyway

     

    The Lisbon Treaty actually introduced some democratic items such as the co-decision procedure and gave more say to the European Parliament. And as we can see, there is ongoing debate regarding the qualified majority voting principle.

    I don’t know why you doubt that EE nations were forced to join NATO if they wanted to join the EU
     
    I wasn't "doubting" or arguing anything - I merely asked a time and location specific question (which wasn't answered).
    , @sudden death
    @Mikel


    What Western countries gained by expanding NATO towards Russia in 1999 and 2004 is totally unclear to this day. Nobody ever bothered to explain it to us plebes.
     
    The most obvious gain was no new nuclear proliferation - if there was no NATO invitations and expansion, at the very least Poland would have started its own nuclear program, maybe in covert cooperation with Ukraine even, cause RF started to be aggresive very early on towards and started tearing apart by military attacking newly independent some former occupied soviet states both covertly and openly in 1992, way before any NATO activities in former Yugoslavia or anywhere else.

    Replies: @AP, @Mikel, @LatW

  184. @LondonBob
    (((Grant Shapps))), who under a false identity wrote and sold a £400 booklet on the internet on how to run a Ponzi scheme, becomes Defence Secretary. Impotently spouts some nonsense about Ukraine in his first statement.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    I didn’t realize that Grant is a Jewish name:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Shapps

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Mr. XYZ

    He has also gone by the names Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox.

  185. @Mikel
    @LatW


    At least it was an exercise in democracy. 🙂
     
    Yes, sure. Feeling this time unable to blatantly ignore the popular votes in two countries, they just renamed the Constitution to Treaty of Lisbon and went ahead with it anyway :-)

    Speaking of which, I don't know why you doubt that EE nations were forced to join NATO if they wanted to join the EU. That policy was already in place 20 years earlier when Spain was also strongarmed to join NATO, contrary to what the new Spanish Government had promised to the electorate just a year prior. Another one of those exercises in democracy by shadowy forces, some of them surely across the Atlantic, that nobody has ever met, let alone voted for. But at least there was a Cold War to win then. What Western countries gained by expanding NATO towards Russia in 1999 and 2004 is totally unclear to this day. Nobody ever bothered to explain it to us plebes.

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death

    Yes, sure. Feeling this time unable to blatantly ignore the popular votes in two countries

    The French vote was actually somewhat close – it wasn’t close close but it wasn’t an entirely blatant rejection either (55% to 45%). And the public debate process was long and took place at various levels so overall that part can be considered democratic (even if one considers information sponsored by the EU institutions as “brainwashing”).

    they just renamed the Constitution to Treaty of Lisbon and went ahead with it anyway

    The Lisbon Treaty actually introduced some democratic items such as the co-decision procedure and gave more say to the European Parliament. And as we can see, there is ongoing debate regarding the qualified majority voting principle.

    I don’t know why you doubt that EE nations were forced to join NATO if they wanted to join the EU

    I wasn’t “doubting” or arguing anything – I merely asked a time and location specific question (which wasn’t answered).

  186. @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    I’ve seen Mormons get angry, and act with self-assertion, in a way I rarely see with other Whites – they seem to have retained some connection to the thymotic side of life. I’ve also seen frequent acts of explicit politeness and kindness that reflect a self-conscious striving after “virtue” that stands out in the cynical wasteland of modernity.

    Yes they can be friendly until they want something from you. If you are non-Mormon then you will be subject to a different set of rules.

    The one White American community that is imperfectly assimilated to modern life but still participates in it, that has retained some vital connection to the “irrational”, seems to have avoided at least some of the worst and most advanced excesses of the dysfunctions afflicting most everyone else.

    I think you are over-idealizing them. In no way would I describe them as being in more touch with spirituality than say average Catholics.

    Their morality that they claim to be spiritual is a front. There is nothing in the Bible that says to be honest and fair until you start doing business with non-Mormons. Christianity is not supposed to "turn off" when the business day starts.

    They only participate in non-Mormon life when required.

    I was warned about doing business with them but assumed it was just mainstream Christian bigotry. Wouldn't these pro-family Mormons extend their strong morals into business and daily life? I figured they have a bad rep from Christians that are offended by their additional beliefs.

    I was wrong. I fully admit that.

    They are not simply obsessed with greed or drive for money. They actually wouldn't be that bad if they were simply materialistic. The problem is that they view non-Mormons with complete disdain and not as fellow Americans that are deserving of some basic level of business ethics.

    They view the current world as a spiritual test and the successful enter heaven to manage their own world where at most we get to be their servants. So by rejecting the Mormon faith we prove that we have utterly failed the divine calling and thus we might as well be exploited on earth and in heaven. Secular Americans don't even get to be servants. They go to hell.

    Mormon door knockers might seem friendly but they haven't reached the period where they are under pressure to have a large family and modern house which in the current economy can be difficult. The men look to cut corners in business which leads to their reputation.

    Their religion is extremely controlling and most likely dysgenic. It started out as polygamous but without a plan for what to do with the excess men. The origin story reads like an SNL sketch where a man actually tells his wife that an angel told him to take multiple wives.

    As a religion it selects for submission and ex-communicates the rebellious and independently minded. Women are not allowed to select non-Mormons and are under pressure to choose their husband early. This leads to them selecting from a limited gene pool and often for non-physical characteristics. Meaning they are not selecting the strongest or healthiest men in a mixed community. In many ways it functions like a nerd mafia. I actually don't think half the men buy into the beliefs. They like that the women are locked down and they get a lot of business connections.

    Replies: @AaronB, @AP

    Interesting. I once lived in the southwest and visited Utah frequently. Mormons made a fairly strong but positive impression:

    1. Very nice and friendly.

    2. Surprisingly cosmopolitan, due to missionary work. For example, we chatted with a family in Russian in some small town, the son had done missionary work in one of the former Soviet republics, so the entire family learned the language. And somehow they managed to learn it well enough to be conversational.

    3. Physically attractive, in a specific way. Not like Eastern Europeans, or pretty French or Italian girls. Physically fit, conservatively dressed, often blond, skillful use of makeup, at times a sort of 1950s “beauty queen” aesthetic. A marked contrast to the overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America (I mean no offense). I personally prefer the appearance of European women, but the Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    4. Mormons appreciate and perpetuate solid, classical architecture styles for their temples, which as a result usually look very nice for newly-built buildings. This matches Mormons’ personal classic physical appearance.

    5. Their communities are well-run, well-organized and clean. In northern Nevada one can see a stark contrast between Mormon towns (neat little houses, neat fenced yards, clean and organized – a bit like New England though not as rich and more plain) and non-Mormon towns (more run down, organized haphazardly, brothels and bars). Mormon towns are an interesting contrast to the surrounding frontier.

    Of course, I have never had business dealings with Mormons so I can’t speak to their business practices and competition with “gentiles.” And their religion is bizarre, with very shady origins.

    The Mormon polygamists in northern Arizona were less attractive, less friendly and more suspicious. We tried talking to some of them and didn’t get far.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    I personally prefer the appearance of European women, but the Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.
     
    White Americans are primarily of European descent. ;)

    The Mormon polygamists in northern Arizona were less attractive, less friendly and more suspicious. We tried talking to some of them and didn’t get far.
     
    They separated from mainstream Mormonism in, what, 1890?

    BTW, here's an example of an attractive Mormon woman. Julianne Hough:

    https://www.lifeandstylemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Julianne-Hough-Bikini-Photos-%E2%80%98DWTS-Alums-Swimsuit-Moments-Rock-of-Ages-Seet-Julianne-Purple-Bikini.jpg?resize=1200%2C1200&quality=86&strip=all

    https://www.lifeandstylemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Julianne-Hough-Bikini-Photos-%E2%80%98DWTS-Alums-Swimsuit-Moments-Jlianne-Purple-Bikini.jpg?resize=1200%2C1200&quality=86&strip=all

    You forgot the biggest reason to have a positive view of the Mormons, and that is their eugenic fertility:

    https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2022/06/new-study-out-will-intelligent-latter-day-saints-and-smart-conservatives-inherit-the-earth/

    https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/dysgenics-mormons-2048x1331.png

    Had a Mormon girl in one of my high school classes 15 years ago who if I recall correctly had five older siblings. And we lived and live in a very affluent suburb.
    , @John Johnson
    @AP

    Interesting. I once lived in the southwest and visited Utah frequently. Mormons made a fairly strong but positive impression:
    ...
    Physically attractive, in a specific way. Not like Eastern Europeans, or pretty French or Italian girls. Physically fit, conservatively dressed, often blond, skillful use of makeup, at times a sort of 1950s “beauty queen” aesthetic. A marked contrast to the overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America (I mean no offense).

    The women are indeed better looking than the average overweight rural woman. Mormon women tend to be in shape as their religion encourages healthy eating and exercise.

    But for the men they are selecting for submission and not bravery.

    There is no Mormon light. Anyone who questions the faith or authority can be excommunicated.

    It isn't like Judaism where a liberal Jew can marry a practicing Jew.

    Utah has a large gene pool but in the average small town the Mormons are in much smaller social circles.

    I am certain it is dysgenic in that they are selecting from a small group of men while pushing out naturally bolder personalities. Mormon men seem timid compared to regular American men and this is more noticeable compared to when I was a kid. The women have to choose from a limited pool and cannot select a strong personality from outside the group. In effect it undermines natural selection as a strong willed man that seeks out a Mormon woman is artificially blocked by the group. On some level it really is a protection racket. The timid and submissive Mormon man is all but guaranteed a wife through collusion. Submission to authority is rewarded over boldness and individualism.

    It also most likely selects against intelligence and skepticism. Mormons are known for good grades in high school but how many Whites of high intellect are pushed out and basically abandoned? Someone naturally skeptical or is inclined do their own research is less likely to stick with the faith.

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @Dmitry
    @AP


    Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

     

    Mitt Romney looks more like an actor in an 1980s television drama than anyone I've seen in real life. If you saw him, you would guess he was an old Hollywood actor, who has their hair cut every morning.

    But I don't think he can be representative considering below data, as the majority of Mormon adults are overweight.

    overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America
     
    It can't be true on average as Mormons have higher levels of obesity than non-Mormons, especially for women. https://www.ldsliving.com/sponsored-the-mormon-obesity-epidemic-whats-going-on/s/85383

    Studies on obesity and religious practice (including a BYU study) have shown that Utah members of the LDS Church are 34% more likely to be overweight than members of other religions. (1)

    This LDS obesity epidemic is graphically evident when you visit various Utah LDS wards you might observe that 60%+ of adults over 35 years of age are overweight

    --
    Footnotes

    (1) “BYU Study Shows Mormons Weigh More” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11355738/ns/health-fitness/t/byu-study-finds-mormons-weigh-more

    “The Risk of Overweight and Obesity Among Latter-Day Saints” https://www.jstor.org/stable/41940819?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
     
    Also the incomes by religion of Mormons is the same as the mainline protestant.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/income-distribution/

    Mormons still have higher rates of life expectancy than average in America, I guess probably because of the strong community and removal of alcohol/drugs. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol10/3/10-3.pdf


    -

    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/

    Replies: @Dmitry, @AP

  187. @AP
    @John Johnson

    Interesting. I once lived in the southwest and visited Utah frequently. Mormons made a fairly strong but positive impression:

    1. Very nice and friendly.

    2. Surprisingly cosmopolitan, due to missionary work. For example, we chatted with a family in Russian in some small town, the son had done missionary work in one of the former Soviet republics, so the entire family learned the language. And somehow they managed to learn it well enough to be conversational.

    3. Physically attractive, in a specific way. Not like Eastern Europeans, or pretty French or Italian girls. Physically fit, conservatively dressed, often blond, skillful use of makeup, at times a sort of 1950s "beauty queen" aesthetic. A marked contrast to the overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America (I mean no offense). I personally prefer the appearance of European women, but the Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    4. Mormons appreciate and perpetuate solid, classical architecture styles for their temples, which as a result usually look very nice for newly-built buildings. This matches Mormons' personal classic physical appearance.

    5. Their communities are well-run, well-organized and clean. In northern Nevada one can see a stark contrast between Mormon towns (neat little houses, neat fenced yards, clean and organized - a bit like New England though not as rich and more plain) and non-Mormon towns (more run down, organized haphazardly, brothels and bars). Mormon towns are an interesting contrast to the surrounding frontier.

    Of course, I have never had business dealings with Mormons so I can't speak to their business practices and competition with "gentiles." And their religion is bizarre, with very shady origins.

    The Mormon polygamists in northern Arizona were less attractive, less friendly and more suspicious. We tried talking to some of them and didn't get far.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson, @Dmitry

    I personally prefer the appearance of European women, but the Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    White Americans are primarily of European descent. 😉

    The Mormon polygamists in northern Arizona were less attractive, less friendly and more suspicious. We tried talking to some of them and didn’t get far.

    They separated from mainstream Mormonism in, what, 1890?

    BTW, here’s an example of an attractive Mormon woman. Julianne Hough:

    https://www.lifeandstylemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Julianne-Hough-Bikini-Photos-%E2%80%98DWTS-Alums-Swimsuit-Moments-Rock-of-Ages-Seet-Julianne-Purple-Bikini.jpg?resize=1200%2C1200&quality=86&strip=all

    https://www.lifeandstylemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Julianne-Hough-Bikini-Photos-%E2%80%98DWTS-Alums-Swimsuit-Moments-Jlianne-Purple-Bikini.jpg?resize=1200%2C1200&quality=86&strip=all

    You forgot the biggest reason to have a positive view of the Mormons, and that is their eugenic fertility:

    https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2022/06/new-study-out-will-intelligent-latter-day-saints-and-smart-conservatives-inherit-the-earth/

    Had a Mormon girl in one of my high school classes 15 years ago who if I recall correctly had five older siblings. And we lived and live in a very affluent suburb.

  188. @AP
    @Beckow


    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom? Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO?

    All of them. We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU. Period.
     
    Slovakia's accession treaty was signed in 2003 but it didn't become a member of NATO until 2004.

    Even if what you claimed was true, where was the coercion? Were you forced to be in the EU? You wanted to be. And so, you wanted to be in NATO, as a way of getting into the EU. There was no "force" involved.

    You have double standards when it comes to applying the term dictate...Russia having any say is a “dictat“,
     
    Russia invaded and bombed Ukraine because Ukraine did not capitulate to Russia's demands.

    Was the EU going to bomb Slovakia if Slovakia didn't join NATO or the EU?

    Are you really too stupid to notice the difference?

    And “autonomy”, according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine’s ability to, say, link itself with the EU….So, no longer an independent state.

    Complete nonsense
     
    Russians themselves were quite about how autonomy (decentalization) was defined by them.

    Surkov coordinated the drafting of extra demands (published on 13 May as proposals from the DNR/LNR). These would give the occupied regions even greater powers: responsibility for legal regulation of the Ukraine/Russia border; the right to conclude agreements with foreign states; their own charters (which would, for example, prevent the president of Ukraine from dismissing local executive organs); their own budgets to ensure ‘financial autonomy’; and rights to introduce states of emergency and hold elections and referendums. Lastly, Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution

    Could Ukraine join the EU or EU AA if two of its autonomous provinces had a free trade agreement with Russia?

    The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent?
     
    Both of those countries are in EU so it's a stupid analogy. If all of Ukraine were part of the Eurasian Customs Union the Donbas arrangement wouldn't have mattered, either.

    You are mixing what I said: Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’ and people who permanently migrate to live in other countries.
     
    You have no proof of your claim, but a record of lying all the time.

    However we do know that Polish salaries are higher than Slovak salaries and the unemployment rate is lower in Poland than in Slovakia, we also know that very few Poles actually move to Slovakia, and that relative to population far more Slovaks move to Poland than vice versa. So your claim about Poles going to Slovakia to make money is unrealistic.

    Finally, a guy who claims that Poland is a sunny paradise
     
    I never said Poland was a "sunny paradise." I said it was sunnier than most of northern Europe. Including most of Slovakia. Warsaw is sunnier than Berlin, Paris, London, Stockholm, Amsterdam, etc.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Beckow

    Surkov coordinated the drafting of extra demands (published on 13 May as proposals from the DNR/LNR). These would give the occupied regions even greater powers: responsibility for legal regulation of the Ukraine/Russia border; the right to conclude agreements with foreign states; their own charters (which would, for example, prevent the president of Ukraine from dismissing local executive organs); their own budgets to ensure ‘financial autonomy’; and rights to introduce states of emergency and hold elections and referendums. Lastly, Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution

    Could Ukraine join the EU or EU AA if two of its autonomous provinces had a free trade agreement with Russia?

    Interestingly enough, based on what I read, Hitler actually tried a similar strategy with the Sudetenland back in 1938 (a Sudeten German “state within a state” within Czechoslovakia) before deciding that supporting Sudeten secession and destroying Czechoslovakia that way was apparently more optimal.

    Also, by 13 May, you mean 13 May 2022, right?

  189. @Mikel
    @LatW


    At least it was an exercise in democracy. 🙂
     
    Yes, sure. Feeling this time unable to blatantly ignore the popular votes in two countries, they just renamed the Constitution to Treaty of Lisbon and went ahead with it anyway :-)

    Speaking of which, I don't know why you doubt that EE nations were forced to join NATO if they wanted to join the EU. That policy was already in place 20 years earlier when Spain was also strongarmed to join NATO, contrary to what the new Spanish Government had promised to the electorate just a year prior. Another one of those exercises in democracy by shadowy forces, some of them surely across the Atlantic, that nobody has ever met, let alone voted for. But at least there was a Cold War to win then. What Western countries gained by expanding NATO towards Russia in 1999 and 2004 is totally unclear to this day. Nobody ever bothered to explain it to us plebes.

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death

    What Western countries gained by expanding NATO towards Russia in 1999 and 2004 is totally unclear to this day. Nobody ever bothered to explain it to us plebes.

    The most obvious gain was no new nuclear proliferation – if there was no NATO invitations and expansion, at the very least Poland would have started its own nuclear program, maybe in covert cooperation with Ukraine even, cause RF started to be aggresive very early on towards and started tearing apart by military attacking newly independent some former occupied soviet states both covertly and openly in 1992, way before any NATO activities in former Yugoslavia or anywhere else.

    • Replies: @AP
    @sudden death

    Yes, NATO not only protects its members from attack by non-NATO members but probably limits aggressive or militant policies by NATO members.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    , @Mikel
    @sudden death


    The most obvious gain was no new nuclear proliferation
     
    LOL. Strange how nobody ever mentioned such a solid argument. I guess the West had the power to make Poland dismantle its industry and join all organizations they were told but could not have possibly prevented Warsaw from building a nuclear arsenal in order to prevent Yeltsin's plans to re-occupy Poland.

    But in fact I was a bit unfair when I said that nobody has explained what we gain by expanding NATO to the East. In the last couple of years we've all heard a lot of 'let's have Ukraine fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here'. If I was one of those convinced that Russia has all along been planning to to land its paratroopers in Utah at some point, I guess I wouldn't oppose that reasoning.


    started tearing apart by military attacking newly independent some former occupied soviet states both covertly and openly in 1992
     
    You mean Transninstria and Abkhazia? And what did the majority of people living in those territories think about suddenly belonging to a new country ruled by a different ethnic group?

    I honestly don't know what Russia did in those places (other than leaving ethnic Russian in an undefined legal limbo like they did in Donbas) but I do know that divorces, both political and matrimonial, tend to get messy and the dissolution of the USSR while keeping its old administrative borders intact was by no means the messiest one we've witnessed in recent times. Russians feeling unable in those times to ignore the interests of some of their co-ethnics in a few specific small places does not necessarily translate to imperialist designs. Unless everybody around them treat them as such and eventually make the self-fulfilling prophecy come true, of course.

    In the 90s there surely must have been was a way to avoid the calamitous return to a dangerous, pointless Cold War and Russia behaving like a naked imperialist aggressor again but it doesn't look like siding with Russian neighbors in all disputes, making them join NATO and ignoring any possible interests of ethnic Russians in the newly formed countries was the best way to achieve that goal at all.

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death

    , @LatW
    @sudden death

    Another very significant gain for the West has been the money they've made - they took over large chunks of relatively promising markets and the ROI has been very decent.

    The banking sector in particular has done very well - and continues to have immense profits, especially with the recent high rates. Those are mostly Western banks that are connected to the US banking system.

    If it wasn't for NATO, these banks would have to share the space with all sorts of Kholomoyskies of this world, who can be pretty ruthless people, or they would have to compete with some kind of a local sector which would have possibly been built.

    Also, very cheap but highly educated workforce, especially in the mid and late 2000s. Control over important trading routes in the Baltic and Black sea.

  190. @Mr. XYZ
    @LondonBob

    I didn't realize that Grant is a Jewish name:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Shapps

    Replies: @LondonBob

    He has also gone by the names Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox.

  191. @sudden death
    @Mikel


    What Western countries gained by expanding NATO towards Russia in 1999 and 2004 is totally unclear to this day. Nobody ever bothered to explain it to us plebes.
     
    The most obvious gain was no new nuclear proliferation - if there was no NATO invitations and expansion, at the very least Poland would have started its own nuclear program, maybe in covert cooperation with Ukraine even, cause RF started to be aggresive very early on towards and started tearing apart by military attacking newly independent some former occupied soviet states both covertly and openly in 1992, way before any NATO activities in former Yugoslavia or anywhere else.

    Replies: @AP, @Mikel, @LatW

    Yes, NATO not only protects its members from attack by non-NATO members but probably limits aggressive or militant policies by NATO members.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    Seems like a good argument in favor of having Russia join NATO, no? At least if Russia would have actually stopped engaging in some of its most outrageous things, such as killing dissidents, both at home and abroad. Would also help if Russia was more democratic and more committed to things such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, et cetera.

    Do you think that the West should have offered 1990s Russia or even very early Putin's Russia a roadmap to NATO membership? James Baker was open to the idea back in 2002:

    https://muse.jhu.edu/article/36660/pdf

    Though it seems that Russia was hedging its bets a bit even back in the 1990s:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Russia_relations


    With the collapse of the Soviet Union, that de facto US-China alliance ended, and a China–Russia rapprochement began. In 1992, the two countries declared that they were pursuing a "constructive partnership"; in 1996, they progressed toward a "strategic partnership"; and in 2001, they signed a treaty of "friendship and cooperation".[2]
     
    And of course there was the joint Russo-Chinese founding of the SCO in 2001.

    Though a couple of Western countries do occasionally flirt with countries outside of the Western orbit, such as Hungary and Turkey.
  192. @AP
    @John Johnson

    Interesting. I once lived in the southwest and visited Utah frequently. Mormons made a fairly strong but positive impression:

    1. Very nice and friendly.

    2. Surprisingly cosmopolitan, due to missionary work. For example, we chatted with a family in Russian in some small town, the son had done missionary work in one of the former Soviet republics, so the entire family learned the language. And somehow they managed to learn it well enough to be conversational.

    3. Physically attractive, in a specific way. Not like Eastern Europeans, or pretty French or Italian girls. Physically fit, conservatively dressed, often blond, skillful use of makeup, at times a sort of 1950s "beauty queen" aesthetic. A marked contrast to the overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America (I mean no offense). I personally prefer the appearance of European women, but the Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    4. Mormons appreciate and perpetuate solid, classical architecture styles for their temples, which as a result usually look very nice for newly-built buildings. This matches Mormons' personal classic physical appearance.

    5. Their communities are well-run, well-organized and clean. In northern Nevada one can see a stark contrast between Mormon towns (neat little houses, neat fenced yards, clean and organized - a bit like New England though not as rich and more plain) and non-Mormon towns (more run down, organized haphazardly, brothels and bars). Mormon towns are an interesting contrast to the surrounding frontier.

    Of course, I have never had business dealings with Mormons so I can't speak to their business practices and competition with "gentiles." And their religion is bizarre, with very shady origins.

    The Mormon polygamists in northern Arizona were less attractive, less friendly and more suspicious. We tried talking to some of them and didn't get far.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson, @Dmitry

    Interesting. I once lived in the southwest and visited Utah frequently. Mormons made a fairly strong but positive impression:

    Physically attractive, in a specific way. Not like Eastern Europeans, or pretty French or Italian girls. Physically fit, conservatively dressed, often blond, skillful use of makeup, at times a sort of 1950s “beauty queen” aesthetic. A marked contrast to the overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America (I mean no offense).

    The women are indeed better looking than the average overweight rural woman. Mormon women tend to be in shape as their religion encourages healthy eating and exercise.

    But for the men they are selecting for submission and not bravery.

    There is no Mormon light. Anyone who questions the faith or authority can be excommunicated.

    It isn’t like Judaism where a liberal Jew can marry a practicing Jew.

    Utah has a large gene pool but in the average small town the Mormons are in much smaller social circles.

    I am certain it is dysgenic in that they are selecting from a small group of men while pushing out naturally bolder personalities. Mormon men seem timid compared to regular American men and this is more noticeable compared to when I was a kid. The women have to choose from a limited pool and cannot select a strong personality from outside the group. In effect it undermines natural selection as a strong willed man that seeks out a Mormon woman is artificially blocked by the group. On some level it really is a protection racket. The timid and submissive Mormon man is all but guaranteed a wife through collusion. Submission to authority is rewarded over boldness and individualism.

    It also most likely selects against intelligence and skepticism. Mormons are known for good grades in high school but how many Whites of high intellect are pushed out and basically abandoned? Someone naturally skeptical or is inclined do their own research is less likely to stick with the faith.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @John Johnson


    The women have to choose from a limited pool and cannot select a strong personality from outside the group.
     
    Have you considered the possibility of not having any clue of what you're speaking about and thus being at a very high risk of talking crap?

    In my limited circle of acquaintances I know from the top of my head Mormon women married to a Basque-American Catholic man, a Russian-American Jew and a recent Venezuelan refugee of undefined religious beliefs. I can't say what Utah was like in the early 20th century (though the Basque-American must have married his wife in the middle of the 20th century so cross-marriages must have been happening for a very long time) but I know what it's like right now by virtue of living here, surrounded by Mormons, and I can confidently say that you keep spouting nonsense non-stop.

    Which doesn't mean that I don't think that the Mormon religion is not fake and gay, in case you don't understand the nuance of my position. That is a separate thing.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  193. • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    Sounds legit. LOL

    Replies: @John Johnson

  194. @AP
    @Beckow


    Which of these were forced upon and dictated to whom? Was Slovakia forced to be in NATO?

    All of them. We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU. Period.
     
    Slovakia's accession treaty was signed in 2003 but it didn't become a member of NATO until 2004.

    Even if what you claimed was true, where was the coercion? Were you forced to be in the EU? You wanted to be. And so, you wanted to be in NATO, as a way of getting into the EU. There was no "force" involved.

    You have double standards when it comes to applying the term dictate...Russia having any say is a “dictat“,
     
    Russia invaded and bombed Ukraine because Ukraine did not capitulate to Russia's demands.

    Was the EU going to bomb Slovakia if Slovakia didn't join NATO or the EU?

    Are you really too stupid to notice the difference?

    And “autonomy”, according to the Russian side, meant being able to make treaties with other states (i.e., free trade with Russia) that would therefore cancel Ukraine’s ability to, say, link itself with the EU….So, no longer an independent state.

    Complete nonsense
     
    Russians themselves were quite about how autonomy (decentalization) was defined by them.

    Surkov coordinated the drafting of extra demands (published on 13 May as proposals from the DNR/LNR). These would give the occupied regions even greater powers: responsibility for legal regulation of the Ukraine/Russia border; the right to conclude agreements with foreign states; their own charters (which would, for example, prevent the president of Ukraine from dismissing local executive organs); their own budgets to ensure ‘financial autonomy’; and rights to introduce states of emergency and hold elections and referendums. Lastly, Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution

    Could Ukraine join the EU or EU AA if two of its autonomous provinces had a free trade agreement with Russia?

    The Aland Islands have autonomy in Finland and strong links to Sweden, is Finland not independent?
     
    Both of those countries are in EU so it's a stupid analogy. If all of Ukraine were part of the Eurasian Customs Union the Donbas arrangement wouldn't have mattered, either.

    You are mixing what I said: Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’ and people who permanently migrate to live in other countries.
     
    You have no proof of your claim, but a record of lying all the time.

    However we do know that Polish salaries are higher than Slovak salaries and the unemployment rate is lower in Poland than in Slovakia, we also know that very few Poles actually move to Slovakia, and that relative to population far more Slovaks move to Poland than vice versa. So your claim about Poles going to Slovakia to make money is unrealistic.

    Finally, a guy who claims that Poland is a sunny paradise
     
    I never said Poland was a "sunny paradise." I said it was sunnier than most of northern Europe. Including most of Slovakia. Warsaw is sunnier than Berlin, Paris, London, Stockholm, Amsterdam, etc.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Beckow

    treaty was signed in 2003 but it didn’t become a member of NATO until 2004…you wanted to be in NATO, as a way of getting into the EU. There was no “force” involved.

    You seem blissfully unaware of how it works 🙂 You are told that you can have your business only if you join a ‘security club’, is there ‘force’? It happened simultaneously, don’t play with dates. No country in EE was considered for EU without first agreeing to join Nato. If the shoe was on the other foot, I doubt you would play stupid.

    By the way, Nato bombed Serbia in 1999 to make sure the message was clear.

    Ukraine would write a neutrality clause into its constitution…Could Ukraine join the EU or EU AA if two of its autonomous provinces had a free trade agreement with Russia?

    Yes, but they had to negotiate with both sides. Ukraine had free trade with Russia since 1991. Therefore joining EU required a renegotiation with Russia: Kiev and EU refused to even discuss it hoping to use Ukraine is a backdoor to the Russian market.

    It was a simple case of connected vessels: if A is open to B, and B is open to C, then A is open to C. Russia naturally refused to go along and started to put restrictions on Ukie trade. Do you think that Russians are too stupid to protect their markets? Didn’t UK just do it with regard to Northern Ireland after leaving EU? For God’s sake, stop pretending to be so dense, this is Unz, not NY Times.

    Polish peddlers doing odd jobs, selling crap to do ‘business’…

    Haha…do you seriously deny that it is happening? Come over, we can have a drink and a good laugh as they mumble bardzo dobrze… Or we can try in the poorer parts of London. They are harmless, but definitely not “rich”…your numbers are meaningless, Poles use zlotys, nobody has any idea how much they are really worth or how to adjust the purchasing power. You are comparing apples and oranges. As always.

  195. @LatW
    @Beckow


    Actually they do, in the usual lame Scandie way…:)
     
    They do not. Whatever insinuations they very seldomly use (often only in private) - are not meant in a hostile and deeply condescending way the way that the Russian talk down on the Ukrainian. Right now it's too late anyway and it has gone to complete hell, it's over it's going to be like Armenians and Azeris or Serbs and Croats (or even worse) but I was referring to the period before the full scale war or even 2014, where it was already bad. If the intention had been to be like Scandies, that's when the issues should've been worked out. If not, separate and move on. No need to co-habit with those you despise. But Russia cannot do what Sweden did.

    The way the Scandies talk to each other is much more subdued, careful, reserved, sure the Swedes do look down on the Finns inside, but they do not show it (or maybe they have moved on at this point and no longer look down on them) - the Russians go out of their way to show their contempt for all the others. The difference is also that in some ways the Swedes are perceived as superior to Finns (at least according to standard European cultural norms or the ideal European behavior, although this is, of course, debatable - I personally don't necessarily agree with that), while Russians are not seen as superior to Ukrainians (based on EE cultural norms), no matter how much they tell themselves they are.

    Ukraine is in Eastern Europe
     
    Right, so they are allying with other Eastern Europeans. That's not even what I meant - I wasn't talking about the geopolitical or even geographic or cultural alignment but about the relationship dynamics. The relationship dynamics have to be in a good place for things to work. In those other European examples you provided, the very core relationship is resolved and at peace.

    You can’t stage a “revolution” to force others to obey you new invented identity.
     
    It's not invented but real - and this was the original mistake of the Russians to oversee that (they knew all along, just didn't want to admit it and accept it) as well as Russophile Westerners who made the same mistake (claiming Ukraine was "fake and gay").

    The reason for the war is the Ukie fanatical unwillingness to treat their fellow Russian citizens as equal, to accept that they have cultural and economic rights.
     
    Again, you choose to ignore the elephant in the room - the Russian pseudo-imperialistic tendencies. But that's your choice.

    Majority can’t disposes millions of people who want to stay who they are and import military conflict into Ukraine with Nato.
     
    Were the Germans not once expelled from their old colonial lands in Eastern Europe? Is it how things should be? No. But it is not impossible. There have been examples in the past.

    That would eventually lead to a much bigger war.
     
    Actually, it can be contained (even if that is bad, as it is, it's an enormous tragedy). Most of the world is not interested in a bigger war over these issues. The Americans are ok with prolonging the war (unfortunately), but they are not interested in expanding it into NATO territory - that is vital. China (and the so called global south) are not interested in any war at all.

    Only Russia and Ukraine would be interested in expanding the war - Russia so that they wouldn't have to lose to Ukraine, but would lose to NATO (and make NATO pay at least some for helping Ukraine), and Ukraine - to be able to attract Russia's attention to a second front and expend their resources elsewhere. Although for Ukraine that's not their main wish - their main wish is just to get all of the weapons that were promised so they can recover more territory and push the war further away from their territory.


    out of atavistic hatred of Russia
     
    It is not "atavistic" but based on every day facts from the most recent 30 years and the things that the Russian side says TODAY. If it was about some past issues, we wouldn't have a war as neither side would care enough to have a physical war. Everyone was ready to move on after 1991, except the Russian side.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Beckow

    Whatever insinuations they very seldomly use (often only in private) – are not meant in a hostile…

    You see inside Scandie souls? You are the only one, tell us how you do it… The mutual Scandie dislikes exist, they hide it better because they are dull, scared and conformist people. They have again lamely switched to hating “Russia!”, seeing Russian subs underwater – a good reflection of their fearful and indirect personalities.

    Ukies were jumping up and down in 2014 about “killing Moskali“, it was openly embraced by Maidanistas – can you find a better example of ethnic hostility? In Russia, UK…? Don’t preach.

    Were the Germans not once expelled from their old colonial lands in Eastern Europe? Is it how things should be? No. But it is not impossible. There have been examples in the past.

    The idea that you will expel millions of Russians is quite ugly and dangerous. Germany killed tens of millions in and lost the war. It is not a good analogy. That it comes to you so easily is worrisome. It is a mutual road to hell. Don’t pine for it.

    …it can be contained (even if that is bad, as it is, it’s an enormous tragedy). Most of the world is not interested in a bigger war over these issues.

    I agree. But EE has been falling. Some experience it as exhilaration, they dream of ‘others’ who are hurt more, but the falling has not slowed and it affects everyone. To contain it you need to stop the idiotic dreams about weakening Russia and expelling Russians.

    It is very simple: Ukraine needs to be neutral and has to treat its millions of Russian citizens as equal – or they allow them to secede and join Russia. Or we can fight this to the last standing Ukie or possibly go nuclear. But nobody is “marching on Moscow”, or taking Crimea and expelling 2 million people there.

    It will take some time before it sinks in, but the way it will end is a neutral rump-Ukraine with more rational leaders. Or we pretty much all perish, at least in Central-Eastern Europe.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Beckow


    You see inside Scandie souls?
     
    Actually, I sometimes do, they can't always hide their emotions. :)

    Did you know that Finns, for example, can communicate using silence? I think the Japanese could be similar that way as well.

    The mutual Scandie dislikes exist
     
    Among Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders, the Faroese, and Swedes there are no dislikes whatsoever. None. I've heard in private convos some Swedes look down on Finns but this is extremely rare. I've heard a couple of Finns disliking bilingualism in private convos. But that's about it - mostly they are in agreement. Ideally, the Slavic relationships should've been the same way... I never ever hear the Danes lording it over anyone else, given their royal past and how they ruled over everyone (even during the viking ages the Danish vikings were in fact the most important ones, yet we don't hear them going out of their way to brag about it).

    they hide it better because they are dull, scared and conformist people.
     
    It is true that they do not display their thoughts as openly, so for Eastern Slavs this is an issue, because they are more direct (which I love about them!) and Scandinavians are not dull but can be quite creative at times. For example, Swedish music can be very melodic.

    Anyway, my main point which you seem to evade is that Scandinavians, even if they have their little jokes about each other, those are predominantly benign. Whereas Ukrainians and Russians are in a very different place due to having different relationship dynamics. Even before the war the Russians used to call the Ukrainians the "h" word quite commonly, it is actually extremely condescending but they throw it around both casually, and with contempt. The "h" word needs to be banned.

    If somebody in my country called, let's say, a Lithuanian by a similar name, I would smack them across the head real hard! (Figurative speech) It's just that it would never even occur to anybody to do that.

    So in this kind of environment they will need to find an arrangement how not to be in each other's faces anymore after this is over. Even with Russia being physically close by you don't need to be in close contact all the time.

    Ukies were jumping up and down in 2014 about “killing Moskali“
     
    I agree that this was in bad taste and a bit too much. Under normal circumstances, I personally wouldn't allow it in public (in the Baltic states one could be fined for that). But I'm not going to judge the Ukrainians because their circumstances are much much more complicated (then again, of course, if your circumstances are more complicated, it also merits that you are much more careful, however, we know that's not how people in large nations are).

    can you find a better example of ethnic hostility? In Russia
     
    In Russia you could find it easily. This Alex Parker guy is insane in his animalistic hatred. But I agree it is now, during war, it is absolutely horrible and sad.

    The idea that you will expel millions of Russians is quite ugly and dangerous
     
    It is. That's why starting such a huge war is also very ugly and dangerous. Extremely dangerous to both sides. They could both end up significantly reduced.

    Germany killed tens of millions in and lost the war. It is not a good analogy.
     
    It is a good analogy because the Russians at this point have killed, maimed and displaced many Ukrainians. The deed is very similar.


    That it comes to you so easily is worrisome.
     
    I hadn't thought about it before (or even thought it possible) but the recent events on the front lines show that anything is possible now. Besides, no one really knows what is going on demographically in the Donbas and in the occupied areas. Many refugees or possibly even most refugees are from the East. Many have fled to Russia, many children have been taken out by Russia. Pro-Ukrainian Donbassers have fled to the West and Center of Ukraine. So the picture has already changed dramatically. This is a huge historic event where the Donbass is basically being destroyed or significantly reduced. Many mines no longer function.

    To contain it you need to stop the idiotic dreams about weakening Russia and expelling Russians.
     
    To contain it one needs to seek a resolution, permanent peace (security) and then recovery for Ukraine.


    But nobody is “marching on Moscow"
     
    I wouldn't be so sure anymore. There is a possibility that someone such as the Legion of Free Russia, the Russian Volunteer Corps or some other nationalists of varied stripes could eventually march on Moscow. I'm not saying this will happen, but there is a small possibility of it. Besides one doesn't need to "march" these days, that drone attack on Pskov the other day was pretty significant.

    Replies: @Beckow

    , @LatW
    @Beckow

    By the way, Beckow, I often think back to the NATO/EU accession process and I often contemplate this very issue of why the two could not have been separate (like in Norway's case where they had the privilege to be in NATO but not in the EU even with the separate binding treaties, of course, Norway is an Atlantic country so it is in a special place, but still..). It's understandable why it was done so, to secure power, to make sure that investments are protected, to make sure there is political control over the new countries. But also to help the new countries integrate better. I wish these things could've been thought out more carefully, but then again, this was a relatively short historic period when it took place, and one didn't want the "train to leave the station", so to speak. It was a historic opportunity.

    Replies: @A123, @Beckow, @Mr. XYZ

    , @Thulean Friend
    @Beckow


    The mutual Scandi dislikes exist
     
    It's actually amazing how much Beckow lies about the most trivial things. The guy knows nothing about Scandinavia and just word-vomits pure falsehoods.

    AP's comments about him being a pathological liar always struck me as hyperbole but I am beginning to see his point. Another funny aspect is how his lying is so dumb and low-stakes, e.g. AP calling him out on his lies pretending Poles were emigrating more to Slovakia than vice versa. He's not even smart about being a liar and gets mad when he gets caught (again and again).

    I hate to make generalised comments about entire nations, but if Beckow is representative of the average Slovak then we can rest assured that they will remain a poor shithole forever.

    Still, he has his utility. Mainly as an unwitting performance artist for our collective amusement.

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @Emil Nikola Richard, @sudden death, @Wokechoke, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere

  196. @sudden death
    @Mikel


    What Western countries gained by expanding NATO towards Russia in 1999 and 2004 is totally unclear to this day. Nobody ever bothered to explain it to us plebes.
     
    The most obvious gain was no new nuclear proliferation - if there was no NATO invitations and expansion, at the very least Poland would have started its own nuclear program, maybe in covert cooperation with Ukraine even, cause RF started to be aggresive very early on towards and started tearing apart by military attacking newly independent some former occupied soviet states both covertly and openly in 1992, way before any NATO activities in former Yugoslavia or anywhere else.

    Replies: @AP, @Mikel, @LatW

    The most obvious gain was no new nuclear proliferation

    LOL. Strange how nobody ever mentioned such a solid argument. I guess the West had the power to make Poland dismantle its industry and join all organizations they were told but could not have possibly prevented Warsaw from building a nuclear arsenal in order to prevent Yeltsin’s plans to re-occupy Poland.

    But in fact I was a bit unfair when I said that nobody has explained what we gain by expanding NATO to the East. In the last couple of years we’ve all heard a lot of ‘let’s have Ukraine fight them there so that we don’t have to fight them here’. If I was one of those convinced that Russia has all along been planning to to land its paratroopers in Utah at some point, I guess I wouldn’t oppose that reasoning.

    started tearing apart by military attacking newly independent some former occupied soviet states both covertly and openly in 1992

    You mean Transninstria and Abkhazia? And what did the majority of people living in those territories think about suddenly belonging to a new country ruled by a different ethnic group?

    I honestly don’t know what Russia did in those places (other than leaving ethnic Russian in an undefined legal limbo like they did in Donbas) but I do know that divorces, both political and matrimonial, tend to get messy and the dissolution of the USSR while keeping its old administrative borders intact was by no means the messiest one we’ve witnessed in recent times. Russians feeling unable in those times to ignore the interests of some of their co-ethnics in a few specific small places does not necessarily translate to imperialist designs. Unless everybody around them treat them as such and eventually make the self-fulfilling prophecy come true, of course.

    In the 90s there surely must have been was a way to avoid the calamitous return to a dangerous, pointless Cold War and Russia behaving like a naked imperialist aggressor again but it doesn’t look like siding with Russian neighbors in all disputes, making them join NATO and ignoring any possible interests of ethnic Russians in the newly formed countries was the best way to achieve that goal at all.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikel


    I guess the West had the power to make Poland dismantle its industry and join all organizations they were told but could not have possibly prevented Warsaw from building a nuclear arsenal in order to prevent Yeltsin’s plans to re-occupy Poland.
     
    No, Poland joined willingly because it was given security guarantees (NATO). Had those guarantees not been offered and provided, Poland would have been forced to "pull herself by the bootstraps" so to speak, and figure out its own path to security. They would've been a much more rugged country most likely.

    To be fully honest, NATO really lucked out here. NATO had turned from a defensive bloc into an almost purely political organization. Had Ukraine sided with Russia and then that Slavic bloc had decided, under the guidance of Russia, to "expel NATO from Eastern Europe"*, they could've attacked NATO's eastern flank and NATO would've been in an extremely tough position (NATO had not militarized that region). Basically Ukraine saved NATO.

    * ..and this is something they talk about a lot in the Russian media and even our former host mentioned it would be necessarily at one point to "expel NATO from the Baltics", see Putin's ultimatum to NATO in December 2021, and countless, just countless open conversations about this in the Russian media. They were seriously holding out hope that this would eventually happen and they could potentially succeed in it. Some of them still talk that way even while their military is being decimated in Southern Ukraine and drones hitting are their territory.

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @sudden death
    @Mikel

    Poland quietly managed to nurture nuclear ambitions even while being under Soviet boot, so Israel or Pakistani feat was desirable and potentially achievable if being left in a security vacuum after Cold war and having to deal with unstable and turbulent RF, while Yeltsin power was hanging by the thread both in 1993 and 1996, not even to mention his chronic alcoholism and serious cardio health problems for extended periods:


    In 1970s a group of scientists headed by Sylwester Kaliski worked on initiating nuclear fusion using high-energy lasers. The project received considerable funds as well as personal support of first secretary of the ruling Polish United Workers' Party Edward Gierek, acknowledged with the potential military purpose of such idea. The research was dropped after Kaliski was killed in car crash in 1978, of which the circumstances remain unclear.
     
    https://histmag.org/Bomba-Kaliskiego-polskie-badania-termojadrowe-15929

    In reality it was not needed so much after Cold War, because after RF army started intensively attacking Moldova in 1992 Januray/February, Poland very quickly got strong preliminary sign from the West they will not be left in such security vacuum in order to face RF alone:


    11–12 March 1992
    During a visit to Poland, NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner said that “NATO’s door is open.”

    10 April 1992
    The first meeting of the NATO Military Committee, which was also attended by defence ministers and chiefs of staff of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
     

    https://www.gov.pl/web/national-defence/poland-in-nato-20-years

    Replies: @Mikhail

  197. @A123
    @Beckow


    We were told that without being in Nato we can’t be in EU. Period
     
    This has never made sense to me.

    Germany and France keep talking about building a military alternative to NATO. That goal would be strengthened by obtaining EU members who are non-NATO. Consider Türkiye, a member of NATO. They have been stuck in the EU queue for decades. This suggests that it is easier to join the EU if one is not in NATO.

    Given legitimate Russian concerns about militarization, the most likely post conflict path is the new, more compact Ukraine will join the EU only. No NATO Ever would be locked in via treaty.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Beckow

    You misunderstand it completely. France occasionally talks about EU military force as a complement to Nato – not a replacement. It is a sop to their population. French talk a lot but they are in reality complete patsies. It is only attitude. There is no such thing as Euro military.

    Turkey will never be in EU, it is just a charade to keep them in Nato. Turkey joined Nato in 1960 (?) – before the institutions were properly organized. Turkey is also strategically super-important, it is a game we play – everyone understands the rules.

    the most likely post conflict path is the new, more compact Ukraine will join the EU only.

    Possibly, if the rump leftover Ukraine is very small and has no strategic importance. But Ukraine in EU would come with huge costs for the current EU members – endless subsidies, cheap labor, impact on agriculture, etc… The Nato membership (having a knife on Russia’s throat) was supposed to compensate for it. There was also hope to access the Russian market through Ukraine. This may very well end up as a lose-lose for Ukraine, they have played their cards very badly.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Beckow

    Turkey joined in 1952. Sending a brigade to fight in Korea paved the way.

  198. @John Johnson
    @AP

    Interesting. I once lived in the southwest and visited Utah frequently. Mormons made a fairly strong but positive impression:
    ...
    Physically attractive, in a specific way. Not like Eastern Europeans, or pretty French or Italian girls. Physically fit, conservatively dressed, often blond, skillful use of makeup, at times a sort of 1950s “beauty queen” aesthetic. A marked contrast to the overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America (I mean no offense).

    The women are indeed better looking than the average overweight rural woman. Mormon women tend to be in shape as their religion encourages healthy eating and exercise.

    But for the men they are selecting for submission and not bravery.

    There is no Mormon light. Anyone who questions the faith or authority can be excommunicated.

    It isn't like Judaism where a liberal Jew can marry a practicing Jew.

    Utah has a large gene pool but in the average small town the Mormons are in much smaller social circles.

    I am certain it is dysgenic in that they are selecting from a small group of men while pushing out naturally bolder personalities. Mormon men seem timid compared to regular American men and this is more noticeable compared to when I was a kid. The women have to choose from a limited pool and cannot select a strong personality from outside the group. In effect it undermines natural selection as a strong willed man that seeks out a Mormon woman is artificially blocked by the group. On some level it really is a protection racket. The timid and submissive Mormon man is all but guaranteed a wife through collusion. Submission to authority is rewarded over boldness and individualism.

    It also most likely selects against intelligence and skepticism. Mormons are known for good grades in high school but how many Whites of high intellect are pushed out and basically abandoned? Someone naturally skeptical or is inclined do their own research is less likely to stick with the faith.

    Replies: @Mikel

    The women have to choose from a limited pool and cannot select a strong personality from outside the group.

    Have you considered the possibility of not having any clue of what you’re speaking about and thus being at a very high risk of talking crap?

    In my limited circle of acquaintances I know from the top of my head Mormon women married to a Basque-American Catholic man, a Russian-American Jew and a recent Venezuelan refugee of undefined religious beliefs. I can’t say what Utah was like in the early 20th century (though the Basque-American must have married his wife in the middle of the 20th century so cross-marriages must have been happening for a very long time) but I know what it’s like right now by virtue of living here, surrounded by Mormons, and I can confidently say that you keep spouting nonsense non-stop.

    Which doesn’t mean that I don’t think that the Mormon religion is not fake and gay, in case you don’t understand the nuance of my position. That is a separate thing.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikel


    The women have to choose from a limited pool and cannot select a strong personality from outside the group.
     
    Have you considered the possibility of not having any clue of what you’re speaking about and thus being at a very high risk of talking crap?

    I do know what I am talking about and can back it with data. You continue to embarrass yourself by showing that you have limited experience in America. Maybe just ask politely next time.

    Mormons can only obtain the highest status in their religion by marrying another Mormon within the temple:
    https://ldsmediatalk.com/2022/02/23/can-mormons-marry-non-mormons/

    Can Mormons marry non-Mormons in a Mormon temple?

    No. Mormons cannot marry non-members in a Mormon temple. Although they are permitted to marry their matrimony cannot take place in the same venue that two Mormons can marry.

    Marrying in a temple is incredibly important to Mormons as they believe it is the only way they and their family can be sealed in heaven together after they die.

    They cannot become gods in the afterlife if they marry a non-Mormon. You also know nothing about Mormon culture if you think they are fine with mixed marriages. A core belief is that everyone else is wrong about Mormonism and Christians are to become slaves in the afterlife.

    In most states they are less than 2% of the population:
    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/mormon-population-by-state.html#:~:text=Mormon%20Population%20By%20State%20%20%20%20Rank,%20%206.21%25%20%2047%20more%20rows%20

    That leads to limited dating pools.

    Mormonism is not only exclusive but hostile to other forms of Christianity. Shall I dig up the verse that says all Christian denominations are corrupt?

    Mormonism is not another denomination. It's a cult that was created by a known criminal and scam artist.

    Replies: @Mikel

  199. How are European Empire sanctions against Russia fairing? (1)

    Russian LNG exports to Europe surge

    as one of the world’s leading suppliers, particularly when it comes to natural gas, there aren’t enough replacements for those products available so we’ve largely had to leave them alone. As a result, not only are Russian exports failing to be dampened, they’re actually increasing and the country is on track to set an all-time record for Liquified Natural Gas exports. (Washington Examiner)

    The European Union is slated to import record amounts of Russian liquefied natural gas this year, a trend in conflict with its aim to reduce reliance on Russian fossil fuels and cut off funding for President Vladimir Putin‘s war machine.

    Spain and Belgium were ranked as the second- and third-largest buyers of Russian LNG, behind only China, according to a report from the nonprofit group Global Witness. Spain accounted for 18% of Russia’s total LNG sales in the first seven months of 2023, while Belgium accounted for 17%.

    As a whole, EU imports of the chilled Russian gas were up 40% in the first half of this year.

    The EU keeps insisting that they’re going to largely end the use of natural gas by 2027. Energy analysts have been calling that a pipe dream for a while now and this news supports that belief. If anything, most of Europe is even more dependent on natural gas, particularly LNG, than they were prior to the original Paris climate conference.

    As long as this continues, we are clearly not going to starve the Kremlin of enough money to cause unrest in the streets or force Putin to consider pulling out of the war. And even if a couple of countries can be convinced to cut off or at least reduce their LNG imports from Russia, China will just buy up all of the excess as they’ve been doing since the war began. Africa remains a large market for them as well. There simply isn’t enough global solidarity against Russia to allow these sanctions to really put the screws to Putin.

    The German Greens shutting NordStream had limited impact on Russia and delivered Germany into decline. Why do German workers tolerate these dolts?
    ___

    The oil restrictions are not working either. India buys Russian crude and then sends the refined products on to Europe.

    PEACE 😇
    ___________

    (1) https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/08/31/russian-lng-exports-to-europe-surge-n574970

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @A123

    Very proper propjunk source naming - only lots of hotair blowing and not a single relevant LNG volume number found there;) Not even to mention, there are no existing and never were any sanctions for RF natgas imports of any form, chilled or not:


    In the first half of 2023, Russian LNG exports to Europe (excluding Turkey), totaled 8.6 million tons (11.9 Bcm), down less than 1% from the same period of 2022 but up 7% versus the first half of 2021.
     
    https://www.energyintel.com/0000018a-042a-d2cb-afaa-2f3e03a70000

    So, RF exported 12 billion m3 of LNG to EU in 2023 so far while overall RF natgas exports volume loss still remains in tune of nearly 100 billion m3 (dropping 86% compared with 2021) therefore 10 billion m3 of RF LNG is just irrelevant financial drop in the bucket in such full context:


    Despite the uptick in volumes in July and August, Russia's pipeline gas exports to Europe (excluding Turkey) remain significantly lower than before the war — even though the EU has not banned or restricted such imports (unlike oil imports).

    In the first half of 2023, they totaled just 12.1 Bcm or an average of 67 MMcm/d, down 86% from 462 MMcm/d in the first half of 2021 — the year before energy markets were disrupted by Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    Since then Russian gas gradually stopped flowing to more than 15 countries, including Gazprom's biggest prewar market Germany, which imported nothing in the first half of this year versus 28.9 Bcm (160 MMcm/d) in the first half of 2021.
     

    , @sudden death
    @A123


    The oil restrictions are not working either. India buys Russian crude and then sends the refined products on to Europe.
     
    The goal is not remove RF oil/natgas from worldmarkets completely, but to lessen the amount of RF cash inflows, which has been done succesfully since the end of 2022.

    btw, Indian buying of RF oil also has been decreasing lately:


    India’s splurge on cheap Russian crude may be over, as New Delhi’s traditional suppliers in the West Asia step back in with attractive conditions.

    “Our dependence on Russian oil is going to decrease sharply,” Oil Minister Hardeep Puri said in an interview. “The cost viability from the Gulf is much more attractive now.”

    India’s consumption of Russian crude has soared since President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February last year, ousting Saudi Arabia and Iraq from the top spots. From negligible levels, it soared to account for nearly half of supplies in May. However, rising prices have squeezed the discount on Russian crude and limited the attractiveness of those spot purchases, making other sources, some with term contracts, appealing once again. Moscow has also said this week it plans to extend export curbs.

    In August, imports from Russia fell for the third consecutive month to 1.57 million barrels a day, according to data-intelligence firm Kpler, down 24 per cent on the month and at the lowest since January — though Russia remains India’s top supplier. “I am very clear. We are in the market today, and we will buy from whomever,” Puri said.
     

    https://www.business-standard.com/finance/news/dependence-on-cheap-russian-crude-oil-will-fall-sharply-hardeep-puri-123090101458_1.html
  200. @A123
    @Sean

    Beer Is Food -- Bluegrass Brewing Company, Louisville, KY

     
    https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/08/4d/ec/3e/bluegrass-brewing-company.jpg
     

    Also, my bacon is trying to communicate with me.

     
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YdJsXaw6FQI/maxresdefault.jpg
     

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Sean, @Wielgus

    EXCLUSIVE! Captured Ukrainian Soldiers Speak Out, Forced to Take Drugs To Fight | Redacted News

    Ukraine like WW1 there is even a Spanish Flu redux

    Case report: Ukrainian soldier riddled with extensively drug-resistant bacteria
    News brief July 6, 2023

    Re Beer, and bacon communicating . Very moderate amounts of beer may be beneficial and bacon is OK for it but if you are over 58 and need the utmost amount of the premier signaling molecule for brain and:-

    [Then] canned ham is the thing because it contains a lot of sodium nitrate.

    A bit of sun exposure helps too. If vegetarian of any age, avoid antibacterial/ fluoride mouthwash and toothpaste so you can profitably chew your spinach (of all things).

  201. @Mikel
    @John Johnson


    The women have to choose from a limited pool and cannot select a strong personality from outside the group.
     
    Have you considered the possibility of not having any clue of what you're speaking about and thus being at a very high risk of talking crap?

    In my limited circle of acquaintances I know from the top of my head Mormon women married to a Basque-American Catholic man, a Russian-American Jew and a recent Venezuelan refugee of undefined religious beliefs. I can't say what Utah was like in the early 20th century (though the Basque-American must have married his wife in the middle of the 20th century so cross-marriages must have been happening for a very long time) but I know what it's like right now by virtue of living here, surrounded by Mormons, and I can confidently say that you keep spouting nonsense non-stop.

    Which doesn't mean that I don't think that the Mormon religion is not fake and gay, in case you don't understand the nuance of my position. That is a separate thing.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    The women have to choose from a limited pool and cannot select a strong personality from outside the group.

    Have you considered the possibility of not having any clue of what you’re speaking about and thus being at a very high risk of talking crap?

    I do know what I am talking about and can back it with data. You continue to embarrass yourself by showing that you have limited experience in America. Maybe just ask politely next time.

    Mormons can only obtain the highest status in their religion by marrying another Mormon within the temple:
    https://ldsmediatalk.com/2022/02/23/can-mormons-marry-non-mormons/

    Can Mormons marry non-Mormons in a Mormon temple?

    No. Mormons cannot marry non-members in a Mormon temple. Although they are permitted to marry their matrimony cannot take place in the same venue that two Mormons can marry.

    Marrying in a temple is incredibly important to Mormons as they believe it is the only way they and their family can be sealed in heaven together after they die.

    They cannot become gods in the afterlife if they marry a non-Mormon. You also know nothing about Mormon culture if you think they are fine with mixed marriages. A core belief is that everyone else is wrong about Mormonism and Christians are to become slaves in the afterlife.

    In most states they are less than 2% of the population:
    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/mormon-population-by-state.html#:~:text=Mormon%20Population%20By%20State%20%20%20%20Rank,%20%206.21%25%20%2047%20more%20rows%20

    That leads to limited dating pools.

    Mormonism is not only exclusive but hostile to other forms of Christianity. Shall I dig up the verse that says all Christian denominations are corrupt?

    Mormonism is not another denomination. It’s a cult that was created by a known criminal and scam artist.

    • Troll: Mikel
    • Replies: @Mikel
    @John Johnson

    This happens for not heeding my own advice, the one I gave to HMS, and trying to debate with an ignorant simpleton Easterner who seriously believes he can lecture me on my daily experience of the past decade thousands of miles away from him. Lesson learned.

  202. @John Johnson
    @Mikel


    The women have to choose from a limited pool and cannot select a strong personality from outside the group.
     
    Have you considered the possibility of not having any clue of what you’re speaking about and thus being at a very high risk of talking crap?

    I do know what I am talking about and can back it with data. You continue to embarrass yourself by showing that you have limited experience in America. Maybe just ask politely next time.

    Mormons can only obtain the highest status in their religion by marrying another Mormon within the temple:
    https://ldsmediatalk.com/2022/02/23/can-mormons-marry-non-mormons/

    Can Mormons marry non-Mormons in a Mormon temple?

    No. Mormons cannot marry non-members in a Mormon temple. Although they are permitted to marry their matrimony cannot take place in the same venue that two Mormons can marry.

    Marrying in a temple is incredibly important to Mormons as they believe it is the only way they and their family can be sealed in heaven together after they die.

    They cannot become gods in the afterlife if they marry a non-Mormon. You also know nothing about Mormon culture if you think they are fine with mixed marriages. A core belief is that everyone else is wrong about Mormonism and Christians are to become slaves in the afterlife.

    In most states they are less than 2% of the population:
    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/mormon-population-by-state.html#:~:text=Mormon%20Population%20By%20State%20%20%20%20Rank,%20%206.21%25%20%2047%20more%20rows%20

    That leads to limited dating pools.

    Mormonism is not only exclusive but hostile to other forms of Christianity. Shall I dig up the verse that says all Christian denominations are corrupt?

    Mormonism is not another denomination. It's a cult that was created by a known criminal and scam artist.

    Replies: @Mikel

    This happens for not heeding my own advice, the one I gave to HMS, and trying to debate with an ignorant simpleton Easterner who seriously believes he can lecture me on my daily experience of the past decade thousands of miles away from him. Lesson learned.

  203. @A123
    @Sean

    Beer Is Food -- Bluegrass Brewing Company, Louisville, KY

     
    https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/08/4d/ec/3e/bluegrass-brewing-company.jpg
     

    Also, my bacon is trying to communicate with me.

     
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YdJsXaw6FQI/maxresdefault.jpg
     

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Sean, @Wielgus

    Repent! Repent! But incidentally, bacon is kosher…

  204. @Beckow
    @A123

    You misunderstand it completely. France occasionally talks about EU military force as a complement to Nato - not a replacement. It is a sop to their population. French talk a lot but they are in reality complete patsies. It is only attitude. There is no such thing as Euro military.

    Turkey will never be in EU, it is just a charade to keep them in Nato. Turkey joined Nato in 1960 (?) - before the institutions were properly organized. Turkey is also strategically super-important, it is a game we play - everyone understands the rules.


    the most likely post conflict path is the new, more compact Ukraine will join the EU only.
     
    Possibly, if the rump leftover Ukraine is very small and has no strategic importance. But Ukraine in EU would come with huge costs for the current EU members - endless subsidies, cheap labor, impact on agriculture, etc... The Nato membership (having a knife on Russia's throat) was supposed to compensate for it. There was also hope to access the Russian market through Ukraine. This may very well end up as a lose-lose for Ukraine, they have played their cards very badly.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    Turkey joined in 1952. Sending a brigade to fight in Korea paved the way.

  205. @Beckow
    @LatW


    Whatever insinuations they very seldomly use (often only in private) – are not meant in a hostile...
     
    You see inside Scandie souls? You are the only one, tell us how you do it... The mutual Scandie dislikes exist, they hide it better because they are dull, scared and conformist people. They have again lamely switched to hating "Russia!", seeing Russian subs underwater - a good reflection of their fearful and indirect personalities.

    Ukies were jumping up and down in 2014 about "killing Moskali", it was openly embraced by Maidanistas - can you find a better example of ethnic hostility? In Russia, UK...? Don't preach.


    Were the Germans not once expelled from their old colonial lands in Eastern Europe? Is it how things should be? No. But it is not impossible. There have been examples in the past.
     
    The idea that you will expel millions of Russians is quite ugly and dangerous. Germany killed tens of millions in and lost the war. It is not a good analogy. That it comes to you so easily is worrisome. It is a mutual road to hell. Don't pine for it.

    ...it can be contained (even if that is bad, as it is, it’s an enormous tragedy). Most of the world is not interested in a bigger war over these issues.
     
    I agree. But EE has been falling. Some experience it as exhilaration, they dream of 'others' who are hurt more, but the falling has not slowed and it affects everyone. To contain it you need to stop the idiotic dreams about weakening Russia and expelling Russians.

    It is very simple: Ukraine needs to be neutral and has to treat its millions of Russian citizens as equal - or they allow them to secede and join Russia. Or we can fight this to the last standing Ukie or possibly go nuclear. But nobody is "marching on Moscow", or taking Crimea and expelling 2 million people there.

    It will take some time before it sinks in, but the way it will end is a neutral rump-Ukraine with more rational leaders. Or we pretty much all perish, at least in Central-Eastern Europe.

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW, @Thulean Friend

    You see inside Scandie souls?

    Actually, I sometimes do, they can’t always hide their emotions. 🙂

    Did you know that Finns, for example, can communicate using silence? I think the Japanese could be similar that way as well.

    The mutual Scandie dislikes exist

    Among Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders, the Faroese, and Swedes there are no dislikes whatsoever. None. I’ve heard in private convos some Swedes look down on Finns but this is extremely rare. I’ve heard a couple of Finns disliking bilingualism in private convos. But that’s about it – mostly they are in agreement. Ideally, the Slavic relationships should’ve been the same way… I never ever hear the Danes lording it over anyone else, given their royal past and how they ruled over everyone (even during the viking ages the Danish vikings were in fact the most important ones, yet we don’t hear them going out of their way to brag about it).

    [MORE]

    they hide it better because they are dull, scared and conformist people.

    It is true that they do not display their thoughts as openly, so for Eastern Slavs this is an issue, because they are more direct (which I love about them!) and Scandinavians are not dull but can be quite creative at times. For example, Swedish music can be very melodic.

    Anyway, my main point which you seem to evade is that Scandinavians, even if they have their little jokes about each other, those are predominantly benign. Whereas Ukrainians and Russians are in a very different place due to having different relationship dynamics. Even before the war the Russians used to call the Ukrainians the “h” word quite commonly, it is actually extremely condescending but they throw it around both casually, and with contempt. The “h” word needs to be banned.

    If somebody in my country called, let’s say, a Lithuanian by a similar name, I would smack them across the head real hard! (Figurative speech) It’s just that it would never even occur to anybody to do that.

    So in this kind of environment they will need to find an arrangement how not to be in each other’s faces anymore after this is over. Even with Russia being physically close by you don’t need to be in close contact all the time.

    Ukies were jumping up and down in 2014 about “killing Moskali“

    I agree that this was in bad taste and a bit too much. Under normal circumstances, I personally wouldn’t allow it in public (in the Baltic states one could be fined for that). But I’m not going to judge the Ukrainians because their circumstances are much much more complicated (then again, of course, if your circumstances are more complicated, it also merits that you are much more careful, however, we know that’s not how people in large nations are).

    can you find a better example of ethnic hostility? In Russia

    In Russia you could find it easily. This Alex Parker guy is insane in his animalistic hatred. But I agree it is now, during war, it is absolutely horrible and sad.

    The idea that you will expel millions of Russians is quite ugly and dangerous

    It is. That’s why starting such a huge war is also very ugly and dangerous. Extremely dangerous to both sides. They could both end up significantly reduced.

    Germany killed tens of millions in and lost the war. It is not a good analogy.

    It is a good analogy because the Russians at this point have killed, maimed and displaced many Ukrainians. The deed is very similar.

    That it comes to you so easily is worrisome.

    I hadn’t thought about it before (or even thought it possible) but the recent events on the front lines show that anything is possible now. Besides, no one really knows what is going on demographically in the Donbas and in the occupied areas. Many refugees or possibly even most refugees are from the East. Many have fled to Russia, many children have been taken out by Russia. Pro-Ukrainian Donbassers have fled to the West and Center of Ukraine. So the picture has already changed dramatically. This is a huge historic event where the Donbass is basically being destroyed or significantly reduced. Many mines no longer function.

    To contain it you need to stop the idiotic dreams about weakening Russia and expelling Russians.

    To contain it one needs to seek a resolution, permanent peace (security) and then recovery for Ukraine.

    But nobody is “marching on Moscow”

    I wouldn’t be so sure anymore. There is a possibility that someone such as the Legion of Free Russia, the Russian Volunteer Corps or some other nationalists of varied stripes could eventually march on Moscow. I’m not saying this will happen, but there is a small possibility of it. Besides one doesn’t need to “march” these days, that drone attack on Pskov the other day was pretty significant.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...Did you know that Finns, for example, can communicate using silence?
     
    Especially when they are piss-drunk.

    I appreciate your description of the Scandie culture - and yet, having known them well, their core characteristic is a form of predictable conformism. They respect rules to live by given to them. It makes for good societies, but they are damn boring. Predictable, as if they didn't really exist, following predetermined roles and holding approved views. (There are thankfully exceptions..)

    Others are not like that, good and bad. So? Russians-Ukies abuse each other, but their emotions are fleeting, one day they kill, next day they feast together. The verbal abuse is mutual - it started in a big way by the Ukies on Maidan - blaming only Russians is oddly unfair. In wars people drop to a more basic level, hatreds are easy, almost necessary. It never lasts.


    one needs to seek a resolution, permanent peace (security) and then recovery for Ukraine.
     
    The Ukies will not find resolution in the war. They provoked it and now they are paying a horrible price. It has been completely irrational how they have acted now for almost a decade: Nato? kill Russians? - what the f..k are they thinking? That the West will come in to rescue them? This is a bloody cargo cult on steroids....

    I wouldn’t be so sure anymore. There is a possibility that someone...could eventually march on Moscow. I’m not saying this will happen, but there is a small possibility of it.
     
    Sure. There is also a possibility that the Pope will convert to Buddhism. But nobody is putting money on it. More likely many Ukies will die needlessly only for Kiev to eventually make peace - in 2024-25 -that assures Ukraine's neutrality and cedes Russian majority regions to Russia - with Russia deciding where they are. A much worse deal than Minsk. Is it worth it?

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @LatW

  206. @Mikel
    @sudden death


    The most obvious gain was no new nuclear proliferation
     
    LOL. Strange how nobody ever mentioned such a solid argument. I guess the West had the power to make Poland dismantle its industry and join all organizations they were told but could not have possibly prevented Warsaw from building a nuclear arsenal in order to prevent Yeltsin's plans to re-occupy Poland.

    But in fact I was a bit unfair when I said that nobody has explained what we gain by expanding NATO to the East. In the last couple of years we've all heard a lot of 'let's have Ukraine fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here'. If I was one of those convinced that Russia has all along been planning to to land its paratroopers in Utah at some point, I guess I wouldn't oppose that reasoning.


    started tearing apart by military attacking newly independent some former occupied soviet states both covertly and openly in 1992
     
    You mean Transninstria and Abkhazia? And what did the majority of people living in those territories think about suddenly belonging to a new country ruled by a different ethnic group?

    I honestly don't know what Russia did in those places (other than leaving ethnic Russian in an undefined legal limbo like they did in Donbas) but I do know that divorces, both political and matrimonial, tend to get messy and the dissolution of the USSR while keeping its old administrative borders intact was by no means the messiest one we've witnessed in recent times. Russians feeling unable in those times to ignore the interests of some of their co-ethnics in a few specific small places does not necessarily translate to imperialist designs. Unless everybody around them treat them as such and eventually make the self-fulfilling prophecy come true, of course.

    In the 90s there surely must have been was a way to avoid the calamitous return to a dangerous, pointless Cold War and Russia behaving like a naked imperialist aggressor again but it doesn't look like siding with Russian neighbors in all disputes, making them join NATO and ignoring any possible interests of ethnic Russians in the newly formed countries was the best way to achieve that goal at all.

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death

    I guess the West had the power to make Poland dismantle its industry and join all organizations they were told but could not have possibly prevented Warsaw from building a nuclear arsenal in order to prevent Yeltsin’s plans to re-occupy Poland.

    No, Poland joined willingly because it was given security guarantees (NATO). Had those guarantees not been offered and provided, Poland would have been forced to “pull herself by the bootstraps” so to speak, and figure out its own path to security. They would’ve been a much more rugged country most likely.

    To be fully honest, NATO really lucked out here. NATO had turned from a defensive bloc into an almost purely political organization. Had Ukraine sided with Russia and then that Slavic bloc had decided, under the guidance of Russia, to “expel NATO from Eastern Europe”*, they could’ve attacked NATO’s eastern flank and NATO would’ve been in an extremely tough position (NATO had not militarized that region). Basically Ukraine saved NATO.

    * ..and this is something they talk about a lot in the Russian media and even our former host mentioned it would be necessarily at one point to “expel NATO from the Baltics”, see Putin’s ultimatum to NATO in December 2021, and countless, just countless open conversations about this in the Russian media. They were seriously holding out hope that this would eventually happen and they could potentially succeed in it. Some of them still talk that way even while their military is being decimated in Southern Ukraine and drones hitting are their territory.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @LatW


    they could’ve attacked NATO’s eastern flank and NATO would’ve been in an extremely tough position (NATO had not militarized that region). Basically Ukraine saved NATO.
     
    LOL. Everybody seems to be in a joking mood today. First Polish nukes, then Mormons making their neighbors eternal slaves and now Russia and Ukraine attacking NATO from the East. With what? Martyanov's wonder weapons and tactics?

    I've actually just returned from Poland. I spent several days there for a large family gathering two weeks ago and it was quite remarkable how the country has changed externally in a positive way but I also found some of the same attitudes of the 90s unchanged. A Ukrainian uber driver told me that he wasn't very happy in Poland but people continue being very cordial and friendly with English-speaking tourists, sometimes extremely so.

    I've known Poland and Poles since the early 90s and I don't think there is any mystery in understanding what the vast majority of them thought and why they behaved the way they did all these years. They just wanted to leave behind their Russian-imposed Communist past as fast as they could, sever all ties with that part of the world and become a "normal" country by joining every Western association they were invited to. That's all. In fact, this aspiration of "normalcy" was funny and I could relate to it very well because I remembered the very same sentiment in Spain in the 80s. In the Anglo countries a politician promising to build just a normal country would be laughed at but in post-dictatorship societies normalcy may become a national obsession.

    In the same way, understanding the attitudes of the majority of Eastern Europeans after the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not too difficult. The old bully of the neighborhood finally attacked another neighbor, is receiving a good thrashing with the help of the Western shinny weapons and everybody is excited to join in the thrashing of the bully while seeing all their old fears vindicated.

    OK, I get that. But perhaps it shouldn't be so difficult to show some reciprocity and understand the position of those Westerners who are not so enthusiastic about these old animosities in EE having ended in a devastating war, want to de-escalate before it engulfs us all and criticize the policies of our leaders that led to this idiotic outcome. I don't think we're saying anything so bizarre. Btw, I personally don't need to be taught anything about big, imperialistic neighbors living in their old glories with little to offer in the present, subjugating you by sheer force and imposing their culture on your countrymen. As an old Polish woman once told me (speaking about the Russians), you can choose who you marry nut not who your neighbor is. We've all experienced that, one way or another, but perhaps there's no need to make our neighborhood issues everybody's problem?

    PS- Are you sure that Danes and Swedes don't have any animosity whatsoever? That's not what I heard from some of them: https://scandinaviafacts.com/danes-swedes-hate-each-other/

    Replies: @Wielgus

  207. @Beckow
    @LatW


    Whatever insinuations they very seldomly use (often only in private) – are not meant in a hostile...
     
    You see inside Scandie souls? You are the only one, tell us how you do it... The mutual Scandie dislikes exist, they hide it better because they are dull, scared and conformist people. They have again lamely switched to hating "Russia!", seeing Russian subs underwater - a good reflection of their fearful and indirect personalities.

    Ukies were jumping up and down in 2014 about "killing Moskali", it was openly embraced by Maidanistas - can you find a better example of ethnic hostility? In Russia, UK...? Don't preach.


    Were the Germans not once expelled from their old colonial lands in Eastern Europe? Is it how things should be? No. But it is not impossible. There have been examples in the past.
     
    The idea that you will expel millions of Russians is quite ugly and dangerous. Germany killed tens of millions in and lost the war. It is not a good analogy. That it comes to you so easily is worrisome. It is a mutual road to hell. Don't pine for it.

    ...it can be contained (even if that is bad, as it is, it’s an enormous tragedy). Most of the world is not interested in a bigger war over these issues.
     
    I agree. But EE has been falling. Some experience it as exhilaration, they dream of 'others' who are hurt more, but the falling has not slowed and it affects everyone. To contain it you need to stop the idiotic dreams about weakening Russia and expelling Russians.

    It is very simple: Ukraine needs to be neutral and has to treat its millions of Russian citizens as equal - or they allow them to secede and join Russia. Or we can fight this to the last standing Ukie or possibly go nuclear. But nobody is "marching on Moscow", or taking Crimea and expelling 2 million people there.

    It will take some time before it sinks in, but the way it will end is a neutral rump-Ukraine with more rational leaders. Or we pretty much all perish, at least in Central-Eastern Europe.

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW, @Thulean Friend

    By the way, Beckow, I often think back to the NATO/EU accession process and I often contemplate this very issue of why the two could not have been separate (like in Norway’s case where they had the privilege to be in NATO but not in the EU even with the separate binding treaties, of course, Norway is an Atlantic country so it is in a special place, but still..). It’s understandable why it was done so, to secure power, to make sure that investments are protected, to make sure there is political control over the new countries. But also to help the new countries integrate better. I wish these things could’ve been thought out more carefully, but then again, this was a relatively short historic period when it took place, and one didn’t want the “train to leave the station”, so to speak. It was a historic opportunity.

    • Replies: @A123
    @LatW


    I often think back to the NATO/EU accession process and I often contemplate this very issue of why the two could not have been separate
    ...
    I wish these things could’ve been thought out more carefully, but then again, this was a relatively short historic period when it took place
     
    There is no obligation to keep repeating the same mistakes. Going forward, there is no reason to believe the two are linked anymore.

    Expanding NATO further is incredibly perilous and unattractive. Adding Georgia or even Moldova would likely start a full out thermonuclear WW III. There is a decent chance that Sweden & Finland will be the last new NATO members ever. Russia and/or Israel joining are entertaining ideas. However, too unlikely for serious consideration.

    Expanding the EU is much less threatening. It has to be done with care to avoid blowing up existing commerce. That being said, having a richer neighbor is generally good for bilateral trade. They can buy more of your goods & services.

    The barriers to adding new EU members are mostly internal. Periphery nations wisely refuse to water down national vetoes. They see this tool as essential, non-negotiable protection from Brussels over reach. Will France and Germany allow new potential vetoers to join the EU?

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @LatW

    , @Beckow
    @LatW


    It’s understandable why it was done so, to secure power, to make sure that investments are protected, to make sure there is political control over the new countries.
     
    You are getting warmer - it was not a random process left to chance: each step was scripted. The long term plan was to consolidate control over Europe with Nato, create uniform militaries purchasing arms from the US, then use the juggernaut to corner Russia. Nato's sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.

    It eventually got us to the war. The war was in a way inevitable once Nato decided that it would be better to surround Russia, put it in a box, and maybe wait for the next internal Russian instability to pounce and finish it off. And to get the Russian goodies...We know the script.

    Now they have the war they wanted. But they also have to win it - and the hapless Ukies are coming up short. Will they escalate and send in the Poles and Romanians? Will they walk away? It was badly thought through, it depended on the Russian forbearance and staying put - once Russia moved to grab Crimea it was obvious that was wrong bet. You never, ever, turn over your success to the enemy - but in effect that is what Nato did.

    Now they are stuck hoping for a miracle. Not a good place to be, but it is just Ukie lives for them - the West can alway walk away and pretend that it was the damn 'nationalists' in Kiev who screwed up. Don't worry, if needed they will quickly find them in Ukraine and "Bandera" will be all over the Western media.

    Replies: @AP

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW

    AFAIK, NATO and EU were generally joined simultaneously due to popular demand. Where this popular demand didn't exist, such as in Ireland, Sweden, and Finland, there was EU membership without simultaneous NATO membership (until the current Ukraine war, in the case of the last two countries mentioned here).

    I suspect that Ukraine would have likely followed Sweden's and Finland's trajectory after 2014 had it not been for Russia taking Ukrainian territory starting from that year. Ukraine actually did say shortly after Maidan that it was not seeking to join NATO:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-nato/pm-tells-ukrainians-no-nato-membership-armed-groups-to-disarm-idUKBREA2H0DO20140318

    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/03/18/ukrainian-prime-minister-says-no-nato-membership-armed-groups-to-disarm-a33097

    But Russia was not convinced and invaded in 2014, which caused the Ukrainian government to change its mind about this issue.

  208. @A123
    How are European Empire sanctions against Russia fairing? (1)

    Russian LNG exports to Europe surge

     

    as one of the world’s leading suppliers, particularly when it comes to natural gas, there aren’t enough replacements for those products available so we’ve largely had to leave them alone. As a result, not only are Russian exports failing to be dampened, they’re actually increasing and the country is on track to set an all-time record for Liquified Natural Gas exports. (Washington Examiner)

    The European Union is slated to import record amounts of Russian liquefied natural gas this year, a trend in conflict with its aim to reduce reliance on Russian fossil fuels and cut off funding for President Vladimir Putin‘s war machine.

    Spain and Belgium were ranked as the second- and third-largest buyers of Russian LNG, behind only China, according to a report from the nonprofit group Global Witness. Spain accounted for 18% of Russia’s total LNG sales in the first seven months of 2023, while Belgium accounted for 17%.

    As a whole, EU imports of the chilled Russian gas were up 40% in the first half of this year.
     
    The EU keeps insisting that they’re going to largely end the use of natural gas by 2027. Energy analysts have been calling that a pipe dream for a while now and this news supports that belief. If anything, most of Europe is even more dependent on natural gas, particularly LNG, than they were prior to the original Paris climate conference.

    As long as this continues, we are clearly not going to starve the Kremlin of enough money to cause unrest in the streets or force Putin to consider pulling out of the war. And even if a couple of countries can be convinced to cut off or at least reduce their LNG imports from Russia, China will just buy up all of the excess as they’ve been doing since the war began. Africa remains a large market for them as well. There simply isn’t enough global solidarity against Russia to allow these sanctions to really put the screws to Putin.
     
    The German Greens shutting NordStream had limited impact on Russia and delivered Germany into decline. Why do German workers tolerate these dolts?
    ___

    The oil restrictions are not working either. India buys Russian crude and then sends the refined products on to Europe.

    PEACE 😇
    ___________

    (1) https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/08/31/russian-lng-exports-to-europe-surge-n574970

    Replies: @sudden death, @sudden death

    Very proper propjunk source naming – only lots of hotair blowing and not a single relevant LNG volume number found there;) Not even to mention, there are no existing and never were any sanctions for RF natgas imports of any form, chilled or not:

    In the first half of 2023, Russian LNG exports to Europe (excluding Turkey), totaled 8.6 million tons (11.9 Bcm), down less than 1% from the same period of 2022 but up 7% versus the first half of 2021.

    https://www.energyintel.com/0000018a-042a-d2cb-afaa-2f3e03a70000

    So, RF exported 12 billion m3 of LNG to EU in 2023 so far while overall RF natgas exports volume loss still remains in tune of nearly 100 billion m3 (dropping 86% compared with 2021) therefore 10 billion m3 of RF LNG is just irrelevant financial drop in the bucket in such full context:

    Despite the uptick in volumes in July and August, Russia’s pipeline gas exports to Europe (excluding Turkey) remain significantly lower than before the war — even though the EU has not banned or restricted such imports (unlike oil imports).

    In the first half of 2023, they totaled just 12.1 Bcm or an average of 67 MMcm/d, down 86% from 462 MMcm/d in the first half of 2021 — the year before energy markets were disrupted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    Since then Russian gas gradually stopped flowing to more than 15 countries, including Gazprom’s biggest prewar market Germany, which imported nothing in the first half of this year versus 28.9 Bcm (160 MMcm/d) in the first half of 2021.

  209. @sudden death
    @Mikel


    What Western countries gained by expanding NATO towards Russia in 1999 and 2004 is totally unclear to this day. Nobody ever bothered to explain it to us plebes.
     
    The most obvious gain was no new nuclear proliferation - if there was no NATO invitations and expansion, at the very least Poland would have started its own nuclear program, maybe in covert cooperation with Ukraine even, cause RF started to be aggresive very early on towards and started tearing apart by military attacking newly independent some former occupied soviet states both covertly and openly in 1992, way before any NATO activities in former Yugoslavia or anywhere else.

    Replies: @AP, @Mikel, @LatW

    Another very significant gain for the West has been the money they’ve made – they took over large chunks of relatively promising markets and the ROI has been very decent.

    The banking sector in particular has done very well – and continues to have immense profits, especially with the recent high rates. Those are mostly Western banks that are connected to the US banking system.

    If it wasn’t for NATO, these banks would have to share the space with all sorts of Kholomoyskies of this world, who can be pretty ruthless people, or they would have to compete with some kind of a local sector which would have possibly been built.

    Also, very cheap but highly educated workforce, especially in the mid and late 2000s. Control over important trading routes in the Baltic and Black sea.

  210. @LatW
    @Beckow

    By the way, Beckow, I often think back to the NATO/EU accession process and I often contemplate this very issue of why the two could not have been separate (like in Norway's case where they had the privilege to be in NATO but not in the EU even with the separate binding treaties, of course, Norway is an Atlantic country so it is in a special place, but still..). It's understandable why it was done so, to secure power, to make sure that investments are protected, to make sure there is political control over the new countries. But also to help the new countries integrate better. I wish these things could've been thought out more carefully, but then again, this was a relatively short historic period when it took place, and one didn't want the "train to leave the station", so to speak. It was a historic opportunity.

    Replies: @A123, @Beckow, @Mr. XYZ

    I often think back to the NATO/EU accession process and I often contemplate this very issue of why the two could not have been separate

    I wish these things could’ve been thought out more carefully, but then again, this was a relatively short historic period when it took place

    There is no obligation to keep repeating the same mistakes. Going forward, there is no reason to believe the two are linked anymore.

    Expanding NATO further is incredibly perilous and unattractive. Adding Georgia or even Moldova would likely start a full out thermonuclear WW III. There is a decent chance that Sweden & Finland will be the last new NATO members ever. Russia and/or Israel joining are entertaining ideas. However, too unlikely for serious consideration.

    Expanding the EU is much less threatening. It has to be done with care to avoid blowing up existing commerce. That being said, having a richer neighbor is generally good for bilateral trade. They can buy more of your goods & services.

    The barriers to adding new EU members are mostly internal. Periphery nations wisely refuse to water down national vetoes. They see this tool as essential, non-negotiable protection from Brussels over reach. Will France and Germany allow new potential vetoers to join the EU?

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @LatW
    @A123

    Actually, I was thinking more about the local economies and their readiness to join a market with much stronger enterprises in the West. I wish the local economies had become stronger before they were ready to join. It may have been less appealing to the West at that point (more protectionism of local businesses), but probably still appealing enough to integrate the market.

    Replies: @A123

  211. @A123
    @LatW


    I often think back to the NATO/EU accession process and I often contemplate this very issue of why the two could not have been separate
    ...
    I wish these things could’ve been thought out more carefully, but then again, this was a relatively short historic period when it took place
     
    There is no obligation to keep repeating the same mistakes. Going forward, there is no reason to believe the two are linked anymore.

    Expanding NATO further is incredibly perilous and unattractive. Adding Georgia or even Moldova would likely start a full out thermonuclear WW III. There is a decent chance that Sweden & Finland will be the last new NATO members ever. Russia and/or Israel joining are entertaining ideas. However, too unlikely for serious consideration.

    Expanding the EU is much less threatening. It has to be done with care to avoid blowing up existing commerce. That being said, having a richer neighbor is generally good for bilateral trade. They can buy more of your goods & services.

    The barriers to adding new EU members are mostly internal. Periphery nations wisely refuse to water down national vetoes. They see this tool as essential, non-negotiable protection from Brussels over reach. Will France and Germany allow new potential vetoers to join the EU?

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @LatW

    Actually, I was thinking more about the local economies and their readiness to join a market with much stronger enterprises in the West. I wish the local economies had become stronger before they were ready to join. It may have been less appealing to the West at that point (more protectionism of local businesses), but probably still appealing enough to integrate the market.

    • Replies: @A123
    @LatW

    The #1 thing that has to happen before any future EU expansion is ending the concept of total labour mobility. It is bad for both:

    • Donor countries -- Due to brain drain and lack of family formation
    • Receiving countries -- Undercutting the jobs & wages of local citizens

    If labour cannot move, that would force private industry dollars to the new joiners in addition to EU development grants. Building relationships with local businesses as suppliers would be essential for commerce.

    PEACE 😇

  212. @Mikel
    @sudden death


    The most obvious gain was no new nuclear proliferation
     
    LOL. Strange how nobody ever mentioned such a solid argument. I guess the West had the power to make Poland dismantle its industry and join all organizations they were told but could not have possibly prevented Warsaw from building a nuclear arsenal in order to prevent Yeltsin's plans to re-occupy Poland.

    But in fact I was a bit unfair when I said that nobody has explained what we gain by expanding NATO to the East. In the last couple of years we've all heard a lot of 'let's have Ukraine fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here'. If I was one of those convinced that Russia has all along been planning to to land its paratroopers in Utah at some point, I guess I wouldn't oppose that reasoning.


    started tearing apart by military attacking newly independent some former occupied soviet states both covertly and openly in 1992
     
    You mean Transninstria and Abkhazia? And what did the majority of people living in those territories think about suddenly belonging to a new country ruled by a different ethnic group?

    I honestly don't know what Russia did in those places (other than leaving ethnic Russian in an undefined legal limbo like they did in Donbas) but I do know that divorces, both political and matrimonial, tend to get messy and the dissolution of the USSR while keeping its old administrative borders intact was by no means the messiest one we've witnessed in recent times. Russians feeling unable in those times to ignore the interests of some of their co-ethnics in a few specific small places does not necessarily translate to imperialist designs. Unless everybody around them treat them as such and eventually make the self-fulfilling prophecy come true, of course.

    In the 90s there surely must have been was a way to avoid the calamitous return to a dangerous, pointless Cold War and Russia behaving like a naked imperialist aggressor again but it doesn't look like siding with Russian neighbors in all disputes, making them join NATO and ignoring any possible interests of ethnic Russians in the newly formed countries was the best way to achieve that goal at all.

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death

    Poland quietly managed to nurture nuclear ambitions even while being under Soviet boot, so Israel or Pakistani feat was desirable and potentially achievable if being left in a security vacuum after Cold war and having to deal with unstable and turbulent RF, while Yeltsin power was hanging by the thread both in 1993 and 1996, not even to mention his chronic alcoholism and serious cardio health problems for extended periods:

    In 1970s a group of scientists headed by Sylwester Kaliski worked on initiating nuclear fusion using high-energy lasers. The project received considerable funds as well as personal support of first secretary of the ruling Polish United Workers’ Party Edward Gierek, acknowledged with the potential military purpose of such idea. The research was dropped after Kaliski was killed in car crash in 1978, of which the circumstances remain unclear.

    https://histmag.org/Bomba-Kaliskiego-polskie-badania-termojadrowe-15929

    In reality it was not needed so much after Cold War, because after RF army started intensively attacking Moldova in 1992 Januray/February, Poland very quickly got strong preliminary sign from the West they will not be left in such security vacuum in order to face RF alone:

    11–12 March 1992
    During a visit to Poland, NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner said that “NATO’s door is open.”

    10 April 1992
    The first meeting of the NATO Military Committee, which was also attended by defence ministers and chiefs of staff of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

    https://www.gov.pl/web/national-defence/poland-in-nato-20-years

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @sudden death


    In reality it was not needed so much after Cold War, because after RF army started intensively attacking Moldova in 1992 Januray/February,
     
    Nationalists from Moldova attacked Pridnestrovie where Russian forces were still stationed. No one asked Moldova to become a part of the USSR. No one asked Pridnestrovie to become a part of Moldova after the Soviet collapse. Putting Pridnestrovie into the Soviet created Moldavian SSR wasn't too big a deal at the time since both were at the time part of the same centralized entity.

    Like Crimea, Pridnestrovie is a clear majority pro-Russian majority.
  213. @sudden death
    @Mikel

    Poland quietly managed to nurture nuclear ambitions even while being under Soviet boot, so Israel or Pakistani feat was desirable and potentially achievable if being left in a security vacuum after Cold war and having to deal with unstable and turbulent RF, while Yeltsin power was hanging by the thread both in 1993 and 1996, not even to mention his chronic alcoholism and serious cardio health problems for extended periods:


    In 1970s a group of scientists headed by Sylwester Kaliski worked on initiating nuclear fusion using high-energy lasers. The project received considerable funds as well as personal support of first secretary of the ruling Polish United Workers' Party Edward Gierek, acknowledged with the potential military purpose of such idea. The research was dropped after Kaliski was killed in car crash in 1978, of which the circumstances remain unclear.
     
    https://histmag.org/Bomba-Kaliskiego-polskie-badania-termojadrowe-15929

    In reality it was not needed so much after Cold War, because after RF army started intensively attacking Moldova in 1992 Januray/February, Poland very quickly got strong preliminary sign from the West they will not be left in such security vacuum in order to face RF alone:


    11–12 March 1992
    During a visit to Poland, NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner said that “NATO’s door is open.”

    10 April 1992
    The first meeting of the NATO Military Committee, which was also attended by defence ministers and chiefs of staff of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
     

    https://www.gov.pl/web/national-defence/poland-in-nato-20-years

    Replies: @Mikhail

    In reality it was not needed so much after Cold War, because after RF army started intensively attacking Moldova in 1992 Januray/February,

    Nationalists from Moldova attacked Pridnestrovie where Russian forces were still stationed. No one asked Moldova to become a part of the USSR. No one asked Pridnestrovie to become a part of Moldova after the Soviet collapse. Putting Pridnestrovie into the Soviet created Moldavian SSR wasn’t too big a deal at the time since both were at the time part of the same centralized entity.

    Like Crimea, Pridnestrovie is a clear majority pro-Russian majority.

  214. Never realized this before, but at the time of the Haitian Revolution, it is estimated that most of the slaves there had been born in Africa, and a few were pointy-toothed cannibals.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    The life expectancy of a sugar cane slave was abysmal. The importing of fresh slaves by the (Jewish) traders was huge and perpetual. Those poor people were worked to death. : (

    Have you read about Elijah Muhammed's alien visitation?

    Replies: @songbird

  215. @LatW
    @Beckow


    You see inside Scandie souls?
     
    Actually, I sometimes do, they can't always hide their emotions. :)

    Did you know that Finns, for example, can communicate using silence? I think the Japanese could be similar that way as well.

    The mutual Scandie dislikes exist
     
    Among Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders, the Faroese, and Swedes there are no dislikes whatsoever. None. I've heard in private convos some Swedes look down on Finns but this is extremely rare. I've heard a couple of Finns disliking bilingualism in private convos. But that's about it - mostly they are in agreement. Ideally, the Slavic relationships should've been the same way... I never ever hear the Danes lording it over anyone else, given their royal past and how they ruled over everyone (even during the viking ages the Danish vikings were in fact the most important ones, yet we don't hear them going out of their way to brag about it).

    they hide it better because they are dull, scared and conformist people.
     
    It is true that they do not display their thoughts as openly, so for Eastern Slavs this is an issue, because they are more direct (which I love about them!) and Scandinavians are not dull but can be quite creative at times. For example, Swedish music can be very melodic.

    Anyway, my main point which you seem to evade is that Scandinavians, even if they have their little jokes about each other, those are predominantly benign. Whereas Ukrainians and Russians are in a very different place due to having different relationship dynamics. Even before the war the Russians used to call the Ukrainians the "h" word quite commonly, it is actually extremely condescending but they throw it around both casually, and with contempt. The "h" word needs to be banned.

    If somebody in my country called, let's say, a Lithuanian by a similar name, I would smack them across the head real hard! (Figurative speech) It's just that it would never even occur to anybody to do that.

    So in this kind of environment they will need to find an arrangement how not to be in each other's faces anymore after this is over. Even with Russia being physically close by you don't need to be in close contact all the time.

    Ukies were jumping up and down in 2014 about “killing Moskali“
     
    I agree that this was in bad taste and a bit too much. Under normal circumstances, I personally wouldn't allow it in public (in the Baltic states one could be fined for that). But I'm not going to judge the Ukrainians because their circumstances are much much more complicated (then again, of course, if your circumstances are more complicated, it also merits that you are much more careful, however, we know that's not how people in large nations are).

    can you find a better example of ethnic hostility? In Russia
     
    In Russia you could find it easily. This Alex Parker guy is insane in his animalistic hatred. But I agree it is now, during war, it is absolutely horrible and sad.

    The idea that you will expel millions of Russians is quite ugly and dangerous
     
    It is. That's why starting such a huge war is also very ugly and dangerous. Extremely dangerous to both sides. They could both end up significantly reduced.

    Germany killed tens of millions in and lost the war. It is not a good analogy.
     
    It is a good analogy because the Russians at this point have killed, maimed and displaced many Ukrainians. The deed is very similar.


    That it comes to you so easily is worrisome.
     
    I hadn't thought about it before (or even thought it possible) but the recent events on the front lines show that anything is possible now. Besides, no one really knows what is going on demographically in the Donbas and in the occupied areas. Many refugees or possibly even most refugees are from the East. Many have fled to Russia, many children have been taken out by Russia. Pro-Ukrainian Donbassers have fled to the West and Center of Ukraine. So the picture has already changed dramatically. This is a huge historic event where the Donbass is basically being destroyed or significantly reduced. Many mines no longer function.

    To contain it you need to stop the idiotic dreams about weakening Russia and expelling Russians.
     
    To contain it one needs to seek a resolution, permanent peace (security) and then recovery for Ukraine.


    But nobody is “marching on Moscow"
     
    I wouldn't be so sure anymore. There is a possibility that someone such as the Legion of Free Russia, the Russian Volunteer Corps or some other nationalists of varied stripes could eventually march on Moscow. I'm not saying this will happen, but there is a small possibility of it. Besides one doesn't need to "march" these days, that drone attack on Pskov the other day was pretty significant.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …Did you know that Finns, for example, can communicate using silence?

    Especially when they are piss-drunk.

    I appreciate your description of the Scandie culture – and yet, having known them well, their core characteristic is a form of predictable conformism. They respect rules to live by given to them. It makes for good societies, but they are damn boring. Predictable, as if they didn’t really exist, following predetermined roles and holding approved views. (There are thankfully exceptions..)

    Others are not like that, good and bad. So? Russians-Ukies abuse each other, but their emotions are fleeting, one day they kill, next day they feast together. The verbal abuse is mutual – it started in a big way by the Ukies on Maidan – blaming only Russians is oddly unfair. In wars people drop to a more basic level, hatreds are easy, almost necessary. It never lasts.

    one needs to seek a resolution, permanent peace (security) and then recovery for Ukraine.

    The Ukies will not find resolution in the war. They provoked it and now they are paying a horrible price. It has been completely irrational how they have acted now for almost a decade: Nato? kill Russians? – what the f..k are they thinking? That the West will come in to rescue them? This is a bloody cargo cult on steroids….

    I wouldn’t be so sure anymore. There is a possibility that someone…could eventually march on Moscow. I’m not saying this will happen, but there is a small possibility of it.

    Sure. There is also a possibility that the Pope will convert to Buddhism. But nobody is putting money on it. More likely many Ukies will die needlessly only for Kiev to eventually make peace – in 2024-25 -that assures Ukraine’s neutrality and cedes Russian majority regions to Russia – with Russia deciding where they are. A much worse deal than Minsk. Is it worth it?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Beckow


    Sure. There is also a possibility that the Pope will convert to Buddhism. But nobody is putting money on it. More likely many Ukies will die needlessly only for Kiev to eventually make peace – in 2024-25 -that assures Ukraine’s neutrality and cedes Russian majority regions to Russia – with Russia deciding where they are. A much worse deal than Minsk. Is it worth it?
     
    Ukraine won't agree to any neutrality that at a bare minimum would forfeit Ukraine's EU aspirations. Even in exchanging for giving up the possibility of Ukrainian NATO membership, Ukraine and the West would both need to get something big, Ukraine from the West and/or Russia (a return to its 2013 territory?) and the West from Russia (HUGE Russian cooperation against China).

    Replies: @Beckow

    , @LatW
    @Beckow


    It makes for good societies, but they are damn boring.
     
    Look, I know them well, too, and, yes, they can be a little boring sometimes, but they more than make up for that with their looks (so - not boring in the end, haha!). Also, Scandinavia can be interesting and even captivating if one has niche interests (viking metal, majestic mountains, whales, Arctic animals).

    Predictable, as if they didn’t really exist, following predetermined roles and holding approved views.

     

    Well, this goes together with the ruggedly beautiful and serene Northern landscape - there is predictability and permanence, the eternal peace of vast, snow clad lands, emptiness, silence, loneliness... It's good to have such peoples with such solid and rugged character, in a world that's filled with spontaneous diversity.

    Russians-Ukies abuse each other, but their emotions are fleeting, one day they kill, next day they feast together.
     
    This is partly true, but their situation is much more complex than for other E.European states, then again, this is quite heavy - they are killing their kids and mocking it (there was a Christmas photo of a very beautiful little girl that was killed (I think recently in Chernihiv) and the Russians posted laugh emojis and such). You sound very casual and dismissive about this. Even if at some point, some of the Ukrainians will begin associating with the Russians, for most of them this fracture will be real and long term. Do not trivialize their suffering. Most of all - to dismiss this as a factor is foolish.

    The verbal abuse is mutual
     
    Yes, unfortunately, and it was there already before Maidan. It started getting somewhat bad around mid 2000s. Overall, things started getting worse in 2007 (when Putin decided to "raise Russia from her knees", Munich speech, increased propaganda, etc).

    It is of utmost importance to not be lax about verbal abuse - it is very toxic. Not only there should be no verbal abuse, there should be no thought of it. The very thought of it should be repulsive and off-putting. For neighboring nations that want to cultivate peace.


    But nobody is putting money on it.
     
    No, I'm not putting money on it either (re: the Legion's march on Moscow). Only hopes. The numbers are small, even though they growing, albeit very slow. But I have a nagging feeling about it, there is something permanent and strong about this resistance. Also something idealistic. Maybe this time the FSB will not decide everything? Who knows.


    [re: NATO enlargement] [..] it was not a random process left to chance: each step was scripted. The long term plan was to consolidate control over Europe with Nato, create uniform militaries purchasing arms from the US, then use the juggernaut to corner Russia. Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.
     
    There were many elements at play at that time, not some "evil design", as you seem to imply: the historic process of the European re-unification, the dominant role of the US in the 1990s, the fact that a security vacuum will always get filled either way, especially in that neighborhood, I mean, it's not an Australian desert (no offense), but a geopolitically sensitive and vital area, the striving of the EE and CE populations to experience political freedoms and build wealth, the desire for the unified Germany to have long term stability in its vicinity, maybe some foolishness, weakness of the EEs, naivety, lack of financial education (except for a few select types), the striving of the political elites to make quick careers by relatively simple means, the spreading of strange, exotic - essentially inapplicable to real life - ideologies (such as libertarianism, which was a thing back in the 90s). Maybe even poverty of many post-Warsaw pact EEs. Many factors.

    To build our own security system such as the Intermarium would have required economic strength. There was no immediately available capital to make the factories competitive. It could've been done with better leadership but it wasn't there. I think the fact that a lot of dissidents were cleared out and sent into exile or left, made a difference, too.

    Also, right around that time China took up our niche for cheap labor and low production costs. Even if you did remodel the factories and somehow found the capital to reinvigorate them, make them competitive, you would still be competing with China. Not saying it couldn't have worked, but it would have been a huge factor. The whole of the US off-shored to China. The EEs couldn't work as cheaply and as much, yet they couldn't raise productivity fast enough. I don't know, it might be different in Slovakia and especially in the Czech Rep, but even there the Germans took over most of it as far as I'm aware.

    Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.
     
    NATO's purpose is to deter Russia and fight it only if necessary (the very last resort). In that sense, NATO was / is defensive, however, they did take advantage of the security vacuum. In hindsight, it would've been stupid not to. NATO can co-exist with Russia and even China, it's only the perennial question of boundaries...

    And to get the Russian goodies…We know the script.
     
    They could've gotten a lot of the goodies even without war. Eurasia is rich, but it's not like the Western hemisphere is poor. And, speaking of the goodies, if we assume that they belong to the Russian people, then the current oligarchy is no less unfair than dominance by some transnationals. Only the national democracy would've solved this (the narodovlastie - the rule by people) and laid the ground for the creation of a globally competitive productive sector in Russia.

    No, they were already selling a lot of the goodies, they simply needed to observe the unwritten consensus of the 1991. But for them 1991 is a national tragedy (or a "catastrophe" or whatever Putin called it). It's like their Trianon or worse. So now he wants Kenig and Crimea. And Ukraine. That's a lot!

    You never, ever, turn over your success to the enemy – but in effect that is what Nato did.
     
    This is a good point (which, by the way, applies to Russia, too - they could've just lived with Crimea and the occupied areas of Donbas, that should've been plenty). But the issue is that it's not just about NATO - the fundamental problem of the Russian opposition to the Ukrainian subjectivity would still be there even without NATO, these regional wars were fought for centuries.

    Replies: @S, @Beckow, @Emil Nikola Richard

  216. @songbird
    Never realized this before, but at the time of the Haitian Revolution, it is estimated that most of the slaves there had been born in Africa, and a few were pointy-toothed cannibals.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    The life expectancy of a sugar cane slave was abysmal. The importing of fresh slaves by the (Jewish) traders was huge and perpetual. Those poor people were worked to death. : (

    Have you read about Elijah Muhammed’s alien visitation?

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    The life expectancy of a sugar cane slave was abysmal.
     
    They certainly weren't very fertile compared to American slaves. Though I would speculate that the number of smuggled imports to America, after the Atlantic trade was banned, might be significantly underestimated.

    I wonder how it would have compared to Africa at the time. Presumably, it was a similar environment in terms of tropical diseases.

    Have you read about Elijah Muhammed’s alien visitation?
     
    Not in depth. I'd be interested but can't find the source.

    I recently watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind and thought it was a very strange movie. (I wonder whether Dmitry has seen it).
  217. @LatW
    @Mikel


    I guess the West had the power to make Poland dismantle its industry and join all organizations they were told but could not have possibly prevented Warsaw from building a nuclear arsenal in order to prevent Yeltsin’s plans to re-occupy Poland.
     
    No, Poland joined willingly because it was given security guarantees (NATO). Had those guarantees not been offered and provided, Poland would have been forced to "pull herself by the bootstraps" so to speak, and figure out its own path to security. They would've been a much more rugged country most likely.

    To be fully honest, NATO really lucked out here. NATO had turned from a defensive bloc into an almost purely political organization. Had Ukraine sided with Russia and then that Slavic bloc had decided, under the guidance of Russia, to "expel NATO from Eastern Europe"*, they could've attacked NATO's eastern flank and NATO would've been in an extremely tough position (NATO had not militarized that region). Basically Ukraine saved NATO.

    * ..and this is something they talk about a lot in the Russian media and even our former host mentioned it would be necessarily at one point to "expel NATO from the Baltics", see Putin's ultimatum to NATO in December 2021, and countless, just countless open conversations about this in the Russian media. They were seriously holding out hope that this would eventually happen and they could potentially succeed in it. Some of them still talk that way even while their military is being decimated in Southern Ukraine and drones hitting are their territory.

    Replies: @Mikel

    they could’ve attacked NATO’s eastern flank and NATO would’ve been in an extremely tough position (NATO had not militarized that region). Basically Ukraine saved NATO.

    LOL. Everybody seems to be in a joking mood today. First Polish nukes, then Mormons making their neighbors eternal slaves and now Russia and Ukraine attacking NATO from the East. With what? Martyanov’s wonder weapons and tactics?

    I’ve actually just returned from Poland. I spent several days there for a large family gathering two weeks ago and it was quite remarkable how the country has changed externally in a positive way but I also found some of the same attitudes of the 90s unchanged. A Ukrainian uber driver told me that he wasn’t very happy in Poland but people continue being very cordial and friendly with English-speaking tourists, sometimes extremely so.

    I’ve known Poland and Poles since the early 90s and I don’t think there is any mystery in understanding what the vast majority of them thought and why they behaved the way they did all these years. They just wanted to leave behind their Russian-imposed Communist past as fast as they could, sever all ties with that part of the world and become a “normal” country by joining every Western association they were invited to. That’s all. In fact, this aspiration of “normalcy” was funny and I could relate to it very well because I remembered the very same sentiment in Spain in the 80s. In the Anglo countries a politician promising to build just a normal country would be laughed at but in post-dictatorship societies normalcy may become a national obsession.

    In the same way, understanding the attitudes of the majority of Eastern Europeans after the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not too difficult. The old bully of the neighborhood finally attacked another neighbor, is receiving a good thrashing with the help of the Western shinny weapons and everybody is excited to join in the thrashing of the bully while seeing all their old fears vindicated.

    OK, I get that. But perhaps it shouldn’t be so difficult to show some reciprocity and understand the position of those Westerners who are not so enthusiastic about these old animosities in EE having ended in a devastating war, want to de-escalate before it engulfs us all and criticize the policies of our leaders that led to this idiotic outcome. I don’t think we’re saying anything so bizarre. Btw, I personally don’t need to be taught anything about big, imperialistic neighbors living in their old glories with little to offer in the present, subjugating you by sheer force and imposing their culture on your countrymen. As an old Polish woman once told me (speaking about the Russians), you can choose who you marry nut not who your neighbor is. We’ve all experienced that, one way or another, but perhaps there’s no need to make our neighborhood issues everybody’s problem?

    PS- Are you sure that Danes and Swedes don’t have any animosity whatsoever? That’s not what I heard from some of them: https://scandinaviafacts.com/danes-swedes-hate-each-other/

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Mikel

    Kieslowski's film Three Colours White (1994) has one character rejoicing that "we've joined Europe!" It seems to be symbolised by his using neon in a sign advertising his hairdresser's shop.
    The film is in places a rather acerbic picture of 1990s Poland. The main character is smuggled back there and is beaten up by gangsters. He peers at a large rubbish dump covered in seagulls and mutters, "Home!"

  218. @LatW
    @A123

    Actually, I was thinking more about the local economies and their readiness to join a market with much stronger enterprises in the West. I wish the local economies had become stronger before they were ready to join. It may have been less appealing to the West at that point (more protectionism of local businesses), but probably still appealing enough to integrate the market.

    Replies: @A123

    The #1 thing that has to happen before any future EU expansion is ending the concept of total labour mobility. It is bad for both:

    • Donor countries — Due to brain drain and lack of family formation
    • Receiving countries — Undercutting the jobs & wages of local citizens

    If labour cannot move, that would force private industry dollars to the new joiners in addition to EU development grants. Building relationships with local businesses as suppliers would be essential for commerce.

    PEACE 😇

  219. @AP
    @John Johnson

    Interesting. I once lived in the southwest and visited Utah frequently. Mormons made a fairly strong but positive impression:

    1. Very nice and friendly.

    2. Surprisingly cosmopolitan, due to missionary work. For example, we chatted with a family in Russian in some small town, the son had done missionary work in one of the former Soviet republics, so the entire family learned the language. And somehow they managed to learn it well enough to be conversational.

    3. Physically attractive, in a specific way. Not like Eastern Europeans, or pretty French or Italian girls. Physically fit, conservatively dressed, often blond, skillful use of makeup, at times a sort of 1950s "beauty queen" aesthetic. A marked contrast to the overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America (I mean no offense). I personally prefer the appearance of European women, but the Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    4. Mormons appreciate and perpetuate solid, classical architecture styles for their temples, which as a result usually look very nice for newly-built buildings. This matches Mormons' personal classic physical appearance.

    5. Their communities are well-run, well-organized and clean. In northern Nevada one can see a stark contrast between Mormon towns (neat little houses, neat fenced yards, clean and organized - a bit like New England though not as rich and more plain) and non-Mormon towns (more run down, organized haphazardly, brothels and bars). Mormon towns are an interesting contrast to the surrounding frontier.

    Of course, I have never had business dealings with Mormons so I can't speak to their business practices and competition with "gentiles." And their religion is bizarre, with very shady origins.

    The Mormon polygamists in northern Arizona were less attractive, less friendly and more suspicious. We tried talking to some of them and didn't get far.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson, @Dmitry

    Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    Mitt Romney looks more like an actor in an 1980s television drama than anyone I’ve seen in real life. If you saw him, you would guess he was an old Hollywood actor, who has their hair cut every morning.

    But I don’t think he can be representative considering below data, as the majority of Mormon adults are overweight.

    overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America

    It can’t be true on average as Mormons have higher levels of obesity than non-Mormons, especially for women. https://www.ldsliving.com/sponsored-the-mormon-obesity-epidemic-whats-going-on/s/85383

    Studies on obesity and religious practice (including a BYU study) have shown that Utah members of the LDS Church are 34% more likely to be overweight than members of other religions. (1)

    This LDS obesity epidemic is graphically evident when you visit various Utah LDS wards you might observe that 60%+ of adults over 35 years of age are overweight


    Footnotes

    (1) “BYU Study Shows Mormons Weigh More” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11355738/ns/health-fitness/t/byu-study-finds-mormons-weigh-more

    “The Risk of Overweight and Obesity Among Latter-Day Saints” https://www.jstor.org/stable/41940819?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Also the incomes by religion of Mormons is the same as the mainline protestant.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/income-distribution/

    Mormons still have higher rates of life expectancy than average in America, I guess probably because of the strong community and removal of alcohol/drugs. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol10/3/10-3.pdf

    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Dmitry


    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/
     
    Edit. A mistake in my comment, as the source is looking at international comparison though so it doesn't match with this paragraph I wrote. Within America, "unaffiliated" has lower life expectancy.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035005/


    -

    In terms of income, although unaffiliated is not exactly the same as secular. The atheist and agnostic group has one of the higher incomes as correlates with education, except a few unusual religions (Episcopal church/Jewish) or which were significantly filtered in the H-1B visa program (Hindu).
    https://i.imgur.com/Ww4OFQY.jpg


    So, the Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists are unusual as their life expectancy is higher, even while the income is average (Mormon) or below (Seventh-Day Adventist).

    Also, Mormons have significantly higher life expectancy than average in America, though they have US average or high BMI, while Seventh-Day Adventists have lower BMI.

    Probably sadly, removing cigarettes, alcohol and coffee creates a healthier population.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Emil Nikola Richard

    , @AP
    @Dmitry


    Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    Mitt Romney looks more like an actor in an 1980s television drama than anyone I’ve seen in real life. If you saw him, you would guess he was an old Hollywood actor, who has their hair cut every morning
     
    .

    There are many like that, among Mormons. A Utah governor, Jon Huntsman, with his wife:

    https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/huntsmanmarykaye_huntsmanjon_06182020getty.jpg

    They have 5 biological children, and adopted 2 children.

    overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America

    It can’t be true on average as Mormons have higher levels of obesity than non-Mormons, especially for women. https://www.ldsliving.com/sponsored-the-mormon-obesity-epidemic-whats-going-on/s/85383
     
    This is surprising and goes against mine (and others') experiences, but I can't argue against the data.

    I wonder if the non-Mormons in Utah are mostly not rural farmers but people like Mikel, who have moved to Utah for the purpose of hiking a lot in the spectacular nature. If such super-athletic people are heavily over-represented among non-Mormons in Utah, that might explain it.

    Utah in general has one of the lowest obesity rates in the country:

    https://i.insider.com/56006a16bd86ef15008bbdee?width=1136&format=jpeg

    Lower than all of its neighbors other than Colorado, 4th lowest in the USA.

    Also the incomes by religion of Mormons is the same as the mainline protestant.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/income-distribution/
     
    Mainline Protestants are the richest of America's mainstream Christians.

    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/
     
    You'd have to account for race to get an accurate estimate. Most Blacks are Christians (typically, Protestants) and they drive life expectancy down.

    Here this is accounted for:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035005/

    Jews live longest of all. But both mainline Protestants and Catholics live longer than those with no religion. Who live longer than Evangelical Christians and Black Protestants.

    Also, the relationship between religion and income is not linear. The richest attend church the least, but the next group attend church the most, and more often than the 2 poorer groups:

    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/attendance-at-religious-services/by/income-distribution/

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Mr. XYZ

  220. @LatW
    @Beckow

    By the way, Beckow, I often think back to the NATO/EU accession process and I often contemplate this very issue of why the two could not have been separate (like in Norway's case where they had the privilege to be in NATO but not in the EU even with the separate binding treaties, of course, Norway is an Atlantic country so it is in a special place, but still..). It's understandable why it was done so, to secure power, to make sure that investments are protected, to make sure there is political control over the new countries. But also to help the new countries integrate better. I wish these things could've been thought out more carefully, but then again, this was a relatively short historic period when it took place, and one didn't want the "train to leave the station", so to speak. It was a historic opportunity.

    Replies: @A123, @Beckow, @Mr. XYZ

    It’s understandable why it was done so, to secure power, to make sure that investments are protected, to make sure there is political control over the new countries.

    You are getting warmer – it was not a random process left to chance: each step was scripted. The long term plan was to consolidate control over Europe with Nato, create uniform militaries purchasing arms from the US, then use the juggernaut to corner Russia. Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.

    It eventually got us to the war. The war was in a way inevitable once Nato decided that it would be better to surround Russia, put it in a box, and maybe wait for the next internal Russian instability to pounce and finish it off. And to get the Russian goodies…We know the script.

    Now they have the war they wanted. But they also have to win it – and the hapless Ukies are coming up short. Will they escalate and send in the Poles and Romanians? Will they walk away? It was badly thought through, it depended on the Russian forbearance and staying put – once Russia moved to grab Crimea it was obvious that was wrong bet. You never, ever, turn over your success to the enemy – but in effect that is what Nato did.

    Now they are stuck hoping for a miracle. Not a good place to be, but it is just Ukie lives for them – the West can alway walk away and pretend that it was the damn ‘nationalists’ in Kiev who screwed up. Don’t worry, if needed they will quickly find them in Ukraine and “Bandera” will be all over the Western media.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    But they also have to win it – and the hapless Ukies are coming up short.
     
    Someone like you writing in July 1943 would say that the hapless Soviets were coming up short, because the Germans still controlled Kiev, Belgorod, and Kharkiv (which they had retaken in March of that year).

    Replies: @Beckow, @Mr. XYZ

  221. @LatW
    @Dmitry


    Interesting, until recently Sweden’s population have been a lot more physically healthy than the population in Finland in terms of life expectancy.
     
    This is generally what I was alluding to - not the economic or even past imperial factors. Swedish habits and behaviors have traditionally been more aligned with the contemporary European ideal (even though this is probably a stereotype and maybe not entirely fair to the Finns who have historically had it more rough than Swedes). Although they both have an overall well balanced demeanor.

    The Swedes used to have better health metrics although Finns are very healthy and robust as well, the Swedes tend to be a little bit more refined (which traditionally Finns consider a bit effeminate).

    Either way, these differences seem to be fading out (while they continue to maintain their distinct ethnic cultures and even phenotypes). My point was more about how two nations that used to be in a colonial relationship have been able to move on, especially the respective "bigger brother" nation in that relationship.

    This is why pointing to them as an example for certain Eastern Slavs is not all that accurate or even applicable (even if it were desirable).

    Replies: @LatW, @Dmitry

    Swedes used to have better health metrics

    In Western Europe, in general Northern countries are less healthy than the Southern countries in terms of life expectancy.

    Countries with the longest life expectancy in the world include South-West Europe, Japan and South Korea.

    But there is exception with Sweden/Norway/Iceland, who are competitive with Southern Europe, while in Northern Europe.

    Although Denmark is in the more typical Northern European level.

    although Finns are very healthy and robust as well

    In the 20th century, Finland had the highest heart disease in the world. In Karelia, the highest rate of heart disease in Finland.

    But they responded like a developed country and reformed the lifestyle. You can see how they attained this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6062761/ They reduced the heart disease mortality by almost seven times in some regions between 1972 and 2011.

    “Coronary mortality, especially among middle age men, was extremely high across Finland (about 500/100,000) and in North Karelia, the most eastern province of the country, 700 / 100,000.”

    “This is the highest ever measured coronary mortality in any population in the world. Local people in North Karelia had become accustomed to young men dying from heart attacks at the age of 40 and 50.”

  222. @Dmitry
    @AP


    Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

     

    Mitt Romney looks more like an actor in an 1980s television drama than anyone I've seen in real life. If you saw him, you would guess he was an old Hollywood actor, who has their hair cut every morning.

    But I don't think he can be representative considering below data, as the majority of Mormon adults are overweight.

    overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America
     
    It can't be true on average as Mormons have higher levels of obesity than non-Mormons, especially for women. https://www.ldsliving.com/sponsored-the-mormon-obesity-epidemic-whats-going-on/s/85383

    Studies on obesity and religious practice (including a BYU study) have shown that Utah members of the LDS Church are 34% more likely to be overweight than members of other religions. (1)

    This LDS obesity epidemic is graphically evident when you visit various Utah LDS wards you might observe that 60%+ of adults over 35 years of age are overweight

    --
    Footnotes

    (1) “BYU Study Shows Mormons Weigh More” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11355738/ns/health-fitness/t/byu-study-finds-mormons-weigh-more

    “The Risk of Overweight and Obesity Among Latter-Day Saints” https://www.jstor.org/stable/41940819?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
     
    Also the incomes by religion of Mormons is the same as the mainline protestant.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/income-distribution/

    Mormons still have higher rates of life expectancy than average in America, I guess probably because of the strong community and removal of alcohol/drugs. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol10/3/10-3.pdf


    -

    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/

    Replies: @Dmitry, @AP

    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/

    Edit. A mistake in my comment, as the source is looking at international comparison though so it doesn’t match with this paragraph I wrote. Within America, “unaffiliated” has lower life expectancy.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035005/

    In terms of income, although unaffiliated is not exactly the same as secular. The atheist and agnostic group has one of the higher incomes as correlates with education, except a few unusual religions (Episcopal church/Jewish) or which were significantly filtered in the H-1B visa program (Hindu).

    So, the Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists are unusual as their life expectancy is higher, even while the income is average (Mormon) or below (Seventh-Day Adventist).

    Also, Mormons have significantly higher life expectancy than average in America, though they have US average or high BMI, while Seventh-Day Adventists have lower BMI.

    Probably sadly, removing cigarettes, alcohol and coffee creates a healthier population.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry

    FWIW, Indians in the UK are also high-earners, but nowhere near as much of an outlier as in the US:

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/nris-in-news/indians-are-high-earners-in-uk-study/articleshow/70148459.cms?from=mdr

    https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/world/in-uk-indians-earn-almost-as-much-as-white-britons/article9805976.ece

    British Indians actually earn roughly comparable to British whites, which is still pretty good by British standards.

    Of course, worth noting that British/Western European Indians are significantly less elite than US Indians are:

    https://jsmp.dk/posts/2019-09-26-braindrain/immigration.html

    https://jsmp.dk/posts/2019-09-26-braindrain/images/2.png

    Replies: @Dmitry

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Dmitry

    Longevity and cryonics internet guy Mike Darwin is so bullish on the 7 day adventist diet he has a short book length blog post sequence advertising it as the only life extension diet with data support.

    I suppose there are some people who actually like eating soy hot dogs. : )

    Replies: @Dmitry

  223. @AP
    @sudden death

    Yes, NATO not only protects its members from attack by non-NATO members but probably limits aggressive or militant policies by NATO members.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Seems like a good argument in favor of having Russia join NATO, no? At least if Russia would have actually stopped engaging in some of its most outrageous things, such as killing dissidents, both at home and abroad. Would also help if Russia was more democratic and more committed to things such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, et cetera.

    Do you think that the West should have offered 1990s Russia or even very early Putin’s Russia a roadmap to NATO membership? James Baker was open to the idea back in 2002:

    https://muse.jhu.edu/article/36660/pdf

    Though it seems that Russia was hedging its bets a bit even back in the 1990s:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Russia_relations

    With the collapse of the Soviet Union, that de facto US-China alliance ended, and a China–Russia rapprochement began. In 1992, the two countries declared that they were pursuing a “constructive partnership”; in 1996, they progressed toward a “strategic partnership”; and in 2001, they signed a treaty of “friendship and cooperation”.[2]

    And of course there was the joint Russo-Chinese founding of the SCO in 2001.

    Though a couple of Western countries do occasionally flirt with countries outside of the Western orbit, such as Hungary and Turkey.

    • Troll: Mikhail
  224. @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...Did you know that Finns, for example, can communicate using silence?
     
    Especially when they are piss-drunk.

    I appreciate your description of the Scandie culture - and yet, having known them well, their core characteristic is a form of predictable conformism. They respect rules to live by given to them. It makes for good societies, but they are damn boring. Predictable, as if they didn't really exist, following predetermined roles and holding approved views. (There are thankfully exceptions..)

    Others are not like that, good and bad. So? Russians-Ukies abuse each other, but their emotions are fleeting, one day they kill, next day they feast together. The verbal abuse is mutual - it started in a big way by the Ukies on Maidan - blaming only Russians is oddly unfair. In wars people drop to a more basic level, hatreds are easy, almost necessary. It never lasts.


    one needs to seek a resolution, permanent peace (security) and then recovery for Ukraine.
     
    The Ukies will not find resolution in the war. They provoked it and now they are paying a horrible price. It has been completely irrational how they have acted now for almost a decade: Nato? kill Russians? - what the f..k are they thinking? That the West will come in to rescue them? This is a bloody cargo cult on steroids....

    I wouldn’t be so sure anymore. There is a possibility that someone...could eventually march on Moscow. I’m not saying this will happen, but there is a small possibility of it.
     
    Sure. There is also a possibility that the Pope will convert to Buddhism. But nobody is putting money on it. More likely many Ukies will die needlessly only for Kiev to eventually make peace - in 2024-25 -that assures Ukraine's neutrality and cedes Russian majority regions to Russia - with Russia deciding where they are. A much worse deal than Minsk. Is it worth it?

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @LatW

    Sure. There is also a possibility that the Pope will convert to Buddhism. But nobody is putting money on it. More likely many Ukies will die needlessly only for Kiev to eventually make peace – in 2024-25 -that assures Ukraine’s neutrality and cedes Russian majority regions to Russia – with Russia deciding where they are. A much worse deal than Minsk. Is it worth it?

    Ukraine won’t agree to any neutrality that at a bare minimum would forfeit Ukraine’s EU aspirations. Even in exchanging for giving up the possibility of Ukrainian NATO membership, Ukraine and the West would both need to get something big, Ukraine from the West and/or Russia (a return to its 2013 territory?) and the West from Russia (HUGE Russian cooperation against China).

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Mr. XYZ

    It is not about what each side wants. It is now about who wins. If Ukraine loses it will be forced to accept the conditions Russia imposes. EU membership was not a casus belli. Russia never objected to it - the only said that if Kiev joins EU there have to be economic consequences - Kiev can't be in two competing free trade blocks. Nobody can. Kiev's, Brussels's, (and yours) inability or pretense not to understand something so basic borders on feigned idiocy. Why deny the obvious? When UK left EU both sides insisted on the same changes. Why is it always different when "Russia" is involved?

    Russia is not returning to its 2013 territory - and Ukies can't make them. Russia will not betray China who stood by them as the West attempted to destroy the Russian economy. It doesn't work that way. Strategic mistakes have long-term consequences. The West is ruled today by silly narcissists and will have to live with the consequences for a long time. There is nothing that can be done about it now.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  225. @Dmitry
    @Dmitry


    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/
     
    Edit. A mistake in my comment, as the source is looking at international comparison though so it doesn't match with this paragraph I wrote. Within America, "unaffiliated" has lower life expectancy.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035005/


    -

    In terms of income, although unaffiliated is not exactly the same as secular. The atheist and agnostic group has one of the higher incomes as correlates with education, except a few unusual religions (Episcopal church/Jewish) or which were significantly filtered in the H-1B visa program (Hindu).
    https://i.imgur.com/Ww4OFQY.jpg


    So, the Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists are unusual as their life expectancy is higher, even while the income is average (Mormon) or below (Seventh-Day Adventist).

    Also, Mormons have significantly higher life expectancy than average in America, though they have US average or high BMI, while Seventh-Day Adventists have lower BMI.

    Probably sadly, removing cigarettes, alcohol and coffee creates a healthier population.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Emil Nikola Richard

    FWIW, Indians in the UK are also high-earners, but nowhere near as much of an outlier as in the US:

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/nris-in-news/indians-are-high-earners-in-uk-study/articleshow/70148459.cms?from=mdr

    https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/world/in-uk-indians-earn-almost-as-much-as-white-britons/article9805976.ece

    British Indians actually earn roughly comparable to British whites, which is still pretty good by British standards.

    Of course, worth noting that British/Western European Indians are significantly less elite than US Indians are:

    https://jsmp.dk/posts/2019-09-26-braindrain/immigration.html

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom also have the regional version of the H1b visa program. Hindu workers are quite common in the hi-tech industry in many countries.

    In London, there is the similar problem in terms of the distribution of wealth.

    https://i.imgur.com/ZtgZf4g.jpg

    As European Hindus are many times larger population than Jews, there is probably some of the explanation of the high level of Hindus in the politics in the anglophone countries. For example, the government of Great Britain and Republic of Ireland have leaders with Hindu parents currently. If Nikki Haley was President in the USA in 2025, there could be Indian origin political leaders of the majority of the anglophone world.

    Europe is different than America in terms of the universal healthcare. So, the health and the income is not matching the groups so much as in America.

    If you look at the life expectancy, groups with average lower economic levels like the immigrants from Pakistan, Africa, have higher life expediencies than white in the Kingdom.

    https://i.imgur.com/g5Jd66n.jpg

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/ethnicdifferencesinlifeexpectancyandmortalityfromselectedcausesinenglandandwales/2011to2014

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  226. @John Johnson
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3BqLZ8UoZk

    Replies: @QCIC

    Sounds legit. LOL

    • LOL: John Johnson
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    They are facing their own demographic problem:
    https://religionnews.com/2015/09/03/are-single-mormon-women-screwed/

    Basically men are leaving the church.

    What the article doesn't mention is that the men are under pressure to develop enough income to support 4-5 children and wealth is viewed as a virtue. Which means if you aren't developing enough wealth for a family then you are morally suspect. They have the Christian conservative "market is everything" attitude turned up to 11. Being born into a wealthy family is actually viewed as godly and not spoiled.

    The article also doesn't mention what happens to single Mormon women in the afterlife. One of those secrets they don't like talking about.

    They get passed around.

    You can only be the main wife if you married in the main temple. Single women will be traded around and they will make babies for a god-husband that they won't be choosing.

    For eternity.

    A lot of the direct translations from Joseph Smith are kept from the public. It gets pretty wacky. He was clearly trying to lure in followers with ......er.........female offerings.

  227. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    Sounds legit. LOL

    Replies: @John Johnson

    They are facing their own demographic problem:
    https://religionnews.com/2015/09/03/are-single-mormon-women-screwed/

    Basically men are leaving the church.

    What the article doesn’t mention is that the men are under pressure to develop enough income to support 4-5 children and wealth is viewed as a virtue. Which means if you aren’t developing enough wealth for a family then you are morally suspect. They have the Christian conservative “market is everything” attitude turned up to 11. Being born into a wealthy family is actually viewed as godly and not spoiled.

    The article also doesn’t mention what happens to single Mormon women in the afterlife. One of those secrets they don’t like talking about.

    They get passed around.

    You can only be the main wife if you married in the main temple. Single women will be traded around and they will make babies for a god-husband that they won’t be choosing.

    For eternity.

    A lot of the direct translations from Joseph Smith are kept from the public. It gets pretty wacky. He was clearly trying to lure in followers with ……er………female offerings.

  228. @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...Did you know that Finns, for example, can communicate using silence?
     
    Especially when they are piss-drunk.

    I appreciate your description of the Scandie culture - and yet, having known them well, their core characteristic is a form of predictable conformism. They respect rules to live by given to them. It makes for good societies, but they are damn boring. Predictable, as if they didn't really exist, following predetermined roles and holding approved views. (There are thankfully exceptions..)

    Others are not like that, good and bad. So? Russians-Ukies abuse each other, but their emotions are fleeting, one day they kill, next day they feast together. The verbal abuse is mutual - it started in a big way by the Ukies on Maidan - blaming only Russians is oddly unfair. In wars people drop to a more basic level, hatreds are easy, almost necessary. It never lasts.


    one needs to seek a resolution, permanent peace (security) and then recovery for Ukraine.
     
    The Ukies will not find resolution in the war. They provoked it and now they are paying a horrible price. It has been completely irrational how they have acted now for almost a decade: Nato? kill Russians? - what the f..k are they thinking? That the West will come in to rescue them? This is a bloody cargo cult on steroids....

    I wouldn’t be so sure anymore. There is a possibility that someone...could eventually march on Moscow. I’m not saying this will happen, but there is a small possibility of it.
     
    Sure. There is also a possibility that the Pope will convert to Buddhism. But nobody is putting money on it. More likely many Ukies will die needlessly only for Kiev to eventually make peace - in 2024-25 -that assures Ukraine's neutrality and cedes Russian majority regions to Russia - with Russia deciding where they are. A much worse deal than Minsk. Is it worth it?

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @LatW

    It makes for good societies, but they are damn boring.

    Look, I know them well, too, and, yes, they can be a little boring sometimes, but they more than make up for that with their looks (so – not boring in the end, haha!). Also, Scandinavia can be interesting and even captivating if one has niche interests (viking metal, majestic mountains, whales, Arctic animals).

    Predictable, as if they didn’t really exist, following predetermined roles and holding approved views.

    Well, this goes together with the ruggedly beautiful and serene Northern landscape – there is predictability and permanence, the eternal peace of vast, snow clad lands, emptiness, silence, loneliness… It’s good to have such peoples with such solid and rugged character, in a world that’s filled with spontaneous diversity.

    [MORE]

    Russians-Ukies abuse each other, but their emotions are fleeting, one day they kill, next day they feast together.

    This is partly true, but their situation is much more complex than for other E.European states, then again, this is quite heavy – they are killing their kids and mocking it (there was a Christmas photo of a very beautiful little girl that was killed (I think recently in Chernihiv) and the Russians posted laugh emojis and such). You sound very casual and dismissive about this. Even if at some point, some of the Ukrainians will begin associating with the Russians, for most of them this fracture will be real and long term. Do not trivialize their suffering. Most of all – to dismiss this as a factor is foolish.

    The verbal abuse is mutual

    Yes, unfortunately, and it was there already before Maidan. It started getting somewhat bad around mid 2000s. Overall, things started getting worse in 2007 (when Putin decided to “raise Russia from her knees”, Munich speech, increased propaganda, etc).

    It is of utmost importance to not be lax about verbal abuse – it is very toxic. Not only there should be no verbal abuse, there should be no thought of it. The very thought of it should be repulsive and off-putting. For neighboring nations that want to cultivate peace.

    But nobody is putting money on it.

    No, I’m not putting money on it either (re: the Legion’s march on Moscow). Only hopes. The numbers are small, even though they growing, albeit very slow. But I have a nagging feeling about it, there is something permanent and strong about this resistance. Also something idealistic. Maybe this time the FSB will not decide everything? Who knows.

    [re: NATO enlargement] [..] it was not a random process left to chance: each step was scripted. The long term plan was to consolidate control over Europe with Nato, create uniform militaries purchasing arms from the US, then use the juggernaut to corner Russia. Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.

    There were many elements at play at that time, not some “evil design”, as you seem to imply: the historic process of the European re-unification, the dominant role of the US in the 1990s, the fact that a security vacuum will always get filled either way, especially in that neighborhood, I mean, it’s not an Australian desert (no offense), but a geopolitically sensitive and vital area, the striving of the EE and CE populations to experience political freedoms and build wealth, the desire for the unified Germany to have long term stability in its vicinity, maybe some foolishness, weakness of the EEs, naivety, lack of financial education (except for a few select types), the striving of the political elites to make quick careers by relatively simple means, the spreading of strange, exotic – essentially inapplicable to real life – ideologies (such as libertarianism, which was a thing back in the 90s). Maybe even poverty of many post-Warsaw pact EEs. Many factors.

    To build our own security system such as the Intermarium would have required economic strength. There was no immediately available capital to make the factories competitive. It could’ve been done with better leadership but it wasn’t there. I think the fact that a lot of dissidents were cleared out and sent into exile or left, made a difference, too.

    Also, right around that time China took up our niche for cheap labor and low production costs. Even if you did remodel the factories and somehow found the capital to reinvigorate them, make them competitive, you would still be competing with China. Not saying it couldn’t have worked, but it would have been a huge factor. The whole of the US off-shored to China. The EEs couldn’t work as cheaply and as much, yet they couldn’t raise productivity fast enough. I don’t know, it might be different in Slovakia and especially in the Czech Rep, but even there the Germans took over most of it as far as I’m aware.

    Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.

    NATO’s purpose is to deter Russia and fight it only if necessary (the very last resort). In that sense, NATO was / is defensive, however, they did take advantage of the security vacuum. In hindsight, it would’ve been stupid not to. NATO can co-exist with Russia and even China, it’s only the perennial question of boundaries…

    And to get the Russian goodies…We know the script.

    They could’ve gotten a lot of the goodies even without war. Eurasia is rich, but it’s not like the Western hemisphere is poor. And, speaking of the goodies, if we assume that they belong to the Russian people, then the current oligarchy is no less unfair than dominance by some transnationals. Only the national democracy would’ve solved this (the narodovlastie – the rule by people) and laid the ground for the creation of a globally competitive productive sector in Russia.

    No, they were already selling a lot of the goodies, they simply needed to observe the unwritten consensus of the 1991. But for them 1991 is a national tragedy (or a “catastrophe” or whatever Putin called it). It’s like their Trianon or worse. So now he wants Kenig and Crimea. And Ukraine. That’s a lot!

    You never, ever, turn over your success to the enemy – but in effect that is what Nato did.

    This is a good point (which, by the way, applies to Russia, too – they could’ve just lived with Crimea and the occupied areas of Donbas, that should’ve been plenty). But the issue is that it’s not just about NATO – the fundamental problem of the Russian opposition to the Ukrainian subjectivity would still be there even without NATO, these regional wars were fought for centuries.

    • Replies: @S
    @LatW


    It’s good to have such [Scandinavian] peoples with such solid and rugged character, in a world that’s filled with spontaneous diversity.
     
    Thanks. Every Euro people is hurting at present in their way, so I don't see the point in disparaging any particular one of them. I see the Scandis as having grown and matured as peoples, though, to be sure, at present, they are not where they ought to be.

    Would people prefer the Scandis be as they once were, neighbors who unpredictably at times would go 'berserking' and tear up the surrounding peoples?

    It is of utmost importance to not be lax about verbal abuse – it is very toxic. Not only there should be no verbal abuse, there should be no thought of it. The very thought of it should be repulsive and off-putting. For neighboring nations that want to cultivate peace.
     
    A lot of truth in that. Words are very powerful things and people should be far more careful than they are with what they say.

    Replies: @LatW

    , @Beckow
    @LatW

    We largely agree on the peculiar Scandie character and I appreciate what they add to Europe's identity. But their "looks" are not all they could be - quite a bit of the post-modern entropy has seeped in...

    I disagree about verbal abuse: let's have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it. It is in our human nature and suppression leads to bigger problems. Words are only words. Free expression also tells us a lot about both sides - more information about how we are. We can live with the some ugly side effects.


    There were many elements at play at that time, not some “evil design”, as you seem to imply
     
    I never said it was "evil", but there definitely was a design. The West now tries to desperately deny it, to pretend that all was well until 2022 and that the plans for Nato had nothing to do with cornering Russia. That is worse than lying, it is so pathetic and an obvious lie that it demeans the Western world. They should just admit it - there were plenty of others factors that you listed, sure, but the attempt by Nato to surround Russia was very obvious.

    Until this taboo subject in the West is addressed we won't make much progress. And the facile ways that it is dismissed makes it much worse. It only leads to contempt, contempt leads inevitably to mutual alienation - very slippery slope, who wouldn't nuke the aliens?


    NATO’s purpose is to deter Russia and fight it only if necessary
     
    Who defines what deterrence and necessary mean to Nato at any point? Weakening your enemy, holding a loaded gun to him on his borders, can aways be seen as deterrence and necessary. You are playing with words - this is about bigger things than fancy evasive words.

    They could’ve gotten a lot of the goodies even without war. Eurasia is rich, but it’s not like the Western hemisphere is poor.
     
    The goodies are a lot cheaper when Russia is on its back. Prices matter, look into that basic capitalist concept.

    Compare the actual Western and Eurasian natural wealth and productive capacity versus the current monetary valuations - the West is valued substantially higher than the comparison shows. Therefore they live better than their wealth creation would suggest. The war may - or may not - adjust it.


    applies to Russia, too – they could’ve just lived with Crimea and the occupied areas of Donbas...it’s not just about NATO – the fundamental problem of the Russian opposition to the Ukrainian subjectivity would still be there even without NATO, these regional wars were fought for centuries.
     
    Yes, there were previous clashes along the similar lines. They also always had outside meddlers assisting the anti-Russian side: Napoleon, Habsburgs, Swedes, Germans, Turks sometimes. They all lost because they were weaker in that region. Nato's bet was that either Russia would not fight at all, or that they are too weak. Well, Russia is fighting - half-heartedly so far - and they don't seem that weak. The odds are that they will win again. This was a major Western miscalculation.

    The Russian-Ukie hostility will last - at least among some Ukies and some Russians. But people adjust and the final deal will probably leave the core Ukraine intact, so the Galicians can hate all the want, march with Bandera flags, and migrate to wash dishes in EU, and all of that - who cares? It is a backwater. What Nato wanted was Crimea and a strategic presence on the very long border. It doesn't look like they will get it. The Ukies are just collateral damage in this losing fight.

    Replies: @LatW

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @LatW

    Needs black metal soundtrack.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Zzg4ZP8zQ&ab_channel=Mayhem-Topic

    Replies: @LatW

  229. @Dmitry
    @AP


    Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

     

    Mitt Romney looks more like an actor in an 1980s television drama than anyone I've seen in real life. If you saw him, you would guess he was an old Hollywood actor, who has their hair cut every morning.

    But I don't think he can be representative considering below data, as the majority of Mormon adults are overweight.

    overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America
     
    It can't be true on average as Mormons have higher levels of obesity than non-Mormons, especially for women. https://www.ldsliving.com/sponsored-the-mormon-obesity-epidemic-whats-going-on/s/85383

    Studies on obesity and religious practice (including a BYU study) have shown that Utah members of the LDS Church are 34% more likely to be overweight than members of other religions. (1)

    This LDS obesity epidemic is graphically evident when you visit various Utah LDS wards you might observe that 60%+ of adults over 35 years of age are overweight

    --
    Footnotes

    (1) “BYU Study Shows Mormons Weigh More” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11355738/ns/health-fitness/t/byu-study-finds-mormons-weigh-more

    “The Risk of Overweight and Obesity Among Latter-Day Saints” https://www.jstor.org/stable/41940819?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
     
    Also the incomes by religion of Mormons is the same as the mainline protestant.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/income-distribution/

    Mormons still have higher rates of life expectancy than average in America, I guess probably because of the strong community and removal of alcohol/drugs. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol10/3/10-3.pdf


    -

    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/

    Replies: @Dmitry, @AP

    Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    Mitt Romney looks more like an actor in an 1980s television drama than anyone I’ve seen in real life. If you saw him, you would guess he was an old Hollywood actor, who has their hair cut every morning

    .

    There are many like that, among Mormons. A Utah governor, Jon Huntsman, with his wife:

    They have 5 biological children, and adopted 2 children.

    overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America

    It can’t be true on average as Mormons have higher levels of obesity than non-Mormons, especially for women. https://www.ldsliving.com/sponsored-the-mormon-obesity-epidemic-whats-going-on/s/85383

    This is surprising and goes against mine (and others’) experiences, but I can’t argue against the data.

    I wonder if the non-Mormons in Utah are mostly not rural farmers but people like Mikel, who have moved to Utah for the purpose of hiking a lot in the spectacular nature. If such super-athletic people are heavily over-represented among non-Mormons in Utah, that might explain it.

    Utah in general has one of the lowest obesity rates in the country:

    https://i.insider.com/56006a16bd86ef15008bbdee?width=1136&format=jpeg

    Lower than all of its neighbors other than Colorado, 4th lowest in the USA.

    Also the incomes by religion of Mormons is the same as the mainline protestant.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/income-distribution/

    Mainline Protestants are the richest of America’s mainstream Christians.

    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/

    You’d have to account for race to get an accurate estimate. Most Blacks are Christians (typically, Protestants) and they drive life expectancy down.

    Here this is accounted for:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035005/

    Jews live longest of all. But both mainline Protestants and Catholics live longer than those with no religion. Who live longer than Evangelical Christians and Black Protestants.

    Also, the relationship between religion and income is not linear. The richest attend church the least, but the next group attend church the most, and more often than the 2 poorer groups:

    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/attendance-at-religious-services/by/income-distribution/

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @AP


    Huntsman, with his wife:
     
    He looks to me like a standard American businessman or manager.

    Romney looks like Reagan, who was an old Hollywood actor. He is not an normal old looking men, except in somewhere like Hollywood.

    Usually CEOs are unusually friendly and social people, in the large, corporate multinational companies, which have a more formal promotion system. This is unlike e.g. Trump's family business, where you can be an anti-social manager.

    But it's not common for managers and CEOs to look like actors.


    non-Mormons in Utah are mostly not rural farmers but people like Mikel, who have moved to Utah for the purpose of hiking a lot in the spectacular nature. If such super-athletic people

     

    Salt Lake City is also a economic boom, so they probably have some middle professionals immigrating there.

    -
    Although generally the most health promoting place in America are the Democrat areas though, where there is a high number of middle class people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhPcZxcdF4A


    You’d have to account for race to get an accurate estimate. Most Blacks are Christians (typically, Protestants) and they drive life expectancy down.

     

    This source I quoted is internationally, not inside America like I had believed.

    Jews live longest of all. But both mainline Protestants and Catholics live longer than those with no religion.

     

    Generally, it's matching with income of the groups. The difference is extended by expensive private healthcare.

    There would be exception with some groups which use a kind of preventive medicine to modify the use of drugs or diet like Seventh-Day and Mormons.


    -
    In terms of income,

    Episcopal Church is socially interesting, as it seems to develop as a high income Protestantism. Protestantism for WASPs who are part of the golf course?

    A lot of the sects of Judaism are also becoming a kind of snobby group, because the education costs are expensive. For example, "Jewish respondents who identified as modern Orthodox reported an average median household income of $188,000 per year, and $31,000 in annual school expenses. -- The highest wage-earners were modern Orthodox respondents aged 35-54, with $218,000 in median household income"
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-orthodox-jews-financially-fragmented-but-mostly-secure-survey-finds/

    In this kind of "golf course" sect where most of the sect are middle class, if you don't have a professionals' income, you could feel like socially you are not a "normal person". In this case, you might feel like exiting and joining a group like Jehovah's Winess which is more people in your income group.

    Replies: @AP

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    So, Jews live about seven years longer on average than black Protestants do. Very interesting! Though blacks perform very well among verified supercentenarians (people aged 110+) due to the black-white mortality crossover at age 80 or 85:

    https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=gerontology_theses

    Interestingly enough, France's oldest man ever was black:

    https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Jules_Theobald

    (White Frenchman Marcel Meys missed reaching his age by just 15 days.)

    He's not verified yet, but AFAIK he should be eventually. I have heard of no reason to doubt his age from professional and amateur gerontology circles.

  230. @Mr. Hack Did you know that Galicia (specifically Kolomyia) has a pysanka museum?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pysanka_Museum

    You can see more images from there below:

    [MORE]

    • Thanks: Coconuts
  231. @Beckow
    @LatW


    It’s understandable why it was done so, to secure power, to make sure that investments are protected, to make sure there is political control over the new countries.
     
    You are getting warmer - it was not a random process left to chance: each step was scripted. The long term plan was to consolidate control over Europe with Nato, create uniform militaries purchasing arms from the US, then use the juggernaut to corner Russia. Nato's sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.

    It eventually got us to the war. The war was in a way inevitable once Nato decided that it would be better to surround Russia, put it in a box, and maybe wait for the next internal Russian instability to pounce and finish it off. And to get the Russian goodies...We know the script.

    Now they have the war they wanted. But they also have to win it - and the hapless Ukies are coming up short. Will they escalate and send in the Poles and Romanians? Will they walk away? It was badly thought through, it depended on the Russian forbearance and staying put - once Russia moved to grab Crimea it was obvious that was wrong bet. You never, ever, turn over your success to the enemy - but in effect that is what Nato did.

    Now they are stuck hoping for a miracle. Not a good place to be, but it is just Ukie lives for them - the West can alway walk away and pretend that it was the damn 'nationalists' in Kiev who screwed up. Don't worry, if needed they will quickly find them in Ukraine and "Bandera" will be all over the Western media.

    Replies: @AP

    But they also have to win it – and the hapless Ukies are coming up short.

    Someone like you writing in July 1943 would say that the hapless Soviets were coming up short, because the Germans still controlled Kiev, Belgorod, and Kharkiv (which they had retaken in March of that year).

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AP

    You live in a make-belief world of false analogies. 1943? no kidding...how about them Mongols? And always Hitler, it comes too easy to you; as if that unspoken dream of Germans winning WW2 is haunting your subconsciousness....:)

    Replies: @AP

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    A foreign policy realist in 1943 could have actually potentially argued that the Allies should offer anti-Nazis in the German military and intelligence service the opportunity to keep some of Germany's Hitler-era territorial gains (at least through (new) plebiscites) in exchange for these anti-Nazis overthrowing Hitler and the Nazis as soon as possible and then immediately ending WWII and saving a lot of lives. This would have prevented Eastern Europe from falling under Communist rule for several decades and would have also saved a million or so Jewish lives from the Holocaust (largely, but not completely, Greater Hungarian Jews; 74,000 Lodz Jews would have also been saved, of course).

    If I was a Jew in Greater Hungary or in Lodz, I'd have probably favored this outcome, since even if I would have ultimately been lucky enough to survive the Holocaust, many/most of my family probably wouldn't have. Even for Eastern Europeans, this deal would not have been too bad. Though instead of Communist rule, they would have had significantly more Muslims and Africans by now, most likely, so there would have been a tradeoff for them.

  232. Looks like the final reserves have been committed, the great Ukrainian offensive has been spent. As predicted it was no different to all those attacks on Kherson, that similarly ended in costly failure. Now we await Moscow’s move.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @LondonBob

    What planet are you on, if I may ask?

    Replies: @AP

    , @sudden death
    @LondonBob

    Meanwhile on planet Earth:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5A-VAIWwAAxkv1.png


    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1697926920602526196

    Replies: @sudden death

    , @Mikhail
    @LondonBob

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TKZrVOhGRk

    The drone attacks into Russia are diversionary propaganda designed to dupe people into the mindset that the Kiev regime wasn't doing this before and that their doing it now serves as "proof" (sic) that it's gaining.

    The Kiev regime needs to do this to try to give cover to its forces getting slaughtered as it'll need a greater mobilization to try to replenish its lost personnel.

    The Kyiv Independent would be raided if this fact based observation was presented.

    Replies: @Sean

  233. @LondonBob
    Looks like the final reserves have been committed, the great Ukrainian offensive has been spent. As predicted it was no different to all those attacks on Kherson, that similarly ended in costly failure. Now we await Moscow's move.

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death, @Mikhail

    What planet are you on, if I may ask?

    • Replies: @AP
    @LatW

    Probably, the planet MacGregor.

    A dispatch from his planet on July 2022:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-191-russia-ukraine/#comment-5420720

    "The Ukrainian military is well on its way to destruction, there will be no way to re-equip it."

    September 2022:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-197/#comment-5575212

    "Pretty obvious Krasny Liman is a trap, but Ukrainian and NATO ideological blinkers means they have blundered straight in to it, Seversk and Kharkhov counteroffensive coming."

    :::::::::::

    The man is a clown.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  234. @LatW
    @Beckow


    It makes for good societies, but they are damn boring.
     
    Look, I know them well, too, and, yes, they can be a little boring sometimes, but they more than make up for that with their looks (so - not boring in the end, haha!). Also, Scandinavia can be interesting and even captivating if one has niche interests (viking metal, majestic mountains, whales, Arctic animals).

    Predictable, as if they didn’t really exist, following predetermined roles and holding approved views.

     

    Well, this goes together with the ruggedly beautiful and serene Northern landscape - there is predictability and permanence, the eternal peace of vast, snow clad lands, emptiness, silence, loneliness... It's good to have such peoples with such solid and rugged character, in a world that's filled with spontaneous diversity.

    Russians-Ukies abuse each other, but their emotions are fleeting, one day they kill, next day they feast together.
     
    This is partly true, but their situation is much more complex than for other E.European states, then again, this is quite heavy - they are killing their kids and mocking it (there was a Christmas photo of a very beautiful little girl that was killed (I think recently in Chernihiv) and the Russians posted laugh emojis and such). You sound very casual and dismissive about this. Even if at some point, some of the Ukrainians will begin associating with the Russians, for most of them this fracture will be real and long term. Do not trivialize their suffering. Most of all - to dismiss this as a factor is foolish.

    The verbal abuse is mutual
     
    Yes, unfortunately, and it was there already before Maidan. It started getting somewhat bad around mid 2000s. Overall, things started getting worse in 2007 (when Putin decided to "raise Russia from her knees", Munich speech, increased propaganda, etc).

    It is of utmost importance to not be lax about verbal abuse - it is very toxic. Not only there should be no verbal abuse, there should be no thought of it. The very thought of it should be repulsive and off-putting. For neighboring nations that want to cultivate peace.


    But nobody is putting money on it.
     
    No, I'm not putting money on it either (re: the Legion's march on Moscow). Only hopes. The numbers are small, even though they growing, albeit very slow. But I have a nagging feeling about it, there is something permanent and strong about this resistance. Also something idealistic. Maybe this time the FSB will not decide everything? Who knows.


    [re: NATO enlargement] [..] it was not a random process left to chance: each step was scripted. The long term plan was to consolidate control over Europe with Nato, create uniform militaries purchasing arms from the US, then use the juggernaut to corner Russia. Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.
     
    There were many elements at play at that time, not some "evil design", as you seem to imply: the historic process of the European re-unification, the dominant role of the US in the 1990s, the fact that a security vacuum will always get filled either way, especially in that neighborhood, I mean, it's not an Australian desert (no offense), but a geopolitically sensitive and vital area, the striving of the EE and CE populations to experience political freedoms and build wealth, the desire for the unified Germany to have long term stability in its vicinity, maybe some foolishness, weakness of the EEs, naivety, lack of financial education (except for a few select types), the striving of the political elites to make quick careers by relatively simple means, the spreading of strange, exotic - essentially inapplicable to real life - ideologies (such as libertarianism, which was a thing back in the 90s). Maybe even poverty of many post-Warsaw pact EEs. Many factors.

    To build our own security system such as the Intermarium would have required economic strength. There was no immediately available capital to make the factories competitive. It could've been done with better leadership but it wasn't there. I think the fact that a lot of dissidents were cleared out and sent into exile or left, made a difference, too.

    Also, right around that time China took up our niche for cheap labor and low production costs. Even if you did remodel the factories and somehow found the capital to reinvigorate them, make them competitive, you would still be competing with China. Not saying it couldn't have worked, but it would have been a huge factor. The whole of the US off-shored to China. The EEs couldn't work as cheaply and as much, yet they couldn't raise productivity fast enough. I don't know, it might be different in Slovakia and especially in the Czech Rep, but even there the Germans took over most of it as far as I'm aware.

    Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.
     
    NATO's purpose is to deter Russia and fight it only if necessary (the very last resort). In that sense, NATO was / is defensive, however, they did take advantage of the security vacuum. In hindsight, it would've been stupid not to. NATO can co-exist with Russia and even China, it's only the perennial question of boundaries...

    And to get the Russian goodies…We know the script.
     
    They could've gotten a lot of the goodies even without war. Eurasia is rich, but it's not like the Western hemisphere is poor. And, speaking of the goodies, if we assume that they belong to the Russian people, then the current oligarchy is no less unfair than dominance by some transnationals. Only the national democracy would've solved this (the narodovlastie - the rule by people) and laid the ground for the creation of a globally competitive productive sector in Russia.

    No, they were already selling a lot of the goodies, they simply needed to observe the unwritten consensus of the 1991. But for them 1991 is a national tragedy (or a "catastrophe" or whatever Putin called it). It's like their Trianon or worse. So now he wants Kenig and Crimea. And Ukraine. That's a lot!

    You never, ever, turn over your success to the enemy – but in effect that is what Nato did.
     
    This is a good point (which, by the way, applies to Russia, too - they could've just lived with Crimea and the occupied areas of Donbas, that should've been plenty). But the issue is that it's not just about NATO - the fundamental problem of the Russian opposition to the Ukrainian subjectivity would still be there even without NATO, these regional wars were fought for centuries.

    Replies: @S, @Beckow, @Emil Nikola Richard

    It’s good to have such [Scandinavian] peoples with such solid and rugged character, in a world that’s filled with spontaneous diversity.

    Thanks. Every Euro people is hurting at present in their way, so I don’t see the point in disparaging any particular one of them. I see the Scandis as having grown and matured as peoples, though, to be sure, at present, they are not where they ought to be.

    Would people prefer the Scandis be as they once were, neighbors who unpredictably at times would go ‘berserking’ and tear up the surrounding peoples?

    It is of utmost importance to not be lax about verbal abuse – it is very toxic. Not only there should be no verbal abuse, there should be no thought of it. The very thought of it should be repulsive and off-putting. For neighboring nations that want to cultivate peace.

    A lot of truth in that. Words are very powerful things and people should be far more careful than they are with what they say.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @S


    I see the Scandis as having grown and matured as peoples, though, to be sure, at present, they are not where they ought to be.
     
    I think the Danes are very reasonable in their policies, but even in Denmark it is not ideal (you know what I'm talking about).

    Would people prefer the Scandis be as they once were, neighbors who unpredictably at times would go ‘berserking’ and tear up the surrounding peoples?
     
    They would be "berserked" back - it's not a one way thing and they're not omnipotent, back in those days ours could pounce back pretty strongly as well occasionally. Viking is not a nationality, but an occupation. Apparently the Danes used to have a prayer in the 9th century: "God, protect us from the plague, the fire and the Curonians". The Curonians raided together with Estonians and sometimes with Western Slavs, and sometimes even participated in Scandinavian raids.

    We talked about Gotland with a Swedish guy once and he said something like "Back then you couldn't really tell who it belonged to", there were individuals of various backgrounds who were present there or at least visited, but maybe he was just trying to be friendly.

    Today they couldn't "berserk" because they would lose too much (they partly live off of surrounding countries as they are export based economies). But also because they are kind. Looking at this awful conflict in the East, I feel so grateful for all these wonderful neighboring countries (Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, Finland, our beloved Poland, even many Belarusians are nice). Thank God for these peoples. It never even occurs for anyone to call each other names. The British, too, are kind, even though they could brag and act superior.

    I often think how nice it is that Germany is not hostile or aggressive. Even though I don't really want Germany to be soft either (militarily and politically).

    Words are very powerful things and people should be far more careful than they are with what they say.
     
    It is taken for granted. We shouldn't have had micro aggression towards the Russians either. These things pile up.

    Replies: @S

  235. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    The life expectancy of a sugar cane slave was abysmal. The importing of fresh slaves by the (Jewish) traders was huge and perpetual. Those poor people were worked to death. : (

    Have you read about Elijah Muhammed's alien visitation?

    Replies: @songbird

    The life expectancy of a sugar cane slave was abysmal.

    They certainly weren’t very fertile compared to American slaves. Though I would speculate that the number of smuggled imports to America, after the Atlantic trade was banned, might be significantly underestimated.

    I wonder how it would have compared to Africa at the time. Presumably, it was a similar environment in terms of tropical diseases.

    Have you read about Elijah Muhammed’s alien visitation?

    Not in depth. I’d be interested but can’t find the source.

    I recently watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind and thought it was a very strange movie. (I wonder whether Dmitry has seen it).

  236. @LatW
    @LondonBob

    What planet are you on, if I may ask?

    Replies: @AP

    Probably, the planet MacGregor.

    A dispatch from his planet on July 2022:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-191-russia-ukraine/#comment-5420720

    “The Ukrainian military is well on its way to destruction, there will be no way to re-equip it.”

    September 2022:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-197/#comment-5575212

    “Pretty obvious Krasny Liman is a trap, but Ukrainian and NATO ideological blinkers means they have blundered straight in to it, Seversk and Kharkhov counteroffensive coming.”

    :::::::::::

    The man is a clown.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @AP

    Not as bad as Hodges, Keane, Petraeus and the CNN propped regulars.

    Replies: @QCIC

  237. @LondonBob
    Looks like the final reserves have been committed, the great Ukrainian offensive has been spent. As predicted it was no different to all those attacks on Kherson, that similarly ended in costly failure. Now we await Moscow's move.

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death, @Mikhail

    Meanwhile on planet Earth:

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @sudden death

    https://i.postimg.cc/HLF0vVKT/verbove.jpg

    Replies: @QCIC

  238. Surprised nobody has mentioned Avi Loeb’s claims of possibly finding the remains of an alien probe.

    Personally, I have a hard time understanding why aliens sophisticated enough to send an interstellar probe would crash one into Earth.

    …unless it was intended to be a weapon.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    I posted the Daily Mail report on that goofball's New Guinea expedition in Newslinks a couple days ago. He is CIA sponsored. Carl Sagan's ghost not yet seen throwing a fit.

  239. @sudden death
    @LondonBob

    Meanwhile on planet Earth:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5A-VAIWwAAxkv1.png


    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1697926920602526196

    Replies: @sudden death

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @sudden death

    The contrast between pro-Ukraine views (hegemonic) and pro-Russia views (anti-hegemonic) is fascinating. Of course the pro-Ukrainian folks view Russia as the potential hegemon while the rest of the world recognizes the USA-West as the actual hegemon fighting against a potential competitor. Many people in the pro-Ukraine category actually recognize the West as hegemonic but give it a free pass for many dastardly deeds committed in the past 30 years.

    Observers in the two opposed camps operate with information sources which are completely polarized on most aspects of the conflict. One side has maps showing Ukrainian progress while the other has similar maps showing Russian progress. Both sides have pictures of blown up tanks and general carnage. One side touts NATO weapons flowing into the conflict, the other 24/7 weapons production in Russia.

    Neither group reliably emphasizes that this conflict could expand into World War Three and a possible nuclear war. People ignore the reality that this Ukraine mess is much more dangerous than anything which happened during the Cold War. During that era people eventually started to recognize the horror of a global nuclear war and it scared the piss out of them. Now people are so uneducated and so manipulated that they are completely nonchalant about the real prospect of World War Three.

    This bizarre outlook does look a bit like a Jedi mind trick or some diabolical 'reality creation' as suggested by Mister Steak (HMS). Or could it simply be the result of abysmal contemporary education combined with 24/7 propaganda beamed almost directly into our brains from a six inch flashing oracle (smart phone)?

    Replies: @sudden death

  240. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:

    What is going on the pro Russian side saying fantastical things over and over again, despite being repeatedly proven wrong, again and again, without batting an eyelash or any apparent shame?

    It’s easy to say they’re just stupid or deluded or engaging in wishful thinking, but I think it’s something unlike anything I’ve seen before, and could be something completely different – it’s so extreme that I think it cannot be explained from within the framework of people attempting to rationally analyze a situation, and get at what’s actually happening on the ground. It may be a completely different thing and a departure from the rationalist framework that we naturally assume is the default that all sides use.

    I occasionally dip into Vox Day, who is a major Alt-Right figure, to get a sense of what is really going on on that side – and it is like entering another world. In that world, Russia has already completely defeated and humiliated America and the West, and so has China, and Iran, etc. It’s a fascinating alternative universe, like an alternative historical novel.

    Something Vox Day has said in another connection may provide the clue to what’s going on here – he was analyzing the language of some left establishment document or other and noting how the insertion of certain words and claims about reality were intended as a magical spell to weaken the other side and create a different reality. He meant it quite literally as an example of “black magic”.

    So what if the pro-Russian side is attempting to engage in “reality creation” in an almost occult fashion? Instead of attempting to describe reality – which we naturally assume everyone is doing – they are attempting to impose their will on reality in an occult fashion, a sort of collective incantatory spell and collective group chant? There are the notorious words of that US government official, I forget who, that America is so strong it creates reality – although he didn’t mean it in an occult fashion, it perhaps had that subtext.

    And I have seen powerful businessman achieve repeated success by simply refusing to accept the seeming finality of a situation- and then strangely, doors seem to open and unexpected results pour in, in a way normal people who have no access to this world would find scarcely credible. There are weird occult phenomena occurring in elite business circles all the time that unless you’ve seen you’d scarcely credit, if you assumed the world of elite power is ruled entirely by rational analysis.

    What if, in the battle for reality, will is an important occult factor in the shape reality ultimately takes? And certainly whether there is any reality or truth to this, some at least on the pro-Russian side may self consciously be seeing themselves as engaging in spells, and the collective pro-Russian side may be somewhat unconsciously channelling this impulse.

    I enjoy the idea of Ron Unz as a Black Mage, with his repeated nonstop posting of McGregor videos as credible despite the most obvious and repeated failures, completely refusing to acknowledge those failures 🙂

    For the moment, it seems obvious that their “magic” is significantly weaker than the “magic” of the pro-Ukrainian side – and maybe at least on an instinctive level, that’s why the Ukrainians recently refused with alarm to even discuss a negotiated peace as touted by the more rationalist Germans – they understand it is weak magic.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    I occasionally dip into Vox Day, who is a major Alt-Right figure, to get a sense of what is really going on on that side – and it is like entering another world. In that world, Russia has already completely defeated and humiliated America and the West, and so has China, and Iran, etc. It’s a fascinating alternative universe, like an alternative historical novel.

    The same is true for Moon of Alabama.

    They seem unaware that they been declaring the near imminent defeat of Ukraine since the war started. Any comments pointing this out are removed.

    Alt-right used to be a place where you could discuss what both left and right would censor in their forums. Now half of Alt-right has rallied around Putin and supports the same level of controlled conversation. It's very disturbing for that reason. They decry censorship by the MSM but would clearly be fine with CNN if they hired MacGregor and let him ramble without any real questions. It seems that much of alt-right never wanted an open area of ideas and only value free speech when it suits them.

    So what if the pro-Russian side is attempting to engage in “reality creation” in an almost occult fashion? Instead of attempting to describe reality – which we naturally assume everyone is doing – they are attempting to impose their will on reality in an occult fashion, a sort of collective incantatory spell and collective group chant?

    I think the average pro-Putin poster is motivated largely by a combination of one or more of the following:
    1. A hatred of the Western status quo in combined with a hopeless feeling that nothing can be changed internally and will only deteriorate
    2. A corresponding belief that the expansion of Russia is a healthy counter-balance to this West (with discussions of Russia's abortion rate or declining Slavic population under strict bans in pro-Putin forums)
    3. Exhaustion from Western feminism (understandable) which leads to an unhealthy idealization of a "strong man" with absolute power.
    4. Hatred of the Jews or belief that Jews control/undermine the West. Ukraine is viewed as the Jewish side even if Putin has Jews in his inner circle and has strong ties to Israel (that discussion is also banned in some pro-Putin forums).
    5. Nihilistic/Misanthropic tendencies. We have gone over how about half of Putin's US public defenders have criminal records or accusations. Napolitano for example has been accused of raping a man who was drugged. They find some type of dark identity with Putin. Anglin has been a Putin supporter for years and is still wanted by Federal agents.

    Replies: @AaronB, @AP, @A123, @Sean

    , @Mikhail
    @AaronB

    You've provided another example of pro-Kiev regime projection.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS6lXZpkQ4c

    Replies: @AaronB

    , @LatW
    @AaronB

    You are offering some truly fascinating and original comments here re: magical thinking (on both sides).

    One thing that really strikes me while watching Ukrainian talk shows is how firmly they believe in their victory. They always talk as if it is something that will happen, regardless how long it takes. It sounds like something more than an unspoken consensus, but a deeper conviction. It is almost as if there is a taboo on saying the opposite (maybe this taboo serves a social function, it helps them survive this hardship?).

    Whenever the opposite is mentioned (that they could lose), it is done in the context of criticizing some aspects of the war effort or in criticism to the leading politicians, but it is not uttered as a belief that this will happen.

    I recently watched a panel with some Ukrainian fighters, with an audience of young people. They were very battle hardened and brutally honest, but also very confident and made a lot of jokes, including brutal ones - they said they make those jokes all the time on the battle field (I guess this is to keep their sanity and preserve the morale).

    So one of the fighters, who himself is a former comedian, said something like: "I will say something that you won't like but we will lose if we don't change our attitude" (or "get our sh*t together"), and there was a bit of a silence because it sounded like he had said something that was a taboo. But then he turned it around and explained himself with an example: the Ukrainians have this cute little dog called Patron (meaning "Bullet") that they use as a mascot and this soldier said that one of his battle jokes is that he wants "Patron to croak". Because Patron symbolizes everything that is naive and immature about the Ukrainian public - the belief in a quick victory, the high expectations for the counter offensive, the inability to fully grasp how hard it is on the battle field. So this soldier was saying the civilian public really needs to grow up.

    In the end he turned it around and said: "Ok, ok, I was joking - I want Patron to live 23 years." (Which is a long life for that particular breed).

    But this demonstrates their way of thinking. It is a strong belief but also rational introspection. It is interesting what they choose to say or not to say. And, yes, it does seem a little bit like thinking during the magical phase of the history of mankind - for example, in some ancient religions, one is not supposed to openly pronounce the names of certain Gods, so some Gods had a whole range of other names that were used. Odin has something like 200 different names, for example.

    As to the magical thinking of the alt-right, that is more primitive and crazy. I wonder what is going to happen to them if the eventual result will not match their hard held beliefs, whether they will have some sort of an epiphany.

    Oh, and by the way, this summer one could notice that the Ukrainians have created a following on the world music scene (they seem to have developed a whole new genre of electro-folk-trance that includes the very distinct sounding flute that Ukrainians play, as well as traditional female vocals). So there is a band called Go_A that played all these summer festivals in Europe and they were encouraging the audience to dance in circles, and the singer called this "The Ukrainian magic". So there might be something to it.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  241. Is this too little, too late? (1)

    Trump Was Right: Sweden Finally Cracks Down On Illegals With Mandatory Reporting

    Sweden’s woke government clearly wants to keep their jobs.

    After encouraging a hoard of migrants to flood the country, some of whom are rapey and violent, they’re now cracking down, and have introduced a mandatory requirement for public institutions to report illegals.

    Of course, Sweden’s migrant problem could have been nipped in the bud six years ago if they’ only listened to Donald Trump – who called out Sweden for failing to address the problem.

    In addition to the proposed reporting requirements, the center-right government, propped up by the right-wing Sweden Democrats, plans to extend the use of biometric screening, including the use of fingerprinting and facial recognition, to strengthen checks on people already living in the country.

    “It may involve fingerprints and photographs being taken and stored in more cases and for a longer period of time,” explained Christian Carlsson, migration spokesperson for the co-governing Christian Democrats.

    Random immigration checks, which are currently not permitted in the country, may also be introduced.

    Additionally, expiry dates on expulsion orders, which currently last for four years, could be extended or abolished, and the government is also exploring the possibility of introducing re-entry bans into the country.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-was-right-sweden-finally-cracks-down-illegals-mandatory-reporting

  242. @Mr. XYZ
    @Beckow


    Sure. There is also a possibility that the Pope will convert to Buddhism. But nobody is putting money on it. More likely many Ukies will die needlessly only for Kiev to eventually make peace – in 2024-25 -that assures Ukraine’s neutrality and cedes Russian majority regions to Russia – with Russia deciding where they are. A much worse deal than Minsk. Is it worth it?
     
    Ukraine won't agree to any neutrality that at a bare minimum would forfeit Ukraine's EU aspirations. Even in exchanging for giving up the possibility of Ukrainian NATO membership, Ukraine and the West would both need to get something big, Ukraine from the West and/or Russia (a return to its 2013 territory?) and the West from Russia (HUGE Russian cooperation against China).

    Replies: @Beckow

    It is not about what each side wants. It is now about who wins. If Ukraine loses it will be forced to accept the conditions Russia imposes. EU membership was not a casus belli. Russia never objected to it – the only said that if Kiev joins EU there have to be economic consequences – Kiev can’t be in two competing free trade blocks. Nobody can. Kiev’s, Brussels’s, (and yours) inability or pretense not to understand something so basic borders on feigned idiocy. Why deny the obvious? When UK left EU both sides insisted on the same changes. Why is it always different when “Russia” is involved?

    Russia is not returning to its 2013 territory – and Ukies can’t make them. Russia will not betray China who stood by them as the West attempted to destroy the Russian economy. It doesn’t work that way. Strategic mistakes have long-term consequences. The West is ruled today by silly narcissists and will have to live with the consequences for a long time. There is nothing that can be done about it now.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Beckow

    It is not about what each side wants. It is now about who wins. If Ukraine loses it will be forced to accept the conditions Russia imposes. EU membership was not a casus belli.

    Why would that be the case given that Russia is being economically compromised by the sanctions?

    Russia could never be the only voice in the room.

    They were never an economic island and their Ruble recently hit a 16 month low even though oil production is nominal.

    What is happening is that they are exporting more oil via shipping but are still taking a hit from the loss of profit from selling next door. They also still have grounded planes and a lack of computer chips even though Putin's defenders scoffed at the idea that sanctions would do anything.

    It's in Russia's best interest to at least have the oil and gas sanctions scaled back. Thus they will never be in a position to uniformly determine surrender terms.

    Putin did not bother to look at Russia's imports/exports as he never planned for the current scenario. He imagined them taking all of Ukraine through a decapitation attack and then negotiating away any sanctions with the belief that NATO would not engage Russia in a direct confrontation. That assumption was most likely correct but he failed to take Kiev.

    Replies: @Sean

  243. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:
    @Mikel
    @AaronB

    Sorry Aaron but what what you're doing here is wrong. First you're debating a person who has possibly forgotten what your religious background is, even though you told him the other day, and may start saying that you are a Mormon any moment now. You're not going to convince him of anything. Second, and this is even worse for me, you're giving him the opportunity of posting a lot of crap for the umpteenth time to explain how much he despises Mormons and how evil they are (because he allegedly had some bad business experience with some Mormon but has obviously never lived close to real Mormons).

    JJ is not even Dmitry, too proud to admit that his knowledge acquired online may not be as reliable as daily real life experience, but at least he does his research and comes back with some sort of novel ideas. No chance of that with JJ.

    Anyway, I think that your description of Mormons is quite accurate. I would just add a couple of caveats. First, it is true that making money in Utah is important and there are quite a lot of successful Mormon businessmen. But I'm not sure how different this is from any other state or traditional religion in the US. Where in America is it not important to make money and be materially successful? Besides, it is quite remarkable how among Mormons material concerns seldom if ever get in the way of religious practice. In fact, I even know a few Mormon families who most definitely put their religion way above money. They keep having children, as their religion commands, in spite of living with modest salaries and very tight budgets. One of them, with pioneer origins on both sides, could pay off their mortgage just by selling a vacant plot of land adjacent to their house but they prefer to keep the land and have an old-style 1-acre property. This is a family that doesn't have the money to go on vacation or drive modern cars. They buy second-hand clothes and clearance food. Having no mortgage or, most definitely, less children, would allow them to live much closer to the standards of their own relatives and neighbors but they just won't do it. I obviously don't know everybody in Utah but the sample of those I do tells me that such cases must be very common.

    The second caveat is that, behind all the wealth and business activity you see in Utah, a strong communitarian (even socialist) element remains in the society here. One little known aspect of Mormonism is that originally they built a semi-Communist society where the Church led all aspects of people's lives and practically owned the majority of the land. Fundamentalist Mormons on the border with Arizona still live like that, even renting their houses form the Church. Even though the majority of Mormons have always had British origins, with their high trust but individualist tendencies, I have the strong impression that the big contingent of Scandinavians that came here during the 19th century, especially from Denmark and Sweden, had a big influence in shaping social life in Utah by adding a much more communitarian approach than what is typical among pure Anglos. I don't have the time to expand on this now and I guess it's of little interest to most people but let that be known.

    PS- JJ sometimes manages to make some good points here and there and I guess we're all just a bunch a weirdos here anyway but I can't forget his faux passes with me. It's just not worth debating him.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @AaronB

    Lol, I hear 🙂 JJ does seem to be very stubborn, and to have a very simple black and white view of things, and to frequently misunderstand others comments, but he makes some interesting comments sometimes and is far from the worst here. As you say, another Unz weirdo like all of us – and I try and talk to everyone except the most creepy and sinister, and perhaps even them 🙂

    But I was primarily trying to “awaken” JJ to the possibility of nuance and complexity of thinking – that something may be “bad” but also on another level “good”, or a step on the path to good. Or that a situation that contains much more bad things overall than another situation, may on the whole, contain more good things as well and be worth learning from to some degree, whereas another situation may not be so bad but also have nothing particularly good in it.

    JJ strikes me as a very extreme case of simplistic left-hemisphere thinking, which I was trying to “snap him out of” and learn to see things with nuance and depth.

    You make good points re the religion of money in America and perhaps the cultural contribution of Swedes to the Mormon community, although I think all religious communities by definition practice some form of altruism.

    And thanks for providing examples of moral conviction trumping self-interest among Mormons – that can only happen in a religious context, of course.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    You guys can have a little Freudian tea party but everyone in this thread can see that Mikel was simply wrong about Mormon mixed marriages.

    They aren't merely frowned upon. Entering the afterlife without having been married to another Mormon in the temple will lead to a drastically downgraded eternity. Mormons are raised from birth to believe that the ideal is to find another Mormon and have a large family. This is how they become gods of their own and not only rule over another planet but have millions of children. Yes millions. They breed for eternity.

    The Celestial marriage is sacred and is not viewable by the public. It is common for Mormons to have two separate services as it is normally cost prohibitive for everyone to fly to Utah for the marriage.

    JJ strikes me as a very extreme case of simplistic left-hemisphere thinking, which I was trying to “snap him out of” and learn to see things with nuance and depth.

    My rational approach is indeed stubborn and also a threat to your lifelong case of race denial. Much like the emperor's new clothes your position may be backed by society but falls to simple logic. You take the position that an external solution is possible in a "reformed society" that you haven't explained. As with the establishment you revert to what you feel is morally correct but haven't given a single sentence on what exactly is needed and why various plans of the past 50 years have not worked. It's nothing to feel bad about. Policy thinkers in DC with PhD's will also be stumped on simple questions when asked about race in an open forum. This is the result of society spending billions yes billions on think tanks, media outlets and academic research in attempt to prove that the invisible cloth is made of gold. After spending billions the most common response is to lecture the child in the room for being evil, maladaptive or uneducated.

    , @Mikel
    @AaronB


    JJ does seem to be very stubborn, and to have a very simple black and white view of things, and to frequently misunderstand others comments
     
    It shouldn't be long before I meet the Mormon woman married to a Jew that I mentioned. Perhaps I should tell her that someone on the internet told me that she'll have a second-rate Heaven experience because of her husband. Though I suspect that her reaction would be exactly the same as if I told some of my Catholic relatives that haven't gone to mass for years that eternal Hell is waiting for them LOL

    These black-and-white types don't seem capable of grasping the trivial fact that ordinary Mormons are about as flexible to certain interpretations of their faith as ordinary members of any other Christian denomination. Strictly speaking, I reckon that some 90% of Christians are condemned if we take the precepts of their faith seriously but you don't see them overly preoccupied by the matter. They just follow whatever social mores have come to be the norm in their environment and carry on practicing their faith happily as best they can.

    In fact, people are so incoherent that I'm sure there must be chaplains offering their services right now to soldiers on both sides on the Ukrainian war, including the ones who press the buttons that lob missiles toward civilian areas. I wouldn't be surprised if these are the ones who demand those services the most. It would make perfect sense from a purely human perspective.

    Perhaps I have the advantage of not being a native-born American and thus being free of old anti-Mormon prejudices. I had never interacted with any Mormon before coming to live in Utah but shortly before coming to live here I did read a lot of what some Americans like JJ said about them (exactly the same kind of stuff) and was deeply worried about how my family would be treated. What I actually found is that either those prejudices were totally wrong or described a past era long gone now. Mormon children are most definitely allowed to play with non-Mormons, people are surprisingly welcoming of newcomers and tolerant of their differences and Mormons are just the best neighbors I have ever had anywhere in the world, as we've discussed at length in the past. With all the time you've spent in Utah I'm sure you've seen some of what I'm saying.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @silviosilver

  244. @AP
    @Beckow


    But they also have to win it – and the hapless Ukies are coming up short.
     
    Someone like you writing in July 1943 would say that the hapless Soviets were coming up short, because the Germans still controlled Kiev, Belgorod, and Kharkiv (which they had retaken in March of that year).

    Replies: @Beckow, @Mr. XYZ

    You live in a make-belief world of false analogies. 1943? no kidding…how about them Mongols? And always Hitler, it comes too easy to you; as if that unspoken dream of Germans winning WW2 is haunting your subconsciousness….:)

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    You live in a make-belief world of false analogies. 1943? no kidding…how about them Mongols? And always Hitler, it comes too easy to you; as if that unspoken dream of Germans winning WW2 is haunting your subconsciousness….:)
     
    You are the one who mentioned him, not I. Projection?

    World War II comes to mind because that was the last time there was war in those lands.

    But the last time that Russia went to a real war without Ukraine fighting alongside it was against Poland in 1920.

    How did that turn out?

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  245. @AaronB
    @Mikel

    Lol, I hear :) JJ does seem to be very stubborn, and to have a very simple black and white view of things, and to frequently misunderstand others comments, but he makes some interesting comments sometimes and is far from the worst here. As you say, another Unz weirdo like all of us - and I try and talk to everyone except the most creepy and sinister, and perhaps even them :)

    But I was primarily trying to "awaken" JJ to the possibility of nuance and complexity of thinking - that something may be "bad" but also on another level "good", or a step on the path to good. Or that a situation that contains much more bad things overall than another situation, may on the whole, contain more good things as well and be worth learning from to some degree, whereas another situation may not be so bad but also have nothing particularly good in it.

    JJ strikes me as a very extreme case of simplistic left-hemisphere thinking, which I was trying to "snap him out of" and learn to see things with nuance and depth.

    You make good points re the religion of money in America and perhaps the cultural contribution of Swedes to the Mormon community, although I think all religious communities by definition practice some form of altruism.

    And thanks for providing examples of moral conviction trumping self-interest among Mormons - that can only happen in a religious context, of course.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Mikel

    You guys can have a little Freudian tea party but everyone in this thread can see that Mikel was simply wrong about Mormon mixed marriages.

    They aren’t merely frowned upon. Entering the afterlife without having been married to another Mormon in the temple will lead to a drastically downgraded eternity. Mormons are raised from birth to believe that the ideal is to find another Mormon and have a large family. This is how they become gods of their own and not only rule over another planet but have millions of children. Yes millions. They breed for eternity.

    The Celestial marriage is sacred and is not viewable by the public. It is common for Mormons to have two separate services as it is normally cost prohibitive for everyone to fly to Utah for the marriage.

    JJ strikes me as a very extreme case of simplistic left-hemisphere thinking, which I was trying to “snap him out of” and learn to see things with nuance and depth.

    My rational approach is indeed stubborn and also a threat to your lifelong case of race denial. Much like the emperor’s new clothes your position may be backed by society but falls to simple logic. You take the position that an external solution is possible in a “reformed society” that you haven’t explained. As with the establishment you revert to what you feel is morally correct but haven’t given a single sentence on what exactly is needed and why various plans of the past 50 years have not worked. It’s nothing to feel bad about. Policy thinkers in DC with PhD’s will also be stumped on simple questions when asked about race in an open forum. This is the result of society spending billions yes billions on think tanks, media outlets and academic research in attempt to prove that the invisible cloth is made of gold. After spending billions the most common response is to lecture the child in the room for being evil, maladaptive or uneducated.

  246. Ermine nearly jumped on my foot today.

    Cute little fellow. Hope he got what he was after.

  247. @LatW
    @Beckow


    It makes for good societies, but they are damn boring.
     
    Look, I know them well, too, and, yes, they can be a little boring sometimes, but they more than make up for that with their looks (so - not boring in the end, haha!). Also, Scandinavia can be interesting and even captivating if one has niche interests (viking metal, majestic mountains, whales, Arctic animals).

    Predictable, as if they didn’t really exist, following predetermined roles and holding approved views.

     

    Well, this goes together with the ruggedly beautiful and serene Northern landscape - there is predictability and permanence, the eternal peace of vast, snow clad lands, emptiness, silence, loneliness... It's good to have such peoples with such solid and rugged character, in a world that's filled with spontaneous diversity.

    Russians-Ukies abuse each other, but their emotions are fleeting, one day they kill, next day they feast together.
     
    This is partly true, but their situation is much more complex than for other E.European states, then again, this is quite heavy - they are killing their kids and mocking it (there was a Christmas photo of a very beautiful little girl that was killed (I think recently in Chernihiv) and the Russians posted laugh emojis and such). You sound very casual and dismissive about this. Even if at some point, some of the Ukrainians will begin associating with the Russians, for most of them this fracture will be real and long term. Do not trivialize their suffering. Most of all - to dismiss this as a factor is foolish.

    The verbal abuse is mutual
     
    Yes, unfortunately, and it was there already before Maidan. It started getting somewhat bad around mid 2000s. Overall, things started getting worse in 2007 (when Putin decided to "raise Russia from her knees", Munich speech, increased propaganda, etc).

    It is of utmost importance to not be lax about verbal abuse - it is very toxic. Not only there should be no verbal abuse, there should be no thought of it. The very thought of it should be repulsive and off-putting. For neighboring nations that want to cultivate peace.


    But nobody is putting money on it.
     
    No, I'm not putting money on it either (re: the Legion's march on Moscow). Only hopes. The numbers are small, even though they growing, albeit very slow. But I have a nagging feeling about it, there is something permanent and strong about this resistance. Also something idealistic. Maybe this time the FSB will not decide everything? Who knows.


    [re: NATO enlargement] [..] it was not a random process left to chance: each step was scripted. The long term plan was to consolidate control over Europe with Nato, create uniform militaries purchasing arms from the US, then use the juggernaut to corner Russia. Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.
     
    There were many elements at play at that time, not some "evil design", as you seem to imply: the historic process of the European re-unification, the dominant role of the US in the 1990s, the fact that a security vacuum will always get filled either way, especially in that neighborhood, I mean, it's not an Australian desert (no offense), but a geopolitically sensitive and vital area, the striving of the EE and CE populations to experience political freedoms and build wealth, the desire for the unified Germany to have long term stability in its vicinity, maybe some foolishness, weakness of the EEs, naivety, lack of financial education (except for a few select types), the striving of the political elites to make quick careers by relatively simple means, the spreading of strange, exotic - essentially inapplicable to real life - ideologies (such as libertarianism, which was a thing back in the 90s). Maybe even poverty of many post-Warsaw pact EEs. Many factors.

    To build our own security system such as the Intermarium would have required economic strength. There was no immediately available capital to make the factories competitive. It could've been done with better leadership but it wasn't there. I think the fact that a lot of dissidents were cleared out and sent into exile or left, made a difference, too.

    Also, right around that time China took up our niche for cheap labor and low production costs. Even if you did remodel the factories and somehow found the capital to reinvigorate them, make them competitive, you would still be competing with China. Not saying it couldn't have worked, but it would have been a huge factor. The whole of the US off-shored to China. The EEs couldn't work as cheaply and as much, yet they couldn't raise productivity fast enough. I don't know, it might be different in Slovakia and especially in the Czech Rep, but even there the Germans took over most of it as far as I'm aware.

    Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.
     
    NATO's purpose is to deter Russia and fight it only if necessary (the very last resort). In that sense, NATO was / is defensive, however, they did take advantage of the security vacuum. In hindsight, it would've been stupid not to. NATO can co-exist with Russia and even China, it's only the perennial question of boundaries...

    And to get the Russian goodies…We know the script.
     
    They could've gotten a lot of the goodies even without war. Eurasia is rich, but it's not like the Western hemisphere is poor. And, speaking of the goodies, if we assume that they belong to the Russian people, then the current oligarchy is no less unfair than dominance by some transnationals. Only the national democracy would've solved this (the narodovlastie - the rule by people) and laid the ground for the creation of a globally competitive productive sector in Russia.

    No, they were already selling a lot of the goodies, they simply needed to observe the unwritten consensus of the 1991. But for them 1991 is a national tragedy (or a "catastrophe" or whatever Putin called it). It's like their Trianon or worse. So now he wants Kenig and Crimea. And Ukraine. That's a lot!

    You never, ever, turn over your success to the enemy – but in effect that is what Nato did.
     
    This is a good point (which, by the way, applies to Russia, too - they could've just lived with Crimea and the occupied areas of Donbas, that should've been plenty). But the issue is that it's not just about NATO - the fundamental problem of the Russian opposition to the Ukrainian subjectivity would still be there even without NATO, these regional wars were fought for centuries.

    Replies: @S, @Beckow, @Emil Nikola Richard

    We largely agree on the peculiar Scandie character and I appreciate what they add to Europe’s identity. But their “looks” are not all they could be – quite a bit of the post-modern entropy has seeped in…

    I disagree about verbal abuse: let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it. It is in our human nature and suppression leads to bigger problems. Words are only words. Free expression also tells us a lot about both sides – more information about how we are. We can live with the some ugly side effects.

    There were many elements at play at that time, not some “evil design”, as you seem to imply

    I never said it was “evil”, but there definitely was a design. The West now tries to desperately deny it, to pretend that all was well until 2022 and that the plans for Nato had nothing to do with cornering Russia. That is worse than lying, it is so pathetic and an obvious lie that it demeans the Western world. They should just admit it – there were plenty of others factors that you listed, sure, but the attempt by Nato to surround Russia was very obvious.

    Until this taboo subject in the West is addressed we won’t make much progress. And the facile ways that it is dismissed makes it much worse. It only leads to contempt, contempt leads inevitably to mutual alienation – very slippery slope, who wouldn’t nuke the aliens?

    NATO’s purpose is to deter Russia and fight it only if necessary

    Who defines what deterrence and necessary mean to Nato at any point? Weakening your enemy, holding a loaded gun to him on his borders, can aways be seen as deterrence and necessary. You are playing with words – this is about bigger things than fancy evasive words.

    They could’ve gotten a lot of the goodies even without war. Eurasia is rich, but it’s not like the Western hemisphere is poor.

    The goodies are a lot cheaper when Russia is on its back. Prices matter, look into that basic capitalist concept.

    Compare the actual Western and Eurasian natural wealth and productive capacity versus the current monetary valuations – the West is valued substantially higher than the comparison shows. Therefore they live better than their wealth creation would suggest. The war may – or may not – adjust it.

    applies to Russia, too – they could’ve just lived with Crimea and the occupied areas of Donbas…it’s not just about NATO – the fundamental problem of the Russian opposition to the Ukrainian subjectivity would still be there even without NATO, these regional wars were fought for centuries.

    Yes, there were previous clashes along the similar lines. They also always had outside meddlers assisting the anti-Russian side: Napoleon, Habsburgs, Swedes, Germans, Turks sometimes. They all lost because they were weaker in that region. Nato’s bet was that either Russia would not fight at all, or that they are too weak. Well, Russia is fighting – half-heartedly so far – and they don’t seem that weak. The odds are that they will win again. This was a major Western miscalculation.

    The Russian-Ukie hostility will last – at least among some Ukies and some Russians. But people adjust and the final deal will probably leave the core Ukraine intact, so the Galicians can hate all the want, march with Bandera flags, and migrate to wash dishes in EU, and all of that – who cares? It is a backwater. What Nato wanted was Crimea and a strategic presence on the very long border. It doesn’t look like they will get it. The Ukies are just collateral damage in this losing fight.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Beckow


    But their “looks” are not all they could be – quite a bit of the post-modern entropy has seeped in…
     
    To some extent maybe, it's probably unavoidable. Of course, not all of them are hot, but they have a good phenotype and the hot ones aren't rare. That was my point.

    I disagree about verbal abuse: let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it. It is in our human nature and suppression leads to bigger problems. Words are only words. Free expression also tells us a lot about both sides – more information about how we are. We can live with the some ugly side effects.
     
    I used to hold this belief as well until recently. It was a belief that had been entrenched for a long time, and is commonly held among many right wingers as well. I also agree that it's good to have the information available (the truth, so to speak, even if it is painful and it mostly isn't). But these recent exchanges between Russians and Ukrainians gave me pause and made me rethink this. Of course, they are in pain, both of them, so I don't judge them. It's understandable and even natural to some extent.

    Who defines what deterrence and necessary mean to Nato at any point?
     
    It is tough in Europe because everyone is so close physically. I think that right now we'll be seeing a re-arrangement of these boundaries. But this is an extreme example because it is through war.

    The goodies are a lot cheaper when Russia is on its back. Prices matter, look into that basic capitalist concept.
     
    My point was that it was cheaper than having a war or even some kind of a persistent pressuring of Russia which would've taken a lot of work and resources, things were ok the way they were before February 2022. Sure, "the goodies" may be cheaper with "Russia on her back", as you say, but is it worth the effort to try to put her on her back when you can just have things the way they were prior to the war? Things were quite good for both sides - both Germany / the EU and Russia. And the US was being run by the type of administration that Obama put in place (or maybe some other pro-Moscow democrat before that), this particular administration wasn't that hostile to Russia.

    Compare the actual Western and Eurasian natural wealth and productive capacity versus the current monetary valuations
     
    My point was that the West has enough on its own to survive and live well without having to "march on Moscow", as you say - it doesn't make economic sense for the West. The West prefers to wait it out - the Russians will destroy themselves on their own.

    Well, Russia is fighting – half-heartedly so far – and they don’t seem that weak.
     
    Actually, I've never said that Russia is weak - it is a very serious opponent, what was considered second strongest army on the planet, and even if that proved to be dubious, they are still a very strong country. This is why what Ukraine has been able to achieve is miraculous - not just the stamina of their troops, but also their recent asymmetric activity on Russia's territory (!!). No, Russia was supposed to be a peer only to the US or some kind of a Western coalition, not Ukraine. I think the Ukrainians are fighting them better than the West could have. I'm not being careful making such a bold statement, but this is how it feels. Of course, it depends on the theater where it would be fought.

    Ukraine has acquired subjectivity, agency. From now on, they will be a competitor to Russia (hopefully, they can recover from the ravages of the war). This will be a new line in Europe. This is an event of immense historic magnitude, maybe something that only comes every 300 years or something like that.

    But people adjust and the final deal will probably leave the core Ukraine intact, so the Galicians can hate all the want, march with Bandera flags, and migrate to wash dishes in EU, and all of that – who cares? It is a backwater.
     

    No, it's not, if they recover, they will hold significant resources (the resources that Russia wanted), so it is Russia who cares. Russia will be in competition even with a reduced Ukraine (and it is not a given it will stay reduce or at least no one knows where the border will be). Above all, they will be in ideological competition. Unless Russia becomes free. But even then, this fracture will remain, because Russia will not change its deepest character. In fact, Russia has two faces, just like the double headed eagle in their coat of arms - the free "Novgorodian" Russia and the imperialistic Russia. Only the free Russia can be non-hostile with the neighbors, especially Ukraine, but it is not a given that the free Russia will prevail.

    Replies: @Beckow

  248. @Dmitry
    @Dmitry


    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/
     
    Edit. A mistake in my comment, as the source is looking at international comparison though so it doesn't match with this paragraph I wrote. Within America, "unaffiliated" has lower life expectancy.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035005/


    -

    In terms of income, although unaffiliated is not exactly the same as secular. The atheist and agnostic group has one of the higher incomes as correlates with education, except a few unusual religions (Episcopal church/Jewish) or which were significantly filtered in the H-1B visa program (Hindu).
    https://i.imgur.com/Ww4OFQY.jpg


    So, the Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists are unusual as their life expectancy is higher, even while the income is average (Mormon) or below (Seventh-Day Adventist).

    Also, Mormons have significantly higher life expectancy than average in America, though they have US average or high BMI, while Seventh-Day Adventists have lower BMI.

    Probably sadly, removing cigarettes, alcohol and coffee creates a healthier population.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Longevity and cryonics internet guy Mike Darwin is so bullish on the 7 day adventist diet he has a short book length blog post sequence advertising it as the only life extension diet with data support.

    I suppose there are some people who actually like eating soy hot dogs. : )

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Seventh-Day and Mormons are following a kind of preventative medicine in their religious laws, so this is partly why their life expectancy is higher than would be predicted in their income or Mormons also in their BMI.

    A problem is, their preventative medicine includes no alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, no gambling, no etc etc. This is an asceticism which removes some of the good parts of life.


    -

    In countries with higher rates than the USA of gambling, smoking, drinking, like France, Spain, Japan or Italy, they have the longest life expectancies in the world, partly because of universal healthcare.

    If they were like Mormons and avoid alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, the countries' life expectancy would probably increase even higher than otherwise. If in Japan people stop smoking, drinking, coffee etc, they would live even longer you could predict.


    -

    But it's a situation where we want to include the other parameters. You want to increase life expectancy of the population without too much asceticism which doesn't preserve some of the parameters which are important for people

    An example of very strong anti-ascetism, would be "French paradox", where the population drinks a lot of alcohol, has higher rates of cigarettes, still has a high life expectancy.

    It's likely not because of their unhealthy behaviors. But the society can compensate for those unhealthy behavior by things like high quality of the universal healthcare in France, social pressure to have low BMI, lower stress because of earlier pensions, higher quality of the ingredients in their food supply.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QyQmL-mlV0

    Replies: @Sean, @AaronB

  249. @LatW
    @Beckow


    It makes for good societies, but they are damn boring.
     
    Look, I know them well, too, and, yes, they can be a little boring sometimes, but they more than make up for that with their looks (so - not boring in the end, haha!). Also, Scandinavia can be interesting and even captivating if one has niche interests (viking metal, majestic mountains, whales, Arctic animals).

    Predictable, as if they didn’t really exist, following predetermined roles and holding approved views.

     

    Well, this goes together with the ruggedly beautiful and serene Northern landscape - there is predictability and permanence, the eternal peace of vast, snow clad lands, emptiness, silence, loneliness... It's good to have such peoples with such solid and rugged character, in a world that's filled with spontaneous diversity.

    Russians-Ukies abuse each other, but their emotions are fleeting, one day they kill, next day they feast together.
     
    This is partly true, but their situation is much more complex than for other E.European states, then again, this is quite heavy - they are killing their kids and mocking it (there was a Christmas photo of a very beautiful little girl that was killed (I think recently in Chernihiv) and the Russians posted laugh emojis and such). You sound very casual and dismissive about this. Even if at some point, some of the Ukrainians will begin associating with the Russians, for most of them this fracture will be real and long term. Do not trivialize their suffering. Most of all - to dismiss this as a factor is foolish.

    The verbal abuse is mutual
     
    Yes, unfortunately, and it was there already before Maidan. It started getting somewhat bad around mid 2000s. Overall, things started getting worse in 2007 (when Putin decided to "raise Russia from her knees", Munich speech, increased propaganda, etc).

    It is of utmost importance to not be lax about verbal abuse - it is very toxic. Not only there should be no verbal abuse, there should be no thought of it. The very thought of it should be repulsive and off-putting. For neighboring nations that want to cultivate peace.


    But nobody is putting money on it.
     
    No, I'm not putting money on it either (re: the Legion's march on Moscow). Only hopes. The numbers are small, even though they growing, albeit very slow. But I have a nagging feeling about it, there is something permanent and strong about this resistance. Also something idealistic. Maybe this time the FSB will not decide everything? Who knows.


    [re: NATO enlargement] [..] it was not a random process left to chance: each step was scripted. The long term plan was to consolidate control over Europe with Nato, create uniform militaries purchasing arms from the US, then use the juggernaut to corner Russia. Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.
     
    There were many elements at play at that time, not some "evil design", as you seem to imply: the historic process of the European re-unification, the dominant role of the US in the 1990s, the fact that a security vacuum will always get filled either way, especially in that neighborhood, I mean, it's not an Australian desert (no offense), but a geopolitically sensitive and vital area, the striving of the EE and CE populations to experience political freedoms and build wealth, the desire for the unified Germany to have long term stability in its vicinity, maybe some foolishness, weakness of the EEs, naivety, lack of financial education (except for a few select types), the striving of the political elites to make quick careers by relatively simple means, the spreading of strange, exotic - essentially inapplicable to real life - ideologies (such as libertarianism, which was a thing back in the 90s). Maybe even poverty of many post-Warsaw pact EEs. Many factors.

    To build our own security system such as the Intermarium would have required economic strength. There was no immediately available capital to make the factories competitive. It could've been done with better leadership but it wasn't there. I think the fact that a lot of dissidents were cleared out and sent into exile or left, made a difference, too.

    Also, right around that time China took up our niche for cheap labor and low production costs. Even if you did remodel the factories and somehow found the capital to reinvigorate them, make them competitive, you would still be competing with China. Not saying it couldn't have worked, but it would have been a huge factor. The whole of the US off-shored to China. The EEs couldn't work as cheaply and as much, yet they couldn't raise productivity fast enough. I don't know, it might be different in Slovakia and especially in the Czech Rep, but even there the Germans took over most of it as far as I'm aware.

    Nato’s sole purpose is to fight Russia, offensively or defensively, all else is marginal noise.
     
    NATO's purpose is to deter Russia and fight it only if necessary (the very last resort). In that sense, NATO was / is defensive, however, they did take advantage of the security vacuum. In hindsight, it would've been stupid not to. NATO can co-exist with Russia and even China, it's only the perennial question of boundaries...

    And to get the Russian goodies…We know the script.
     
    They could've gotten a lot of the goodies even without war. Eurasia is rich, but it's not like the Western hemisphere is poor. And, speaking of the goodies, if we assume that they belong to the Russian people, then the current oligarchy is no less unfair than dominance by some transnationals. Only the national democracy would've solved this (the narodovlastie - the rule by people) and laid the ground for the creation of a globally competitive productive sector in Russia.

    No, they were already selling a lot of the goodies, they simply needed to observe the unwritten consensus of the 1991. But for them 1991 is a national tragedy (or a "catastrophe" or whatever Putin called it). It's like their Trianon or worse. So now he wants Kenig and Crimea. And Ukraine. That's a lot!

    You never, ever, turn over your success to the enemy – but in effect that is what Nato did.
     
    This is a good point (which, by the way, applies to Russia, too - they could've just lived with Crimea and the occupied areas of Donbas, that should've been plenty). But the issue is that it's not just about NATO - the fundamental problem of the Russian opposition to the Ukrainian subjectivity would still be there even without NATO, these regional wars were fought for centuries.

    Replies: @S, @Beckow, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Needs black metal soundtrack.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Early Dimmu Borgir or Satyricon even better. :) "Mother North".

  250. @songbird
    Surprised nobody has mentioned Avi Loeb's claims of possibly finding the remains of an alien probe.

    Personally, I have a hard time understanding why aliens sophisticated enough to send an interstellar probe would crash one into Earth.

    ...unless it was intended to be a weapon.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    I posted the Daily Mail report on that goofball’s New Guinea expedition in Newslinks a couple days ago. He is CIA sponsored. Carl Sagan’s ghost not yet seen throwing a fit.

  251. Was hopeful that Israel is truly hardcore apartheid state as advertised with full concrete hard borders, but it’s seems so full of Africans that African riots for some reason are already happening there, lol

    • Replies: @A123
    @sudden death

    It helps thread stability if you place tweets (X-eets?) under the [MORE] tag.


    At least 130 injured, some critically, in violent clashes between Eritrean asylum seekers in Tel Aviv, Israel.
     
    Eritrea is a Judenfrei land. One wonders why there are any Eritreans asylum seekers in Jewish Palestine. They can never qualify for citizenship.

    I wonder what the factions were? There was a definite Crips vs. Bloods gang vibe to the encounter.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @songbird
    @sudden death

    I can see why Trump wanted to move the embassy.

    @ Emil
    Avi Loeb is the Zeihan of space.

    Both are amusing in small doses.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    , @A123
    @sudden death

    Follow up on the Tel Aviv riots. (1)


    Israel is on the migrant route from Africa to Europe. Many of the migrants who make it to Israel don’t actually leave. Parts of Tel Aviv have been taken over by migrants and gangs who have their own no-go zones.

    Why don’t you know about it? Because nobody wants to talk about it. The media generally isn’t interested in covering it except when it occasionally reports on pro-migrant leftist protests and the pro-Israel camp tends to repeat the stuff that the establishment puts out which is ignoring the problem. The people suffering from the massive illegal alien migrant population are the ones living in poorer parts of Tel Aviv.
    ...
    May Golan, a longtime activist from South Tel Aviv against the illegal alien takeover, has placed the blame on the leftist justices of the Supreme Court. As did Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

    “In the Saturday riots, which were only the promo for what awaits us if we do not return the infiltrators to their countries of origin, there is only one responsible: the High Court. For years we have been warning, for years the High Court has prevented any action that would allow the infiltrators to be returned to their homes. That is precisely why we are leading the reforms in the judicial system that will allow elected officials to make decisions and carry them out for the citizens of Israel, their safety and security,” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said on Saturday night.
     
    This is why judicial reform is so urgent.
     
    Could the need to rein in the out of control Temporary High Court be any more clear?

    It is akin to the "sanctuary city" problem here in the U.S. If the illegals cannot be sent home they should be relocated to areas opposing judicial reform, especially those where judges reside.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.frontpagemag.com/israels-illegal-alien-problem-explodes-with-tel-aviv-riot/
  252. @AaronB
    What is going on the pro Russian side saying fantastical things over and over again, despite being repeatedly proven wrong, again and again, without batting an eyelash or any apparent shame?

    It's easy to say they're just stupid or deluded or engaging in wishful thinking, but I think it's something unlike anything I've seen before, and could be something completely different - it's so extreme that I think it cannot be explained from within the framework of people attempting to rationally analyze a situation, and get at what's actually happening on the ground. It may be a completely different thing and a departure from the rationalist framework that we naturally assume is the default that all sides use.

    I occasionally dip into Vox Day, who is a major Alt-Right figure, to get a sense of what is really going on on that side - and it is like entering another world. In that world, Russia has already completely defeated and humiliated America and the West, and so has China, and Iran, etc. It's a fascinating alternative universe, like an alternative historical novel.

    Something Vox Day has said in another connection may provide the clue to what's going on here - he was analyzing the language of some left establishment document or other and noting how the insertion of certain words and claims about reality were intended as a magical spell to weaken the other side and create a different reality. He meant it quite literally as an example of "black magic".

    So what if the pro-Russian side is attempting to engage in "reality creation" in an almost occult fashion? Instead of attempting to describe reality - which we naturally assume everyone is doing - they are attempting to impose their will on reality in an occult fashion, a sort of collective incantatory spell and collective group chant? There are the notorious words of that US government official, I forget who, that America is so strong it creates reality - although he didn't mean it in an occult fashion, it perhaps had that subtext.

    And I have seen powerful businessman achieve repeated success by simply refusing to accept the seeming finality of a situation- and then strangely, doors seem to open and unexpected results pour in, in a way normal people who have no access to this world would find scarcely credible. There are weird occult phenomena occurring in elite business circles all the time that unless you've seen you'd scarcely credit, if you assumed the world of elite power is ruled entirely by rational analysis.

    What if, in the battle for reality, will is an important occult factor in the shape reality ultimately takes? And certainly whether there is any reality or truth to this, some at least on the pro-Russian side may self consciously be seeing themselves as engaging in spells, and the collective pro-Russian side may be somewhat unconsciously channelling this impulse.

    I enjoy the idea of Ron Unz as a Black Mage, with his repeated nonstop posting of McGregor videos as credible despite the most obvious and repeated failures, completely refusing to acknowledge those failures :)

    For the moment, it seems obvious that their "magic" is significantly weaker than the "magic" of the pro-Ukrainian side - and maybe at least on an instinctive level, that's why the Ukrainians recently refused with alarm to even discuss a negotiated peace as touted by the more rationalist Germans - they understand it is weak magic.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Mikhail, @LatW

    I occasionally dip into Vox Day, who is a major Alt-Right figure, to get a sense of what is really going on on that side – and it is like entering another world. In that world, Russia has already completely defeated and humiliated America and the West, and so has China, and Iran, etc. It’s a fascinating alternative universe, like an alternative historical novel.

    The same is true for Moon of Alabama.

    They seem unaware that they been declaring the near imminent defeat of Ukraine since the war started. Any comments pointing this out are removed.

    Alt-right used to be a place where you could discuss what both left and right would censor in their forums. Now half of Alt-right has rallied around Putin and supports the same level of controlled conversation. It’s very disturbing for that reason. They decry censorship by the MSM but would clearly be fine with CNN if they hired MacGregor and let him ramble without any real questions. It seems that much of alt-right never wanted an open area of ideas and only value free speech when it suits them.

    So what if the pro-Russian side is attempting to engage in “reality creation” in an almost occult fashion? Instead of attempting to describe reality – which we naturally assume everyone is doing – they are attempting to impose their will on reality in an occult fashion, a sort of collective incantatory spell and collective group chant?

    I think the average pro-Putin poster is motivated largely by a combination of one or more of the following:
    1. A hatred of the Western status quo in combined with a hopeless feeling that nothing can be changed internally and will only deteriorate
    2. A corresponding belief that the expansion of Russia is a healthy counter-balance to this West (with discussions of Russia’s abortion rate or declining Slavic population under strict bans in pro-Putin forums)
    3. Exhaustion from Western feminism (understandable) which leads to an unhealthy idealization of a “strong man” with absolute power.
    4. Hatred of the Jews or belief that Jews control/undermine the West. Ukraine is viewed as the Jewish side even if Putin has Jews in his inner circle and has strong ties to Israel (that discussion is also banned in some pro-Putin forums).
    5. Nihilistic/Misanthropic tendencies. We have gone over how about half of Putin’s US public defenders have criminal records or accusations. Napolitano for example has been accused of raping a man who was drugged. They find some type of dark identity with Putin. Anglin has been a Putin supporter for years and is still wanted by Federal agents.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @John Johnson

    I think that's largely accurate about the psychological motives of the pro-Russian side, although in some cases I'd add a love of authoritarianism and control, a sadistic streak, and in some other more benign cases a deluded belief that Russia stands for "traditional values", but I was interested not so much in the psychological motivations but in the unusual behavior of repeating again and again and with intense fervor extreme claims that prove again and again untrue.

    That doesn't make rational sense - you can explain it psychologically as simple wish fulfillment or delusion, but I am suggesting that's implausible and it may go beyond that. It has the unmistakable features of religious ritual or magical incantation. Likewise Ukraine's refusal to rationally even discuss a negotiated peace at this juncture.

    From that perspective, it makes perfect good sense.

    It's Saruman and Gandalf casting spells at each other across the Misty Mountains :)

    Replies: @John Johnson, @AP

    , @AP
    @John Johnson


    I think the average pro-Putin poster is motivated largely by a combination of one or more of the following:

    1. A hatred of the Western status quo in combined with a hopeless feeling that nothing can be changed internally and will only deteriorate
    2. A corresponding belief that the expansion of Russia is a healthy counter-balance to this West (with discussions of Russia’s abortion rate or declining Slavic population under strict bans in pro-Putin forums)
    3. Exhaustion from Western feminism (understandable) which leads to an unhealthy idealization of a “strong man” with absolute power.
    4. Hatred of the Jews or belief that Jews control/undermine the West. Ukraine is viewed as the Jewish side even if Putin has Jews in his inner circle and has strong ties to Israel (that discussion is also banned in some pro-Putin forums).
    5. Nihilistic/Misanthropic tendencies. We have gone over how about half of Putin’s US public defenders have criminal records or accusations. Napolitano for example has been accused of raping a man who was drugged. [and of course Scott Ritter who is a twice-convicted sexual offender - AP] They find some type of dark identity with Putin. Anglin has been a Putin supporter for years and is still wanted by Federal agents.

     

    Quite accurate.
    , @A123
    @John Johnson


    I think the average pro-Putin poster is motivated largely by a combination of one or more of the following:

    3. Exhaustion from Western feminism (understandable) which leads to an unhealthy idealization of a “strong man” with absolute power.
     
    Certainly, Russian resistance to IslamoGloboHomo is desirable. I do not know if that could make one a Putin supporter, but it is definitely a benefit.

    4. Hatred of the Jews or belief that Jews control/undermine the West. Ukraine is viewed as the Jewish side even if Putin has Jews in his inner circle and has strong ties to Israel (that discussion is also banned in some pro-Putin forums).
     
    Really? You have to be kidding?

    Anti-Semite Zelensky is tied to Azov neo-Nazism. His address to the Knesset was designed to be deliberately offensive to Palestinian Jews. He is a puppet of Islamophile Europe. Ukiewood propaganda is the same playbook as Pallywood.

    Netanyahu and Putin are known to be friendly. There are extensive business ties between Israel & Russia. And, Israeli banks are rumored to be helping Russia bypass sanctions.

    Russia is viewed as the side of Judaism. Though the official neutrality is a useful construct.

    PEACE 😇
    , @Sean
    @John Johnson

    Theory Of Truth by Robinson Jeffers


    Why does insanity always twist the great answers?
    Because only
    tormented persons want truth.
    Man is an animal like other animals, wants food and success and
    women, not truth. Only if the mind
    Tortured by some interior tension has despaired of happiness:
    then it hates its life-cage and seeks further,
    And finds, if it is powerful enough. But instantly the private
    agony that made the search
    Muddles the finding.
     
    You talk about Putin as a sick puppy who the world would be better off without, but you and Western partisans of Ukraine in the conflict actually mean Russia and its people, or that is the impression you are creating. It cannot be helped that the Russians are taking notice of such sentiments.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Matra

  253. @sudden death
    Was hopeful that Israel is truly hardcore apartheid state as advertised with full concrete hard borders, but it's seems so full of Africans that African riots for some reason are already happening there, lol

    https://twitter.com/Terror_Alarm/status/1697953194540675399

    Replies: @A123, @songbird, @A123

    It helps thread stability if you place tweets (X-eets?) under the [MORE] tag.

    At least 130 injured, some critically, in violent clashes between Eritrean asylum seekers in Tel Aviv, Israel.

    Eritrea is a Judenfrei land. One wonders why there are any Eritreans asylum seekers in Jewish Palestine. They can never qualify for citizenship.

    I wonder what the factions were? There was a definite Crips vs. Bloods gang vibe to the encounter.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @A123

    Red vs Blue. LOL.

    Maybe the Eritreans are being imported for the purpose of pestering Palestinian Arabs.

  254. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:

    Here is a good article, written by an intelligent historian who is himself an atheist, on how modern atheists don’t understand that traditionally Scripture was not read literally and was not simply “bad science” (perhaps most relevant to Mikel and Dmitry and John Johnson, among others).

    https://historyforatheists.com/2021/03/the-great-myths-11-biblical-literalism/?fbclid=IwAR298LZMRyzjSc9XdpjC2Fxl8eff06VOnyv78yxKdOMFIQZZovD0wsrZSl0

    HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS New Atheists Getting History Wrong!

    Biblical Literalism

    It is assumed in much anti-theistic polemic that the Bible has traditionally always been interpreted literally. A lot of criticism of believers is based on how irrational, impossible and anti-scientific such a reading of the Bible has to be and how the current literalism of many fundamentalist Christians simply reflects how the Bible has always been read, with non-literal interpretations simply a modern rear-guard attempt to reconcile the Bible with current understandings of the world. But this is not true. In fact, fundamentalist Biblical literalism is a very recent, mostly Protestant and largely American affair. Historically, things were much more complex…

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    Here is a good article, written by an intelligent historian who is himself an atheist, on how modern atheists don’t understand that traditionally Scripture was not read literally and was not simply “bad science” (perhaps most relevant to Mikel and Dmitry and John Johnson, among others).

    For the record I'm not an atheist. I have mixed feelings on Christianity but am openly against modern secularism as some type of guiding force.

    I do have a problem with teaching children that the Old Testament is historically accurate when it simply isn't.

    There was never a flood in the last 100k years that covered the earth. It didn't happen.

    Your link is an interesting essay but as with most Christian historical apologists they can write lengthy and articulated responses to the questions that they are comfortable discussing.

    What they avoid are simple questions like:

    Did the flood happen?
    Yes [ ]
    No [ ]

    Anything but Yes[x] comes with a host of problems and they know it.

    For the record I grew up in the church and drew pictures of the ark in Sunday school. I truly believed it 100% happened because that is what the adults told me. As an adult I've since learned that most Christians are divided on the flood and if Noah actually acquired two of every animal. That in itself causes all kinds of problems not just with the logistics but also the inbreeding that would occur for every species. You could write books upon books on how the account of Noah isn't possible.

    Replies: @AaronB

  255. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:
    @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    I occasionally dip into Vox Day, who is a major Alt-Right figure, to get a sense of what is really going on on that side – and it is like entering another world. In that world, Russia has already completely defeated and humiliated America and the West, and so has China, and Iran, etc. It’s a fascinating alternative universe, like an alternative historical novel.

    The same is true for Moon of Alabama.

    They seem unaware that they been declaring the near imminent defeat of Ukraine since the war started. Any comments pointing this out are removed.

    Alt-right used to be a place where you could discuss what both left and right would censor in their forums. Now half of Alt-right has rallied around Putin and supports the same level of controlled conversation. It's very disturbing for that reason. They decry censorship by the MSM but would clearly be fine with CNN if they hired MacGregor and let him ramble without any real questions. It seems that much of alt-right never wanted an open area of ideas and only value free speech when it suits them.

    So what if the pro-Russian side is attempting to engage in “reality creation” in an almost occult fashion? Instead of attempting to describe reality – which we naturally assume everyone is doing – they are attempting to impose their will on reality in an occult fashion, a sort of collective incantatory spell and collective group chant?

    I think the average pro-Putin poster is motivated largely by a combination of one or more of the following:
    1. A hatred of the Western status quo in combined with a hopeless feeling that nothing can be changed internally and will only deteriorate
    2. A corresponding belief that the expansion of Russia is a healthy counter-balance to this West (with discussions of Russia's abortion rate or declining Slavic population under strict bans in pro-Putin forums)
    3. Exhaustion from Western feminism (understandable) which leads to an unhealthy idealization of a "strong man" with absolute power.
    4. Hatred of the Jews or belief that Jews control/undermine the West. Ukraine is viewed as the Jewish side even if Putin has Jews in his inner circle and has strong ties to Israel (that discussion is also banned in some pro-Putin forums).
    5. Nihilistic/Misanthropic tendencies. We have gone over how about half of Putin's US public defenders have criminal records or accusations. Napolitano for example has been accused of raping a man who was drugged. They find some type of dark identity with Putin. Anglin has been a Putin supporter for years and is still wanted by Federal agents.

    Replies: @AaronB, @AP, @A123, @Sean

    I think that’s largely accurate about the psychological motives of the pro-Russian side, although in some cases I’d add a love of authoritarianism and control, a sadistic streak, and in some other more benign cases a deluded belief that Russia stands for “traditional values”, but I was interested not so much in the psychological motivations but in the unusual behavior of repeating again and again and with intense fervor extreme claims that prove again and again untrue.

    That doesn’t make rational sense – you can explain it psychologically as simple wish fulfillment or delusion, but I am suggesting that’s implausible and it may go beyond that. It has the unmistakable features of religious ritual or magical incantation. Likewise Ukraine’s refusal to rationally even discuss a negotiated peace at this juncture.

    From that perspective, it makes perfect good sense.

    It’s Saruman and Gandalf casting spells at each other across the Misty Mountains 🙂

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    That doesn’t make rational sense – you can explain it psychologically as simple wish fulfillment or delusion, but I am suggesting that’s implausible and it may go beyond that. It has the unmistakable features of religious ritual or magical incantation.

    Russian defenders can certainly have a base tribal attachment to Putin on a religious level that is no different from a Zulu defending Shaka. I provided my assessment but there are certainly Putin defenders that are attached on a tribal level and for reasons that even they do not understand. Such defenders eagerly take part in ritual or hold beliefs that defy logic to where it might as well be magic (Putin must be playing 5d chess and Prigozhin is just acting a role. Video of a Wagner plane being shot down must be fake).

    I don't think the ooga-booga defender is the norm but I could be wrong. I think the typical Putin defender either has a strong hatred of Western society or the Jews. I actually don't care if someone has a strong hatred of Western society. The problem I have is trying to justify mass murder and without even a basic explanation of how said murder changes the Western status quo.

    Likewise Ukraine’s refusal to rationally even discuss a negotiated peace at this juncture.

    What would that peace treaty look like? Putin is not going to walk away from Donbas given that he hasn't instituted a full draft. He still has the option of drafting 3-4 hundred thousand Slavic men from the cities. Some might have to go in on horseback but the option remains.

    Ukraine is not going to accept the loss of Donbas until they have utilized all available Western hardware. Donbas isn't merely land. It contains their nuclear plants and coal basin. I've seen estimates of around 100 billion. Meaning Putin gets a fat paycheck by taking Donbass.

    So what does this proposal look like? Talk of peace is easy but the details are difficult. Proposals of UN monitored elections in contended areas are also difficult because there is no reason to believe that Putin would act in good faith. The Donbas militia men are mostly dead and Putin would undoubtedly flood any UN monitored area with agents. Really no room for a middle ground over Donbas so the war continues.

    , @AP
    @AaronB


    It has the unmistakable features of religious ritual or magical incantation. Likewise Ukraine’s refusal to rationally even discuss a negotiated peace at this juncture.
     
    Ukraine hasn't used most of its latest and best weapons and units, and is expecting more. It is gaining ground, albeit disappointingly slowly. Meanwhile, Russia continue to occupy territories populated by Ukrainians and shows no interest in changing its positions.

    At this point, there is nothing by Ukrainians to negotiate.

    Replies: @AaronB

  256. @Beckow
    @Mr. XYZ

    It is not about what each side wants. It is now about who wins. If Ukraine loses it will be forced to accept the conditions Russia imposes. EU membership was not a casus belli. Russia never objected to it - the only said that if Kiev joins EU there have to be economic consequences - Kiev can't be in two competing free trade blocks. Nobody can. Kiev's, Brussels's, (and yours) inability or pretense not to understand something so basic borders on feigned idiocy. Why deny the obvious? When UK left EU both sides insisted on the same changes. Why is it always different when "Russia" is involved?

    Russia is not returning to its 2013 territory - and Ukies can't make them. Russia will not betray China who stood by them as the West attempted to destroy the Russian economy. It doesn't work that way. Strategic mistakes have long-term consequences. The West is ruled today by silly narcissists and will have to live with the consequences for a long time. There is nothing that can be done about it now.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    It is not about what each side wants. It is now about who wins. If Ukraine loses it will be forced to accept the conditions Russia imposes. EU membership was not a casus belli.

    Why would that be the case given that Russia is being economically compromised by the sanctions?

    Russia could never be the only voice in the room.

    They were never an economic island and their Ruble recently hit a 16 month low even though oil production is nominal.

    What is happening is that they are exporting more oil via shipping but are still taking a hit from the loss of profit from selling next door. They also still have grounded planes and a lack of computer chips even though Putin’s defenders scoffed at the idea that sanctions would do anything.

    It’s in Russia’s best interest to at least have the oil and gas sanctions scaled back. Thus they will never be in a position to uniformly determine surrender terms.

    Putin did not bother to look at Russia’s imports/exports as he never planned for the current scenario. He imagined them taking all of Ukraine through a decapitation attack and then negotiating away any sanctions with the belief that NATO would not engage Russia in a direct confrontation. That assumption was most likely correct but he failed to take Kiev.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @John Johnson

    Russia was on the long term skids and destined to every sort of decline in any case. Nothing Putin might have done differently would have made much of a difference either way to Russia, which is fated to continue getting weaker whatever it does. The one thing Putin has achieved is the likelihood that Russia will go out shooting rather that like a sick puppy.

  257. @AaronB
    @John Johnson

    I think that's largely accurate about the psychological motives of the pro-Russian side, although in some cases I'd add a love of authoritarianism and control, a sadistic streak, and in some other more benign cases a deluded belief that Russia stands for "traditional values", but I was interested not so much in the psychological motivations but in the unusual behavior of repeating again and again and with intense fervor extreme claims that prove again and again untrue.

    That doesn't make rational sense - you can explain it psychologically as simple wish fulfillment or delusion, but I am suggesting that's implausible and it may go beyond that. It has the unmistakable features of religious ritual or magical incantation. Likewise Ukraine's refusal to rationally even discuss a negotiated peace at this juncture.

    From that perspective, it makes perfect good sense.

    It's Saruman and Gandalf casting spells at each other across the Misty Mountains :)

    Replies: @John Johnson, @AP

    That doesn’t make rational sense – you can explain it psychologically as simple wish fulfillment or delusion, but I am suggesting that’s implausible and it may go beyond that. It has the unmistakable features of religious ritual or magical incantation.

    Russian defenders can certainly have a base tribal attachment to Putin on a religious level that is no different from a Zulu defending Shaka. I provided my assessment but there are certainly Putin defenders that are attached on a tribal level and for reasons that even they do not understand. Such defenders eagerly take part in ritual or hold beliefs that defy logic to where it might as well be magic (Putin must be playing 5d chess and Prigozhin is just acting a role. Video of a Wagner plane being shot down must be fake).

    I don’t think the ooga-booga defender is the norm but I could be wrong. I think the typical Putin defender either has a strong hatred of Western society or the Jews. I actually don’t care if someone has a strong hatred of Western society. The problem I have is trying to justify mass murder and without even a basic explanation of how said murder changes the Western status quo.

    Likewise Ukraine’s refusal to rationally even discuss a negotiated peace at this juncture.

    What would that peace treaty look like? Putin is not going to walk away from Donbas given that he hasn’t instituted a full draft. He still has the option of drafting 3-4 hundred thousand Slavic men from the cities. Some might have to go in on horseback but the option remains.

    Ukraine is not going to accept the loss of Donbas until they have utilized all available Western hardware. Donbas isn’t merely land. It contains their nuclear plants and coal basin. I’ve seen estimates of around 100 billion. Meaning Putin gets a fat paycheck by taking Donbass.

    So what does this proposal look like? Talk of peace is easy but the details are difficult. Proposals of UN monitored elections in contended areas are also difficult because there is no reason to believe that Putin would act in good faith. The Donbas militia men are mostly dead and Putin would undoubtedly flood any UN monitored area with agents. Really no room for a middle ground over Donbas so the war continues.

  258. @LondonBob
    Looks like the final reserves have been committed, the great Ukrainian offensive has been spent. As predicted it was no different to all those attacks on Kherson, that similarly ended in costly failure. Now we await Moscow's move.

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death, @Mikhail

    The drone attacks into Russia are diversionary propaganda designed to dupe people into the mindset that the Kiev regime wasn’t doing this before and that their doing it now serves as “proof” (sic) that it’s gaining.

    The Kiev regime needs to do this to try to give cover to its forces getting slaughtered as it’ll need a greater mobilization to try to replenish its lost personnel.

    The Kyiv Independent would be raided if this fact based observation was presented.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Mikhail

    While Ukraine is making relatively good progress, the Russians being able to move an elite superbly equipped division from the East to reinforce the area in the South that is the focus of attack shows that Ukraine has made a bad mistake of generalship by failing to pin the all Russian army units. Ukraine was counting on extensive use drones but Russian electronic warfare is more effective than expected, and their glider bombs launched from as high as 40,000 feet and containing a ton of HE in some cases are being used on the Ukrainian army's foremost positions on the battlefield now. My summary would be the Ukrainians are good but need the Russian army to screw up its dispositions. All the US supplied intel in the world is not going to help if the Russian are meeting Ukraine's offensive head on.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  259. @A123
    @sudden death

    It helps thread stability if you place tweets (X-eets?) under the [MORE] tag.


    At least 130 injured, some critically, in violent clashes between Eritrean asylum seekers in Tel Aviv, Israel.
     
    Eritrea is a Judenfrei land. One wonders why there are any Eritreans asylum seekers in Jewish Palestine. They can never qualify for citizenship.

    I wonder what the factions were? There was a definite Crips vs. Bloods gang vibe to the encounter.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC

    Red vs Blue. LOL.

    Maybe the Eritreans are being imported for the purpose of pestering Palestinian Arabs.

  260. @AP
    @LatW

    Probably, the planet MacGregor.

    A dispatch from his planet on July 2022:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-191-russia-ukraine/#comment-5420720

    "The Ukrainian military is well on its way to destruction, there will be no way to re-equip it."

    September 2022:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-197/#comment-5575212

    "Pretty obvious Krasny Liman is a trap, but Ukrainian and NATO ideological blinkers means they have blundered straight in to it, Seversk and Kharkhov counteroffensive coming."

    :::::::::::

    The man is a clown.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Not as bad as Hodges, Keane, Petraeus and the CNN propped regulars.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    I have learned important pieces of information from Hodges, Macgregor and Ritter through a few random video interviews I watched. I think Hodges is potentially the most biased or has the greatest potential conflict of interest, followed by Ritter. Nonetheless, there is a good balance between the group. In terms of other USA ex-military sources I don't take anything from former CIA employees at face value. Once a creep always a creep.

    Napolitano comes across as very strange. I suppose he understands the danger of the Cold War and is against the NeoCons who have revived it. Based on his presentation and demeanor I wonder if his typical audience is very old?

    Replies: @Mikhail

  261. @John Johnson
    @Beckow

    It is not about what each side wants. It is now about who wins. If Ukraine loses it will be forced to accept the conditions Russia imposes. EU membership was not a casus belli.

    Why would that be the case given that Russia is being economically compromised by the sanctions?

    Russia could never be the only voice in the room.

    They were never an economic island and their Ruble recently hit a 16 month low even though oil production is nominal.

    What is happening is that they are exporting more oil via shipping but are still taking a hit from the loss of profit from selling next door. They also still have grounded planes and a lack of computer chips even though Putin's defenders scoffed at the idea that sanctions would do anything.

    It's in Russia's best interest to at least have the oil and gas sanctions scaled back. Thus they will never be in a position to uniformly determine surrender terms.

    Putin did not bother to look at Russia's imports/exports as he never planned for the current scenario. He imagined them taking all of Ukraine through a decapitation attack and then negotiating away any sanctions with the belief that NATO would not engage Russia in a direct confrontation. That assumption was most likely correct but he failed to take Kiev.

    Replies: @Sean

    Russia was on the long term skids and destined to every sort of decline in any case. Nothing Putin might have done differently would have made much of a difference either way to Russia, which is fated to continue getting weaker whatever it does. The one thing Putin has achieved is the likelihood that Russia will go out shooting rather that like a sick puppy.

  262. @AaronB
    What is going on the pro Russian side saying fantastical things over and over again, despite being repeatedly proven wrong, again and again, without batting an eyelash or any apparent shame?

    It's easy to say they're just stupid or deluded or engaging in wishful thinking, but I think it's something unlike anything I've seen before, and could be something completely different - it's so extreme that I think it cannot be explained from within the framework of people attempting to rationally analyze a situation, and get at what's actually happening on the ground. It may be a completely different thing and a departure from the rationalist framework that we naturally assume is the default that all sides use.

    I occasionally dip into Vox Day, who is a major Alt-Right figure, to get a sense of what is really going on on that side - and it is like entering another world. In that world, Russia has already completely defeated and humiliated America and the West, and so has China, and Iran, etc. It's a fascinating alternative universe, like an alternative historical novel.

    Something Vox Day has said in another connection may provide the clue to what's going on here - he was analyzing the language of some left establishment document or other and noting how the insertion of certain words and claims about reality were intended as a magical spell to weaken the other side and create a different reality. He meant it quite literally as an example of "black magic".

    So what if the pro-Russian side is attempting to engage in "reality creation" in an almost occult fashion? Instead of attempting to describe reality - which we naturally assume everyone is doing - they are attempting to impose their will on reality in an occult fashion, a sort of collective incantatory spell and collective group chant? There are the notorious words of that US government official, I forget who, that America is so strong it creates reality - although he didn't mean it in an occult fashion, it perhaps had that subtext.

    And I have seen powerful businessman achieve repeated success by simply refusing to accept the seeming finality of a situation- and then strangely, doors seem to open and unexpected results pour in, in a way normal people who have no access to this world would find scarcely credible. There are weird occult phenomena occurring in elite business circles all the time that unless you've seen you'd scarcely credit, if you assumed the world of elite power is ruled entirely by rational analysis.

    What if, in the battle for reality, will is an important occult factor in the shape reality ultimately takes? And certainly whether there is any reality or truth to this, some at least on the pro-Russian side may self consciously be seeing themselves as engaging in spells, and the collective pro-Russian side may be somewhat unconsciously channelling this impulse.

    I enjoy the idea of Ron Unz as a Black Mage, with his repeated nonstop posting of McGregor videos as credible despite the most obvious and repeated failures, completely refusing to acknowledge those failures :)

    For the moment, it seems obvious that their "magic" is significantly weaker than the "magic" of the pro-Ukrainian side - and maybe at least on an instinctive level, that's why the Ukrainians recently refused with alarm to even discuss a negotiated peace as touted by the more rationalist Germans - they understand it is weak magic.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Mikhail, @LatW

    You’ve provided another example of pro-Kiev regime projection.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @Mikhail

    I should probably make clear I'm on the Ukrainian side, for obvious moral reasons, although without any particular enthusiasm.

    But there are peculiar things about this war, and the political situation in general at the moment, that transcend partisanship and raise larger questions which are worth discussing - and it extends beyond Ukraine, because similar claims are made on behalf of China, Iran, etc.

    For instance, Vox Day says the Iranian army is stronger than the US army - I'm trying to understand the psychology behind statements of this kind and what they can tell us about our rather bizarre political moment. And I think it can't be understood in a rationalistic context, and is not meant as a factual analysis. It has occult properties.

    Of course, to a partisan, facts are themselves at the center of dispute, which is fair enough - within limits, there is rational room for dispute, and partisans have always disputed facts. One can rationally argue that the Russians aren't doing as badly as portrayed in the Western media, and may yet emerge victorious, etc, etc.

    But the extreme and wild nature of so many of the claims by the pro-Russian side, and the way it's repeated over and over with no interest in self-correction, suggest to me that it is incantatory and not meant as factual analysis.

    For instance, Ukraine's offensive in the Western media is portrayed in a moderate fashion as having faltered and experienced difficulties, but as also having some minor successes, and as ongoing.

    But imagine if the bulk of the pro-Ukrainian side were saying daily that the Ukrainian army was on the outskirts of Moscow, and on the verge of capturing Putin - and this was repeated over and over no matter how many times it was disproven, without shame or any evident desire for realistic self-correction - this would be an interesting phenomena that might be better explained as not an attempt to offer a factual analysis.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @QCIC

  263. @AaronB
    Here is a good article, written by an intelligent historian who is himself an atheist, on how modern atheists don't understand that traditionally Scripture was not read literally and was not simply "bad science" (perhaps most relevant to Mikel and Dmitry and John Johnson, among others).

    https://historyforatheists.com/2021/03/the-great-myths-11-biblical-literalism/?fbclid=IwAR298LZMRyzjSc9XdpjC2Fxl8eff06VOnyv78yxKdOMFIQZZovD0wsrZSl0


    HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS New Atheists Getting History Wrong!

    Biblical Literalism

    It is assumed in much anti-theistic polemic that the Bible has traditionally always been interpreted literally. A lot of criticism of believers is based on how irrational, impossible and anti-scientific such a reading of the Bible has to be and how the current literalism of many fundamentalist Christians simply reflects how the Bible has always been read, with non-literal interpretations simply a modern rear-guard attempt to reconcile the Bible with current understandings of the world. But this is not true. In fact, fundamentalist Biblical literalism is a very recent, mostly Protestant and largely American affair. Historically, things were much more complex...
     

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Here is a good article, written by an intelligent historian who is himself an atheist, on how modern atheists don’t understand that traditionally Scripture was not read literally and was not simply “bad science” (perhaps most relevant to Mikel and Dmitry and John Johnson, among others).

    For the record I’m not an atheist. I have mixed feelings on Christianity but am openly against modern secularism as some type of guiding force.

    I do have a problem with teaching children that the Old Testament is historically accurate when it simply isn’t.

    There was never a flood in the last 100k years that covered the earth. It didn’t happen.

    Your link is an interesting essay but as with most Christian historical apologists they can write lengthy and articulated responses to the questions that they are comfortable discussing.

    What they avoid are simple questions like:

    Did the flood happen?
    Yes [ ]
    No [ ]

    Anything but Yes[x] comes with a host of problems and they know it.

    For the record I grew up in the church and drew pictures of the ark in Sunday school. I truly believed it 100% happened because that is what the adults told me. As an adult I’ve since learned that most Christians are divided on the flood and if Noah actually acquired two of every animal. That in itself causes all kinds of problems not just with the logistics but also the inbreeding that would occur for every species. You could write books upon books on how the account of Noah isn’t possible.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @John Johnson

    The writer of that article is not a Christian apologist, but an atheist himself, who is a historian who studies the attitudes of pre-modern Christians to interpretation of Scripture :)

    He's pointing out simple history - that older Christians didn't interpret Scripture literally, so modern polemicists are not addressing the claims of older Christians (although too frequently are addressing the claims of modern Christians), and older Christians weren't simply doing "bad science" (even if you disagree that what they were doing had any validity).

    That's just a question of history, to be answered by looking at the historical record. For once, rather cut and dried.


    Anything but Yes[x] comes with a host of problems and they know it
     
    The point is that to a pre-modern mind not primarily concerned with empiricism, it didn't present problems - or rather, the "problems" were the whole point.

    But

    Replies: @John Johnson

  264. @sudden death
    Was hopeful that Israel is truly hardcore apartheid state as advertised with full concrete hard borders, but it's seems so full of Africans that African riots for some reason are already happening there, lol

    https://twitter.com/Terror_Alarm/status/1697953194540675399

    Replies: @A123, @songbird, @A123

    I can see why Trump wanted to move the embassy.

    @ Emil
    Avi Loeb is the Zeihan of space.

    Both are amusing in small doses.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/organization/affiliates

    Galileo Project Affiliate list.

    Note: Lue Elizondo and Chris Mellon.

    Loeb's Galileo Project is Jeffrey-Epstein-Science.

    Replies: @songbird

  265. @Mikel
    @LatW


    they could’ve attacked NATO’s eastern flank and NATO would’ve been in an extremely tough position (NATO had not militarized that region). Basically Ukraine saved NATO.
     
    LOL. Everybody seems to be in a joking mood today. First Polish nukes, then Mormons making their neighbors eternal slaves and now Russia and Ukraine attacking NATO from the East. With what? Martyanov's wonder weapons and tactics?

    I've actually just returned from Poland. I spent several days there for a large family gathering two weeks ago and it was quite remarkable how the country has changed externally in a positive way but I also found some of the same attitudes of the 90s unchanged. A Ukrainian uber driver told me that he wasn't very happy in Poland but people continue being very cordial and friendly with English-speaking tourists, sometimes extremely so.

    I've known Poland and Poles since the early 90s and I don't think there is any mystery in understanding what the vast majority of them thought and why they behaved the way they did all these years. They just wanted to leave behind their Russian-imposed Communist past as fast as they could, sever all ties with that part of the world and become a "normal" country by joining every Western association they were invited to. That's all. In fact, this aspiration of "normalcy" was funny and I could relate to it very well because I remembered the very same sentiment in Spain in the 80s. In the Anglo countries a politician promising to build just a normal country would be laughed at but in post-dictatorship societies normalcy may become a national obsession.

    In the same way, understanding the attitudes of the majority of Eastern Europeans after the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not too difficult. The old bully of the neighborhood finally attacked another neighbor, is receiving a good thrashing with the help of the Western shinny weapons and everybody is excited to join in the thrashing of the bully while seeing all their old fears vindicated.

    OK, I get that. But perhaps it shouldn't be so difficult to show some reciprocity and understand the position of those Westerners who are not so enthusiastic about these old animosities in EE having ended in a devastating war, want to de-escalate before it engulfs us all and criticize the policies of our leaders that led to this idiotic outcome. I don't think we're saying anything so bizarre. Btw, I personally don't need to be taught anything about big, imperialistic neighbors living in their old glories with little to offer in the present, subjugating you by sheer force and imposing their culture on your countrymen. As an old Polish woman once told me (speaking about the Russians), you can choose who you marry nut not who your neighbor is. We've all experienced that, one way or another, but perhaps there's no need to make our neighborhood issues everybody's problem?

    PS- Are you sure that Danes and Swedes don't have any animosity whatsoever? That's not what I heard from some of them: https://scandinaviafacts.com/danes-swedes-hate-each-other/

    Replies: @Wielgus

    Kieslowski’s film Three Colours White (1994) has one character rejoicing that “we’ve joined Europe!” It seems to be symbolised by his using neon in a sign advertising his hairdresser’s shop.
    The film is in places a rather acerbic picture of 1990s Poland. The main character is smuggled back there and is beaten up by gangsters. He peers at a large rubbish dump covered in seagulls and mutters, “Home!”

  266. @Mikhail
    @LondonBob

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TKZrVOhGRk

    The drone attacks into Russia are diversionary propaganda designed to dupe people into the mindset that the Kiev regime wasn't doing this before and that their doing it now serves as "proof" (sic) that it's gaining.

    The Kiev regime needs to do this to try to give cover to its forces getting slaughtered as it'll need a greater mobilization to try to replenish its lost personnel.

    The Kyiv Independent would be raided if this fact based observation was presented.

    Replies: @Sean

    While Ukraine is making relatively good progress, the Russians being able to move an elite superbly equipped division from the East to reinforce the area in the South that is the focus of attack shows that Ukraine has made a bad mistake of generalship by failing to pin the all Russian army units. Ukraine was counting on extensive use drones but Russian electronic warfare is more effective than expected, and their glider bombs launched from as high as 40,000 feet and containing a ton of HE in some cases are being used on the Ukrainian army’s foremost positions on the battlefield now. My summary would be the Ukrainians are good but need the Russian army to screw up its dispositions. All the US supplied intel in the world is not going to help if the Russian are meeting Ukraine’s offensive head on.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Sean


    While Ukraine is making relatively good progress
     
    C'mon mon.

    My summary would be the Ukrainians are good but need the Russian army to screw up its dispositions. All the US supplied intel in the world is not going to help if the Russian are meeting Ukraine’s offensive head on.
     
    On the first sentence, that's what happens when BS is believed. The Kiev regime is still standing on account of its government and armed forces being completely funded by the collective West, inclusive of strategic satellite support. Such funding can only last so long given the growing socioeconomic problems in the collective West, in conjunction with a growing realization that the Kiev regime is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22, relative to Russia's reasoned approach and importance in global affairs.
  267. @sudden death
    @sudden death

    https://i.postimg.cc/HLF0vVKT/verbove.jpg

    Replies: @QCIC

    The contrast between pro-Ukraine views (hegemonic) and pro-Russia views (anti-hegemonic) is fascinating. Of course the pro-Ukrainian folks view Russia as the potential hegemon while the rest of the world recognizes the USA-West as the actual hegemon fighting against a potential competitor. Many people in the pro-Ukraine category actually recognize the West as hegemonic but give it a free pass for many dastardly deeds committed in the past 30 years.

    Observers in the two opposed camps operate with information sources which are completely polarized on most aspects of the conflict. One side has maps showing Ukrainian progress while the other has similar maps showing Russian progress. Both sides have pictures of blown up tanks and general carnage. One side touts NATO weapons flowing into the conflict, the other 24/7 weapons production in Russia.

    Neither group reliably emphasizes that this conflict could expand into World War Three and a possible nuclear war. People ignore the reality that this Ukraine mess is much more dangerous than anything which happened during the Cold War. During that era people eventually started to recognize the horror of a global nuclear war and it scared the piss out of them. Now people are so uneducated and so manipulated that they are completely nonchalant about the real prospect of World War Three.

    This bizarre outlook does look a bit like a Jedi mind trick or some diabolical ‘reality creation’ as suggested by Mister Steak (HMS). Or could it simply be the result of abysmal contemporary education combined with 24/7 propaganda beamed almost directly into our brains from a six inch flashing oracle (smart phone)?

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @QCIC


    People ignore the reality that this Ukraine mess is much more dangerous than anything which happened during the Cold War.
     
    USSR pilots flew the most modern then airfighter planes, made in USSR and supplied by USSR, also were shooting down US pilots and fighters out of the sky both in Korea and Vietnam and it was relatively usual deal quietly, even if begrudgingly, but accepted by both main camps.

    These days we are not yet even at such point yet in Ukraine so far, so all the apocalyptic dramatics are way overblown, cause some people are truly forgetting the past as it really was.

    Replies: @QCIC

  268. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:
    @Mikhail
    @AaronB

    You've provided another example of pro-Kiev regime projection.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS6lXZpkQ4c

    Replies: @AaronB

    I should probably make clear I’m on the Ukrainian side, for obvious moral reasons, although without any particular enthusiasm.

    But there are peculiar things about this war, and the political situation in general at the moment, that transcend partisanship and raise larger questions which are worth discussing – and it extends beyond Ukraine, because similar claims are made on behalf of China, Iran, etc.

    For instance, Vox Day says the Iranian army is stronger than the US army – I’m trying to understand the psychology behind statements of this kind and what they can tell us about our rather bizarre political moment. And I think it can’t be understood in a rationalistic context, and is not meant as a factual analysis. It has occult properties.

    Of course, to a partisan, facts are themselves at the center of dispute, which is fair enough – within limits, there is rational room for dispute, and partisans have always disputed facts. One can rationally argue that the Russians aren’t doing as badly as portrayed in the Western media, and may yet emerge victorious, etc, etc.

    But the extreme and wild nature of so many of the claims by the pro-Russian side, and the way it’s repeated over and over with no interest in self-correction, suggest to me that it is incantatory and not meant as factual analysis.

    For instance, Ukraine’s offensive in the Western media is portrayed in a moderate fashion as having faltered and experienced difficulties, but as also having some minor successes, and as ongoing.

    But imagine if the bulk of the pro-Ukrainian side were saying daily that the Ukrainian army was on the outskirts of Moscow, and on the verge of capturing Putin – and this was repeated over and over no matter how many times it was disproven, without shame or any evident desire for realistic self-correction – this would be an interesting phenomena that might be better explained as not an attempt to offer a factual analysis.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @AaronB


    I should probably make clear I’m on the Ukrainian side, for obvious moral reasons, although without any particular enthusiasm.
     
    Your last point somewhat contradicts the one before it. There's better reason to say:

    I should probably make clear I’m on the Russian side, for obvious moral reasons, albeit within a limit.

    Innocent people dying on both sides. Can walk and chew gum at the same time when observing action like what happened in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden.

    , @QCIC
    @AaronB

    There are important premises underlying these "incantatory" claims which greatly influence the weight people give to the facts of the situation. It is easy to point out some of the foundations for the thought process on the pro-Russian side.

    Russia is a much larger and more powerful country than Ukraine and is fighting off an aggression by outside forces on or even over her border. This seems to give her a fundamental advantage above and beyond any day to day combat results from the SMO.

    Anyone who knows some history of Crimea thinks the Ukrainian claim to that area is very weak. This single fact greatly undermines the pro-Ukrainian Western position.

    Russia has a dangerous nuclear weapons capability which can used for leverage even if this is not discussed in the media.

    Many people recognize there is at least some truth to the Ukrainian NeoNazi aspect of this situation. The Nazis have been turned into the dominant villain in modern history so this truth, even if it is small and nuanced, greatly undermines the credibility of the pro-Ukraine case.

    Jewish oligarchs and actors supporting and aligning with actual NeoNazis is by far the most diabolical aspect of the conflict. The related fact that the Russian mercs are named Wagner just shows that humans can be really wacky. Talk about incantations!

  269. @Mikhail
    @AP

    Not as bad as Hodges, Keane, Petraeus and the CNN propped regulars.

    Replies: @QCIC

    I have learned important pieces of information from Hodges, Macgregor and Ritter through a few random video interviews I watched. I think Hodges is potentially the most biased or has the greatest potential conflict of interest, followed by Ritter. Nonetheless, there is a good balance between the group. In terms of other USA ex-military sources I don’t take anything from former CIA employees at face value. Once a creep always a creep.

    Napolitano comes across as very strange. I suppose he understands the danger of the Cold War and is against the NeoCons who have revived it. Based on his presentation and demeanor I wonder if his typical audience is very old?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @QCIC

    Napolitano comes across as a foreign policy libertarian. Tony Shaffer says he's an umpire calling balls and strikes as they are. His ongoing "Putin is a thug" mantra contradicts that. He got well deserved thrashing in the comments section below this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uPBqFbFBrY

    I get the impression that Shaffer is mainstreaming for the elites (being handshake worthy) to enable to have establishment gigs.

    Hodges kind of reminds me of the delusional retired general played by Ed Begley in this Len Deighton novel made into a movie:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjTJVXk8pbY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ8dBx-ywlI


    In terms of other USA ex-military sources I don’t take anything from former CIA employees at face value. Once a creep always a creep.
     
    Some of them provide informative insight.
  270. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:
    @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    Here is a good article, written by an intelligent historian who is himself an atheist, on how modern atheists don’t understand that traditionally Scripture was not read literally and was not simply “bad science” (perhaps most relevant to Mikel and Dmitry and John Johnson, among others).

    For the record I'm not an atheist. I have mixed feelings on Christianity but am openly against modern secularism as some type of guiding force.

    I do have a problem with teaching children that the Old Testament is historically accurate when it simply isn't.

    There was never a flood in the last 100k years that covered the earth. It didn't happen.

    Your link is an interesting essay but as with most Christian historical apologists they can write lengthy and articulated responses to the questions that they are comfortable discussing.

    What they avoid are simple questions like:

    Did the flood happen?
    Yes [ ]
    No [ ]

    Anything but Yes[x] comes with a host of problems and they know it.

    For the record I grew up in the church and drew pictures of the ark in Sunday school. I truly believed it 100% happened because that is what the adults told me. As an adult I've since learned that most Christians are divided on the flood and if Noah actually acquired two of every animal. That in itself causes all kinds of problems not just with the logistics but also the inbreeding that would occur for every species. You could write books upon books on how the account of Noah isn't possible.

    Replies: @AaronB

    The writer of that article is not a Christian apologist, but an atheist himself, who is a historian who studies the attitudes of pre-modern Christians to interpretation of Scripture 🙂

    He’s pointing out simple history – that older Christians didn’t interpret Scripture literally, so modern polemicists are not addressing the claims of older Christians (although too frequently are addressing the claims of modern Christians), and older Christians weren’t simply doing “bad science” (even if you disagree that what they were doing had any validity).

    That’s just a question of history, to be answered by looking at the historical record. For once, rather cut and dried.

    Anything but Yes[x] comes with a host of problems and they know it

    The point is that to a pre-modern mind not primarily concerned with empiricism, it didn’t present problems – or rather, the “problems” were the whole point.

    But

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    The writer of that article is not a Christian apologist, but an atheist himself, who is a historian who studies the attitudes of pre-modern Christians to interpretation of Scripture

    Yea well I only skimmed it. I'm really not interested in lengthy discussions of scripture since I'm not convinced that it is 100% true. Thus to me it is more like overanalyzing Beowulf instead of appreciating it for what it is. Evangelical atheists really bore me just as much as Evangelical Christians. I enjoy the discussions here on Russia but the religious threads seem to be stuck in a 1000 year loop.

    (on the flood)
    The point is that to a pre-modern mind not primarily concerned with empiricism, it didn’t present problems – or rather, the “problems” were the whole point.

    Are children currently taught that the pre-modern mind that authored Genesis 6-9 was not primary concerned with empiricism or that Genesis is God's word transcribed by man and that they need to finish their ark coloring?

    Replies: @AaronB

  271. @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    I occasionally dip into Vox Day, who is a major Alt-Right figure, to get a sense of what is really going on on that side – and it is like entering another world. In that world, Russia has already completely defeated and humiliated America and the West, and so has China, and Iran, etc. It’s a fascinating alternative universe, like an alternative historical novel.

    The same is true for Moon of Alabama.

    They seem unaware that they been declaring the near imminent defeat of Ukraine since the war started. Any comments pointing this out are removed.

    Alt-right used to be a place where you could discuss what both left and right would censor in their forums. Now half of Alt-right has rallied around Putin and supports the same level of controlled conversation. It's very disturbing for that reason. They decry censorship by the MSM but would clearly be fine with CNN if they hired MacGregor and let him ramble without any real questions. It seems that much of alt-right never wanted an open area of ideas and only value free speech when it suits them.

    So what if the pro-Russian side is attempting to engage in “reality creation” in an almost occult fashion? Instead of attempting to describe reality – which we naturally assume everyone is doing – they are attempting to impose their will on reality in an occult fashion, a sort of collective incantatory spell and collective group chant?

    I think the average pro-Putin poster is motivated largely by a combination of one or more of the following:
    1. A hatred of the Western status quo in combined with a hopeless feeling that nothing can be changed internally and will only deteriorate
    2. A corresponding belief that the expansion of Russia is a healthy counter-balance to this West (with discussions of Russia's abortion rate or declining Slavic population under strict bans in pro-Putin forums)
    3. Exhaustion from Western feminism (understandable) which leads to an unhealthy idealization of a "strong man" with absolute power.
    4. Hatred of the Jews or belief that Jews control/undermine the West. Ukraine is viewed as the Jewish side even if Putin has Jews in his inner circle and has strong ties to Israel (that discussion is also banned in some pro-Putin forums).
    5. Nihilistic/Misanthropic tendencies. We have gone over how about half of Putin's US public defenders have criminal records or accusations. Napolitano for example has been accused of raping a man who was drugged. They find some type of dark identity with Putin. Anglin has been a Putin supporter for years and is still wanted by Federal agents.

    Replies: @AaronB, @AP, @A123, @Sean

    I think the average pro-Putin poster is motivated largely by a combination of one or more of the following:

    1. A hatred of the Western status quo in combined with a hopeless feeling that nothing can be changed internally and will only deteriorate
    2. A corresponding belief that the expansion of Russia is a healthy counter-balance to this West (with discussions of Russia’s abortion rate or declining Slavic population under strict bans in pro-Putin forums)
    3. Exhaustion from Western feminism (understandable) which leads to an unhealthy idealization of a “strong man” with absolute power.
    4. Hatred of the Jews or belief that Jews control/undermine the West. Ukraine is viewed as the Jewish side even if Putin has Jews in his inner circle and has strong ties to Israel (that discussion is also banned in some pro-Putin forums).
    5. Nihilistic/Misanthropic tendencies. We have gone over how about half of Putin’s US public defenders have criminal records or accusations. Napolitano for example has been accused of raping a man who was drugged. [and of course Scott Ritter who is a twice-convicted sexual offender – AP] They find some type of dark identity with Putin. Anglin has been a Putin supporter for years and is still wanted by Federal agents.

    Quite accurate.

  272. A video with Larry C Johnson, another pro-Putin defender who told us the war was over when it started. Well I guess at least it isn’t MacGregor rambling in his monthly report about Ukraine is doomed (notice how his face involuntarily twitches when he talks about Zelensky).

    The world currently views Putin as a child killer and kidnapper. There wasn’t global outrage when the war crime charges were announced.

    History will not be kind to him. As with Hitler the extent of his crimes will be revealed when he is dead. Members of his inner circle will write books about the mass murdering Tsar with a height complex. You and others like Larry C Johnson will reminisce over the time when you went out of your way to defend a mass murdering dictator.

  273. @AaronB
    @John Johnson

    I think that's largely accurate about the psychological motives of the pro-Russian side, although in some cases I'd add a love of authoritarianism and control, a sadistic streak, and in some other more benign cases a deluded belief that Russia stands for "traditional values", but I was interested not so much in the psychological motivations but in the unusual behavior of repeating again and again and with intense fervor extreme claims that prove again and again untrue.

    That doesn't make rational sense - you can explain it psychologically as simple wish fulfillment or delusion, but I am suggesting that's implausible and it may go beyond that. It has the unmistakable features of religious ritual or magical incantation. Likewise Ukraine's refusal to rationally even discuss a negotiated peace at this juncture.

    From that perspective, it makes perfect good sense.

    It's Saruman and Gandalf casting spells at each other across the Misty Mountains :)

    Replies: @John Johnson, @AP

    It has the unmistakable features of religious ritual or magical incantation. Likewise Ukraine’s refusal to rationally even discuss a negotiated peace at this juncture.

    Ukraine hasn’t used most of its latest and best weapons and units, and is expecting more. It is gaining ground, albeit disappointingly slowly. Meanwhile, Russia continue to occupy territories populated by Ukrainians and shows no interest in changing its positions.

    At this point, there is nothing by Ukrainians to negotiate.

    • Agree: John Johnson
    • Replies: @AaronB
    @AP

    You are likely correct for the moment, but there was an interesting article in the New York Times about how Ukrainians fiercely refused to even discuss the possibility of a negotiated settlement - even one that they felt would be favorable to them. Anything less than a total Russian defeat on the battlefield could not be entertained.

    Some EU minister made some very mild comments about a negotiated settlement that wouldn't be a total Russian defeat and would be much more favorable to Ukraine than Russia is now offering - just to have a theoretical plan B, like what would that even look like - while also conceding that currently, the Russian precondition for peace is the erasure of Ukraine and is a nonstarter.

    He had to apologize.

    I'm not primarily interested in blaming anyone here, just developing a framework within which this makes sense.

    Replies: @AP, @Mikhail

  274. @AaronB
    @John Johnson

    The writer of that article is not a Christian apologist, but an atheist himself, who is a historian who studies the attitudes of pre-modern Christians to interpretation of Scripture :)

    He's pointing out simple history - that older Christians didn't interpret Scripture literally, so modern polemicists are not addressing the claims of older Christians (although too frequently are addressing the claims of modern Christians), and older Christians weren't simply doing "bad science" (even if you disagree that what they were doing had any validity).

    That's just a question of history, to be answered by looking at the historical record. For once, rather cut and dried.


    Anything but Yes[x] comes with a host of problems and they know it
     
    The point is that to a pre-modern mind not primarily concerned with empiricism, it didn't present problems - or rather, the "problems" were the whole point.

    But

    Replies: @John Johnson

    The writer of that article is not a Christian apologist, but an atheist himself, who is a historian who studies the attitudes of pre-modern Christians to interpretation of Scripture

    Yea well I only skimmed it. I’m really not interested in lengthy discussions of scripture since I’m not convinced that it is 100% true. Thus to me it is more like overanalyzing Beowulf instead of appreciating it for what it is. Evangelical atheists really bore me just as much as Evangelical Christians. I enjoy the discussions here on Russia but the religious threads seem to be stuck in a 1000 year loop.

    (on the flood)
    The point is that to a pre-modern mind not primarily concerned with empiricism, it didn’t present problems – or rather, the “problems” were the whole point.

    Are children currently taught that the pre-modern mind that authored Genesis 6-9 was not primary concerned with empiricism or that Genesis is God’s word transcribed by man and that they need to finish their ark coloring?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @John Johnson

    You have to read a text for what it was intended. If I wrote computer code and you said it was "bad poetry" you'd obviously be the one who was doing "bad thinking".

    The people who made these texts the center of their religious tradition did not intend for them to be 100% factually correct - so you saying they are in many ways "empirically false" is the one who is doing bad thinking. (Although there is likely a historical substrate to much of it).

    You simply don't know how to read the texts, just like someone thinking code is poetry doesn't know how to read code. Or better - someone thinking poetry is "bad computer code".

    Now, if you want to tell me you are only interested in 100% empirically accurate information, that would simply mean you are uninterested in religious scripture. It's not a critique of those scriptures, which is what the new atheist polemicists are offering. It would also mean a severe limitation in your personality and impoverished approach to life, but that's another matter entirely :)

    As for Beowulf, it's writers intended it as an aesthetic work, and it should be appreciated in that fashion - analyzing it over-analytically is obviously an unintelligent misreading, and I'd agree an aesthetic text should primarily be allowed to work on us aesthetically, not intellectually. Although one may well investigate the moral or spiritual dimension of an aesthetic work without compromising it's essentially aesthetic character.


    Are children currently taught that the pre-modern mind that authored Genesis 6-9 was not primary concerned with empiricism or that Genesis is God’s word transcribed by man and that they need to finish their ark coloring?
     
    Yes, that's a legitimate criticism, but this kind of thing is a corruption of modern times. That ought to be fought and the more sophisticated older approach restored.

    Today, both the religious for the most part and their new atheist opponents are equally stupid.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  275. @QCIC
    @sudden death

    The contrast between pro-Ukraine views (hegemonic) and pro-Russia views (anti-hegemonic) is fascinating. Of course the pro-Ukrainian folks view Russia as the potential hegemon while the rest of the world recognizes the USA-West as the actual hegemon fighting against a potential competitor. Many people in the pro-Ukraine category actually recognize the West as hegemonic but give it a free pass for many dastardly deeds committed in the past 30 years.

    Observers in the two opposed camps operate with information sources which are completely polarized on most aspects of the conflict. One side has maps showing Ukrainian progress while the other has similar maps showing Russian progress. Both sides have pictures of blown up tanks and general carnage. One side touts NATO weapons flowing into the conflict, the other 24/7 weapons production in Russia.

    Neither group reliably emphasizes that this conflict could expand into World War Three and a possible nuclear war. People ignore the reality that this Ukraine mess is much more dangerous than anything which happened during the Cold War. During that era people eventually started to recognize the horror of a global nuclear war and it scared the piss out of them. Now people are so uneducated and so manipulated that they are completely nonchalant about the real prospect of World War Three.

    This bizarre outlook does look a bit like a Jedi mind trick or some diabolical 'reality creation' as suggested by Mister Steak (HMS). Or could it simply be the result of abysmal contemporary education combined with 24/7 propaganda beamed almost directly into our brains from a six inch flashing oracle (smart phone)?

    Replies: @sudden death

    People ignore the reality that this Ukraine mess is much more dangerous than anything which happened during the Cold War.

    USSR pilots flew the most modern then airfighter planes, made in USSR and supplied by USSR, also were shooting down US pilots and fighters out of the sky both in Korea and Vietnam and it was relatively usual deal quietly, even if begrudgingly, but accepted by both main camps.

    These days we are not yet even at such point yet in Ukraine so far, so all the apocalyptic dramatics are way overblown, cause some people are truly forgetting the past as it really was.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @sudden death

    Are you kidding? I can’t tell. I thought about those earlier major East-West proxy wars before I wrote the comment. In my opinion, the risk of accidental strategic nuclear escalation was negligible in the Korea and Vietnam wars.

    The Korean war took place before the nuclear mutually-assured destruction (MAD) posture had matured. The conflict was far away from Moscow so there was no imminent threat to the Russian heartland. At the time all parties were still weary from WW2 and escalation from proxy war to real war was probably unlikely. Long-range missiles, nuclear submarines and satellites had not been developed yet. Fusion weapons were brand new. On the other hand, I think the risk of the USA intentionally using tactical nuclear weapons was actually very high. I'm sure this greatly influenced the development of nuclear arms control treaties which have now been forsaken by the West.

    The Vietnam war was ridiculous on many levels. Since the Chinese and Russian commies had already split by the early 1960s it seems the war was effectively against China not Russia. At the time China did not have enough nuclear weapons capability to have a nuclear stand off with the USA so there was little risk of escalation. MAD at that time was an exclusive USA-USSR club. The limited results of the US military in Vietnam probably convinced everyone that a Western full-scale conventional assault on China or Russia was unlikely. I don’t think Russia was seriously threatened by the Vietnam war.

    Replies: @sudden death

  276. @Beckow
    @AP

    You live in a make-belief world of false analogies. 1943? no kidding...how about them Mongols? And always Hitler, it comes too easy to you; as if that unspoken dream of Germans winning WW2 is haunting your subconsciousness....:)

    Replies: @AP

    You live in a make-belief world of false analogies. 1943? no kidding…how about them Mongols? And always Hitler, it comes too easy to you; as if that unspoken dream of Germans winning WW2 is haunting your subconsciousness….:)

    You are the one who mentioned him, not I. Projection?

    World War II comes to mind because that was the last time there was war in those lands.

    But the last time that Russia went to a real war without Ukraine fighting alongside it was against Poland in 1920.

    How did that turn out?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    I have a question for you, AP: Had Hitler never come to power in Germany, do you think that a surviving Weimar Germany or perhaps a non-Nazi authoritarian but non-totalitarian right-wing German dictatorship would have eventually went to war against Poland with the Soviet Union as its (Germany's) ally? Except here the goal wouldn't be to conquer all of Poland, but merely to reconquer Danzig and the Polish Corridor; Gdynia (with an extraterritorial road connecting it to the rest of Poland) and eastern Upper Silesia could be used as bargaining chips to get Poland to agree to the new territorial settlement, I suppose.

    If Britain is unwilling to fight over Poland without Czechoslovakia getting conquered and dismembered beforehand, then the German-Soviet alliance should have very good odds facing off against the Franco-Polish alliance, no?

  277. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:
    @AP
    @AaronB


    It has the unmistakable features of religious ritual or magical incantation. Likewise Ukraine’s refusal to rationally even discuss a negotiated peace at this juncture.
     
    Ukraine hasn't used most of its latest and best weapons and units, and is expecting more. It is gaining ground, albeit disappointingly slowly. Meanwhile, Russia continue to occupy territories populated by Ukrainians and shows no interest in changing its positions.

    At this point, there is nothing by Ukrainians to negotiate.

    Replies: @AaronB

    You are likely correct for the moment, but there was an interesting article in the New York Times about how Ukrainians fiercely refused to even discuss the possibility of a negotiated settlement – even one that they felt would be favorable to them. Anything less than a total Russian defeat on the battlefield could not be entertained.

    Some EU minister made some very mild comments about a negotiated settlement that wouldn’t be a total Russian defeat and would be much more favorable to Ukraine than Russia is now offering – just to have a theoretical plan B, like what would that even look like – while also conceding that currently, the Russian precondition for peace is the erasure of Ukraine and is a nonstarter.

    He had to apologize.

    I’m not primarily interested in blaming anyone here, just developing a framework within which this makes sense.

    • Replies: @AP
    @AaronB

    I don't really disagree with this.

    Personally, the best solution would something like: a return to the February 2022 border, UN-run referendums in Crimea and Donbas to determine status with only pre-2014 residents allowed to vote (Russia would still most likely win), Russia paying for all the damage it did through its invasion (taken out of the confiscated reserves plus more), post-war Russian Crimea largely demilitarized (maybe in exchange for Ukraine to agree to not hosting NATO missiles), Ukraine free to do what it wants within its borders (i.e., language policy) and free to pursue whatever alliances it wants (EU and NATO), end of sanctions and normalization of ties with Russia.

    But I haven't lost loved ones to the Russian invaders, nor had my home destroyed by them, nor my life disrupted by them. I can understand why people in Ukraine, who have suffered from these problems, want to take a harder line. Even the reasonable solution I support rewards Russia by normalizing its rule over Crimea and Donbas. I don't blame people for feeling that as a principle, the invader should not get any reward whatsoever.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    , @Mikhail
    @AaronB


    You are likely correct for the moment, but there was an interesting article in the New York Times about how Ukrainians fiercely refused to even discuss the possibility of a negotiated settlement – even one that they felt would be favorable to them. Anything less than a total Russian defeat on the battlefield could not be entertained.
     
    The Japanese and Germans were even more steadfast before reality eventually and (for them) tragically sank in. There's a recent NYT article quoting a Ukrainian marine who said the Russians have considerably more better equipped and trained personnel than his side. At the 17:35 mark is a related discussion that's continuously downplayed by the Western establishment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frD1bk9tRX4

    As I previously noted -

    The title of that video could be: The ability of Ukrainians to Distinguish Messages of Svido, Neocon-Neolib Propaganda

    Its featured guest Lev Golinkin made an overly general and inaccurate neocon, neolib, svido handshakeworthy comment about the history of Ukraine under the Soviets and Russian Empire. (Svido is shorthand for the derisive svidomite term used to describe anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists.)

    A follow-up to Golinkin notes that the Soviet Union made it possible for Ukraine to achieve a large border it never had. In the late 1920s, there was a linguistic Ukrainianization campaign in the Ukrainian SSR which Alexander Solzhenitsyn negatively noted. Soviet oppression was by no means related to just one republic.

    A pre-WW I Russian Empire census acknowledged that Ukrainian was widely spoken. In the late 1870s, there was a Ukrainian language censorship period (later stopped) that was initiated in response to anti-Russian Ukrainian language material coming from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. A pro-Russian, Russian Empire based Ukrainian brought this to the attention of the Russian authorities. That last point is noted by Orest Subtelny in his book covering Ukrainian history. This situation happened during a period when global tolerance for minorities within an empire had limits when compared to present day expectation.

    Meantime, it wasn't as if the Russian Empire wasn't changing.

    Replies: @LatW

  278. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:
    @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    The writer of that article is not a Christian apologist, but an atheist himself, who is a historian who studies the attitudes of pre-modern Christians to interpretation of Scripture

    Yea well I only skimmed it. I'm really not interested in lengthy discussions of scripture since I'm not convinced that it is 100% true. Thus to me it is more like overanalyzing Beowulf instead of appreciating it for what it is. Evangelical atheists really bore me just as much as Evangelical Christians. I enjoy the discussions here on Russia but the religious threads seem to be stuck in a 1000 year loop.

    (on the flood)
    The point is that to a pre-modern mind not primarily concerned with empiricism, it didn’t present problems – or rather, the “problems” were the whole point.

    Are children currently taught that the pre-modern mind that authored Genesis 6-9 was not primary concerned with empiricism or that Genesis is God's word transcribed by man and that they need to finish their ark coloring?

    Replies: @AaronB

    You have to read a text for what it was intended. If I wrote computer code and you said it was “bad poetry” you’d obviously be the one who was doing “bad thinking”.

    The people who made these texts the center of their religious tradition did not intend for them to be 100% factually correct – so you saying they are in many ways “empirically false” is the one who is doing bad thinking. (Although there is likely a historical substrate to much of it).

    You simply don’t know how to read the texts, just like someone thinking code is poetry doesn’t know how to read code. Or better – someone thinking poetry is “bad computer code”.

    Now, if you want to tell me you are only interested in 100% empirically accurate information, that would simply mean you are uninterested in religious scripture. It’s not a critique of those scriptures, which is what the new atheist polemicists are offering. It would also mean a severe limitation in your personality and impoverished approach to life, but that’s another matter entirely 🙂

    As for Beowulf, it’s writers intended it as an aesthetic work, and it should be appreciated in that fashion – analyzing it over-analytically is obviously an unintelligent misreading, and I’d agree an aesthetic text should primarily be allowed to work on us aesthetically, not intellectually. Although one may well investigate the moral or spiritual dimension of an aesthetic work without compromising it’s essentially aesthetic character.

    Are children currently taught that the pre-modern mind that authored Genesis 6-9 was not primary concerned with empiricism or that Genesis is God’s word transcribed by man and that they need to finish their ark coloring?

    Yes, that’s a legitimate criticism, but this kind of thing is a corruption of modern times. That ought to be fought and the more sophisticated older approach restored.

    Today, both the religious for the most part and their new atheist opponents are equally stupid.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    The people who made these texts the center of their religious tradition did not intend for them to be 100% factually correct – so you saying they are in many ways “empirically false” is the one who is doing bad thinking. (Although there is likely a historical substrate to much of it).

    I'm the problem huh? I think my Sunday school teacher would have agreed.

    Well let's go ahead and crack open the Bible.

    Geneses 6: 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish

    Seems pretty clear to me. Or are you suggesting that God saying "everything on earth shall perish" has some type of subjective meaning? Did he never state that? You are stating that Genesis may not be historically accurate or are fables? The record of the flood may be false? Which is it? Please explain using the context that you seem to believe I am not understanding.


    Are children currently taught that the pre-modern mind that authored Genesis 6-9 was not primary concerned with empiricism or that Genesis is God’s word transcribed by man and that they need to finish their ark coloring?
     
    Yes, that’s a legitimate criticism, but this kind of thing is a corruption of modern times. That ought to be fought and the more sophisticated older approach restored.

    So you believe that Christians are corrupted by modern times by teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis? What were they teaching in pre-modern times?

    Replies: @AaronB

  279. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    Mitt Romney looks more like an actor in an 1980s television drama than anyone I’ve seen in real life. If you saw him, you would guess he was an old Hollywood actor, who has their hair cut every morning
     
    .

    There are many like that, among Mormons. A Utah governor, Jon Huntsman, with his wife:

    https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/huntsmanmarykaye_huntsmanjon_06182020getty.jpg

    They have 5 biological children, and adopted 2 children.

    overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America

    It can’t be true on average as Mormons have higher levels of obesity than non-Mormons, especially for women. https://www.ldsliving.com/sponsored-the-mormon-obesity-epidemic-whats-going-on/s/85383
     
    This is surprising and goes against mine (and others') experiences, but I can't argue against the data.

    I wonder if the non-Mormons in Utah are mostly not rural farmers but people like Mikel, who have moved to Utah for the purpose of hiking a lot in the spectacular nature. If such super-athletic people are heavily over-represented among non-Mormons in Utah, that might explain it.

    Utah in general has one of the lowest obesity rates in the country:

    https://i.insider.com/56006a16bd86ef15008bbdee?width=1136&format=jpeg

    Lower than all of its neighbors other than Colorado, 4th lowest in the USA.

    Also the incomes by religion of Mormons is the same as the mainline protestant.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/income-distribution/
     
    Mainline Protestants are the richest of America's mainstream Christians.

    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/
     
    You'd have to account for race to get an accurate estimate. Most Blacks are Christians (typically, Protestants) and they drive life expectancy down.

    Here this is accounted for:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035005/

    Jews live longest of all. But both mainline Protestants and Catholics live longer than those with no religion. Who live longer than Evangelical Christians and Black Protestants.

    Also, the relationship between religion and income is not linear. The richest attend church the least, but the next group attend church the most, and more often than the 2 poorer groups:

    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/attendance-at-religious-services/by/income-distribution/

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Mr. XYZ

    Huntsman, with his wife:

    He looks to me like a standard American businessman or manager.

    Romney looks like Reagan, who was an old Hollywood actor. He is not an normal old looking men, except in somewhere like Hollywood.

    Usually CEOs are unusually friendly and social people, in the large, corporate multinational companies, which have a more formal promotion system. This is unlike e.g. Trump’s family business, where you can be an anti-social manager.

    But it’s not common for managers and CEOs to look like actors.

    non-Mormons in Utah are mostly not rural farmers but people like Mikel, who have moved to Utah for the purpose of hiking a lot in the spectacular nature. If such super-athletic people

    Salt Lake City is also a economic boom, so they probably have some middle professionals immigrating there.


    Although generally the most health promoting place in America are the Democrat areas though, where there is a high number of middle class people.

    You’d have to account for race to get an accurate estimate. Most Blacks are Christians (typically, Protestants) and they drive life expectancy down.

    This source I quoted is internationally, not inside America like I had believed.

    Jews live longest of all. But both mainline Protestants and Catholics live longer than those with no religion.

    Generally, it’s matching with income of the groups. The difference is extended by expensive private healthcare.

    There would be exception with some groups which use a kind of preventive medicine to modify the use of drugs or diet like Seventh-Day and Mormons.


    In terms of income,

    Episcopal Church is socially interesting, as it seems to develop as a high income Protestantism. Protestantism for WASPs who are part of the golf course?

    A lot of the sects of Judaism are also becoming a kind of snobby group, because the education costs are expensive. For example, “Jewish respondents who identified as modern Orthodox reported an average median household income of $188,000 per year, and $31,000 in annual school expenses. — The highest wage-earners were modern Orthodox respondents aged 35-54, with $218,000 in median household income”
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-orthodox-jews-financially-fragmented-but-mostly-secure-survey-finds/

    In this kind of “golf course” sect where most of the sect are middle class, if you don’t have a professionals’ income, you could feel like socially you are not a “normal person”. In this case, you might feel like exiting and joining a group like Jehovah’s Winess which is more people in your income group.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Dmitry


    non-Mormons in Utah are mostly not rural farmers but people like Mikel, who have moved to Utah for the purpose of hiking a lot in the spectacular nature. If such super-athletic people

    Salt Lake City is also a economic boom, so they probably have some middle professionals immigrating there.
     
    Ah yes, this too.

    So it makes sense if within Utah, the non-Mormons are mostly either rather wealthy professionals or fanatical outdoorsmen who have moved to Utah for the hiking, mountain hiking, skiing, etc. This is why within Utah, Mormons are more overweight.

    But Utah overall is the 4th thinnest state in the USA, so Mormons are thinner than most other Americans. I moved to the SW from the Midwest, so the Mormon even in the countryside seemed to be in much better shape than the rural folks I had been used to seeing.

    Episcopal Church is socially interesting, as it seems to develop as a high income Protestantism. Protestantism for WASPs who are part of the golf course?

     

    The Episcopal Church is the American offspring of the Anglican Church. It's the historical Church of the American elites - the poor Americans such as frontiersman farmers were Baptists or other more radical Protestants. After the American Revolution, the new Republic confiscated property from the Anglican Church and expelled priests loyal to the King back to England. The Church in the USA was reformed and renamed Episcopalian (an analogous process has happened in Ukraine with the Orthodox Church - the one loyal to Moscow has seen property transfers to the local non-Moscow one, treasonous priests have been detained, etc.).

    Because the Episcopal Church is full of rich people, it has in recent times succumbed to rich people fashions, such as having non-celibate gay bishops. In reaction, some Episcopalians have become Anglicans again, placing themselves under conservative African Anglican bishops rather than local American gay ones.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  280. @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    I occasionally dip into Vox Day, who is a major Alt-Right figure, to get a sense of what is really going on on that side – and it is like entering another world. In that world, Russia has already completely defeated and humiliated America and the West, and so has China, and Iran, etc. It’s a fascinating alternative universe, like an alternative historical novel.

    The same is true for Moon of Alabama.

    They seem unaware that they been declaring the near imminent defeat of Ukraine since the war started. Any comments pointing this out are removed.

    Alt-right used to be a place where you could discuss what both left and right would censor in their forums. Now half of Alt-right has rallied around Putin and supports the same level of controlled conversation. It's very disturbing for that reason. They decry censorship by the MSM but would clearly be fine with CNN if they hired MacGregor and let him ramble without any real questions. It seems that much of alt-right never wanted an open area of ideas and only value free speech when it suits them.

    So what if the pro-Russian side is attempting to engage in “reality creation” in an almost occult fashion? Instead of attempting to describe reality – which we naturally assume everyone is doing – they are attempting to impose their will on reality in an occult fashion, a sort of collective incantatory spell and collective group chant?

    I think the average pro-Putin poster is motivated largely by a combination of one or more of the following:
    1. A hatred of the Western status quo in combined with a hopeless feeling that nothing can be changed internally and will only deteriorate
    2. A corresponding belief that the expansion of Russia is a healthy counter-balance to this West (with discussions of Russia's abortion rate or declining Slavic population under strict bans in pro-Putin forums)
    3. Exhaustion from Western feminism (understandable) which leads to an unhealthy idealization of a "strong man" with absolute power.
    4. Hatred of the Jews or belief that Jews control/undermine the West. Ukraine is viewed as the Jewish side even if Putin has Jews in his inner circle and has strong ties to Israel (that discussion is also banned in some pro-Putin forums).
    5. Nihilistic/Misanthropic tendencies. We have gone over how about half of Putin's US public defenders have criminal records or accusations. Napolitano for example has been accused of raping a man who was drugged. They find some type of dark identity with Putin. Anglin has been a Putin supporter for years and is still wanted by Federal agents.

    Replies: @AaronB, @AP, @A123, @Sean

    I think the average pro-Putin poster is motivated largely by a combination of one or more of the following:

    3. Exhaustion from Western feminism (understandable) which leads to an unhealthy idealization of a “strong man” with absolute power.

    Certainly, Russian resistance to IslamoGloboHomo is desirable. I do not know if that could make one a Putin supporter, but it is definitely a benefit.

    4. Hatred of the Jews or belief that Jews control/undermine the West. Ukraine is viewed as the Jewish side even if Putin has Jews in his inner circle and has strong ties to Israel (that discussion is also banned in some pro-Putin forums).

    Really? You have to be kidding?

    Anti-Semite Zelensky is tied to Azov neo-Nazism. His address to the Knesset was designed to be deliberately offensive to Palestinian Jews. He is a puppet of Islamophile Europe. Ukiewood propaganda is the same playbook as Pallywood.

    Netanyahu and Putin are known to be friendly. There are extensive business ties between Israel & Russia. And, Israeli banks are rumored to be helping Russia bypass sanctions.

    Russia is viewed as the side of Judaism. Though the official neutrality is a useful construct.

    PEACE 😇

    • Disagree: silviosilver
  281. @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    I occasionally dip into Vox Day, who is a major Alt-Right figure, to get a sense of what is really going on on that side – and it is like entering another world. In that world, Russia has already completely defeated and humiliated America and the West, and so has China, and Iran, etc. It’s a fascinating alternative universe, like an alternative historical novel.

    The same is true for Moon of Alabama.

    They seem unaware that they been declaring the near imminent defeat of Ukraine since the war started. Any comments pointing this out are removed.

    Alt-right used to be a place where you could discuss what both left and right would censor in their forums. Now half of Alt-right has rallied around Putin and supports the same level of controlled conversation. It's very disturbing for that reason. They decry censorship by the MSM but would clearly be fine with CNN if they hired MacGregor and let him ramble without any real questions. It seems that much of alt-right never wanted an open area of ideas and only value free speech when it suits them.

    So what if the pro-Russian side is attempting to engage in “reality creation” in an almost occult fashion? Instead of attempting to describe reality – which we naturally assume everyone is doing – they are attempting to impose their will on reality in an occult fashion, a sort of collective incantatory spell and collective group chant?

    I think the average pro-Putin poster is motivated largely by a combination of one or more of the following:
    1. A hatred of the Western status quo in combined with a hopeless feeling that nothing can be changed internally and will only deteriorate
    2. A corresponding belief that the expansion of Russia is a healthy counter-balance to this West (with discussions of Russia's abortion rate or declining Slavic population under strict bans in pro-Putin forums)
    3. Exhaustion from Western feminism (understandable) which leads to an unhealthy idealization of a "strong man" with absolute power.
    4. Hatred of the Jews or belief that Jews control/undermine the West. Ukraine is viewed as the Jewish side even if Putin has Jews in his inner circle and has strong ties to Israel (that discussion is also banned in some pro-Putin forums).
    5. Nihilistic/Misanthropic tendencies. We have gone over how about half of Putin's US public defenders have criminal records or accusations. Napolitano for example has been accused of raping a man who was drugged. They find some type of dark identity with Putin. Anglin has been a Putin supporter for years and is still wanted by Federal agents.

    Replies: @AaronB, @AP, @A123, @Sean

    Theory Of Truth by Robinson Jeffers

    Why does insanity always twist the great answers?
    Because only
    tormented persons want truth.
    Man is an animal like other animals, wants food and success and
    women, not truth. Only if the mind
    Tortured by some interior tension has despaired of happiness:
    then it hates its life-cage and seeks further,
    And finds, if it is powerful enough. But instantly the private
    agony that made the search
    Muddles the finding.

    You talk about Putin as a sick puppy who the world would be better off without, but you and Western partisans of Ukraine in the conflict actually mean Russia and its people, or that is the impression you are creating. It cannot be helped that the Russians are taking notice of such sentiments.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Sean

    You talk about Putin as a sick puppy who the world would be better off without

    That's the default position of the world. He is viewed as a psychopath and second rate Hitler.

    Only 4 nations voted with Russia on the annexations:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/02/united-nations-russia-ukraine-vote

    Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria. All dictatorships.

    but you and Western partisans of Ukraine in the conflict actually mean Russia and its people, or that is the impression you are creating. It cannot be helped that the Russians are taking notice of such sentiments.

    I'm an anonymous poster on a website that is artificially de-ranked by the major search engines. I don't have enough influence to change world opinion on the Russian people.

    Youtube sources like 1420 however are making people question if Russians are naturally brutish, politically apathetic and submissive to authority which was the stereotype prior to the revolution. This stereotype has indeed returned thanks to Putin's war and you can thank him for that. When people see missiles hitting apartment buildings in Kiev and Russian troops hauling washing machines next to bodies in the streets there really isn't much that can be said. The images have already spoken and the Russian people are not resisting like Americans during Vietnam. World judgement has already occurred and cannot be undone.

    Hitler was able to hide a lot of his cruelty against the Poles by limiting foreign media access during the 1939 invasion. Putin isn't able to do that in the age of open media. He is really thinking in a 1930s mentality and doesn't seem to grasp that a CCTV video of a missile hitting an apartment building was viewed by literally billions of people within 24 hours.

    Replies: @Sean

    , @Matra
    @Sean

    In a better America Robinson Jeffers would be a household name, a kind of poet of the nation. Instead, America worships Maya Angelou.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

  282. @Sean
    @Mikhail

    While Ukraine is making relatively good progress, the Russians being able to move an elite superbly equipped division from the East to reinforce the area in the South that is the focus of attack shows that Ukraine has made a bad mistake of generalship by failing to pin the all Russian army units. Ukraine was counting on extensive use drones but Russian electronic warfare is more effective than expected, and their glider bombs launched from as high as 40,000 feet and containing a ton of HE in some cases are being used on the Ukrainian army's foremost positions on the battlefield now. My summary would be the Ukrainians are good but need the Russian army to screw up its dispositions. All the US supplied intel in the world is not going to help if the Russian are meeting Ukraine's offensive head on.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    While Ukraine is making relatively good progress

    C’mon mon.

    My summary would be the Ukrainians are good but need the Russian army to screw up its dispositions. All the US supplied intel in the world is not going to help if the Russian are meeting Ukraine’s offensive head on.

    On the first sentence, that’s what happens when BS is believed. The Kiev regime is still standing on account of its government and armed forces being completely funded by the collective West, inclusive of strategic satellite support. Such funding can only last so long given the growing socioeconomic problems in the collective West, in conjunction with a growing realization that the Kiev regime is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22, relative to Russia’s reasoned approach and importance in global affairs.

  283. @AaronB
    @Mikhail

    I should probably make clear I'm on the Ukrainian side, for obvious moral reasons, although without any particular enthusiasm.

    But there are peculiar things about this war, and the political situation in general at the moment, that transcend partisanship and raise larger questions which are worth discussing - and it extends beyond Ukraine, because similar claims are made on behalf of China, Iran, etc.

    For instance, Vox Day says the Iranian army is stronger than the US army - I'm trying to understand the psychology behind statements of this kind and what they can tell us about our rather bizarre political moment. And I think it can't be understood in a rationalistic context, and is not meant as a factual analysis. It has occult properties.

    Of course, to a partisan, facts are themselves at the center of dispute, which is fair enough - within limits, there is rational room for dispute, and partisans have always disputed facts. One can rationally argue that the Russians aren't doing as badly as portrayed in the Western media, and may yet emerge victorious, etc, etc.

    But the extreme and wild nature of so many of the claims by the pro-Russian side, and the way it's repeated over and over with no interest in self-correction, suggest to me that it is incantatory and not meant as factual analysis.

    For instance, Ukraine's offensive in the Western media is portrayed in a moderate fashion as having faltered and experienced difficulties, but as also having some minor successes, and as ongoing.

    But imagine if the bulk of the pro-Ukrainian side were saying daily that the Ukrainian army was on the outskirts of Moscow, and on the verge of capturing Putin - and this was repeated over and over no matter how many times it was disproven, without shame or any evident desire for realistic self-correction - this would be an interesting phenomena that might be better explained as not an attempt to offer a factual analysis.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @QCIC

    I should probably make clear I’m on the Ukrainian side, for obvious moral reasons, although without any particular enthusiasm.

    Your last point somewhat contradicts the one before it. There’s better reason to say:

    I should probably make clear I’m on the Russian side, for obvious moral reasons, albeit within a limit.

    Innocent people dying on both sides. Can walk and chew gum at the same time when observing action like what happened in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden.

  284. @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    I have learned important pieces of information from Hodges, Macgregor and Ritter through a few random video interviews I watched. I think Hodges is potentially the most biased or has the greatest potential conflict of interest, followed by Ritter. Nonetheless, there is a good balance between the group. In terms of other USA ex-military sources I don't take anything from former CIA employees at face value. Once a creep always a creep.

    Napolitano comes across as very strange. I suppose he understands the danger of the Cold War and is against the NeoCons who have revived it. Based on his presentation and demeanor I wonder if his typical audience is very old?

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Napolitano comes across as a foreign policy libertarian. Tony Shaffer says he’s an umpire calling balls and strikes as they are. His ongoing “Putin is a thug” mantra contradicts that. He got well deserved thrashing in the comments section below this video:

    I get the impression that Shaffer is mainstreaming for the elites (being handshake worthy) to enable to have establishment gigs.

    Hodges kind of reminds me of the delusional retired general played by Ed Begley in this Len Deighton novel made into a movie:

    In terms of other USA ex-military sources I don’t take anything from former CIA employees at face value. Once a creep always a creep.

    Some of them provide informative insight.

  285. @AaronB
    @Mikhail

    I should probably make clear I'm on the Ukrainian side, for obvious moral reasons, although without any particular enthusiasm.

    But there are peculiar things about this war, and the political situation in general at the moment, that transcend partisanship and raise larger questions which are worth discussing - and it extends beyond Ukraine, because similar claims are made on behalf of China, Iran, etc.

    For instance, Vox Day says the Iranian army is stronger than the US army - I'm trying to understand the psychology behind statements of this kind and what they can tell us about our rather bizarre political moment. And I think it can't be understood in a rationalistic context, and is not meant as a factual analysis. It has occult properties.

    Of course, to a partisan, facts are themselves at the center of dispute, which is fair enough - within limits, there is rational room for dispute, and partisans have always disputed facts. One can rationally argue that the Russians aren't doing as badly as portrayed in the Western media, and may yet emerge victorious, etc, etc.

    But the extreme and wild nature of so many of the claims by the pro-Russian side, and the way it's repeated over and over with no interest in self-correction, suggest to me that it is incantatory and not meant as factual analysis.

    For instance, Ukraine's offensive in the Western media is portrayed in a moderate fashion as having faltered and experienced difficulties, but as also having some minor successes, and as ongoing.

    But imagine if the bulk of the pro-Ukrainian side were saying daily that the Ukrainian army was on the outskirts of Moscow, and on the verge of capturing Putin - and this was repeated over and over no matter how many times it was disproven, without shame or any evident desire for realistic self-correction - this would be an interesting phenomena that might be better explained as not an attempt to offer a factual analysis.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @QCIC

    There are important premises underlying these “incantatory” claims which greatly influence the weight people give to the facts of the situation. It is easy to point out some of the foundations for the thought process on the pro-Russian side.

    Russia is a much larger and more powerful country than Ukraine and is fighting off an aggression by outside forces on or even over her border. This seems to give her a fundamental advantage above and beyond any day to day combat results from the SMO.

    Anyone who knows some history of Crimea thinks the Ukrainian claim to that area is very weak. This single fact greatly undermines the pro-Ukrainian Western position.

    Russia has a dangerous nuclear weapons capability which can used for leverage even if this is not discussed in the media.

    Many people recognize there is at least some truth to the Ukrainian NeoNazi aspect of this situation. The Nazis have been turned into the dominant villain in modern history so this truth, even if it is small and nuanced, greatly undermines the credibility of the pro-Ukraine case.

    Jewish oligarchs and actors supporting and aligning with actual NeoNazis is by far the most diabolical aspect of the conflict. The related fact that the Russian mercs are named Wagner just shows that humans can be really wacky. Talk about incantations!

  286. @Dmitry
    @AP


    Huntsman, with his wife:
     
    He looks to me like a standard American businessman or manager.

    Romney looks like Reagan, who was an old Hollywood actor. He is not an normal old looking men, except in somewhere like Hollywood.

    Usually CEOs are unusually friendly and social people, in the large, corporate multinational companies, which have a more formal promotion system. This is unlike e.g. Trump's family business, where you can be an anti-social manager.

    But it's not common for managers and CEOs to look like actors.


    non-Mormons in Utah are mostly not rural farmers but people like Mikel, who have moved to Utah for the purpose of hiking a lot in the spectacular nature. If such super-athletic people

     

    Salt Lake City is also a economic boom, so they probably have some middle professionals immigrating there.

    -
    Although generally the most health promoting place in America are the Democrat areas though, where there is a high number of middle class people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhPcZxcdF4A


    You’d have to account for race to get an accurate estimate. Most Blacks are Christians (typically, Protestants) and they drive life expectancy down.

     

    This source I quoted is internationally, not inside America like I had believed.

    Jews live longest of all. But both mainline Protestants and Catholics live longer than those with no religion.

     

    Generally, it's matching with income of the groups. The difference is extended by expensive private healthcare.

    There would be exception with some groups which use a kind of preventive medicine to modify the use of drugs or diet like Seventh-Day and Mormons.


    -
    In terms of income,

    Episcopal Church is socially interesting, as it seems to develop as a high income Protestantism. Protestantism for WASPs who are part of the golf course?

    A lot of the sects of Judaism are also becoming a kind of snobby group, because the education costs are expensive. For example, "Jewish respondents who identified as modern Orthodox reported an average median household income of $188,000 per year, and $31,000 in annual school expenses. -- The highest wage-earners were modern Orthodox respondents aged 35-54, with $218,000 in median household income"
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-orthodox-jews-financially-fragmented-but-mostly-secure-survey-finds/

    In this kind of "golf course" sect where most of the sect are middle class, if you don't have a professionals' income, you could feel like socially you are not a "normal person". In this case, you might feel like exiting and joining a group like Jehovah's Winess which is more people in your income group.

    Replies: @AP

    non-Mormons in Utah are mostly not rural farmers but people like Mikel, who have moved to Utah for the purpose of hiking a lot in the spectacular nature. If such super-athletic people

    Salt Lake City is also a economic boom, so they probably have some middle professionals immigrating there.

    Ah yes, this too.

    So it makes sense if within Utah, the non-Mormons are mostly either rather wealthy professionals or fanatical outdoorsmen who have moved to Utah for the hiking, mountain hiking, skiing, etc. This is why within Utah, Mormons are more overweight.

    But Utah overall is the 4th thinnest state in the USA, so Mormons are thinner than most other Americans. I moved to the SW from the Midwest, so the Mormon even in the countryside seemed to be in much better shape than the rural folks I had been used to seeing.

    Episcopal Church is socially interesting, as it seems to develop as a high income Protestantism. Protestantism for WASPs who are part of the golf course?

    The Episcopal Church is the American offspring of the Anglican Church. It’s the historical Church of the American elites – the poor Americans such as frontiersman farmers were Baptists or other more radical Protestants. After the American Revolution, the new Republic confiscated property from the Anglican Church and expelled priests loyal to the King back to England. The Church in the USA was reformed and renamed Episcopalian (an analogous process has happened in Ukraine with the Orthodox Church – the one loyal to Moscow has seen property transfers to the local non-Moscow one, treasonous priests have been detained, etc.).

    Because the Episcopal Church is full of rich people, it has in recent times succumbed to rich people fashions, such as having non-celibate gay bishops. In reaction, some Episcopalians have become Anglicans again, placing themselves under conservative African Anglican bishops rather than local American gay ones.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Because the Episcopal Church is full of rich people, it has in recent times succumbed to rich people fashions, such as having non-celibate gay bishops.
     
    Any chance that this move could have been done as a response to church elders engaging in child sex abuse? It makes sense to allow church elders to have sex with other, willing adults if that means that they won't harm actual children (or at least do so less than they would have done had they not had any other, willing adults to have sex with at all).

    Replies: @Coconuts

  287. @A123
    How are European Empire sanctions against Russia fairing? (1)

    Russian LNG exports to Europe surge

     

    as one of the world’s leading suppliers, particularly when it comes to natural gas, there aren’t enough replacements for those products available so we’ve largely had to leave them alone. As a result, not only are Russian exports failing to be dampened, they’re actually increasing and the country is on track to set an all-time record for Liquified Natural Gas exports. (Washington Examiner)

    The European Union is slated to import record amounts of Russian liquefied natural gas this year, a trend in conflict with its aim to reduce reliance on Russian fossil fuels and cut off funding for President Vladimir Putin‘s war machine.

    Spain and Belgium were ranked as the second- and third-largest buyers of Russian LNG, behind only China, according to a report from the nonprofit group Global Witness. Spain accounted for 18% of Russia’s total LNG sales in the first seven months of 2023, while Belgium accounted for 17%.

    As a whole, EU imports of the chilled Russian gas were up 40% in the first half of this year.
     
    The EU keeps insisting that they’re going to largely end the use of natural gas by 2027. Energy analysts have been calling that a pipe dream for a while now and this news supports that belief. If anything, most of Europe is even more dependent on natural gas, particularly LNG, than they were prior to the original Paris climate conference.

    As long as this continues, we are clearly not going to starve the Kremlin of enough money to cause unrest in the streets or force Putin to consider pulling out of the war. And even if a couple of countries can be convinced to cut off or at least reduce their LNG imports from Russia, China will just buy up all of the excess as they’ve been doing since the war began. Africa remains a large market for them as well. There simply isn’t enough global solidarity against Russia to allow these sanctions to really put the screws to Putin.
     
    The German Greens shutting NordStream had limited impact on Russia and delivered Germany into decline. Why do German workers tolerate these dolts?
    ___

    The oil restrictions are not working either. India buys Russian crude and then sends the refined products on to Europe.

    PEACE 😇
    ___________

    (1) https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/08/31/russian-lng-exports-to-europe-surge-n574970

    Replies: @sudden death, @sudden death

    The oil restrictions are not working either. India buys Russian crude and then sends the refined products on to Europe.

    The goal is not remove RF oil/natgas from worldmarkets completely, but to lessen the amount of RF cash inflows, which has been done succesfully since the end of 2022.

    btw, Indian buying of RF oil also has been decreasing lately:

    India’s splurge on cheap Russian crude may be over, as New Delhi’s traditional suppliers in the West Asia step back in with attractive conditions.

    “Our dependence on Russian oil is going to decrease sharply,” Oil Minister Hardeep Puri said in an interview. “The cost viability from the Gulf is much more attractive now.”

    India’s consumption of Russian crude has soared since President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February last year, ousting Saudi Arabia and Iraq from the top spots. From negligible levels, it soared to account for nearly half of supplies in May. However, rising prices have squeezed the discount on Russian crude and limited the attractiveness of those spot purchases, making other sources, some with term contracts, appealing once again. Moscow has also said this week it plans to extend export curbs.

    In August, imports from Russia fell for the third consecutive month to 1.57 million barrels a day, according to data-intelligence firm Kpler, down 24 per cent on the month and at the lowest since January — though Russia remains India’s top supplier. “I am very clear. We are in the market today, and we will buy from whomever,” Puri said.

    https://www.business-standard.com/finance/news/dependence-on-cheap-russian-crude-oil-will-fall-sharply-hardeep-puri-123090101458_1.html

  288. They say that Miyazaki used to sing Russian songs, when he was an in-between animator in the 1960s.

  289. @sudden death
    @QCIC


    People ignore the reality that this Ukraine mess is much more dangerous than anything which happened during the Cold War.
     
    USSR pilots flew the most modern then airfighter planes, made in USSR and supplied by USSR, also were shooting down US pilots and fighters out of the sky both in Korea and Vietnam and it was relatively usual deal quietly, even if begrudgingly, but accepted by both main camps.

    These days we are not yet even at such point yet in Ukraine so far, so all the apocalyptic dramatics are way overblown, cause some people are truly forgetting the past as it really was.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Are you kidding? I can’t tell. I thought about those earlier major East-West proxy wars before I wrote the comment. In my opinion, the risk of accidental strategic nuclear escalation was negligible in the Korea and Vietnam wars.

    The Korean war took place before the nuclear mutually-assured destruction (MAD) posture had matured. The conflict was far away from Moscow so there was no imminent threat to the Russian heartland. At the time all parties were still weary from WW2 and escalation from proxy war to real war was probably unlikely. Long-range missiles, nuclear submarines and satellites had not been developed yet. Fusion weapons were brand new. On the other hand, I think the risk of the USA intentionally using tactical nuclear weapons was actually very high. I’m sure this greatly influenced the development of nuclear arms control treaties which have now been forsaken by the West.

    The Vietnam war was ridiculous on many levels. Since the Chinese and Russian commies had already split by the early 1960s it seems the war was effectively against China not Russia. At the time China did not have enough nuclear weapons capability to have a nuclear stand off with the USA so there was little risk of escalation. MAD at that time was an exclusive USA-USSR club. The limited results of the US military in Vietnam probably convinced everyone that a Western full-scale conventional assault on China or Russia was unlikely. I don’t think Russia was seriously threatened by the Vietnam war.

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @QCIC


    Since the Chinese and Russian commies had already split by the early 1960s it seems the war was effectively against China not Russia.
     
    Yep, just confirmed your own very hazy understanding/knowledge of this Cold War hot conflict - all the main material support, weapons, advisers, fighter plane pilots supply was done by USSR for North Vietnam all the time, while China literally was waging its own small scale conventional war against USSR in 1969 at Damansky (Zhenbao in Chinese) island. Not even to mention that commie China itself invaded victorious commie Vietnam in 1979, just four years after previous war ended, albeit not very succesfully, also wasn't so stupid to continue escalate further, thus backing up quickly.

    Replies: @QCIC

  290. @AaronB
    @AP

    You are likely correct for the moment, but there was an interesting article in the New York Times about how Ukrainians fiercely refused to even discuss the possibility of a negotiated settlement - even one that they felt would be favorable to them. Anything less than a total Russian defeat on the battlefield could not be entertained.

    Some EU minister made some very mild comments about a negotiated settlement that wouldn't be a total Russian defeat and would be much more favorable to Ukraine than Russia is now offering - just to have a theoretical plan B, like what would that even look like - while also conceding that currently, the Russian precondition for peace is the erasure of Ukraine and is a nonstarter.

    He had to apologize.

    I'm not primarily interested in blaming anyone here, just developing a framework within which this makes sense.

    Replies: @AP, @Mikhail

    I don’t really disagree with this.

    Personally, the best solution would something like: a return to the February 2022 border, UN-run referendums in Crimea and Donbas to determine status with only pre-2014 residents allowed to vote (Russia would still most likely win), Russia paying for all the damage it did through its invasion (taken out of the confiscated reserves plus more), post-war Russian Crimea largely demilitarized (maybe in exchange for Ukraine to agree to not hosting NATO missiles), Ukraine free to do what it wants within its borders (i.e., language policy) and free to pursue whatever alliances it wants (EU and NATO), end of sanctions and normalization of ties with Russia.

    But I haven’t lost loved ones to the Russian invaders, nor had my home destroyed by them, nor my life disrupted by them. I can understand why people in Ukraine, who have suffered from these problems, want to take a harder line. Even the reasonable solution I support rewards Russia by normalizing its rule over Crimea and Donbas. I don’t blame people for feeling that as a principle, the invader should not get any reward whatsoever.

    • Agree: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    Agree. Reasonable proposals and analysis, AP.

    Interestingly enough, I have a question: Could there be any possibility that if Vivek will win in 2024, that China will massively increase the amount of aid that it will send to Russia as a way of keeping the Sino-Russian relationship close, thus increasing the odds of a significant Russian breakthrough in Ukraine?

    AFAIK, Biden hasn't really tried to pry Russia and China apart, likely viewing it as a lost cause, but Vivek would, at Ukraine's expense, obviously, which makes me wonder whether China would try to deepen its special relationship with Russia even further by actually aiding Russia to the max in Ukraine in order to prevent Russia from accepting any offer that Vivek might give them. It's not an unreasonable hypothesis; I mean, China is likely to view a Vivek-led US as being extremely hostile towards China (more so than Biden's US) and thus might seek to preserve Russia as an ally at any cost. Of course, this could potentially make things significantly worse for Ukraine.

    Hopefully Vivek doesn't win in 2024 so that this scenario never actually becomes tested.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  291. @QCIC
    @sudden death

    Are you kidding? I can’t tell. I thought about those earlier major East-West proxy wars before I wrote the comment. In my opinion, the risk of accidental strategic nuclear escalation was negligible in the Korea and Vietnam wars.

    The Korean war took place before the nuclear mutually-assured destruction (MAD) posture had matured. The conflict was far away from Moscow so there was no imminent threat to the Russian heartland. At the time all parties were still weary from WW2 and escalation from proxy war to real war was probably unlikely. Long-range missiles, nuclear submarines and satellites had not been developed yet. Fusion weapons were brand new. On the other hand, I think the risk of the USA intentionally using tactical nuclear weapons was actually very high. I'm sure this greatly influenced the development of nuclear arms control treaties which have now been forsaken by the West.

    The Vietnam war was ridiculous on many levels. Since the Chinese and Russian commies had already split by the early 1960s it seems the war was effectively against China not Russia. At the time China did not have enough nuclear weapons capability to have a nuclear stand off with the USA so there was little risk of escalation. MAD at that time was an exclusive USA-USSR club. The limited results of the US military in Vietnam probably convinced everyone that a Western full-scale conventional assault on China or Russia was unlikely. I don’t think Russia was seriously threatened by the Vietnam war.

    Replies: @sudden death

    Since the Chinese and Russian commies had already split by the early 1960s it seems the war was effectively against China not Russia.

    Yep, just confirmed your own very hazy understanding/knowledge of this Cold War hot conflict – all the main material support, weapons, advisers, fighter plane pilots supply was done by USSR for North Vietnam all the time, while China literally was waging its own small scale conventional war against USSR in 1969 at Damansky (Zhenbao in Chinese) island. Not even to mention that commie China itself invaded victorious commie Vietnam in 1979, just four years after previous war ended, albeit not very succesfully, also wasn’t so stupid to continue escalate further, thus backing up quickly.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @sudden death

    Of course I know that Russia was heavily involved in the Vietnam war, especially with MiG-21s, SAMs and other weaponry. The crews were trained in Russia and I'm sure there were Russian "advisors" on the ground and maybe in the air. This was a very serious air war as a number of B-52s were shot down (by SAMs I think) along with thousands of other US aircraft. But it was still a proxy war and Hanoi is a long way from Moscow. Don't forget about Nixon's visit to China in 1972 which laid the groundwork for much of our contemporary geopolitical situation. The risk of nuclear WW3 escalation for the Vietnam proxy war seems low.

    My point is that the situation between the USA and Russia in the Ukrainian proxy war is much different and more dangerous. Not to mention the US has directly pressured Russia in the nuclear warfare arena by dropping out of the ABM and other nuclear treaties and emplacing missile sites into Romania and Poland.

    I keep repeating these few points to look for some glimmer of recognition from someone that is 'Pro Ukraine'. Even if you love Ukraine, it should not be that difficult to recognize these particular moves by the USA were extremely provocative, as in militarily provocative.

  292. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Dmitry

    Longevity and cryonics internet guy Mike Darwin is so bullish on the 7 day adventist diet he has a short book length blog post sequence advertising it as the only life extension diet with data support.

    I suppose there are some people who actually like eating soy hot dogs. : )

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Seventh-Day and Mormons are following a kind of preventative medicine in their religious laws, so this is partly why their life expectancy is higher than would be predicted in their income or Mormons also in their BMI.

    A problem is, their preventative medicine includes no alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, no gambling, no etc etc. This is an asceticism which removes some of the good parts of life.

    In countries with higher rates than the USA of gambling, smoking, drinking, like France, Spain, Japan or Italy, they have the longest life expectancies in the world, partly because of universal healthcare.

    If they were like Mormons and avoid alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, the countries’ life expectancy would probably increase even higher than otherwise. If in Japan people stop smoking, drinking, coffee etc, they would live even longer you could predict.

    But it’s a situation where we want to include the other parameters. You want to increase life expectancy of the population without too much asceticism which doesn’t preserve some of the parameters which are important for people

    An example of very strong anti-ascetism, would be “French paradox”, where the population drinks a lot of alcohol, has higher rates of cigarettes, still has a high life expectancy.

    It’s likely not because of their unhealthy behaviors. But the society can compensate for those unhealthy behavior by things like high quality of the universal healthcare in France, social pressure to have low BMI, lower stress because of earlier pensions, higher quality of the ingredients in their food supply.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Dmitry

    Eating main meal quite early and much less snacking between meals as the French do amounts to time restricted fasting, like twelve hours from dinner to breakfast. Also, no saturated fats ECT circulating while you sleep.

    , @AaronB
    @Dmitry


    If in Japan people stop smoking, drinking, coffee etc, they would live even longer you could predict
     
    I question if this is true.

    The enhancement to feelings of well being, relaxation, and sociability of these substances - if not abused - probably confer significant health benefits that can't easily be measured.

    It's established that one of the best predictors of long life is having lots of good friendships, and the feelings of amiability and pro-social emotions that a few glasses of wine, or even occasionally drinking to excess, provides probably has significant health-enhancing effects.

    I suspect if Japan, or France, or Italy saw a big drop in consumption of these substances their life expectancy would steeply decline.

    The pro-social attitudes encouraged by religion probably also enhance health in ways we can't measure. I'm sure there are emotional states and psychological attitudes that confer significant health benefits and others that harm health, and that's little studied because not easily measured.

    It's known, for instance, that "type A" personalities are significantly more prone to heart attacks and other heart problems, and such personalities are chronically angry and aggressive - exactly the opposite of the emotional states religion encourages one to cultivate.

    One of the ways religion seems to correspond to objective reality and the "does it work" heuristic employed by science better than secular attitudes, and why secularism may not be rational.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  293. @AaronB
    @John Johnson

    You have to read a text for what it was intended. If I wrote computer code and you said it was "bad poetry" you'd obviously be the one who was doing "bad thinking".

    The people who made these texts the center of their religious tradition did not intend for them to be 100% factually correct - so you saying they are in many ways "empirically false" is the one who is doing bad thinking. (Although there is likely a historical substrate to much of it).

    You simply don't know how to read the texts, just like someone thinking code is poetry doesn't know how to read code. Or better - someone thinking poetry is "bad computer code".

    Now, if you want to tell me you are only interested in 100% empirically accurate information, that would simply mean you are uninterested in religious scripture. It's not a critique of those scriptures, which is what the new atheist polemicists are offering. It would also mean a severe limitation in your personality and impoverished approach to life, but that's another matter entirely :)

    As for Beowulf, it's writers intended it as an aesthetic work, and it should be appreciated in that fashion - analyzing it over-analytically is obviously an unintelligent misreading, and I'd agree an aesthetic text should primarily be allowed to work on us aesthetically, not intellectually. Although one may well investigate the moral or spiritual dimension of an aesthetic work without compromising it's essentially aesthetic character.


    Are children currently taught that the pre-modern mind that authored Genesis 6-9 was not primary concerned with empiricism or that Genesis is God’s word transcribed by man and that they need to finish their ark coloring?
     
    Yes, that's a legitimate criticism, but this kind of thing is a corruption of modern times. That ought to be fought and the more sophisticated older approach restored.

    Today, both the religious for the most part and their new atheist opponents are equally stupid.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    The people who made these texts the center of their religious tradition did not intend for them to be 100% factually correct – so you saying they are in many ways “empirically false” is the one who is doing bad thinking. (Although there is likely a historical substrate to much of it).

    I’m the problem huh? I think my Sunday school teacher would have agreed.

    Well let’s go ahead and crack open the Bible.

    Geneses 6: 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish

    Seems pretty clear to me. Or are you suggesting that God saying “everything on earth shall perish” has some type of subjective meaning? Did he never state that? You are stating that Genesis may not be historically accurate or are fables? The record of the flood may be false? Which is it? Please explain using the context that you seem to believe I am not understanding.

    Are children currently taught that the pre-modern mind that authored Genesis 6-9 was not primary concerned with empiricism or that Genesis is God’s word transcribed by man and that they need to finish their ark coloring?

    Yes, that’s a legitimate criticism, but this kind of thing is a corruption of modern times. That ought to be fought and the more sophisticated older approach restored.

    So you believe that Christians are corrupted by modern times by teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis? What were they teaching in pre-modern times?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @John Johnson


    So you believe that Christians are corrupted by modern times by teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis? What were they teaching in pre-modern times?
     
    You're finally starting to get it. And it's not what I believe. Read the article.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  294. @Dmitry
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Seventh-Day and Mormons are following a kind of preventative medicine in their religious laws, so this is partly why their life expectancy is higher than would be predicted in their income or Mormons also in their BMI.

    A problem is, their preventative medicine includes no alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, no gambling, no etc etc. This is an asceticism which removes some of the good parts of life.


    -

    In countries with higher rates than the USA of gambling, smoking, drinking, like France, Spain, Japan or Italy, they have the longest life expectancies in the world, partly because of universal healthcare.

    If they were like Mormons and avoid alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, the countries' life expectancy would probably increase even higher than otherwise. If in Japan people stop smoking, drinking, coffee etc, they would live even longer you could predict.


    -

    But it's a situation where we want to include the other parameters. You want to increase life expectancy of the population without too much asceticism which doesn't preserve some of the parameters which are important for people

    An example of very strong anti-ascetism, would be "French paradox", where the population drinks a lot of alcohol, has higher rates of cigarettes, still has a high life expectancy.

    It's likely not because of their unhealthy behaviors. But the society can compensate for those unhealthy behavior by things like high quality of the universal healthcare in France, social pressure to have low BMI, lower stress because of earlier pensions, higher quality of the ingredients in their food supply.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QyQmL-mlV0

    Replies: @Sean, @AaronB

    Eating main meal quite early and much less snacking between meals as the French do amounts to time restricted fasting, like twelve hours from dinner to breakfast. Also, no saturated fats ECT circulating while you sleep.

  295. @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry

    FWIW, Indians in the UK are also high-earners, but nowhere near as much of an outlier as in the US:

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/nris-in-news/indians-are-high-earners-in-uk-study/articleshow/70148459.cms?from=mdr

    https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/world/in-uk-indians-earn-almost-as-much-as-white-britons/article9805976.ece

    British Indians actually earn roughly comparable to British whites, which is still pretty good by British standards.

    Of course, worth noting that British/Western European Indians are significantly less elite than US Indians are:

    https://jsmp.dk/posts/2019-09-26-braindrain/immigration.html

    https://jsmp.dk/posts/2019-09-26-braindrain/images/2.png

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom also have the regional version of the H1b visa program. Hindu workers are quite common in the hi-tech industry in many countries.

    In London, there is the similar problem in terms of the distribution of wealth.

    As European Hindus are many times larger population than Jews, there is probably some of the explanation of the high level of Hindus in the politics in the anglophone countries. For example, the government of Great Britain and Republic of Ireland have leaders with Hindu parents currently. If Nikki Haley was President in the USA in 2025, there could be Indian origin political leaders of the majority of the anglophone world.

    Europe is different than America in terms of the universal healthcare. So, the health and the income is not matching the groups so much as in America.

    If you look at the life expectancy, groups with average lower economic levels like the immigrants from Pakistan, Africa, have higher life expediencies than white in the Kingdom.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/ethnicdifferencesinlifeexpectancyandmortalityfromselectedcausesinenglandandwales/2011to2014

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry

    Maybe there's something in their genes that allowed groups such as Black British and Pakistani British to live longer than White British even if they are, on average, duller than White British are. Hispanics in the US live longer than White Americans do in spite of Hispanics also being duller on average than White Americans are.

    I wonder who the working-class Indians in Western Europe are. Cooks, manual laborers, and the like?

    Replies: @Dmitry

  296. @Sean
    @John Johnson

    Theory Of Truth by Robinson Jeffers


    Why does insanity always twist the great answers?
    Because only
    tormented persons want truth.
    Man is an animal like other animals, wants food and success and
    women, not truth. Only if the mind
    Tortured by some interior tension has despaired of happiness:
    then it hates its life-cage and seeks further,
    And finds, if it is powerful enough. But instantly the private
    agony that made the search
    Muddles the finding.
     
    You talk about Putin as a sick puppy who the world would be better off without, but you and Western partisans of Ukraine in the conflict actually mean Russia and its people, or that is the impression you are creating. It cannot be helped that the Russians are taking notice of such sentiments.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Matra

    You talk about Putin as a sick puppy who the world would be better off without

    That’s the default position of the world. He is viewed as a psychopath and second rate Hitler.

    Only 4 nations voted with Russia on the annexations:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/02/united-nations-russia-ukraine-vote

    Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria. All dictatorships.

    but you and Western partisans of Ukraine in the conflict actually mean Russia and its people, or that is the impression you are creating. It cannot be helped that the Russians are taking notice of such sentiments.

    I’m an anonymous poster on a website that is artificially de-ranked by the major search engines. I don’t have enough influence to change world opinion on the Russian people.

    Youtube sources like 1420 however are making people question if Russians are naturally brutish, politically apathetic and submissive to authority which was the stereotype prior to the revolution. This stereotype has indeed returned thanks to Putin’s war and you can thank him for that. When people see missiles hitting apartment buildings in Kiev and Russian troops hauling washing machines next to bodies in the streets there really isn’t much that can be said. The images have already spoken and the Russian people are not resisting like Americans during Vietnam. World judgement has already occurred and cannot be undone.

    Hitler was able to hide a lot of his cruelty against the Poles by limiting foreign media access during the 1939 invasion. Putin isn’t able to do that in the age of open media. He is really thinking in a 1930s mentality and doesn’t seem to grasp that a CCTV video of a missile hitting an apartment building was viewed by literally billions of people within 24 hours.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Sean
    @John Johnson


    World judgement has already occurred and cannot be undone. .. I don’t have enough influence to change world opinion on the Russian people
     
    What matter is regard to what Russia does is in no small measure what ordinary Russians know, and not necessarily from Russia's media; after 2014 hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians fled to Russia. There are literally two million refugees from Ukraine who went to Russia after Feb 2022, and quite a few Russians have heard horror stories directly from these refugees. There are also Russians who have lost friends and relatives in the war, killed by Western arms. Ukraine has decided to attack Russia proper too; pinprick but they get publicized by Putin's PR machine.

    You talk as if the Russians would be willing to stop if they were allowed to keep what they have. While that may have been true once, I very much doubt it still is true now. Things have gone to0 far for ordinary Russians to accept that Putin or whoever may replace him while the war is on gives Ukraine gets any kind of win. There is no disagreement whatsoever among Russian elites about what must be done. Invading Ukraine was done with uncertainty about what the Washington alliance would do, and therefore entailed a risk of incalculable consequences for those taking the decision as well as the country they led. We now know that there is going to be no direct involvement by Nato, which outnumbers Russia 4: 1 on the ground and more in the air in East Europe. Knowing that Western armiess will not intervene has caused an escalation in the means Russia is willing to employ, Western public opinion be damned. You harp on what objectives the invasion originally was planned with, but the aims of Russia have greatly escalated since Feb 2022. Maybe not territorially, but damaging Ukraine is now a goal to as to assert Russia's status as a great power . Ukraine ought to have quickly followed up its initial successes and reconquered territory to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia is not interested now.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  297. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:
    @John Johnson
    @AaronB

    The people who made these texts the center of their religious tradition did not intend for them to be 100% factually correct – so you saying they are in many ways “empirically false” is the one who is doing bad thinking. (Although there is likely a historical substrate to much of it).

    I'm the problem huh? I think my Sunday school teacher would have agreed.

    Well let's go ahead and crack open the Bible.

    Geneses 6: 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish

    Seems pretty clear to me. Or are you suggesting that God saying "everything on earth shall perish" has some type of subjective meaning? Did he never state that? You are stating that Genesis may not be historically accurate or are fables? The record of the flood may be false? Which is it? Please explain using the context that you seem to believe I am not understanding.


    Are children currently taught that the pre-modern mind that authored Genesis 6-9 was not primary concerned with empiricism or that Genesis is God’s word transcribed by man and that they need to finish their ark coloring?
     
    Yes, that’s a legitimate criticism, but this kind of thing is a corruption of modern times. That ought to be fought and the more sophisticated older approach restored.

    So you believe that Christians are corrupted by modern times by teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis? What were they teaching in pre-modern times?

    Replies: @AaronB

    So you believe that Christians are corrupted by modern times by teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis? What were they teaching in pre-modern times?

    You’re finally starting to get it. And it’s not what I believe. Read the article.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @AaronB


    So you believe that Christians are corrupted by modern times by teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis? What were they teaching in pre-modern times?
     
    You’re finally starting to get it. And it’s not what I believe. Read the article.

    You are continuing to be patronizing instead of answering simple questions. You said I'm not getting the flood account correctly but haven't explained how exactly.

    What were the pioneers teaching their children? That the flood is just for them to interpret?

    Do you think a worldwide flood happened that killed all living creatures?

  298. @sudden death
    @QCIC


    Since the Chinese and Russian commies had already split by the early 1960s it seems the war was effectively against China not Russia.
     
    Yep, just confirmed your own very hazy understanding/knowledge of this Cold War hot conflict - all the main material support, weapons, advisers, fighter plane pilots supply was done by USSR for North Vietnam all the time, while China literally was waging its own small scale conventional war against USSR in 1969 at Damansky (Zhenbao in Chinese) island. Not even to mention that commie China itself invaded victorious commie Vietnam in 1979, just four years after previous war ended, albeit not very succesfully, also wasn't so stupid to continue escalate further, thus backing up quickly.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Of course I know that Russia was heavily involved in the Vietnam war, especially with MiG-21s, SAMs and other weaponry. The crews were trained in Russia and I’m sure there were Russian “advisors” on the ground and maybe in the air. This was a very serious air war as a number of B-52s were shot down (by SAMs I think) along with thousands of other US aircraft. But it was still a proxy war and Hanoi is a long way from Moscow. Don’t forget about Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 which laid the groundwork for much of our contemporary geopolitical situation. The risk of nuclear WW3 escalation for the Vietnam proxy war seems low.

    My point is that the situation between the USA and Russia in the Ukrainian proxy war is much different and more dangerous. Not to mention the US has directly pressured Russia in the nuclear warfare arena by dropping out of the ABM and other nuclear treaties and emplacing missile sites into Romania and Poland.

    I keep repeating these few points to look for some glimmer of recognition from someone that is ‘Pro Ukraine’. Even if you love Ukraine, it should not be that difficult to recognize these particular moves by the USA were extremely provocative, as in militarily provocative.

  299. AaronB [AKA "HeavilyMarbledSteak"] says:
    @Dmitry
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Seventh-Day and Mormons are following a kind of preventative medicine in their religious laws, so this is partly why their life expectancy is higher than would be predicted in their income or Mormons also in their BMI.

    A problem is, their preventative medicine includes no alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, no gambling, no etc etc. This is an asceticism which removes some of the good parts of life.


    -

    In countries with higher rates than the USA of gambling, smoking, drinking, like France, Spain, Japan or Italy, they have the longest life expectancies in the world, partly because of universal healthcare.

    If they were like Mormons and avoid alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, the countries' life expectancy would probably increase even higher than otherwise. If in Japan people stop smoking, drinking, coffee etc, they would live even longer you could predict.


    -

    But it's a situation where we want to include the other parameters. You want to increase life expectancy of the population without too much asceticism which doesn't preserve some of the parameters which are important for people

    An example of very strong anti-ascetism, would be "French paradox", where the population drinks a lot of alcohol, has higher rates of cigarettes, still has a high life expectancy.

    It's likely not because of their unhealthy behaviors. But the society can compensate for those unhealthy behavior by things like high quality of the universal healthcare in France, social pressure to have low BMI, lower stress because of earlier pensions, higher quality of the ingredients in their food supply.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QyQmL-mlV0

    Replies: @Sean, @AaronB

    If in Japan people stop smoking, drinking, coffee etc, they would live even longer you could predict

    I question if this is true.

    The enhancement to feelings of well being, relaxation, and sociability of these substances – if not abused – probably confer significant health benefits that can’t easily be measured.

    It’s established that one of the best predictors of long life is having lots of good friendships, and the feelings of amiability and pro-social emotions that a few glasses of wine, or even occasionally drinking to excess, provides probably has significant health-enhancing effects.

    I suspect if Japan, or France, or Italy saw a big drop in consumption of these substances their life expectancy would steeply decline.

    The pro-social attitudes encouraged by religion probably also enhance health in ways we can’t measure. I’m sure there are emotional states and psychological attitudes that confer significant health benefits and others that harm health, and that’s little studied because not easily measured.

    It’s known, for instance, that “type A” personalities are significantly more prone to heart attacks and other heart problems, and such personalities are chronically angry and aggressive – exactly the opposite of the emotional states religion encourages one to cultivate.

    One of the ways religion seems to correspond to objective reality and the “does it work” heuristic employed by science better than secular attitudes, and why secularism may not be rational.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @AaronB


    question if this is true.

    The enhancement to feelings
     

    Alcohol has a u-shape relation with mortality in the individuals. But with groups it will generally lower life expectancy because of the negative effects for the proportion of people who drink more than two times per day. With cigarettes, there is only a negative relation. With coffee, it seems a more mixed result, where there is somekind of controversy if it is good or bad.

    Higher life expectancy of Seventh-Day and Mormons is an example of preventive medicine on the population level by banning of alcohol, cigarettes and coffee. The religious groups in America which don't ban alcohol and cigarettes don't have this effect of the higher life expectancy.


    one of the best predictors of long life is having lots of good friendships,

     

    It's possible, but it doesn't seem to predict the intra-country or inter-country differences. Look at the countries with the highest life expectancy in the world. They will be Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong. After industrialization, these societies become relatively more socially atomized, but the life expectancy is unprecented in world history for any human population, unless you believe the story of Methuselah.

    These are the the healthiest populations in world history, from the indicator of life expectancy, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong. But from the social perspective, they have quite a lot of issue with atomization compared to earlier historical epochs.

    Within countries, it is sometimes more socially non-traditional and atomized regions with the highest life expectancy. An example in the Kingdom, is central London has life expectancy of 88.


    pro-social attitudes encouraged by religion probably also enhance health in ways we can’t measure.
     
    Possibly it could be, but it's not significant in a way which would overide the differences of physical life style, healthcare etc.

    For example, Amish have one of the most high-demand religious cults in America. But they have lower access for healthcare and without the preventive medicine of Seventh-day and Mormons. They have life expectancy 7-8 years lower than the average in America.


    chronically angry and aggressive – exactly the opposite of the emotional states religion encourages one to cultivate.
     
    I'm not sure this is a reliable result of religion. You know, look at the situation in Jerusalem. The atmosphere of the city with the most religion is interesting and booming, but it is also often "chronically angry and aggressive".

    One of the ways religion seems to correspond to objective reality and the “does it work” heuristic employed by science better than secular attitudes, and why secularism may not be rational.
     
    These religious laws against the cigarettes, alcohol and coffee, would seem rational from the perspective of increasing life expectancy for the whole population level, if this is the priority.

    But these religions (Mormons, Seventh-day) are doing trade-off with the other parameters, so it's not necessarily the best result if you had some other priorities. Most people could be enjoying alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, although they might have a few less years.

    -
    I think we can also see some more subtle modifications for the behavior in the high life expectancy countries.

    In Italy, there is a traditional culture teaching the harmonization for alcohol, when the culture teaches to drink alcohol in a level which is still moderate.

    In Japan, they have something like this in relation for food, when the traditional culture is to eat small plates.

    In France, they have relatively strong government regulation for the food supply. So, the ingredients in the food supply might be higher quality or less polluted in France, in comparison with some of the other industrialized countries like America.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  300. @S
    @LatW


    It’s good to have such [Scandinavian] peoples with such solid and rugged character, in a world that’s filled with spontaneous diversity.
     
    Thanks. Every Euro people is hurting at present in their way, so I don't see the point in disparaging any particular one of them. I see the Scandis as having grown and matured as peoples, though, to be sure, at present, they are not where they ought to be.

    Would people prefer the Scandis be as they once were, neighbors who unpredictably at times would go 'berserking' and tear up the surrounding peoples?

    It is of utmost importance to not be lax about verbal abuse – it is very toxic. Not only there should be no verbal abuse, there should be no thought of it. The very thought of it should be repulsive and off-putting. For neighboring nations that want to cultivate peace.
     
    A lot of truth in that. Words are very powerful things and people should be far more careful than they are with what they say.

    Replies: @LatW

    I see the Scandis as having grown and matured as peoples, though, to be sure, at present, they are not where they ought to be.

    I think the Danes are very reasonable in their policies, but even in Denmark it is not ideal (you know what I’m talking about).

    [MORE]

    Would people prefer the Scandis be as they once were, neighbors who unpredictably at times would go ‘berserking’ and tear up the surrounding peoples?

    They would be “berserked” back – it’s not a one way thing and they’re not omnipotent, back in those days ours could pounce back pretty strongly as well occasionally. Viking is not a nationality, but an occupation. Apparently the Danes used to have a prayer in the 9th century: “God, protect us from the plague, the fire and the Curonians“. The Curonians raided together with Estonians and sometimes with Western Slavs, and sometimes even participated in Scandinavian raids.

    We talked about Gotland with a Swedish guy once and he said something like “Back then you couldn’t really tell who it belonged to”, there were individuals of various backgrounds who were present there or at least visited, but maybe he was just trying to be friendly.

    Today they couldn’t “berserk” because they would lose too much (they partly live off of surrounding countries as they are export based economies). But also because they are kind. Looking at this awful conflict in the East, I feel so grateful for all these wonderful neighboring countries (Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, Finland, our beloved Poland, even many Belarusians are nice). Thank God for these peoples. It never even occurs for anyone to call each other names. The British, too, are kind, even though they could brag and act superior.

    I often think how nice it is that Germany is not hostile or aggressive. Even though I don’t really want Germany to be soft either (militarily and politically).

    Words are very powerful things and people should be far more careful than they are with what they say.

    It is taken for granted. We shouldn’t have had micro aggression towards the Russians either. These things pile up.

    • Replies: @S
    @LatW


    They would be “berserked” back – it’s not a one way thing and they’re not omnipotent, back in those days ours could pounce back pretty strongly as well occasionally.
     
    In Western Europe it was a bit more one sided regarding the Vikings, ie present day UK, Ireland, France, etc, were hit hard. Perhaps the pushback against the Vikings was stronger in the East as you suggest.

    Apparently the Danes used to have a prayer in the 9th century: “God, protect us from the plague, the fire and the Curonians“.
     
    That sounds a lot like the alleged prayer (paraphrasing) asking for protection from the 'Norseman' (the Vikings) in Western Europe. I say 'alleged' as, IIRC, the quote has been embellished a bit from what was said originally.

    Replies: @LatW

  301. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @LatW

    Needs black metal soundtrack.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Zzg4ZP8zQ&ab_channel=Mayhem-Topic

    Replies: @LatW

    Early Dimmu Borgir or Satyricon even better. 🙂 “Mother North”.

  302. It is strange how canned vegetables have an experation date printed on the metal, but not even the shortest code to let you take an educated guess about the contents, if the label is torn off.

    I would guess two letters might be sufficient.

  303. @John Johnson
    @Sean

    You talk about Putin as a sick puppy who the world would be better off without

    That's the default position of the world. He is viewed as a psychopath and second rate Hitler.

    Only 4 nations voted with Russia on the annexations:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/02/united-nations-russia-ukraine-vote

    Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria. All dictatorships.

    but you and Western partisans of Ukraine in the conflict actually mean Russia and its people, or that is the impression you are creating. It cannot be helped that the Russians are taking notice of such sentiments.

    I'm an anonymous poster on a website that is artificially de-ranked by the major search engines. I don't have enough influence to change world opinion on the Russian people.

    Youtube sources like 1420 however are making people question if Russians are naturally brutish, politically apathetic and submissive to authority which was the stereotype prior to the revolution. This stereotype has indeed returned thanks to Putin's war and you can thank him for that. When people see missiles hitting apartment buildings in Kiev and Russian troops hauling washing machines next to bodies in the streets there really isn't much that can be said. The images have already spoken and the Russian people are not resisting like Americans during Vietnam. World judgement has already occurred and cannot be undone.

    Hitler was able to hide a lot of his cruelty against the Poles by limiting foreign media access during the 1939 invasion. Putin isn't able to do that in the age of open media. He is really thinking in a 1930s mentality and doesn't seem to grasp that a CCTV video of a missile hitting an apartment building was viewed by literally billions of people within 24 hours.

    Replies: @Sean

    World judgement has already occurred and cannot be undone. .. I don’t have enough influence to change world opinion on the Russian people

    What matter is regard to what Russia does is in no small measure what ordinary Russians know, and not necessarily from Russia’s media; after 2014 hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians fled to Russia. There are literally two million refugees from Ukraine who went to Russia after Feb 2022, and quite a few Russians have heard horror stories directly from these refugees. There are also Russians who have lost friends and relatives in the war, killed by Western arms. Ukraine has decided to attack Russia proper too; pinprick but they get publicized by Putin’s PR machine.

    You talk as if the Russians would be willing to stop if they were allowed to keep what they have. While that may have been true once, I very much doubt it still is true now. Things have gone to0 far for ordinary Russians to accept that Putin or whoever may replace him while the war is on gives Ukraine gets any kind of win. There is no disagreement whatsoever among Russian elites about what must be done. Invading Ukraine was done with uncertainty about what the Washington alliance would do, and therefore entailed a risk of incalculable consequences for those taking the decision as well as the country they led. We now know that there is going to be no direct involvement by Nato, which outnumbers Russia 4: 1 on the ground and more in the air in East Europe. Knowing that Western armiess will not intervene has caused an escalation in the means Russia is willing to employ, Western public opinion be damned. You harp on what objectives the invasion originally was planned with, but the aims of Russia have greatly escalated since Feb 2022. Maybe not territorially, but damaging Ukraine is now a goal to as to assert Russia’s status as a great power . Ukraine ought to have quickly followed up its initial successes and reconquered territory to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia is not interested now.

    • Agree: QCIC
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Sean

    You talk as if the Russians would be willing to stop if they were allowed to keep what they have. While that may have been true once, I very much doubt it still is true now. Things have gone to0 far for ordinary Russians to accept that Putin or whoever may replace him while the war is on gives Ukraine gets any kind of win

    What do you mean by "if they were" as in plural? Putin has absolute power and can end the war at any moment. It doesn't matter if a majority of Russians would want him to keep going. They were never given a vote on if they wanted this war to exist.

    Putin has signaled that he would be content to take Donbas. He gave a speech on how the war is about defending Donbas which of course contradicts his original speech. But what does it matter in a totalitarian society? He could claim that it was always about Donbas and his Russian State TV would back him. No one is going to write an editorial on how he is full of shit.

    There is no disagreement whatsoever among Russian elites about what must be done. Invading Ukraine was done with uncertainty about what the Washington alliance would do

    How can you say there was no disagreement when Putin has executed elites that didn't support the war?

    Every Russian oligarch that has died since the invasion
    https://www.newsweek.com/every-russian-oligarch-who-has-died-since-putin-invaded-ukraine-full-list-1700022

    You harp on what objectives the invasion originally was planned with, but the aims of Russia have greatly escalated since Feb 2022.

    Do explain since the plan was to take the entire country. How could the aims escalate? Putin is clearly moving back the goal posts.

    Ukraine ought to have quickly followed up its initial successes and reconquered territory to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia is not interested now.

    Both sides have made tactical mistakes. Russia is the one that is moving backwards and Ukraine has in fact increased its drone attacks on Russian airports. Ukraine has been making use of this Australian cardboard drone which is really quite interesting:
    https://soundhealthandlastingwealth.com/health/five-russian-jets-were-destroyed-by-easily-assembled-cardboard-drones-by-ukraine-last-week-in-prelude-to-even-more-unmanned-assaults-on-putins-bases/

    Putin's US defenders are certain he can win through a war of attrition. Basically let the Ukrainians wear themselves down in offenses and then counter-attack.

    It's entirely possible but going back to Kiev is highly unlikely. Russia is clearly using poorly trained conscripts and it is not only a long way to Kiev but they would face a hostile population. Invading through Belarus like they did in 2022 is no longer possible. It's heavily mined and the bridge is set to explode if they try it again. The Belarusian border is actually covered in swamps. Historically it has provided a "no go zone" between the two countries.

    Replies: @Sean

  304. @songbird
    @sudden death

    I can see why Trump wanted to move the embassy.

    @ Emil
    Avi Loeb is the Zeihan of space.

    Both are amusing in small doses.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/organization/affiliates

    Galileo Project Affiliate list.

    Note: Lue Elizondo and Chris Mellon.

    Loeb’s Galileo Project is Jeffrey-Epstein-Science.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    I occasionally listen to space-related interviews, where they talk to astrophysicists, etc. IMO, some of the best guests tend to be the retired WASPs, who don't seem to be famous.

    Chinese and Indians in the field seem to generally be poor communicators. English being either their second language, or else the environment they were raised in not having the same depth of vocabulary and expression.

    Personally, in longform interviews, I've always found Loeb to be a poor guest. It is a bit hard to pin down why, but I think it is because the other guys might be talking about their specialty or experience, whereas Loeb is a popularizer. He is too ready and willing to talk, and so it makes him kind of a windbag. Possibly that could make him easier to exploit, if he were an asset.

  305. @Beckow
    @LatW

    We largely agree on the peculiar Scandie character and I appreciate what they add to Europe's identity. But their "looks" are not all they could be - quite a bit of the post-modern entropy has seeped in...

    I disagree about verbal abuse: let's have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it. It is in our human nature and suppression leads to bigger problems. Words are only words. Free expression also tells us a lot about both sides - more information about how we are. We can live with the some ugly side effects.


    There were many elements at play at that time, not some “evil design”, as you seem to imply
     
    I never said it was "evil", but there definitely was a design. The West now tries to desperately deny it, to pretend that all was well until 2022 and that the plans for Nato had nothing to do with cornering Russia. That is worse than lying, it is so pathetic and an obvious lie that it demeans the Western world. They should just admit it - there were plenty of others factors that you listed, sure, but the attempt by Nato to surround Russia was very obvious.

    Until this taboo subject in the West is addressed we won't make much progress. And the facile ways that it is dismissed makes it much worse. It only leads to contempt, contempt leads inevitably to mutual alienation - very slippery slope, who wouldn't nuke the aliens?


    NATO’s purpose is to deter Russia and fight it only if necessary
     
    Who defines what deterrence and necessary mean to Nato at any point? Weakening your enemy, holding a loaded gun to him on his borders, can aways be seen as deterrence and necessary. You are playing with words - this is about bigger things than fancy evasive words.

    They could’ve gotten a lot of the goodies even without war. Eurasia is rich, but it’s not like the Western hemisphere is poor.
     
    The goodies are a lot cheaper when Russia is on its back. Prices matter, look into that basic capitalist concept.

    Compare the actual Western and Eurasian natural wealth and productive capacity versus the current monetary valuations - the West is valued substantially higher than the comparison shows. Therefore they live better than their wealth creation would suggest. The war may - or may not - adjust it.


    applies to Russia, too – they could’ve just lived with Crimea and the occupied areas of Donbas...it’s not just about NATO – the fundamental problem of the Russian opposition to the Ukrainian subjectivity would still be there even without NATO, these regional wars were fought for centuries.
     
    Yes, there were previous clashes along the similar lines. They also always had outside meddlers assisting the anti-Russian side: Napoleon, Habsburgs, Swedes, Germans, Turks sometimes. They all lost because they were weaker in that region. Nato's bet was that either Russia would not fight at all, or that they are too weak. Well, Russia is fighting - half-heartedly so far - and they don't seem that weak. The odds are that they will win again. This was a major Western miscalculation.

    The Russian-Ukie hostility will last - at least among some Ukies and some Russians. But people adjust and the final deal will probably leave the core Ukraine intact, so the Galicians can hate all the want, march with Bandera flags, and migrate to wash dishes in EU, and all of that - who cares? It is a backwater. What Nato wanted was Crimea and a strategic presence on the very long border. It doesn't look like they will get it. The Ukies are just collateral damage in this losing fight.

    Replies: @LatW

    But their “looks” are not all they could be – quite a bit of the post-modern entropy has seeped in…

    To some extent maybe, it’s probably unavoidable. Of course, not all of them are hot, but they have a good phenotype and the hot ones aren’t rare. That was my point.

    I disagree about verbal abuse: let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it. It is in our human nature and suppression leads to bigger problems. Words are only words. Free expression also tells us a lot about both sides – more information about how we are. We can live with the some ugly side effects.

    I used to hold this belief as well until recently. It was a belief that had been entrenched for a long time, and is commonly held among many right wingers as well. I also agree that it’s good to have the information available (the truth, so to speak, even if it is painful and it mostly isn’t). But these recent exchanges between Russians and Ukrainians gave me pause and made me rethink this. Of course, they are in pain, both of them, so I don’t judge them. It’s understandable and even natural to some extent.

    Who defines what deterrence and necessary mean to Nato at any point?

    It is tough in Europe because everyone is so close physically. I think that right now we’ll be seeing a re-arrangement of these boundaries. But this is an extreme example because it is through war.

    [MORE]

    The goodies are a lot cheaper when Russia is on its back. Prices matter, look into that basic capitalist concept.

    My point was that it was cheaper than having a war or even some kind of a persistent pressuring of Russia which would’ve taken a lot of work and resources, things were ok the way they were before February 2022. Sure, “the goodies” may be cheaper with “Russia on her back”, as you say, but is it worth the effort to try to put her on her back when you can just have things the way they were prior to the war? Things were quite good for both sides – both Germany / the EU and Russia. And the US was being run by the type of administration that Obama put in place (or maybe some other pro-Moscow democrat before that), this particular administration wasn’t that hostile to Russia.

    Compare the actual Western and Eurasian natural wealth and productive capacity versus the current monetary valuations

    My point was that the West has enough on its own to survive and live well without having to “march on Moscow”, as you say – it doesn’t make economic sense for the West. The West prefers to wait it out – the Russians will destroy themselves on their own.

    Well, Russia is fighting – half-heartedly so far – and they don’t seem that weak.

    Actually, I’ve never said that Russia is weak – it is a very serious opponent, what was considered second strongest army on the planet, and even if that proved to be dubious, they are still a very strong country. This is why what Ukraine has been able to achieve is miraculous – not just the stamina of their troops, but also their recent asymmetric activity on Russia’s territory (!!). No, Russia was supposed to be a peer only to the US or some kind of a Western coalition, not Ukraine. I think the Ukrainians are fighting them better than the West could have. I’m not being careful making such a bold statement, but this is how it feels. Of course, it depends on the theater where it would be fought.

    Ukraine has acquired subjectivity, agency. From now on, they will be a competitor to Russia (hopefully, they can recover from the ravages of the war). This will be a new line in Europe. This is an event of immense historic magnitude, maybe something that only comes every 300 years or something like that.

    But people adjust and the final deal will probably leave the core Ukraine intact, so the Galicians can hate all the want, march with Bandera flags, and migrate to wash dishes in EU, and all of that – who cares? It is a backwater.

    No, it’s not, if they recover, they will hold significant resources (the resources that Russia wanted), so it is Russia who cares. Russia will be in competition even with a reduced Ukraine (and it is not a given it will stay reduce or at least no one knows where the border will be). Above all, they will be in ideological competition. Unless Russia becomes free. But even then, this fracture will remain, because Russia will not change its deepest character. In fact, Russia has two faces, just like the double headed eagle in their coat of arms – the free “Novgorodian” Russia and the imperialistic Russia. Only the free Russia can be non-hostile with the neighbors, especially Ukraine, but it is not a given that the free Russia will prevail.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @LatW


    let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it.

    I used to hold this belief until recently. It is commonly held among many right wingers...
     
    I suggest you get back to that belief....:) Not allowing the free expression of one's views is a denial of their existence: harm much more pernicious than anything done by airing them. There are always reasons: wars, ethnic pride, economic damage. It is usually stupid peoples' sensitivity and self-esteem.

    I am not a right-winger, whatever that means. I am conservative, but on economy we need strong and uniform social policies - basic guarantees. Life is too complex to function well without them. I dislike Russian (and other) oligarchies - they are all over the world, not just in Russia, Ukraine is full of them. The war has weakened the Russian oligarchs - but not enough. It usually is blood above money, maybe the only benefit of having a war...

    West has enough on its own to survive and live well without having to “march on Moscow” – it doesn’t make economic sense for the West. The West prefers to wait it out – the Russians will destroy themselves on their own.
     
    They usually do every hundred years or so, but Nato just couldn't wait. The West can get by without the cheaper Russian resources - but the living standards will drop: larger portion of the actual output will go up in price, it is inevitable and is already happening. We may end up with the worst of both worlds: more pricey resources and a lost war in Ukraine.

    If the West had behaved normally and treated Russia as having legitimate interests, we would have no war and a livable compromise in Ukraine: no Nato and normal rights for the Russian minority. This was a catastrophic miscalculation - and slowly dawning on everyone, just listen carefully to how the coverage is slowly changing.

    Russia was supposed to be a peer only to the US or some kind of a Western coalition, not Ukraine.
     
    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq...the regional geography matters and today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy - actually Nato was openly more willing to do it and fought its wars like that, Russia is so far more moderate. They are peers - you just don't like to look at your own side critically.

    Ukraine has acquired subjectivity, agency. From now on, they will be a competitor to Russia
     
    I agree, but it was happening anyway. The war is shrinking Ukraine as the Russian competitor - we have more noisy, angrier, assertive but smaller and weaker Ukraine. The precedent has been set for Russia to keep Ukraine in check by superior force. Russia has internally normalized fighting and killing their Ukie 'brothers' - that is not good for whatever remains in the rump-Ukraine. They should have avoided for the conflict to be militarized. It is too late now.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @LatW

  306. The types of people who love NATO/USA:

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1698090352257761667

    • Replies: @AP
    @Matra

    Pretty much everyone in Finland is pro-Ukrainian so that is meaningless. However the Finnish rightwing government is more pro-Ukrainian than were the socialists like these guys.

  307. @Sean
    @John Johnson

    Theory Of Truth by Robinson Jeffers


    Why does insanity always twist the great answers?
    Because only
    tormented persons want truth.
    Man is an animal like other animals, wants food and success and
    women, not truth. Only if the mind
    Tortured by some interior tension has despaired of happiness:
    then it hates its life-cage and seeks further,
    And finds, if it is powerful enough. But instantly the private
    agony that made the search
    Muddles the finding.
     
    You talk about Putin as a sick puppy who the world would be better off without, but you and Western partisans of Ukraine in the conflict actually mean Russia and its people, or that is the impression you are creating. It cannot be helped that the Russians are taking notice of such sentiments.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Matra

    In a better America Robinson Jeffers would be a household name, a kind of poet of the nation. Instead, America worships Maya Angelou.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Matra

    He was against the war with Japs and Nazis. No American maintained their reputation after professing that heresy. Cancel culture goes way way back.

  308. @Matra
    @Sean

    In a better America Robinson Jeffers would be a household name, a kind of poet of the nation. Instead, America worships Maya Angelou.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    He was against the war with Japs and Nazis. No American maintained their reputation after professing that heresy. Cancel culture goes way way back.

  309. @AaronB
    @AP

    You are likely correct for the moment, but there was an interesting article in the New York Times about how Ukrainians fiercely refused to even discuss the possibility of a negotiated settlement - even one that they felt would be favorable to them. Anything less than a total Russian defeat on the battlefield could not be entertained.

    Some EU minister made some very mild comments about a negotiated settlement that wouldn't be a total Russian defeat and would be much more favorable to Ukraine than Russia is now offering - just to have a theoretical plan B, like what would that even look like - while also conceding that currently, the Russian precondition for peace is the erasure of Ukraine and is a nonstarter.

    He had to apologize.

    I'm not primarily interested in blaming anyone here, just developing a framework within which this makes sense.

    Replies: @AP, @Mikhail

    You are likely correct for the moment, but there was an interesting article in the New York Times about how Ukrainians fiercely refused to even discuss the possibility of a negotiated settlement – even one that they felt would be favorable to them. Anything less than a total Russian defeat on the battlefield could not be entertained.

    The Japanese and Germans were even more steadfast before reality eventually and (for them) tragically sank in. There’s a recent NYT article quoting a Ukrainian marine who said the Russians have considerably more better equipped and trained personnel than his side. At the 17:35 mark is a related discussion that’s continuously downplayed by the Western establishment:

    As I previously noted –

    The title of that video could be: The ability of Ukrainians to Distinguish Messages of Svido, Neocon-Neolib Propaganda

    Its featured guest Lev Golinkin made an overly general and inaccurate neocon, neolib, svido handshakeworthy comment about the history of Ukraine under the Soviets and Russian Empire. (Svido is shorthand for the derisive svidomite term used to describe anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists.)

    A follow-up to Golinkin notes that the Soviet Union made it possible for Ukraine to achieve a large border it never had. In the late 1920s, there was a linguistic Ukrainianization campaign in the Ukrainian SSR which Alexander Solzhenitsyn negatively noted. Soviet oppression was by no means related to just one republic.

    A pre-WW I Russian Empire census acknowledged that Ukrainian was widely spoken. In the late 1870s, there was a Ukrainian language censorship period (later stopped) that was initiated in response to anti-Russian Ukrainian language material coming from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. A pro-Russian, Russian Empire based Ukrainian brought this to the attention of the Russian authorities. That last point is noted by Orest Subtelny in his book covering Ukrainian history. This situation happened during a period when global tolerance for minorities within an empire had limits when compared to present day expectation.

    Meantime, it wasn’t as if the Russian Empire wasn’t changing.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikhail


    In the late 1870s, there was a Ukrainian language censorship period (later stopped) that was initiated in response to anti-Russian Ukrainian language material coming from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
     
    If the goal had been to just limit or forbid this type of literature coming form the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then why not just ban those books instead of trying to suffocate the use of the Ukrainian language itself? This was done not just to Ukrainians, but others as well, across the whole Empire. Ukrainians were a large nation and in addition to the other nations, I don't think one can call them a "minority" (even if it's the correct technical term) - that is a large population that can be considered a core constituent part of the Empire and should be treated equally, with respect to cultural autonomy.

    The Russification took place as a response to the Polish uprisings but the real goal was forceful assimilation. It was an attempt to erase the language in core ethnic lands where that language had been used for a very long time and to impose Russian where Russian had never been used ever before (or even Cyrillic). The Finns, too, hated it. This is why the Swedish-Finn Eugen Schauman shot the imperial governor Babrikov.

    So quit peddling your half-truths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Finland

    Replies: @Mikhail

  310. @Mikhail
    @AaronB


    You are likely correct for the moment, but there was an interesting article in the New York Times about how Ukrainians fiercely refused to even discuss the possibility of a negotiated settlement – even one that they felt would be favorable to them. Anything less than a total Russian defeat on the battlefield could not be entertained.
     
    The Japanese and Germans were even more steadfast before reality eventually and (for them) tragically sank in. There's a recent NYT article quoting a Ukrainian marine who said the Russians have considerably more better equipped and trained personnel than his side. At the 17:35 mark is a related discussion that's continuously downplayed by the Western establishment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frD1bk9tRX4

    As I previously noted -

    The title of that video could be: The ability of Ukrainians to Distinguish Messages of Svido, Neocon-Neolib Propaganda

    Its featured guest Lev Golinkin made an overly general and inaccurate neocon, neolib, svido handshakeworthy comment about the history of Ukraine under the Soviets and Russian Empire. (Svido is shorthand for the derisive svidomite term used to describe anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists.)

    A follow-up to Golinkin notes that the Soviet Union made it possible for Ukraine to achieve a large border it never had. In the late 1920s, there was a linguistic Ukrainianization campaign in the Ukrainian SSR which Alexander Solzhenitsyn negatively noted. Soviet oppression was by no means related to just one republic.

    A pre-WW I Russian Empire census acknowledged that Ukrainian was widely spoken. In the late 1870s, there was a Ukrainian language censorship period (later stopped) that was initiated in response to anti-Russian Ukrainian language material coming from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. A pro-Russian, Russian Empire based Ukrainian brought this to the attention of the Russian authorities. That last point is noted by Orest Subtelny in his book covering Ukrainian history. This situation happened during a period when global tolerance for minorities within an empire had limits when compared to present day expectation.

    Meantime, it wasn't as if the Russian Empire wasn't changing.

    Replies: @LatW

    In the late 1870s, there was a Ukrainian language censorship period (later stopped) that was initiated in response to anti-Russian Ukrainian language material coming from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

    If the goal had been to just limit or forbid this type of literature coming form the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then why not just ban those books instead of trying to suffocate the use of the Ukrainian language itself? This was done not just to Ukrainians, but others as well, across the whole Empire. Ukrainians were a large nation and in addition to the other nations, I don’t think one can call them a “minority” (even if it’s the correct technical term) – that is a large population that can be considered a core constituent part of the Empire and should be treated equally, with respect to cultural autonomy.

    The Russification took place as a response to the Polish uprisings but the real goal was forceful assimilation. It was an attempt to erase the language in core ethnic lands where that language had been used for a very long time and to impose Russian where Russian had never been used ever before (or even Cyrillic). The Finns, too, hated it. This is why the Swedish-Finn Eugen Schauman shot the imperial governor Babrikov.

    So quit peddling your half-truths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Finland

    • Troll: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Under Russian rule, Finland developed the greatest amount of autonomy of any future European nation under a then existing monarchy. So quit peddling your inaccurate cherry picked half truths.

    BTW, back then it wasn't so uncommon to expect the subjects of a given empire to receive instruction in the primary language of said entity. That action alone didn't mean the complete suppression of a language/culture/religion. Anton Denikin wrote of his Polish mother attending Catholic church services.

    Irish comparatively speaking weren't/aren't as well versed on their native tongue. Smooth Anglo propaganda pre-dated Ian Fleming's James Bond.

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

  311. @AaronB
    @John Johnson


    So you believe that Christians are corrupted by modern times by teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis? What were they teaching in pre-modern times?
     
    You're finally starting to get it. And it's not what I believe. Read the article.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    So you believe that Christians are corrupted by modern times by teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis? What were they teaching in pre-modern times?

    You’re finally starting to get it. And it’s not what I believe. Read the article.

    You are continuing to be patronizing instead of answering simple questions. You said I’m not getting the flood account correctly but haven’t explained how exactly.

    What were the pioneers teaching their children? That the flood is just for them to interpret?

    Do you think a worldwide flood happened that killed all living creatures?

  312. @AaronB
    What is going on the pro Russian side saying fantastical things over and over again, despite being repeatedly proven wrong, again and again, without batting an eyelash or any apparent shame?

    It's easy to say they're just stupid or deluded or engaging in wishful thinking, but I think it's something unlike anything I've seen before, and could be something completely different - it's so extreme that I think it cannot be explained from within the framework of people attempting to rationally analyze a situation, and get at what's actually happening on the ground. It may be a completely different thing and a departure from the rationalist framework that we naturally assume is the default that all sides use.

    I occasionally dip into Vox Day, who is a major Alt-Right figure, to get a sense of what is really going on on that side - and it is like entering another world. In that world, Russia has already completely defeated and humiliated America and the West, and so has China, and Iran, etc. It's a fascinating alternative universe, like an alternative historical novel.

    Something Vox Day has said in another connection may provide the clue to what's going on here - he was analyzing the language of some left establishment document or other and noting how the insertion of certain words and claims about reality were intended as a magical spell to weaken the other side and create a different reality. He meant it quite literally as an example of "black magic".

    So what if the pro-Russian side is attempting to engage in "reality creation" in an almost occult fashion? Instead of attempting to describe reality - which we naturally assume everyone is doing - they are attempting to impose their will on reality in an occult fashion, a sort of collective incantatory spell and collective group chant? There are the notorious words of that US government official, I forget who, that America is so strong it creates reality - although he didn't mean it in an occult fashion, it perhaps had that subtext.

    And I have seen powerful businessman achieve repeated success by simply refusing to accept the seeming finality of a situation- and then strangely, doors seem to open and unexpected results pour in, in a way normal people who have no access to this world would find scarcely credible. There are weird occult phenomena occurring in elite business circles all the time that unless you've seen you'd scarcely credit, if you assumed the world of elite power is ruled entirely by rational analysis.

    What if, in the battle for reality, will is an important occult factor in the shape reality ultimately takes? And certainly whether there is any reality or truth to this, some at least on the pro-Russian side may self consciously be seeing themselves as engaging in spells, and the collective pro-Russian side may be somewhat unconsciously channelling this impulse.

    I enjoy the idea of Ron Unz as a Black Mage, with his repeated nonstop posting of McGregor videos as credible despite the most obvious and repeated failures, completely refusing to acknowledge those failures :)

    For the moment, it seems obvious that their "magic" is significantly weaker than the "magic" of the pro-Ukrainian side - and maybe at least on an instinctive level, that's why the Ukrainians recently refused with alarm to even discuss a negotiated peace as touted by the more rationalist Germans - they understand it is weak magic.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Mikhail, @LatW

    You are offering some truly fascinating and original comments here re: magical thinking (on both sides).

    One thing that really strikes me while watching Ukrainian talk shows is how firmly they believe in their victory. They always talk as if it is something that will happen, regardless how long it takes. It sounds like something more than an unspoken consensus, but a deeper conviction. It is almost as if there is a taboo on saying the opposite (maybe this taboo serves a social function, it helps them survive this hardship?).

    Whenever the opposite is mentioned (that they could lose), it is done in the context of criticizing some aspects of the war effort or in criticism to the leading politicians, but it is not uttered as a belief that this will happen.

    I recently watched a panel with some Ukrainian fighters, with an audience of young people. They were very battle hardened and brutally honest, but also very confident and made a lot of jokes, including brutal ones – they said they make those jokes all the time on the battle field (I guess this is to keep their sanity and preserve the morale).

    So one of the fighters, who himself is a former comedian, said something like: “I will say something that you won’t like but we will lose if we don’t change our attitude” (or “get our sh*t together”), and there was a bit of a silence because it sounded like he had said something that was a taboo. But then he turned it around and explained himself with an example: the Ukrainians have this cute little dog called Patron (meaning “Bullet”) that they use as a mascot and this soldier said that one of his battle jokes is that he wants “Patron to croak”. Because Patron symbolizes everything that is naive and immature about the Ukrainian public – the belief in a quick victory, the high expectations for the counter offensive, the inability to fully grasp how hard it is on the battle field. So this soldier was saying the civilian public really needs to grow up.

    In the end he turned it around and said: “Ok, ok, I was joking – I want Patron to live 23 years.” (Which is a long life for that particular breed).

    But this demonstrates their way of thinking. It is a strong belief but also rational introspection. It is interesting what they choose to say or not to say. And, yes, it does seem a little bit like thinking during the magical phase of the history of mankind – for example, in some ancient religions, one is not supposed to openly pronounce the names of certain Gods, so some Gods had a whole range of other names that were used. Odin has something like 200 different names, for example.

    [MORE]

    As to the magical thinking of the alt-right, that is more primitive and crazy. I wonder what is going to happen to them if the eventual result will not match their hard held beliefs, whether they will have some sort of an epiphany.

    Oh, and by the way, this summer one could notice that the Ukrainians have created a following on the world music scene (they seem to have developed a whole new genre of electro-folk-trance that includes the very distinct sounding flute that Ukrainians play, as well as traditional female vocals). So there is a band called Go_A that played all these summer festivals in Europe and they were encouraging the audience to dance in circles, and the singer called this “The Ukrainian magic”. So there might be something to it.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @LatW

    It sounds like something more than an unspoken consensus, but a deeper conviction. It is almost as if there is a taboo on saying the opposite (maybe this taboo serves a social function, it helps them survive this hardship?).

    I think that is normal for war and especially for the underdog. It is indeed probably better for morale. The soldiers prefer unity at home.

    I wouldn't call it magical thinking. It's more of a rally cry in the face of a larger aggressor. Are most Ukrainians assured that they can get all of Crimea back? I actually doubt it. It's possible but getting their 2021 borders back would be a huge win in itself.

    As to the magical thinking of the alt-right, that is more primitive and crazy. I wonder what is going to happen to them if the eventual result will not match their hard held beliefs, whether they will have some sort of an epiphany.

    It's going to be rough. They have clearly emotionally invested themselves into Putin on a very tribal level.

    I really think a lot of MoA/Vox posters will crack up if Putin gets anything less than Donbas. Some of the MoA posters especially are heavily invested into the idea the Putin will eventually prevail against a degenerate West. They see this as a battle for the future of world society.

    If Putin is pushed backed to his borders we could easily see some type of violence from one of them. Wouldn't surprise me at all. I think part of their mental instability comes from MoA curating a controlled forum. They live in a bubble and a military collapse would overwhelm their emotions. I would expect at least 1-2 suicides. Many of them are retired boomers that have completely turned against America and put all their faith in Putin.

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

  313. @Sean
    @John Johnson


    World judgement has already occurred and cannot be undone. .. I don’t have enough influence to change world opinion on the Russian people
     
    What matter is regard to what Russia does is in no small measure what ordinary Russians know, and not necessarily from Russia's media; after 2014 hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians fled to Russia. There are literally two million refugees from Ukraine who went to Russia after Feb 2022, and quite a few Russians have heard horror stories directly from these refugees. There are also Russians who have lost friends and relatives in the war, killed by Western arms. Ukraine has decided to attack Russia proper too; pinprick but they get publicized by Putin's PR machine.

    You talk as if the Russians would be willing to stop if they were allowed to keep what they have. While that may have been true once, I very much doubt it still is true now. Things have gone to0 far for ordinary Russians to accept that Putin or whoever may replace him while the war is on gives Ukraine gets any kind of win. There is no disagreement whatsoever among Russian elites about what must be done. Invading Ukraine was done with uncertainty about what the Washington alliance would do, and therefore entailed a risk of incalculable consequences for those taking the decision as well as the country they led. We now know that there is going to be no direct involvement by Nato, which outnumbers Russia 4: 1 on the ground and more in the air in East Europe. Knowing that Western armiess will not intervene has caused an escalation in the means Russia is willing to employ, Western public opinion be damned. You harp on what objectives the invasion originally was planned with, but the aims of Russia have greatly escalated since Feb 2022. Maybe not territorially, but damaging Ukraine is now a goal to as to assert Russia's status as a great power . Ukraine ought to have quickly followed up its initial successes and reconquered territory to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia is not interested now.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    You talk as if the Russians would be willing to stop if they were allowed to keep what they have. While that may have been true once, I very much doubt it still is true now. Things have gone to0 far for ordinary Russians to accept that Putin or whoever may replace him while the war is on gives Ukraine gets any kind of win

    What do you mean by “if they were” as in plural? Putin has absolute power and can end the war at any moment. It doesn’t matter if a majority of Russians would want him to keep going. They were never given a vote on if they wanted this war to exist.

    Putin has signaled that he would be content to take Donbas. He gave a speech on how the war is about defending Donbas which of course contradicts his original speech. But what does it matter in a totalitarian society? He could claim that it was always about Donbas and his Russian State TV would back him. No one is going to write an editorial on how he is full of shit.

    There is no disagreement whatsoever among Russian elites about what must be done. Invading Ukraine was done with uncertainty about what the Washington alliance would do

    How can you say there was no disagreement when Putin has executed elites that didn’t support the war?

    Every Russian oligarch that has died since the invasion
    https://www.newsweek.com/every-russian-oligarch-who-has-died-since-putin-invaded-ukraine-full-list-1700022

    You harp on what objectives the invasion originally was planned with, but the aims of Russia have greatly escalated since Feb 2022.

    Do explain since the plan was to take the entire country. How could the aims escalate? Putin is clearly moving back the goal posts.

    Ukraine ought to have quickly followed up its initial successes and reconquered territory to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia is not interested now.

    Both sides have made tactical mistakes. Russia is the one that is moving backwards and Ukraine has in fact increased its drone attacks on Russian airports. Ukraine has been making use of this Australian cardboard drone which is really quite interesting:
    https://soundhealthandlastingwealth.com/health/five-russian-jets-were-destroyed-by-easily-assembled-cardboard-drones-by-ukraine-last-week-in-prelude-to-even-more-unmanned-assaults-on-putins-bases/

    Putin’s US defenders are certain he can win through a war of attrition. Basically let the Ukrainians wear themselves down in offenses and then counter-attack.

    It’s entirely possible but going back to Kiev is highly unlikely. Russia is clearly using poorly trained conscripts and it is not only a long way to Kiev but they would face a hostile population. Invading through Belarus like they did in 2022 is no longer possible. It’s heavily mined and the bridge is set to explode if they try it again. The Belarusian border is actually covered in swamps. Historically it has provided a “no go zone” between the two countries.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @John Johnson

    Ukraine defied Russia, and in an act of aggression Russia invaded? You betcha!


    Do explain since the plan was to take the entire country. How could the aims escalate?
     
    By killing and destroying instead of capturing. Only by decimating Ukraine can Russia re-establish its status as a conventional great power. Russia has lost respect and self confidence, so they are going to demand fear. And what happens to Ukraine will be the example.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  314. @LatW
    @Mikhail


    In the late 1870s, there was a Ukrainian language censorship period (later stopped) that was initiated in response to anti-Russian Ukrainian language material coming from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
     
    If the goal had been to just limit or forbid this type of literature coming form the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then why not just ban those books instead of trying to suffocate the use of the Ukrainian language itself? This was done not just to Ukrainians, but others as well, across the whole Empire. Ukrainians were a large nation and in addition to the other nations, I don't think one can call them a "minority" (even if it's the correct technical term) - that is a large population that can be considered a core constituent part of the Empire and should be treated equally, with respect to cultural autonomy.

    The Russification took place as a response to the Polish uprisings but the real goal was forceful assimilation. It was an attempt to erase the language in core ethnic lands where that language had been used for a very long time and to impose Russian where Russian had never been used ever before (or even Cyrillic). The Finns, too, hated it. This is why the Swedish-Finn Eugen Schauman shot the imperial governor Babrikov.

    So quit peddling your half-truths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Finland

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Under Russian rule, Finland developed the greatest amount of autonomy of any future European nation under a then existing monarchy. So quit peddling your inaccurate cherry picked half truths.

    BTW, back then it wasn’t so uncommon to expect the subjects of a given empire to receive instruction in the primary language of said entity. That action alone didn’t mean the complete suppression of a language/culture/religion. Anton Denikin wrote of his Polish mother attending Catholic church services.

    Irish comparatively speaking weren’t/aren’t as well versed on their native tongue. Smooth Anglo propaganda pre-dated Ian Fleming’s James Bond.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikhail

    No, my people weren't allowed to use their native language in schools during this Russification period, don't lecture me about this. They were shamed and punished if they spoke their native language in the hallway. This is in a place where there had never been Russians and where people used the Latin script.

    You are now going to deny that Finns opposed assimilation?

    Replies: @Mikhail

    , @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Irish comparatively speaking weren’t/aren’t as well versed on their native tongue. Smooth Anglo propaganda pre-dated Ian Fleming’s James Bond.
     
    Why are you bringing up the Irish? We're not talking about them here.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  315. @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Under Russian rule, Finland developed the greatest amount of autonomy of any future European nation under a then existing monarchy. So quit peddling your inaccurate cherry picked half truths.

    BTW, back then it wasn't so uncommon to expect the subjects of a given empire to receive instruction in the primary language of said entity. That action alone didn't mean the complete suppression of a language/culture/religion. Anton Denikin wrote of his Polish mother attending Catholic church services.

    Irish comparatively speaking weren't/aren't as well versed on their native tongue. Smooth Anglo propaganda pre-dated Ian Fleming's James Bond.

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

    No, my people weren’t allowed to use their native language in schools during this Russification period, don’t lecture me about this. They were shamed and punished if they spoke their native language in the hallway. This is in a place where there had never been Russians and where people used the Latin script.

    You are now going to deny that Finns opposed assimilation?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Your people aren't Finns. From your Wiki source:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_language


    According to the 1897 Imperial Russian Census, there were 505,994 (75.1%) speakers of Latvian in the Governorate of Courland[21] and 563,829 (43.4%) speakers of Latvian in the Governorate of Livonia, making Latvian-speakers the largest linguistic group in each of the governorates.[22]
     

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

  316. @Matra
    The types of people who love NATO/USA:

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1698090352257761667

    Replies: @AP

    Pretty much everyone in Finland is pro-Ukrainian so that is meaningless. However the Finnish rightwing government is more pro-Ukrainian than were the socialists like these guys.

  317. @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Under Russian rule, Finland developed the greatest amount of autonomy of any future European nation under a then existing monarchy. So quit peddling your inaccurate cherry picked half truths.

    BTW, back then it wasn't so uncommon to expect the subjects of a given empire to receive instruction in the primary language of said entity. That action alone didn't mean the complete suppression of a language/culture/religion. Anton Denikin wrote of his Polish mother attending Catholic church services.

    Irish comparatively speaking weren't/aren't as well versed on their native tongue. Smooth Anglo propaganda pre-dated Ian Fleming's James Bond.

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

    Irish comparatively speaking weren’t/aren’t as well versed on their native tongue. Smooth Anglo propaganda pre-dated Ian Fleming’s James Bond.

    Why are you bringing up the Irish? We’re not talking about them here.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW

    To note the hypocrisy on the use of Russification over Anglicisation. In line with the joint UK/Kiev regime propaganda campaign to collectively ban Russians and Belarusians from sports.

  318. @LatW
    @AaronB

    You are offering some truly fascinating and original comments here re: magical thinking (on both sides).

    One thing that really strikes me while watching Ukrainian talk shows is how firmly they believe in their victory. They always talk as if it is something that will happen, regardless how long it takes. It sounds like something more than an unspoken consensus, but a deeper conviction. It is almost as if there is a taboo on saying the opposite (maybe this taboo serves a social function, it helps them survive this hardship?).

    Whenever the opposite is mentioned (that they could lose), it is done in the context of criticizing some aspects of the war effort or in criticism to the leading politicians, but it is not uttered as a belief that this will happen.

    I recently watched a panel with some Ukrainian fighters, with an audience of young people. They were very battle hardened and brutally honest, but also very confident and made a lot of jokes, including brutal ones - they said they make those jokes all the time on the battle field (I guess this is to keep their sanity and preserve the morale).

    So one of the fighters, who himself is a former comedian, said something like: "I will say something that you won't like but we will lose if we don't change our attitude" (or "get our sh*t together"), and there was a bit of a silence because it sounded like he had said something that was a taboo. But then he turned it around and explained himself with an example: the Ukrainians have this cute little dog called Patron (meaning "Bullet") that they use as a mascot and this soldier said that one of his battle jokes is that he wants "Patron to croak". Because Patron symbolizes everything that is naive and immature about the Ukrainian public - the belief in a quick victory, the high expectations for the counter offensive, the inability to fully grasp how hard it is on the battle field. So this soldier was saying the civilian public really needs to grow up.

    In the end he turned it around and said: "Ok, ok, I was joking - I want Patron to live 23 years." (Which is a long life for that particular breed).

    But this demonstrates their way of thinking. It is a strong belief but also rational introspection. It is interesting what they choose to say or not to say. And, yes, it does seem a little bit like thinking during the magical phase of the history of mankind - for example, in some ancient religions, one is not supposed to openly pronounce the names of certain Gods, so some Gods had a whole range of other names that were used. Odin has something like 200 different names, for example.

    As to the magical thinking of the alt-right, that is more primitive and crazy. I wonder what is going to happen to them if the eventual result will not match their hard held beliefs, whether they will have some sort of an epiphany.

    Oh, and by the way, this summer one could notice that the Ukrainians have created a following on the world music scene (they seem to have developed a whole new genre of electro-folk-trance that includes the very distinct sounding flute that Ukrainians play, as well as traditional female vocals). So there is a band called Go_A that played all these summer festivals in Europe and they were encouraging the audience to dance in circles, and the singer called this "The Ukrainian magic". So there might be something to it.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    It sounds like something more than an unspoken consensus, but a deeper conviction. It is almost as if there is a taboo on saying the opposite (maybe this taboo serves a social function, it helps them survive this hardship?).

    I think that is normal for war and especially for the underdog. It is indeed probably better for morale. The soldiers prefer unity at home.

    I wouldn’t call it magical thinking. It’s more of a rally cry in the face of a larger aggressor. Are most Ukrainians assured that they can get all of Crimea back? I actually doubt it. It’s possible but getting their 2021 borders back would be a huge win in itself.

    As to the magical thinking of the alt-right, that is more primitive and crazy. I wonder what is going to happen to them if the eventual result will not match their hard held beliefs, whether they will have some sort of an epiphany.

    It’s going to be rough. They have clearly emotionally invested themselves into Putin on a very tribal level.

    I really think a lot of MoA/Vox posters will crack up if Putin gets anything less than Donbas. Some of the MoA posters especially are heavily invested into the idea the Putin will eventually prevail against a degenerate West. They see this as a battle for the future of world society.

    If Putin is pushed backed to his borders we could easily see some type of violence from one of them. Wouldn’t surprise me at all. I think part of their mental instability comes from MoA curating a controlled forum. They live in a bubble and a military collapse would overwhelm their emotions. I would expect at least 1-2 suicides. Many of them are retired boomers that have completely turned against America and put all their faith in Putin.

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @LatW
    @John Johnson


    I think that is normal for war and especially for the underdog.
     
    I know, it's incredible how patient they are. I would've flipped out a long time ago - or then again, maybe one gets disciplined in the face of such danger.

    One of those soldiers on the panel was also talking about panic, that panic is the worst thing and should be avoided at all costs.

    I wouldn’t call it magical thinking. It’s more of a rally cry in the face of a larger aggressor.
     
    Agree, I didn't mean "magical thinking" as superstition, I just liked Aaron's comments on it. By the way, the Ukrainians are quite Christian overall, more religious than most EEs. Some of them believe in the Marian apparitions in their own neighborhoods. But then others are super rational.

    Are most Ukrainians assured that they can get all of Crimea back?
     
    Many of them do, many hawks do, many in the leadership.

    getting their 2021 borders back would be a huge win in itself.
     
    Agree, that would be a huge success, the further back they can push them, the better. By the way, technically, there is no such thing as the border of 1991 either - I listen to one Ukrainian hawk and he keeps saying, there is no such thing, there is only the "state border of Ukraine" (the internationally recognized territory). I think for Crimea, what they want to do is take out all the depots and other military assets and then just give the Russians a period of time to leave. Don't know how feasible this is, but I've heard them talk that way.

    the idea the Putin will eventually prevail against a degenerate West. They see this as a battle for the future of world society
     
    It is like "pessimism porn" - it is a bit addictive. They don't want to hear the other side, that there are good things too. Or that there are controversial things in Putin's Russia - like these new Afrovillages, 2 million able bodied males missing apparently (either killed in the war or bailed the country - those were the better educated ones too), above all, as you said, that killing a bunch of poor Slavs will not change the world order. Geez.

    If Putin is pushed backed to his borders we could easily see some type of violence from one of them.
     
    Oh, that is very, very concerning. They could flip out. A lot of them are unstable personalities. But it would be fun to watch. Imagine if Putin is dragged out of his hole by some of his own cronies due to some palace coup next year and then dragged to Hague? Most likely someone in the elite will have him removed before that happens though (doubt he has the braveness to shoot himself). Imagine the reaction of the MoA posters? OMG. 🤣

    Many of them are retired boomers that have completely turned against America and put all their faith in Putin.
     
    Thank God they are boomers, they'll pass at some point soon enough. I was worried that it was a lot of young ones. Vox Dei is in his 30s or 40s I believe, he was saying a few somewhat ok things, but he is super disillusioned, maybe too much. I don't see such a person as a real dissident who has to risk his life or freedom for his beliefs.

    What's messed up is that these people don't even have it that bad but they still turned against America. They're just bitter.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @LatW
    @John Johnson

    Oh, and what ticks me off the most about these peeps is that they are very far from Russia or any other large violent state, so their own freedom or health are not endangered at all. But yet they think it's ok to endanger the life, health and freedom of others (that of Ukrainians). I would want these peeps to have to live next to a large threatening population so they get to "enjoy" how it feels on their own skin.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  319. @John Johnson
    @LatW

    It sounds like something more than an unspoken consensus, but a deeper conviction. It is almost as if there is a taboo on saying the opposite (maybe this taboo serves a social function, it helps them survive this hardship?).

    I think that is normal for war and especially for the underdog. It is indeed probably better for morale. The soldiers prefer unity at home.

    I wouldn't call it magical thinking. It's more of a rally cry in the face of a larger aggressor. Are most Ukrainians assured that they can get all of Crimea back? I actually doubt it. It's possible but getting their 2021 borders back would be a huge win in itself.

    As to the magical thinking of the alt-right, that is more primitive and crazy. I wonder what is going to happen to them if the eventual result will not match their hard held beliefs, whether they will have some sort of an epiphany.

    It's going to be rough. They have clearly emotionally invested themselves into Putin on a very tribal level.

    I really think a lot of MoA/Vox posters will crack up if Putin gets anything less than Donbas. Some of the MoA posters especially are heavily invested into the idea the Putin will eventually prevail against a degenerate West. They see this as a battle for the future of world society.

    If Putin is pushed backed to his borders we could easily see some type of violence from one of them. Wouldn't surprise me at all. I think part of their mental instability comes from MoA curating a controlled forum. They live in a bubble and a military collapse would overwhelm their emotions. I would expect at least 1-2 suicides. Many of them are retired boomers that have completely turned against America and put all their faith in Putin.

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

    I think that is normal for war and especially for the underdog.

    I know, it’s incredible how patient they are. I would’ve flipped out a long time ago – or then again, maybe one gets disciplined in the face of such danger.

    One of those soldiers on the panel was also talking about panic, that panic is the worst thing and should be avoided at all costs.

    I wouldn’t call it magical thinking. It’s more of a rally cry in the face of a larger aggressor.

    Agree, I didn’t mean “magical thinking” as superstition, I just liked Aaron’s comments on it. By the way, the Ukrainians are quite Christian overall, more religious than most EEs. Some of them believe in the Marian apparitions in their own neighborhoods. But then others are super rational.

    Are most Ukrainians assured that they can get all of Crimea back?

    Many of them do, many hawks do, many in the leadership.

    getting their 2021 borders back would be a huge win in itself.

    Agree, that would be a huge success, the further back they can push them, the better. By the way, technically, there is no such thing as the border of 1991 either – I listen to one Ukrainian hawk and he keeps saying, there is no such thing, there is only the “state border of Ukraine” (the internationally recognized territory). I think for Crimea, what they want to do is take out all the depots and other military assets and then just give the Russians a period of time to leave. Don’t know how feasible this is, but I’ve heard them talk that way.

    the idea the Putin will eventually prevail against a degenerate West. They see this as a battle for the future of world society

    It is like “pessimism porn” – it is a bit addictive. They don’t want to hear the other side, that there are good things too. Or that there are controversial things in Putin’s Russia – like these new Afrovillages, 2 million able bodied males missing apparently (either killed in the war or bailed the country – those were the better educated ones too), above all, as you said, that killing a bunch of poor Slavs will not change the world order. Geez.

    If Putin is pushed backed to his borders we could easily see some type of violence from one of them.

    Oh, that is very, very concerning. They could flip out. A lot of them are unstable personalities. But it would be fun to watch. Imagine if Putin is dragged out of his hole by some of his own cronies due to some palace coup next year and then dragged to Hague? Most likely someone in the elite will have him removed before that happens though (doubt he has the braveness to shoot himself). Imagine the reaction of the MoA posters? OMG. 🤣

    [MORE]

    Many of them are retired boomers that have completely turned against America and put all their faith in Putin.

    Thank God they are boomers, they’ll pass at some point soon enough. I was worried that it was a lot of young ones. Vox Dei is in his 30s or 40s I believe, he was saying a few somewhat ok things, but he is super disillusioned, maybe too much. I don’t see such a person as a real dissident who has to risk his life or freedom for his beliefs.

    What’s messed up is that these people don’t even have it that bad but they still turned against America. They’re just bitter.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @LatW

    I think for Crimea, what they want to do is take out all the depots and other military assets and then just give the Russians a period of time to leave. Don’t know how feasible this is, but I’ve heard them talk that way.

    I think it makes sense to cut the land bridges and then launch occasional special forces and drone attacks.

    What’s messed up is that these people don’t even have it that bad but they still turned against America. They’re just bitter.

    The bitterness is unreal.

    I imagine them mostly as White conservatives posting from large suburban houses. I would bet that a lot of them have a gay kid or mulatto grandkids. So living in comfort but angry at the world. We have a guy in town whose very pretty daughter went Black and he is pissed off 365 days a year. He can't even force a smile on Christmas. I could totally see him cheering Putin even though it changes nothing in the US.

    Replies: @LatW

  320. @John Johnson
    @LatW

    It sounds like something more than an unspoken consensus, but a deeper conviction. It is almost as if there is a taboo on saying the opposite (maybe this taboo serves a social function, it helps them survive this hardship?).

    I think that is normal for war and especially for the underdog. It is indeed probably better for morale. The soldiers prefer unity at home.

    I wouldn't call it magical thinking. It's more of a rally cry in the face of a larger aggressor. Are most Ukrainians assured that they can get all of Crimea back? I actually doubt it. It's possible but getting their 2021 borders back would be a huge win in itself.

    As to the magical thinking of the alt-right, that is more primitive and crazy. I wonder what is going to happen to them if the eventual result will not match their hard held beliefs, whether they will have some sort of an epiphany.

    It's going to be rough. They have clearly emotionally invested themselves into Putin on a very tribal level.

    I really think a lot of MoA/Vox posters will crack up if Putin gets anything less than Donbas. Some of the MoA posters especially are heavily invested into the idea the Putin will eventually prevail against a degenerate West. They see this as a battle for the future of world society.

    If Putin is pushed backed to his borders we could easily see some type of violence from one of them. Wouldn't surprise me at all. I think part of their mental instability comes from MoA curating a controlled forum. They live in a bubble and a military collapse would overwhelm their emotions. I would expect at least 1-2 suicides. Many of them are retired boomers that have completely turned against America and put all their faith in Putin.

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

    Oh, and what ticks me off the most about these peeps is that they are very far from Russia or any other large violent state, so their own freedom or health are not endangered at all. But yet they think it’s ok to endanger the life, health and freedom of others (that of Ukrainians). I would want these peeps to have to live next to a large threatening population so they get to “enjoy” how it feels on their own skin.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Kuleba blasted those saying the Kiev regime isn't aggressive enough. Brings to mind Lindsey Graham's comment about fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. Chickenhawk neocons are fighting a parasitic proxy war.Kiev regime was/is stupid enough to go with neocon/neolib approved Boris Johnson over the March 2022 Istanbul negotiated settlement proposal.

    https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/bound-to-lose?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1753552&post_id=136667602&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

  321. @AP
    @AaronB

    I don't really disagree with this.

    Personally, the best solution would something like: a return to the February 2022 border, UN-run referendums in Crimea and Donbas to determine status with only pre-2014 residents allowed to vote (Russia would still most likely win), Russia paying for all the damage it did through its invasion (taken out of the confiscated reserves plus more), post-war Russian Crimea largely demilitarized (maybe in exchange for Ukraine to agree to not hosting NATO missiles), Ukraine free to do what it wants within its borders (i.e., language policy) and free to pursue whatever alliances it wants (EU and NATO), end of sanctions and normalization of ties with Russia.

    But I haven't lost loved ones to the Russian invaders, nor had my home destroyed by them, nor my life disrupted by them. I can understand why people in Ukraine, who have suffered from these problems, want to take a harder line. Even the reasonable solution I support rewards Russia by normalizing its rule over Crimea and Donbas. I don't blame people for feeling that as a principle, the invader should not get any reward whatsoever.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Agree. Reasonable proposals and analysis, AP.

    Interestingly enough, I have a question: Could there be any possibility that if Vivek will win in 2024, that China will massively increase the amount of aid that it will send to Russia as a way of keeping the Sino-Russian relationship close, thus increasing the odds of a significant Russian breakthrough in Ukraine?

    AFAIK, Biden hasn’t really tried to pry Russia and China apart, likely viewing it as a lost cause, but Vivek would, at Ukraine’s expense, obviously, which makes me wonder whether China would try to deepen its special relationship with Russia even further by actually aiding Russia to the max in Ukraine in order to prevent Russia from accepting any offer that Vivek might give them. It’s not an unreasonable hypothesis; I mean, China is likely to view a Vivek-led US as being extremely hostile towards China (more so than Biden’s US) and thus might seek to preserve Russia as an ally at any cost. Of course, this could potentially make things significantly worse for Ukraine.

    Hopefully Vivek doesn’t win in 2024 so that this scenario never actually becomes tested.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    Moscow's plan to escape the war in Ukraine without the total loss, is to survive in defense against Kiev and wait for the Republicans to win in the Presidential election 2024.

    But there doesn't seem to be an alternative plan in Moscow, if Republicans don't win in 2024.

    For example, if Biden wins in 2024, production for ammunition will ramp by 2025, then they will begin sending large amounts of ammunition and equipment to Ukraine.

    An example, is the production of the 155mm ammunition. This will ramp 6x in 2025 in the US.

    Will the Republicans defeat Biden in 2024 or not? It possibly mainly will be determined by the global economy situation next year.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  322. @AP
    @Beckow


    But they also have to win it – and the hapless Ukies are coming up short.
     
    Someone like you writing in July 1943 would say that the hapless Soviets were coming up short, because the Germans still controlled Kiev, Belgorod, and Kharkiv (which they had retaken in March of that year).

    Replies: @Beckow, @Mr. XYZ

    A foreign policy realist in 1943 could have actually potentially argued that the Allies should offer anti-Nazis in the German military and intelligence service the opportunity to keep some of Germany’s Hitler-era territorial gains (at least through (new) plebiscites) in exchange for these anti-Nazis overthrowing Hitler and the Nazis as soon as possible and then immediately ending WWII and saving a lot of lives. This would have prevented Eastern Europe from falling under Communist rule for several decades and would have also saved a million or so Jewish lives from the Holocaust (largely, but not completely, Greater Hungarian Jews; 74,000 Lodz Jews would have also been saved, of course).

    If I was a Jew in Greater Hungary or in Lodz, I’d have probably favored this outcome, since even if I would have ultimately been lucky enough to survive the Holocaust, many/most of my family probably wouldn’t have. Even for Eastern Europeans, this deal would not have been too bad. Though instead of Communist rule, they would have had significantly more Muslims and Africans by now, most likely, so there would have been a tradeoff for them.

  323. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Mormon look is impressive. Sort of an ideal of the classic American type.

    Mitt Romney looks more like an actor in an 1980s television drama than anyone I’ve seen in real life. If you saw him, you would guess he was an old Hollywood actor, who has their hair cut every morning
     
    .

    There are many like that, among Mormons. A Utah governor, Jon Huntsman, with his wife:

    https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/huntsmanmarykaye_huntsmanjon_06182020getty.jpg

    They have 5 biological children, and adopted 2 children.

    overweight more sloppy style often seen in non-Mormon rural America

    It can’t be true on average as Mormons have higher levels of obesity than non-Mormons, especially for women. https://www.ldsliving.com/sponsored-the-mormon-obesity-epidemic-whats-going-on/s/85383
     
    This is surprising and goes against mine (and others') experiences, but I can't argue against the data.

    I wonder if the non-Mormons in Utah are mostly not rural farmers but people like Mikel, who have moved to Utah for the purpose of hiking a lot in the spectacular nature. If such super-athletic people are heavily over-represented among non-Mormons in Utah, that might explain it.

    Utah in general has one of the lowest obesity rates in the country:

    https://i.insider.com/56006a16bd86ef15008bbdee?width=1136&format=jpeg

    Lower than all of its neighbors other than Colorado, 4th lowest in the USA.

    Also the incomes by religion of Mormons is the same as the mainline protestant.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/income-distribution/
     
    Mainline Protestants are the richest of America's mainstream Christians.

    Because of the weak public healthcare in America, life expectancy is mainly related with income though. This is probably why the secular population have generally higher life expectancy than religious populations, as it correlated with the education levels. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/
     
    You'd have to account for race to get an accurate estimate. Most Blacks are Christians (typically, Protestants) and they drive life expectancy down.

    Here this is accounted for:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035005/

    Jews live longest of all. But both mainline Protestants and Catholics live longer than those with no religion. Who live longer than Evangelical Christians and Black Protestants.

    Also, the relationship between religion and income is not linear. The richest attend church the least, but the next group attend church the most, and more often than the 2 poorer groups:

    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/attendance-at-religious-services/by/income-distribution/

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Mr. XYZ

    So, Jews live about seven years longer on average than black Protestants do. Very interesting! Though blacks perform very well among verified supercentenarians (people aged 110+) due to the black-white mortality crossover at age 80 or 85:

    https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=gerontology_theses

    Interestingly enough, France’s oldest man ever was black:

    https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Jules_Theobald

    (White Frenchman Marcel Meys missed reaching his age by just 15 days.)

    He’s not verified yet, but AFAIK he should be eventually. I have heard of no reason to doubt his age from professional and amateur gerontology circles.

  324. @LatW
    @Mikhail

    No, my people weren't allowed to use their native language in schools during this Russification period, don't lecture me about this. They were shamed and punished if they spoke their native language in the hallway. This is in a place where there had never been Russians and where people used the Latin script.

    You are now going to deny that Finns opposed assimilation?

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Your people aren’t Finns. From your Wiki source:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_language

    According to the 1897 Imperial Russian Census, there were 505,994 (75.1%) speakers of Latvian in the Governorate of Courland[21] and 563,829 (43.4%) speakers of Latvian in the Governorate of Livonia, making Latvian-speakers the largest linguistic group in each of the governorates.[22]

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Your people aren’t Finns
     
    The point is that neither Finns, nor the Balts, nor the Ukrainians liked any of these newly enforced policies. And you are misleading by saying that later on these policies somehow became milder - they were interfered with by the revolution of 1905 and later the February revolution, otherwise they would not have stopped. And there would've been violence enforcing them.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    , @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Your people aren’t Finns
     
    The point is that neither Finns, nor the Balts, nor the Ukrainians liked any of these newly enforced policies. And you are misleading by saying that later on these policies somehow became milder - they were interfered with by the revolution of 1905 and later the February revolution, otherwise they would not have stopped. And there would've been violence enforcing them. Finns and Balts are Lutherans using a Latin script so forcing such policies on them was unnatural.
  325. @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Irish comparatively speaking weren’t/aren’t as well versed on their native tongue. Smooth Anglo propaganda pre-dated Ian Fleming’s James Bond.
     
    Why are you bringing up the Irish? We're not talking about them here.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    To note the hypocrisy on the use of Russification over Anglicisation. In line with the joint UK/Kiev regime propaganda campaign to collectively ban Russians and Belarusians from sports.

  326. @LatW
    @John Johnson

    Oh, and what ticks me off the most about these peeps is that they are very far from Russia or any other large violent state, so their own freedom or health are not endangered at all. But yet they think it's ok to endanger the life, health and freedom of others (that of Ukrainians). I would want these peeps to have to live next to a large threatening population so they get to "enjoy" how it feels on their own skin.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Kuleba blasted those saying the Kiev regime isn’t aggressive enough. Brings to mind Lindsey Graham’s comment about fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. Chickenhawk neocons are fighting a parasitic proxy war.Kiev regime was/is stupid enough to go with neocon/neolib approved Boris Johnson over the March 2022 Istanbul negotiated settlement proposal.

    https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/bound-to-lose?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1753552&post_id=136667602&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

  327. @AaronB
    @Dmitry


    If in Japan people stop smoking, drinking, coffee etc, they would live even longer you could predict
     
    I question if this is true.

    The enhancement to feelings of well being, relaxation, and sociability of these substances - if not abused - probably confer significant health benefits that can't easily be measured.

    It's established that one of the best predictors of long life is having lots of good friendships, and the feelings of amiability and pro-social emotions that a few glasses of wine, or even occasionally drinking to excess, provides probably has significant health-enhancing effects.

    I suspect if Japan, or France, or Italy saw a big drop in consumption of these substances their life expectancy would steeply decline.

    The pro-social attitudes encouraged by religion probably also enhance health in ways we can't measure. I'm sure there are emotional states and psychological attitudes that confer significant health benefits and others that harm health, and that's little studied because not easily measured.

    It's known, for instance, that "type A" personalities are significantly more prone to heart attacks and other heart problems, and such personalities are chronically angry and aggressive - exactly the opposite of the emotional states religion encourages one to cultivate.

    One of the ways religion seems to correspond to objective reality and the "does it work" heuristic employed by science better than secular attitudes, and why secularism may not be rational.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    question if this is true.

    The enhancement to feelings

    Alcohol has a u-shape relation with mortality in the individuals. But with groups it will generally lower life expectancy because of the negative effects for the proportion of people who drink more than two times per day. With cigarettes, there is only a negative relation. With coffee, it seems a more mixed result, where there is somekind of controversy if it is good or bad.

    Higher life expectancy of Seventh-Day and Mormons is an example of preventive medicine on the population level by banning of alcohol, cigarettes and coffee. The religious groups in America which don’t ban alcohol and cigarettes don’t have this effect of the higher life expectancy.

    one of the best predictors of long life is having lots of good friendships,

    It’s possible, but it doesn’t seem to predict the intra-country or inter-country differences. Look at the countries with the highest life expectancy in the world. They will be Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong. After industrialization, these societies become relatively more socially atomized, but the life expectancy is unprecented in world history for any human population, unless you believe the story of Methuselah.

    These are the the healthiest populations in world history, from the indicator of life expectancy, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong. But from the social perspective, they have quite a lot of issue with atomization compared to earlier historical epochs.

    Within countries, it is sometimes more socially non-traditional and atomized regions with the highest life expectancy. An example in the Kingdom, is central London has life expectancy of 88.

    pro-social attitudes encouraged by religion probably also enhance health in ways we can’t measure.

    Possibly it could be, but it’s not significant in a way which would overide the differences of physical life style, healthcare etc.

    For example, Amish have one of the most high-demand religious cults in America. But they have lower access for healthcare and without the preventive medicine of Seventh-day and Mormons. They have life expectancy 7-8 years lower than the average in America.

    chronically angry and aggressive – exactly the opposite of the emotional states religion encourages one to cultivate.

    I’m not sure this is a reliable result of religion. You know, look at the situation in Jerusalem. The atmosphere of the city with the most religion is interesting and booming, but it is also often “chronically angry and aggressive”.

    One of the ways religion seems to correspond to objective reality and the “does it work” heuristic employed by science better than secular attitudes, and why secularism may not be rational.

    These religious laws against the cigarettes, alcohol and coffee, would seem rational from the perspective of increasing life expectancy for the whole population level, if this is the priority.

    But these religions (Mormons, Seventh-day) are doing trade-off with the other parameters, so it’s not necessarily the best result if you had some other priorities. Most people could be enjoying alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, although they might have a few less years.


    I think we can also see some more subtle modifications for the behavior in the high life expectancy countries.

    In Italy, there is a traditional culture teaching the harmonization for alcohol, when the culture teaches to drink alcohol in a level which is still moderate.

    In Japan, they have something like this in relation for food, when the traditional culture is to eat small plates.

    In France, they have relatively strong government regulation for the food supply. So, the ingredients in the food supply might be higher quality or less polluted in France, in comparison with some of the other industrialized countries like America.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Dmitry

    These religious laws against the cigarettes, alcohol and coffee, would seem rational from the perspective of increasing life expectancy for the whole population level, if this is the priority.

    Higher life expectancy of Seventh-Day and Mormons is an example of preventive medicine on the population level by banning of alcohol, cigarettes and coffee. The religious groups in America which don’t ban alcohol and cigarettes don’t have this effect of the higher life expectancy.

    It should be noted that while Seventh-Day encourages a healthy lifestyle they do not have strict regulations like the Mormons. Seventh Day Adventists are more tolerant of caffeine but also discourage red meat. They mostly follow Kosher rules which means no pork of shellfish.

    Seventh-Day aren't as strict as they used to be. In theory you can't drink alcohol but in reality they want new members. They're not going to flip out if they hear about how you had a couple beers on a camping trip. Mormons however could get a stern lecture over any rumor of drinking.

    Seventh Day are pretty tame. They aren't deeply insular like Mormons or JWs.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  328. @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Your people aren't Finns. From your Wiki source:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_language


    According to the 1897 Imperial Russian Census, there were 505,994 (75.1%) speakers of Latvian in the Governorate of Courland[21] and 563,829 (43.4%) speakers of Latvian in the Governorate of Livonia, making Latvian-speakers the largest linguistic group in each of the governorates.[22]
     

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

    Your people aren’t Finns

    The point is that neither Finns, nor the Balts, nor the Ukrainians liked any of these newly enforced policies. And you are misleading by saying that later on these policies somehow became milder – they were interfered with by the revolution of 1905 and later the February revolution, otherwise they would not have stopped. And there would’ve been violence enforcing them.

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Russia was in fact changing prior to WW I without Bolshes and in a way that conformed with how major Western powers were gradually changing to policies considered more acceptable in the present day.

    I'm glad to know Balts, Poles, Ukrainians and Finns who don't drink the Russia hating BS.

    Replies: @LatW

  329. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    Agree. Reasonable proposals and analysis, AP.

    Interestingly enough, I have a question: Could there be any possibility that if Vivek will win in 2024, that China will massively increase the amount of aid that it will send to Russia as a way of keeping the Sino-Russian relationship close, thus increasing the odds of a significant Russian breakthrough in Ukraine?

    AFAIK, Biden hasn't really tried to pry Russia and China apart, likely viewing it as a lost cause, but Vivek would, at Ukraine's expense, obviously, which makes me wonder whether China would try to deepen its special relationship with Russia even further by actually aiding Russia to the max in Ukraine in order to prevent Russia from accepting any offer that Vivek might give them. It's not an unreasonable hypothesis; I mean, China is likely to view a Vivek-led US as being extremely hostile towards China (more so than Biden's US) and thus might seek to preserve Russia as an ally at any cost. Of course, this could potentially make things significantly worse for Ukraine.

    Hopefully Vivek doesn't win in 2024 so that this scenario never actually becomes tested.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Moscow’s plan to escape the war in Ukraine without the total loss, is to survive in defense against Kiev and wait for the Republicans to win in the Presidential election 2024.

    But there doesn’t seem to be an alternative plan in Moscow, if Republicans don’t win in 2024.

    For example, if Biden wins in 2024, production for ammunition will ramp by 2025, then they will begin sending large amounts of ammunition and equipment to Ukraine.

    An example, is the production of the 155mm ammunition. This will ramp 6x in 2025 in the US.

    Will the Republicans defeat Biden in 2024 or not? It possibly mainly will be determined by the global economy situation next year.

    • LOL: Mikhail, A123
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Dmitry


    Moscow’s plan to escape the war in Ukraine without the total loss, is to survive in defense against Kiev and wait for the Republicans to win in the Presidential election 2024.

    But there doesn’t seem to be an alternative plan in Moscow, if Republicans don’t win in 2024.

    For example, if Biden wins in 2024, production for ammunition will ramp by 2025, then they will begin sending large amounts of ammunition and equipment to Ukraine.

    An example, is the production of the 155mm ammunition. This will ramp 6x in 2025 in the US.

    Will the Republicans defeat Biden in 2024 or not? It possibly mainly will be determined by the global economy situation next year.
     
    Do you really think that Russian strategery on the SMO is at all concerned about the 2024 US presidential election? By 2025, the Kiev regime could very well be toast. Meantime, Russia is doing comparatively quite well, when it comes to armaments production, as the Kiev regime loses more armed personnel and military equipment than their overall better equipped and trained opponent. Never mind the growing domestic challenges in the US and the rest of the collective West.

    Replies: @A123, @Dmitry

  330. @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Your people aren't Finns. From your Wiki source:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_language


    According to the 1897 Imperial Russian Census, there were 505,994 (75.1%) speakers of Latvian in the Governorate of Courland[21] and 563,829 (43.4%) speakers of Latvian in the Governorate of Livonia, making Latvian-speakers the largest linguistic group in each of the governorates.[22]
     

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

    Your people aren’t Finns

    The point is that neither Finns, nor the Balts, nor the Ukrainians liked any of these newly enforced policies. And you are misleading by saying that later on these policies somehow became milder – they were interfered with by the revolution of 1905 and later the February revolution, otherwise they would not have stopped. And there would’ve been violence enforcing them. Finns and Balts are Lutherans using a Latin script so forcing such policies on them was unnatural.

  331. @AP
    @Beckow


    You live in a make-belief world of false analogies. 1943? no kidding…how about them Mongols? And always Hitler, it comes too easy to you; as if that unspoken dream of Germans winning WW2 is haunting your subconsciousness….:)
     
    You are the one who mentioned him, not I. Projection?

    World War II comes to mind because that was the last time there was war in those lands.

    But the last time that Russia went to a real war without Ukraine fighting alongside it was against Poland in 1920.

    How did that turn out?

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    I have a question for you, AP: Had Hitler never come to power in Germany, do you think that a surviving Weimar Germany or perhaps a non-Nazi authoritarian but non-totalitarian right-wing German dictatorship would have eventually went to war against Poland with the Soviet Union as its (Germany’s) ally? Except here the goal wouldn’t be to conquer all of Poland, but merely to reconquer Danzig and the Polish Corridor; Gdynia (with an extraterritorial road connecting it to the rest of Poland) and eastern Upper Silesia could be used as bargaining chips to get Poland to agree to the new territorial settlement, I suppose.

    If Britain is unwilling to fight over Poland without Czechoslovakia getting conquered and dismembered beforehand, then the German-Soviet alliance should have very good odds facing off against the Franco-Polish alliance, no?

  332. @John Johnson
    @Sean

    You talk as if the Russians would be willing to stop if they were allowed to keep what they have. While that may have been true once, I very much doubt it still is true now. Things have gone to0 far for ordinary Russians to accept that Putin or whoever may replace him while the war is on gives Ukraine gets any kind of win

    What do you mean by "if they were" as in plural? Putin has absolute power and can end the war at any moment. It doesn't matter if a majority of Russians would want him to keep going. They were never given a vote on if they wanted this war to exist.

    Putin has signaled that he would be content to take Donbas. He gave a speech on how the war is about defending Donbas which of course contradicts his original speech. But what does it matter in a totalitarian society? He could claim that it was always about Donbas and his Russian State TV would back him. No one is going to write an editorial on how he is full of shit.

    There is no disagreement whatsoever among Russian elites about what must be done. Invading Ukraine was done with uncertainty about what the Washington alliance would do

    How can you say there was no disagreement when Putin has executed elites that didn't support the war?

    Every Russian oligarch that has died since the invasion
    https://www.newsweek.com/every-russian-oligarch-who-has-died-since-putin-invaded-ukraine-full-list-1700022

    You harp on what objectives the invasion originally was planned with, but the aims of Russia have greatly escalated since Feb 2022.

    Do explain since the plan was to take the entire country. How could the aims escalate? Putin is clearly moving back the goal posts.

    Ukraine ought to have quickly followed up its initial successes and reconquered territory to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia is not interested now.

    Both sides have made tactical mistakes. Russia is the one that is moving backwards and Ukraine has in fact increased its drone attacks on Russian airports. Ukraine has been making use of this Australian cardboard drone which is really quite interesting:
    https://soundhealthandlastingwealth.com/health/five-russian-jets-were-destroyed-by-easily-assembled-cardboard-drones-by-ukraine-last-week-in-prelude-to-even-more-unmanned-assaults-on-putins-bases/

    Putin's US defenders are certain he can win through a war of attrition. Basically let the Ukrainians wear themselves down in offenses and then counter-attack.

    It's entirely possible but going back to Kiev is highly unlikely. Russia is clearly using poorly trained conscripts and it is not only a long way to Kiev but they would face a hostile population. Invading through Belarus like they did in 2022 is no longer possible. It's heavily mined and the bridge is set to explode if they try it again. The Belarusian border is actually covered in swamps. Historically it has provided a "no go zone" between the two countries.

    Replies: @Sean

    Ukraine defied Russia, and in an act of aggression Russia invaded? You betcha!

    Do explain since the plan was to take the entire country. How could the aims escalate?

    By killing and destroying instead of capturing. Only by decimating Ukraine can Russia re-establish its status as a conventional great power. Russia has lost respect and self confidence, so they are going to demand fear. And what happens to Ukraine will be the example.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Sean

    Ukraine defied Russia, and in an act of aggression Russia invaded? You betcha!

    How could they defy Russia? Defied implies authority. Russia was not in charge of Ukraine.

    Putin told us that the war was about NATO.

    Ukraine was not in the process of applying to NATO and in fact NATO recently reiterated that they aren't able to join with a static border.

    By killing and destroying instead of capturing. Only by decimating Ukraine can Russia re-establish its status as a conventional great power. Russia has lost respect and self confidence, so they are going to demand fear. And what happens to Ukraine will be the example.

    So Russia now needs to kill both ethnic Ukrainians and Russians to save face?

    You are right that Russia has lost respect but increasing violence against civilians will not reestablish their previous status.

    Every Ukrainian city has a Russian minority. Quite a pickle isn't it?

    The best move Putin can make for Russia is to hang himself. Commit seppuku and take as much shame as possible with his death. Leave a reformer in charge and not another angry dwarf like Medvedev.

    Of course that won't happen as Putin is a shameless psychopath and will try to grind down the Ukrainians in a defensive war and then hope that he can walk with Donbas and Crimea. In fact at this point I think he would be happy with the current lines which represents about 60% of Donbas. I think he would also give up the nuclear plans and coal basin under some type of lease agreement. That would also include giving up Zaporizhzhia Oblast which was never part of the LPR/DPR.

  333. Pig ban explaining variations;)

    • Thanks: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @songbird
    @sudden death

    IIRC, under Brehon law, the penalty for pigs escaping onto a neighbor's field was higher than other animals, as pigs tend to eat the roots of plants rather than crop them.

    I've long suspected that the Jewish prohibition was related to something like that.

    It's a bit hard to understand why they would be left to range freely. That seems like a crazy idea - and it is hard to see how anyone would think an agricultural society would allow it. Were there not enough rocks to build fences? Something related to glaciers? Or the drier environment?

    I dislike the explanation of Rabbis making money. I prefer to think it was something like, preventing blood feuds, perhaps with other tribes. (With additional factors, like social-cohesion related to dietary law thrown in).

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @sudden death

    Judaism only bans pork if the pig is non-circumcised lol jk! ;) :D

  334. @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Your people aren’t Finns
     
    The point is that neither Finns, nor the Balts, nor the Ukrainians liked any of these newly enforced policies. And you are misleading by saying that later on these policies somehow became milder - they were interfered with by the revolution of 1905 and later the February revolution, otherwise they would not have stopped. And there would've been violence enforcing them.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Russia was in fact changing prior to WW I without Bolshes and in a way that conformed with how major Western powers were gradually changing to policies considered more acceptable in the present day.

    I’m glad to know Balts, Poles, Ukrainians and Finns who don’t drink the Russia hating BS.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Russia was in fact changing prior to WW I without Bolshes
     
    Again, we're not talking about how the Empire was changing in general (very slowly compared to the European powers of that time). We are talking about the late 19th century early 20th century Russification policies, a very concrete thing. Stolypin himself did this, the great reformer.

    I’m glad to know Balts, Poles, Ukrainians and Finns who don’t drink the Russia hating BS.
     
    You live in your head.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  335. @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    Moscow's plan to escape the war in Ukraine without the total loss, is to survive in defense against Kiev and wait for the Republicans to win in the Presidential election 2024.

    But there doesn't seem to be an alternative plan in Moscow, if Republicans don't win in 2024.

    For example, if Biden wins in 2024, production for ammunition will ramp by 2025, then they will begin sending large amounts of ammunition and equipment to Ukraine.

    An example, is the production of the 155mm ammunition. This will ramp 6x in 2025 in the US.

    Will the Republicans defeat Biden in 2024 or not? It possibly mainly will be determined by the global economy situation next year.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Moscow’s plan to escape the war in Ukraine without the total loss, is to survive in defense against Kiev and wait for the Republicans to win in the Presidential election 2024.

    But there doesn’t seem to be an alternative plan in Moscow, if Republicans don’t win in 2024.

    For example, if Biden wins in 2024, production for ammunition will ramp by 2025, then they will begin sending large amounts of ammunition and equipment to Ukraine.

    An example, is the production of the 155mm ammunition. This will ramp 6x in 2025 in the US.

    Will the Republicans defeat Biden in 2024 or not? It possibly mainly will be determined by the global economy situation next year.

    Do you really think that Russian strategery on the SMO is at all concerned about the 2024 US presidential election? By 2025, the Kiev regime could very well be toast. Meantime, Russia is doing comparatively quite well, when it comes to armaments production, as the Kiev regime loses more armed personnel and military equipment than their overall better equipped and trained opponent. Never mind the growing domestic challenges in the US and the rest of the collective West.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Mikhail


    Do you really think that Russian [strategy] on the SMO is at all concerned about the 2024 US presidential election?
     
    ===========================
    First learn to become invincible,
        then wait for your enemy's
          moment of vulnerability.
     
          Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    ===========================

    It is solid strategy for Putin to:

    Stay on defense in the short run -- While not literally invincible, Kiev aggression is losing 7:1. Even if it is only 5:1 that is not sustainable. Really, there is no math that works for Zelensky's forces.

    Wait for vulnerability in the long run -- America is moving on to other issues. The 'next' package for Kiev aggression has already been cut in half, and still cannot clear the U.S. House. Ukraine fatigue is very real and the 🇺🇦fad🇺🇦 is ending.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    P.S. I swapped [strategy] for [strategery] in your quote. I do not think you were intending to compare Putin to GW Bush.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Dmitry
    @Mikhail

    They are only losing land slowly this year in Ukraine, but this isn't an intelligent plan for escaping this war without more serious defeat if the Democrats would win in 2024, as the situation would continue to become weaker. The balance of power in terms of technology and ammunition will increase in support of Ukraine already before 2025.

    So, while in the 2023 war it could be more balanced between Russia and Ukraine, if Democrats win, in future years like 2025, 2026, 2027 more of the technology and ammunition will go to Ukraine.

    For example, in the USA, we can also see the plan for ramp in terms of the production of 155mm ammunition each year to 2028.

    "Army is spending $1.45 billion on capacity “to expand 155mm artillery production from 14,000 a month to over 24,000 later this year,” and 85,000 in five years, Camarillo said at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama."
    https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2023/03/28/us-army-eyes-six-fold-production-boost-of-155mm-shells-used-in-ukraine/


    -

    If Democrats win in the US presidency in 2024, it would be better for Moscow trying to exit the war now, as the situation will be weaker even in 2025.

    But the current strategy of delaying the exit from the war for Moscow could be an accepted risk if they asguess ume Trump will win in 2024, so there is around a year before the international diplomatical situation could improve for Moscow.

    Replies: @Sean

  336. The US Bankrupting Itself on Wars -w/ Ron Paul, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

  337. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/organization/affiliates

    Galileo Project Affiliate list.

    Note: Lue Elizondo and Chris Mellon.

    Loeb's Galileo Project is Jeffrey-Epstein-Science.

    Replies: @songbird

    I occasionally listen to space-related interviews, where they talk to astrophysicists, etc. IMO, some of the best guests tend to be the retired WASPs, who don’t seem to be famous.

    Chinese and Indians in the field seem to generally be poor communicators. English being either their second language, or else the environment they were raised in not having the same depth of vocabulary and expression.

    Personally, in longform interviews, I’ve always found Loeb to be a poor guest. It is a bit hard to pin down why, but I think it is because the other guys might be talking about their specialty or experience, whereas Loeb is a popularizer. He is too ready and willing to talk, and so it makes him kind of a windbag. Possibly that could make him easier to exploit, if he were an asset.


  338. [MORE]

    • Replies: @LatW
    @sudden death

    Insanely awesome. Lithuania beat the USA.

    And we beat Spain. Spain, the basketball superpower. And we didn't even have Zinga on the field who is our best player.

    I'm so stunned my head is still spinning. This is the best batch of players ever, ever (with all due respect to the past heroes!). Dream teams, both of them.

    ❤️❤️❤️

    Btw, we got bronze in the world Hockey championship. Which is pretty insane, too.

    Replies: @sudden death, @silviosilver, @Mikhail

  339. @sudden death
    Pig ban explaining variations;)

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5DRRzZWsAAswNT.jpg

    Replies: @songbird, @Mr. XYZ

    IIRC, under Brehon law, the penalty for pigs escaping onto a neighbor’s field was higher than other animals, as pigs tend to eat the roots of plants rather than crop them.

    I’ve long suspected that the Jewish prohibition was related to something like that.

    It’s a bit hard to understand why they would be left to range freely. That seems like a crazy idea – and it is hard to see how anyone would think an agricultural society would allow it. Were there not enough rocks to build fences? Something related to glaciers? Or the drier environment?

    I dislike the explanation of Rabbis making money. I prefer to think it was something like, preventing blood feuds, perhaps with other tribes. (With additional factors, like social-cohesion related to dietary law thrown in).

  340. The Japs made an animated movie about the Kurils:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni%27s_Island

    It is so poignant that I would be inclined to give them back and throw in one extra, but, of course, I don’t control them, and they are more strategically important to Russia.

    Anyway, their revanchism should be an inspiration to us all. Germans should make an animated movie about East Prussia. Ireland about the North. The Spanish about Sahara. Etc., etc. I’d even like to see one about South Africa or Rhodesia. It would be excellent countersignaling to woke Disney.

  341. Yet another Kiev scandal: (1)

    Ukraine Defense Minister Likely to Be Removed, Following Corruption Probe

    If you have watched World War Reddit, and understand the basic premise of Ukraine as a U.S. money laundering operation, then you likely understand why and how the recipient side of the $100 billion U.S. aid package is filled with graft and corruption.

    Each Ukraine official who is caught using the money for their personal enrichment, is replaced by another person who engages in the same activity. Successful anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine are futile, because everything attached to the U.S. created Ukraine government is corrupt.

    A corrupt minister is caught stealing and skimming money for his/her own benefit. The corrupt minister is fired and replaced with another corrupt minister, and then the clock starts ticking until the replacement makes a mistake and gets caught doing the same thing as his predecessor.

    The corrupt activity in Kyiv is identical to the corrupt activity in Washington DC, because it is created by the same corrupt process. Wash – Rinse – Repeat.

    In the latest exhibition…

    [Via Zero Hedge} – […] Defense chief Oleksiy Reznikov has overseen a series of embarrassing military corruption scandals at a time Kiev is trying to tout its democratic and corruption reform credentials. He could be dismissed from the top post as early as next week and given a new role as ambassador to the United Kingdom.

    Is Reznikov in trouble because he cannot control his corrupt underlings? Because the vaunted ‘counter offensive’ has made virtually no progress in 3 months? Both?

    Who will Zelensky this put into the seat? Zelensky will only select from a limited pool with proven personal loyalty to him. Simultaneously fighting internal corruption and a military foe is a near impossible task. The next choice is unlikely to be an improvement, and could easily be less capable.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/09/02/ukraine-defense-minister-likely-to-be-removed-following-corruption-probe/

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @A123

    Snopes and factcheck org have both poo pood on these silly Ukraine money laundry allegations.

    Meanwhile Sam Bankman-Fried got new indictments of piping money to the 2022 election campaign but you probably didn't see it on the regular news channels.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/8/14/bankman-fried-slapped-with-new-charges-of-using-stolen-funds-for-politics

    Replies: @A123

  342. @Mikhail
    @Dmitry


    Moscow’s plan to escape the war in Ukraine without the total loss, is to survive in defense against Kiev and wait for the Republicans to win in the Presidential election 2024.

    But there doesn’t seem to be an alternative plan in Moscow, if Republicans don’t win in 2024.

    For example, if Biden wins in 2024, production for ammunition will ramp by 2025, then they will begin sending large amounts of ammunition and equipment to Ukraine.

    An example, is the production of the 155mm ammunition. This will ramp 6x in 2025 in the US.

    Will the Republicans defeat Biden in 2024 or not? It possibly mainly will be determined by the global economy situation next year.
     
    Do you really think that Russian strategery on the SMO is at all concerned about the 2024 US presidential election? By 2025, the Kiev regime could very well be toast. Meantime, Russia is doing comparatively quite well, when it comes to armaments production, as the Kiev regime loses more armed personnel and military equipment than their overall better equipped and trained opponent. Never mind the growing domestic challenges in the US and the rest of the collective West.

    Replies: @A123, @Dmitry

    Do you really think that Russian [strategy] on the SMO is at all concerned about the 2024 US presidential election?

    ===========================
    First learn to become invincible,
        then wait for your enemy’s
          moment of vulnerability.
     
          Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    ===========================

    It is solid strategy for Putin to:

    Stay on defense in the short run — While not literally invincible, Kiev aggression is losing 7:1. Even if it is only 5:1 that is not sustainable. Really, there is no math that works for Zelensky’s forces.

    Wait for vulnerability in the long run — America is moving on to other issues. The ‘next’ package for Kiev aggression has already been cut in half, and still cannot clear the U.S. House. Ukraine fatigue is very real and the 🇺🇦fad🇺🇦 is ending.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    P.S. I swapped [strategy] for [strategery] in your quote. I do not think you were intending to compare Putin to GW Bush.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @A123

    Stay on defense in the short run — While not literally invincible, Kiev aggression is losing 7:1. Even if it is only 5:1 that is not sustainable. Really, there is no math that works for Zelensky’s forces.

    And what is the source for those ratios?

    You do acknowledge that MacGregor told us last year that according to his "inside sources" the Ukrainians were out of men? He said very clearly that they were using old men and teenagers.

    The ‘next’ package for Kiev aggression has already been cut in half, and still cannot clear the U.S. House. Ukraine fatigue is very real and the 🇺🇦fad🇺🇦 is ending.

    Well I guess they only get about 100 F-16s then from various countries. That and at least 50 tanks are on the way. Ukraine is actually not out of MiGs as many assume.

    So nothing to worry about, right? Should be wrapped up soon?

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW

  343. @A123
    Yet another Kiev scandal: (1)

    Ukraine Defense Minister Likely to Be Removed, Following Corruption Probe

     

    If you have watched World War Reddit, and understand the basic premise of Ukraine as a U.S. money laundering operation, then you likely understand why and how the recipient side of the $100 billion U.S. aid package is filled with graft and corruption.

    Each Ukraine official who is caught using the money for their personal enrichment, is replaced by another person who engages in the same activity. Successful anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine are futile, because everything attached to the U.S. created Ukraine government is corrupt.

    A corrupt minister is caught stealing and skimming money for his/her own benefit. The corrupt minister is fired and replaced with another corrupt minister, and then the clock starts ticking until the replacement makes a mistake and gets caught doing the same thing as his predecessor.

    The corrupt activity in Kyiv is identical to the corrupt activity in Washington DC, because it is created by the same corrupt process. Wash – Rinse – Repeat.

    In the latest exhibition…

    [Via Zero Hedge} – […] Defense chief Oleksiy Reznikov has overseen a series of embarrassing military corruption scandals at a time Kiev is trying to tout its democratic and corruption reform credentials. He could be dismissed from the top post as early as next week and given a new role as ambassador to the United Kingdom.
     

     
    Is Reznikov in trouble because he cannot control his corrupt underlings? Because the vaunted 'counter offensive' has made virtually no progress in 3 months? Both?

    Who will Zelensky this put into the seat? Zelensky will only select from a limited pool with proven personal loyalty to him. Simultaneously fighting internal corruption and a military foe is a near impossible task. The next choice is unlikely to be an improvement, and could easily be less capable.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/09/02/ukraine-defense-minister-likely-to-be-removed-following-corruption-probe/

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    Snopes and factcheck org have both poo pood on these silly Ukraine money laundry allegations.

    Meanwhile Sam Bankman-Fried got new indictments of piping money to the 2022 election campaign but you probably didn’t see it on the regular news channels.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/8/14/bankman-fried-slapped-with-new-charges-of-using-stolen-funds-for-politics

    • LOL: A123
    • Replies: @A123
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    Snopes and factcheck org
     
    ROTFLMAO

    Everyone serious grasps that fake fact checkers are there to support DNC narratives. They are some of the worst Leftoid liars on the planet.

    What is next? Are you going to claim MSNBC is accurate?

    PEACE 😇
  344. Double speak in high places.

    Ukraine cannot win against Russia now, but victory by 2025 is possible
    Financial Times

    https://www.ft.com/content/be5d133b-e757-4615-881f-256337f05b6c

    no paywall: https://archive.ph/gD827#selection-1583.0-1583.70

  345. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @A123

    Snopes and factcheck org have both poo pood on these silly Ukraine money laundry allegations.

    Meanwhile Sam Bankman-Fried got new indictments of piping money to the 2022 election campaign but you probably didn't see it on the regular news channels.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/8/14/bankman-fried-slapped-with-new-charges-of-using-stolen-funds-for-politics

    Replies: @A123

    Snopes and factcheck org

    ROTFLMAO

    Everyone serious grasps that fake fact checkers are there to support DNC narratives. They are some of the worst Leftoid liars on the planet.

    What is next? Are you going to claim MSNBC is accurate?

    PEACE 😇

  346. What I think is weird about the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind is how the film treats family.

    [MORE]

    I have often thought Hollywood doesn’t know how to write family. They just leave it out, or make people orphans, or give them adverserial or bad relationships. When they do depict lots of kids, they turn the noise level up, to the point where you’d need a Tylenol. Close Encounters does the last, to start with.

    The main protoganist played by Dreyfuss abandons his family to go off with aliens. In the process, kissing another woman.

    The other woman appears to be a single mom. Her five year old son was stolen by aliens, literally ripped out of her hands. But somehow, though she is chasing them and technically looking for him, she is always smiling at the spectacle and doesn’t seem too bothered by it.

    The aliens themselves often display less intelligence than a golden retriever. Making a mess of the woman’s fridge. Causing all sorts of wide-ranging electrical problems. Giving radiation burns to Dreyfuss. Flying over winding mountain highways They have apparently kidnapped many people in the past, without giving a fart, and letting relativity meaning decades have gone by, aging their family and friends.

    It’s a very strange film for these and other reasons. Spielberg had the short aliens played by fifty 6y.o. girls because he thought they moved more gracefully than boys. Perhaps, it is true, but it shows a weird amount of consideration against the many non-sequitors, or other shortfalls of the film.

    The aliens don’t choose any of the people selected by the government. They choose Dreyfuss, who ran off from his family and, who they gave radiation burns to.

    I don’t know what to put the strangeness down to. Some quasi-religiousness that often marks this subject. Is it because it is targeted toward UFO enthusiasts – fit to their psych profiles? Or was Speilberg among them?

    Or is it the fact that the ’70s were when morality really started to fall apart. At least, in the top down fashion of message.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @songbird

    Very few Spielberg films can survive a second viewing, most over hyped director.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @silviosilver
    @songbird

    Is what you mean by "strange" perhaps closer to "not believable"? That would be fair enough. Personally, I found it an interesting approach to make the aliens exude an irresistible attractive force to certain people whose brains were tuned to the right "frequency," to the point it virtually drove them mad with desire. Kinda like the ancient Sirens causing sailors to jump overboard in pursuit of the alluring voices.

    As for the characters "abandoning" (more like ignoring) family members, is that really so weird for people in the throes of delusion or mad lust? So the Dreyfuss character kisses a woman who is not his wife - that's not exactly unheard of among people, even in far more normal situations.

    I don't see that Hollywood inadequately portrays families. Sometimes it's done poorly, other times, very well, but on the whole, I wouldn't regard it as a conspicuous failure. Family members sometimes really do have adversarial relations, kids often are unruly, and so on. In Close Encounters, a kid that won't stop making a racket serves to depict Dreyfuss as a normal dad, facing normal family headaches who then has all the weird alien stuff happen to him that nothing in his life has really prepared him for. (The dumbest thing about that family is the kid who is supposed to be 8 easily looks 13.)


    so it is hard to see it as it was probably meant to be – showcasing rural Americans as dumb and evil.
     
    I think the only scene that had that effect was when he walks into the diner after being run off the road by the trucker. He's treated extremely suspiciously by the manager and the other patrons, although he brought that on himself a little when he ignored the manager's question of "what happened out there?".

    Replies: @John Johnson, @songbird

  347. @LatW
    @John Johnson


    I think that is normal for war and especially for the underdog.
     
    I know, it's incredible how patient they are. I would've flipped out a long time ago - or then again, maybe one gets disciplined in the face of such danger.

    One of those soldiers on the panel was also talking about panic, that panic is the worst thing and should be avoided at all costs.

    I wouldn’t call it magical thinking. It’s more of a rally cry in the face of a larger aggressor.
     
    Agree, I didn't mean "magical thinking" as superstition, I just liked Aaron's comments on it. By the way, the Ukrainians are quite Christian overall, more religious than most EEs. Some of them believe in the Marian apparitions in their own neighborhoods. But then others are super rational.

    Are most Ukrainians assured that they can get all of Crimea back?
     
    Many of them do, many hawks do, many in the leadership.

    getting their 2021 borders back would be a huge win in itself.
     
    Agree, that would be a huge success, the further back they can push them, the better. By the way, technically, there is no such thing as the border of 1991 either - I listen to one Ukrainian hawk and he keeps saying, there is no such thing, there is only the "state border of Ukraine" (the internationally recognized territory). I think for Crimea, what they want to do is take out all the depots and other military assets and then just give the Russians a period of time to leave. Don't know how feasible this is, but I've heard them talk that way.

    the idea the Putin will eventually prevail against a degenerate West. They see this as a battle for the future of world society
     
    It is like "pessimism porn" - it is a bit addictive. They don't want to hear the other side, that there are good things too. Or that there are controversial things in Putin's Russia - like these new Afrovillages, 2 million able bodied males missing apparently (either killed in the war or bailed the country - those were the better educated ones too), above all, as you said, that killing a bunch of poor Slavs will not change the world order. Geez.

    If Putin is pushed backed to his borders we could easily see some type of violence from one of them.
     
    Oh, that is very, very concerning. They could flip out. A lot of them are unstable personalities. But it would be fun to watch. Imagine if Putin is dragged out of his hole by some of his own cronies due to some palace coup next year and then dragged to Hague? Most likely someone in the elite will have him removed before that happens though (doubt he has the braveness to shoot himself). Imagine the reaction of the MoA posters? OMG. 🤣

    Many of them are retired boomers that have completely turned against America and put all their faith in Putin.
     
    Thank God they are boomers, they'll pass at some point soon enough. I was worried that it was a lot of young ones. Vox Dei is in his 30s or 40s I believe, he was saying a few somewhat ok things, but he is super disillusioned, maybe too much. I don't see such a person as a real dissident who has to risk his life or freedom for his beliefs.

    What's messed up is that these people don't even have it that bad but they still turned against America. They're just bitter.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    I think for Crimea, what they want to do is take out all the depots and other military assets and then just give the Russians a period of time to leave. Don’t know how feasible this is, but I’ve heard them talk that way.

    I think it makes sense to cut the land bridges and then launch occasional special forces and drone attacks.

    What’s messed up is that these people don’t even have it that bad but they still turned against America. They’re just bitter.

    The bitterness is unreal.

    I imagine them mostly as White conservatives posting from large suburban houses. I would bet that a lot of them have a gay kid or mulatto grandkids. So living in comfort but angry at the world. We have a guy in town whose very pretty daughter went Black and he is pissed off 365 days a year. He can’t even force a smile on Christmas. I could totally see him cheering Putin even though it changes nothing in the US.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @John Johnson


    I think it makes sense to cut the land bridges and then launch occasional special forces and drone attacks.
     
    There is a chance to keep the place relatively intact with just diversionary attacks, surgical strikes, drones, long range missiles (they won't be able to use a Western missile probably, but they might have their own), the problem is that there are a lot of assets there, something like 200-300 sites. The place is beautiful, so it would be a shame if they chose to go in there frontally (and it would be very costly in terms of men). Not sure if that is even possible. I know that the Crimean guerillas are buying these sporty looking rubber boats. I can't picture what they would do with them, but then again Ukrainians were able to cross Dnipro. These people are very inventive and they know the terrain very well, it is their home where they grew up.

    I think that if there is visible progress, then there will be more weapons' deliveries. Usually that's how it works, the better things go, the more one gets.

    I imagine them mostly as White conservatives posting from large suburban houses.
     
    Hm, I don't know about that, those types are typically quite pro-American, but there could be exceptions.

    Well, in that last example you provide about someone's daughter - that is indeed serious and a good enough reason to be disappointed. But I doubt that's how most of them are, most of them probably have white families (or half Asian) or are divorced or never married. Which is nothing to be judgemental about, things are not easy these days. The family part may not be the most important. It must be a character thing. People like Anglin, he would be problematic in any country or any society if he acted that way. Frankly, I don't think he could survive Russia for too long if he had been native there - the women folk would throw him out as some "loser". Russian women can be very harsh that way (they are not as supplicating as is believed).

    You know, I don't even mind that they exist with those beliefs, what I object to is a belief that it is ok to wage a very dirty war and yet get away with it. As in, not answer for it. And also to move borders so randomly and with such ease and then act non-chalant about it "Oh, it's ours now, we put it in the constitution". "It's with us forever now!" Er... no, it's not. The real owner can come back any time!

    I mean there's gotta be other ways to fight "globalists" except for cheering and endorsing this kind of stuff. It's just that those other ways are hard and require real work.
  348. @LatW
    @Beckow


    But their “looks” are not all they could be – quite a bit of the post-modern entropy has seeped in…
     
    To some extent maybe, it's probably unavoidable. Of course, not all of them are hot, but they have a good phenotype and the hot ones aren't rare. That was my point.

    I disagree about verbal abuse: let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it. It is in our human nature and suppression leads to bigger problems. Words are only words. Free expression also tells us a lot about both sides – more information about how we are. We can live with the some ugly side effects.
     
    I used to hold this belief as well until recently. It was a belief that had been entrenched for a long time, and is commonly held among many right wingers as well. I also agree that it's good to have the information available (the truth, so to speak, even if it is painful and it mostly isn't). But these recent exchanges between Russians and Ukrainians gave me pause and made me rethink this. Of course, they are in pain, both of them, so I don't judge them. It's understandable and even natural to some extent.

    Who defines what deterrence and necessary mean to Nato at any point?
     
    It is tough in Europe because everyone is so close physically. I think that right now we'll be seeing a re-arrangement of these boundaries. But this is an extreme example because it is through war.

    The goodies are a lot cheaper when Russia is on its back. Prices matter, look into that basic capitalist concept.
     
    My point was that it was cheaper than having a war or even some kind of a persistent pressuring of Russia which would've taken a lot of work and resources, things were ok the way they were before February 2022. Sure, "the goodies" may be cheaper with "Russia on her back", as you say, but is it worth the effort to try to put her on her back when you can just have things the way they were prior to the war? Things were quite good for both sides - both Germany / the EU and Russia. And the US was being run by the type of administration that Obama put in place (or maybe some other pro-Moscow democrat before that), this particular administration wasn't that hostile to Russia.

    Compare the actual Western and Eurasian natural wealth and productive capacity versus the current monetary valuations
     
    My point was that the West has enough on its own to survive and live well without having to "march on Moscow", as you say - it doesn't make economic sense for the West. The West prefers to wait it out - the Russians will destroy themselves on their own.

    Well, Russia is fighting – half-heartedly so far – and they don’t seem that weak.
     
    Actually, I've never said that Russia is weak - it is a very serious opponent, what was considered second strongest army on the planet, and even if that proved to be dubious, they are still a very strong country. This is why what Ukraine has been able to achieve is miraculous - not just the stamina of their troops, but also their recent asymmetric activity on Russia's territory (!!). No, Russia was supposed to be a peer only to the US or some kind of a Western coalition, not Ukraine. I think the Ukrainians are fighting them better than the West could have. I'm not being careful making such a bold statement, but this is how it feels. Of course, it depends on the theater where it would be fought.

    Ukraine has acquired subjectivity, agency. From now on, they will be a competitor to Russia (hopefully, they can recover from the ravages of the war). This will be a new line in Europe. This is an event of immense historic magnitude, maybe something that only comes every 300 years or something like that.

    But people adjust and the final deal will probably leave the core Ukraine intact, so the Galicians can hate all the want, march with Bandera flags, and migrate to wash dishes in EU, and all of that – who cares? It is a backwater.
     

    No, it's not, if they recover, they will hold significant resources (the resources that Russia wanted), so it is Russia who cares. Russia will be in competition even with a reduced Ukraine (and it is not a given it will stay reduce or at least no one knows where the border will be). Above all, they will be in ideological competition. Unless Russia becomes free. But even then, this fracture will remain, because Russia will not change its deepest character. In fact, Russia has two faces, just like the double headed eagle in their coat of arms - the free "Novgorodian" Russia and the imperialistic Russia. Only the free Russia can be non-hostile with the neighbors, especially Ukraine, but it is not a given that the free Russia will prevail.

    Replies: @Beckow

    let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it.

    I used to hold this belief until recently. It is commonly held among many right wingers…

    I suggest you get back to that belief….:) Not allowing the free expression of one’s views is a denial of their existence: harm much more pernicious than anything done by airing them. There are always reasons: wars, ethnic pride, economic damage. It is usually stupid peoples’ sensitivity and self-esteem.

    I am not a right-winger, whatever that means. I am conservative, but on economy we need strong and uniform social policies – basic guarantees. Life is too complex to function well without them. I dislike Russian (and other) oligarchies – they are all over the world, not just in Russia, Ukraine is full of them. The war has weakened the Russian oligarchs – but not enough. It usually is blood above money, maybe the only benefit of having a war…

    West has enough on its own to survive and live well without having to “march on Moscow” – it doesn’t make economic sense for the West. The West prefers to wait it out – the Russians will destroy themselves on their own.

    They usually do every hundred years or so, but Nato just couldn’t wait. The West can get by without the cheaper Russian resources – but the living standards will drop: larger portion of the actual output will go up in price, it is inevitable and is already happening. We may end up with the worst of both worlds: more pricey resources and a lost war in Ukraine.

    If the West had behaved normally and treated Russia as having legitimate interests, we would have no war and a livable compromise in Ukraine: no Nato and normal rights for the Russian minority. This was a catastrophic miscalculation – and slowly dawning on everyone, just listen carefully to how the coverage is slowly changing.

    Russia was supposed to be a peer only to the US or some kind of a Western coalition, not Ukraine.

    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq…the regional geography matters and today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy – actually Nato was openly more willing to do it and fought its wars like that, Russia is so far more moderate. They are peers – you just don’t like to look at your own side critically.

    Ukraine has acquired subjectivity, agency. From now on, they will be a competitor to Russia

    I agree, but it was happening anyway. The war is shrinking Ukraine as the Russian competitor – we have more noisy, angrier, assertive but smaller and weaker Ukraine. The precedent has been set for Russia to keep Ukraine in check by superior force. Russia has internally normalized fighting and killing their Ukie ‘brothers’ – that is not good for whatever remains in the rump-Ukraine. They should have avoided for the conflict to be militarized. It is too late now.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Beckow


    today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy
     
    Rwanda certainly took a manly run at it.

    Replies: @Beckow

    , @LatW
    @Beckow


    Not allowing the free expression of one’s views is a denial of their existence: harm much more pernicious than anything done by airing them.
     
    Theoretically, I would agree, but this is also a privilege that you have in a reasonably homogenous society, maybe even a pluralistic one, with various views and backgrounds, but one where there is still some core consensus about the basic self-preservation of the place. Once you start having very diverse societies like now, or large "minorities" that have been artificially created by empires, and who are helped from outside, and who have diametrically opposite interests to the core population, then the price for free speech becomes very high. And the issue of justice also becomes more relevant.

    I didn't change my view out of fear - for me it is always - bring it on! But I worry about the weak. It will usually be the weak who will suffer when there is social strife and instability. Much more so war.

    By the way, have you noticed what Russia has done with speech lately? Would you argue the same for Russia? Let it be like the 1990s there? They themselves fear it badly.


    I am not a right-winger
     
    You are not really a right winger in my book, I meant in general people who have those beliefs, also some folks on this forum, libertarian right wingers (or American style), not fascists. The fascists want order, not craziness.

    I dislike Russian (and other) oligarchies – they are all over the world, not just in Russia, Ukraine is full of them.
     
    Oh, oligarchies are terrible and so unfair. There might be little oligarchies in the States, too. Although we can argue where simple (even if gigantic) wealth concentration turn into an oligarchy.

    The post-Soviet oligarchies are a complete disgrace. And to think that they are still around! Of course, you have to differentiate if there is someone in there who is at least somewhat self-made, it is a bit grey there that way. But the Russian oligarchs are absolutely awful - they helped build the system, lived off of it and now act like they have nothing to do with it, walking the streets of London. We don't even know how much money the Kovalchuk types have in the Kremlin. And people like Kabaevac (people who simply spread their legs, too, need to have a sense of limits and some kind of a self reflection!). Of course, the elite should be affluent, but not like that.

    And Ukraine will have a ton of work to do if they want to change those things, they have immense vulnerability. The country may be too large to control, but they have to find a way to do it. There are systems that can be put in place and safe guarded. Their cross is way too heavy.


    The West can get by without the cheaper Russian resources – but the living standards will drop: larger portion of the actual output will go up in price, it is inevitable and is already happening.
     
    Of course, the war is very damaging, it would've been much better without it, but the overall living standard issue has to do with more than just the war. It might be a result of very intense globalization that took place over the last couple of decades and also the money printing. Didn't they dump a trillion dollars into the market during Covid? I may be wrong.

    Nato just couldn’t wait
     
    Well, NATO was just waiting and probing, they were not going to take in Ukraine in the shape it was in prior to the war. Only when Ukraine showed backbone, was when the West started accepting Ukraine. Those are the cruel laws of Nature, the weak are despised, the strong are admired. So sad...

    This is not the historic Russia as it used to be but a much more weakened one. They now have to deal with the world not as an Empire, as it used to be, but pretty much on their own. And some people even argue that it is still not fully "decolonized".


    We may end up with the worst of both worlds: more pricey resources and a lost war in Ukraine.
     
    Several scenarios are possible. But again, there may be a global resource crunch taking place. Maybe with China slowing down it will subside a bit.

    If the West had behaved normally and treated Russia as having legitimate interests, we would have no war and a livable compromise in Ukraine: no Nato and normal rights for the Russian minority.
     
    The problem is that we no longer live in the 19th (or even 20th) centuries where some big country has "legitimate interests" in another, smaller country or groups of countries. Even very large states have to "woo" midsize states. You can argue that Russia has legitimate interests in her vicinity, but I can argue that Ukraine, the Baltics and others have legitimate interests to be left alone and their internal policies to be respected. Russia does not have "legitimate" rights to control our space. These kinds of things need to be resolved in an amicable manner, without crazy entitlement that is based on their past glories. And from our side without pettiness, but with real ability and more muscle to solve these problems.

    The Russian speakers are not a traditional minority - they are a geopolitical weapon. When they turn into a traditional minority, the way that the Old Believers are, then they will be treated with the kind of respect that the Old Believers are treated with. In the meantime, the innocent will suffer which only makes it worse.

    In Donbas it is more complicated, and most Donbassers are essentially victims of much larger forces that destroyed their lives.


    just listen carefully to how the coverage is slowly changing.
     
    The coverage is changing because it's been almost 2 years and there is fatigue. By the way, some of the coverage is faulty or based on mistaken assumptions, there is a lot of careless coverage. What matters is not just the coverage (that would be the least important element), what matters is the actual support. The current US administration decided to withhold the most vital parts of support against the desire of the American people and the Congress. But the Europeans are still helping and the Ukrainians have been building their own capacity.

    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq
     
    Those are somewhat different wars. Expeditionary wars, I guess. The war in Ukraine is a war of independence that is fought by locals with the support of a coalition of 50 states. This is a war fought by Ukraine, not the US or NATO.

    The war is shrinking Ukraine as the Russian competitor
     
    That a genocidal war of invasion is shrinking a country is somehow a surprise? Or somehow not a crime?

    The shrinkage would've happened anyway as they gained subjectivity - it is part of the nation building, although very sad and a bit wasteful. I think that deep down they were always competitors since Kiev and Muscovy times... Muscovy devoured its competitors (sometimes in an Asiatic manner).


    The precedent has been set for Russia to keep Ukraine in check by superior force.
     
    It is not over yet. But if this kind of thing is now "acceptable" in Europe (it isn't), then one needs to prepare the children very very carefully to live in that kind of a world. That changes everything then.

    Russia has internally normalized fighting and killing their Ukie ‘brothers’ – that is not good for whatever remains in the rump-Ukraine.
     
    Russia has changed immensely, by killing Ukrainians they are only hurting themselves. They will turn into a petty state. It is no wonder, everyone post-USSR decided to be that way, so they did, too. (Although it is possible to build something more seemly.)

    But becoming a nation state also means you need to dump the imperial hubris and start living for yourself. You can try grabbing something but do not whine when you will get smacked back! Those people are fighting for their existence.


    They should have avoided for the conflict to be militarized. It is too late now.
     
    The conflict should've been stomped out in the very early stages. However, Russia intervened in a very aggressive manner (what Surkov was doing is already extremely hostile and aggressive, not to mention things like Ilovaisk). The problem is that there are objectively, what they call, irreconcilable differences that go historically way back to the times of Kievan Rus'.

    And what they are doing right now - trying to eradicate a whole nation of 40 million in the middle of Central Europe, is more scandalous than they realize. Not to mention difficult. They have completely entangled themselves and now can't get out. Someone should help them in fact, but I think it is only the Armed forces of Ukraine who can do it.

    Replies: @Beckow

  349. let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it.

    I used to hold this belief until recently. It is commonly held among many right wingers…

    I suggest you get back to that belief….:) Not allowing the free expression of one’s views is a denial of our existence: harm more pernicious than anything done by airing them. There are always reasons: wars, ethnic pride, economic damage. But it is usually only stupid sensitivity and self-esteem.

    I am not a right-winger, whatever that means. I am generally conservative, but on economy we need strong uniform social policies – guarantees. Life is too complex to function well without it. I dislike Russian and other oligarchies – all over the world, not just in Russia, Ukraine is full of them. The war has weakened Russian oligarchs – not enough. It usually is blood above money, one only benefit of having a war…

    West has enough on its own to survive and live well without having to “march on Moscow” – it doesn’t make economic sense for the West. The West prefers to wait it out – the Russians will destroy themselves on their own.

    They usually do every hundred years or so, but Nato couldn’t wait. The West can get by without the cheaper Russian resources – but the living standards will be lower than they would be otherwise: larger portion of the actual output will go up in price, that is inevitable and is already happening. We may end up with the worst of both worlds: more pricey resources and also a lost war in Ukraine.

    If the West had behaved normally and treated Russia as having legitimate interests, we would have no war and a livable compromise in Ukraine: no Nato and normal rights for the Russian minority. This was a catastrophic miscalculation – it is slowly dawning on everyone, listen carefully to how the coverage is changing.

    Russia was supposed to be a peer only to the US or some kind of a Western coalition, not Ukraine.

    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq…the regional geography matters and today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy – Nato was more willing to do it and openly fought its wars like that, Russia is so far more moderate. They are peers – you just don’t like to look at your own side critically.

    Ukraine has acquired subjectivity, agency. From now on, they will be a competitor to Russia

    I agree, but it was happening anyway. The war is shrinking Ukraine as the Russian competitor – we have more noisy, angrier, assertive but smaller and weaker Ukraine. The precedent has been set for Russia to keep Ukraine in check by superior force. Russia has internally normalized fighting and killing their Ukie ‘brothers’ – not good for what will remain of Ukraine. Kiev should have avoided militarizing the conflict and they would prevail over time. It is too late now.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Beckow

    Wow, it published it twice...:) sorry

    , @John Johnson
    @Beckow

    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq…the regional geography matters and today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy

    I don't see how.

    The Afghanistan Taliban lost nearly all of their territory in a year. How would that be a decisive defeat? America pulled the plug on the project because it was too expensive and the Afghan guard wouldn't fight without US air support. I didn't support how Trump/Biden handled it but it wasn't a military defeat. The defeat was in creating an independent Afghanistan. The mistake was pushing too hard on Western values. They should have returned the monarchy and found a middle ground with Islam. Afghanistan was actually safer for US troops than the US homeland. This is because they were more likely to be killed in an auto accident in the US. Strange but true.

    Iraq is a functioning democracy and Saddam's military was defeated. How is that a decisive defeat?

    Syria - The US hasn't launched a war against Syria. They currently hold a corner with about 900 soldiers. There was never some massive force that tried to topple Assad. The US along with a few other countries took a section during the civil war to protect the Kurds. Judge the situation however you like but that isn't a decisive defeat. There was never a war involving the US.

    Vietnam - Definitely a loss but did not involve NATO. It was an Anglosphere/SE Asian alliance.

    Replies: @Beckow

  350. @Beckow

    let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it.

    I used to hold this belief until recently. It is commonly held among many right wingers...
     
    I suggest you get back to that belief....:) Not allowing the free expression of one's views is a denial of our existence: harm more pernicious than anything done by airing them. There are always reasons: wars, ethnic pride, economic damage. But it is usually only stupid sensitivity and self-esteem.

    I am not a right-winger, whatever that means. I am generally conservative, but on economy we need strong uniform social policies - guarantees. Life is too complex to function well without it. I dislike Russian and other oligarchies - all over the world, not just in Russia, Ukraine is full of them. The war has weakened Russian oligarchs - not enough. It usually is blood above money, one only benefit of having a war...


    West has enough on its own to survive and live well without having to “march on Moscow” – it doesn’t make economic sense for the West. The West prefers to wait it out – the Russians will destroy themselves on their own.
     
    They usually do every hundred years or so, but Nato couldn't wait. The West can get by without the cheaper Russian resources - but the living standards will be lower than they would be otherwise: larger portion of the actual output will go up in price, that is inevitable and is already happening. We may end up with the worst of both worlds: more pricey resources and also a lost war in Ukraine.

    If the West had behaved normally and treated Russia as having legitimate interests, we would have no war and a livable compromise in Ukraine: no Nato and normal rights for the Russian minority. This was a catastrophic miscalculation - it is slowly dawning on everyone, listen carefully to how the coverage is changing.


    Russia was supposed to be a peer only to the US or some kind of a Western coalition, not Ukraine.
     
    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq...the regional geography matters and today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy - Nato was more willing to do it and openly fought its wars like that, Russia is so far more moderate. They are peers - you just don't like to look at your own side critically.

    Ukraine has acquired subjectivity, agency. From now on, they will be a competitor to Russia
     
    I agree, but it was happening anyway. The war is shrinking Ukraine as the Russian competitor - we have more noisy, angrier, assertive but smaller and weaker Ukraine. The precedent has been set for Russia to keep Ukraine in check by superior force. Russia has internally normalized fighting and killing their Ukie 'brothers' - not good for what will remain of Ukraine. Kiev should have avoided militarizing the conflict and they would prevail over time. It is too late now.

    Replies: @Beckow, @John Johnson

    Wow, it published it twice…:) sorry

  351. @Sean
    @John Johnson

    Ukraine defied Russia, and in an act of aggression Russia invaded? You betcha!


    Do explain since the plan was to take the entire country. How could the aims escalate?
     
    By killing and destroying instead of capturing. Only by decimating Ukraine can Russia re-establish its status as a conventional great power. Russia has lost respect and self confidence, so they are going to demand fear. And what happens to Ukraine will be the example.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Ukraine defied Russia, and in an act of aggression Russia invaded? You betcha!

    How could they defy Russia? Defied implies authority. Russia was not in charge of Ukraine.

    Putin told us that the war was about NATO.

    Ukraine was not in the process of applying to NATO and in fact NATO recently reiterated that they aren’t able to join with a static border.

    By killing and destroying instead of capturing. Only by decimating Ukraine can Russia re-establish its status as a conventional great power. Russia has lost respect and self confidence, so they are going to demand fear. And what happens to Ukraine will be the example.

    So Russia now needs to kill both ethnic Ukrainians and Russians to save face?

    You are right that Russia has lost respect but increasing violence against civilians will not reestablish their previous status.

    Every Ukrainian city has a Russian minority. Quite a pickle isn’t it?

    The best move Putin can make for Russia is to hang himself. Commit seppuku and take as much shame as possible with his death. Leave a reformer in charge and not another angry dwarf like Medvedev.

    Of course that won’t happen as Putin is a shameless psychopath and will try to grind down the Ukrainians in a defensive war and then hope that he can walk with Donbas and Crimea. In fact at this point I think he would be happy with the current lines which represents about 60% of Donbas. I think he would also give up the nuclear plans and coal basin under some type of lease agreement. That would also include giving up Zaporizhzhia Oblast which was never part of the LPR/DPR.

  352. @Beckow

    let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it.

    I used to hold this belief until recently. It is commonly held among many right wingers...
     
    I suggest you get back to that belief....:) Not allowing the free expression of one's views is a denial of our existence: harm more pernicious than anything done by airing them. There are always reasons: wars, ethnic pride, economic damage. But it is usually only stupid sensitivity and self-esteem.

    I am not a right-winger, whatever that means. I am generally conservative, but on economy we need strong uniform social policies - guarantees. Life is too complex to function well without it. I dislike Russian and other oligarchies - all over the world, not just in Russia, Ukraine is full of them. The war has weakened Russian oligarchs - not enough. It usually is blood above money, one only benefit of having a war...


    West has enough on its own to survive and live well without having to “march on Moscow” – it doesn’t make economic sense for the West. The West prefers to wait it out – the Russians will destroy themselves on their own.
     
    They usually do every hundred years or so, but Nato couldn't wait. The West can get by without the cheaper Russian resources - but the living standards will be lower than they would be otherwise: larger portion of the actual output will go up in price, that is inevitable and is already happening. We may end up with the worst of both worlds: more pricey resources and also a lost war in Ukraine.

    If the West had behaved normally and treated Russia as having legitimate interests, we would have no war and a livable compromise in Ukraine: no Nato and normal rights for the Russian minority. This was a catastrophic miscalculation - it is slowly dawning on everyone, listen carefully to how the coverage is changing.


    Russia was supposed to be a peer only to the US or some kind of a Western coalition, not Ukraine.
     
    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq...the regional geography matters and today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy - Nato was more willing to do it and openly fought its wars like that, Russia is so far more moderate. They are peers - you just don't like to look at your own side critically.

    Ukraine has acquired subjectivity, agency. From now on, they will be a competitor to Russia
     
    I agree, but it was happening anyway. The war is shrinking Ukraine as the Russian competitor - we have more noisy, angrier, assertive but smaller and weaker Ukraine. The precedent has been set for Russia to keep Ukraine in check by superior force. Russia has internally normalized fighting and killing their Ukie 'brothers' - not good for what will remain of Ukraine. Kiev should have avoided militarizing the conflict and they would prevail over time. It is too late now.

    Replies: @Beckow, @John Johnson

    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq…the regional geography matters and today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy

    I don’t see how.

    The Afghanistan Taliban lost nearly all of their territory in a year. How would that be a decisive defeat? America pulled the plug on the project because it was too expensive and the Afghan guard wouldn’t fight without US air support. I didn’t support how Trump/Biden handled it but it wasn’t a military defeat. The defeat was in creating an independent Afghanistan. The mistake was pushing too hard on Western values. They should have returned the monarchy and found a middle ground with Islam. Afghanistan was actually safer for US troops than the US homeland. This is because they were more likely to be killed in an auto accident in the US. Strange but true.

    Iraq is a functioning democracy and Saddam’s military was defeated. How is that a decisive defeat?

    Syria – The US hasn’t launched a war against Syria. They currently hold a corner with about 900 soldiers. There was never some massive force that tried to topple Assad. The US along with a few other countries took a section during the civil war to protect the Kurds. Judge the situation however you like but that isn’t a decisive defeat. There was never a war involving the US.

    Vietnam – Definitely a loss but did not involve NATO. It was an Anglosphere/SE Asian alliance.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @John Johnson


    ...Afghanistan wasn’t a military defeat.
     
    So the Russian 'withdrawal' in 1989 also wasn't a defeat? Or do you have two sets of rules?

    When you invade a country, lose thousands of soldiers and trillion $'s - then you withdraw or "run away", your local allies get massacred - that is the very definition of a lost war. Thou protest too much...


    Syria: that isn’t a decisive defeat.
     
    But a defeat nevertheless. Obama after winning Nobel peace price, invaded a country with Nato armed and trained allies, declared that "Assad must go!", bombed a few places - and then? The local allies lost, US withdrew into a small corner, Assad stayed. Maybe not decisive, but a defeat.

    Iraq was a loss: US was pushed out and the investment in lives and treasure resulted in no gain: Iraq is now a major ally of Iran. Libya was just a mess. And the attack on Serbia - the original sin - led to more harm than good, I am not sure US would do it again.

    In these unnecessary wars Nato allies were with US. You have a mental block when it comes to using language in the same way about yourself as you do about others. It is narcissism: mental condition that never leads to anything good, although it is often pleasant to live in - until it is not. You can't bring yourself to call spade a spade when it is your side - or a loss a loss. 10-year olds often do that too...:)

    Replies: @John Johnson

  353. @A123
    @Mikhail


    Do you really think that Russian [strategy] on the SMO is at all concerned about the 2024 US presidential election?
     
    ===========================
    First learn to become invincible,
        then wait for your enemy's
          moment of vulnerability.
     
          Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    ===========================

    It is solid strategy for Putin to:

    Stay on defense in the short run -- While not literally invincible, Kiev aggression is losing 7:1. Even if it is only 5:1 that is not sustainable. Really, there is no math that works for Zelensky's forces.

    Wait for vulnerability in the long run -- America is moving on to other issues. The 'next' package for Kiev aggression has already been cut in half, and still cannot clear the U.S. House. Ukraine fatigue is very real and the 🇺🇦fad🇺🇦 is ending.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    P.S. I swapped [strategy] for [strategery] in your quote. I do not think you were intending to compare Putin to GW Bush.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Stay on defense in the short run — While not literally invincible, Kiev aggression is losing 7:1. Even if it is only 5:1 that is not sustainable. Really, there is no math that works for Zelensky’s forces.

    And what is the source for those ratios?

    You do acknowledge that MacGregor told us last year that according to his “inside sources” the Ukrainians were out of men? He said very clearly that they were using old men and teenagers.

    The ‘next’ package for Kiev aggression has already been cut in half, and still cannot clear the U.S. House. Ukraine fatigue is very real and the 🇺🇦fad🇺🇦 is ending.

    Well I guess they only get about 100 F-16s then from various countries. That and at least 50 tanks are on the way. Ukraine is actually not out of MiGs as many assume.

    So nothing to worry about, right? Should be wrapped up soon?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    What's the rush? De-Nazification takes time.

    , @LatW
    @John Johnson

    Have you heard about the Ukrainian domestic missile called Neptune? They are modifying it right now, building it, might be something serious if it's a success.

  354. @Beckow
    @LatW


    let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it.

    I used to hold this belief until recently. It is commonly held among many right wingers...
     
    I suggest you get back to that belief....:) Not allowing the free expression of one's views is a denial of their existence: harm much more pernicious than anything done by airing them. There are always reasons: wars, ethnic pride, economic damage. It is usually stupid peoples' sensitivity and self-esteem.

    I am not a right-winger, whatever that means. I am conservative, but on economy we need strong and uniform social policies - basic guarantees. Life is too complex to function well without them. I dislike Russian (and other) oligarchies - they are all over the world, not just in Russia, Ukraine is full of them. The war has weakened the Russian oligarchs - but not enough. It usually is blood above money, maybe the only benefit of having a war...

    West has enough on its own to survive and live well without having to “march on Moscow” – it doesn’t make economic sense for the West. The West prefers to wait it out – the Russians will destroy themselves on their own.
     
    They usually do every hundred years or so, but Nato just couldn't wait. The West can get by without the cheaper Russian resources - but the living standards will drop: larger portion of the actual output will go up in price, it is inevitable and is already happening. We may end up with the worst of both worlds: more pricey resources and a lost war in Ukraine.

    If the West had behaved normally and treated Russia as having legitimate interests, we would have no war and a livable compromise in Ukraine: no Nato and normal rights for the Russian minority. This was a catastrophic miscalculation - and slowly dawning on everyone, just listen carefully to how the coverage is slowly changing.

    Russia was supposed to be a peer only to the US or some kind of a Western coalition, not Ukraine.
     
    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq...the regional geography matters and today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy - actually Nato was openly more willing to do it and fought its wars like that, Russia is so far more moderate. They are peers - you just don't like to look at your own side critically.

    Ukraine has acquired subjectivity, agency. From now on, they will be a competitor to Russia
     
    I agree, but it was happening anyway. The war is shrinking Ukraine as the Russian competitor - we have more noisy, angrier, assertive but smaller and weaker Ukraine. The precedent has been set for Russia to keep Ukraine in check by superior force. Russia has internally normalized fighting and killing their Ukie 'brothers' - that is not good for whatever remains in the rump-Ukraine. They should have avoided for the conflict to be militarized. It is too late now.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @LatW

    today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy

    Rwanda certainly took a manly run at it.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    Rwanda certainly took a manly run at it.
     
    It seems also Somalia and Sudan. They are either more manly, or it is still like that in Africa...
  355. @John Johnson
    @Beckow

    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq…the regional geography matters and today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy

    I don't see how.

    The Afghanistan Taliban lost nearly all of their territory in a year. How would that be a decisive defeat? America pulled the plug on the project because it was too expensive and the Afghan guard wouldn't fight without US air support. I didn't support how Trump/Biden handled it but it wasn't a military defeat. The defeat was in creating an independent Afghanistan. The mistake was pushing too hard on Western values. They should have returned the monarchy and found a middle ground with Islam. Afghanistan was actually safer for US troops than the US homeland. This is because they were more likely to be killed in an auto accident in the US. Strange but true.

    Iraq is a functioning democracy and Saddam's military was defeated. How is that a decisive defeat?

    Syria - The US hasn't launched a war against Syria. They currently hold a corner with about 900 soldiers. There was never some massive force that tried to topple Assad. The US along with a few other countries took a section during the civil war to protect the Kurds. Judge the situation however you like but that isn't a decisive defeat. There was never a war involving the US.

    Vietnam - Definitely a loss but did not involve NATO. It was an Anglosphere/SE Asian alliance.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …Afghanistan wasn’t a military defeat.

    So the Russian ‘withdrawal’ in 1989 also wasn’t a defeat? Or do you have two sets of rules?

    When you invade a country, lose thousands of soldiers and trillion $’s – then you withdraw or “run away”, your local allies get massacred – that is the very definition of a lost war. Thou protest too much…

    Syria: that isn’t a decisive defeat.

    But a defeat nevertheless. Obama after winning Nobel peace price, invaded a country with Nato armed and trained allies, declared that “Assad must go!”, bombed a few places – and then? The local allies lost, US withdrew into a small corner, Assad stayed. Maybe not decisive, but a defeat.

    Iraq was a loss: US was pushed out and the investment in lives and treasure resulted in no gain: Iraq is now a major ally of Iran. Libya was just a mess. And the attack on Serbia – the original sin – led to more harm than good, I am not sure US would do it again.

    In these unnecessary wars Nato allies were with US. You have a mental block when it comes to using language in the same way about yourself as you do about others. It is narcissism: mental condition that never leads to anything good, although it is often pleasant to live in – until it is not. You can’t bring yourself to call spade a spade when it is your side – or a loss a loss. 10-year olds often do that too…:)

    • Agree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Beckow


    Afghanistan wasn’t a military defeat.
     
    So the Russian ‘withdrawal’ in 1989 also wasn’t a defeat? Or do you have two sets of rules?

    The Soviets failed to defeat the Taliban. They were under attack even during the withdrawal.

    The Americans defeated the Taliban on the battlefield but were unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan.

    Call it what you want but that wouldn't be a decisive military defeat. In the later years the Taliban had in fact developed a strategy of avoiding attacks on the US military. They were too costly. That is why they would use suicide attacks against border points. They switched back to terrorism tactics like kidnapping Afghan forces and torturing them to send a message.


    Syria: that isn’t a decisive defeat.
     
    But a defeat nevertheless.

    You said it was a military defeat when there was no battle. What was the defeat? They have 900 troops that occasionally conduct attacks on Muslim extremists. It's strange situation but not a war. US and Syrian backed Russian troops have played war games with each other.

    Obama after winning Nobel peace price, invaded a country with Nato armed and trained allies, declared that “Assad must go!”, bombed a few places – and then?

    There was never a declared goal of removing Assad or a plan to invade the entire country. A civil war erupted and the US took a section along with a dozen other countries. Obama mumbling about what he would like is not a battle plan and a few bombing runs are practically the US norm for the middle east.
    There are only 900 US troops in Syria and there have been no major engagements. If you disagree then list the largest battle and US losses. You won't find anything past a couple special forces operations.

    Iraq was a loss: US was pushed out and the investment in lives and treasure resulted in no gain: Iraq is now a major ally of Iran.

    You could argue that it wasn't worth the effort but the US was not defeated militarily.

    The US was invited back to help defeat ISIL and then left.

    Saddam was removed and Iraq is a functioning democracy. Extremists did not take over the government as many pessimists predicted.

    In these unnecessary wars Nato allies were with US.

    You incorrectly called them NATO-US wars. NATO in fact as an organization rejected Bush's request for assistance on Iraq. They did however take part in Afghanistan as 9-11 was considered an attack on a member country. NATO was not involved in Vietnam and in fact there were member nations that were against involvement. The Vietnam war was not a Euro/US endeavor as many incorrectly assume.

    You have a mental block when it comes to using language in the same way about yourself as you do about others.

    You used the term decisive military defeat which connotates a defeat by the opposing military. A battle in Syria didn't even occur. Please use more accurate language and study involvement of NATO in wars of the past.

    Replies: @Beckow

  356. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Beckow


    today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy
     
    Rwanda certainly took a manly run at it.

    Replies: @Beckow

    Rwanda certainly took a manly run at it.

    It seems also Somalia and Sudan. They are either more manly, or it is still like that in Africa…

  357. @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Russia was in fact changing prior to WW I without Bolshes and in a way that conformed with how major Western powers were gradually changing to policies considered more acceptable in the present day.

    I'm glad to know Balts, Poles, Ukrainians and Finns who don't drink the Russia hating BS.

    Replies: @LatW

    Russia was in fact changing prior to WW I without Bolshes

    Again, we’re not talking about how the Empire was changing in general (very slowly compared to the European powers of that time). We are talking about the late 19th century early 20th century Russification policies, a very concrete thing. Stolypin himself did this, the great reformer.

    I’m glad to know Balts, Poles, Ukrainians and Finns who don’t drink the Russia hating BS.

    You live in your head.

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Right back at you with your projection. The changes in Russia weren't so behind the times back then. I gave Ireland as an example. I suspect you'll go on believing what you want to.

  358. Battle of the Nations
    Germany Bulgaria

    [MORE]

  359. @sudden death
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5GOXc9aYAAfbu-.jpg

    https://twitter.com/FIBAWC/status/1698298101289930897

    Replies: @LatW

    Insanely awesome. Lithuania beat the USA.

    And we beat Spain. Spain, the basketball superpower. And we didn’t even have Zinga on the field who is our best player.

    I’m so stunned my head is still spinning. This is the best batch of players ever, ever (with all due respect to the past heroes!). Dream teams, both of them.

    ❤️❤️❤️

    Btw, we got bronze in the world Hockey championship. Which is pretty insane, too.

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @sudden death
    @LatW

    Mood today;)

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5G7rHRXkAA-A5H.jpg

    https://twitter.com/ESPNNBA/status/1698354231374127483

    Replies: @LatW, @Emil Nikola Richard

    , @silviosilver
    @LatW


    And we didn’t even have Zinga on the field
     
    "On the field," lol. Not a longtime basketball fan, I take it.

    Most pleasing to me so far is "France"(aka Africa-in-Europe) being eliminated early.

    Replies: @LatW

    , @Mikhail
    @LatW


    Btw, we got bronze in the world Hockey championship. Which is pretty insane, too.
     
    Credit to the International Ice Hockey Federation, which s a PC, Cancel Culture,Woke org, along the lines of World Athletics.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/05072023-cancel-the-2024-paris-summer-olympics-idea-oped/

    Granted, still not a bad performance, even with the hypocritically bigoted discrimination (c/o NATO/EU) flacks that made the process easier.

    Replies: @LatW

  360. @John Johnson
    @A123

    Stay on defense in the short run — While not literally invincible, Kiev aggression is losing 7:1. Even if it is only 5:1 that is not sustainable. Really, there is no math that works for Zelensky’s forces.

    And what is the source for those ratios?

    You do acknowledge that MacGregor told us last year that according to his "inside sources" the Ukrainians were out of men? He said very clearly that they were using old men and teenagers.

    The ‘next’ package for Kiev aggression has already been cut in half, and still cannot clear the U.S. House. Ukraine fatigue is very real and the 🇺🇦fad🇺🇦 is ending.

    Well I guess they only get about 100 F-16s then from various countries. That and at least 50 tanks are on the way. Ukraine is actually not out of MiGs as many assume.

    So nothing to worry about, right? Should be wrapped up soon?

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW

    What’s the rush? De-Nazification takes time.

  361. @songbird
    What I think is weird about the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind is how the film treats family.

    I have often thought Hollywood doesn't know how to write family. They just leave it out, or make people orphans, or give them adverserial or bad relationships. When they do depict lots of kids, they turn the noise level up, to the point where you'd need a Tylenol. Close Encounters does the last, to start with.

    The main protoganist played by Dreyfuss abandons his family to go off with aliens. In the process, kissing another woman.

    The other woman appears to be a single mom. Her five year old son was stolen by aliens, literally ripped out of her hands. But somehow, though she is chasing them and technically looking for him, she is always smiling at the spectacle and doesn't seem too bothered by it.

    The aliens themselves often display less intelligence than a golden retriever. Making a mess of the woman's fridge. Causing all sorts of wide-ranging electrical problems. Giving radiation burns to Dreyfuss. Flying over winding mountain highways They have apparently kidnapped many people in the past, without giving a fart, and letting relativity meaning decades have gone by, aging their family and friends.

    It's a very strange film for these and other reasons. Spielberg had the short aliens played by fifty 6y.o. girls because he thought they moved more gracefully than boys. Perhaps, it is true, but it shows a weird amount of consideration against the many non-sequitors, or other shortfalls of the film.

    The aliens don't choose any of the people selected by the government. They choose Dreyfuss, who ran off from his family and, who they gave radiation burns to.

    I don't know what to put the strangeness down to. Some quasi-religiousness that often marks this subject. Is it because it is targeted toward UFO enthusiasts - fit to their psych profiles? Or was Speilberg among them?

    Or is it the fact that the '70s were when morality really started to fall apart. At least, in the top down fashion of message.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @silviosilver

    Very few Spielberg films can survive a second viewing, most over hyped director.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @LondonBob

    I think it was a career mistake for him to do Schindler's List and Amistad.

    Sure, those were critical hits at the time, and he is still a huge success, but those are films they force people to watch in school. And once you are forced to watch them, then it's hard not to see his other stuff with a much more critical eye.

    Also, he really had some big budgets, and it is hard to live up to that. A lot of his hits seem to have at least one grating thing in them, like the girl in Jurassic Park who knows Unix.

    On a dollar basis, and with an eye to avoiding subversion, I think the rather modest Duel (originally a TV movie, I think) is probably his best film. I don't remember anything particularly grating about it, but he didn't write it. Of course, it probably counts as that special genre of progressive horror where a city dweller goes into the countryside, but since it was filmed near LA, the country is very arid and alien-feeling, so it is hard to see it as it was probably meant to be - showcasing rural Americans as dumb and evil.

  362. @John Johnson
    @LatW

    I think for Crimea, what they want to do is take out all the depots and other military assets and then just give the Russians a period of time to leave. Don’t know how feasible this is, but I’ve heard them talk that way.

    I think it makes sense to cut the land bridges and then launch occasional special forces and drone attacks.

    What’s messed up is that these people don’t even have it that bad but they still turned against America. They’re just bitter.

    The bitterness is unreal.

    I imagine them mostly as White conservatives posting from large suburban houses. I would bet that a lot of them have a gay kid or mulatto grandkids. So living in comfort but angry at the world. We have a guy in town whose very pretty daughter went Black and he is pissed off 365 days a year. He can't even force a smile on Christmas. I could totally see him cheering Putin even though it changes nothing in the US.

    Replies: @LatW

    I think it makes sense to cut the land bridges and then launch occasional special forces and drone attacks.

    There is a chance to keep the place relatively intact with just diversionary attacks, surgical strikes, drones, long range missiles (they won’t be able to use a Western missile probably, but they might have their own), the problem is that there are a lot of assets there, something like 200-300 sites. The place is beautiful, so it would be a shame if they chose to go in there frontally (and it would be very costly in terms of men). Not sure if that is even possible. I know that the Crimean guerillas are buying these sporty looking rubber boats. I can’t picture what they would do with them, but then again Ukrainians were able to cross Dnipro. These people are very inventive and they know the terrain very well, it is their home where they grew up.

    I think that if there is visible progress, then there will be more weapons’ deliveries. Usually that’s how it works, the better things go, the more one gets.

    I imagine them mostly as White conservatives posting from large suburban houses.

    Hm, I don’t know about that, those types are typically quite pro-American, but there could be exceptions.

    Well, in that last example you provide about someone’s daughter – that is indeed serious and a good enough reason to be disappointed. But I doubt that’s how most of them are, most of them probably have white families (or half Asian) or are divorced or never married. Which is nothing to be judgemental about, things are not easy these days. The family part may not be the most important. It must be a character thing. People like Anglin, he would be problematic in any country or any society if he acted that way. Frankly, I don’t think he could survive Russia for too long if he had been native there – the women folk would throw him out as some “loser”. Russian women can be very harsh that way (they are not as supplicating as is believed).

    You know, I don’t even mind that they exist with those beliefs, what I object to is a belief that it is ok to wage a very dirty war and yet get away with it. As in, not answer for it. And also to move borders so randomly and with such ease and then act non-chalant about it “Oh, it’s ours now, we put it in the constitution”. “It’s with us forever now!” Er… no, it’s not. The real owner can come back any time!

    I mean there’s gotta be other ways to fight “globalists” except for cheering and endorsing this kind of stuff. It’s just that those other ways are hard and require real work.

  363. Amused that people on here are confused about NATO’s purpose, NATO’s purpose is to make each member a vassal of the United States, once you join the rainbow flags go up and American corporations move in. There is no clearer example of this than Germany, occupied since the war.

    • Replies: @A123
    @LondonBob

    NATO’s purpose is to make each member a vassal of the Berlin led European Empire. Once you join the Islamophile cult, rainbow flags go up and multinational SJW globalist corporations move in. There is no clearer example of this than German banks, including the German dominated ECB in Frankfurt.

    The European WEF is an annual display of Euro dominance. North American puppets go on pilgrimage to Davos, Switzerland where they receive orders from their imperial masters.

    Berlin has the best military deal ever. They do not carry their defense commitments and are heavily subsidized by America. The U.S. should pull 100% out of its troops out of the German caliphate. How many can be based in Hungary?

    It would be entertaining if Trump's 2nd term made overtures of joining the BRICS group to escape German €uro currency entanglements.

    PEACE 😇

  364. Sadly Dr Robert John died many years ago now but his work remains of great interest, so thoroughly suppressed. He was friends with Major General JFC Fuller and Benjamin H Freedman during his life.

    https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v7n2/TOQV7N2John.pdf

    https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html

    http://truedemocracy.net/td-18/09.html

  365. @LondonBob
    Amused that people on here are confused about NATO's purpose, NATO's purpose is to make each member a vassal of the United States, once you join the rainbow flags go up and American corporations move in. There is no clearer example of this than Germany, occupied since the war.

    Replies: @A123

    NATO’s purpose is to make each member a vassal of the Berlin led European Empire. Once you join the Islamophile cult, rainbow flags go up and multinational SJW globalist corporations move in. There is no clearer example of this than German banks, including the German dominated ECB in Frankfurt.

    The European WEF is an annual display of Euro dominance. North American puppets go on pilgrimage to Davos, Switzerland where they receive orders from their imperial masters.

    Berlin has the best military deal ever. They do not carry their defense commitments and are heavily subsidized by America. The U.S. should pull 100% out of its troops out of the German caliphate. How many can be based in Hungary?

    It would be entertaining if Trump’s 2nd term made overtures of joining the BRICS group to escape German €uro currency entanglements.

    PEACE 😇

  366. @Beckow
    @LatW


    let’s have an absolute free speech, insults and everything that comes with it.

    I used to hold this belief until recently. It is commonly held among many right wingers...
     
    I suggest you get back to that belief....:) Not allowing the free expression of one's views is a denial of their existence: harm much more pernicious than anything done by airing them. There are always reasons: wars, ethnic pride, economic damage. It is usually stupid peoples' sensitivity and self-esteem.

    I am not a right-winger, whatever that means. I am conservative, but on economy we need strong and uniform social policies - basic guarantees. Life is too complex to function well without them. I dislike Russian (and other) oligarchies - they are all over the world, not just in Russia, Ukraine is full of them. The war has weakened the Russian oligarchs - but not enough. It usually is blood above money, maybe the only benefit of having a war...

    West has enough on its own to survive and live well without having to “march on Moscow” – it doesn’t make economic sense for the West. The West prefers to wait it out – the Russians will destroy themselves on their own.
     
    They usually do every hundred years or so, but Nato just couldn't wait. The West can get by without the cheaper Russian resources - but the living standards will drop: larger portion of the actual output will go up in price, it is inevitable and is already happening. We may end up with the worst of both worlds: more pricey resources and a lost war in Ukraine.

    If the West had behaved normally and treated Russia as having legitimate interests, we would have no war and a livable compromise in Ukraine: no Nato and normal rights for the Russian minority. This was a catastrophic miscalculation - and slowly dawning on everyone, just listen carefully to how the coverage is slowly changing.

    Russia was supposed to be a peer only to the US or some kind of a Western coalition, not Ukraine.
     
    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq...the regional geography matters and today no country can go completely nuts and simply exterminate the enemy - actually Nato was openly more willing to do it and fought its wars like that, Russia is so far more moderate. They are peers - you just don't like to look at your own side critically.

    Ukraine has acquired subjectivity, agency. From now on, they will be a competitor to Russia
     
    I agree, but it was happening anyway. The war is shrinking Ukraine as the Russian competitor - we have more noisy, angrier, assertive but smaller and weaker Ukraine. The precedent has been set for Russia to keep Ukraine in check by superior force. Russia has internally normalized fighting and killing their Ukie 'brothers' - that is not good for whatever remains in the rump-Ukraine. They should have avoided for the conflict to be militarized. It is too late now.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @LatW

    Not allowing the free expression of one’s views is a denial of their existence: harm much more pernicious than anything done by airing them.

    Theoretically, I would agree, but this is also a privilege that you have in a reasonably homogenous society, maybe even a pluralistic one, with various views and backgrounds, but one where there is still some core consensus about the basic self-preservation of the place. Once you start having very diverse societies like now, or large “minorities” that have been artificially created by empires, and who are helped from outside, and who have diametrically opposite interests to the core population, then the price for free speech becomes very high. And the issue of justice also becomes more relevant.

    I didn’t change my view out of fear – for me it is always – bring it on! But I worry about the weak. It will usually be the weak who will suffer when there is social strife and instability. Much more so war.

    By the way, have you noticed what Russia has done with speech lately? Would you argue the same for Russia? Let it be like the 1990s there? They themselves fear it badly.

    [MORE]

    I am not a right-winger

    You are not really a right winger in my book, I meant in general people who have those beliefs, also some folks on this forum, libertarian right wingers (or American style), not fascists. The fascists want order, not craziness.

    I dislike Russian (and other) oligarchies – they are all over the world, not just in Russia, Ukraine is full of them.

    Oh, oligarchies are terrible and so unfair. There might be little oligarchies in the States, too. Although we can argue where simple (even if gigantic) wealth concentration turn into an oligarchy.

    The post-Soviet oligarchies are a complete disgrace. And to think that they are still around! Of course, you have to differentiate if there is someone in there who is at least somewhat self-made, it is a bit grey there that way. But the Russian oligarchs are absolutely awful – they helped build the system, lived off of it and now act like they have nothing to do with it, walking the streets of London. We don’t even know how much money the Kovalchuk types have in the Kremlin. And people like Kabaevac (people who simply spread their legs, too, need to have a sense of limits and some kind of a self reflection!). Of course, the elite should be affluent, but not like that.

    And Ukraine will have a ton of work to do if they want to change those things, they have immense vulnerability. The country may be too large to control, but they have to find a way to do it. There are systems that can be put in place and safe guarded. Their cross is way too heavy.

    The West can get by without the cheaper Russian resources – but the living standards will drop: larger portion of the actual output will go up in price, it is inevitable and is already happening.

    Of course, the war is very damaging, it would’ve been much better without it, but the overall living standard issue has to do with more than just the war. It might be a result of very intense globalization that took place over the last couple of decades and also the money printing. Didn’t they dump a trillion dollars into the market during Covid? I may be wrong.

    Nato just couldn’t wait

    Well, NATO was just waiting and probing, they were not going to take in Ukraine in the shape it was in prior to the war. Only when Ukraine showed backbone, was when the West started accepting Ukraine. Those are the cruel laws of Nature, the weak are despised, the strong are admired. So sad…

    This is not the historic Russia as it used to be but a much more weakened one. They now have to deal with the world not as an Empire, as it used to be, but pretty much on their own. And some people even argue that it is still not fully “decolonized”.

    We may end up with the worst of both worlds: more pricey resources and a lost war in Ukraine.

    Several scenarios are possible. But again, there may be a global resource crunch taking place. Maybe with China slowing down it will subside a bit.

    If the West had behaved normally and treated Russia as having legitimate interests, we would have no war and a livable compromise in Ukraine: no Nato and normal rights for the Russian minority.

    The problem is that we no longer live in the 19th (or even 20th) centuries where some big country has “legitimate interests” in another, smaller country or groups of countries. Even very large states have to “woo” midsize states. You can argue that Russia has legitimate interests in her vicinity, but I can argue that Ukraine, the Baltics and others have legitimate interests to be left alone and their internal policies to be respected. Russia does not have “legitimate” rights to control our space. These kinds of things need to be resolved in an amicable manner, without crazy entitlement that is based on their past glories. And from our side without pettiness, but with real ability and more muscle to solve these problems.

    The Russian speakers are not a traditional minority – they are a geopolitical weapon. When they turn into a traditional minority, the way that the Old Believers are, then they will be treated with the kind of respect that the Old Believers are treated with. In the meantime, the innocent will suffer which only makes it worse.

    In Donbas it is more complicated, and most Donbassers are essentially victims of much larger forces that destroyed their lives.

    just listen carefully to how the coverage is slowly changing.

    The coverage is changing because it’s been almost 2 years and there is fatigue. By the way, some of the coverage is faulty or based on mistaken assumptions, there is a lot of careless coverage. What matters is not just the coverage (that would be the least important element), what matters is the actual support. The current US administration decided to withhold the most vital parts of support against the desire of the American people and the Congress. But the Europeans are still helping and the Ukrainians have been building their own capacity.

    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq

    Those are somewhat different wars. Expeditionary wars, I guess. The war in Ukraine is a war of independence that is fought by locals with the support of a coalition of 50 states. This is a war fought by Ukraine, not the US or NATO.

    The war is shrinking Ukraine as the Russian competitor

    That a genocidal war of invasion is shrinking a country is somehow a surprise? Or somehow not a crime?

    The shrinkage would’ve happened anyway as they gained subjectivity – it is part of the nation building, although very sad and a bit wasteful. I think that deep down they were always competitors since Kiev and Muscovy times… Muscovy devoured its competitors (sometimes in an Asiatic manner).

    The precedent has been set for Russia to keep Ukraine in check by superior force.

    It is not over yet. But if this kind of thing is now “acceptable” in Europe (it isn’t), then one needs to prepare the children very very carefully to live in that kind of a world. That changes everything then.

    Russia has internally normalized fighting and killing their Ukie ‘brothers’ – that is not good for whatever remains in the rump-Ukraine.

    Russia has changed immensely, by killing Ukrainians they are only hurting themselves. They will turn into a petty state. It is no wonder, everyone post-USSR decided to be that way, so they did, too. (Although it is possible to build something more seemly.)

    But becoming a nation state also means you need to dump the imperial hubris and start living for yourself. You can try grabbing something but do not whine when you will get smacked back! Those people are fighting for their existence.

    They should have avoided for the conflict to be militarized. It is too late now.

    The conflict should’ve been stomped out in the very early stages. However, Russia intervened in a very aggressive manner (what Surkov was doing is already extremely hostile and aggressive, not to mention things like Ilovaisk). The problem is that there are objectively, what they call, irreconcilable differences that go historically way back to the times of Kievan Rus’.

    And what they are doing right now – trying to eradicate a whole nation of 40 million in the middle of Central Europe, is more scandalous than they realize. Not to mention difficult. They have completely entangled themselves and now can’t get out. Someone should help them in fact, but I think it is only the Armed forces of Ukraine who can do it.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @LatW


    Would you argue the same for Russia?
     
    Yes. They also don't listen to me...:)

    We never need free speech more than in a war - things get polarized and bloody, it is more important to know all angles, views, potential solutions. Not less. Unfortunately the natural tendency is to restrict speech during wars.


    The Russian speakers are not a traditional minority...
     
    Riiight...and we are home...:) "they are not like the others, they plot and are arrogant", right? How about the Chinese in Indonesia not a "traditional minority" - they were murdered in the 60's, Tutsis in Rwanda, Jews everywhere, etc...these are not "traditional minorities", so anything is allowed? Is that your argument? That is a slippery slope.

    What if one day someone decides that the Balts are not a "traditional minority"? The silly SS marching, leaders who grew in US-Canada, weird language (?), and the women are just too pale...


    That a genocidal war of invasion is shrinking a country is somehow a surprise?
     
    It doesn't look genocidal, Kiev and Lviv have not been flattened, the life goes on - compare it to the pUS-Nato wars: massive bombing killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, blowing up water supplies..."shock-and-awe". Do you think that the West can do it, but others must obey the rules the West preaches?

    It is not over yet....Russia has changed immensely, by killing Ukrainians they are only hurting themselves. They will turn into a petty state.
     
    Correct. But it is risky to predict the changes it will bring. Right now the hurt ones are predominantly the Ukies. And "pettyness" by Russia - I see it too - looks like a response to the endless pettyness by the West toward them.

    trying to eradicate a whole nation of 40 million in the middle of Central Europe, is more scandalous than they realize. Not to mention difficult. They have completely entangled themselves and now can’t get out.
     
    They are not, they are trying to keep Nato out and protect the Russian minority in Ukraine. They offered for years a pretty good deal how to accomplish it, Kiev-West refused. Now they are methodically dismantling Ukraine, there is no way to know how far they will go. There are fewer than 30 million Ukies still living in the Kiev controlled territory - and thousands are dying every week.

    You hoping for a miracle or an internal collapse in Russia. But usually what happens is more mundane and ordinary: the stronger force prevails, the larger army wins, the defeated find a way to live with it. By far the most likely outcome is a rump-Ukraine between 50-75% of it former size, with 25-30 million people, some deal with EU, no Nato, and lots and lots of regrets.

    The fact that many in Russia will also have regrets doesn't compensate - why would you care? It is like drinking poison and hoping that the other person will die. Lets' grow up - this maudlin escapism only leads to more bad decisions. Do you want an escalation to hell?

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

  367. @John Johnson
    @A123

    Stay on defense in the short run — While not literally invincible, Kiev aggression is losing 7:1. Even if it is only 5:1 that is not sustainable. Really, there is no math that works for Zelensky’s forces.

    And what is the source for those ratios?

    You do acknowledge that MacGregor told us last year that according to his "inside sources" the Ukrainians were out of men? He said very clearly that they were using old men and teenagers.

    The ‘next’ package for Kiev aggression has already been cut in half, and still cannot clear the U.S. House. Ukraine fatigue is very real and the 🇺🇦fad🇺🇦 is ending.

    Well I guess they only get about 100 F-16s then from various countries. That and at least 50 tanks are on the way. Ukraine is actually not out of MiGs as many assume.

    So nothing to worry about, right? Should be wrapped up soon?

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW

    Have you heard about the Ukrainian domestic missile called Neptune? They are modifying it right now, building it, might be something serious if it’s a success.

  368. @LatW
    @sudden death

    Insanely awesome. Lithuania beat the USA.

    And we beat Spain. Spain, the basketball superpower. And we didn't even have Zinga on the field who is our best player.

    I'm so stunned my head is still spinning. This is the best batch of players ever, ever (with all due respect to the past heroes!). Dream teams, both of them.

    ❤️❤️❤️

    Btw, we got bronze in the world Hockey championship. Which is pretty insane, too.

    Replies: @sudden death, @silviosilver, @Mikhail

    Mood today;)


    [MORE]

    • Replies: @LatW
    @sudden death

    Ah, incredible. I love the Lithuanian team, they are so huge, tall and massive, yet so lithe and technical. That's what did it, because the USA were betting on the small but hyper technical ones, yet the big Lithuanian ones are way technical!

    Stogas nuvažiuoja!

    Can't wait for what's next.

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @sudden death

    When they asked Porzingis how he got so tall he attributed it to Latvian potatoes.

    https://www.si.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_xy_center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1200%2Cx_2594%2Cy_1069/MTk5MDE2Mjc2MjA5NzA2NzY5/usatsi_19582806.jpg

    Replies: @LatW

  369. You people have been arguing minor differences between Balto Slavs for a decade now.

    Give it a fucking rest – all of you were better off under East Iranic rule.

    Seriously, stfu and get a life.

    [MORE]

    https://twitter.com/Kharkuu96/status/1698235840374116384

    ਅਕਾਲ

    • Agree: Vajradhara
    • Replies: @sudden death
    @Sher Singh


    You people have been arguing minor differences between Balto Slavs for a decade now
     
    Says the one who been arguing minor differences between Sikhs and Hindus for the same decade or two, all of you were better off under muslim Mughal rule anyway, so better post something about horse polo with swords or whatever is the national sport called in that minor part of India;)

    On a more serious note, regarding horses, recently there was one quite brave sounding statement made about allegedly unique horse burial practice found only in eastern Lithuania:


    "Burying people in barrows was a tradition in eastern Lithuania that lasted for a thousand years, from the 3rd to the 13th centuries. But what is very interesting and unique is that in the barrows there were separate places where exclusively horses were buried without a warrior, a horse owner. There are no other nations or tribes in which barrows are made only for horses. Usually, a horse is buried as an attribute of a warrior, and what we see in eastern Lithuania is unique. All this means that there must have been more barrows in this place. Usually, there are also human burials next to the horse barrows, but it seems that they were destroyed by later processes, such as the clearing of fields due to deforestation or agricultural activities," says the Vilnius university lecturer enthusiastically.
     
    https://www.kernave.lt/naujienos/vu-istorijos-fakulteto-archeologai-tyrineja-unikalu-laidojimo-objekta-salia-kernaves/

    Replies: @LatW, @Sher Singh

  370. @sudden death
    @LatW

    Mood today;)

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5G7rHRXkAA-A5H.jpg

    https://twitter.com/ESPNNBA/status/1698354231374127483

    Replies: @LatW, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Ah, incredible. I love the Lithuanian team, they are so huge, tall and massive, yet so lithe and technical. That’s what did it, because the USA were betting on the small but hyper technical ones, yet the big Lithuanian ones are way technical!

    Stogas nuvažiuoja!

    Can’t wait for what’s next.

  371. @sudden death
    @LatW

    Mood today;)

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5G7rHRXkAA-A5H.jpg

    https://twitter.com/ESPNNBA/status/1698354231374127483

    Replies: @LatW, @Emil Nikola Richard

    When they asked Porzingis how he got so tall he attributed it to Latvian potatoes.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    When they asked Porzingis how he got so tall he attributed it to Latvian potatoes.
     
    He might be on to something - he's Curonian (from Kurland on the West Coast) and the way they make their potatoes there is they make a very rich mashed potato dish with a ton of cream, milk and dill. Also a ton of fish in their cuisine (probably more than other regions, historically).

    I have my own pet theories - his family name is easy to pin to a specific area and that area is quite close to where the Curonian nobility used to live in secluded free villages - the Teutonic invaders allowed some Curonian noble families to keep their land and operate freely on their own. So they were more affluent. But it could just be a genetic thing, he's an outlier even for "tall" countries. His brother is also over 2 meters and there is another brother who is just "normal" tall.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  372. @LatW
    @sudden death

    Insanely awesome. Lithuania beat the USA.

    And we beat Spain. Spain, the basketball superpower. And we didn't even have Zinga on the field who is our best player.

    I'm so stunned my head is still spinning. This is the best batch of players ever, ever (with all due respect to the past heroes!). Dream teams, both of them.

    ❤️❤️❤️

    Btw, we got bronze in the world Hockey championship. Which is pretty insane, too.

    Replies: @sudden death, @silviosilver, @Mikhail

    And we didn’t even have Zinga on the field

    “On the field,” lol. Not a longtime basketball fan, I take it.

    Most pleasing to me so far is “France”(aka Africa-in-Europe) being eliminated early.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @silviosilver


    “On the field,” lol. Not a longtime basketball fan, I take it.
     
    Hahaha, on the "court", of course. Sorry for my lousy English. In my language it is just field for all sports - including tennis. lol

    Oh, and I don't really follow the NBA (occasional Eurobasket is more my cup of tea) - I only watch my little Zinga highlights and then I'm done! So I don't even know the basketball terms in English (I've watched it in my language all my life).


    Most pleasing to me so far is “France”(aka Africa-in-Europe) being eliminated early.
     
    I know... disgrace.

    (btw, just between you and I - thanks for putting the pajeet in his place, that's one of the reasons I wanted you to come back because he was talking some major trash to me a while back and I wanted someone to spank him back real hard which only you can do, so much appreciated).

    Replies: @silviosilver

  373. @sudden death
    Was hopeful that Israel is truly hardcore apartheid state as advertised with full concrete hard borders, but it's seems so full of Africans that African riots for some reason are already happening there, lol

    https://twitter.com/Terror_Alarm/status/1697953194540675399

    Replies: @A123, @songbird, @A123

    Follow up on the Tel Aviv riots. (1)

    Israel is on the migrant route from Africa to Europe. Many of the migrants who make it to Israel don’t actually leave. Parts of Tel Aviv have been taken over by migrants and gangs who have their own no-go zones.

    Why don’t you know about it? Because nobody wants to talk about it. The media generally isn’t interested in covering it except when it occasionally reports on pro-migrant leftist protests and the pro-Israel camp tends to repeat the stuff that the establishment puts out which is ignoring the problem. The people suffering from the massive illegal alien migrant population are the ones living in poorer parts of Tel Aviv.

    May Golan, a longtime activist from South Tel Aviv against the illegal alien takeover, has placed the blame on the leftist justices of the Supreme Court. As did Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

    “In the Saturday riots, which were only the promo for what awaits us if we do not return the infiltrators to their countries of origin, there is only one responsible: the High Court. For years we have been warning, for years the High Court has prevented any action that would allow the infiltrators to be returned to their homes. That is precisely why we are leading the reforms in the judicial system that will allow elected officials to make decisions and carry them out for the citizens of Israel, their safety and security,” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said on Saturday night.

    This is why judicial reform is so urgent.

    Could the need to rein in the out of control Temporary High Court be any more clear?

    It is akin to the “sanctuary city” problem here in the U.S. If the illegals cannot be sent home they should be relocated to areas opposing judicial reform, especially those where judges reside.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.frontpagemag.com/israels-illegal-alien-problem-explodes-with-tel-aviv-riot/

  374. @Sher Singh
    You people have been arguing minor differences between Balto Slavs for a decade now.

    Give it a fucking rest - all of you were better off under East Iranic rule.

    Seriously, stfu and get a life.


    https://twitter.com/Kharkuu96/status/1698235840374116384

    https://twitter.com/sa_ndhu_/status/1698408246820708502?s=20

    ਅਕਾਲ

    Replies: @sudden death

    You people have been arguing minor differences between Balto Slavs for a decade now

    Says the one who been arguing minor differences between Sikhs and Hindus for the same decade or two, all of you were better off under muslim Mughal rule anyway, so better post something about horse polo with swords or whatever is the national sport called in that minor part of India;)

    On a more serious note, regarding horses, recently there was one quite brave sounding statement made about allegedly unique horse burial practice found only in eastern Lithuania:

    “Burying people in barrows was a tradition in eastern Lithuania that lasted for a thousand years, from the 3rd to the 13th centuries. But what is very interesting and unique is that in the barrows there were separate places where exclusively horses were buried without a warrior, a horse owner. There are no other nations or tribes in which barrows are made only for horses. Usually, a horse is buried as an attribute of a warrior, and what we see in eastern Lithuania is unique. All this means that there must have been more barrows in this place. Usually, there are also human burials next to the horse barrows, but it seems that they were destroyed by later processes, such as the clearing of fields due to deforestation or agricultural activities,” says the Vilnius university lecturer enthusiastically.

    https://www.kernave.lt/naujienos/vu-istorijos-fakulteto-archeologai-tyrineja-unikalu-laidojimo-objekta-salia-kernaves/

    • Replies: @LatW
    @sudden death

    This is very cool info, thanks. Kernave is a special place and very beautiful.

    By the way, some chronicles mention instances of horse divination (hippomancy). They would place a spear on the ground and then lead a white horse over it and they would decide things based on which foot the horse made the step first. The horse of Destiny. Apparently the Iranians also practiced hippomancy.

    Of course, the horse was perceived as an intermediary in the Baltic culture, and Ašvieniai are the divine twins (like the Vedic Ashvins).

    They're going to study these horse ritual deposits now:

    https://www.thebonezproject.co.uk/overview

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Arturs_Baumanis_Likte%C5%86a_zirgs_1887.jpg

    Replies: @LatW, @Mr. XYZ

    , @Sher Singh
    @sudden death

    There's no Hindus here nor an argument that Khalsa (Sikhs) are paramount among Hindus.
    Both the UK & Scottish PMs are from that minor part of India.

    Idk what rando EE ethnicity you are but let's put it like this:
    There's dozens of countries where Sikhs are better armed on the street than police.

    ਅਕਾਲ

  375. @Beckow
    @John Johnson


    ...Afghanistan wasn’t a military defeat.
     
    So the Russian 'withdrawal' in 1989 also wasn't a defeat? Or do you have two sets of rules?

    When you invade a country, lose thousands of soldiers and trillion $'s - then you withdraw or "run away", your local allies get massacred - that is the very definition of a lost war. Thou protest too much...


    Syria: that isn’t a decisive defeat.
     
    But a defeat nevertheless. Obama after winning Nobel peace price, invaded a country with Nato armed and trained allies, declared that "Assad must go!", bombed a few places - and then? The local allies lost, US withdrew into a small corner, Assad stayed. Maybe not decisive, but a defeat.

    Iraq was a loss: US was pushed out and the investment in lives and treasure resulted in no gain: Iraq is now a major ally of Iran. Libya was just a mess. And the attack on Serbia - the original sin - led to more harm than good, I am not sure US would do it again.

    In these unnecessary wars Nato allies were with US. You have a mental block when it comes to using language in the same way about yourself as you do about others. It is narcissism: mental condition that never leads to anything good, although it is often pleasant to live in - until it is not. You can't bring yourself to call spade a spade when it is your side - or a loss a loss. 10-year olds often do that too...:)

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Afghanistan wasn’t a military defeat.

    So the Russian ‘withdrawal’ in 1989 also wasn’t a defeat? Or do you have two sets of rules?

    The Soviets failed to defeat the Taliban. They were under attack even during the withdrawal.

    The Americans defeated the Taliban on the battlefield but were unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan.

    Call it what you want but that wouldn’t be a decisive military defeat. In the later years the Taliban had in fact developed a strategy of avoiding attacks on the US military. They were too costly. That is why they would use suicide attacks against border points. They switched back to terrorism tactics like kidnapping Afghan forces and torturing them to send a message.

    Syria: that isn’t a decisive defeat.

    But a defeat nevertheless.

    You said it was a military defeat when there was no battle. What was the defeat? They have 900 troops that occasionally conduct attacks on Muslim extremists. It’s strange situation but not a war. US and Syrian backed Russian troops have played war games with each other.

    [MORE]

    Obama after winning Nobel peace price, invaded a country with Nato armed and trained allies, declared that “Assad must go!”, bombed a few places – and then?

    There was never a declared goal of removing Assad or a plan to invade the entire country. A civil war erupted and the US took a section along with a dozen other countries. Obama mumbling about what he would like is not a battle plan and a few bombing runs are practically the US norm for the middle east.
    There are only 900 US troops in Syria and there have been no major engagements. If you disagree then list the largest battle and US losses. You won’t find anything past a couple special forces operations.

    Iraq was a loss: US was pushed out and the investment in lives and treasure resulted in no gain: Iraq is now a major ally of Iran.

    You could argue that it wasn’t worth the effort but the US was not defeated militarily.

    The US was invited back to help defeat ISIL and then left.

    Saddam was removed and Iraq is a functioning democracy. Extremists did not take over the government as many pessimists predicted.

    In these unnecessary wars Nato allies were with US.

    You incorrectly called them NATO-US wars. NATO in fact as an organization rejected Bush’s request for assistance on Iraq. They did however take part in Afghanistan as 9-11 was considered an attack on a member country. NATO was not involved in Vietnam and in fact there were member nations that were against involvement. The Vietnam war was not a Euro/US endeavor as many incorrectly assume.

    You have a mental block when it comes to using language in the same way about yourself as you do about others.

    You used the term decisive military defeat which connotates a defeat by the opposing military. A battle in Syria didn’t even occur. Please use more accurate language and study involvement of NATO in wars of the past.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @John Johnson


    The Soviets failed to defeat the Taliban. They were under attack even during the withdrawal...
    The Americans defeated the Taliban on the battlefield but were unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan.
     
    Soviets left in 1989 and Taliban was created in the early 90's...:) Soviets controlled the cities and the government - exactly the same as US. Soviets withdrew in 1989 and the commie government in Kabul ruled until 1992, for 3 more years. It seems like a much better record than US...

    "Sustainable" Afghanistan is an escapist slogan for fools unable to face reality. No wonder you use it.


    There was never a declared goal of removing Assad... Obama mumbling about what he would like is not a battle plan
     
    Obama was the president - his demand that "Assad must go!" was the US policy. US armed the rebels, put its own forces and bombed Syria - then they lost. Decisive? That is in the eye of the beholder. But it was a loss.

    You could argue that Iraq wasn’t worth the effort but the US was not defeated militarily.
     
    You could argue that, but you would look like a fool. An enormous effort that led to nothing - US was effectively pushed out and Iran is the principal beneficiary. The inability to militarily control the conquered land and then having to leave is usually considered a defeat. But you are into palliatives, so you will deceive yourself.

    I used the term 'decisive defeat' after you used it first about the perceived "decisive" losses by Russia. If you want to redefine "decisive" as only something like Germany in WW2 then it works both ways. Your inability to be objective, to see things the same about your side and others is a form of mental disease. Read Ron Unz's front page piece today about where it leads - and how stupid it looks like to any outsider. Or do you enjoy being thought off as just too stupid to think critically?

    Replies: @Mikhail, @John Johnson

  376. @LondonBob
    @songbird

    Very few Spielberg films can survive a second viewing, most over hyped director.

    Replies: @songbird

    I think it was a career mistake for him to do Schindler’s List and Amistad.

    [MORE]

    Sure, those were critical hits at the time, and he is still a huge success, but those are films they force people to watch in school. And once you are forced to watch them, then it’s hard not to see his other stuff with a much more critical eye.

    Also, he really had some big budgets, and it is hard to live up to that. A lot of his hits seem to have at least one grating thing in them, like the girl in Jurassic Park who knows Unix.

    On a dollar basis, and with an eye to avoiding subversion, I think the rather modest Duel (originally a TV movie, I think) is probably his best film. I don’t remember anything particularly grating about it, but he didn’t write it. Of course, it probably counts as that special genre of progressive horror where a city dweller goes into the countryside, but since it was filmed near LA, the country is very arid and alien-feeling, so it is hard to see it as it was probably meant to be – showcasing rural Americans as dumb and evil.

  377. @songbird
    What I think is weird about the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind is how the film treats family.

    I have often thought Hollywood doesn't know how to write family. They just leave it out, or make people orphans, or give them adverserial or bad relationships. When they do depict lots of kids, they turn the noise level up, to the point where you'd need a Tylenol. Close Encounters does the last, to start with.

    The main protoganist played by Dreyfuss abandons his family to go off with aliens. In the process, kissing another woman.

    The other woman appears to be a single mom. Her five year old son was stolen by aliens, literally ripped out of her hands. But somehow, though she is chasing them and technically looking for him, she is always smiling at the spectacle and doesn't seem too bothered by it.

    The aliens themselves often display less intelligence than a golden retriever. Making a mess of the woman's fridge. Causing all sorts of wide-ranging electrical problems. Giving radiation burns to Dreyfuss. Flying over winding mountain highways They have apparently kidnapped many people in the past, without giving a fart, and letting relativity meaning decades have gone by, aging their family and friends.

    It's a very strange film for these and other reasons. Spielberg had the short aliens played by fifty 6y.o. girls because he thought they moved more gracefully than boys. Perhaps, it is true, but it shows a weird amount of consideration against the many non-sequitors, or other shortfalls of the film.

    The aliens don't choose any of the people selected by the government. They choose Dreyfuss, who ran off from his family and, who they gave radiation burns to.

    I don't know what to put the strangeness down to. Some quasi-religiousness that often marks this subject. Is it because it is targeted toward UFO enthusiasts - fit to their psych profiles? Or was Speilberg among them?

    Or is it the fact that the '70s were when morality really started to fall apart. At least, in the top down fashion of message.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @silviosilver

    Is what you mean by “strange” perhaps closer to “not believable”? That would be fair enough. Personally, I found it an interesting approach to make the aliens exude an irresistible attractive force to certain people whose brains were tuned to the right “frequency,” to the point it virtually drove them mad with desire. Kinda like the ancient Sirens causing sailors to jump overboard in pursuit of the alluring voices.

    As for the characters “abandoning” (more like ignoring) family members, is that really so weird for people in the throes of delusion or mad lust? So the Dreyfuss character kisses a woman who is not his wife – that’s not exactly unheard of among people, even in far more normal situations.

    I don’t see that Hollywood inadequately portrays families. Sometimes it’s done poorly, other times, very well, but on the whole, I wouldn’t regard it as a conspicuous failure. Family members sometimes really do have adversarial relations, kids often are unruly, and so on. In Close Encounters, a kid that won’t stop making a racket serves to depict Dreyfuss as a normal dad, facing normal family headaches who then has all the weird alien stuff happen to him that nothing in his life has really prepared him for. (The dumbest thing about that family is the kid who is supposed to be 8 easily looks 13.)

    so it is hard to see it as it was probably meant to be – showcasing rural Americans as dumb and evil.

    I think the only scene that had that effect was when he walks into the diner after being run off the road by the trucker. He’s treated extremely suspiciously by the manager and the other patrons, although he brought that on himself a little when he ignored the manager’s question of “what happened out there?”.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @silviosilver

    I don’t see that Hollywood inadequately portrays families. Sometimes it’s done poorly, other times, very well, but on the whole, I wouldn’t regard it as a conspicuous failure.

    Name your favorite movies of the last 10 years that have White parents that are mentally stable, have not cheated and like their children.

    Big budget movies and not indies.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @songbird
    @silviosilver


    Is what you mean by “strange” perhaps closer to “not believable”?
     
    In my rather ineloquent way, I meant to evoke something psychological, like culture clash. In watching it, I can't help but feel that it was meant to appeal to a certain mindset - perhaps, that of the UFO enthusiast - one that would overlook certain flaws, and find others appealing - and that I don't have the mindset.

    Personally, I think it would be bad if aliens landed. And I don't necessarily think they would be aggressive in a War of the Worlds way. They might have good intentions and still be a big problem.

    Kinda like the ancient Sirens causing sailors to jump overboard in pursuit of the alluring voices.
     
    Yes, I think this explains that ambush scene in Excalibur. The sword "wanted" to go into the stone, and so orchestrated the attack and even the lull letting Pendragon run for a bit. It amplified, turned off, or tuned down its attraction, as necessary. Perhaps, even creating a repelling force.

    As for the characters “abandoning” (more like ignoring) family members, is that really so weird for people in the throes of delusion or mad lust?
     
    Yes, it was his wife who left him and took the kids. (Though probably understandably) Technically, I think he was trying to get them to help him with his project. (One can ask, why he didn't just sketch a picture. Would have been less disruptive, if less dramatic) But the ending makes him seem rather cold to them. Or it makes the aliens seem cold, if they are willfully controlling him, or picking him, knowing that he has small kids.

    Personally, I had the suspicion that UFO-enthusiasts are r-selected, and more likely to get divorced or abandon their kids. But I could be wrong.

    I don’t see that Hollywood inadequately portrays families. Sometimes it’s done poorly, other times, very well, but on the whole, I wouldn’t regard it as a conspicuous failure.
     
    I think it is hard to write families. To juggle all the characters and/or dialogue.

    But layered on that hardness, I think is a lack of rootedness. (And it really shows in a variety of ways. For example, Japanese are often very good at depicting place, but not Hollywood.) Hollywood people are often those who moved away from their families or who work long hours away, or who get divorced four times.


    I think they have a lack of concern for depicting them positively, and that it really shows. After RotJ, Mark Hamill went on circuit telling people that he would come back years later as a father, teaching his kids. But when they brought him back, he had none and was a pathetic figure. Han Solo was estranged from Leia and ultimately killed by his own son, who was also estranged from him.

    My idea is that, looking at fertility collapse, we need more positive depictions of family, and that the people in Hollywood won't naturally change their message. ( Of course, it is also a problem in other places.)

    I think the only scene that had that effect was when he walks into the diner after being run off the road by the trucker. He’s treated extremely suspiciously by the manager and the other patrons, although he brought that on himself a little when he ignored the manager’s question of “what happened out there?”.
     
    Yes, it is just a snippet, really, and not an inexcusable one. Not immersive, probably due to the theme of the "duel" and the time constraints. But I think the predilection was there, and the flavor, even if it was a very weak one.

    They probably would have liked to shoot in the South, but didn't have the budget.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

  378. @silviosilver
    @songbird

    Is what you mean by "strange" perhaps closer to "not believable"? That would be fair enough. Personally, I found it an interesting approach to make the aliens exude an irresistible attractive force to certain people whose brains were tuned to the right "frequency," to the point it virtually drove them mad with desire. Kinda like the ancient Sirens causing sailors to jump overboard in pursuit of the alluring voices.

    As for the characters "abandoning" (more like ignoring) family members, is that really so weird for people in the throes of delusion or mad lust? So the Dreyfuss character kisses a woman who is not his wife - that's not exactly unheard of among people, even in far more normal situations.

    I don't see that Hollywood inadequately portrays families. Sometimes it's done poorly, other times, very well, but on the whole, I wouldn't regard it as a conspicuous failure. Family members sometimes really do have adversarial relations, kids often are unruly, and so on. In Close Encounters, a kid that won't stop making a racket serves to depict Dreyfuss as a normal dad, facing normal family headaches who then has all the weird alien stuff happen to him that nothing in his life has really prepared him for. (The dumbest thing about that family is the kid who is supposed to be 8 easily looks 13.)


    so it is hard to see it as it was probably meant to be – showcasing rural Americans as dumb and evil.
     
    I think the only scene that had that effect was when he walks into the diner after being run off the road by the trucker. He's treated extremely suspiciously by the manager and the other patrons, although he brought that on himself a little when he ignored the manager's question of "what happened out there?".

    Replies: @John Johnson, @songbird

    I don’t see that Hollywood inadequately portrays families. Sometimes it’s done poorly, other times, very well, but on the whole, I wouldn’t regard it as a conspicuous failure.

    Name your favorite movies of the last 10 years that have White parents that are mentally stable, have not cheated and like their children.

    Big budget movies and not indies.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @John Johnson

    I seldom watch blockbuster movies. I just checked the highest grossing 50 movies from the 2010s - I've only seen 4. But I'm quite sure you're right that there would few to no white parents of main characters who are well adjusted, "normal" and loving in these movies.

    But flawed parents and flawed families are obviously a human reality, and the frequency with which such families appear in movies is a different issue to the adequacy of the portrayals of such families. When these are portrayed in film, I personally don't really detect any glaring inadequacies. (Remember, songbird's charge was that Hollywood "doesn't know how" to do families, not "I'm sick and tired of Hollywood showing us broken families.")

    Replies: @John Johnson

  379. @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom also have the regional version of the H1b visa program. Hindu workers are quite common in the hi-tech industry in many countries.

    In London, there is the similar problem in terms of the distribution of wealth.

    https://i.imgur.com/ZtgZf4g.jpg

    As European Hindus are many times larger population than Jews, there is probably some of the explanation of the high level of Hindus in the politics in the anglophone countries. For example, the government of Great Britain and Republic of Ireland have leaders with Hindu parents currently. If Nikki Haley was President in the USA in 2025, there could be Indian origin political leaders of the majority of the anglophone world.

    Europe is different than America in terms of the universal healthcare. So, the health and the income is not matching the groups so much as in America.

    If you look at the life expectancy, groups with average lower economic levels like the immigrants from Pakistan, Africa, have higher life expediencies than white in the Kingdom.

    https://i.imgur.com/g5Jd66n.jpg

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/ethnicdifferencesinlifeexpectancyandmortalityfromselectedcausesinenglandandwales/2011to2014

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Maybe there’s something in their genes that allowed groups such as Black British and Pakistani British to live longer than White British even if they are, on average, duller than White British are. Hispanics in the US live longer than White Americans do in spite of Hispanics also being duller on average than White Americans are.

    I wonder who the working-class Indians in Western Europe are. Cooks, manual laborers, and the like?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    It's not related to if they are less interesting on average, more likely the other way round. United Kingdom has universal healthcare. With universal healthcare, the life expectancy differences between the groups could be less strongly associated to income of the groups in comparison with differences within the USA.

    Black Caribbean, Black African, Bangladesh and Pakistan populations in the Kingdom have higher life expectancy than the white population even while their income average is lower than the native population of Great Britain.

    You can assume Black/Asian populations in Northern Europe, have a difference in terms of diet or alcohol use compared to the indigenous people. This is likely the Black/Asian populations on average with relatively less industrialized food culture and lower use of alcohol.

    Black African origin people and Bangladesh origin people in the United Kingdom, have one of the highest life expectancies in the world, it's even higher than in Singapore or Monaco. Perhaps there is somekind of preventive medicine in the culture of Black African and Bangladesh origin people in Europe. For example, in terms of diet, exercise and alcohol/cigarette use. When this is in a developed country with universal medical system, the result is one of the highest life expectancy in the world.


    Hispanics in the US live longer than White Americans do in spite of Hispanics also being duller
     
    The situation of the stagnation of life expectancy in America since the late 20th century is one of main indicators which could show possible dysfunctional or a failed model of development in the USA in the last decades, at least in terms of the healthcare system.

    Stereotypically, journalists would indicate the problems of obesity, processed food, automobile culture, loss of the traditional food culture. But most of the anglophone countries have similar trends, while life expectancy continues to increase despite this.

    For example, the anglophone world didn't go into the stagnation of life expectancy. All of the non-American anglophones had been increasing in life expectancy in a stable way before the pandemic.

    https://i.imgur.com/ioyHNmG.jpg

    Life expectancy calculates discretely by year, so in the next years the life expectancy in the USA will be overestimated because of higher excess deaths by coronavirus.

  380. @sudden death
    Pig ban explaining variations;)

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5DRRzZWsAAswNT.jpg

    Replies: @songbird, @Mr. XYZ

    Judaism only bans pork if the pig is non-circumcised lol jk! 😉 😀

  381. @John Johnson
    @silviosilver

    I don’t see that Hollywood inadequately portrays families. Sometimes it’s done poorly, other times, very well, but on the whole, I wouldn’t regard it as a conspicuous failure.

    Name your favorite movies of the last 10 years that have White parents that are mentally stable, have not cheated and like their children.

    Big budget movies and not indies.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    I seldom watch blockbuster movies. I just checked the highest grossing 50 movies from the 2010s – I’ve only seen 4. But I’m quite sure you’re right that there would few to no white parents of main characters who are well adjusted, “normal” and loving in these movies.

    But flawed parents and flawed families are obviously a human reality, and the frequency with which such families appear in movies is a different issue to the adequacy of the portrayals of such families. When these are portrayed in film, I personally don’t really detect any glaring inadequacies. (Remember, songbird’s charge was that Hollywood “doesn’t know how” to do families, not “I’m sick and tired of Hollywood showing us broken families.”)

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @silviosilver

    But flawed parents and flawed families are obviously a human reality, and the frequency with which such families appear in movies is a different issue to the adequacy of the portrayals of such families.

    Families and especially White families in Hollywood movies are constantly depicted as neurotic, immoral, unsatisfied, unfaithful and filled with regret. The family itself is depicted as an emotional and financial burden.

    Do unstable families exist? Of course but they are massively overrepresented in Hollywood.

    Many here blame the Jews but there are just as many non-Jewish White writers that idealize being single and enjoy denigrating the American White family. Who else dreams of making it big in Hollywood? The average Hollywood dreamer is a degenerate. Normally adjusted people don't visit Hollywood and think.......gosh I'd really like to live here. The place is majorily f-cked up and odds are you won't make and will wait tables with everyone else. But the degenerate doesn't care because they never had hope for any satisfaction from family life. They assume that they will be as miserable as their parents. Hollywood is actually a land of bitter losers. They don't include that in the movies.

    I actually know someone that did well in Hollywood and it just turned him into a miserable asshole. He can't even enjoy his money on vacation. Half the time he is texting his work or trying to give us some Ted talk to feel important. I don't think he has any real friends in LA and can't seem to relax. That's a success story.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  382. @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Russia was in fact changing prior to WW I without Bolshes
     
    Again, we're not talking about how the Empire was changing in general (very slowly compared to the European powers of that time). We are talking about the late 19th century early 20th century Russification policies, a very concrete thing. Stolypin himself did this, the great reformer.

    I’m glad to know Balts, Poles, Ukrainians and Finns who don’t drink the Russia hating BS.
     
    You live in your head.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Right back at you with your projection. The changes in Russia weren’t so behind the times back then. I gave Ireland as an example. I suspect you’ll go on believing what you want to.

  383. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @sudden death

    When they asked Porzingis how he got so tall he attributed it to Latvian potatoes.

    https://www.si.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_xy_center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1200%2Cx_2594%2Cy_1069/MTk5MDE2Mjc2MjA5NzA2NzY5/usatsi_19582806.jpg

    Replies: @LatW

    When they asked Porzingis how he got so tall he attributed it to Latvian potatoes.

    He might be on to something – he’s Curonian (from Kurland on the West Coast) and the way they make their potatoes there is they make a very rich mashed potato dish with a ton of cream, milk and dill. Also a ton of fish in their cuisine (probably more than other regions, historically).

    I have my own pet theories – his family name is easy to pin to a specific area and that area is quite close to where the Curonian nobility used to live in secluded free villages – the Teutonic invaders allowed some Curonian noble families to keep their land and operate freely on their own. So they were more affluent. But it could just be a genetic thing, he’s an outlier even for “tall” countries. His brother is also over 2 meters and there is another brother who is just “normal” tall.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Three former Yugos - Serbia, Slovenia and Montenegro are still in it. Serbia plays Lithuania tomorrow (Monday).

    https://www.fiba.basketball/basketballworldcup/2023

  384. @LatW
    @sudden death

    Insanely awesome. Lithuania beat the USA.

    And we beat Spain. Spain, the basketball superpower. And we didn't even have Zinga on the field who is our best player.

    I'm so stunned my head is still spinning. This is the best batch of players ever, ever (with all due respect to the past heroes!). Dream teams, both of them.

    ❤️❤️❤️

    Btw, we got bronze in the world Hockey championship. Which is pretty insane, too.

    Replies: @sudden death, @silviosilver, @Mikhail

    Btw, we got bronze in the world Hockey championship. Which is pretty insane, too.

    Credit to the International Ice Hockey Federation, which s a PC, Cancel Culture,Woke org, along the lines of World Athletics.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/05072023-cancel-the-2024-paris-summer-olympics-idea-oped/

    Granted, still not a bad performance, even with the hypocritically bigoted discrimination (c/o NATO/EU) flacks that made the process easier.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikhail

    Russia not being there was a factor, but the Latvian team did very well, better than usual, since they beat some very strong teams. The credit is theirs and it is well deserved.

    I'm personally deeply pissed off that Russia is no longer there, since I've always loved Russian hockey very much, but this is all Putin's making. What they're doing is just too much.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  385. @silviosilver
    @LatW


    And we didn’t even have Zinga on the field
     
    "On the field," lol. Not a longtime basketball fan, I take it.

    Most pleasing to me so far is "France"(aka Africa-in-Europe) being eliminated early.

    Replies: @LatW

    “On the field,” lol. Not a longtime basketball fan, I take it.

    Hahaha, on the “court”, of course. Sorry for my lousy English. In my language it is just field for all sports – including tennis. lol

    Oh, and I don’t really follow the NBA (occasional Eurobasket is more my cup of tea) – I only watch my little Zinga highlights and then I’m done! So I don’t even know the basketball terms in English (I’ve watched it in my language all my life).

    Most pleasing to me so far is “France”(aka Africa-in-Europe) being eliminated early.

    I know… disgrace.

    [MORE]

    (btw, just between you and I – thanks for putting the pajeet in his place, that’s one of the reasons I wanted you to come back because he was talking some major trash to me a while back and I wanted someone to spank him back real hard which only you can do, so much appreciated).

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @LatW


    Hahaha, on the “court”, of course. Sorry for my lousy English. In my language it is just field for all sports – including tennis. lol
     
    It's the same in Serbo-Croatian too ("na terenu").

    Too bad about Latvia v Germany. A valiant effort that came up short.

    Can Serbia do it? Probably not vs USA, but should be able to get past Canada.

    (btw, just between you and I
     
    In this week's grammar nazi hour we point out that it's only "you and I" when you and I are the subject of the sentence; all other times, it's you and me. When you and I are doing something, it's you and I doing it. When something is done to us, it's done to you and me. This also holds for prepositions: between you and me, above, underneath, next to etc.

    Also, to Mikel, which may have been a typo ("i" and "o" are next to each other), it's insist on, not in.

    Replies: @LatW

  386. @Mikhail
    @LatW


    Btw, we got bronze in the world Hockey championship. Which is pretty insane, too.
     
    Credit to the International Ice Hockey Federation, which s a PC, Cancel Culture,Woke org, along the lines of World Athletics.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/05072023-cancel-the-2024-paris-summer-olympics-idea-oped/

    Granted, still not a bad performance, even with the hypocritically bigoted discrimination (c/o NATO/EU) flacks that made the process easier.

    Replies: @LatW

    Russia not being there was a factor, but the Latvian team did very well, better than usual, since they beat some very strong teams. The credit is theirs and it is well deserved.

    I’m personally deeply pissed off that Russia is no longer there, since I’ve always loved Russian hockey very much, but this is all Putin’s making. What they’re doing is just too much.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW


    Russia not being there was a factor, but the Latvian team did very well, better than usual, since they beat some very strong teams. The credit is theirs and it is well deserved.

     

    Belarus wasn't there as well. It's decent by world standards.


    I’m personally deeply pissed off that Russia is no longer there, since I’ve always loved Russian hockey very much, but this is all Putin’s making. What they’re doing is just too much.
     
    Putin has noting to do with this hypocritically bigoted action.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/05072023-cancel-the-2024-paris-summer-olympics-idea-oped/

    Excerpt -

    Ideally, politics should be kept out of sports as much as possible. The Olympic movement and numerous sports federations have been manipulated by individuals from EU and NATO countries, who’ve politically weaponized sports to conform with unfairly targeting Russia and closely related Belarus.

    As I’ve previously noted –

    Esteemed Ivy League academic Jeffrey Sachs factually said that since 1950, the US tops the chart when it comes to attacking other countries and killing civilians in the process. One comeback notes that the US wasn’t completely in the wrong in these campaigns.

    The same is definitely not less true of Russia regarding the situation in the former Ukrainian SSR. Anyone claiming otherwise is either terribly misinformed and/or a fraud.

    A rhetorical counter to the incessant Russia bashing notes that the Kiev regime is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22. Those arming it are culpable. Note the UK egging the Kiev regime to fight on and supplying that entity with cancer and birth deformity causing depleted uranium shells. It’s my understanding Russia no longer uses depleted uranium in its arsenal.

    On the subject of the UK (which seems more extreme in anti-Russian advocacy than the US), World Athletics is headed by Sebastian Coe, who supports his organization’s banning of Russians and Belarusians even under a so-called neutral status. During the apartheid era, the Wimbledon tennis elites didn’t ban white South Africans from competition, much unlike their discrimination levied against Russians and Belarusians.

    Russia isn’t the party which blatantly and admittedly violated the United Nations approved Minsk agreements. The same goes for the earlier internationally brokered power sharing arrangement for Ukraine. Multiple sources say that the UK’s Boris Johnson successfully swayed the Kiev regime from reaching a settlement to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. An advocacy in line with South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (recently booed in his home state) saying it’s worth fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

     

    In the post-Soviet era, Darius Kasparaitis represented Russia in international competition and is in the Soviet and Russian Hockey Hall of Fame:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_Kasparaitis

    One of the many innocent Russian athletes unjustly discriminated against:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Lasitskene

    She's Married to a Lithuanian-Russian journalist.

    Replies: @LatW

  387. @LatW
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    When they asked Porzingis how he got so tall he attributed it to Latvian potatoes.
     
    He might be on to something - he's Curonian (from Kurland on the West Coast) and the way they make their potatoes there is they make a very rich mashed potato dish with a ton of cream, milk and dill. Also a ton of fish in their cuisine (probably more than other regions, historically).

    I have my own pet theories - his family name is easy to pin to a specific area and that area is quite close to where the Curonian nobility used to live in secluded free villages - the Teutonic invaders allowed some Curonian noble families to keep their land and operate freely on their own. So they were more affluent. But it could just be a genetic thing, he's an outlier even for "tall" countries. His brother is also over 2 meters and there is another brother who is just "normal" tall.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Three former Yugos – Serbia, Slovenia and Montenegro are still in it. Serbia plays Lithuania tomorrow (Monday).

    https://www.fiba.basketball/basketballworldcup/2023

  388. @silviosilver
    @John Johnson

    I seldom watch blockbuster movies. I just checked the highest grossing 50 movies from the 2010s - I've only seen 4. But I'm quite sure you're right that there would few to no white parents of main characters who are well adjusted, "normal" and loving in these movies.

    But flawed parents and flawed families are obviously a human reality, and the frequency with which such families appear in movies is a different issue to the adequacy of the portrayals of such families. When these are portrayed in film, I personally don't really detect any glaring inadequacies. (Remember, songbird's charge was that Hollywood "doesn't know how" to do families, not "I'm sick and tired of Hollywood showing us broken families.")

    Replies: @John Johnson

    But flawed parents and flawed families are obviously a human reality, and the frequency with which such families appear in movies is a different issue to the adequacy of the portrayals of such families.

    Families and especially White families in Hollywood movies are constantly depicted as neurotic, immoral, unsatisfied, unfaithful and filled with regret. The family itself is depicted as an emotional and financial burden.

    Do unstable families exist? Of course but they are massively overrepresented in Hollywood.

    Many here blame the Jews but there are just as many non-Jewish White writers that idealize being single and enjoy denigrating the American White family. Who else dreams of making it big in Hollywood? The average Hollywood dreamer is a degenerate. Normally adjusted people don’t visit Hollywood and think…….gosh I’d really like to live here. The place is majorily f-cked up and odds are you won’t make and will wait tables with everyone else. But the degenerate doesn’t care because they never had hope for any satisfaction from family life. They assume that they will be as miserable as their parents. Hollywood is actually a land of bitter losers. They don’t include that in the movies.

    I actually know someone that did well in Hollywood and it just turned him into a miserable asshole. He can’t even enjoy his money on vacation. Half the time he is texting his work or trying to give us some Ted talk to feel important. I don’t think he has any real friends in LA and can’t seem to relax. That’s a success story.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @John Johnson

    Going back to your asking me to name my favorite movies of the last ten years, I hate it when people ask me questions like this. "What's your favorite song?" I never know what to answer. It's not as if I don't have any favorites, but I can just never think of them on the spot like that. But your question did get me wondering in which of my fave films could I honestly say there was a normal, basically decent white family being portrayed. I am really struggling to come up with examples!

    That's partly because I'm struggling to remember what my fave films actually are, and partly because they either don't feature families - in most cases, I would say understandably, given the plot - or because the families really are broken in some way. And this is even though a large number of my fave films date back to the 80s - a time when social standards had fallen enough to appall conservatives, but still a long way from the lows of the last decade.

    Movies I struggle with, but I can quickly think of some sitcoms I enjoyed from that era which featured intact, more or less happy white families: Growing Pains, Family Ties, ALF. Apart from some isolated episodes I have watched while visiting friends, I can't even remember the last time I regularly watched any sitcom. Probably have to go back to Seinfeld or Friends. (The former aren't nearly as funny as I remember them, and the latter I never followed all that closely.)

    Replies: @songbird, @John Johnson

  389. @Dmitry
    @AaronB


    question if this is true.

    The enhancement to feelings
     

    Alcohol has a u-shape relation with mortality in the individuals. But with groups it will generally lower life expectancy because of the negative effects for the proportion of people who drink more than two times per day. With cigarettes, there is only a negative relation. With coffee, it seems a more mixed result, where there is somekind of controversy if it is good or bad.

    Higher life expectancy of Seventh-Day and Mormons is an example of preventive medicine on the population level by banning of alcohol, cigarettes and coffee. The religious groups in America which don't ban alcohol and cigarettes don't have this effect of the higher life expectancy.


    one of the best predictors of long life is having lots of good friendships,

     

    It's possible, but it doesn't seem to predict the intra-country or inter-country differences. Look at the countries with the highest life expectancy in the world. They will be Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong. After industrialization, these societies become relatively more socially atomized, but the life expectancy is unprecented in world history for any human population, unless you believe the story of Methuselah.

    These are the the healthiest populations in world history, from the indicator of life expectancy, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong. But from the social perspective, they have quite a lot of issue with atomization compared to earlier historical epochs.

    Within countries, it is sometimes more socially non-traditional and atomized regions with the highest life expectancy. An example in the Kingdom, is central London has life expectancy of 88.


    pro-social attitudes encouraged by religion probably also enhance health in ways we can’t measure.
     
    Possibly it could be, but it's not significant in a way which would overide the differences of physical life style, healthcare etc.

    For example, Amish have one of the most high-demand religious cults in America. But they have lower access for healthcare and without the preventive medicine of Seventh-day and Mormons. They have life expectancy 7-8 years lower than the average in America.


    chronically angry and aggressive – exactly the opposite of the emotional states religion encourages one to cultivate.
     
    I'm not sure this is a reliable result of religion. You know, look at the situation in Jerusalem. The atmosphere of the city with the most religion is interesting and booming, but it is also often "chronically angry and aggressive".

    One of the ways religion seems to correspond to objective reality and the “does it work” heuristic employed by science better than secular attitudes, and why secularism may not be rational.
     
    These religious laws against the cigarettes, alcohol and coffee, would seem rational from the perspective of increasing life expectancy for the whole population level, if this is the priority.

    But these religions (Mormons, Seventh-day) are doing trade-off with the other parameters, so it's not necessarily the best result if you had some other priorities. Most people could be enjoying alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, although they might have a few less years.

    -
    I think we can also see some more subtle modifications for the behavior in the high life expectancy countries.

    In Italy, there is a traditional culture teaching the harmonization for alcohol, when the culture teaches to drink alcohol in a level which is still moderate.

    In Japan, they have something like this in relation for food, when the traditional culture is to eat small plates.

    In France, they have relatively strong government regulation for the food supply. So, the ingredients in the food supply might be higher quality or less polluted in France, in comparison with some of the other industrialized countries like America.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    These religious laws against the cigarettes, alcohol and coffee, would seem rational from the perspective of increasing life expectancy for the whole population level, if this is the priority.

    Higher life expectancy of Seventh-Day and Mormons is an example of preventive medicine on the population level by banning of alcohol, cigarettes and coffee. The religious groups in America which don’t ban alcohol and cigarettes don’t have this effect of the higher life expectancy.

    It should be noted that while Seventh-Day encourages a healthy lifestyle they do not have strict regulations like the Mormons. Seventh Day Adventists are more tolerant of caffeine but also discourage red meat. They mostly follow Kosher rules which means no pork of shellfish.

    Seventh-Day aren’t as strict as they used to be. In theory you can’t drink alcohol but in reality they want new members. They’re not going to flip out if they hear about how you had a couple beers on a camping trip. Mormons however could get a stern lecture over any rumor of drinking.

    Seventh Day are pretty tame. They aren’t deeply insular like Mormons or JWs.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson

    JWs = Jehovah's Witnesses, right?

  390. @sudden death
    @Sher Singh


    You people have been arguing minor differences between Balto Slavs for a decade now
     
    Says the one who been arguing minor differences between Sikhs and Hindus for the same decade or two, all of you were better off under muslim Mughal rule anyway, so better post something about horse polo with swords or whatever is the national sport called in that minor part of India;)

    On a more serious note, regarding horses, recently there was one quite brave sounding statement made about allegedly unique horse burial practice found only in eastern Lithuania:


    "Burying people in barrows was a tradition in eastern Lithuania that lasted for a thousand years, from the 3rd to the 13th centuries. But what is very interesting and unique is that in the barrows there were separate places where exclusively horses were buried without a warrior, a horse owner. There are no other nations or tribes in which barrows are made only for horses. Usually, a horse is buried as an attribute of a warrior, and what we see in eastern Lithuania is unique. All this means that there must have been more barrows in this place. Usually, there are also human burials next to the horse barrows, but it seems that they were destroyed by later processes, such as the clearing of fields due to deforestation or agricultural activities," says the Vilnius university lecturer enthusiastically.
     
    https://www.kernave.lt/naujienos/vu-istorijos-fakulteto-archeologai-tyrineja-unikalu-laidojimo-objekta-salia-kernaves/

    Replies: @LatW, @Sher Singh

    This is very cool info, thanks. Kernave is a special place and very beautiful.

    By the way, some chronicles mention instances of horse divination (hippomancy). They would place a spear on the ground and then lead a white horse over it and they would decide things based on which foot the horse made the step first. The horse of Destiny. Apparently the Iranians also practiced hippomancy.

    Of course, the horse was perceived as an intermediary in the Baltic culture, and Ašvieniai are the divine twins (like the Vedic Ashvins).

    They’re going to study these horse ritual deposits now:

    https://www.thebonezproject.co.uk/overview

    • Replies: @LatW
    @LatW

    So it looks like in this new project they may be able to figure out what color the buried horses used to be. If these horses turn out to be white, then that will be very meaningful (because that's the kind of horse they used for divination).

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW

    Kernave looks a bit like the Scottish Lowlands, no?

    Kernave:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Kernave_mounds_20200926.jpg/1280px-Kernave_mounds_20200926.jpg

    Scottish Lowlands:

    https://cdn.britannica.com/68/149068-004-CAB6EFD0/Farmland-Minishant-South-Ayrshire-Scot-Lowlands.jpg

  391. @LatW
    @Mikhail

    Russia not being there was a factor, but the Latvian team did very well, better than usual, since they beat some very strong teams. The credit is theirs and it is well deserved.

    I'm personally deeply pissed off that Russia is no longer there, since I've always loved Russian hockey very much, but this is all Putin's making. What they're doing is just too much.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Russia not being there was a factor, but the Latvian team did very well, better than usual, since they beat some very strong teams. The credit is theirs and it is well deserved.

    Belarus wasn’t there as well. It’s decent by world standards.

    I’m personally deeply pissed off that Russia is no longer there, since I’ve always loved Russian hockey very much, but this is all Putin’s making. What they’re doing is just too much.

    Putin has noting to do with this hypocritically bigoted action.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/05072023-cancel-the-2024-paris-summer-olympics-idea-oped/

    Excerpt –

    Ideally, politics should be kept out of sports as much as possible. The Olympic movement and numerous sports federations have been manipulated by individuals from EU and NATO countries, who’ve politically weaponized sports to conform with unfairly targeting Russia and closely related Belarus.

    As I’ve previously noted –

    Esteemed Ivy League academic Jeffrey Sachs factually said that since 1950, the US tops the chart when it comes to attacking other countries and killing civilians in the process. One comeback notes that the US wasn’t completely in the wrong in these campaigns.

    The same is definitely not less true of Russia regarding the situation in the former Ukrainian SSR. Anyone claiming otherwise is either terribly misinformed and/or a fraud.

    A rhetorical counter to the incessant Russia bashing notes that the Kiev regime is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22. Those arming it are culpable. Note the UK egging the Kiev regime to fight on and supplying that entity with cancer and birth deformity causing depleted uranium shells. It’s my understanding Russia no longer uses depleted uranium in its arsenal.

    On the subject of the UK (which seems more extreme in anti-Russian advocacy than the US), World Athletics is headed by Sebastian Coe, who supports his organization’s banning of Russians and Belarusians even under a so-called neutral status. During the apartheid era, the Wimbledon tennis elites didn’t ban white South Africans from competition, much unlike their discrimination levied against Russians and Belarusians.

    Russia isn’t the party which blatantly and admittedly violated the United Nations approved Minsk agreements. The same goes for the earlier internationally brokered power sharing arrangement for Ukraine. Multiple sources say that the UK’s Boris Johnson successfully swayed the Kiev regime from reaching a settlement to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. An advocacy in line with South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (recently booed in his home state) saying it’s worth fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

    In the post-Soviet era, Darius Kasparaitis represented Russia in international competition and is in the Soviet and Russian Hockey Hall of Fame:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_Kasparaitis

    One of the many innocent Russian athletes unjustly discriminated against:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Lasitskene

    She’s Married to a Lithuanian-Russian journalist.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Belarus wasn’t there as well. It’s decent by world standards.
     
    Belarus is quite strong by world standards, yes. I like their style and they also put a lot of work in their junior teams. But come on - we beat the Czech and Sweden, that's a huge deal.

    We've had many athletes play in Russia. The legendary coach Viktor Tikhonov was in Riga for a long time, his cute grandson, who is very talented and who plays for Phoenix Coyotes, was born in Riga.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  392. Zelensky appears to be trying hard to show something prior to his upcoming UN General Assembly appearance.

    Russian warplanes sink speedboats with Ukrainian landing force – Moscow
    https://www.rt.com/russia/582321-ukraine-speedboats-crimea-destroyed/

    The amphibious teams were reportedly headed for Crimea’s westernmost cape

    Russian warplanes have prevented yet another landing attempt by Ukrainian forces, destroying four US-made military speedboats and their crews in the Black Sea west of the Crimean Peninsula, the Defense Ministry said on Monday morning.

    Russian Black Sea Fleet naval aviation aircraft “destroyed four US-made Willard Sea Force high-speed military boats with landing groups of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” the military said.

    The landing force was reportedly heading towards Cape Tarkhankut, the westernmost part of the Crimean Peninsula, in yet another botched landing attempt, according to the ministry.

    Last week, Russian forces foiled several alleged Ukrainian landing attempts. Early Wednesday morning, the Russian military reported sinking “four military speedboats carrying a landing force of Ukrainian special operatives, numbering up to 50 men” at an undisclosed location in the Black Sea.

    Russian MOD claims destruction of Ukrainian landing force READ MORE: Russian MOD claims destruction of Ukrainian landing force

    Later in the day, a Russian Su-30 fighter jet had sunk a speedboat to the east of Snake Island, near the Ukrainian port of Odessa and close to Romanian territorial waters. A few hours later the same day, the ministry claimed the elimination of yet another Ukrainian motorboat by an Su-24 bomber west of the same island.

    Last month, the Defense Ministry also published footage of what it said was a Russian fighter jet destroying a US-made speedboat carrying a Ukrainian amphibious team near Snake Island.

  393. @Mikhail
    @LatW


    Russia not being there was a factor, but the Latvian team did very well, better than usual, since they beat some very strong teams. The credit is theirs and it is well deserved.

     

    Belarus wasn't there as well. It's decent by world standards.


    I’m personally deeply pissed off that Russia is no longer there, since I’ve always loved Russian hockey very much, but this is all Putin’s making. What they’re doing is just too much.
     
    Putin has noting to do with this hypocritically bigoted action.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/05072023-cancel-the-2024-paris-summer-olympics-idea-oped/

    Excerpt -

    Ideally, politics should be kept out of sports as much as possible. The Olympic movement and numerous sports federations have been manipulated by individuals from EU and NATO countries, who’ve politically weaponized sports to conform with unfairly targeting Russia and closely related Belarus.

    As I’ve previously noted –

    Esteemed Ivy League academic Jeffrey Sachs factually said that since 1950, the US tops the chart when it comes to attacking other countries and killing civilians in the process. One comeback notes that the US wasn’t completely in the wrong in these campaigns.

    The same is definitely not less true of Russia regarding the situation in the former Ukrainian SSR. Anyone claiming otherwise is either terribly misinformed and/or a fraud.

    A rhetorical counter to the incessant Russia bashing notes that the Kiev regime is a corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22. Those arming it are culpable. Note the UK egging the Kiev regime to fight on and supplying that entity with cancer and birth deformity causing depleted uranium shells. It’s my understanding Russia no longer uses depleted uranium in its arsenal.

    On the subject of the UK (which seems more extreme in anti-Russian advocacy than the US), World Athletics is headed by Sebastian Coe, who supports his organization’s banning of Russians and Belarusians even under a so-called neutral status. During the apartheid era, the Wimbledon tennis elites didn’t ban white South Africans from competition, much unlike their discrimination levied against Russians and Belarusians.

    Russia isn’t the party which blatantly and admittedly violated the United Nations approved Minsk agreements. The same goes for the earlier internationally brokered power sharing arrangement for Ukraine. Multiple sources say that the UK’s Boris Johnson successfully swayed the Kiev regime from reaching a settlement to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. An advocacy in line with South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (recently booed in his home state) saying it’s worth fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

     

    In the post-Soviet era, Darius Kasparaitis represented Russia in international competition and is in the Soviet and Russian Hockey Hall of Fame:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_Kasparaitis

    One of the many innocent Russian athletes unjustly discriminated against:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Lasitskene

    She's Married to a Lithuanian-Russian journalist.

    Replies: @LatW

    Belarus wasn’t there as well. It’s decent by world standards.

    Belarus is quite strong by world standards, yes. I like their style and they also put a lot of work in their junior teams. But come on – we beat the Czech and Sweden, that’s a huge deal.

    We’ve had many athletes play in Russia. The legendary coach Viktor Tikhonov was in Riga for a long time, his cute grandson, who is very talented and who plays for Phoenix Coyotes, was born in Riga.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Tikhonov being an ethnic Russian.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Tikhonov_(born_1930)

    Helmut Balderis, Arturs Irbe, Peter Skudra, Sandis Ozolinch and ethnic Slav (not sure if Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or any combo of the three) Sergei Zholtok among the Latvian greats. The Columbus Blue Jackets had two goalies on their roster at the same time. One of them tragically died.

    A pretty good tennis player/coach with Russian, Latvian and Ukrainian ties:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larisa_Neiland

    Replies: @LatW

  394. @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Belarus wasn’t there as well. It’s decent by world standards.
     
    Belarus is quite strong by world standards, yes. I like their style and they also put a lot of work in their junior teams. But come on - we beat the Czech and Sweden, that's a huge deal.

    We've had many athletes play in Russia. The legendary coach Viktor Tikhonov was in Riga for a long time, his cute grandson, who is very talented and who plays for Phoenix Coyotes, was born in Riga.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Tikhonov being an ethnic Russian.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Tikhonov_(born_1930)

    Helmut Balderis, Arturs Irbe, Peter Skudra, Sandis Ozolinch and ethnic Slav (not sure if Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or any combo of the three) Sergei Zholtok among the Latvian greats. The Columbus Blue Jackets had two goalies on their roster at the same time. One of them tragically died.

    A pretty good tennis player/coach with Russian, Latvian and Ukrainian ties:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larisa_Neiland

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikhail

    Oh, wow, you're well informed about hockey. Yes, those are the best. Ozolins was great (and Skrastins, too, but unfortunately he died in the awful Russian plane, he could've still shined in the KHL as a veteran player for a few years), and I'm glad you know Helmut Balderis, he's an absolute legend (he had a graceful technique, he had started out in figure skating as a kid). The new generation of goalies is good, too. There are many good ones now.

    Sergei Zholtok is well remembered.

    Larisa Neiland is a legendary coach and very well respected.

    And, yes, Tikhonov was the coach for Dynamo Riga for some years (with Balderis). And he was the coach for CSKA. The famous goalie Tretyak has a house in Latvia.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  395. @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Tikhonov being an ethnic Russian.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Tikhonov_(born_1930)

    Helmut Balderis, Arturs Irbe, Peter Skudra, Sandis Ozolinch and ethnic Slav (not sure if Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or any combo of the three) Sergei Zholtok among the Latvian greats. The Columbus Blue Jackets had two goalies on their roster at the same time. One of them tragically died.

    A pretty good tennis player/coach with Russian, Latvian and Ukrainian ties:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larisa_Neiland

    Replies: @LatW

    Oh, wow, you’re well informed about hockey. Yes, those are the best. Ozolins was great (and Skrastins, too, but unfortunately he died in the awful Russian plane, he could’ve still shined in the KHL as a veteran player for a few years), and I’m glad you know Helmut Balderis, he’s an absolute legend (he had a graceful technique, he had started out in figure skating as a kid). The new generation of goalies is good, too. There are many good ones now.

    Sergei Zholtok is well remembered.

    Larisa Neiland is a legendary coach and very well respected.

    And, yes, Tikhonov was the coach for Dynamo Riga for some years (with Balderis). And he was the coach for CSKA. The famous goalie Tretyak has a house in Latvia.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Don't rule out Dynamo Riga and Jokerit Helsinki rejoining the KHL at some point.

    Replies: @LatW

  396. @LatW
    @Mikhail

    Oh, wow, you're well informed about hockey. Yes, those are the best. Ozolins was great (and Skrastins, too, but unfortunately he died in the awful Russian plane, he could've still shined in the KHL as a veteran player for a few years), and I'm glad you know Helmut Balderis, he's an absolute legend (he had a graceful technique, he had started out in figure skating as a kid). The new generation of goalies is good, too. There are many good ones now.

    Sergei Zholtok is well remembered.

    Larisa Neiland is a legendary coach and very well respected.

    And, yes, Tikhonov was the coach for Dynamo Riga for some years (with Balderis). And he was the coach for CSKA. The famous goalie Tretyak has a house in Latvia.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Don’t rule out Dynamo Riga and Jokerit Helsinki rejoining the KHL at some point.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Don’t rule out Dynamo Riga [..] rejoining the KHL at some point.
     
    With a free Russia, hopefully. :)

    Replies: @Mikhail

  397. @AP
    @Dmitry


    non-Mormons in Utah are mostly not rural farmers but people like Mikel, who have moved to Utah for the purpose of hiking a lot in the spectacular nature. If such super-athletic people

    Salt Lake City is also a economic boom, so they probably have some middle professionals immigrating there.
     
    Ah yes, this too.

    So it makes sense if within Utah, the non-Mormons are mostly either rather wealthy professionals or fanatical outdoorsmen who have moved to Utah for the hiking, mountain hiking, skiing, etc. This is why within Utah, Mormons are more overweight.

    But Utah overall is the 4th thinnest state in the USA, so Mormons are thinner than most other Americans. I moved to the SW from the Midwest, so the Mormon even in the countryside seemed to be in much better shape than the rural folks I had been used to seeing.

    Episcopal Church is socially interesting, as it seems to develop as a high income Protestantism. Protestantism for WASPs who are part of the golf course?

     

    The Episcopal Church is the American offspring of the Anglican Church. It's the historical Church of the American elites - the poor Americans such as frontiersman farmers were Baptists or other more radical Protestants. After the American Revolution, the new Republic confiscated property from the Anglican Church and expelled priests loyal to the King back to England. The Church in the USA was reformed and renamed Episcopalian (an analogous process has happened in Ukraine with the Orthodox Church - the one loyal to Moscow has seen property transfers to the local non-Moscow one, treasonous priests have been detained, etc.).

    Because the Episcopal Church is full of rich people, it has in recent times succumbed to rich people fashions, such as having non-celibate gay bishops. In reaction, some Episcopalians have become Anglicans again, placing themselves under conservative African Anglican bishops rather than local American gay ones.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Because the Episcopal Church is full of rich people, it has in recent times succumbed to rich people fashions, such as having non-celibate gay bishops.

    Any chance that this move could have been done as a response to church elders engaging in child sex abuse? It makes sense to allow church elders to have sex with other, willing adults if that means that they won’t harm actual children (or at least do so less than they would have done had they not had any other, willing adults to have sex with at all).

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @Mr. XYZ

    This idea seems to involve two premises about human nature:

    1) No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities. (Problem for incels)

    And given most Episcopalian bishops were married to women afaik:

    2) Even married males will also be drawn into child abuse unless they are having gay sex on the side.

    Bigger question seems to be why Episcopalians kept choosing married men with such strong homosexual urges as their spiritual leaders, and can they avoid doing that in the future, rather than institutionalising the practice?

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @John Johnson, @Mikel

  398. @LatW
    @Beckow

    By the way, Beckow, I often think back to the NATO/EU accession process and I often contemplate this very issue of why the two could not have been separate (like in Norway's case where they had the privilege to be in NATO but not in the EU even with the separate binding treaties, of course, Norway is an Atlantic country so it is in a special place, but still..). It's understandable why it was done so, to secure power, to make sure that investments are protected, to make sure there is political control over the new countries. But also to help the new countries integrate better. I wish these things could've been thought out more carefully, but then again, this was a relatively short historic period when it took place, and one didn't want the "train to leave the station", so to speak. It was a historic opportunity.

    Replies: @A123, @Beckow, @Mr. XYZ

    AFAIK, NATO and EU were generally joined simultaneously due to popular demand. Where this popular demand didn’t exist, such as in Ireland, Sweden, and Finland, there was EU membership without simultaneous NATO membership (until the current Ukraine war, in the case of the last two countries mentioned here).

    I suspect that Ukraine would have likely followed Sweden’s and Finland’s trajectory after 2014 had it not been for Russia taking Ukrainian territory starting from that year. Ukraine actually did say shortly after Maidan that it was not seeking to join NATO:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-nato/pm-tells-ukrainians-no-nato-membership-armed-groups-to-disarm-idUKBREA2H0DO20140318

    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/03/18/ukrainian-prime-minister-says-no-nato-membership-armed-groups-to-disarm-a33097

    But Russia was not convinced and invaded in 2014, which caused the Ukrainian government to change its mind about this issue.

  399. @John Johnson
    @Dmitry

    These religious laws against the cigarettes, alcohol and coffee, would seem rational from the perspective of increasing life expectancy for the whole population level, if this is the priority.

    Higher life expectancy of Seventh-Day and Mormons is an example of preventive medicine on the population level by banning of alcohol, cigarettes and coffee. The religious groups in America which don’t ban alcohol and cigarettes don’t have this effect of the higher life expectancy.

    It should be noted that while Seventh-Day encourages a healthy lifestyle they do not have strict regulations like the Mormons. Seventh Day Adventists are more tolerant of caffeine but also discourage red meat. They mostly follow Kosher rules which means no pork of shellfish.

    Seventh-Day aren't as strict as they used to be. In theory you can't drink alcohol but in reality they want new members. They're not going to flip out if they hear about how you had a couple beers on a camping trip. Mormons however could get a stern lecture over any rumor of drinking.

    Seventh Day are pretty tame. They aren't deeply insular like Mormons or JWs.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    JWs = Jehovah’s Witnesses, right?

    • Agree: John Johnson
  400. @Mikhail
    @LatW

    Don't rule out Dynamo Riga and Jokerit Helsinki rejoining the KHL at some point.

    Replies: @LatW

    Don’t rule out Dynamo Riga [..] rejoining the KHL at some point.

    With a free Russia, hopefully. 🙂

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @LatW

    With a free Latvia and Finland hopefully. ;)

  401. @John Johnson
    @silviosilver

    But flawed parents and flawed families are obviously a human reality, and the frequency with which such families appear in movies is a different issue to the adequacy of the portrayals of such families.

    Families and especially White families in Hollywood movies are constantly depicted as neurotic, immoral, unsatisfied, unfaithful and filled with regret. The family itself is depicted as an emotional and financial burden.

    Do unstable families exist? Of course but they are massively overrepresented in Hollywood.

    Many here blame the Jews but there are just as many non-Jewish White writers that idealize being single and enjoy denigrating the American White family. Who else dreams of making it big in Hollywood? The average Hollywood dreamer is a degenerate. Normally adjusted people don't visit Hollywood and think.......gosh I'd really like to live here. The place is majorily f-cked up and odds are you won't make and will wait tables with everyone else. But the degenerate doesn't care because they never had hope for any satisfaction from family life. They assume that they will be as miserable as their parents. Hollywood is actually a land of bitter losers. They don't include that in the movies.

    I actually know someone that did well in Hollywood and it just turned him into a miserable asshole. He can't even enjoy his money on vacation. Half the time he is texting his work or trying to give us some Ted talk to feel important. I don't think he has any real friends in LA and can't seem to relax. That's a success story.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Going back to your asking me to name my favorite movies of the last ten years, I hate it when people ask me questions like this. “What’s your favorite song?” I never know what to answer. It’s not as if I don’t have any favorites, but I can just never think of them on the spot like that. But your question did get me wondering in which of my fave films could I honestly say there was a normal, basically decent white family being portrayed. I am really struggling to come up with examples!

    That’s partly because I’m struggling to remember what my fave films actually are, and partly because they either don’t feature families – in most cases, I would say understandably, given the plot – or because the families really are broken in some way. And this is even though a large number of my fave films date back to the 80s – a time when social standards had fallen enough to appall conservatives, but still a long way from the lows of the last decade.

    Movies I struggle with, but I can quickly think of some sitcoms I enjoyed from that era which featured intact, more or less happy white families: Growing Pains, Family Ties, ALF. Apart from some isolated episodes I have watched while visiting friends, I can’t even remember the last time I regularly watched any sitcom. Probably have to go back to Seinfeld or Friends. (The former aren’t nearly as funny as I remember them, and the latter I never followed all that closely.)

    • Replies: @songbird
    @silviosilver

    Only know this second-hand, from listening to Devon Stack, but there was an episode of Family Ties where a black family moves into the neighborhood, and their house gets broken into and graffito-tagged. (Believe with the word "Nigger", but I could be wrong.)

    , @John Johnson
    @silviosilver

    Movies I struggle with, but I can quickly think of some sitcoms I enjoyed from that era which featured intact, more or less happy white families: Growing Pains, Family Ties, ALF.

    Those are from the 80s. I'm not talking 80s movies.

    Anything from 2000 and up.

    The 80s were not some golden era but Hollywood became a lot more cynical during the 90s.

    Just look at how many sitcoms of the last 20 years involve:
    1. A total retard White dad or side character (often fat)
    2. Parents that don't really like each other
    3. Kids that constantly mouth off and treat their parents like idiots
    4. Singles, divorced parents, childless couples, random living situations

    I've never made it through 5 minutes of King of Queens. It was somehow a hit show.

    Most Americans will gobble anything that Hollywood shovels at them.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  402. @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Don’t rule out Dynamo Riga [..] rejoining the KHL at some point.
     
    With a free Russia, hopefully. :)

    Replies: @Mikhail

    With a free Latvia and Finland hopefully. 😉

  403. Latest NYT bigotry:

    Whipping Up Hatred Against Russian Tennis Players

    On a prior example:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/24082016-russians-held-to-different-standards-analysis/

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Mikhail

    Alcaraz looks like he has a tougher road to the final than Djokovic. If we are lucky we get a Russia Serbia final. Keep your fingers crossed!

  404. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Because the Episcopal Church is full of rich people, it has in recent times succumbed to rich people fashions, such as having non-celibate gay bishops.
     
    Any chance that this move could have been done as a response to church elders engaging in child sex abuse? It makes sense to allow church elders to have sex with other, willing adults if that means that they won't harm actual children (or at least do so less than they would have done had they not had any other, willing adults to have sex with at all).

    Replies: @Coconuts

    This idea seems to involve two premises about human nature:

    1) No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities. (Problem for incels)

    And given most Episcopalian bishops were married to women afaik:

    2) Even married males will also be drawn into child abuse unless they are having gay sex on the side.

    Bigger question seems to be why Episcopalians kept choosing married men with such strong homosexual urges as their spiritual leaders, and can they avoid doing that in the future, rather than institutionalising the practice?

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Coconuts

    British elites get buggered in boarding school. The top people there are FUBAR.

    , @John Johnson
    @Coconuts

    No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities. (Problem for incels)

    Where is that a premise? Sexual abuse is fortunately rare and even for churches that require celibacy. The Catholic abuse cases tended to be in urban areas where homosexual predators had an easier time hiding. Are you imagining sexual abuse at every church?

    Bigger question seems to be why Episcopalians kept choosing married men with such strong homosexual urges as their spiritual leaders, and can they avoid doing that in the future, rather than institutionalising the practice?

    What are you talking about?

    Episcopalians are just a liberal denomination. They attract wealthy Whites, the barely religious and the connected. They have a low barrier to entry while providing social connections.

    The real appeal is that you can claim to be a member of a large Episcopalian church and no one will notice if you were only there a few times during the year. Heck they would probably even cover for you if needed.

    It's Christianity light and unsurprisingly follows liberal trends. Liberals will use these denominations to socialize and virtue signal. Secular Republicans will use them as quick stamp of approval: Marcy and I go to the large Episcopalian church downtown where you will never see us. I'd love to go to your crazy church where people talk in tongues and ask weird questions but Marcy grew up Episcopalian and it isn't far from my office.

    , @Mikel
    @Coconuts


    No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities.
     
    I don't know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males. So it's not unexpected that it messes up some people psychologically. Keeping everything else constant, I would certainly expect a higher rate of sex-related aberrancies among celibates than the general population, especially among those celibates that don't separate themselves from society.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Coconuts

  405. @LatW
    @S


    I see the Scandis as having grown and matured as peoples, though, to be sure, at present, they are not where they ought to be.
     
    I think the Danes are very reasonable in their policies, but even in Denmark it is not ideal (you know what I'm talking about).

    Would people prefer the Scandis be as they once were, neighbors who unpredictably at times would go ‘berserking’ and tear up the surrounding peoples?
     
    They would be "berserked" back - it's not a one way thing and they're not omnipotent, back in those days ours could pounce back pretty strongly as well occasionally. Viking is not a nationality, but an occupation. Apparently the Danes used to have a prayer in the 9th century: "God, protect us from the plague, the fire and the Curonians". The Curonians raided together with Estonians and sometimes with Western Slavs, and sometimes even participated in Scandinavian raids.

    We talked about Gotland with a Swedish guy once and he said something like "Back then you couldn't really tell who it belonged to", there were individuals of various backgrounds who were present there or at least visited, but maybe he was just trying to be friendly.

    Today they couldn't "berserk" because they would lose too much (they partly live off of surrounding countries as they are export based economies). But also because they are kind. Looking at this awful conflict in the East, I feel so grateful for all these wonderful neighboring countries (Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, Finland, our beloved Poland, even many Belarusians are nice). Thank God for these peoples. It never even occurs for anyone to call each other names. The British, too, are kind, even though they could brag and act superior.

    I often think how nice it is that Germany is not hostile or aggressive. Even though I don't really want Germany to be soft either (militarily and politically).

    Words are very powerful things and people should be far more careful than they are with what they say.
     
    It is taken for granted. We shouldn't have had micro aggression towards the Russians either. These things pile up.

    Replies: @S

    They would be “berserked” back – it’s not a one way thing and they’re not omnipotent, back in those days ours could pounce back pretty strongly as well occasionally.

    In Western Europe it was a bit more one sided regarding the Vikings, ie present day UK, Ireland, France, etc, were hit hard. Perhaps the pushback against the Vikings was stronger in the East as you suggest.

    Apparently the Danes used to have a prayer in the 9th century: “God, protect us from the plague, the fire and the Curonians“.

    That sounds a lot like the alleged prayer (paraphrasing) asking for protection from the ‘Norseman’ (the Vikings) in Western Europe. I say ‘alleged’ as, IIRC, the quote has been embellished a bit from what was said originally.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @S


    That sounds a lot like the alleged prayer (paraphrasing) asking for protection from the ‘Norseman’ (the Vikings) in Western Europe. I say ‘alleged’ as, IIRC, the quote has been embellished a bit from what was said originally.
     
    It does. A furore normannorum libera nos Domine.

    Well, this is a kind of a legend, but, according to Egil's saga, the Curonians had Danish slaves.

  406. @LatW
    @sudden death

    This is very cool info, thanks. Kernave is a special place and very beautiful.

    By the way, some chronicles mention instances of horse divination (hippomancy). They would place a spear on the ground and then lead a white horse over it and they would decide things based on which foot the horse made the step first. The horse of Destiny. Apparently the Iranians also practiced hippomancy.

    Of course, the horse was perceived as an intermediary in the Baltic culture, and Ašvieniai are the divine twins (like the Vedic Ashvins).

    They're going to study these horse ritual deposits now:

    https://www.thebonezproject.co.uk/overview

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Arturs_Baumanis_Likte%C5%86a_zirgs_1887.jpg

    Replies: @LatW, @Mr. XYZ

    So it looks like in this new project they may be able to figure out what color the buried horses used to be. If these horses turn out to be white, then that will be very meaningful (because that’s the kind of horse they used for divination).

  407. @S
    @LatW


    They would be “berserked” back – it’s not a one way thing and they’re not omnipotent, back in those days ours could pounce back pretty strongly as well occasionally.
     
    In Western Europe it was a bit more one sided regarding the Vikings, ie present day UK, Ireland, France, etc, were hit hard. Perhaps the pushback against the Vikings was stronger in the East as you suggest.

    Apparently the Danes used to have a prayer in the 9th century: “God, protect us from the plague, the fire and the Curonians“.
     
    That sounds a lot like the alleged prayer (paraphrasing) asking for protection from the 'Norseman' (the Vikings) in Western Europe. I say 'alleged' as, IIRC, the quote has been embellished a bit from what was said originally.

    Replies: @LatW

    That sounds a lot like the alleged prayer (paraphrasing) asking for protection from the ‘Norseman’ (the Vikings) in Western Europe. I say ‘alleged’ as, IIRC, the quote has been embellished a bit from what was said originally.

    It does. A furore normannorum libera nos Domine.

    Well, this is a kind of a legend, but, according to Egil’s saga, the Curonians had Danish slaves.

    • Thanks: S
  408. @silviosilver
    @songbird

    Is what you mean by "strange" perhaps closer to "not believable"? That would be fair enough. Personally, I found it an interesting approach to make the aliens exude an irresistible attractive force to certain people whose brains were tuned to the right "frequency," to the point it virtually drove them mad with desire. Kinda like the ancient Sirens causing sailors to jump overboard in pursuit of the alluring voices.

    As for the characters "abandoning" (more like ignoring) family members, is that really so weird for people in the throes of delusion or mad lust? So the Dreyfuss character kisses a woman who is not his wife - that's not exactly unheard of among people, even in far more normal situations.

    I don't see that Hollywood inadequately portrays families. Sometimes it's done poorly, other times, very well, but on the whole, I wouldn't regard it as a conspicuous failure. Family members sometimes really do have adversarial relations, kids often are unruly, and so on. In Close Encounters, a kid that won't stop making a racket serves to depict Dreyfuss as a normal dad, facing normal family headaches who then has all the weird alien stuff happen to him that nothing in his life has really prepared him for. (The dumbest thing about that family is the kid who is supposed to be 8 easily looks 13.)


    so it is hard to see it as it was probably meant to be – showcasing rural Americans as dumb and evil.
     
    I think the only scene that had that effect was when he walks into the diner after being run off the road by the trucker. He's treated extremely suspiciously by the manager and the other patrons, although he brought that on himself a little when he ignored the manager's question of "what happened out there?".

    Replies: @John Johnson, @songbird

    Is what you mean by “strange” perhaps closer to “not believable”?

    In my rather ineloquent way, I meant to evoke something psychological, like culture clash.

    [MORE]
    In watching it, I can’t help but feel that it was meant to appeal to a certain mindset – perhaps, that of the UFO enthusiast – one that would overlook certain flaws, and find others appealing – and that I don’t have the mindset.

    Personally, I think it would be bad if aliens landed. And I don’t necessarily think they would be aggressive in a War of the Worlds way. They might have good intentions and still be a big problem.

    Kinda like the ancient Sirens causing sailors to jump overboard in pursuit of the alluring voices.

    Yes, I think this explains that ambush scene in Excalibur. The sword “wanted” to go into the stone, and so orchestrated the attack and even the lull letting Pendragon run for a bit. It amplified, turned off, or tuned down its attraction, as necessary. Perhaps, even creating a repelling force.

    As for the characters “abandoning” (more like ignoring) family members, is that really so weird for people in the throes of delusion or mad lust?

    Yes, it was his wife who left him and took the kids. (Though probably understandably) Technically, I think he was trying to get them to help him with his project. (One can ask, why he didn’t just sketch a picture. Would have been less disruptive, if less dramatic) But the ending makes him seem rather cold to them. Or it makes the aliens seem cold, if they are willfully controlling him, or picking him, knowing that he has small kids.

    Personally, I had the suspicion that UFO-enthusiasts are r-selected, and more likely to get divorced or abandon their kids. But I could be wrong.

    I don’t see that Hollywood inadequately portrays families. Sometimes it’s done poorly, other times, very well, but on the whole, I wouldn’t regard it as a conspicuous failure.

    I think it is hard to write families. To juggle all the characters and/or dialogue.

    But layered on that hardness, I think is a lack of rootedness. (And it really shows in a variety of ways. For example, Japanese are often very good at depicting place, but not Hollywood.) Hollywood people are often those who moved away from their families or who work long hours away, or who get divorced four times.

    I think they have a lack of concern for depicting them positively, and that it really shows. After RotJ, Mark Hamill went on circuit telling people that he would come back years later as a father, teaching his kids. But when they brought him back, he had none and was a pathetic figure. Han Solo was estranged from Leia and ultimately killed by his own son, who was also estranged from him.

    My idea is that, looking at fertility collapse, we need more positive depictions of family, and that the people in Hollywood won’t naturally change their message. ( Of course, it is also a problem in other places.)

    I think the only scene that had that effect was when he walks into the diner after being run off the road by the trucker. He’s treated extremely suspiciously by the manager and the other patrons, although he brought that on himself a little when he ignored the manager’s question of “what happened out there?”.

    Yes, it is just a snippet, really, and not an inexcusable one. Not immersive, probably due to the theme of the “duel” and the time constraints. But I think the predilection was there, and the flavor, even if it was a very weak one.

    They probably would have liked to shoot in the South, but didn’t have the budget.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird


    Personally, I had the suspicion that UFO-enthusiasts are r-selected, and more likely to get divorced or abandon their kids.
     
    There are millions of UFO fans which makes global statements about them near impossible.

    Spielberg is a movie maker so not great data.

    This book is at the top of my list and I would be surprised if he or the current Congress Committee UFO guys have read it.

    https://www.amazon.com/Trickster-Paranormal-George-P-Hansen/dp/1401000827

    Replies: @songbird

  409. Sher Singh says:
    @sudden death
    @Sher Singh


    You people have been arguing minor differences between Balto Slavs for a decade now
     
    Says the one who been arguing minor differences between Sikhs and Hindus for the same decade or two, all of you were better off under muslim Mughal rule anyway, so better post something about horse polo with swords or whatever is the national sport called in that minor part of India;)

    On a more serious note, regarding horses, recently there was one quite brave sounding statement made about allegedly unique horse burial practice found only in eastern Lithuania:


    "Burying people in barrows was a tradition in eastern Lithuania that lasted for a thousand years, from the 3rd to the 13th centuries. But what is very interesting and unique is that in the barrows there were separate places where exclusively horses were buried without a warrior, a horse owner. There are no other nations or tribes in which barrows are made only for horses. Usually, a horse is buried as an attribute of a warrior, and what we see in eastern Lithuania is unique. All this means that there must have been more barrows in this place. Usually, there are also human burials next to the horse barrows, but it seems that they were destroyed by later processes, such as the clearing of fields due to deforestation or agricultural activities," says the Vilnius university lecturer enthusiastically.
     
    https://www.kernave.lt/naujienos/vu-istorijos-fakulteto-archeologai-tyrineja-unikalu-laidojimo-objekta-salia-kernaves/

    Replies: @LatW, @Sher Singh

    There’s no Hindus here nor an argument that Khalsa (Sikhs) are paramount among Hindus.
    Both the UK & Scottish PMs are from that minor part of India.

    Idk what rando EE ethnicity you are but let’s put it like this:
    There’s dozens of countries where Sikhs are better armed on the street than police.

    ਅਕਾਲ

  410. @silviosilver
    @John Johnson

    Going back to your asking me to name my favorite movies of the last ten years, I hate it when people ask me questions like this. "What's your favorite song?" I never know what to answer. It's not as if I don't have any favorites, but I can just never think of them on the spot like that. But your question did get me wondering in which of my fave films could I honestly say there was a normal, basically decent white family being portrayed. I am really struggling to come up with examples!

    That's partly because I'm struggling to remember what my fave films actually are, and partly because they either don't feature families - in most cases, I would say understandably, given the plot - or because the families really are broken in some way. And this is even though a large number of my fave films date back to the 80s - a time when social standards had fallen enough to appall conservatives, but still a long way from the lows of the last decade.

    Movies I struggle with, but I can quickly think of some sitcoms I enjoyed from that era which featured intact, more or less happy white families: Growing Pains, Family Ties, ALF. Apart from some isolated episodes I have watched while visiting friends, I can't even remember the last time I regularly watched any sitcom. Probably have to go back to Seinfeld or Friends. (The former aren't nearly as funny as I remember them, and the latter I never followed all that closely.)

    Replies: @songbird, @John Johnson

    Only know this second-hand, from listening to Devon Stack, but there was an episode of Family Ties where a black family moves into the neighborhood, and their house gets broken into and graffito-tagged. (Believe with the word “Nigger”, but I could be wrong.)

  411. @Mikhail
    Latest NYT bigotry:

    Whipping Up Hatred Against Russian Tennis Players
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI4fAh1G13E

    On a prior example:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/24082016-russians-held-to-different-standards-analysis/

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    Alcaraz looks like he has a tougher road to the final than Djokovic. If we are lucky we get a Russia Serbia final. Keep your fingers crossed!

  412. @Coconuts
    @Mr. XYZ

    This idea seems to involve two premises about human nature:

    1) No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities. (Problem for incels)

    And given most Episcopalian bishops were married to women afaik:

    2) Even married males will also be drawn into child abuse unless they are having gay sex on the side.

    Bigger question seems to be why Episcopalians kept choosing married men with such strong homosexual urges as their spiritual leaders, and can they avoid doing that in the future, rather than institutionalising the practice?

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @John Johnson, @Mikel

    British elites get buggered in boarding school. The top people there are FUBAR.

  413. @songbird
    @silviosilver


    Is what you mean by “strange” perhaps closer to “not believable”?
     
    In my rather ineloquent way, I meant to evoke something psychological, like culture clash. In watching it, I can't help but feel that it was meant to appeal to a certain mindset - perhaps, that of the UFO enthusiast - one that would overlook certain flaws, and find others appealing - and that I don't have the mindset.

    Personally, I think it would be bad if aliens landed. And I don't necessarily think they would be aggressive in a War of the Worlds way. They might have good intentions and still be a big problem.

    Kinda like the ancient Sirens causing sailors to jump overboard in pursuit of the alluring voices.
     
    Yes, I think this explains that ambush scene in Excalibur. The sword "wanted" to go into the stone, and so orchestrated the attack and even the lull letting Pendragon run for a bit. It amplified, turned off, or tuned down its attraction, as necessary. Perhaps, even creating a repelling force.

    As for the characters “abandoning” (more like ignoring) family members, is that really so weird for people in the throes of delusion or mad lust?
     
    Yes, it was his wife who left him and took the kids. (Though probably understandably) Technically, I think he was trying to get them to help him with his project. (One can ask, why he didn't just sketch a picture. Would have been less disruptive, if less dramatic) But the ending makes him seem rather cold to them. Or it makes the aliens seem cold, if they are willfully controlling him, or picking him, knowing that he has small kids.

    Personally, I had the suspicion that UFO-enthusiasts are r-selected, and more likely to get divorced or abandon their kids. But I could be wrong.

    I don’t see that Hollywood inadequately portrays families. Sometimes it’s done poorly, other times, very well, but on the whole, I wouldn’t regard it as a conspicuous failure.
     
    I think it is hard to write families. To juggle all the characters and/or dialogue.

    But layered on that hardness, I think is a lack of rootedness. (And it really shows in a variety of ways. For example, Japanese are often very good at depicting place, but not Hollywood.) Hollywood people are often those who moved away from their families or who work long hours away, or who get divorced four times.


    I think they have a lack of concern for depicting them positively, and that it really shows. After RotJ, Mark Hamill went on circuit telling people that he would come back years later as a father, teaching his kids. But when they brought him back, he had none and was a pathetic figure. Han Solo was estranged from Leia and ultimately killed by his own son, who was also estranged from him.

    My idea is that, looking at fertility collapse, we need more positive depictions of family, and that the people in Hollywood won't naturally change their message. ( Of course, it is also a problem in other places.)

    I think the only scene that had that effect was when he walks into the diner after being run off the road by the trucker. He’s treated extremely suspiciously by the manager and the other patrons, although he brought that on himself a little when he ignored the manager’s question of “what happened out there?”.
     
    Yes, it is just a snippet, really, and not an inexcusable one. Not immersive, probably due to the theme of the "duel" and the time constraints. But I think the predilection was there, and the flavor, even if it was a very weak one.

    They probably would have liked to shoot in the South, but didn't have the budget.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    Personally, I had the suspicion that UFO-enthusiasts are r-selected, and more likely to get divorced or abandon their kids.

    There are millions of UFO fans which makes global statements about them near impossible.

    Spielberg is a movie maker so not great data.

    This book is at the top of my list and I would be surprised if he or the current Congress Committee UFO guys have read it.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    There are millions of UFO fans which makes global statements about them near impossible.
     
    True. Robert Bigelow never got divorced. (Though I wonder what the prediction would be for his generation). And I once knew an elderly church lady who seemed to be an enthusiast.

    But I still suspect there might be at least a small correlation. My schema of them has some coincidence with hippies, and I believe that hippies are above average in these traits.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  414. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird


    Personally, I had the suspicion that UFO-enthusiasts are r-selected, and more likely to get divorced or abandon their kids.
     
    There are millions of UFO fans which makes global statements about them near impossible.

    Spielberg is a movie maker so not great data.

    This book is at the top of my list and I would be surprised if he or the current Congress Committee UFO guys have read it.

    https://www.amazon.com/Trickster-Paranormal-George-P-Hansen/dp/1401000827

    Replies: @songbird

    There are millions of UFO fans which makes global statements about them near impossible.

    True. Robert Bigelow never got divorced. (Though I wonder what the prediction would be for his generation). And I once knew an elderly church lady who seemed to be an enthusiast.

    But I still suspect there might be at least a small correlation. My schema of them has some coincidence with hippies, and I believe that hippies are above average in these traits.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @songbird


    My schema of them has some coincidence with hippies,
     
    I think so too. In Close Encounters, when they're waiting on the road for the UFOs to pass, there is that old guy holding up the "Stop And Be Friendly" sign who strikes me as hippie-adjacent, all-you-need-is-love, reality-denying shitlib. (The kind of weirdo who would keep a pet snake. As a powerless nobody, I prefer a live and let live attitude, but if I had dictatorial power, I would ban keeping anything besides cats, dogs and parrots as pets. Not so much because I care, but because it pisses off the right people, lol.)

    Personally, I do not at all look forward to an alien arrival. Even if I lived in an interstellar civilization, I still wouldn't want to ever encounter any. The risks just aren't worth it, imo.
  415. @silviosilver
    @John Johnson

    Going back to your asking me to name my favorite movies of the last ten years, I hate it when people ask me questions like this. "What's your favorite song?" I never know what to answer. It's not as if I don't have any favorites, but I can just never think of them on the spot like that. But your question did get me wondering in which of my fave films could I honestly say there was a normal, basically decent white family being portrayed. I am really struggling to come up with examples!

    That's partly because I'm struggling to remember what my fave films actually are, and partly because they either don't feature families - in most cases, I would say understandably, given the plot - or because the families really are broken in some way. And this is even though a large number of my fave films date back to the 80s - a time when social standards had fallen enough to appall conservatives, but still a long way from the lows of the last decade.

    Movies I struggle with, but I can quickly think of some sitcoms I enjoyed from that era which featured intact, more or less happy white families: Growing Pains, Family Ties, ALF. Apart from some isolated episodes I have watched while visiting friends, I can't even remember the last time I regularly watched any sitcom. Probably have to go back to Seinfeld or Friends. (The former aren't nearly as funny as I remember them, and the latter I never followed all that closely.)

    Replies: @songbird, @John Johnson

    Movies I struggle with, but I can quickly think of some sitcoms I enjoyed from that era which featured intact, more or less happy white families: Growing Pains, Family Ties, ALF.

    Those are from the 80s. I’m not talking 80s movies.

    Anything from 2000 and up.

    The 80s were not some golden era but Hollywood became a lot more cynical during the 90s.

    Just look at how many sitcoms of the last 20 years involve:
    1. A total retard White dad or side character (often fat)
    2. Parents that don’t really like each other
    3. Kids that constantly mouth off and treat their parents like idiots
    4. Singles, divorced parents, childless couples, random living situations

    I’ve never made it through 5 minutes of King of Queens. It was somehow a hit show.

    Most Americans will gobble anything that Hollywood shovels at them.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @John Johnson


    Those are from the 80s. I’m not talking 80s movies.
     
    Yeah, I know. But I mentioned that a large chunk of my fave films are from the 80s and I was just comparing how easily examples of sitcoms with wholesome families from that era come to mind with how hard I found it to think of movies from that era with wholesome families.

    As for the last 20 years, I hardly have any idea what sitcoms even exist. I stopped watching TV about 15 years ago. I have seen a few episodes of Raymond, because my parents liked it. And bits and pieces of Big Bang at other people's houses. None of it is at all appealing. Sitcoms are some of the most braindead entertainment out there.

    The 80s were not some golden era but Hollywood became a lot more cynical during the 90s.
     
    Wrt to sitcoms, I think Married With Children is an example of this. I was pretty young, so it's not like I was concerned about anything like social standards (if anything, as a rebellious little bastard, I guess I did my own bit to lower them), but even I found it pretty trashy and considered the people who would rave about how good it was morally deficient.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  416. @Coconuts
    @Mr. XYZ

    This idea seems to involve two premises about human nature:

    1) No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities. (Problem for incels)

    And given most Episcopalian bishops were married to women afaik:

    2) Even married males will also be drawn into child abuse unless they are having gay sex on the side.

    Bigger question seems to be why Episcopalians kept choosing married men with such strong homosexual urges as their spiritual leaders, and can they avoid doing that in the future, rather than institutionalising the practice?

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @John Johnson, @Mikel

    No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities. (Problem for incels)

    Where is that a premise? Sexual abuse is fortunately rare and even for churches that require celibacy. The Catholic abuse cases tended to be in urban areas where homosexual predators had an easier time hiding. Are you imagining sexual abuse at every church?

    Bigger question seems to be why Episcopalians kept choosing married men with such strong homosexual urges as their spiritual leaders, and can they avoid doing that in the future, rather than institutionalising the practice?

    What are you talking about?

    Episcopalians are just a liberal denomination. They attract wealthy Whites, the barely religious and the connected. They have a low barrier to entry while providing social connections.

    The real appeal is that you can claim to be a member of a large Episcopalian church and no one will notice if you were only there a few times during the year. Heck they would probably even cover for you if needed.

    It’s Christianity light and unsurprisingly follows liberal trends. Liberals will use these denominations to socialize and virtue signal. Secular Republicans will use them as quick stamp of approval: Marcy and I go to the large Episcopalian church downtown where you will never see us. I’d love to go to your crazy church where people talk in tongues and ask weird questions but Marcy grew up Episcopalian and it isn’t far from my office.

  417. @John Johnson
    @Beckow


    Afghanistan wasn’t a military defeat.
     
    So the Russian ‘withdrawal’ in 1989 also wasn’t a defeat? Or do you have two sets of rules?

    The Soviets failed to defeat the Taliban. They were under attack even during the withdrawal.

    The Americans defeated the Taliban on the battlefield but were unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan.

    Call it what you want but that wouldn't be a decisive military defeat. In the later years the Taliban had in fact developed a strategy of avoiding attacks on the US military. They were too costly. That is why they would use suicide attacks against border points. They switched back to terrorism tactics like kidnapping Afghan forces and torturing them to send a message.


    Syria: that isn’t a decisive defeat.
     
    But a defeat nevertheless.

    You said it was a military defeat when there was no battle. What was the defeat? They have 900 troops that occasionally conduct attacks on Muslim extremists. It's strange situation but not a war. US and Syrian backed Russian troops have played war games with each other.

    Obama after winning Nobel peace price, invaded a country with Nato armed and trained allies, declared that “Assad must go!”, bombed a few places – and then?

    There was never a declared goal of removing Assad or a plan to invade the entire country. A civil war erupted and the US took a section along with a dozen other countries. Obama mumbling about what he would like is not a battle plan and a few bombing runs are practically the US norm for the middle east.
    There are only 900 US troops in Syria and there have been no major engagements. If you disagree then list the largest battle and US losses. You won't find anything past a couple special forces operations.

    Iraq was a loss: US was pushed out and the investment in lives and treasure resulted in no gain: Iraq is now a major ally of Iran.

    You could argue that it wasn't worth the effort but the US was not defeated militarily.

    The US was invited back to help defeat ISIL and then left.

    Saddam was removed and Iraq is a functioning democracy. Extremists did not take over the government as many pessimists predicted.

    In these unnecessary wars Nato allies were with US.

    You incorrectly called them NATO-US wars. NATO in fact as an organization rejected Bush's request for assistance on Iraq. They did however take part in Afghanistan as 9-11 was considered an attack on a member country. NATO was not involved in Vietnam and in fact there were member nations that were against involvement. The Vietnam war was not a Euro/US endeavor as many incorrectly assume.

    You have a mental block when it comes to using language in the same way about yourself as you do about others.

    You used the term decisive military defeat which connotates a defeat by the opposing military. A battle in Syria didn't even occur. Please use more accurate language and study involvement of NATO in wars of the past.

    Replies: @Beckow

    The Soviets failed to defeat the Taliban. They were under attack even during the withdrawal…
    The Americans defeated the Taliban on the battlefield but were unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan.

    Soviets left in 1989 and Taliban was created in the early 90’s…:) Soviets controlled the cities and the government – exactly the same as US. Soviets withdrew in 1989 and the commie government in Kabul ruled until 1992, for 3 more years. It seems like a much better record than US…

    “Sustainable” Afghanistan is an escapist slogan for fools unable to face reality. No wonder you use it.

    There was never a declared goal of removing Assad… Obama mumbling about what he would like is not a battle plan

    Obama was the president – his demand that “Assad must go!” was the US policy. US armed the rebels, put its own forces and bombed Syria – then they lost. Decisive? That is in the eye of the beholder. But it was a loss.

    You could argue that Iraq wasn’t worth the effort but the US was not defeated militarily.

    You could argue that, but you would look like a fool. An enormous effort that led to nothing – US was effectively pushed out and Iran is the principal beneficiary. The inability to militarily control the conquered land and then having to leave is usually considered a defeat. But you are into palliatives, so you will deceive yourself.

    I used the term ‘decisive defeat‘ after you used it first about the perceived “decisive” losses by Russia. If you want to redefine “decisive” as only something like Germany in WW2 then it works both ways. Your inability to be objective, to see things the same about your side and others is a form of mental disease. Read Ron Unz’s front page piece today about where it leads – and how stupid it looks like to any outsider. Or do you enjoy being thought off as just too stupid to think critically?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Beckow

    Upon the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Soviet backed Afghan government lasted longer than the US backed Afghan government after the US left.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @John Johnson
    @Beckow

    Soviets left in 1989 and Taliban was created in the early 90’s…:) Soviets controlled the cities and the government – exactly the same as US. Soviets withdrew in 1989 and the commie government in Kabul ruled until 1992, for 3 more years. It seems like a much better record than US…

    That was a period of civil war. Over 400k Afghans died from 1989-1994.

    That commie government was never in charge of the entire country.

    They were unwanted and eventually lost to the Taliban. A total waste of lives and time for all sides.

    That was a last ditch effort at expanding Communism and it completely failed.

    “Sustainable” Afghanistan is an escapist slogan for fools unable to face reality. No wonder you use it.

    I've never heard anyone say it. I said that the US was unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan. Or are you going to suggest that the US lost militarily?

    The US had 2,402 casualties for the entire period (2001-2021). The Taliban lost at least 50,000.

    That isn't a "decisive military defeat" and I already pointed out that US soldiers were more likely to be killed in a car wreck while stationed at home. Do you deny that?

    Obama was the president – his demand that “Assad must go!” was the US policy

    No that is not US policy. That is Obama talking and not government policy. He never asked for war powers or an invasion force from congress.

    Biden has declared many times that AR-15s must go. Is that US policy?

    The president is not a king. He can not simply create policy from words.

    Obama was a coward and broke his word over Syria. He decided to not launch a military removal of Assad after the chemical weapons attack. Take it up with him.

    You are clearly biased against America but try to be more honest about history. There was never a "decisive military defeat" in Syria when there has never been an attempt at removing Assad. We currently have 900 troops in Syria that mostly work out and cruise around in hummers. I'm fine with them leaving along with the 50k Russian troops that are not welcome by the majority.


    You could argue that Iraq wasn’t worth the effort but the US was not defeated militarily.
     
    You could argue that, but you would look like a fool. An enormous effort that led to nothing – US was effectively pushed out and Iran is the principal beneficiary.

    Do tell which force defeated the US military in Iraq and pushed them out.

    The US defeated Saddam and his forces. Iraq is now democracy and they can align with Iran if they please. That is the risk of creating a democracy in the middle east. I would have setup a monarchy but I'm not in charge of US foreign policy.

    Replies: @Beckow

  418. @LatW
    @Beckow


    Not allowing the free expression of one’s views is a denial of their existence: harm much more pernicious than anything done by airing them.
     
    Theoretically, I would agree, but this is also a privilege that you have in a reasonably homogenous society, maybe even a pluralistic one, with various views and backgrounds, but one where there is still some core consensus about the basic self-preservation of the place. Once you start having very diverse societies like now, or large "minorities" that have been artificially created by empires, and who are helped from outside, and who have diametrically opposite interests to the core population, then the price for free speech becomes very high. And the issue of justice also becomes more relevant.

    I didn't change my view out of fear - for me it is always - bring it on! But I worry about the weak. It will usually be the weak who will suffer when there is social strife and instability. Much more so war.

    By the way, have you noticed what Russia has done with speech lately? Would you argue the same for Russia? Let it be like the 1990s there? They themselves fear it badly.


    I am not a right-winger
     
    You are not really a right winger in my book, I meant in general people who have those beliefs, also some folks on this forum, libertarian right wingers (or American style), not fascists. The fascists want order, not craziness.

    I dislike Russian (and other) oligarchies – they are all over the world, not just in Russia, Ukraine is full of them.
     
    Oh, oligarchies are terrible and so unfair. There might be little oligarchies in the States, too. Although we can argue where simple (even if gigantic) wealth concentration turn into an oligarchy.

    The post-Soviet oligarchies are a complete disgrace. And to think that they are still around! Of course, you have to differentiate if there is someone in there who is at least somewhat self-made, it is a bit grey there that way. But the Russian oligarchs are absolutely awful - they helped build the system, lived off of it and now act like they have nothing to do with it, walking the streets of London. We don't even know how much money the Kovalchuk types have in the Kremlin. And people like Kabaevac (people who simply spread their legs, too, need to have a sense of limits and some kind of a self reflection!). Of course, the elite should be affluent, but not like that.

    And Ukraine will have a ton of work to do if they want to change those things, they have immense vulnerability. The country may be too large to control, but they have to find a way to do it. There are systems that can be put in place and safe guarded. Their cross is way too heavy.


    The West can get by without the cheaper Russian resources – but the living standards will drop: larger portion of the actual output will go up in price, it is inevitable and is already happening.
     
    Of course, the war is very damaging, it would've been much better without it, but the overall living standard issue has to do with more than just the war. It might be a result of very intense globalization that took place over the last couple of decades and also the money printing. Didn't they dump a trillion dollars into the market during Covid? I may be wrong.

    Nato just couldn’t wait
     
    Well, NATO was just waiting and probing, they were not going to take in Ukraine in the shape it was in prior to the war. Only when Ukraine showed backbone, was when the West started accepting Ukraine. Those are the cruel laws of Nature, the weak are despised, the strong are admired. So sad...

    This is not the historic Russia as it used to be but a much more weakened one. They now have to deal with the world not as an Empire, as it used to be, but pretty much on their own. And some people even argue that it is still not fully "decolonized".


    We may end up with the worst of both worlds: more pricey resources and a lost war in Ukraine.
     
    Several scenarios are possible. But again, there may be a global resource crunch taking place. Maybe with China slowing down it will subside a bit.

    If the West had behaved normally and treated Russia as having legitimate interests, we would have no war and a livable compromise in Ukraine: no Nato and normal rights for the Russian minority.
     
    The problem is that we no longer live in the 19th (or even 20th) centuries where some big country has "legitimate interests" in another, smaller country or groups of countries. Even very large states have to "woo" midsize states. You can argue that Russia has legitimate interests in her vicinity, but I can argue that Ukraine, the Baltics and others have legitimate interests to be left alone and their internal policies to be respected. Russia does not have "legitimate" rights to control our space. These kinds of things need to be resolved in an amicable manner, without crazy entitlement that is based on their past glories. And from our side without pettiness, but with real ability and more muscle to solve these problems.

    The Russian speakers are not a traditional minority - they are a geopolitical weapon. When they turn into a traditional minority, the way that the Old Believers are, then they will be treated with the kind of respect that the Old Believers are treated with. In the meantime, the innocent will suffer which only makes it worse.

    In Donbas it is more complicated, and most Donbassers are essentially victims of much larger forces that destroyed their lives.


    just listen carefully to how the coverage is slowly changing.
     
    The coverage is changing because it's been almost 2 years and there is fatigue. By the way, some of the coverage is faulty or based on mistaken assumptions, there is a lot of careless coverage. What matters is not just the coverage (that would be the least important element), what matters is the actual support. The current US administration decided to withhold the most vital parts of support against the desire of the American people and the Congress. But the Europeans are still helping and the Ukrainians have been building their own capacity.

    US-Nato lost decisively in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq
     
    Those are somewhat different wars. Expeditionary wars, I guess. The war in Ukraine is a war of independence that is fought by locals with the support of a coalition of 50 states. This is a war fought by Ukraine, not the US or NATO.

    The war is shrinking Ukraine as the Russian competitor
     
    That a genocidal war of invasion is shrinking a country is somehow a surprise? Or somehow not a crime?

    The shrinkage would've happened anyway as they gained subjectivity - it is part of the nation building, although very sad and a bit wasteful. I think that deep down they were always competitors since Kiev and Muscovy times... Muscovy devoured its competitors (sometimes in an Asiatic manner).


    The precedent has been set for Russia to keep Ukraine in check by superior force.
     
    It is not over yet. But if this kind of thing is now "acceptable" in Europe (it isn't), then one needs to prepare the children very very carefully to live in that kind of a world. That changes everything then.

    Russia has internally normalized fighting and killing their Ukie ‘brothers’ – that is not good for whatever remains in the rump-Ukraine.
     
    Russia has changed immensely, by killing Ukrainians they are only hurting themselves. They will turn into a petty state. It is no wonder, everyone post-USSR decided to be that way, so they did, too. (Although it is possible to build something more seemly.)

    But becoming a nation state also means you need to dump the imperial hubris and start living for yourself. You can try grabbing something but do not whine when you will get smacked back! Those people are fighting for their existence.


    They should have avoided for the conflict to be militarized. It is too late now.
     
    The conflict should've been stomped out in the very early stages. However, Russia intervened in a very aggressive manner (what Surkov was doing is already extremely hostile and aggressive, not to mention things like Ilovaisk). The problem is that there are objectively, what they call, irreconcilable differences that go historically way back to the times of Kievan Rus'.

    And what they are doing right now - trying to eradicate a whole nation of 40 million in the middle of Central Europe, is more scandalous than they realize. Not to mention difficult. They have completely entangled themselves and now can't get out. Someone should help them in fact, but I think it is only the Armed forces of Ukraine who can do it.

    Replies: @Beckow

    Would you argue the same for Russia?

    Yes. They also don’t listen to me…:)

    We never need free speech more than in a war – things get polarized and bloody, it is more important to know all angles, views, potential solutions. Not less. Unfortunately the natural tendency is to restrict speech during wars.

    The Russian speakers are not a traditional minority…

    Riiight…and we are home…:) “they are not like the others, they plot and are arrogant”, right? How about the Chinese in Indonesia not a “traditional minority” – they were murdered in the 60’s, Tutsis in Rwanda, Jews everywhere, etc…these are not “traditional minorities”, so anything is allowed? Is that your argument? That is a slippery slope.

    What if one day someone decides that the Balts are not a “traditional minority“? The silly SS marching, leaders who grew in US-Canada, weird language (?), and the women are just too pale…

    That a genocidal war of invasion is shrinking a country is somehow a surprise?

    It doesn’t look genocidal, Kiev and Lviv have not been flattened, the life goes on – compare it to the pUS-Nato wars: massive bombing killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, blowing up water supplies…”shock-and-awe”. Do you think that the West can do it, but others must obey the rules the West preaches?

    It is not over yet….Russia has changed immensely, by killing Ukrainians they are only hurting themselves. They will turn into a petty state.

    Correct. But it is risky to predict the changes it will bring. Right now the hurt ones are predominantly the Ukies. And “pettyness” by Russia – I see it too – looks like a response to the endless pettyness by the West toward them.

    trying to eradicate a whole nation of 40 million in the middle of Central Europe, is more scandalous than they realize. Not to mention difficult. They have completely entangled themselves and now can’t get out.

    They are not, they are trying to keep Nato out and protect the Russian minority in Ukraine. They offered for years a pretty good deal how to accomplish it, Kiev-West refused. Now they are methodically dismantling Ukraine, there is no way to know how far they will go. There are fewer than 30 million Ukies still living in the Kiev controlled territory – and thousands are dying every week.

    You hoping for a miracle or an internal collapse in Russia. But usually what happens is more mundane and ordinary: the stronger force prevails, the larger army wins, the defeated find a way to live with it. By far the most likely outcome is a rump-Ukraine between 50-75% of it former size, with 25-30 million people, some deal with EU, no Nato, and lots and lots of regrets.

    The fact that many in Russia will also have regrets doesn’t compensate – why would you care? It is like drinking poison and hoping that the other person will die. Lets’ grow up – this maudlin escapism only leads to more bad decisions. Do you want an escalation to hell?

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Beckow


    these are not “traditional minorities”, so anything is allowed?
     
    You misunderstood me. Start acting like a traditional minority - do not scream things like "Putin bring in the troops" and quit supporting separatism. Then you can be considered a "traditional minority". As long as Russia uses them, they will never be accepted.

    If you had a huge population of Germans or Hungarians or any other large nationality with a large state of origin behind them that is also hostile, you would not treat them as a traditional minority.

    Replies: @Beckow

    , @LatW
    @Beckow

    And you do realize that after what has happened the old (previous) conceptions and relationship models will no longer work and be valid? You're talking as if the old reality is still in place. It will never return.

  419. @Beckow
    @John Johnson


    The Soviets failed to defeat the Taliban. They were under attack even during the withdrawal...
    The Americans defeated the Taliban on the battlefield but were unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan.
     
    Soviets left in 1989 and Taliban was created in the early 90's...:) Soviets controlled the cities and the government - exactly the same as US. Soviets withdrew in 1989 and the commie government in Kabul ruled until 1992, for 3 more years. It seems like a much better record than US...

    "Sustainable" Afghanistan is an escapist slogan for fools unable to face reality. No wonder you use it.


    There was never a declared goal of removing Assad... Obama mumbling about what he would like is not a battle plan
     
    Obama was the president - his demand that "Assad must go!" was the US policy. US armed the rebels, put its own forces and bombed Syria - then they lost. Decisive? That is in the eye of the beholder. But it was a loss.

    You could argue that Iraq wasn’t worth the effort but the US was not defeated militarily.
     
    You could argue that, but you would look like a fool. An enormous effort that led to nothing - US was effectively pushed out and Iran is the principal beneficiary. The inability to militarily control the conquered land and then having to leave is usually considered a defeat. But you are into palliatives, so you will deceive yourself.

    I used the term 'decisive defeat' after you used it first about the perceived "decisive" losses by Russia. If you want to redefine "decisive" as only something like Germany in WW2 then it works both ways. Your inability to be objective, to see things the same about your side and others is a form of mental disease. Read Ron Unz's front page piece today about where it leads - and how stupid it looks like to any outsider. Or do you enjoy being thought off as just too stupid to think critically?

    Replies: @Mikhail, @John Johnson

    Upon the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Soviet backed Afghan government lasted longer than the US backed Afghan government after the US left.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Upon the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Soviet backed Afghan government lasted longer than the US backed Afghan government after the US left.

    Are you talking about the bloody period of 1989-1992 where no one was fully in charge of the country?

    WOW WHAT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT

    The Soviets backed a Marxist revolution that was unwanted by the majority. It was explicitly secular and anti-democratic.

    The Afghan majority has never supported the Taliban. The problem is that not enough of that majority is willing to fight. They'd rather keep their heads down and tend to goats. In their minds everyone ends up in the same heaven anyways.

    The Afghan forces actually abandoned their equipment fully intact during Biden's pathetic exit. US forces are trained to disable their equipment within 5 minutes. The Afghan forces fled without a fight and left brand new hummers for the Taliban. Way to go.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @QCIC

  420. @Beckow
    @LatW


    Would you argue the same for Russia?
     
    Yes. They also don't listen to me...:)

    We never need free speech more than in a war - things get polarized and bloody, it is more important to know all angles, views, potential solutions. Not less. Unfortunately the natural tendency is to restrict speech during wars.


    The Russian speakers are not a traditional minority...
     
    Riiight...and we are home...:) "they are not like the others, they plot and are arrogant", right? How about the Chinese in Indonesia not a "traditional minority" - they were murdered in the 60's, Tutsis in Rwanda, Jews everywhere, etc...these are not "traditional minorities", so anything is allowed? Is that your argument? That is a slippery slope.

    What if one day someone decides that the Balts are not a "traditional minority"? The silly SS marching, leaders who grew in US-Canada, weird language (?), and the women are just too pale...


    That a genocidal war of invasion is shrinking a country is somehow a surprise?
     
    It doesn't look genocidal, Kiev and Lviv have not been flattened, the life goes on - compare it to the pUS-Nato wars: massive bombing killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, blowing up water supplies..."shock-and-awe". Do you think that the West can do it, but others must obey the rules the West preaches?

    It is not over yet....Russia has changed immensely, by killing Ukrainians they are only hurting themselves. They will turn into a petty state.
     
    Correct. But it is risky to predict the changes it will bring. Right now the hurt ones are predominantly the Ukies. And "pettyness" by Russia - I see it too - looks like a response to the endless pettyness by the West toward them.

    trying to eradicate a whole nation of 40 million in the middle of Central Europe, is more scandalous than they realize. Not to mention difficult. They have completely entangled themselves and now can’t get out.
     
    They are not, they are trying to keep Nato out and protect the Russian minority in Ukraine. They offered for years a pretty good deal how to accomplish it, Kiev-West refused. Now they are methodically dismantling Ukraine, there is no way to know how far they will go. There are fewer than 30 million Ukies still living in the Kiev controlled territory - and thousands are dying every week.

    You hoping for a miracle or an internal collapse in Russia. But usually what happens is more mundane and ordinary: the stronger force prevails, the larger army wins, the defeated find a way to live with it. By far the most likely outcome is a rump-Ukraine between 50-75% of it former size, with 25-30 million people, some deal with EU, no Nato, and lots and lots of regrets.

    The fact that many in Russia will also have regrets doesn't compensate - why would you care? It is like drinking poison and hoping that the other person will die. Lets' grow up - this maudlin escapism only leads to more bad decisions. Do you want an escalation to hell?

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

    these are not “traditional minorities”, so anything is allowed?

    You misunderstood me. Start acting like a traditional minority – do not scream things like “Putin bring in the troops” and quit supporting separatism. Then you can be considered a “traditional minority”. As long as Russia uses them, they will never be accepted.

    If you had a huge population of Germans or Hungarians or any other large nationality with a large state of origin behind them that is also hostile, you would not treat them as a traditional minority.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...Start acting like a traditional minority – do not scream things like “Putin bring in the troops” and quit supporting separatism. Then you can be considered a “traditional minority”. As long as Russia uses them, they will never be accepted.
     
    First of all they didn't, you are being overly theatrical. But it is a common feature of most minorities to have sympathy for the larger country where they are a majority - you can observe it in Magyars in Transylvania, Albanians in Kosovo, Turks in Bulgaria, Armenians in Azerbaidzan. In a milder form it is also true about the German minority in Italy, Flemish (or French) in Belgium, or Irish, Catalans, Scots...It is not about the 'minority' behavior - it is about how the state treats them. Most fairly treated minorities accommodate to their states.

    You are setting the standard too high because you are looking for an excuse to mistreat the Russians. You are not consistent and don't show good will. You are on a road to hell.

    Reality always evolves - not only today. You expect the hatred for anything Russian to allow local nationalists to realize their dreams. But there is a problem: it is not the West that determines what happens, they are too hypocritical and are staying away from the actual fighting. The war is basically Russia against the local Ukie nationalists (maybe also Poland, Latvia, Romania...) - in that fight Russia is stronger. Your wish for the old realities to go away could come back to haunt you. It may not be the Russians bearing the brunt of the changes.

    So can Ukies win the war? If not, they should be careful about how they suggest a minority or a defeated side is treated.

    Replies: @LatW

  421. @Beckow
    @LatW


    Would you argue the same for Russia?
     
    Yes. They also don't listen to me...:)

    We never need free speech more than in a war - things get polarized and bloody, it is more important to know all angles, views, potential solutions. Not less. Unfortunately the natural tendency is to restrict speech during wars.


    The Russian speakers are not a traditional minority...
     
    Riiight...and we are home...:) "they are not like the others, they plot and are arrogant", right? How about the Chinese in Indonesia not a "traditional minority" - they were murdered in the 60's, Tutsis in Rwanda, Jews everywhere, etc...these are not "traditional minorities", so anything is allowed? Is that your argument? That is a slippery slope.

    What if one day someone decides that the Balts are not a "traditional minority"? The silly SS marching, leaders who grew in US-Canada, weird language (?), and the women are just too pale...


    That a genocidal war of invasion is shrinking a country is somehow a surprise?
     
    It doesn't look genocidal, Kiev and Lviv have not been flattened, the life goes on - compare it to the pUS-Nato wars: massive bombing killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, blowing up water supplies..."shock-and-awe". Do you think that the West can do it, but others must obey the rules the West preaches?

    It is not over yet....Russia has changed immensely, by killing Ukrainians they are only hurting themselves. They will turn into a petty state.
     
    Correct. But it is risky to predict the changes it will bring. Right now the hurt ones are predominantly the Ukies. And "pettyness" by Russia - I see it too - looks like a response to the endless pettyness by the West toward them.

    trying to eradicate a whole nation of 40 million in the middle of Central Europe, is more scandalous than they realize. Not to mention difficult. They have completely entangled themselves and now can’t get out.
     
    They are not, they are trying to keep Nato out and protect the Russian minority in Ukraine. They offered for years a pretty good deal how to accomplish it, Kiev-West refused. Now they are methodically dismantling Ukraine, there is no way to know how far they will go. There are fewer than 30 million Ukies still living in the Kiev controlled territory - and thousands are dying every week.

    You hoping for a miracle or an internal collapse in Russia. But usually what happens is more mundane and ordinary: the stronger force prevails, the larger army wins, the defeated find a way to live with it. By far the most likely outcome is a rump-Ukraine between 50-75% of it former size, with 25-30 million people, some deal with EU, no Nato, and lots and lots of regrets.

    The fact that many in Russia will also have regrets doesn't compensate - why would you care? It is like drinking poison and hoping that the other person will die. Lets' grow up - this maudlin escapism only leads to more bad decisions. Do you want an escalation to hell?

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW

    And you do realize that after what has happened the old (previous) conceptions and relationship models will no longer work and be valid? You’re talking as if the old reality is still in place. It will never return.

  422. @Mikhail
    @Beckow

    Upon the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Soviet backed Afghan government lasted longer than the US backed Afghan government after the US left.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Upon the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Soviet backed Afghan government lasted longer than the US backed Afghan government after the US left.

    Are you talking about the bloody period of 1989-1992 where no one was fully in charge of the country?

    WOW WHAT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT

    The Soviets backed a Marxist revolution that was unwanted by the majority. It was explicitly secular and anti-democratic.

    The Afghan majority has never supported the Taliban. The problem is that not enough of that majority is willing to fight. They’d rather keep their heads down and tend to goats. In their minds everyone ends up in the same heaven anyways.

    The Afghan forces actually abandoned their equipment fully intact during Biden’s pathetic exit. US forces are trained to disable their equipment within 5 minutes. The Afghan forces fled without a fight and left brand new hummers for the Taliban. Way to go.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    About three years after Soviet withdrawal compared to the US backed regime melting right after US forces left. Brandon expressed confidence in the staying ability of that US backed government.

    , @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    Don't forget that the USSR was already collapsing before the end of the Soviet-Afghan war.

    Also, keep in mind that Russia has a long history of fighting with, conquering, losing to and ultimately coexisting with Islamic peoples and countries.

  423. @LatW
    @Beckow


    these are not “traditional minorities”, so anything is allowed?
     
    You misunderstood me. Start acting like a traditional minority - do not scream things like "Putin bring in the troops" and quit supporting separatism. Then you can be considered a "traditional minority". As long as Russia uses them, they will never be accepted.

    If you had a huge population of Germans or Hungarians or any other large nationality with a large state of origin behind them that is also hostile, you would not treat them as a traditional minority.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …Start acting like a traditional minority – do not scream things like “Putin bring in the troops” and quit supporting separatism. Then you can be considered a “traditional minority”. As long as Russia uses them, they will never be accepted.

    First of all they didn’t, you are being overly theatrical. But it is a common feature of most minorities to have sympathy for the larger country where they are a majority – you can observe it in Magyars in Transylvania, Albanians in Kosovo, Turks in Bulgaria, Armenians in Azerbaidzan. In a milder form it is also true about the German minority in Italy, Flemish (or French) in Belgium, or Irish, Catalans, Scots…It is not about the ‘minority’ behavior – it is about how the state treats them. Most fairly treated minorities accommodate to their states.

    You are setting the standard too high because you are looking for an excuse to mistreat the Russians. You are not consistent and don’t show good will. You are on a road to hell.

    Reality always evolves – not only today. You expect the hatred for anything Russian to allow local nationalists to realize their dreams. But there is a problem: it is not the West that determines what happens, they are too hypocritical and are staying away from the actual fighting. The war is basically Russia against the local Ukie nationalists (maybe also Poland, Latvia, Romania…) – in that fight Russia is stronger. Your wish for the old realities to go away could come back to haunt you. It may not be the Russians bearing the brunt of the changes.

    So can Ukies win the war? If not, they should be careful about how they suggest a minority or a defeated side is treated.

    • Thanks: Vajradhara
    • Replies: @LatW
    @Beckow


    First of all they didn’t
     
    But quite a few of them did. And thus they endangered all the others.

    The war is basically Russia against the local Ukie nationalists (maybe also Poland, Latvia, Romania…) – in that fight Russia is stronger.
     
    First of all, you don't know that, and most importantly - it is not against nationalists, but against the whole nations. They're not fighting Ukrainian nationalists, they're fighting the whole nation. If you fail to see this, then your conclusions, too, will be faulty.

    They should've taken what they had (which was a lot), now they are not wanted.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @LondonBob, @Beckow

  424. @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...Start acting like a traditional minority – do not scream things like “Putin bring in the troops” and quit supporting separatism. Then you can be considered a “traditional minority”. As long as Russia uses them, they will never be accepted.
     
    First of all they didn't, you are being overly theatrical. But it is a common feature of most minorities to have sympathy for the larger country where they are a majority - you can observe it in Magyars in Transylvania, Albanians in Kosovo, Turks in Bulgaria, Armenians in Azerbaidzan. In a milder form it is also true about the German minority in Italy, Flemish (or French) in Belgium, or Irish, Catalans, Scots...It is not about the 'minority' behavior - it is about how the state treats them. Most fairly treated minorities accommodate to their states.

    You are setting the standard too high because you are looking for an excuse to mistreat the Russians. You are not consistent and don't show good will. You are on a road to hell.

    Reality always evolves - not only today. You expect the hatred for anything Russian to allow local nationalists to realize their dreams. But there is a problem: it is not the West that determines what happens, they are too hypocritical and are staying away from the actual fighting. The war is basically Russia against the local Ukie nationalists (maybe also Poland, Latvia, Romania...) - in that fight Russia is stronger. Your wish for the old realities to go away could come back to haunt you. It may not be the Russians bearing the brunt of the changes.

    So can Ukies win the war? If not, they should be careful about how they suggest a minority or a defeated side is treated.

    Replies: @LatW

    First of all they didn’t

    But quite a few of them did. And thus they endangered all the others.

    The war is basically Russia against the local Ukie nationalists (maybe also Poland, Latvia, Romania…) – in that fight Russia is stronger.

    First of all, you don’t know that, and most importantly – it is not against nationalists, but against the whole nations. They’re not fighting Ukrainian nationalists, they’re fighting the whole nation. If you fail to see this, then your conclusions, too, will be faulty.

    They should’ve taken what they had (which was a lot), now they are not wanted.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @LatW

    "they’re fighting the whole nation"

    Does that include the members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who rebelled in Luhansk, Donbass and Crimea?

    IIRC they gave the 45,000-odd military in Crimea a choice of staying with Ukraine or joining Russia, and 32,000 chose Russia, those choosing Ukraine were bussed out, not shot or sent to Siberia..

    I guess you could argue that they killed all the pro-Russian people in places like Odessa, but I imagine there are many more sympathisers who just didn't want to be burned alive.

    If Russia thought every single rump-Ukrainian was a sworn enemy, there would be more temptation to do what the US did to Serbia and take out water supplies and electricity. Instead Russia attempted to stick strictly to military and strategic infrastructure, impressive moderation wholly unacknowledged by the Russia-haters.

    Replies: @LatW

    , @LondonBob
    @LatW

    Most Ukrainians don't want to fight, they want peace.

    , @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...But quite a few of them did. And thus they endangered all the others.
     
    That can be said almost about any minority in any country. Why does that matter? Are you suggesting collective responsibility? That is another quasi-fascist-commie-liberal concept. Be careful, it cuts both ways.

    Russia against the local Ukie nationalists...– in that fight Russia is stronger.

    you don’t know that, and most importantly – it is not against nationalists, but against the whole nations.

     

    Russia is stronger as long as Nato will not actually fight. To what extent the Ukies are now "all nationalists" is unknown - in wars there is enforced conformity. My guess is that a large plurality simply wants peace, they don't want to die for Nato membership and to ban the Russian schools. They are angry, scared and volatile.

    After the war we will see their true attitudes. I suspect the Russian areas will become more "Russian" and the Ukie areas more "Ukrainian". They will yell at each other, sometimes even shoot...then make up as in the past. But tens of millions will leave to EU and Russia. It is an absolute catastrophe for Ukraine - all else is only noise.

    Replies: @LatW

  425. @Beckow
    @John Johnson


    The Soviets failed to defeat the Taliban. They were under attack even during the withdrawal...
    The Americans defeated the Taliban on the battlefield but were unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan.
     
    Soviets left in 1989 and Taliban was created in the early 90's...:) Soviets controlled the cities and the government - exactly the same as US. Soviets withdrew in 1989 and the commie government in Kabul ruled until 1992, for 3 more years. It seems like a much better record than US...

    "Sustainable" Afghanistan is an escapist slogan for fools unable to face reality. No wonder you use it.


    There was never a declared goal of removing Assad... Obama mumbling about what he would like is not a battle plan
     
    Obama was the president - his demand that "Assad must go!" was the US policy. US armed the rebels, put its own forces and bombed Syria - then they lost. Decisive? That is in the eye of the beholder. But it was a loss.

    You could argue that Iraq wasn’t worth the effort but the US was not defeated militarily.
     
    You could argue that, but you would look like a fool. An enormous effort that led to nothing - US was effectively pushed out and Iran is the principal beneficiary. The inability to militarily control the conquered land and then having to leave is usually considered a defeat. But you are into palliatives, so you will deceive yourself.

    I used the term 'decisive defeat' after you used it first about the perceived "decisive" losses by Russia. If you want to redefine "decisive" as only something like Germany in WW2 then it works both ways. Your inability to be objective, to see things the same about your side and others is a form of mental disease. Read Ron Unz's front page piece today about where it leads - and how stupid it looks like to any outsider. Or do you enjoy being thought off as just too stupid to think critically?

    Replies: @Mikhail, @John Johnson

    Soviets left in 1989 and Taliban was created in the early 90’s…:) Soviets controlled the cities and the government – exactly the same as US. Soviets withdrew in 1989 and the commie government in Kabul ruled until 1992, for 3 more years. It seems like a much better record than US…

    That was a period of civil war. Over 400k Afghans died from 1989-1994.

    That commie government was never in charge of the entire country.

    They were unwanted and eventually lost to the Taliban. A total waste of lives and time for all sides.

    That was a last ditch effort at expanding Communism and it completely failed.

    “Sustainable” Afghanistan is an escapist slogan for fools unable to face reality. No wonder you use it.

    I’ve never heard anyone say it. I said that the US was unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan. Or are you going to suggest that the US lost militarily?

    The US had 2,402 casualties for the entire period (2001-2021). The Taliban lost at least 50,000.

    That isn’t a “decisive military defeat” and I already pointed out that US soldiers were more likely to be killed in a car wreck while stationed at home. Do you deny that?

    Obama was the president – his demand that “Assad must go!” was the US policy

    No that is not US policy. That is Obama talking and not government policy. He never asked for war powers or an invasion force from congress.

    Biden has declared many times that AR-15s must go. Is that US policy?

    The president is not a king. He can not simply create policy from words.

    Obama was a coward and broke his word over Syria. He decided to not launch a military removal of Assad after the chemical weapons attack. Take it up with him.

    You are clearly biased against America but try to be more honest about history. There was never a “decisive military defeat” in Syria when there has never been an attempt at removing Assad. We currently have 900 troops in Syria that mostly work out and cruise around in hummers. I’m fine with them leaving along with the 50k Russian troops that are not welcome by the majority.

    You could argue that Iraq wasn’t worth the effort but the US was not defeated militarily.

    You could argue that, but you would look like a fool. An enormous effort that led to nothing – US was effectively pushed out and Iran is the principal beneficiary.

    Do tell which force defeated the US military in Iraq and pushed them out.

    The US defeated Saddam and his forces. Iraq is now democracy and they can align with Iran if they please. That is the risk of creating a democracy in the middle east. I would have setup a monarchy but I’m not in charge of US foreign policy.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @John Johnson

    You are suffering from an incurable mental condition unable to see the same things as being the same when they hurt your feelings about your "country". Or you are simply a lier who spins tales for a cause.

    People explained to you that the Soviet and US experiences in Afghanistan were similar - and before that the British also lost a war against the Afghanis. None of your careless cherrypicking and intentionally using different terms makes one iota of difference.


    Sustainable Afghanistan...I’ve never heard anyone say it. I said that the US was unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan.
     
    You said it! Literally in the same paragraph and in your original comment. Are you so unaware?

    US declared from the highest levels - Obama, Clinton, Congress.... - that "Assad must go!" Now you try to pretend that it didn't happen and that "Obama was only a blabber-mouth?" (He was.) Would you apply the same standard to the other side?

    Assad is still there. US-Nato trained-armed rebels are defeated, only a small band of Kurds still fights everyone (mostly Turkey). Syria has the Russian naval base and is largely back to its pre-war state. That is in direct conflict with the declared US goals - it was a lost proxy war.

    US never declares a war - you asking for the war resolution is an evasive form of lying. The others are also learning the "trick", look at Russia's silly Special Military Operation - if it goes south, they can claim that since they never declared a war, they couldn't lose a war...:) Would anyone believe it? Why are you so special?

    In Iraq a dispassionate description would be that US-Nato (most of it) acted as an expensive foreign mercenary force for the Shias-Kurds. It defeated and removed their enemy (Saddam), then f..ed around for a few years losing soldiers, spending huge amounts of money, and fought some ISIL fanatics - who they originally encouraged as a counter-force to the Shias.

    Then the mercenaries were told to go home without getting paid. Iran took the spoils. Victory or defeat? Look up the Xenophon Anabasis in ancient Mesopotamia for a similar story - hired army that wins a few battles and then is sent packing without as the Persians take over. (Good job, neo-cons yahoos, that's the way to do it...right? I am glad you are proud of them.)

    In summary, get some help for your narcissism. Or read a few books. The Ukie fiasco is heading in the same direction. The idea that special, indispensable people can go to faraway places, find locals willing to help or get paid, spend lots of treasure but not really fight (too risky!) and "win wars" against entrenched regional powers is preposterously stupid. It will be studied for generations as the ultimate in hubris. In the meantime let us enjoy the show and hope it doesn't get out of hand....:)

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  426. What is Meloni’s sociosexual number vs. an aged-adjusted Berlusconi?

  427. @LatW
    @Beckow


    First of all they didn’t
     
    But quite a few of them did. And thus they endangered all the others.

    The war is basically Russia against the local Ukie nationalists (maybe also Poland, Latvia, Romania…) – in that fight Russia is stronger.
     
    First of all, you don't know that, and most importantly - it is not against nationalists, but against the whole nations. They're not fighting Ukrainian nationalists, they're fighting the whole nation. If you fail to see this, then your conclusions, too, will be faulty.

    They should've taken what they had (which was a lot), now they are not wanted.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @LondonBob, @Beckow

    “they’re fighting the whole nation”

    Does that include the members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who rebelled in Luhansk, Donbass and Crimea?

    IIRC they gave the 45,000-odd military in Crimea a choice of staying with Ukraine or joining Russia, and 32,000 chose Russia, those choosing Ukraine were bussed out, not shot or sent to Siberia..

    I guess you could argue that they killed all the pro-Russian people in places like Odessa, but I imagine there are many more sympathisers who just didn’t want to be burned alive.

    If Russia thought every single rump-Ukrainian was a sworn enemy, there would be more temptation to do what the US did to Serbia and take out water supplies and electricity. Instead Russia attempted to stick strictly to military and strategic infrastructure, impressive moderation wholly unacknowledged by the Russia-haters.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Does that include the members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who rebelled in Luhansk, Donbass and Crimea?
     
    No, but the rest of the nation is huge even without them. One of the issues with Crimea was that apparently the Americans (Obama) explictly told Ukraine not to resist. I can't check this info, but I've heard it many times by now (and I'd really like to have it checked for veracity).

    Another important factor is that the Donbassers did resist the invasion - there were the so called "black men", as opposed to Russia's "green men" (chornye chelovechki, pro-Ukrainian resistance units), some of them are still around and fighting.

    By the way, if you didn't notice, I was even arguing from the position that the Russians could've just let things stay put as they were post 2014 (and just marinate Minsk indefinitely - nothing would change on the ground, they could easily militarize all those areas and finally Russify them entirely). But they chose otherwise.


    and take out water supplies and electricity.
     
    They have consistently hit vital energy infrastructure (that the civilians rely on, including the weakest of them- the children and the elderly) (and will probably try to do it again this coming winter) and of course they have hit residential areas.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @YetAnotherAnon

  428. @YetAnotherAnon
    @LatW

    "they’re fighting the whole nation"

    Does that include the members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who rebelled in Luhansk, Donbass and Crimea?

    IIRC they gave the 45,000-odd military in Crimea a choice of staying with Ukraine or joining Russia, and 32,000 chose Russia, those choosing Ukraine were bussed out, not shot or sent to Siberia..

    I guess you could argue that they killed all the pro-Russian people in places like Odessa, but I imagine there are many more sympathisers who just didn't want to be burned alive.

    If Russia thought every single rump-Ukrainian was a sworn enemy, there would be more temptation to do what the US did to Serbia and take out water supplies and electricity. Instead Russia attempted to stick strictly to military and strategic infrastructure, impressive moderation wholly unacknowledged by the Russia-haters.

    Replies: @LatW

    Does that include the members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who rebelled in Luhansk, Donbass and Crimea?

    No, but the rest of the nation is huge even without them. One of the issues with Crimea was that apparently the Americans (Obama) explictly told Ukraine not to resist. I can’t check this info, but I’ve heard it many times by now (and I’d really like to have it checked for veracity).

    Another important factor is that the Donbassers did resist the invasion – there were the so called “black men”, as opposed to Russia’s “green men” (chornye chelovechki, pro-Ukrainian resistance units), some of them are still around and fighting.

    By the way, if you didn’t notice, I was even arguing from the position that the Russians could’ve just let things stay put as they were post 2014 (and just marinate Minsk indefinitely – nothing would change on the ground, they could easily militarize all those areas and finally Russify them entirely). But they chose otherwise.

    and take out water supplies and electricity.

    They have consistently hit vital energy infrastructure (that the civilians rely on, including the weakest of them- the children and the elderly) (and will probably try to do it again this coming winter) and of course they have hit residential areas.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW


    By the way, if you didn’t notice, I was even arguing from the position that the Russians could’ve just let things stay put as they were post 2014 (and just marinate Minsk indefinitely – nothing would change on the ground, they could easily militarize all those areas and finally Russify them entirely). But they chose otherwise.
     
    Even better was to just outright annex Donbass back in 2014 and thus create a fait accompli. (I think that not taking any Ukrainian territory in 2014 would have been better in hindsight, but if Russia decided to take Ukrainian territory, it shouldn't have stopped with just Crimea since Ukraine was bound to be extremely hostile towards Russia anyway.) It would have been better for everyone involved since thousands of Donbassers, Ukrainians, and Russians would not have died in 2014-2021 and tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians would not have died in 2022-2023.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @LatW

    "the Russians could’ve just let things stay put as they were post 2014 – nothing would change on the ground"

    That wasn't an option as the NATO-trained-and-armed rump-Ukraine forces were attacking them, on February 19th 2022 the Ukrainian shelling of Donbass and Luhansk suddenly doubled.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/osce-reports-surge-number-explosions-east-ukraine-2022-02-19/

    Replies: @LatW

  429. Sher Singh says:

    How do you function and operate a gurdwara to exist within this world? Through our own parameters and through our own paradigms–not through anybody else. Not trying to explain that this is a house of worship or something like that. If there’s a Nishaan Sahib outside, if there are shastar (weapons) here, if the Khalsa’s pehra (guard) is here, those things have weight. I think Bhai Hardeep Singh lived in such a way, organized and did things in such a way that he gave these concepts and these ideals real, physical, tangible meaning

    https://www.panthpunjab.com/p/unsettling-the-myth-of-the-model

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Sher Singh

    You are far less repetitious and repetitive than Indian scripture I will give you that buddy!

    and repetitious

    Replies: @Sher Singh

  430. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Upon the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Soviet backed Afghan government lasted longer than the US backed Afghan government after the US left.

    Are you talking about the bloody period of 1989-1992 where no one was fully in charge of the country?

    WOW WHAT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT

    The Soviets backed a Marxist revolution that was unwanted by the majority. It was explicitly secular and anti-democratic.

    The Afghan majority has never supported the Taliban. The problem is that not enough of that majority is willing to fight. They'd rather keep their heads down and tend to goats. In their minds everyone ends up in the same heaven anyways.

    The Afghan forces actually abandoned their equipment fully intact during Biden's pathetic exit. US forces are trained to disable their equipment within 5 minutes. The Afghan forces fled without a fight and left brand new hummers for the Taliban. Way to go.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @QCIC

    About three years after Soviet withdrawal compared to the US backed regime melting right after US forces left. Brandon expressed confidence in the staying ability of that US backed government.

  431. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Upon the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Soviet backed Afghan government lasted longer than the US backed Afghan government after the US left.

    Are you talking about the bloody period of 1989-1992 where no one was fully in charge of the country?

    WOW WHAT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT

    The Soviets backed a Marxist revolution that was unwanted by the majority. It was explicitly secular and anti-democratic.

    The Afghan majority has never supported the Taliban. The problem is that not enough of that majority is willing to fight. They'd rather keep their heads down and tend to goats. In their minds everyone ends up in the same heaven anyways.

    The Afghan forces actually abandoned their equipment fully intact during Biden's pathetic exit. US forces are trained to disable their equipment within 5 minutes. The Afghan forces fled without a fight and left brand new hummers for the Taliban. Way to go.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @QCIC

    Don’t forget that the USSR was already collapsing before the end of the Soviet-Afghan war.

    Also, keep in mind that Russia has a long history of fighting with, conquering, losing to and ultimately coexisting with Islamic peoples and countries.

  432. @Coconuts
    @Mr. XYZ

    This idea seems to involve two premises about human nature:

    1) No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities. (Problem for incels)

    And given most Episcopalian bishops were married to women afaik:

    2) Even married males will also be drawn into child abuse unless they are having gay sex on the side.

    Bigger question seems to be why Episcopalians kept choosing married men with such strong homosexual urges as their spiritual leaders, and can they avoid doing that in the future, rather than institutionalising the practice?

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @John Johnson, @Mikel

    No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities.

    I don’t know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males. So it’s not unexpected that it messes up some people psychologically. Keeping everything else constant, I would certainly expect a higher rate of sex-related aberrancies among celibates than the general population, especially among those celibates that don’t separate themselves from society.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikel

    I don’t know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males. So it’s not unexpected that it messes up some people psychologically.

    I don't disagree that it is unhealthy and goes against natural instincts in most men.

    However there really are people who are basically asexual and lack a sexual drive. I in fact briefly met someone who was off to a Monastery. He was in his 20s and I don't think he understood men or women. Last I heard he fit in perfectly.

    I suspect the bigger problem is that the celibacy requirement attracts predatory homosexuals. They use it as a cover.

    , @Coconuts
    @Mikel


    I don’t know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males.
     
    I think a few things can be said here.

    The first one is that if it is clear that celibacy is an unnatural way of life and contrary to our strongest instincts, this doesn't seem to be the case with reproduction itself and sexual activity leading to the production of any children.

    If celibacy is an unnatural way of life for all it might suggest kin selection and group selection are not real (human group selection is a more controversial idea among biologists than kin selection, but could be because of the implications of the idea.)

    Biologists usually discuss classifications like 'species' as being artefacts of the human mind or understanding, not objective realities. Following that there need be no human nature or essence shared by all individuals placed in the human class. Intrinsic teleology is also generally rejected, meaning there is no goal directed activity inherently linked to a species classification. (The old idea derived from Aristotle would have been that each essence of nature includes a telos, or the activities proper to the things which possess that nature).

    These sorts of argument challenge the idea that there are strong norms of human behaviour we can read-off observation and description of nature.


    I would certainly expect a higher rate of sex-related aberrancies among celibates than the general population, especially among those celibates that don’t separate themselves from society.
     
    Is it confirmed by any data? At the moment aberrant sexual activity is usually treated as any behaviour that may involve coercion or is non-consensual, otherwise it isn't aberrant. There is a lot of monitoring and enforcement in most developed countries around MAPs and pedophile activity within the non-celibate population, very likely this curbs the behaviour. As far as other strange sexual choices in the non-celibate population goes though... seems like there is plenty.

    In the non-celibate population arguments usually return that activities like Pedophilia are not inherently wrong, made by highly respected thought leaders (Foucault is one of the best known).

    Replies: @Coconuts, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mikel

  433. https://twitter.com/BGOnTheScene/status/1698109744504840597

    Biden is better than Trump he’s sending Rockets to Ukraine, Slava Ukraini!

  434. Funny how they called the clashing Eritreans in Israel “opponents” and “supporters” of the Eritrean government.

    I imagine that they’ve got to belong to different tribes, or at least clans, and that that is far more relevant.

  435. @AaronB
    @Mikel

    Lol, I hear :) JJ does seem to be very stubborn, and to have a very simple black and white view of things, and to frequently misunderstand others comments, but he makes some interesting comments sometimes and is far from the worst here. As you say, another Unz weirdo like all of us - and I try and talk to everyone except the most creepy and sinister, and perhaps even them :)

    But I was primarily trying to "awaken" JJ to the possibility of nuance and complexity of thinking - that something may be "bad" but also on another level "good", or a step on the path to good. Or that a situation that contains much more bad things overall than another situation, may on the whole, contain more good things as well and be worth learning from to some degree, whereas another situation may not be so bad but also have nothing particularly good in it.

    JJ strikes me as a very extreme case of simplistic left-hemisphere thinking, which I was trying to "snap him out of" and learn to see things with nuance and depth.

    You make good points re the religion of money in America and perhaps the cultural contribution of Swedes to the Mormon community, although I think all religious communities by definition practice some form of altruism.

    And thanks for providing examples of moral conviction trumping self-interest among Mormons - that can only happen in a religious context, of course.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Mikel

    JJ does seem to be very stubborn, and to have a very simple black and white view of things, and to frequently misunderstand others comments

    It shouldn’t be long before I meet the Mormon woman married to a Jew that I mentioned. Perhaps I should tell her that someone on the internet told me that she’ll have a second-rate Heaven experience because of her husband. Though I suspect that her reaction would be exactly the same as if I told some of my Catholic relatives that haven’t gone to mass for years that eternal Hell is waiting for them LOL

    These black-and-white types don’t seem capable of grasping the trivial fact that ordinary Mormons are about as flexible to certain interpretations of their faith as ordinary members of any other Christian denomination. Strictly speaking, I reckon that some 90% of Christians are condemned if we take the precepts of their faith seriously but you don’t see them overly preoccupied by the matter. They just follow whatever social mores have come to be the norm in their environment and carry on practicing their faith happily as best they can.

    In fact, people are so incoherent that I’m sure there must be chaplains offering their services right now to soldiers on both sides on the Ukrainian war, including the ones who press the buttons that lob missiles toward civilian areas. I wouldn’t be surprised if these are the ones who demand those services the most. It would make perfect sense from a purely human perspective.

    Perhaps I have the advantage of not being a native-born American and thus being free of old anti-Mormon prejudices. I had never interacted with any Mormon before coming to live in Utah but shortly before coming to live here I did read a lot of what some Americans like JJ said about them (exactly the same kind of stuff) and was deeply worried about how my family would be treated. What I actually found is that either those prejudices were totally wrong or described a past era long gone now. Mormon children are most definitely allowed to play with non-Mormons, people are surprisingly welcoming of newcomers and tolerant of their differences and Mormons are just the best neighbors I have ever had anywhere in the world, as we’ve discussed at length in the past. With all the time you’ve spent in Utah I’m sure you’ve seen some of what I’m saying.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikel

    It shouldn’t be long before I meet the Mormon woman married to a Jew that I mentioned. Perhaps I should tell her that someone on the internet told me that she’ll have a second-rate Heaven experience because of her husband.

    No need to tell her directly.

    Instead of being insulting as usual you could spend 5 minutes reading the link I gave you.

    Or you could provide a direct source from the Mormons themselves:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-38-eternal-marriage?lang=eng

    These black-and-white types don’t seem capable of grasping the trivial fact that ordinary Mormons are about as flexible to certain interpretations of their faith as ordinary members of any other Christian denomination.

    Oh I'm the problem? I'm interpreting it incorrectly?

    Directly from the LDS describing the three heavens:

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. - Joseph Smith

    Is that not clear enough for you? They can't reach the highest level of heaven by marrying a non-Mormon. The new covenant of marriage must be between Mormons and sealed in the main temple. You can go confirm this with your Mormon friend.

    You were clearly wrong so just admit it and move on.

    Perhaps I have the advantage of not being a native-born American and thus being free of old anti-Mormon prejudices. I had never interacted with any Mormon before coming to live in Utah but shortly before coming to live here I did read a lot of what some Americans like JJ said about them (exactly the same kind of stuff) and was deeply worried about how my family would be treated.

    I used to take the same outlook until I did business with them.

    They are friendly when they are just your neighbors and are hoping they can someday convert you.

    If you are doing business with them as a non-Mormon then they have no moral responsibility to treat you equally. You have rejected the True God(tm) and can be fleeced.

    Go ahead and read through this thread:
    What is it with doing business with Mormons?
    https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3e3s20/what_is_it_about_doing_business_with_mormons/

    No other Christian denomination has that kind of reputation. It isn't an imagined stereotype.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ

    , @silviosilver
    @Mikel

    I find Mormon beliefs deeply unsettling. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but the whole thing gives off an eerie vibe to me. I almost feel "unclean" even learning about their faith. Maybe it's just the newness of the religion and my disappointment that people can possibly take that garbage seriously - I mean, it doesn't even have the excuse of dating back to a more ignorant age, and yet it still somehow wins adherents. (Arrgh, humans!) I'm sure I would feel much more comfortable faking being muslim rather than faking being mormon. (Obviously, I could never actually "believe" anything they teach.) Happy to hear the actual people are not that much different to anyone else.

    Replies: @Mikel, @John Johnson

  436. @Sher Singh
    How do you function and operate a gurdwara to exist within this world? Through our own parameters and through our own paradigms–not through anybody else. Not trying to explain that this is a house of worship or something like that. If there's a Nishaan Sahib outside, if there are shastar (weapons) here, if the Khalsa's pehra (guard) is here, those things have weight. I think Bhai Hardeep Singh lived in such a way, organized and did things in such a way that he gave these concepts and these ideals real, physical, tangible meaning

    https://www.panthpunjab.com/p/unsettling-the-myth-of-the-model

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    You are far less repetitious and repetitive than Indian scripture I will give you that buddy!

    and repetitious

    • Replies: @Sher Singh
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/777363024196796426/1146560281233858691/IMG_7909.png

    Replies: @songbird, @Emil Nikola Richard

  437. @Mikel
    @Coconuts


    No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities.
     
    I don't know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males. So it's not unexpected that it messes up some people psychologically. Keeping everything else constant, I would certainly expect a higher rate of sex-related aberrancies among celibates than the general population, especially among those celibates that don't separate themselves from society.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Coconuts

    I don’t know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males. So it’s not unexpected that it messes up some people psychologically.

    I don’t disagree that it is unhealthy and goes against natural instincts in most men.

    However there really are people who are basically asexual and lack a sexual drive. I in fact briefly met someone who was off to a Monastery. He was in his 20s and I don’t think he understood men or women. Last I heard he fit in perfectly.

    I suspect the bigger problem is that the celibacy requirement attracts predatory homosexuals. They use it as a cover.

  438. @John Johnson
    @silviosilver

    Movies I struggle with, but I can quickly think of some sitcoms I enjoyed from that era which featured intact, more or less happy white families: Growing Pains, Family Ties, ALF.

    Those are from the 80s. I'm not talking 80s movies.

    Anything from 2000 and up.

    The 80s were not some golden era but Hollywood became a lot more cynical during the 90s.

    Just look at how many sitcoms of the last 20 years involve:
    1. A total retard White dad or side character (often fat)
    2. Parents that don't really like each other
    3. Kids that constantly mouth off and treat their parents like idiots
    4. Singles, divorced parents, childless couples, random living situations

    I've never made it through 5 minutes of King of Queens. It was somehow a hit show.

    Most Americans will gobble anything that Hollywood shovels at them.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Those are from the 80s. I’m not talking 80s movies.

    Yeah, I know. But I mentioned that a large chunk of my fave films are from the 80s and I was just comparing how easily examples of sitcoms with wholesome families from that era come to mind with how hard I found it to think of movies from that era with wholesome families.

    As for the last 20 years, I hardly have any idea what sitcoms even exist. I stopped watching TV about 15 years ago. I have seen a few episodes of Raymond, because my parents liked it. And bits and pieces of Big Bang at other people’s houses. None of it is at all appealing. Sitcoms are some of the most braindead entertainment out there.

    The 80s were not some golden era but Hollywood became a lot more cynical during the 90s.

    Wrt to sitcoms, I think Married With Children is an example of this. I was pretty young, so it’s not like I was concerned about anything like social standards (if anything, as a rebellious little bastard, I guess I did my own bit to lower them), but even I found it pretty trashy and considered the people who would rave about how good it was morally deficient.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @silviosilver

    Wrt to sitcoms, I think Married With Children is an example of this. I was pretty young, so it’s not like I was concerned about anything like social standards (if anything, as a rebellious little bastard, I guess I did my own bit to lower them), but even I found it pretty trashy and considered the people who would rave about how good it was morally deficient.

    It was pretty trashy but at the end of the day he didn't cheat on his wife and would stand up for his kids. He was still a dad even if a lousy one.

    Showtime has a sitcom where the dad talks to the daughter about who she is banging/blowing at the moment.

  439. @Mikel
    @AaronB


    JJ does seem to be very stubborn, and to have a very simple black and white view of things, and to frequently misunderstand others comments
     
    It shouldn't be long before I meet the Mormon woman married to a Jew that I mentioned. Perhaps I should tell her that someone on the internet told me that she'll have a second-rate Heaven experience because of her husband. Though I suspect that her reaction would be exactly the same as if I told some of my Catholic relatives that haven't gone to mass for years that eternal Hell is waiting for them LOL

    These black-and-white types don't seem capable of grasping the trivial fact that ordinary Mormons are about as flexible to certain interpretations of their faith as ordinary members of any other Christian denomination. Strictly speaking, I reckon that some 90% of Christians are condemned if we take the precepts of their faith seriously but you don't see them overly preoccupied by the matter. They just follow whatever social mores have come to be the norm in their environment and carry on practicing their faith happily as best they can.

    In fact, people are so incoherent that I'm sure there must be chaplains offering their services right now to soldiers on both sides on the Ukrainian war, including the ones who press the buttons that lob missiles toward civilian areas. I wouldn't be surprised if these are the ones who demand those services the most. It would make perfect sense from a purely human perspective.

    Perhaps I have the advantage of not being a native-born American and thus being free of old anti-Mormon prejudices. I had never interacted with any Mormon before coming to live in Utah but shortly before coming to live here I did read a lot of what some Americans like JJ said about them (exactly the same kind of stuff) and was deeply worried about how my family would be treated. What I actually found is that either those prejudices were totally wrong or described a past era long gone now. Mormon children are most definitely allowed to play with non-Mormons, people are surprisingly welcoming of newcomers and tolerant of their differences and Mormons are just the best neighbors I have ever had anywhere in the world, as we've discussed at length in the past. With all the time you've spent in Utah I'm sure you've seen some of what I'm saying.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @silviosilver

    It shouldn’t be long before I meet the Mormon woman married to a Jew that I mentioned. Perhaps I should tell her that someone on the internet told me that she’ll have a second-rate Heaven experience because of her husband.

    No need to tell her directly.

    Instead of being insulting as usual you could spend 5 minutes reading the link I gave you.

    Or you could provide a direct source from the Mormons themselves:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-38-eternal-marriage?lang=eng

    These black-and-white types don’t seem capable of grasping the trivial fact that ordinary Mormons are about as flexible to certain interpretations of their faith as ordinary members of any other Christian denomination.

    Oh I’m the problem? I’m interpreting it incorrectly?

    Directly from the LDS describing the three heavens:

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. – Joseph Smith

    Is that not clear enough for you? They can’t reach the highest level of heaven by marrying a non-Mormon. The new covenant of marriage must be between Mormons and sealed in the main temple. You can go confirm this with your Mormon friend.

    You were clearly wrong so just admit it and move on.

    Perhaps I have the advantage of not being a native-born American and thus being free of old anti-Mormon prejudices. I had never interacted with any Mormon before coming to live in Utah but shortly before coming to live here I did read a lot of what some Americans like JJ said about them (exactly the same kind of stuff) and was deeply worried about how my family would be treated.

    I used to take the same outlook until I did business with them.

    They are friendly when they are just your neighbors and are hoping they can someday convert you.

    If you are doing business with them as a non-Mormon then they have no moral responsibility to treat you equally. You have rejected the True God(tm) and can be fleeced.

    Go ahead and read through this thread:
    What is it with doing business with Mormons?

    What is it about doing business with Mormons?
    byu/bofmstories inexmormon

    No other Christian denomination has that kind of reputation. It isn’t an imagined stereotype.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @John Johnson


    Directly from the LDS describing the three heavens:

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees......
     

    Oh, thank you. I never though what you posted was based on something written at some point by Joseph Smith. Would you please kindly find me the part where God told him that men could marry multiple women? I need to inform my Mormon friend about that too!

    They are friendly when they are just your neighbors and are hoping they can someday convert you.

    If you are doing business with them as a non-Mormon then they have no moral responsibility to treat you equally.
     

    Well, there are only two possibilities here. The first one is that your opinion on this matter is more authoritative than that of an atheist who has spent almost a decade surrounded by Mormons on all cardinal points and done almost daily business with them. The other one is that it's not, which would make you a moron for trying to pass it as such.

    Rather than express any judgement and possibly hurt your feelings, I'll let each reader decide which of the two possibilities is more commonsensical.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson


    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. – Joseph Smith
     
    Is that, along with social pressure, a large part of the reason why some devout gay Mormon men such as Jeff Bennion and Skyler Sorensen marry women instead of men even nowadays?
  440. @songbird
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    There are millions of UFO fans which makes global statements about them near impossible.
     
    True. Robert Bigelow never got divorced. (Though I wonder what the prediction would be for his generation). And I once knew an elderly church lady who seemed to be an enthusiast.

    But I still suspect there might be at least a small correlation. My schema of them has some coincidence with hippies, and I believe that hippies are above average in these traits.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    My schema of them has some coincidence with hippies,

    I think so too. In Close Encounters, when they’re waiting on the road for the UFOs to pass, there is that old guy holding up the “Stop And Be Friendly” sign who strikes me as hippie-adjacent, all-you-need-is-love, reality-denying shitlib. (The kind of weirdo who would keep a pet snake. As a powerless nobody, I prefer a live and let live attitude, but if I had dictatorial power, I would ban keeping anything besides cats, dogs and parrots as pets. Not so much because I care, but because it pisses off the right people, lol.)

    Personally, I do not at all look forward to an alien arrival. Even if I lived in an interstellar civilization, I still wouldn’t want to ever encounter any. The risks just aren’t worth it, imo.

  441. @silviosilver
    @John Johnson


    Those are from the 80s. I’m not talking 80s movies.
     
    Yeah, I know. But I mentioned that a large chunk of my fave films are from the 80s and I was just comparing how easily examples of sitcoms with wholesome families from that era come to mind with how hard I found it to think of movies from that era with wholesome families.

    As for the last 20 years, I hardly have any idea what sitcoms even exist. I stopped watching TV about 15 years ago. I have seen a few episodes of Raymond, because my parents liked it. And bits and pieces of Big Bang at other people's houses. None of it is at all appealing. Sitcoms are some of the most braindead entertainment out there.

    The 80s were not some golden era but Hollywood became a lot more cynical during the 90s.
     
    Wrt to sitcoms, I think Married With Children is an example of this. I was pretty young, so it's not like I was concerned about anything like social standards (if anything, as a rebellious little bastard, I guess I did my own bit to lower them), but even I found it pretty trashy and considered the people who would rave about how good it was morally deficient.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Wrt to sitcoms, I think Married With Children is an example of this. I was pretty young, so it’s not like I was concerned about anything like social standards (if anything, as a rebellious little bastard, I guess I did my own bit to lower them), but even I found it pretty trashy and considered the people who would rave about how good it was morally deficient.

    It was pretty trashy but at the end of the day he didn’t cheat on his wife and would stand up for his kids. He was still a dad even if a lousy one.

    Showtime has a sitcom where the dad talks to the daughter about who she is banging/blowing at the moment.

  442. @John Johnson
    @Mikel

    It shouldn’t be long before I meet the Mormon woman married to a Jew that I mentioned. Perhaps I should tell her that someone on the internet told me that she’ll have a second-rate Heaven experience because of her husband.

    No need to tell her directly.

    Instead of being insulting as usual you could spend 5 minutes reading the link I gave you.

    Or you could provide a direct source from the Mormons themselves:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-38-eternal-marriage?lang=eng

    These black-and-white types don’t seem capable of grasping the trivial fact that ordinary Mormons are about as flexible to certain interpretations of their faith as ordinary members of any other Christian denomination.

    Oh I'm the problem? I'm interpreting it incorrectly?

    Directly from the LDS describing the three heavens:

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. - Joseph Smith

    Is that not clear enough for you? They can't reach the highest level of heaven by marrying a non-Mormon. The new covenant of marriage must be between Mormons and sealed in the main temple. You can go confirm this with your Mormon friend.

    You were clearly wrong so just admit it and move on.

    Perhaps I have the advantage of not being a native-born American and thus being free of old anti-Mormon prejudices. I had never interacted with any Mormon before coming to live in Utah but shortly before coming to live here I did read a lot of what some Americans like JJ said about them (exactly the same kind of stuff) and was deeply worried about how my family would be treated.

    I used to take the same outlook until I did business with them.

    They are friendly when they are just your neighbors and are hoping they can someday convert you.

    If you are doing business with them as a non-Mormon then they have no moral responsibility to treat you equally. You have rejected the True God(tm) and can be fleeced.

    Go ahead and read through this thread:
    What is it with doing business with Mormons?
    https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3e3s20/what_is_it_about_doing_business_with_mormons/

    No other Christian denomination has that kind of reputation. It isn't an imagined stereotype.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ

    Directly from the LDS describing the three heavens:

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees……

    Oh, thank you. I never though what you posted was based on something written at some point by Joseph Smith. Would you please kindly find me the part where God told him that men could marry multiple women? I need to inform my Mormon friend about that too!

    They are friendly when they are just your neighbors and are hoping they can someday convert you.

    If you are doing business with them as a non-Mormon then they have no moral responsibility to treat you equally.

    Well, there are only two possibilities here. The first one is that your opinion on this matter is more authoritative than that of an atheist who has spent almost a decade surrounded by Mormons on all cardinal points and done almost daily business with them. The other one is that it’s not, which would make you a moron for trying to pass it as such.

    Rather than express any judgement and possibly hurt your feelings, I’ll let each reader decide which of the two possibilities is more commonsensical.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikel

    Oh, thank you. I never though what you posted was based on something written at some point by Joseph Smith. Would you please kindly find me the part where God told him that men could marry multiple women? I need to inform my Mormon friend about that too!

    Joseph Smith is just as important to the Mormons as Jesus Christ. You seem to assume it is Christianity but with another Luther or Paul. Joseph Smith is not considered a man in the least. He is a god to them with a direct connection to all creation. The religion doesn't exist without him. You can't just take his beliefs on the afterlife with subjective interpretation. He was very clear that Mormons must marry Mormons to become gods and rule over their own planet. Rejecting that belief is a rejection of Mormonism. To question Joseph Smith on the afterlife would be to question all of it since it would mean that his translation of the plates was wrong or was made up. You might as well switch to being a Presbyterian. Only a fake Mormon could pick and choose from his prophecies.

    As for polygamy it is not required to enter the highest level of heaven. But here is a quote from him:

    For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous then the gentiles. - Joseph Smith

    Likewise if you suggest that the Lamanites and Nephites never existed then the whole thing falls apart.

    You don't know anything about their religion if you think you can just pick and choose. Disbelief in Joseph Smith means you are faking it. It would be like a Christian claiming to be faithful but without believing in the divinity of Christ. That would be a contradiction that makes zero sense.

    Well, there are only two possibilities here. The first one is that your opinion on this matter is more authoritative than that of an atheist who has spent almost a decade surrounded by Mormons on all cardinal points and done almost daily business with them. The other one is that it’s not, which would make you a moron for trying to pass it as such.

    Mormons have a sordid reputation in business. Admitting this is not the end of the world. Various religions have negative associations and most were not created from ether.

    Another thread from ex-Mormons spilling the dirt:
    xxxhttps://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/rvtpam/mormons_are_bad_for_business/

    Of course it won't be 100% but the stereotype exists for a reason. I didn't believe it until I saw a Mormon business first hand. I left before taking any serious losses. The stereotype is real. They hire incompetent Mormon pals and then try to cut corners to make up for it.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  443. @LatW
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Does that include the members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who rebelled in Luhansk, Donbass and Crimea?
     
    No, but the rest of the nation is huge even without them. One of the issues with Crimea was that apparently the Americans (Obama) explictly told Ukraine not to resist. I can't check this info, but I've heard it many times by now (and I'd really like to have it checked for veracity).

    Another important factor is that the Donbassers did resist the invasion - there were the so called "black men", as opposed to Russia's "green men" (chornye chelovechki, pro-Ukrainian resistance units), some of them are still around and fighting.

    By the way, if you didn't notice, I was even arguing from the position that the Russians could've just let things stay put as they were post 2014 (and just marinate Minsk indefinitely - nothing would change on the ground, they could easily militarize all those areas and finally Russify them entirely). But they chose otherwise.


    and take out water supplies and electricity.
     
    They have consistently hit vital energy infrastructure (that the civilians rely on, including the weakest of them- the children and the elderly) (and will probably try to do it again this coming winter) and of course they have hit residential areas.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @YetAnotherAnon

    By the way, if you didn’t notice, I was even arguing from the position that the Russians could’ve just let things stay put as they were post 2014 (and just marinate Minsk indefinitely – nothing would change on the ground, they could easily militarize all those areas and finally Russify them entirely). But they chose otherwise.

    Even better was to just outright annex Donbass back in 2014 and thus create a fait accompli. (I think that not taking any Ukrainian territory in 2014 would have been better in hindsight, but if Russia decided to take Ukrainian territory, it shouldn’t have stopped with just Crimea since Ukraine was bound to be extremely hostile towards Russia anyway.) It would have been better for everyone involved since thousands of Donbassers, Ukrainians, and Russians would not have died in 2014-2021 and tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians would not have died in 2022-2023.

  444. @John Johnson
    @Mikel

    It shouldn’t be long before I meet the Mormon woman married to a Jew that I mentioned. Perhaps I should tell her that someone on the internet told me that she’ll have a second-rate Heaven experience because of her husband.

    No need to tell her directly.

    Instead of being insulting as usual you could spend 5 minutes reading the link I gave you.

    Or you could provide a direct source from the Mormons themselves:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-38-eternal-marriage?lang=eng

    These black-and-white types don’t seem capable of grasping the trivial fact that ordinary Mormons are about as flexible to certain interpretations of their faith as ordinary members of any other Christian denomination.

    Oh I'm the problem? I'm interpreting it incorrectly?

    Directly from the LDS describing the three heavens:

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. - Joseph Smith

    Is that not clear enough for you? They can't reach the highest level of heaven by marrying a non-Mormon. The new covenant of marriage must be between Mormons and sealed in the main temple. You can go confirm this with your Mormon friend.

    You were clearly wrong so just admit it and move on.

    Perhaps I have the advantage of not being a native-born American and thus being free of old anti-Mormon prejudices. I had never interacted with any Mormon before coming to live in Utah but shortly before coming to live here I did read a lot of what some Americans like JJ said about them (exactly the same kind of stuff) and was deeply worried about how my family would be treated.

    I used to take the same outlook until I did business with them.

    They are friendly when they are just your neighbors and are hoping they can someday convert you.

    If you are doing business with them as a non-Mormon then they have no moral responsibility to treat you equally. You have rejected the True God(tm) and can be fleeced.

    Go ahead and read through this thread:
    What is it with doing business with Mormons?
    https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3e3s20/what_is_it_about_doing_business_with_mormons/

    No other Christian denomination has that kind of reputation. It isn't an imagined stereotype.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. – Joseph Smith

    Is that, along with social pressure, a large part of the reason why some devout gay Mormon men such as Jeff Bennion and Skyler Sorensen marry women instead of men even nowadays?

  445. @LatW
    @sudden death

    This is very cool info, thanks. Kernave is a special place and very beautiful.

    By the way, some chronicles mention instances of horse divination (hippomancy). They would place a spear on the ground and then lead a white horse over it and they would decide things based on which foot the horse made the step first. The horse of Destiny. Apparently the Iranians also practiced hippomancy.

    Of course, the horse was perceived as an intermediary in the Baltic culture, and Ašvieniai are the divine twins (like the Vedic Ashvins).

    They're going to study these horse ritual deposits now:

    https://www.thebonezproject.co.uk/overview

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Arturs_Baumanis_Likte%C5%86a_zirgs_1887.jpg

    Replies: @LatW, @Mr. XYZ

    Kernave looks a bit like the Scottish Lowlands, no?

    Kernave:

    Scottish Lowlands:

  446. @Mikel
    @AaronB


    JJ does seem to be very stubborn, and to have a very simple black and white view of things, and to frequently misunderstand others comments
     
    It shouldn't be long before I meet the Mormon woman married to a Jew that I mentioned. Perhaps I should tell her that someone on the internet told me that she'll have a second-rate Heaven experience because of her husband. Though I suspect that her reaction would be exactly the same as if I told some of my Catholic relatives that haven't gone to mass for years that eternal Hell is waiting for them LOL

    These black-and-white types don't seem capable of grasping the trivial fact that ordinary Mormons are about as flexible to certain interpretations of their faith as ordinary members of any other Christian denomination. Strictly speaking, I reckon that some 90% of Christians are condemned if we take the precepts of their faith seriously but you don't see them overly preoccupied by the matter. They just follow whatever social mores have come to be the norm in their environment and carry on practicing their faith happily as best they can.

    In fact, people are so incoherent that I'm sure there must be chaplains offering their services right now to soldiers on both sides on the Ukrainian war, including the ones who press the buttons that lob missiles toward civilian areas. I wouldn't be surprised if these are the ones who demand those services the most. It would make perfect sense from a purely human perspective.

    Perhaps I have the advantage of not being a native-born American and thus being free of old anti-Mormon prejudices. I had never interacted with any Mormon before coming to live in Utah but shortly before coming to live here I did read a lot of what some Americans like JJ said about them (exactly the same kind of stuff) and was deeply worried about how my family would be treated. What I actually found is that either those prejudices were totally wrong or described a past era long gone now. Mormon children are most definitely allowed to play with non-Mormons, people are surprisingly welcoming of newcomers and tolerant of their differences and Mormons are just the best neighbors I have ever had anywhere in the world, as we've discussed at length in the past. With all the time you've spent in Utah I'm sure you've seen some of what I'm saying.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @silviosilver

    I find Mormon beliefs deeply unsettling. I can’t quite put my finger on what it is, but the whole thing gives off an eerie vibe to me. I almost feel “unclean” even learning about their faith. Maybe it’s just the newness of the religion and my disappointment that people can possibly take that garbage seriously – I mean, it doesn’t even have the excuse of dating back to a more ignorant age, and yet it still somehow wins adherents. (Arrgh, humans!) I’m sure I would feel much more comfortable faking being muslim rather than faking being mormon. (Obviously, I could never actually “believe” anything they teach.) Happy to hear the actual people are not that much different to anyone else.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    Happy to hear the actual people are not that much different to anyone else.
     
    Well, yes, I guess so. But these days that means that you can find gay, trans and woke Mormons too. There's always a Mormon delegation at the SLC pride parade. Though this is just my personal experience, having met them and even had dinner with one of them once. Perhaps if you need to know if all this is true you should consult the real expert in Mormonism here, Mr Johnson :-)

    I know very well what you mean with that unsettling remark. I've discussed religion with Mormons often enough, sometimes with not particularly educated ones, and imagine my feelings when I mention European history and they bring up the tribes of Israel and the Tower of Babel. But in my experience belief in the most freakish parts of Joseph Smith's delusions fades as you climb up the educational ladder. As with any other religion, people choose what to really believe in and what to find some justification to leave provisionally aside.

    In fact, I still need to be convinced that Mormon beliefs are substantially weirder than mainstream Christian ones. If I had never had any knowledge of what the Christian belief is about and someone gave me the Bible to learn what their sacred book says, I would also be stunned. Who can believe those stories in the 21st century? All the LDS Church needs to do to get even with the rest of Christianity is declare that Joseph Smith's teachings are just "allegories", not to be taken literally, and problem solved. I'm pretty sure that this will eventually happen. Mormon doctrine is in fact much more flexible than most other ones. Abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, for example, is a modern invention from the 20th century. Fundamentalist Mormons continue drinking and smoking as in the 19th century. And the big polygamy flip-over of the late 19th century must be among the most spectacular religious upheavals in history. The way Mormons resolve these doctrinal issues is technically the same as in Catholicism. Instead of an infallible Pope they have their First President, who receives revelations from God (and Joseph Smith himself, if I'm not mistaken), to make doctrinal changes as required. But the Mormons are much more flexible, as the Pope has two millennia of tradition to respect and lots of different congregations to keep in tune. Not so with the LDS.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @silviosilver

    , @John Johnson
    @silviosilver

    I find Mormon beliefs deeply unsettling. I can’t quite put my finger on what it is, but the whole thing gives off an eerie vibe to me. I almost feel “unclean” even learning about their faith.

    Your instincts are correct. It is not merely another denomination or analogous to the Catholic/Protestant split.

    They indoctrinate an attitude of arrogance and their humility is meaningless. Their religion only believes in the equality of Mormons.

    Non-Mormon Americans are viewed with contempt and disgust. Everyone else is not only wrong but destined to be slaves at best.

    I’m sure I would feel much more comfortable faking being muslim rather than faking being mormon. (Obviously, I could never actually “believe” anything they teach.)

    Completely faking Mormon would indeed be difficult because they will background check you. You'd have to fake convert.

    They maintain a social network and can verify anyone with a few phone calls.

  447. @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry

    Maybe there's something in their genes that allowed groups such as Black British and Pakistani British to live longer than White British even if they are, on average, duller than White British are. Hispanics in the US live longer than White Americans do in spite of Hispanics also being duller on average than White Americans are.

    I wonder who the working-class Indians in Western Europe are. Cooks, manual laborers, and the like?

    Replies: @Dmitry

    It’s not related to if they are less interesting on average, more likely the other way round. United Kingdom has universal healthcare. With universal healthcare, the life expectancy differences between the groups could be less strongly associated to income of the groups in comparison with differences within the USA.

    Black Caribbean, Black African, Bangladesh and Pakistan populations in the Kingdom have higher life expectancy than the white population even while their income average is lower than the native population of Great Britain.

    You can assume Black/Asian populations in Northern Europe, have a difference in terms of diet or alcohol use compared to the indigenous people. This is likely the Black/Asian populations on average with relatively less industrialized food culture and lower use of alcohol.

    Black African origin people and Bangladesh origin people in the United Kingdom, have one of the highest life expectancies in the world, it’s even higher than in Singapore or Monaco. Perhaps there is somekind of preventive medicine in the culture of Black African and Bangladesh origin people in Europe. For example, in terms of diet, exercise and alcohol/cigarette use. When this is in a developed country with universal medical system, the result is one of the highest life expectancy in the world.

    Hispanics in the US live longer than White Americans do in spite of Hispanics also being duller

    The situation of the stagnation of life expectancy in America since the late 20th century is one of main indicators which could show possible dysfunctional or a failed model of development in the USA in the last decades, at least in terms of the healthcare system.

    Stereotypically, journalists would indicate the problems of obesity, processed food, automobile culture, loss of the traditional food culture. But most of the anglophone countries have similar trends, while life expectancy continues to increase despite this.

    For example, the anglophone world didn’t go into the stagnation of life expectancy. All of the non-American anglophones had been increasing in life expectancy in a stable way before the pandemic.

    Life expectancy calculates discretely by year, so in the next years the life expectancy in the USA will be overestimated because of higher excess deaths by coronavirus.

    • Thanks: Mr. XYZ
  448. @Mikel
    @John Johnson


    Directly from the LDS describing the three heavens:

    “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees......
     

    Oh, thank you. I never though what you posted was based on something written at some point by Joseph Smith. Would you please kindly find me the part where God told him that men could marry multiple women? I need to inform my Mormon friend about that too!

    They are friendly when they are just your neighbors and are hoping they can someday convert you.

    If you are doing business with them as a non-Mormon then they have no moral responsibility to treat you equally.
     

    Well, there are only two possibilities here. The first one is that your opinion on this matter is more authoritative than that of an atheist who has spent almost a decade surrounded by Mormons on all cardinal points and done almost daily business with them. The other one is that it's not, which would make you a moron for trying to pass it as such.

    Rather than express any judgement and possibly hurt your feelings, I'll let each reader decide which of the two possibilities is more commonsensical.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Oh, thank you. I never though what you posted was based on something written at some point by Joseph Smith. Would you please kindly find me the part where God told him that men could marry multiple women? I need to inform my Mormon friend about that too!

    Joseph Smith is just as important to the Mormons as Jesus Christ. You seem to assume it is Christianity but with another Luther or Paul. Joseph Smith is not considered a man in the least. He is a god to them with a direct connection to all creation. The religion doesn’t exist without him. You can’t just take his beliefs on the afterlife with subjective interpretation. He was very clear that Mormons must marry Mormons to become gods and rule over their own planet. Rejecting that belief is a rejection of Mormonism. To question Joseph Smith on the afterlife would be to question all of it since it would mean that his translation of the plates was wrong or was made up. You might as well switch to being a Presbyterian. Only a fake Mormon could pick and choose from his prophecies.

    As for polygamy it is not required to enter the highest level of heaven. But here is a quote from him:

    For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous then the gentiles. – Joseph Smith

    Likewise if you suggest that the Lamanites and Nephites never existed then the whole thing falls apart.

    You don’t know anything about their religion if you think you can just pick and choose. Disbelief in Joseph Smith means you are faking it. It would be like a Christian claiming to be faithful but without believing in the divinity of Christ. That would be a contradiction that makes zero sense.

    Well, there are only two possibilities here. The first one is that your opinion on this matter is more authoritative than that of an atheist who has spent almost a decade surrounded by Mormons on all cardinal points and done almost daily business with them. The other one is that it’s not, which would make you a moron for trying to pass it as such.

    Mormons have a sordid reputation in business. Admitting this is not the end of the world. Various religions have negative associations and most were not created from ether.

    Another thread from ex-Mormons spilling the dirt:
    xxxhttps://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/rvtpam/mormons_are_bad_for_business/

    Of course it won’t be 100% but the stereotype exists for a reason. I didn’t believe it until I saw a Mormon business first hand. I left before taking any serious losses. The stereotype is real. They hire incompetent Mormon pals and then try to cut corners to make up for it.

    • LOL: Mikel
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson

    If Mormon doctrine can't be changed, how could they change their doctrine on black priests in 1978?

  449. @Mikhail
    @Dmitry


    Moscow’s plan to escape the war in Ukraine without the total loss, is to survive in defense against Kiev and wait for the Republicans to win in the Presidential election 2024.

    But there doesn’t seem to be an alternative plan in Moscow, if Republicans don’t win in 2024.

    For example, if Biden wins in 2024, production for ammunition will ramp by 2025, then they will begin sending large amounts of ammunition and equipment to Ukraine.

    An example, is the production of the 155mm ammunition. This will ramp 6x in 2025 in the US.

    Will the Republicans defeat Biden in 2024 or not? It possibly mainly will be determined by the global economy situation next year.
     
    Do you really think that Russian strategery on the SMO is at all concerned about the 2024 US presidential election? By 2025, the Kiev regime could very well be toast. Meantime, Russia is doing comparatively quite well, when it comes to armaments production, as the Kiev regime loses more armed personnel and military equipment than their overall better equipped and trained opponent. Never mind the growing domestic challenges in the US and the rest of the collective West.

    Replies: @A123, @Dmitry

    They are only losing land slowly this year in Ukraine, but this isn’t an intelligent plan for escaping this war without more serious defeat if the Democrats would win in 2024, as the situation would continue to become weaker. The balance of power in terms of technology and ammunition will increase in support of Ukraine already before 2025.

    So, while in the 2023 war it could be more balanced between Russia and Ukraine, if Democrats win, in future years like 2025, 2026, 2027 more of the technology and ammunition will go to Ukraine.

    For example, in the USA, we can also see the plan for ramp in terms of the production of 155mm ammunition each year to 2028.

    “Army is spending $1.45 billion on capacity “to expand 155mm artillery production from 14,000 a month to over 24,000 later this year,” and 85,000 in five years, Camarillo said at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.”
    https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2023/03/28/us-army-eyes-six-fold-production-boost-of-155mm-shells-used-in-ukraine/

    If Democrats win in the US presidency in 2024, it would be better for Moscow trying to exit the war now, as the situation will be weaker even in 2025.

    But the current strategy of delaying the exit from the war for Moscow could be an accepted risk if they asguess ume Trump will win in 2024, so there is around a year before the international diplomatical situation could improve for Moscow.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Dmitry

    I do not believe Putin, who has his political opponents jailed, would have looked at Trump's booking photograph and believe he is at all likely to be able to win the Presidency again. Even if he were banking on Trump getting into the White House, Putin could hardly expect Trump to come in and be soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine, because that would lead to a ceasefire that the Russians would use for a re-set and launch of a second much better planned and resourced invasion against an attenuated demoralized Ukraine, leading to it being completely conquered ,followed by a massive massacres of the Ukrainian population. Then Western outrage and Trump being impeached and removed from office.

    If Putin wanted some kind of realistic deal he could get one now, and preserve the core of the Russian armed from a year of intense ground and drone attacks. I think Putin ordered an invasion because he perceived Ukraine as a mortal threat to RusFed and Western aid to Ukraine enabling it to knock seven bells out of the Russian army has only entrenched him in that view, therefore he is set on fighting to win in Ukraine for however long it takes even thought he fully expects the Democrats to win and make Ukraine far more formidable than it already has proved to be.

    Replies: @A123

  450. @silviosilver
    @Mikel

    I find Mormon beliefs deeply unsettling. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but the whole thing gives off an eerie vibe to me. I almost feel "unclean" even learning about their faith. Maybe it's just the newness of the religion and my disappointment that people can possibly take that garbage seriously - I mean, it doesn't even have the excuse of dating back to a more ignorant age, and yet it still somehow wins adherents. (Arrgh, humans!) I'm sure I would feel much more comfortable faking being muslim rather than faking being mormon. (Obviously, I could never actually "believe" anything they teach.) Happy to hear the actual people are not that much different to anyone else.

    Replies: @Mikel, @John Johnson

    Happy to hear the actual people are not that much different to anyone else.

    Well, yes, I guess so. But these days that means that you can find gay, trans and woke Mormons too. There’s always a Mormon delegation at the SLC pride parade. Though this is just my personal experience, having met them and even had dinner with one of them once. Perhaps if you need to know if all this is true you should consult the real expert in Mormonism here, Mr Johnson 🙂

    I know very well what you mean with that unsettling remark. I’ve discussed religion with Mormons often enough, sometimes with not particularly educated ones, and imagine my feelings when I mention European history and they bring up the tribes of Israel and the Tower of Babel. But in my experience belief in the most freakish parts of Joseph Smith’s delusions fades as you climb up the educational ladder. As with any other religion, people choose what to really believe in and what to find some justification to leave provisionally aside.

    In fact, I still need to be convinced that Mormon beliefs are substantially weirder than mainstream Christian ones. If I had never had any knowledge of what the Christian belief is about and someone gave me the Bible to learn what their sacred book says, I would also be stunned. Who can believe those stories in the 21st century? All the LDS Church needs to do to get even with the rest of Christianity is declare that Joseph Smith’s teachings are just “allegories”, not to be taken literally, and problem solved. I’m pretty sure that this will eventually happen. Mormon doctrine is in fact much more flexible than most other ones. Abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, for example, is a modern invention from the 20th century. Fundamentalist Mormons continue drinking and smoking as in the 19th century. And the big polygamy flip-over of the late 19th century must be among the most spectacular religious upheavals in history. The way Mormons resolve these doctrinal issues is technically the same as in Catholicism. Instead of an infallible Pope they have their First President, who receives revelations from God (and Joseph Smith himself, if I’m not mistaken), to make doctrinal changes as required. But the Mormons are much more flexible, as the Pope has two millennia of tradition to respect and lots of different congregations to keep in tune. Not so with the LDS.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikel

    I’m pretty sure that this will eventually happen. Mormon doctrine is in fact much more flexible than most other ones. Abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, for example, is a modern invention from the 20th century. Fundamentalist Mormons continue drinking and smoking as in the 19th century.

    Do you just make stuff up that sounds good to you? There is no smoking and drinking denominational split of fundamentalist Mormons.

    Mormons believe the Lord told them not to drink alcohol or consume tobacco. It's part of the Word of Wisdom which is from 1833:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom

    Here it is from the LDS website:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng

    The Word of Wisdom is a law of health revealed by the Lord for our physical and spiritual benefit. In this revelation, which is recorded in section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord tells us which foods are good for us to eat and which substances are not good for our bodies. He promises spiritual and physical blessings for obeying the Word of Wisdom.

    In the Word of Wisdom, the Lord commands us not to take the following substances into our bodies:

    Alcoholic drinks -- Tobacco -- Tea and Coffee

    It isn't some mere suggestion for health reasons. The church teaches that it is a commandment from the Lord.

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    If I had never had any knowledge of what the Christian belief is about and someone gave me the Bible to learn what their sacred book says, I would also be stunned. Who can believe those stories in the 21st century?
     
    Sure. Further, I'd say that if Christianity had never taken off, and the bible was only unearthed today, virtually nobody would take it as anything but a bunch of made up stories, often silly, often completely uninteresting.

    The difference with Mormonism is that Christianity's antiquity makes it easier to read the weirder stuff allegorically. People in those days were more ignorant etc therefore we need to look past the literal meaning to discover the deeper meaning. For people who are determined, it's not at all difficult.

    Replies: @Coconuts

  451. @silviosilver
    @Mikel

    I find Mormon beliefs deeply unsettling. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but the whole thing gives off an eerie vibe to me. I almost feel "unclean" even learning about their faith. Maybe it's just the newness of the religion and my disappointment that people can possibly take that garbage seriously - I mean, it doesn't even have the excuse of dating back to a more ignorant age, and yet it still somehow wins adherents. (Arrgh, humans!) I'm sure I would feel much more comfortable faking being muslim rather than faking being mormon. (Obviously, I could never actually "believe" anything they teach.) Happy to hear the actual people are not that much different to anyone else.

    Replies: @Mikel, @John Johnson

    I find Mormon beliefs deeply unsettling. I can’t quite put my finger on what it is, but the whole thing gives off an eerie vibe to me. I almost feel “unclean” even learning about their faith.

    Your instincts are correct. It is not merely another denomination or analogous to the Catholic/Protestant split.

    They indoctrinate an attitude of arrogance and their humility is meaningless. Their religion only believes in the equality of Mormons.

    Non-Mormon Americans are viewed with contempt and disgust. Everyone else is not only wrong but destined to be slaves at best.

    I’m sure I would feel much more comfortable faking being muslim rather than faking being mormon. (Obviously, I could never actually “believe” anything they teach.)

    Completely faking Mormon would indeed be difficult because they will background check you. You’d have to fake convert.

    They maintain a social network and can verify anyone with a few phone calls.

    • Troll: Mikel
  452. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    Happy to hear the actual people are not that much different to anyone else.
     
    Well, yes, I guess so. But these days that means that you can find gay, trans and woke Mormons too. There's always a Mormon delegation at the SLC pride parade. Though this is just my personal experience, having met them and even had dinner with one of them once. Perhaps if you need to know if all this is true you should consult the real expert in Mormonism here, Mr Johnson :-)

    I know very well what you mean with that unsettling remark. I've discussed religion with Mormons often enough, sometimes with not particularly educated ones, and imagine my feelings when I mention European history and they bring up the tribes of Israel and the Tower of Babel. But in my experience belief in the most freakish parts of Joseph Smith's delusions fades as you climb up the educational ladder. As with any other religion, people choose what to really believe in and what to find some justification to leave provisionally aside.

    In fact, I still need to be convinced that Mormon beliefs are substantially weirder than mainstream Christian ones. If I had never had any knowledge of what the Christian belief is about and someone gave me the Bible to learn what their sacred book says, I would also be stunned. Who can believe those stories in the 21st century? All the LDS Church needs to do to get even with the rest of Christianity is declare that Joseph Smith's teachings are just "allegories", not to be taken literally, and problem solved. I'm pretty sure that this will eventually happen. Mormon doctrine is in fact much more flexible than most other ones. Abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, for example, is a modern invention from the 20th century. Fundamentalist Mormons continue drinking and smoking as in the 19th century. And the big polygamy flip-over of the late 19th century must be among the most spectacular religious upheavals in history. The way Mormons resolve these doctrinal issues is technically the same as in Catholicism. Instead of an infallible Pope they have their First President, who receives revelations from God (and Joseph Smith himself, if I'm not mistaken), to make doctrinal changes as required. But the Mormons are much more flexible, as the Pope has two millennia of tradition to respect and lots of different congregations to keep in tune. Not so with the LDS.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @silviosilver

    I’m pretty sure that this will eventually happen. Mormon doctrine is in fact much more flexible than most other ones. Abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, for example, is a modern invention from the 20th century. Fundamentalist Mormons continue drinking and smoking as in the 19th century.

    Do you just make stuff up that sounds good to you? There is no smoking and drinking denominational split of fundamentalist Mormons.

    Mormons believe the Lord told them not to drink alcohol or consume tobacco. It’s part of the Word of Wisdom which is from 1833:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom

    Here it is from the LDS website:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng

    The Word of Wisdom is a law of health revealed by the Lord for our physical and spiritual benefit. In this revelation, which is recorded in section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord tells us which foods are good for us to eat and which substances are not good for our bodies. He promises spiritual and physical blessings for obeying the Word of Wisdom.

    In the Word of Wisdom, the Lord commands us not to take the following substances into our bodies:

    Alcoholic drinks — Tobacco — Tea and Coffee

    It isn’t some mere suggestion for health reasons. The church teaches that it is a commandment from the Lord.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @John Johnson


    Do you just make stuff up that sounds good to you? There is no smoking and drinking denominational split of fundamentalist Mormons.
     
    From your own link, for God's sake:

    The modern LDS application of the Word of Wisdom has its beginnings in the presidency of Joseph F. Smith, who became LDS Church president in 1901 at a time when even notable church leaders drank alcohol and coffee. For example, George Albert Smith, apostle and later church president, "took brandy for medicinal reasons", Anthon H. Lund, First Counselor in the First Presidency, "enjoyed Danish beer and currant wine", Charles W. Penrose, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, "occasionally served wine", Matthias F. Cowley, apostle, "enjoyed Danish beer and currant wine", Brigham Young, Jr. and John Henry Smith, both apostles, argued in 1901 "that the Church ought not interdict beer, or at least not Danish beer", and Emmeline B. Wells, of the Relief Society presidency (and who was later president of the Relief Society), "drank an occasional cup of coffee"
     
    As I said, it is best to just let the readers decide if your claim of knowing more than me about Mormons is moronic or not. I don't understand your feverish insistence in dispelling any possible doubt.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  453. @John Johnson
    @Mikel

    I’m pretty sure that this will eventually happen. Mormon doctrine is in fact much more flexible than most other ones. Abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, for example, is a modern invention from the 20th century. Fundamentalist Mormons continue drinking and smoking as in the 19th century.

    Do you just make stuff up that sounds good to you? There is no smoking and drinking denominational split of fundamentalist Mormons.

    Mormons believe the Lord told them not to drink alcohol or consume tobacco. It's part of the Word of Wisdom which is from 1833:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom

    Here it is from the LDS website:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng

    The Word of Wisdom is a law of health revealed by the Lord for our physical and spiritual benefit. In this revelation, which is recorded in section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord tells us which foods are good for us to eat and which substances are not good for our bodies. He promises spiritual and physical blessings for obeying the Word of Wisdom.

    In the Word of Wisdom, the Lord commands us not to take the following substances into our bodies:

    Alcoholic drinks -- Tobacco -- Tea and Coffee

    It isn't some mere suggestion for health reasons. The church teaches that it is a commandment from the Lord.

    Replies: @Mikel

    Do you just make stuff up that sounds good to you? There is no smoking and drinking denominational split of fundamentalist Mormons.

    From your own link, for God’s sake:

    The modern LDS application of the Word of Wisdom has its beginnings in the presidency of Joseph F. Smith, who became LDS Church president in 1901 at a time when even notable church leaders drank alcohol and coffee. For example, George Albert Smith, apostle and later church president, “took brandy for medicinal reasons”, Anthon H. Lund, First Counselor in the First Presidency, “enjoyed Danish beer and currant wine”, Charles W. Penrose, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, “occasionally served wine”, Matthias F. Cowley, apostle, “enjoyed Danish beer and currant wine”, Brigham Young, Jr. and John Henry Smith, both apostles, argued in 1901 “that the Church ought not interdict beer, or at least not Danish beer”, and Emmeline B. Wells, of the Relief Society presidency (and who was later president of the Relief Society), “drank an occasional cup of coffee”

    As I said, it is best to just let the readers decide if your claim of knowing more than me about Mormons is moronic or not. I don’t understand your feverish insistence in dispelling any possible doubt.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikel

    From your own link, for God’s sake:

    The modern LDS application of the Word of Wisdom has its beginnings in the presidency of Joseph F. Smith, who became LDS Church president in 1901 at a time when even notable church leaders drank alcohol and coffee.

    The link you are referencing is from Wikipedia and is not LDS doctrine.

    A president from 1901 doesn't negate what is taught as the word of the Lord.

    LDS doctrine also does not include the criminal history or hypocrisy of Joseph Smith. Pointing that out in a Wiki link wouldn't somehow negate their belief of him as a prophet.

    Joseph Smith was arrested as con artist before founding Mormonism
    https://www.padfield.com/2005/mormon-history.html

    Here it is direct from the Mormons:
    Do Mormons drink alcohol, tea, and coffee?
    In the Word of Wisdom, the Lord commands Mormons to abstain from harmful substances. Mormons are taught not to drink any kind of alcohol

    https://pacific.churchofjesuschrist.org/why-mormons-dont-drink-alcohol-tea-and-coffee

    They view it as a commandment from the Lord.

    It is not optional or merely a suggestion. The original Joseph Smith smoked cigars but that doesn't create some kind of free pass for Mormons. Their religion is curated and not open to discussion or interpretation. They're not going to talk about the rules that Joseph Smith himself broke or how he was a known bullshitter.

    As I said, it is best to just let the readers decide if your claim of knowing more than me about Mormons is moronic or not. I don’t understand your feverish insistence in dispelling any possible doubt.

    I've provided direct sources from the church and you still want to believe it's just another denomination and that they aren't serious about abstaining from alcohol and tobacco.

    You should go light up a cigar outside a Mormon tabernacle and film it. Tell them that 'ol Joe smoked cigars so relax. Do it while holding a Starbucks. Tell them that they don't actually have to follow the rules because Wikipedia lists Josephs Smith as a fraud and hypocrite. Also make sure to tell them that you "know a Mormon" so it's fine. They can stop following very clear church doctrine on the subject.

  454. @Mikel
    @Coconuts


    No human male can successfully live a celibate lifestyle without being drawn into child sexual abuse activities.
     
    I don't know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males. So it's not unexpected that it messes up some people psychologically. Keeping everything else constant, I would certainly expect a higher rate of sex-related aberrancies among celibates than the general population, especially among those celibates that don't separate themselves from society.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Coconuts

    I don’t know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males.

    I think a few things can be said here.

    The first one is that if it is clear that celibacy is an unnatural way of life and contrary to our strongest instincts, this doesn’t seem to be the case with reproduction itself and sexual activity leading to the production of any children.

    If celibacy is an unnatural way of life for all it might suggest kin selection and group selection are not real (human group selection is a more controversial idea among biologists than kin selection, but could be because of the implications of the idea.)

    Biologists usually discuss classifications like ‘species’ as being artefacts of the human mind or understanding, not objective realities. Following that there need be no human nature or essence shared by all individuals placed in the human class. Intrinsic teleology is also generally rejected, meaning there is no goal directed activity inherently linked to a species classification. (The old idea derived from Aristotle would have been that each essence of nature includes a telos, or the activities proper to the things which possess that nature).

    These sorts of argument challenge the idea that there are strong norms of human behaviour we can read-off observation and description of nature.

    I would certainly expect a higher rate of sex-related aberrancies among celibates than the general population, especially among those celibates that don’t separate themselves from society.

    Is it confirmed by any data? At the moment aberrant sexual activity is usually treated as any behaviour that may involve coercion or is non-consensual, otherwise it isn’t aberrant. There is a lot of monitoring and enforcement in most developed countries around MAPs and pedophile activity within the non-celibate population, very likely this curbs the behaviour. As far as other strange sexual choices in the non-celibate population goes though… seems like there is plenty.

    In the non-celibate population arguments usually return that activities like Pedophilia are not inherently wrong, made by highly respected thought leaders (Foucault is one of the best known).

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @Coconuts


    The first one is that if it is clear that celibacy is an unnatural way of life and contrary to our strongest instincts, this doesn’t seem to be the case with reproduction itself and sexual activity leading to the production of any children.
     
    I wasn't clear at writing what I meant here, should have said that failing to reproduce and engaging in sexual activity that reduces the likelihood of having any children doesn't seem to be contrary to deepest human instincts.
    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Coconuts


    In the non-celibate population arguments usually return that activities like Pedophilia are not inherently wrong, made by highly respected thought leaders (Foucault is one of the best known).
     
    I thought the Foucault parts where he is going all edgelord are waved off by people who respect his less extreme writings. I have never seen any place where people promote or even defend those parts. Hakim Bey is another one.

    At least they don't go for pre-puberty victims like the Hollywood scene. But this isn't even close to respect. It's more like Foucault and Bey don't exactly deserve being sent to a gulag.

    Replies: @Coconuts

    , @Mikel
    @Coconuts

    I don't really understand what you're saying here or how those new kooky definitions of what an animal species is affect the matter of male celibacy.

    Some men are born with less sexual drive than others in the same way that some people are born less gluttonous than others but that doesn't matter too much. When people try to follow extreme deprivation diets they tend to end up overcompensating in one way or another. It is a well known phenomenon in nutritional medicine. Thinking that this overcompensation response only affects food but not other human instincts doesn't look very realistic to me.


    There is a lot of monitoring and enforcement in most developed countries around MAPs and pedophile activity within the non-celibate population, very likely this curbs the behaviour.
     
    Well, I wonder what it would be like if the pedophilia taboo (one of the few taboos worth enforcing in a healthy society) wouldn't be there.

    But sadly in Puritan societies like the American one (and I think increasingly in most other Western countries) this pedophilia taboo is enforced in a pretty backassward way, mixing real child molestation with things that have nothing to do with it, like the guy in his 20s who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and is made to spend the rest of his life in a sexual predator registry. By those standards a good chunk of my teenage friends would be pedophiles. Or that sick habit of showing 1st page mugshots of female teachers who allegedly were caught "raping" some teenage student (as if that was physically possible). When I was the age of some of those students I would have maybe given a kidney for having sex with some of my female teachers. In fact, one of my own first experiences was with a woman 24 years older than me but I'm not sure I'd be able to metoo her now if she was American, I was already 19 at the time.

    Let's hope there's no backlash to this insanity that puts the real victims (children) at risk.

    Replies: @sudden death, @Coconuts

  455. @LatW
    @Beckow


    First of all they didn’t
     
    But quite a few of them did. And thus they endangered all the others.

    The war is basically Russia against the local Ukie nationalists (maybe also Poland, Latvia, Romania…) – in that fight Russia is stronger.
     
    First of all, you don't know that, and most importantly - it is not against nationalists, but against the whole nations. They're not fighting Ukrainian nationalists, they're fighting the whole nation. If you fail to see this, then your conclusions, too, will be faulty.

    They should've taken what they had (which was a lot), now they are not wanted.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @LondonBob, @Beckow

    Most Ukrainians don’t want to fight, they want peace.

  456. @LatW
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Does that include the members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who rebelled in Luhansk, Donbass and Crimea?
     
    No, but the rest of the nation is huge even without them. One of the issues with Crimea was that apparently the Americans (Obama) explictly told Ukraine not to resist. I can't check this info, but I've heard it many times by now (and I'd really like to have it checked for veracity).

    Another important factor is that the Donbassers did resist the invasion - there were the so called "black men", as opposed to Russia's "green men" (chornye chelovechki, pro-Ukrainian resistance units), some of them are still around and fighting.

    By the way, if you didn't notice, I was even arguing from the position that the Russians could've just let things stay put as they were post 2014 (and just marinate Minsk indefinitely - nothing would change on the ground, they could easily militarize all those areas and finally Russify them entirely). But they chose otherwise.


    and take out water supplies and electricity.
     
    They have consistently hit vital energy infrastructure (that the civilians rely on, including the weakest of them- the children and the elderly) (and will probably try to do it again this coming winter) and of course they have hit residential areas.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @YetAnotherAnon

    “the Russians could’ve just let things stay put as they were post 2014 – nothing would change on the ground”

    That wasn’t an option as the NATO-trained-and-armed rump-Ukraine forces were attacking them, on February 19th 2022 the Ukrainian shelling of Donbass and Luhansk suddenly doubled.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/osce-reports-surge-number-explosions-east-ukraine-2022-02-19/

    • Agree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @LatW
    @YetAnotherAnon

    It was a totally pragmatic option to create a stronghold in the occupied parts of Donbas and the occupied Crimea, instead of trying to invade the whole country. Ukrainians could attack but they probably wouldn't be able to take it. Even if Ukraine militarized in a very serious way, they should've have been able to create a decent buffer from those positions.

    Replies: @A123

  457. When Eritreans were first let into Europe (because they had a bad war going on over there), did anybody really think that it would end well…?

    I really liked the new term “African riots” (forgot who introduced it). As in, riots not in Africa, but by Africans.

  458. @YetAnotherAnon
    @LatW

    "the Russians could’ve just let things stay put as they were post 2014 – nothing would change on the ground"

    That wasn't an option as the NATO-trained-and-armed rump-Ukraine forces were attacking them, on February 19th 2022 the Ukrainian shelling of Donbass and Luhansk suddenly doubled.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/osce-reports-surge-number-explosions-east-ukraine-2022-02-19/

    Replies: @LatW

    It was a totally pragmatic option to create a stronghold in the occupied parts of Donbas and the occupied Crimea, instead of trying to invade the whole country. Ukrainians could attack but they probably wouldn’t be able to take it. Even if Ukraine militarized in a very serious way, they should’ve have been able to create a decent buffer from those positions.

    • Replies: @A123
    @LatW


    It was a totally pragmatic option to create a stronghold in the occupied parts of Donbas and the occupied Crimea, .
     
    It was also totally pragmatic to advance to the Dnieper, removing the illegal dam being used to collectively punish civilians in Crimea.

    Now that there is "land bridge" securing the civilian water supply, the chances of Kiev retaking it are exceedingly slim. The terrain favours Russian doctrine and equipment. And, they have had months to prepare the defense.


    instead of trying to invade the whole country.
     
    Ukraine is huge. We can be reasonably sure that RF generals never had a plan requiring extensive manpower to hold that much land area. There was never the mass mobilization to support it. The SMO option had less troop strength, and thus more limited goals.

    The initial push at Kiev appears to be an attempt at removing Ukrainian leadership and forcing an immediate surrender. With all sides pushing propaganda, we are unlikely to ever find out for sure. Even if a document makes it out of the Kremlin, how could it be authenticated?


    Even if Ukraine militarized in a very serious way, they should’ve have been able to create a decent buffer from those positions.
     
    Minsk Deal negotiations were a Kiev deception to cover for arming up. Knowing that Ukrainian leaders are inherently untrustworthy, the current contact line is a decent and pragmatic buffer.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @sudden death, @YetAnotherAnon

  459. @Coconuts
    @Mikel


    I don’t know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males.
     
    I think a few things can be said here.

    The first one is that if it is clear that celibacy is an unnatural way of life and contrary to our strongest instincts, this doesn't seem to be the case with reproduction itself and sexual activity leading to the production of any children.

    If celibacy is an unnatural way of life for all it might suggest kin selection and group selection are not real (human group selection is a more controversial idea among biologists than kin selection, but could be because of the implications of the idea.)

    Biologists usually discuss classifications like 'species' as being artefacts of the human mind or understanding, not objective realities. Following that there need be no human nature or essence shared by all individuals placed in the human class. Intrinsic teleology is also generally rejected, meaning there is no goal directed activity inherently linked to a species classification. (The old idea derived from Aristotle would have been that each essence of nature includes a telos, or the activities proper to the things which possess that nature).

    These sorts of argument challenge the idea that there are strong norms of human behaviour we can read-off observation and description of nature.


    I would certainly expect a higher rate of sex-related aberrancies among celibates than the general population, especially among those celibates that don’t separate themselves from society.
     
    Is it confirmed by any data? At the moment aberrant sexual activity is usually treated as any behaviour that may involve coercion or is non-consensual, otherwise it isn't aberrant. There is a lot of monitoring and enforcement in most developed countries around MAPs and pedophile activity within the non-celibate population, very likely this curbs the behaviour. As far as other strange sexual choices in the non-celibate population goes though... seems like there is plenty.

    In the non-celibate population arguments usually return that activities like Pedophilia are not inherently wrong, made by highly respected thought leaders (Foucault is one of the best known).

    Replies: @Coconuts, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mikel

    The first one is that if it is clear that celibacy is an unnatural way of life and contrary to our strongest instincts, this doesn’t seem to be the case with reproduction itself and sexual activity leading to the production of any children.

    I wasn’t clear at writing what I meant here, should have said that failing to reproduce and engaging in sexual activity that reduces the likelihood of having any children doesn’t seem to be contrary to deepest human instincts.

  460. @Coconuts
    @Mikel


    I don’t know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males.
     
    I think a few things can be said here.

    The first one is that if it is clear that celibacy is an unnatural way of life and contrary to our strongest instincts, this doesn't seem to be the case with reproduction itself and sexual activity leading to the production of any children.

    If celibacy is an unnatural way of life for all it might suggest kin selection and group selection are not real (human group selection is a more controversial idea among biologists than kin selection, but could be because of the implications of the idea.)

    Biologists usually discuss classifications like 'species' as being artefacts of the human mind or understanding, not objective realities. Following that there need be no human nature or essence shared by all individuals placed in the human class. Intrinsic teleology is also generally rejected, meaning there is no goal directed activity inherently linked to a species classification. (The old idea derived from Aristotle would have been that each essence of nature includes a telos, or the activities proper to the things which possess that nature).

    These sorts of argument challenge the idea that there are strong norms of human behaviour we can read-off observation and description of nature.


    I would certainly expect a higher rate of sex-related aberrancies among celibates than the general population, especially among those celibates that don’t separate themselves from society.
     
    Is it confirmed by any data? At the moment aberrant sexual activity is usually treated as any behaviour that may involve coercion or is non-consensual, otherwise it isn't aberrant. There is a lot of monitoring and enforcement in most developed countries around MAPs and pedophile activity within the non-celibate population, very likely this curbs the behaviour. As far as other strange sexual choices in the non-celibate population goes though... seems like there is plenty.

    In the non-celibate population arguments usually return that activities like Pedophilia are not inherently wrong, made by highly respected thought leaders (Foucault is one of the best known).

    Replies: @Coconuts, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mikel

    In the non-celibate population arguments usually return that activities like Pedophilia are not inherently wrong, made by highly respected thought leaders (Foucault is one of the best known).

    I thought the Foucault parts where he is going all edgelord are waved off by people who respect his less extreme writings. I have never seen any place where people promote or even defend those parts. Hakim Bey is another one.

    At least they don’t go for pre-puberty victims like the Hollywood scene. But this isn’t even close to respect. It’s more like Foucault and Bey don’t exactly deserve being sent to a gulag.

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    I thought the Foucault parts where he is going all edgelord are waved off by people who respect his less extreme writings. I have never seen any place where people promote or even defend those parts.
     
    Maybe not nowadays, but not the same in the past:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

    Sometimes it's suggested that there may be some inherent problem in Queer theory around the way it seeks to queer all binary categories, including child/adult. Foucault wasn't the only one of the early queer theory influences who had these anti-age of consent views.

    I just put that reference to Foucault in to show that obvious non-celibates could be involved in promotion of this stuff.

  461. Battle of the Nations
    Germany Italy

    [MORE]

    Lots of those corporate fat cats did not use their free tickets. They missed an incredible match. If Zverev plays like that against Alcaraz it is going to be very close.

    • Replies: @Matra
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Strange comment. Zverev is ethnically Russian. Jannik Sinner, as his name suggests is not ethnically Italian; he comes from the German-speaking region along the Austrian border.

    Given that Zverev slandered a fan who shouted "Deutschland Über Alles" - the fan was removed and portrayed on worldwide TV as a Nazi - I doubt he feels much loyalty to Germany. Then again, Germans are such emasculated people it's possible that Zverev is sensitive to the name of the national anthem due to brainwashing and is therefore very German!

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

  462. @LatW
    @YetAnotherAnon

    It was a totally pragmatic option to create a stronghold in the occupied parts of Donbas and the occupied Crimea, instead of trying to invade the whole country. Ukrainians could attack but they probably wouldn't be able to take it. Even if Ukraine militarized in a very serious way, they should've have been able to create a decent buffer from those positions.

    Replies: @A123

    It was a totally pragmatic option to create a stronghold in the occupied parts of Donbas and the occupied Crimea, .

    It was also totally pragmatic to advance to the Dnieper, removing the illegal dam being used to collectively punish civilians in Crimea.

    Now that there is “land bridge” securing the civilian water supply, the chances of Kiev retaking it are exceedingly slim. The terrain favours Russian doctrine and equipment. And, they have had months to prepare the defense.

    instead of trying to invade the whole country.

    Ukraine is huge. We can be reasonably sure that RF generals never had a plan requiring extensive manpower to hold that much land area. There was never the mass mobilization to support it. The SMO option had less troop strength, and thus more limited goals.

    The initial push at Kiev appears to be an attempt at removing Ukrainian leadership and forcing an immediate surrender. With all sides pushing propaganda, we are unlikely to ever find out for sure. Even if a document makes it out of the Kremlin, how could it be authenticated?

    Even if Ukraine militarized in a very serious way, they should’ve have been able to create a decent buffer from those positions.

    Minsk Deal negotiations were a Kiev deception to cover for arming up. Knowing that Ukrainian leaders are inherently untrustworthy, the current contact line is a decent and pragmatic buffer.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @A123


    Now that there is “land bridge” securing the civilian water supply, the chances of Kiev retaking it are exceedingly slim.
     
    In case you've missed the news - RF held Kahovka hydrodam blew up this summer and there is no fresh water from Dnieper flowing to Crimea canal anymore again as water reservoir emptied and levels dropped notably.

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @A123

    "the current contact line is a decent and pragmatic buffer"

    Not as long as Donetsk is still being shelled daily and civilians dying.

    I would be surprised if the whole coast as far as Transnistria wasn't a target, although that does give hostages to fortune (drive to the sea) without a pretty big advance to the north.

    Replies: @A123

  463. Japan is delving back into the postwar for its new Godzilla film:

  464. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Coconuts


    In the non-celibate population arguments usually return that activities like Pedophilia are not inherently wrong, made by highly respected thought leaders (Foucault is one of the best known).
     
    I thought the Foucault parts where he is going all edgelord are waved off by people who respect his less extreme writings. I have never seen any place where people promote or even defend those parts. Hakim Bey is another one.

    At least they don't go for pre-puberty victims like the Hollywood scene. But this isn't even close to respect. It's more like Foucault and Bey don't exactly deserve being sent to a gulag.

    Replies: @Coconuts

    I thought the Foucault parts where he is going all edgelord are waved off by people who respect his less extreme writings. I have never seen any place where people promote or even defend those parts.

    Maybe not nowadays, but not the same in the past:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

    Sometimes it’s suggested that there may be some inherent problem in Queer theory around the way it seeks to queer all binary categories, including child/adult. Foucault wasn’t the only one of the early queer theory influences who had these anti-age of consent views.

    I just put that reference to Foucault in to show that obvious non-celibates could be involved in promotion of this stuff.

  465. @John Johnson
    @Beckow

    Soviets left in 1989 and Taliban was created in the early 90’s…:) Soviets controlled the cities and the government – exactly the same as US. Soviets withdrew in 1989 and the commie government in Kabul ruled until 1992, for 3 more years. It seems like a much better record than US…

    That was a period of civil war. Over 400k Afghans died from 1989-1994.

    That commie government was never in charge of the entire country.

    They were unwanted and eventually lost to the Taliban. A total waste of lives and time for all sides.

    That was a last ditch effort at expanding Communism and it completely failed.

    “Sustainable” Afghanistan is an escapist slogan for fools unable to face reality. No wonder you use it.

    I've never heard anyone say it. I said that the US was unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan. Or are you going to suggest that the US lost militarily?

    The US had 2,402 casualties for the entire period (2001-2021). The Taliban lost at least 50,000.

    That isn't a "decisive military defeat" and I already pointed out that US soldiers were more likely to be killed in a car wreck while stationed at home. Do you deny that?

    Obama was the president – his demand that “Assad must go!” was the US policy

    No that is not US policy. That is Obama talking and not government policy. He never asked for war powers or an invasion force from congress.

    Biden has declared many times that AR-15s must go. Is that US policy?

    The president is not a king. He can not simply create policy from words.

    Obama was a coward and broke his word over Syria. He decided to not launch a military removal of Assad after the chemical weapons attack. Take it up with him.

    You are clearly biased against America but try to be more honest about history. There was never a "decisive military defeat" in Syria when there has never been an attempt at removing Assad. We currently have 900 troops in Syria that mostly work out and cruise around in hummers. I'm fine with them leaving along with the 50k Russian troops that are not welcome by the majority.


    You could argue that Iraq wasn’t worth the effort but the US was not defeated militarily.
     
    You could argue that, but you would look like a fool. An enormous effort that led to nothing – US was effectively pushed out and Iran is the principal beneficiary.

    Do tell which force defeated the US military in Iraq and pushed them out.

    The US defeated Saddam and his forces. Iraq is now democracy and they can align with Iran if they please. That is the risk of creating a democracy in the middle east. I would have setup a monarchy but I'm not in charge of US foreign policy.

    Replies: @Beckow

    You are suffering from an incurable mental condition unable to see the same things as being the same when they hurt your feelings about your “country”. Or you are simply a lier who spins tales for a cause.

    People explained to you that the Soviet and US experiences in Afghanistan were similar – and before that the British also lost a war against the Afghanis. None of your careless cherrypicking and intentionally using different terms makes one iota of difference.

    Sustainable Afghanistan…I’ve never heard anyone say it. I said that the US was unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan.

    You said it! Literally in the same paragraph and in your original comment. Are you so unaware?

    US declared from the highest levels – Obama, Clinton, Congress…. – that “Assad must go!” Now you try to pretend that it didn’t happen and that “Obama was only a blabber-mouth?” (He was.) Would you apply the same standard to the other side?

    Assad is still there. US-Nato trained-armed rebels are defeated, only a small band of Kurds still fights everyone (mostly Turkey). Syria has the Russian naval base and is largely back to its pre-war state. That is in direct conflict with the declared US goals – it was a lost proxy war.

    US never declares a war – you asking for the war resolution is an evasive form of lying. The others are also learning the “trick”, look at Russia’s silly Special Military Operation – if it goes south, they can claim that since they never declared a war, they couldn’t lose a war…:) Would anyone believe it? Why are you so special?

    In Iraq a dispassionate description would be that US-Nato (most of it) acted as an expensive foreign mercenary force for the Shias-Kurds. It defeated and removed their enemy (Saddam), then f..ed around for a few years losing soldiers, spending huge amounts of money, and fought some ISIL fanatics – who they originally encouraged as a counter-force to the Shias.

    Then the mercenaries were told to go home without getting paid. Iran took the spoils. Victory or defeat? Look up the Xenophon Anabasis in ancient Mesopotamia for a similar story – hired army that wins a few battles and then is sent packing without as the Persians take over. (Good job, neo-cons yahoos, that’s the way to do it…right? I am glad you are proud of them.)

    In summary, get some help for your narcissism. Or read a few books. The Ukie fiasco is heading in the same direction. The idea that special, indispensable people can go to faraway places, find locals willing to help or get paid, spend lots of treasure but not really fight (too risky!) and “win wars” against entrenched regional powers is preposterously stupid. It will be studied for generations as the ultimate in hubris. In the meantime let us enjoy the show and hope it doesn’t get out of hand….:)

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Beckow

    True enough. The US didn't mind "brutal dictator Saddam" when he was gassing Iranians.

    Now Iraq, Iran AND the Saudis are all good mates, and the Saudis can see which way the wind's blowing.

    How long before America's Greatest Ally™ swivels towards Beijing?

  466. @LatW
    @Beckow


    First of all they didn’t
     
    But quite a few of them did. And thus they endangered all the others.

    The war is basically Russia against the local Ukie nationalists (maybe also Poland, Latvia, Romania…) – in that fight Russia is stronger.
     
    First of all, you don't know that, and most importantly - it is not against nationalists, but against the whole nations. They're not fighting Ukrainian nationalists, they're fighting the whole nation. If you fail to see this, then your conclusions, too, will be faulty.

    They should've taken what they had (which was a lot), now they are not wanted.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @LondonBob, @Beckow

    …But quite a few of them did. And thus they endangered all the others.

    That can be said almost about any minority in any country. Why does that matter? Are you suggesting collective responsibility? That is another quasi-fascist-commie-liberal concept. Be careful, it cuts both ways.

    Russia against the local Ukie nationalists…– in that fight Russia is stronger.

    you don’t know that, and most importantly – it is not against nationalists, but against the whole nations.

    Russia is stronger as long as Nato will not actually fight. To what extent the Ukies are now “all nationalists” is unknown – in wars there is enforced conformity. My guess is that a large plurality simply wants peace, they don’t want to die for Nato membership and to ban the Russian schools. They are angry, scared and volatile.

    After the war we will see their true attitudes. I suspect the Russian areas will become more “Russian” and the Ukie areas more “Ukrainian”. They will yell at each other, sometimes even shoot…then make up as in the past. But tens of millions will leave to EU and Russia. It is an absolute catastrophe for Ukraine – all else is only noise.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Beckow


    Why does that matter? Are you suggesting collective responsibility?
     
    It matters because they were stoking war. Their actions had bad consequences for the people in that community.

    To what extent the Ukies are now “all nationalists” is unknown
     
    You don't understand - one doesn't have to even be a nationalist to hate the invader who walks into your country and starts killing people and mocking it.

    Replies: @Beckow

  467. @Beckow
    @John Johnson

    You are suffering from an incurable mental condition unable to see the same things as being the same when they hurt your feelings about your "country". Or you are simply a lier who spins tales for a cause.

    People explained to you that the Soviet and US experiences in Afghanistan were similar - and before that the British also lost a war against the Afghanis. None of your careless cherrypicking and intentionally using different terms makes one iota of difference.


    Sustainable Afghanistan...I’ve never heard anyone say it. I said that the US was unable to create a sustainable Afghanistan.
     
    You said it! Literally in the same paragraph and in your original comment. Are you so unaware?

    US declared from the highest levels - Obama, Clinton, Congress.... - that "Assad must go!" Now you try to pretend that it didn't happen and that "Obama was only a blabber-mouth?" (He was.) Would you apply the same standard to the other side?

    Assad is still there. US-Nato trained-armed rebels are defeated, only a small band of Kurds still fights everyone (mostly Turkey). Syria has the Russian naval base and is largely back to its pre-war state. That is in direct conflict with the declared US goals - it was a lost proxy war.

    US never declares a war - you asking for the war resolution is an evasive form of lying. The others are also learning the "trick", look at Russia's silly Special Military Operation - if it goes south, they can claim that since they never declared a war, they couldn't lose a war...:) Would anyone believe it? Why are you so special?

    In Iraq a dispassionate description would be that US-Nato (most of it) acted as an expensive foreign mercenary force for the Shias-Kurds. It defeated and removed their enemy (Saddam), then f..ed around for a few years losing soldiers, spending huge amounts of money, and fought some ISIL fanatics - who they originally encouraged as a counter-force to the Shias.

    Then the mercenaries were told to go home without getting paid. Iran took the spoils. Victory or defeat? Look up the Xenophon Anabasis in ancient Mesopotamia for a similar story - hired army that wins a few battles and then is sent packing without as the Persians take over. (Good job, neo-cons yahoos, that's the way to do it...right? I am glad you are proud of them.)

    In summary, get some help for your narcissism. Or read a few books. The Ukie fiasco is heading in the same direction. The idea that special, indispensable people can go to faraway places, find locals willing to help or get paid, spend lots of treasure but not really fight (too risky!) and "win wars" against entrenched regional powers is preposterously stupid. It will be studied for generations as the ultimate in hubris. In the meantime let us enjoy the show and hope it doesn't get out of hand....:)

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    True enough. The US didn’t mind “brutal dictator Saddam” when he was gassing Iranians.

    Now Iraq, Iran AND the Saudis are all good mates, and the Saudis can see which way the wind’s blowing.

    How long before America’s Greatest Ally™ swivels towards Beijing?

  468. @Emil Nikola Richard
    Battle of the Nations
    Germany Italy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjA0GaaeLUY&ab_channel=USOpenTennisChampionships

    Lots of those corporate fat cats did not use their free tickets. They missed an incredible match. If Zverev plays like that against Alcaraz it is going to be very close.

    Replies: @Matra

    Strange comment. Zverev is ethnically Russian. Jannik Sinner, as his name suggests is not ethnically Italian; he comes from the German-speaking region along the Austrian border.

    Given that Zverev slandered a fan who shouted “Deutschland Über Alles” – the fan was removed and portrayed on worldwide TV as a Nazi – I doubt he feels much loyalty to Germany. Then again, Germans are such emasculated people it’s possible that Zverev is sensitive to the name of the national anthem due to brainwashing and is therefore very German!

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Matra

    What is a nation?

    John Merriman says it's a big clan with an army and a navy and an air force. Zverev is more German than any of the Ukraine ladies are Ukrainian. : )

    Replies: @Matra

  469. @Dmitry
    @Mikhail

    They are only losing land slowly this year in Ukraine, but this isn't an intelligent plan for escaping this war without more serious defeat if the Democrats would win in 2024, as the situation would continue to become weaker. The balance of power in terms of technology and ammunition will increase in support of Ukraine already before 2025.

    So, while in the 2023 war it could be more balanced between Russia and Ukraine, if Democrats win, in future years like 2025, 2026, 2027 more of the technology and ammunition will go to Ukraine.

    For example, in the USA, we can also see the plan for ramp in terms of the production of 155mm ammunition each year to 2028.

    "Army is spending $1.45 billion on capacity “to expand 155mm artillery production from 14,000 a month to over 24,000 later this year,” and 85,000 in five years, Camarillo said at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama."
    https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2023/03/28/us-army-eyes-six-fold-production-boost-of-155mm-shells-used-in-ukraine/


    -

    If Democrats win in the US presidency in 2024, it would be better for Moscow trying to exit the war now, as the situation will be weaker even in 2025.

    But the current strategy of delaying the exit from the war for Moscow could be an accepted risk if they asguess ume Trump will win in 2024, so there is around a year before the international diplomatical situation could improve for Moscow.

    Replies: @Sean

    I do not believe Putin, who has his political opponents jailed, would have looked at Trump’s booking photograph and believe he is at all likely to be able to win the Presidency again. Even if he were banking on Trump getting into the White House, Putin could hardly expect Trump to come in and be soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine, because that would lead to a ceasefire that the Russians would use for a re-set and launch of a second much better planned and resourced invasion against an attenuated demoralized Ukraine, leading to it being completely conquered ,followed by a massive massacres of the Ukrainian population. Then Western outrage and Trump being impeached and removed from office.

    If Putin wanted some kind of realistic deal he could get one now, and preserve the core of the Russian armed from a year of intense ground and drone attacks. I think Putin ordered an invasion because he perceived Ukraine as a mortal threat to RusFed and Western aid to Ukraine enabling it to knock seven bells out of the Russian army has only entrenched him in that view, therefore he is set on fighting to win in Ukraine for however long it takes even thought he fully expects the Democrats to win and make Ukraine far more formidable than it already has proved to be.

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @A123
    @Sean


    I do not believe Putin, who has his political opponents jailed, would have looked at Trump’s booking photograph and believe he is at all likely to be able to win the Presidency again.
     
    The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

    Not only does Putin expect Trump to win, he wishes that his opposition is as incompetent as Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg.


    Putin could hardly expect Trump to come in and be soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine
     
    That is exactly what Trump would do. Trump wants to stop the Veggie-in-Chief's foreign follies. It may not be literally 24 hours, but the rug would be pulled out from under Kiev's senseless aggression.

    If Zelensky wanted a realistic settlement he could get one now, and preserve many Ukraine youths who will otherwise futilely waste their lives against well prepared Russian defenses. The outlines of a pragmatic peace deal are fairly obvious:

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines.
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials

    Alas, Zelensky is run by European puppet masters in Paris and Berlin. Even after the U.S. funding stops, they may choose to spend Billions of €uros "Fighting to the last Ukrainian".


    Russians would use for a re-set and launch of a second much better planned and resourced invasion
     
    If Ukraine can no longer threaten Russian ethnics there would be no need for a second defensive operation.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC, @Beckow, @Sean, @John Johnson

  470. @Matra
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Strange comment. Zverev is ethnically Russian. Jannik Sinner, as his name suggests is not ethnically Italian; he comes from the German-speaking region along the Austrian border.

    Given that Zverev slandered a fan who shouted "Deutschland Über Alles" - the fan was removed and portrayed on worldwide TV as a Nazi - I doubt he feels much loyalty to Germany. Then again, Germans are such emasculated people it's possible that Zverev is sensitive to the name of the national anthem due to brainwashing and is therefore very German!

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    What is a nation?

    John Merriman says it’s a big clan with an army and a navy and an air force. Zverev is more German than any of the Ukraine ladies are Ukrainian. : )

    • Replies: @Matra
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Merriman is wrong about nations; even if he is referring to states, not nations, he's wrong about them too.

  471. @Sean
    @Dmitry

    I do not believe Putin, who has his political opponents jailed, would have looked at Trump's booking photograph and believe he is at all likely to be able to win the Presidency again. Even if he were banking on Trump getting into the White House, Putin could hardly expect Trump to come in and be soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine, because that would lead to a ceasefire that the Russians would use for a re-set and launch of a second much better planned and resourced invasion against an attenuated demoralized Ukraine, leading to it being completely conquered ,followed by a massive massacres of the Ukrainian population. Then Western outrage and Trump being impeached and removed from office.

    If Putin wanted some kind of realistic deal he could get one now, and preserve the core of the Russian armed from a year of intense ground and drone attacks. I think Putin ordered an invasion because he perceived Ukraine as a mortal threat to RusFed and Western aid to Ukraine enabling it to knock seven bells out of the Russian army has only entrenched him in that view, therefore he is set on fighting to win in Ukraine for however long it takes even thought he fully expects the Democrats to win and make Ukraine far more formidable than it already has proved to be.

    Replies: @A123

    I do not believe Putin, who has his political opponents jailed, would have looked at Trump’s booking photograph and believe he is at all likely to be able to win the Presidency again.

    The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

    Not only does Putin expect Trump to win, he wishes that his opposition is as incompetent as Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg.

    Putin could hardly expect Trump to come in and be soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine

    That is exactly what Trump would do. Trump wants to stop the Veggie-in-Chief’s foreign follies. It may not be literally 24 hours, but the rug would be pulled out from under Kiev’s senseless aggression.

    If Zelensky wanted a realistic settlement he could get one now, and preserve many Ukraine youths who will otherwise futilely waste their lives against well prepared Russian defenses. The outlines of a pragmatic peace deal are fairly obvious:

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines.
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials

    Alas, Zelensky is run by European puppet masters in Paris and Berlin. Even after the U.S. funding stops, they may choose to spend Billions of €uros “Fighting to the last Ukrainian”.

    Russians would use for a re-set and launch of a second much better planned and resourced invasion

    If Ukraine can no longer threaten Russian ethnics there would be no need for a second defensive operation.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @A123

    My guess is Russia prefers to keep going until Ukraine voluntarily and sincerely capitulates. Assuming I am mistaken, I think your list is a realistic start but they may need more.

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines
    Odessa needs to be part of Russian sector
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    • No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    Ukraine fully demilitarized except for new Ukrainian-Russia homeguard/Western border patrol
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    Reimbursement for stolen funds and Nordstream
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials
    Russian trials of NeoNazi thugs and their enablers
    • Security guarantees by the West of some sort


    In this war Ukraine loses no matter what. For Russia this is not a face saving or cut your losses scenario. For their security this needs to be a loss for the West, not just a stalemate. The cleanest way is to simply fight until all NATO assets in Ukraine, NeoNazis and their Ukrainian masters are gone and the Ukrainian people wake up. This will be a lesson to help prevent future proxy wars. If it has to end before things get to that point I think Russia will be looking for real concessions and reparations from the West. They don't want this war to flare up next year either in Ukraine or somewhere else.

    Replies: @Beckow, @John Johnson, @LondonBob

    , @Beckow
    @A123


    ...The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

     

    Don't get lost in the weeds..:)

    The recent moves against Trump: arrest, court dates during primaries, up to 100 "charges", suggest that a decision was made to never-ever allow Trump back in power.

    They preferred that he wouldn't run again, that someone would defeat him in the primaries, or his polling would drop. It didn't happen, they have to do it the hard way.

    It is not going to be pretty or clean - there are two determined sides facing each other, with the anti-Trump side controlling almost all institutions. The war in Ukraine will be a sideshow by next year.

    EU has no independent foreign policy. They are do what they are told, often reluctantly and by bitching a lot, but they obey. You have this strange idea that Brussels-Berlin-Paris call the shots - they don't. EU can be obnoxious and petulant, look for ways to be either hyper-loyal or slightly rebellious - but they have no agency. If Washington pulls the plug on Kiev that would be it.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @A123

    , @Sean
    @A123

    What you suggest would be a humiliation for the US, and Trump would not stand for it. Trump talks isolationism but in practice he is military interventionist, ordering the assassination of Qasem Soleimani is only the most publicised example,

    Replies: @A123

    , @John Johnson
    @A123

    The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

    Which shows that his followers are suckers.

    He is worth over 2.5 billion.

    Trump could fund his own election and still be filthy rich. But he expects his MAGA middle class Whites to fund him. What a guy.

    That is exactly what Trump would do. Trump wants to stop the Veggie-in-Chief’s foreign follies. It may not be literally 24 hours, but the rug would be pulled out from under Kiev’s senseless aggression.

    You don't even know your own WWE star.

    He said that Putin would need to settle or he would load up Ukraine with even more weapons.

    So he fully supports arming Ukraine if Putin doesn't compromise. Trump hasn't explained what that compromise would look like. Which means he really doesn't have a plan.

    In any case it doesn't matter because a majority of independents said that they will not vote for him. Biden's best chance at re-election is for Trump to run.

    If Trump really wanted to defeat Biden then he would quit.

    Alas, Zelensky is run by European puppet masters in Paris and Berlin. Even after the U.S. funding stops, they may choose to spend Billions of €uros “Fighting to the last Ukrainian”.

    Polls show that a majority of Ukrainians support the war. Are you suggesting that Zelensky is not following their will?

  472. @A123
    @Sean


    I do not believe Putin, who has his political opponents jailed, would have looked at Trump’s booking photograph and believe he is at all likely to be able to win the Presidency again.
     
    The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

    Not only does Putin expect Trump to win, he wishes that his opposition is as incompetent as Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg.


    Putin could hardly expect Trump to come in and be soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine
     
    That is exactly what Trump would do. Trump wants to stop the Veggie-in-Chief's foreign follies. It may not be literally 24 hours, but the rug would be pulled out from under Kiev's senseless aggression.

    If Zelensky wanted a realistic settlement he could get one now, and preserve many Ukraine youths who will otherwise futilely waste their lives against well prepared Russian defenses. The outlines of a pragmatic peace deal are fairly obvious:

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines.
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials

    Alas, Zelensky is run by European puppet masters in Paris and Berlin. Even after the U.S. funding stops, they may choose to spend Billions of €uros "Fighting to the last Ukrainian".


    Russians would use for a re-set and launch of a second much better planned and resourced invasion
     
    If Ukraine can no longer threaten Russian ethnics there would be no need for a second defensive operation.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC, @Beckow, @Sean, @John Johnson

    My guess is Russia prefers to keep going until Ukraine voluntarily and sincerely capitulates. Assuming I am mistaken, I think your list is a realistic start but they may need more.

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines
    Odessa needs to be part of Russian sector
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    • No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    Ukraine fully demilitarized except for new Ukrainian-Russia homeguard/Western border patrol
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    Reimbursement for stolen funds and Nordstream
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials
    Russian trials of NeoNazi thugs and their enablers
    • Security guarantees by the West of some sort

    In this war Ukraine loses no matter what. For Russia this is not a face saving or cut your losses scenario. For their security this needs to be a loss for the West, not just a stalemate. The cleanest way is to simply fight until all NATO assets in Ukraine, NeoNazis and their Ukrainian masters are gone and the Ukrainian people wake up. This will be a lesson to help prevent future proxy wars. If it has to end before things get to that point I think Russia will be looking for real concessions and reparations from the West. They don’t want this war to flare up next year either in Ukraine or somewhere else.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @QCIC


    ...In this war Ukraine loses no matter what.
     
    That is the 800-pound gorilla in the room - and nobody in the West wants to talk about it. It shows extreme disregard for the actual Ukrainians. The West likes to celebrate the heroic theatrical Ukies, but the actual lives of the people are of no interest.

    The endless Western cheerleading kill more Russians! also implies that more Ukies die, a form of detached sadism. Ukies are collateral damage for the atavistic hatred of Russia felt by many in the West.

    I suspect there will be no early solution - it wouldn't benefit Russia (you are right) and it is no biggie for the West to stand aside as Ukraine is slowly destroyed and depopulated.

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    Separation along more-or-less current lines
    Odessa needs to be part of Russian sector

    Why does Odessa need to be part of Russia? It isn't even majority ethnic Russian
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odesa#Demographics

    Traditionally it was an open port and heavily Jewish. The current majority would not welcome Russian rule.

    Ukraine fully demilitarized except for new Ukrainian-Russia homeguard/Western border patrol

    Then what exactly would prevent Russia from taking all of Ukraine after being fully demilitarized and without NATO protection?

    In this war Ukraine loses no matter what. For Russia this is not a face saving or cut your losses scenario. For their security this needs to be a loss for the West, not just a stalemate.

    Why would it matter if Ukraine joins NATO now that Finland has joined? Please explain from a security viewpoint and not as a face saving measure.

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @LondonBob
    @QCIC

    Land locking the Ukraine would be my goal, do what NATO did to Serbia, dismantle it to a rump state.

  473. @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...But quite a few of them did. And thus they endangered all the others.
     
    That can be said almost about any minority in any country. Why does that matter? Are you suggesting collective responsibility? That is another quasi-fascist-commie-liberal concept. Be careful, it cuts both ways.

    Russia against the local Ukie nationalists...– in that fight Russia is stronger.

    you don’t know that, and most importantly – it is not against nationalists, but against the whole nations.

     

    Russia is stronger as long as Nato will not actually fight. To what extent the Ukies are now "all nationalists" is unknown - in wars there is enforced conformity. My guess is that a large plurality simply wants peace, they don't want to die for Nato membership and to ban the Russian schools. They are angry, scared and volatile.

    After the war we will see their true attitudes. I suspect the Russian areas will become more "Russian" and the Ukie areas more "Ukrainian". They will yell at each other, sometimes even shoot...then make up as in the past. But tens of millions will leave to EU and Russia. It is an absolute catastrophe for Ukraine - all else is only noise.

    Replies: @LatW

    Why does that matter? Are you suggesting collective responsibility?

    It matters because they were stoking war. Their actions had bad consequences for the people in that community.

    To what extent the Ukies are now “all nationalists” is unknown

    You don’t understand – one doesn’t have to even be a nationalist to hate the invader who walks into your country and starts killing people and mocking it.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...It matters because they were stoking war.
     
    And so were the endless pronouncements that Ukraine will join Nato, closing Russian schools and banning Russian language in official use - done as the first act in February 2014 by the Maidanistas. Massacre of Russians in Odesa, bombing Donbas, etc...

    The careless words were less important than actions.


    one doesn’t have to even be a nationalist to hate the invader who walks into your country and starts killing people and mocking it.
     
    There are many people in Crimea, Donbas, south-east who welcomed the Russian invaders. The angry people in Kiev and Lviv don't plan to live in the Russian speaking regions, but they want to control the people there and tell them what language to use and who to like. If Kiev takes over Donbas or Crimea wouldn't that also be an "occupation"? There are two sides.

    Replies: @LatW

  474. @LatW
    @Beckow


    Why does that matter? Are you suggesting collective responsibility?
     
    It matters because they were stoking war. Their actions had bad consequences for the people in that community.

    To what extent the Ukies are now “all nationalists” is unknown
     
    You don't understand - one doesn't have to even be a nationalist to hate the invader who walks into your country and starts killing people and mocking it.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …It matters because they were stoking war.

    And so were the endless pronouncements that Ukraine will join Nato, closing Russian schools and banning Russian language in official use – done as the first act in February 2014 by the Maidanistas. Massacre of Russians in Odesa, bombing Donbas, etc…

    The careless words were less important than actions.

    one doesn’t have to even be a nationalist to hate the invader who walks into your country and starts killing people and mocking it.

    There are many people in Crimea, Donbas, south-east who welcomed the Russian invaders. The angry people in Kiev and Lviv don’t plan to live in the Russian speaking regions, but they want to control the people there and tell them what language to use and who to like. If Kiev takes over Donbas or Crimea wouldn’t that also be an “occupation”? There are two sides.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Beckow


    The careless words were less important than actions.
     
    There was much more than careless words. There were deliberate media operations (the crucified boy lie), an intervention, and "Putin bring in the troops". That literally means "Putin, bring in the troops and murder my neighbor I don't like". Do not trivialize.

    If Kiev takes over Donbas or Crimea wouldn’t that also be an “occupation”?
     
    Those are their internationally recognized borders.

    Replies: @Beckow

  475. @QCIC
    @A123

    My guess is Russia prefers to keep going until Ukraine voluntarily and sincerely capitulates. Assuming I am mistaken, I think your list is a realistic start but they may need more.

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines
    Odessa needs to be part of Russian sector
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    • No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    Ukraine fully demilitarized except for new Ukrainian-Russia homeguard/Western border patrol
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    Reimbursement for stolen funds and Nordstream
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials
    Russian trials of NeoNazi thugs and their enablers
    • Security guarantees by the West of some sort


    In this war Ukraine loses no matter what. For Russia this is not a face saving or cut your losses scenario. For their security this needs to be a loss for the West, not just a stalemate. The cleanest way is to simply fight until all NATO assets in Ukraine, NeoNazis and their Ukrainian masters are gone and the Ukrainian people wake up. This will be a lesson to help prevent future proxy wars. If it has to end before things get to that point I think Russia will be looking for real concessions and reparations from the West. They don't want this war to flare up next year either in Ukraine or somewhere else.

    Replies: @Beckow, @John Johnson, @LondonBob

    …In this war Ukraine loses no matter what.

    That is the 800-pound gorilla in the room – and nobody in the West wants to talk about it. It shows extreme disregard for the actual Ukrainians. The West likes to celebrate the heroic theatrical Ukies, but the actual lives of the people are of no interest.

    The endless Western cheerleading kill more Russians! also implies that more Ukies die, a form of detached sadism. Ukies are collateral damage for the atavistic hatred of Russia felt by many in the West.

    I suspect there will be no early solution – it wouldn’t benefit Russia (you are right) and it is no biggie for the West to stand aside as Ukraine is slowly destroyed and depopulated.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Beckow

    Mass media can spin the Ukraine narrative at a level appropriate for 10 year old children and even intelligent college graduate adults will accept it. Before this started there were quite a few older anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine fellow travelers such as descendants of Eastern European Jews, ex-Cold Warriors and anti-Communists who were sympathetic to the anti-Russia narrative. I understand these people are a target audience for propaganda. Nonetheless, it amazes me how well the propaganda works on the much larger population who do not fit into these groups. I have not studied the details of how MSM propaganda really works but it is frighteningly effective.

    Big Bad Bear Bad
    Little Ukraine Good
    Bang, bang!
    Biff-pow!
    Boo-who!
    Slava Ukraini!
    :(

    Don't forget to get your booster, kiddies!

    Replies: @Mikhail

  476. @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...It matters because they were stoking war.
     
    And so were the endless pronouncements that Ukraine will join Nato, closing Russian schools and banning Russian language in official use - done as the first act in February 2014 by the Maidanistas. Massacre of Russians in Odesa, bombing Donbas, etc...

    The careless words were less important than actions.


    one doesn’t have to even be a nationalist to hate the invader who walks into your country and starts killing people and mocking it.
     
    There are many people in Crimea, Donbas, south-east who welcomed the Russian invaders. The angry people in Kiev and Lviv don't plan to live in the Russian speaking regions, but they want to control the people there and tell them what language to use and who to like. If Kiev takes over Donbas or Crimea wouldn't that also be an "occupation"? There are two sides.

    Replies: @LatW

    The careless words were less important than actions.

    There was much more than careless words. There were deliberate media operations (the crucified boy lie), an intervention, and “Putin bring in the troops”. That literally means “Putin, bring in the troops and murder my neighbor I don’t like”. Do not trivialize.

    If Kiev takes over Donbas or Crimea wouldn’t that also be an “occupation”?

    Those are their internationally recognized borders.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...There were deliberate media operations...Do not trivialize.
     
    Sure by all sides, don't be selective. I am skeptical when I see a "crucified boy" or "kidnapped kids" stories - it is right out of Goebels' manual. But let's be honest - all sides do it.

    Those are their internationally recognized borders.
     
    I thought that went out with the Nato attack on Serbia to redraw the 'internationally recognized" borders and create Kosovo. You are behind the times, there is the Kosovo precedent.

    Replies: @LatW

  477. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Matra

    What is a nation?

    John Merriman says it's a big clan with an army and a navy and an air force. Zverev is more German than any of the Ukraine ladies are Ukrainian. : )

    Replies: @Matra

    Merriman is wrong about nations; even if he is referring to states, not nations, he’s wrong about them too.

  478. @A123
    @Sean


    I do not believe Putin, who has his political opponents jailed, would have looked at Trump’s booking photograph and believe he is at all likely to be able to win the Presidency again.
     
    The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

    Not only does Putin expect Trump to win, he wishes that his opposition is as incompetent as Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg.


    Putin could hardly expect Trump to come in and be soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine
     
    That is exactly what Trump would do. Trump wants to stop the Veggie-in-Chief's foreign follies. It may not be literally 24 hours, but the rug would be pulled out from under Kiev's senseless aggression.

    If Zelensky wanted a realistic settlement he could get one now, and preserve many Ukraine youths who will otherwise futilely waste their lives against well prepared Russian defenses. The outlines of a pragmatic peace deal are fairly obvious:

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines.
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials

    Alas, Zelensky is run by European puppet masters in Paris and Berlin. Even after the U.S. funding stops, they may choose to spend Billions of €uros "Fighting to the last Ukrainian".


    Russians would use for a re-set and launch of a second much better planned and resourced invasion
     
    If Ukraine can no longer threaten Russian ethnics there would be no need for a second defensive operation.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC, @Beckow, @Sean, @John Johnson

    …The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

    Don’t get lost in the weeds..:)

    The recent moves against Trump: arrest, court dates during primaries, up to 100 “charges”, suggest that a decision was made to never-ever allow Trump back in power.

    They preferred that he wouldn’t run again, that someone would defeat him in the primaries, or his polling would drop. It didn’t happen, they have to do it the hard way.

    It is not going to be pretty or clean – there are two determined sides facing each other, with the anti-Trump side controlling almost all institutions. The war in Ukraine will be a sideshow by next year.

    EU has no independent foreign policy. They are do what they are told, often reluctantly and by bitching a lot, but they obey. You have this strange idea that Brussels-Berlin-Paris call the shots – they don’t. EU can be obnoxious and petulant, look for ways to be either hyper-loyal or slightly rebellious – but they have no agency. If Washington pulls the plug on Kiev that would be it.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Beckow

    They can fix an election and they can fix a trial. Like Donald the Fat was saying back in 2016, the system is rigged. When I was a little boy I complained about such to my grandpa and he said something about "He was right" and useless tombstone inscriptions.

    , @A123
    @Beckow


    Don’t get lost in the weeds..:)
     
    You should take your own advice. ; P

    The recent moves against Trump: arrest, court dates during primaries, up to 100 “charges”, suggest that a decision was made to never-ever allow Trump back in power.

     

    The recent moves against Trump: arrest, court dates during primaries, etc. suggests the DNC knows just how reviled Not-The-President actually is. They are now trotting out low % desperation moves. Every swing & miss they take makes MAGA stronger.

    It is not going to be pretty or clean – there are two determined sides facing each other, with the anti-Trump side controlling almost all institutions.
     
    The downside of a "high trust" society is incredible vulnerability to disruption. The deranged #NeverTrump extremists need a functioning society to wield their privilege. Breaking expendable cities like Portland and Minneapolis is acceptable. However, there is a rapidly approaching limit that they cannot cross.

    The Feds have betrayed that minimum necessary trust. Institutions without credibility, such as the Department of Justice, lose most of their power. Staffs are not that large and mostly win by bullying & complicity. Simply forcing them to obey all of the procedures will greatly diminish their capacity.
    ____

    You have this strange idea that Washington calls the shots – it doesn't. The Veggie-in-Chief, and his administration, is quite obviously a puppet vassal of the Berlin led European Empire. If you wish to pick another city feel free -- Davos is in Europe, Brussels is in Europe, Paris is in Europe -- The pattern of European dominance over the American Democrat party is undeniable.

    PEACE 😇
  479. @A123
    @LatW


    It was a totally pragmatic option to create a stronghold in the occupied parts of Donbas and the occupied Crimea, .
     
    It was also totally pragmatic to advance to the Dnieper, removing the illegal dam being used to collectively punish civilians in Crimea.

    Now that there is "land bridge" securing the civilian water supply, the chances of Kiev retaking it are exceedingly slim. The terrain favours Russian doctrine and equipment. And, they have had months to prepare the defense.


    instead of trying to invade the whole country.
     
    Ukraine is huge. We can be reasonably sure that RF generals never had a plan requiring extensive manpower to hold that much land area. There was never the mass mobilization to support it. The SMO option had less troop strength, and thus more limited goals.

    The initial push at Kiev appears to be an attempt at removing Ukrainian leadership and forcing an immediate surrender. With all sides pushing propaganda, we are unlikely to ever find out for sure. Even if a document makes it out of the Kremlin, how could it be authenticated?


    Even if Ukraine militarized in a very serious way, they should’ve have been able to create a decent buffer from those positions.
     
    Minsk Deal negotiations were a Kiev deception to cover for arming up. Knowing that Ukrainian leaders are inherently untrustworthy, the current contact line is a decent and pragmatic buffer.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @sudden death, @YetAnotherAnon

    Now that there is “land bridge” securing the civilian water supply, the chances of Kiev retaking it are exceedingly slim.

    In case you’ve missed the news – RF held Kahovka hydrodam blew up this summer and there is no fresh water from Dnieper flowing to Crimea canal anymore again as water reservoir emptied and levels dropped notably.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @sudden death

    Can someone post a photo which shows the center section of the dam now that the water has fully receded?

    Replies: @sudden death

  480. @A123
    @Sean


    I do not believe Putin, who has his political opponents jailed, would have looked at Trump’s booking photograph and believe he is at all likely to be able to win the Presidency again.
     
    The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

    Not only does Putin expect Trump to win, he wishes that his opposition is as incompetent as Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg.


    Putin could hardly expect Trump to come in and be soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine
     
    That is exactly what Trump would do. Trump wants to stop the Veggie-in-Chief's foreign follies. It may not be literally 24 hours, but the rug would be pulled out from under Kiev's senseless aggression.

    If Zelensky wanted a realistic settlement he could get one now, and preserve many Ukraine youths who will otherwise futilely waste their lives against well prepared Russian defenses. The outlines of a pragmatic peace deal are fairly obvious:

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines.
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials

    Alas, Zelensky is run by European puppet masters in Paris and Berlin. Even after the U.S. funding stops, they may choose to spend Billions of €uros "Fighting to the last Ukrainian".


    Russians would use for a re-set and launch of a second much better planned and resourced invasion
     
    If Ukraine can no longer threaten Russian ethnics there would be no need for a second defensive operation.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC, @Beckow, @Sean, @John Johnson

    What you suggest would be a humiliation for the US, and Trump would not stand for it. Trump talks isolationism but in practice he is military interventionist, ordering the assassination of Qasem Soleimani is only the most publicised example,

    • Replies: @A123
    @Sean


    What you suggest would be a humiliation for the US, and Trump would not stand for it. Trump talks isolationism but in practice he is military interventionist, ordering the assassination of Qasem Soleimani is only the most publicised example
     
    What I suggest would be a total humiliation for Not-The-President Biden and the Democrats. Trump, MAGA, and the Republicans would gladly deliver this massive win for Main Street America.

    Trump is in practice not a military interventionist. The record is 100% clear on this point.

     
    https://i1.wp.com/wentworthreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/us-presidents-wars.jpg
     

    Soleimani killed Americans (or at least U.S. contractors) and is now deceased. This quid pro quo has no relevance to America cleanly walking away from the Veggie-in-Chief's personal fiasco in Ukraine. Quite the opposite in fact. America has neither prestige nor national interest at stake. Thus, the U.S. can wisely abandon support for Kiev's unwarranted aggression against its neighbor.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Sean

  481. @Mikel
    @John Johnson


    Do you just make stuff up that sounds good to you? There is no smoking and drinking denominational split of fundamentalist Mormons.
     
    From your own link, for God's sake:

    The modern LDS application of the Word of Wisdom has its beginnings in the presidency of Joseph F. Smith, who became LDS Church president in 1901 at a time when even notable church leaders drank alcohol and coffee. For example, George Albert Smith, apostle and later church president, "took brandy for medicinal reasons", Anthon H. Lund, First Counselor in the First Presidency, "enjoyed Danish beer and currant wine", Charles W. Penrose, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, "occasionally served wine", Matthias F. Cowley, apostle, "enjoyed Danish beer and currant wine", Brigham Young, Jr. and John Henry Smith, both apostles, argued in 1901 "that the Church ought not interdict beer, or at least not Danish beer", and Emmeline B. Wells, of the Relief Society presidency (and who was later president of the Relief Society), "drank an occasional cup of coffee"
     
    As I said, it is best to just let the readers decide if your claim of knowing more than me about Mormons is moronic or not. I don't understand your feverish insistence in dispelling any possible doubt.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    From your own link, for God’s sake:

    The modern LDS application of the Word of Wisdom has its beginnings in the presidency of Joseph F. Smith, who became LDS Church president in 1901 at a time when even notable church leaders drank alcohol and coffee.

    The link you are referencing is from Wikipedia and is not LDS doctrine.

    A president from 1901 doesn’t negate what is taught as the word of the Lord.

    LDS doctrine also does not include the criminal history or hypocrisy of Joseph Smith. Pointing that out in a Wiki link wouldn’t somehow negate their belief of him as a prophet.

    Joseph Smith was arrested as con artist before founding Mormonism
    https://www.padfield.com/2005/mormon-history.html

    Here it is direct from the Mormons:
    Do Mormons drink alcohol, tea, and coffee?
    In the Word of Wisdom, the Lord commands Mormons to abstain from harmful substances. Mormons are taught not to drink any kind of alcohol

    https://pacific.churchofjesuschrist.org/why-mormons-dont-drink-alcohol-tea-and-coffee

    They view it as a commandment from the Lord.

    It is not optional or merely a suggestion. The original Joseph Smith smoked cigars but that doesn’t create some kind of free pass for Mormons. Their religion is curated and not open to discussion or interpretation. They’re not going to talk about the rules that Joseph Smith himself broke or how he was a known bullshitter.

    As I said, it is best to just let the readers decide if your claim of knowing more than me about Mormons is moronic or not. I don’t understand your feverish insistence in dispelling any possible doubt.

    I’ve provided direct sources from the church and you still want to believe it’s just another denomination and that they aren’t serious about abstaining from alcohol and tobacco.

    You should go light up a cigar outside a Mormon tabernacle and film it. Tell them that ‘ol Joe smoked cigars so relax. Do it while holding a Starbucks. Tell them that they don’t actually have to follow the rules because Wikipedia lists Josephs Smith as a fraud and hypocrite. Also make sure to tell them that you “know a Mormon” so it’s fine. They can stop following very clear church doctrine on the subject.

  482. @Beckow
    @A123


    ...The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

     

    Don't get lost in the weeds..:)

    The recent moves against Trump: arrest, court dates during primaries, up to 100 "charges", suggest that a decision was made to never-ever allow Trump back in power.

    They preferred that he wouldn't run again, that someone would defeat him in the primaries, or his polling would drop. It didn't happen, they have to do it the hard way.

    It is not going to be pretty or clean - there are two determined sides facing each other, with the anti-Trump side controlling almost all institutions. The war in Ukraine will be a sideshow by next year.

    EU has no independent foreign policy. They are do what they are told, often reluctantly and by bitching a lot, but they obey. You have this strange idea that Brussels-Berlin-Paris call the shots - they don't. EU can be obnoxious and petulant, look for ways to be either hyper-loyal or slightly rebellious - but they have no agency. If Washington pulls the plug on Kiev that would be it.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @A123

    They can fix an election and they can fix a trial. Like Donald the Fat was saying back in 2016, the system is rigged. When I was a little boy I complained about such to my grandpa and he said something about “He was right” and useless tombstone inscriptions.

  483. @sudden death
    @A123


    Now that there is “land bridge” securing the civilian water supply, the chances of Kiev retaking it are exceedingly slim.
     
    In case you've missed the news - RF held Kahovka hydrodam blew up this summer and there is no fresh water from Dnieper flowing to Crimea canal anymore again as water reservoir emptied and levels dropped notably.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Can someone post a photo which shows the center section of the dam now that the water has fully receded?

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @QCIC

    Not sure it can count as fresh fully receded pic, but older one surely was also receded little bit, to put it mildly;)

    https://i.postimg.cc/gcrFQH7P/crimea-canal-kahovka.png

    Replies: @QCIC, @A123

  484. @QCIC
    @A123

    My guess is Russia prefers to keep going until Ukraine voluntarily and sincerely capitulates. Assuming I am mistaken, I think your list is a realistic start but they may need more.

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines
    Odessa needs to be part of Russian sector
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    • No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    Ukraine fully demilitarized except for new Ukrainian-Russia homeguard/Western border patrol
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    Reimbursement for stolen funds and Nordstream
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials
    Russian trials of NeoNazi thugs and their enablers
    • Security guarantees by the West of some sort


    In this war Ukraine loses no matter what. For Russia this is not a face saving or cut your losses scenario. For their security this needs to be a loss for the West, not just a stalemate. The cleanest way is to simply fight until all NATO assets in Ukraine, NeoNazis and their Ukrainian masters are gone and the Ukrainian people wake up. This will be a lesson to help prevent future proxy wars. If it has to end before things get to that point I think Russia will be looking for real concessions and reparations from the West. They don't want this war to flare up next year either in Ukraine or somewhere else.

    Replies: @Beckow, @John Johnson, @LondonBob

    Separation along more-or-less current lines
    Odessa needs to be part of Russian sector

    Why does Odessa need to be part of Russia? It isn’t even majority ethnic Russian
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odesa#Demographics

    Traditionally it was an open port and heavily Jewish. The current majority would not welcome Russian rule.

    Ukraine fully demilitarized except for new Ukrainian-Russia homeguard/Western border patrol

    Then what exactly would prevent Russia from taking all of Ukraine after being fully demilitarized and without NATO protection?

    In this war Ukraine loses no matter what. For Russia this is not a face saving or cut your losses scenario. For their security this needs to be a loss for the West, not just a stalemate.

    Why would it matter if Ukraine joins NATO now that Finland has joined? Please explain from a security viewpoint and not as a face saving measure.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    I think Russia needs to control Odessa to prevent the West from rearming Ukraine.

    History may show that if the inhabitants of Odessa did not want Russian rule they should have helped Ukraine follow a policy of good relations with Russia. This might have included explicit military neutrality which slightly favored Russia and was slightly ambiguous from the perspective of the West.

    I don't see Finland joining NATO as much worse than the Baltic countries joining previously. Surely this is a step backwards from Russia's perspective, but problems like that were expected. I think Russia's plan is to stay heavily armed in the Baltic area to protect Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad. Finland has used F-18's since the late 1990's so I don't think they were exactly part of a close family. I think Finland will eventually figure out they have more in common with Russia than Brussels and will eventually undo their accession to NATO. I don't know if this occurs in two years or twenty.

    I think Ukraine and Belarus are the countries Russia could not afford to lose for historical and cultural reasons. This is why they are also the big prizes the West wants to pull away from Russia.

    Georgia and Armenia were mostly lost a long time ago, but they are lower down the priority list. Depending on what nonsense the West, Turkey and Israel are doing in a few decades these former parts of the Russian Empire may seek the security and comfort of Russia's skirts again.

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson

  485. @Beckow
    @A123


    ...The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

     

    Don't get lost in the weeds..:)

    The recent moves against Trump: arrest, court dates during primaries, up to 100 "charges", suggest that a decision was made to never-ever allow Trump back in power.

    They preferred that he wouldn't run again, that someone would defeat him in the primaries, or his polling would drop. It didn't happen, they have to do it the hard way.

    It is not going to be pretty or clean - there are two determined sides facing each other, with the anti-Trump side controlling almost all institutions. The war in Ukraine will be a sideshow by next year.

    EU has no independent foreign policy. They are do what they are told, often reluctantly and by bitching a lot, but they obey. You have this strange idea that Brussels-Berlin-Paris call the shots - they don't. EU can be obnoxious and petulant, look for ways to be either hyper-loyal or slightly rebellious - but they have no agency. If Washington pulls the plug on Kiev that would be it.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @A123

    Don’t get lost in the weeds..:)

    You should take your own advice. ; P

    The recent moves against Trump: arrest, court dates during primaries, up to 100 “charges”, suggest that a decision was made to never-ever allow Trump back in power.

    The recent moves against Trump: arrest, court dates during primaries, etc. suggests the DNC knows just how reviled Not-The-President actually is. They are now trotting out low % desperation moves. Every swing & miss they take makes MAGA stronger.

    It is not going to be pretty or clean – there are two determined sides facing each other, with the anti-Trump side controlling almost all institutions.

    The downside of a “high trust” society is incredible vulnerability to disruption. The deranged #NeverTrump extremists need a functioning society to wield their privilege. Breaking expendable cities like Portland and Minneapolis is acceptable. However, there is a rapidly approaching limit that they cannot cross.

    The Feds have betrayed that minimum necessary trust. Institutions without credibility, such as the Department of Justice, lose most of their power. Staffs are not that large and mostly win by bullying & complicity. Simply forcing them to obey all of the procedures will greatly diminish their capacity.
    ____

    You have this strange idea that Washington calls the shots – it doesn’t. The Veggie-in-Chief, and his administration, is quite obviously a puppet vassal of the Berlin led European Empire. If you wish to pick another city feel free — Davos is in Europe, Brussels is in Europe, Paris is in Europe — The pattern of European dominance over the American Democrat party is undeniable.

    PEACE 😇

    • LOL: silviosilver
  486. @A123
    @Sean


    I do not believe Putin, who has his political opponents jailed, would have looked at Trump’s booking photograph and believe he is at all likely to be able to win the Presidency again.
     
    The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

    Not only does Putin expect Trump to win, he wishes that his opposition is as incompetent as Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg.


    Putin could hardly expect Trump to come in and be soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine
     
    That is exactly what Trump would do. Trump wants to stop the Veggie-in-Chief's foreign follies. It may not be literally 24 hours, but the rug would be pulled out from under Kiev's senseless aggression.

    If Zelensky wanted a realistic settlement he could get one now, and preserve many Ukraine youths who will otherwise futilely waste their lives against well prepared Russian defenses. The outlines of a pragmatic peace deal are fairly obvious:

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines.
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials

    Alas, Zelensky is run by European puppet masters in Paris and Berlin. Even after the U.S. funding stops, they may choose to spend Billions of €uros "Fighting to the last Ukrainian".


    Russians would use for a re-set and launch of a second much better planned and resourced invasion
     
    If Ukraine can no longer threaten Russian ethnics there would be no need for a second defensive operation.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC, @Beckow, @Sean, @John Johnson

    The Trump fund raising tally is now reportedly over $20,000,000 since the photo.

    Which shows that his followers are suckers.

    He is worth over 2.5 billion.

    Trump could fund his own election and still be filthy rich. But he expects his MAGA middle class Whites to fund him. What a guy.

    That is exactly what Trump would do. Trump wants to stop the Veggie-in-Chief’s foreign follies. It may not be literally 24 hours, but the rug would be pulled out from under Kiev’s senseless aggression.

    You don’t even know your own WWE star.

    He said that Putin would need to settle or he would load up Ukraine with even more weapons.

    So he fully supports arming Ukraine if Putin doesn’t compromise. Trump hasn’t explained what that compromise would look like. Which means he really doesn’t have a plan.

    In any case it doesn’t matter because a majority of independents said that they will not vote for him. Biden’s best chance at re-election is for Trump to run.

    If Trump really wanted to defeat Biden then he would quit.

    Alas, Zelensky is run by European puppet masters in Paris and Berlin. Even after the U.S. funding stops, they may choose to spend Billions of €uros “Fighting to the last Ukrainian”.

    Polls show that a majority of Ukrainians support the war. Are you suggesting that Zelensky is not following their will?

  487. So what are the odds that if Trump wins, he would in fact help Ukraine more than Biden? Trump was actually the first one to give Ukraine heavy weapons (if I remember correctly). Last time he turned around. What are the odds he could do it again? Because with Sullivan on Biden’s team, Ukraine will have it hard (harder than they should).

  488. @Sean
    @A123

    What you suggest would be a humiliation for the US, and Trump would not stand for it. Trump talks isolationism but in practice he is military interventionist, ordering the assassination of Qasem Soleimani is only the most publicised example,

    Replies: @A123

    What you suggest would be a humiliation for the US, and Trump would not stand for it. Trump talks isolationism but in practice he is military interventionist, ordering the assassination of Qasem Soleimani is only the most publicised example

    What I suggest would be a total humiliation for Not-The-President Biden and the Democrats. Trump, MAGA, and the Republicans would gladly deliver this massive win for Main Street America.

    Trump is in practice not a military interventionist. The record is 100% clear on this point.

     

     

    Soleimani killed Americans (or at least U.S. contractors) and is now deceased. This quid pro quo has no relevance to America cleanly walking away from the Veggie-in-Chief’s personal fiasco in Ukraine. Quite the opposite in fact. America has neither prestige nor national interest at stake. Thus, the U.S. can wisely abandon support for Kiev’s unwarranted aggression against its neighbor.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Sean
    @A123


    U.S. can wisely abandon support ...
     
    Other countries are watching the US, which has to show its mettle and grit when coming to the aid of an ally. Nixon and the whole political class wanted to withdraw from Vietnam but it took him years, and the North Vietnamese wanted to keep the war going. Actually, what makes you think the Russians would stop fighting just because Trump said so; quite possibly they'd want to humiliate America and punish Ukraine severely.

    Start at 2:45


    America has neither prestige nor national interest at stake
     
    Prestige is the national interest. Prestige and status is what Trump lives by personally in business and as Pres. He'd rather lose it al; than 'walk away' swallowing an affront. That attitude is why he became president in the first place.

    https://youtu.be/HHckZCxdRkA?t=166

    Trump's decision to hit Soleimani was basically because he has never forgiven Iran for humiliating America in the Embassy Hostage affair. Even if Trump did just throw his hands up, there would be a popular backlash and a future President would be compelled to get into it with Russia.

    Replies: @A123

  489. @QCIC
    @sudden death

    Can someone post a photo which shows the center section of the dam now that the water has fully receded?

    Replies: @sudden death

    Not sure it can count as fresh fully receded pic, but older one surely was also receded little bit, to put it mildly;)

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @sudden death

    Thanks. This is one of the pictures from June. I wonder if the water is lower now?

    , @A123
    @sudden death

    A great deal depends on the treaty line.

    Will Russia obtain sufficient territory on the west bank to control the full span? If so, they would have a clear path to perform the necessary engineering studies, and then rebuild if practical.

    If the dividing line runs directly down the middle of the Dnieper, odds are very high the dam will be abandoned due to the political concerns. Russia will build smaller pools on their side of the Dniper. These will be mated wth pumping stations to provide cooling water to their ZNPP, fill the North Crimea Canal, etc.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC

  490. @sudden death
    @QCIC

    Not sure it can count as fresh fully receded pic, but older one surely was also receded little bit, to put it mildly;)

    https://i.postimg.cc/gcrFQH7P/crimea-canal-kahovka.png

    Replies: @QCIC, @A123

    Thanks. This is one of the pictures from June. I wonder if the water is lower now?

  491. @Coconuts
    @Mikel


    I don’t know about child abuse specifically but objectively speaking, celibacy is an unnatural way of life in all species that goes against some of our strongest natural instincts, especially in human males.
     
    I think a few things can be said here.

    The first one is that if it is clear that celibacy is an unnatural way of life and contrary to our strongest instincts, this doesn't seem to be the case with reproduction itself and sexual activity leading to the production of any children.

    If celibacy is an unnatural way of life for all it might suggest kin selection and group selection are not real (human group selection is a more controversial idea among biologists than kin selection, but could be because of the implications of the idea.)

    Biologists usually discuss classifications like 'species' as being artefacts of the human mind or understanding, not objective realities. Following that there need be no human nature or essence shared by all individuals placed in the human class. Intrinsic teleology is also generally rejected, meaning there is no goal directed activity inherently linked to a species classification. (The old idea derived from Aristotle would have been that each essence of nature includes a telos, or the activities proper to the things which possess that nature).

    These sorts of argument challenge the idea that there are strong norms of human behaviour we can read-off observation and description of nature.


    I would certainly expect a higher rate of sex-related aberrancies among celibates than the general population, especially among those celibates that don’t separate themselves from society.
     
    Is it confirmed by any data? At the moment aberrant sexual activity is usually treated as any behaviour that may involve coercion or is non-consensual, otherwise it isn't aberrant. There is a lot of monitoring and enforcement in most developed countries around MAPs and pedophile activity within the non-celibate population, very likely this curbs the behaviour. As far as other strange sexual choices in the non-celibate population goes though... seems like there is plenty.

    In the non-celibate population arguments usually return that activities like Pedophilia are not inherently wrong, made by highly respected thought leaders (Foucault is one of the best known).

    Replies: @Coconuts, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mikel

    I don’t really understand what you’re saying here or how those new kooky definitions of what an animal species is affect the matter of male celibacy.

    Some men are born with less sexual drive than others in the same way that some people are born less gluttonous than others but that doesn’t matter too much. When people try to follow extreme deprivation diets they tend to end up overcompensating in one way or another. It is a well known phenomenon in nutritional medicine. Thinking that this overcompensation response only affects food but not other human instincts doesn’t look very realistic to me.

    There is a lot of monitoring and enforcement in most developed countries around MAPs and pedophile activity within the non-celibate population, very likely this curbs the behaviour.

    Well, I wonder what it would be like if the pedophilia taboo (one of the few taboos worth enforcing in a healthy society) wouldn’t be there.

    But sadly in Puritan societies like the American one (and I think increasingly in most other Western countries) this pedophilia taboo is enforced in a pretty backassward way, mixing real child molestation with things that have nothing to do with it, like the guy in his 20s who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and is made to spend the rest of his life in a sexual predator registry. By those standards a good chunk of my teenage friends would be pedophiles. Or that sick habit of showing 1st page mugshots of female teachers who allegedly were caught “raping” some teenage student (as if that was physically possible). When I was the age of some of those students I would have maybe given a kidney for having sex with some of my female teachers. In fact, one of my own first experiences was with a woman 24 years older than me but I’m not sure I’d be able to metoo her now if she was American, I was already 19 at the time.

    Let’s hope there’s no backlash to this insanity that puts the real victims (children) at risk.

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @Mikel

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM28YFrMdfI

    , @Coconuts
    @Mikel


    I don’t really understand what you’re saying here or how those new kooky definitions of what an animal species is affect the matter of male celibacy.
     
    They weren't new, one was from Darwin and the other one was from Aristotle. It was related to making strong normative generalisations about human nature without looking at any data.

    Some men are born with less sexual drive than others in the same way that some people are born less gluttonous than others but that doesn’t matter too much.
     
    Assuming that the analogy between sex drive and appetite for food holds. Until a few decades ago heterosexual non-celibacy would mean reproduction and having children, more complex social undertaking than eating if the non-celibates are part of a group of any size.

    Maybe you could look at reproductive success of either groups or kin including the celibates to test whether the behaviour brought some reproductive advantage.


    Thinking that this overcompensation response only affects food but not other human instincts doesn’t look very realistic to me.
     
    This seems an intuition about analogies so far, it might hold or it may not. In terms of reproductive success it may not hold, some research seems to indicate that.

    But sadly in Puritan societies like the American one (and I think increasingly in most other Western countries) this pedophilia taboo is enforced in a pretty backassward way, mixing real child molestation with things that have nothing to do with it, like the guy in his 20s who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and is made to spend the rest of his life in a sexual predator registry.
     
    We don't really have that in the UK. The teachers thing I also associate with America, Daily Mail used to have stories like that from the US reasonably regularly. Involving British teachers it seems rarer, there are less stories about it at least.

    When I was the age of some of those students I would have maybe given a kidney for having sex with some of my female teachers. In fact, one of my own first experiences was with a woman 24 years older than me but I’m not sure I’d be able to metoo her now if she was American, I was already 19 at the time.
     
    That's true about some of the better looking female teachers. I heard an interesting explanation of Metoo, that it has come from a mismatch between lower female socio-sexuality and liberal feminist ideas about emancipation. And the US is the most liberal country, so it is strongest there.

    Social taboos around sex may be like a kind of market regulation, trying to prevent monopolies, oversupply of commodity, misallocation of resources etc. There will always be some of them, what they are will relate to the kind of society people create.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  492. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    Separation along more-or-less current lines
    Odessa needs to be part of Russian sector

    Why does Odessa need to be part of Russia? It isn't even majority ethnic Russian
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odesa#Demographics

    Traditionally it was an open port and heavily Jewish. The current majority would not welcome Russian rule.

    Ukraine fully demilitarized except for new Ukrainian-Russia homeguard/Western border patrol

    Then what exactly would prevent Russia from taking all of Ukraine after being fully demilitarized and without NATO protection?

    In this war Ukraine loses no matter what. For Russia this is not a face saving or cut your losses scenario. For their security this needs to be a loss for the West, not just a stalemate.

    Why would it matter if Ukraine joins NATO now that Finland has joined? Please explain from a security viewpoint and not as a face saving measure.

    Replies: @QCIC

    I think Russia needs to control Odessa to prevent the West from rearming Ukraine.

    History may show that if the inhabitants of Odessa did not want Russian rule they should have helped Ukraine follow a policy of good relations with Russia. This might have included explicit military neutrality which slightly favored Russia and was slightly ambiguous from the perspective of the West.

    I don’t see Finland joining NATO as much worse than the Baltic countries joining previously. Surely this is a step backwards from Russia’s perspective, but problems like that were expected. I think Russia’s plan is to stay heavily armed in the Baltic area to protect Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad. Finland has used F-18’s since the late 1990’s so I don’t think they were exactly part of a close family. I think Finland will eventually figure out they have more in common with Russia than Brussels and will eventually undo their accession to NATO. I don’t know if this occurs in two years or twenty.

    I think Ukraine and Belarus are the countries Russia could not afford to lose for historical and cultural reasons. This is why they are also the big prizes the West wants to pull away from Russia.

    Georgia and Armenia were mostly lost a long time ago, but they are lower down the priority list. Depending on what nonsense the West, Turkey and Israel are doing in a few decades these former parts of the Russian Empire may seek the security and comfort of Russia’s skirts again.

    • Replies: @A123
    @QCIC


    I think Russia needs to control Odessa to prevent the West from rearming Ukraine.
     
    There are few things that would keep Ukraine in the fight for the long haul. I am afraid you found one of them. They cannot risk becoming a land locked nation dependant on Russian port operations.

    Guaranteeing that Kiev cannot rearm for further aggression against Russian ethnics is clearly a critical element of any final treaty. However, other approaches to that end need to be found.

    PEACE 😇
    , @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    I think Russia needs to control Odessa to prevent the West from rearming Ukraine.

    What does this mean exactly and how would that work?

    Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can purchase weapons on the market like any other country.

    Most of their Western weapons prior to the war were purchased. The Javalins were in fact purchased when Trump was president.

    Would you be more comfortable with them purchasing weapons from China?

    History may show that if the inhabitants of Odessa did not want Russian rule they should have helped Ukraine follow a policy of good relations with Russia.

    So you are saying the residents shouldn't get a choice in being part of a Russian dictatorship for not helping Ukraine become pro-Russian?

    I don’t see Finland joining NATO as much worse than the Baltic countries joining previously.

    I don't either. It is Putin and his fans that spoke of planned missile silos on the border in regard to Ukraine even though the Baltics do not have said missiles and are closer to Moscow/St. Petersburg. Putin's fans here never explained it to me.

    However Putin himself said that the war was about NATO expansion. By that metric he has already failed. Of course I think that was a lie to begin with and this is really about his ego. He wanted to go out as a Tsar that expanded Russian and eliminated Ukraine. Massively increase the population of Russia and annex the wealth of Ukraine. Would have worked if it wasn't for those damn kids and their Western anti-tank guns.

    I think Ukraine and Belarus are the countries Russia could not afford to lose for historical and cultural reasons.

    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

  493. @A123
    @Sean


    What you suggest would be a humiliation for the US, and Trump would not stand for it. Trump talks isolationism but in practice he is military interventionist, ordering the assassination of Qasem Soleimani is only the most publicised example
     
    What I suggest would be a total humiliation for Not-The-President Biden and the Democrats. Trump, MAGA, and the Republicans would gladly deliver this massive win for Main Street America.

    Trump is in practice not a military interventionist. The record is 100% clear on this point.

     
    https://i1.wp.com/wentworthreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/us-presidents-wars.jpg
     

    Soleimani killed Americans (or at least U.S. contractors) and is now deceased. This quid pro quo has no relevance to America cleanly walking away from the Veggie-in-Chief's personal fiasco in Ukraine. Quite the opposite in fact. America has neither prestige nor national interest at stake. Thus, the U.S. can wisely abandon support for Kiev's unwarranted aggression against its neighbor.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Sean

    U.S. can wisely abandon support …

    Other countries are watching the US, which has to show its mettle and grit when coming to the aid of an ally. Nixon and the whole political class wanted to withdraw from Vietnam but it took him years, and the North Vietnamese wanted to keep the war going. Actually, what makes you think the Russians would stop fighting just because Trump said so; quite possibly they’d want to humiliate America and punish Ukraine severely.

    Start at 2:45

    America has neither prestige nor national interest at stake

    Prestige is the national interest. Prestige and status is what Trump lives by personally in business and as Pres. He’d rather lose it al; than ‘walk away’ swallowing an affront. That attitude is why he became president in the first place.

    Trump’s decision to hit Soleimani was basically because he has never forgiven Iran for humiliating America in the Embassy Hostage affair. Even if Trump did just throw his hands up, there would be a popular backlash and a future President would be compelled to get into it with Russia.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Sean


    Other countries are watching the US, which has to show its mettle and grit when coming to the aid of an ally.
     
    Trump bringing Populist Christian American support to Populist Christian Russia would be a powerful signal to its Judeo-Christian allies.

    The Berlin led, SJW Globalist puppeteers running the Veggie-in-Chief's strings will be appalled. This is also a desirable outcome.



    America has neither prestige nor national interest at stake
     
    Prestige is the national interest. Prestige and status is what Trump lives by personally in business and as Pres. He’d rather lose it al; than ‘walk away’ swallowing an affront
     
    You 100% missed the point.

    Hunter Biden took bribes from Burisma (a Ukrainian company) to buy Not-The-President Biden's support for Kiev aggression. The "affront" that cannot be tolerated is supporting Anti-Semite Zelensky's immoral acts. Every dollar that flows to Neo-Nazi Kiev diminishes U.S. prestige.


    if Trump did just throw his hands up, there would be a popular backlash and a future President would be compelled to get into it with Russia.
     
    When Trump walks away from the corrupt White House occupant's mistake, there will be massive popular support for the policy. No sane American wants to be dragged into WW III with Russia.

    Yes. Some impotent #NeverTrump sheeple will be outraged. However, when are they not outraged about various Leftoid grievances?

    Honestly, there are a lot of people just going along with the 🇺🇦fad🇺🇦. They could not even find Ukraine on a globe. Their inch deep support will swap to the next new thing when it comes along.

    PEACE 😇

  494. @Mikel
    @Coconuts

    I don't really understand what you're saying here or how those new kooky definitions of what an animal species is affect the matter of male celibacy.

    Some men are born with less sexual drive than others in the same way that some people are born less gluttonous than others but that doesn't matter too much. When people try to follow extreme deprivation diets they tend to end up overcompensating in one way or another. It is a well known phenomenon in nutritional medicine. Thinking that this overcompensation response only affects food but not other human instincts doesn't look very realistic to me.


    There is a lot of monitoring and enforcement in most developed countries around MAPs and pedophile activity within the non-celibate population, very likely this curbs the behaviour.
     
    Well, I wonder what it would be like if the pedophilia taboo (one of the few taboos worth enforcing in a healthy society) wouldn't be there.

    But sadly in Puritan societies like the American one (and I think increasingly in most other Western countries) this pedophilia taboo is enforced in a pretty backassward way, mixing real child molestation with things that have nothing to do with it, like the guy in his 20s who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and is made to spend the rest of his life in a sexual predator registry. By those standards a good chunk of my teenage friends would be pedophiles. Or that sick habit of showing 1st page mugshots of female teachers who allegedly were caught "raping" some teenage student (as if that was physically possible). When I was the age of some of those students I would have maybe given a kidney for having sex with some of my female teachers. In fact, one of my own first experiences was with a woman 24 years older than me but I'm not sure I'd be able to metoo her now if she was American, I was already 19 at the time.

    Let's hope there's no backlash to this insanity that puts the real victims (children) at risk.

    Replies: @sudden death, @Coconuts

    • LOL: Mikel
  495. @Beckow
    @QCIC


    ...In this war Ukraine loses no matter what.
     
    That is the 800-pound gorilla in the room - and nobody in the West wants to talk about it. It shows extreme disregard for the actual Ukrainians. The West likes to celebrate the heroic theatrical Ukies, but the actual lives of the people are of no interest.

    The endless Western cheerleading kill more Russians! also implies that more Ukies die, a form of detached sadism. Ukies are collateral damage for the atavistic hatred of Russia felt by many in the West.

    I suspect there will be no early solution - it wouldn't benefit Russia (you are right) and it is no biggie for the West to stand aside as Ukraine is slowly destroyed and depopulated.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Mass media can spin the Ukraine narrative at a level appropriate for 10 year old children and even intelligent college graduate adults will accept it. Before this started there were quite a few older anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine fellow travelers such as descendants of Eastern European Jews, ex-Cold Warriors and anti-Communists who were sympathetic to the anti-Russia narrative. I understand these people are a target audience for propaganda. Nonetheless, it amazes me how well the propaganda works on the much larger population who do not fit into these groups. I have not studied the details of how MSM propaganda really works but it is frighteningly effective.

    Big Bad Bear Bad
    Little Ukraine Good
    Bang, bang!
    Biff-pow!
    Boo-who!
    Slava Ukraini!
    🙁

    Don’t forget to get your booster, kiddies!

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @QCIC

    https://www.rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/582357-ukraine-conflict-hollywood-scenario/

    Replies: @QCIC

  496. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    I think Russia needs to control Odessa to prevent the West from rearming Ukraine.

    History may show that if the inhabitants of Odessa did not want Russian rule they should have helped Ukraine follow a policy of good relations with Russia. This might have included explicit military neutrality which slightly favored Russia and was slightly ambiguous from the perspective of the West.

    I don't see Finland joining NATO as much worse than the Baltic countries joining previously. Surely this is a step backwards from Russia's perspective, but problems like that were expected. I think Russia's plan is to stay heavily armed in the Baltic area to protect Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad. Finland has used F-18's since the late 1990's so I don't think they were exactly part of a close family. I think Finland will eventually figure out they have more in common with Russia than Brussels and will eventually undo their accession to NATO. I don't know if this occurs in two years or twenty.

    I think Ukraine and Belarus are the countries Russia could not afford to lose for historical and cultural reasons. This is why they are also the big prizes the West wants to pull away from Russia.

    Georgia and Armenia were mostly lost a long time ago, but they are lower down the priority list. Depending on what nonsense the West, Turkey and Israel are doing in a few decades these former parts of the Russian Empire may seek the security and comfort of Russia's skirts again.

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson

    I think Russia needs to control Odessa to prevent the West from rearming Ukraine.

    There are few things that would keep Ukraine in the fight for the long haul. I am afraid you found one of them. They cannot risk becoming a land locked nation dependant on Russian port operations.

    Guaranteeing that Kiev cannot rearm for further aggression against Russian ethnics is clearly a critical element of any final treaty. However, other approaches to that end need to be found.

    PEACE 😇

  497. @LatW
    @Beckow


    The careless words were less important than actions.
     
    There was much more than careless words. There were deliberate media operations (the crucified boy lie), an intervention, and "Putin bring in the troops". That literally means "Putin, bring in the troops and murder my neighbor I don't like". Do not trivialize.

    If Kiev takes over Donbas or Crimea wouldn’t that also be an “occupation”?
     
    Those are their internationally recognized borders.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …There were deliberate media operations…Do not trivialize.

    Sure by all sides, don’t be selective. I am skeptical when I see a “crucified boy” or “kidnapped kids” stories – it is right out of Goebels’ manual. But let’s be honest – all sides do it.

    Those are their internationally recognized borders.

    I thought that went out with the Nato attack on Serbia to redraw the ‘internationally recognized” borders and create Kosovo. You are behind the times, there is the Kosovo precedent.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Beckow


    Sure by all sides, don’t be selective. I am skeptical when I see a “crucified boy” or “kidnapped kids” stories – it is right out of Goebels’ manual. But let’s be honest – all sides do it.
     
    In this case, timing was crucial - the "story" came out at the worst possible moment, and it first appeared on Dugin's account. It was a sinister misinformation stint to incite hatred against Ukraine and rile up Russian militia men to travel to Ukraine to murder Ukrainians. Ukraine or Ukraine's allies have not waged this kind of an info war inside of Russia. Our side also never infiltrated the security forces as blatantly as Russia did with Ukraine.

    There are small but real separatist movements across Russia, yet the West never took advantage of it (besides marginal Paul Goble articles and some minor outreach). Much more could've been done and relatively easily - we could've nurtured these movements and sponsored them, we could've imported spouses and groomed them to promote our interests within Russia.

    The capability for this could be developed - Ukraine herself can even do it, since Budanov has a good network of assets in Ukraine and they are capable of serious work, as shown by the Russian pilot who just defected (this is an operation on the level of Mossad, similar to Operation Diamond, however, simpler operations could have been carried out over time, there were willing Russians out there and most likely still are). But the West hasn't done it in any significant manner. Maybe it felt tactless or maybe there simply wasn't enough interest. Yet Russia put it in their policy documents (the Karaganov doctrine) and later created a whole separatist movement.

    So, no, there are no two sides to it, it's actually somewhat asymmetric in this particular area.

    I thought that went out with the Nato attack on Serbia to redraw the ‘internationally recognized” borders and create Kosovo. You are behind the times, there is the Kosovo precedent.
     
    Some time has already passed since then, and I'm not sure Kosovo is the best example (without delving into it since it's been done before many times, Kosovo is over 90% Albanian, there was no such homogeneity in Donbas - and even with the Kosovo situation many do argue that the solution was not fair).

    Above all, the global system is going to change after this war. It will be necessary to put new arrangements in place. But the principle of territorial integrity is a good one and will most likely be somewhat respected going forward - enough populations have a stake in it to support it. To start randomly partitioning countries with the use of extreme force is not something that the world will readily accept.

    Replies: @Beckow

  498. @Sean
    @A123


    U.S. can wisely abandon support ...
     
    Other countries are watching the US, which has to show its mettle and grit when coming to the aid of an ally. Nixon and the whole political class wanted to withdraw from Vietnam but it took him years, and the North Vietnamese wanted to keep the war going. Actually, what makes you think the Russians would stop fighting just because Trump said so; quite possibly they'd want to humiliate America and punish Ukraine severely.

    Start at 2:45


    America has neither prestige nor national interest at stake
     
    Prestige is the national interest. Prestige and status is what Trump lives by personally in business and as Pres. He'd rather lose it al; than 'walk away' swallowing an affront. That attitude is why he became president in the first place.

    https://youtu.be/HHckZCxdRkA?t=166

    Trump's decision to hit Soleimani was basically because he has never forgiven Iran for humiliating America in the Embassy Hostage affair. Even if Trump did just throw his hands up, there would be a popular backlash and a future President would be compelled to get into it with Russia.

    Replies: @A123

    Other countries are watching the US, which has to show its mettle and grit when coming to the aid of an ally.

    Trump bringing Populist Christian American support to Populist Christian Russia would be a powerful signal to its Judeo-Christian allies.

    The Berlin led, SJW Globalist puppeteers running the Veggie-in-Chief’s strings will be appalled. This is also a desirable outcome.

    America has neither prestige nor national interest at stake

    Prestige is the national interest. Prestige and status is what Trump lives by personally in business and as Pres. He’d rather lose it al; than ‘walk away’ swallowing an affront

    You 100% missed the point.

    Hunter Biden took bribes from Burisma (a Ukrainian company) to buy Not-The-President Biden’s support for Kiev aggression. The “affront” that cannot be tolerated is supporting Anti-Semite Zelensky’s immoral acts. Every dollar that flows to Neo-Nazi Kiev diminishes U.S. prestige.

    if Trump did just throw his hands up, there would be a popular backlash and a future President would be compelled to get into it with Russia.

    When Trump walks away from the corrupt White House occupant’s mistake, there will be massive popular support for the policy. No sane American wants to be dragged into WW III with Russia.

    Yes. Some impotent #NeverTrump sheeple will be outraged. However, when are they not outraged about various Leftoid grievances?

    Honestly, there are a lot of people just going along with the 🇺🇦fad🇺🇦. They could not even find Ukraine on a globe. Their inch deep support will swap to the next new thing when it comes along.

    PEACE 😇

  499. @sudden death
    @QCIC

    Not sure it can count as fresh fully receded pic, but older one surely was also receded little bit, to put it mildly;)

    https://i.postimg.cc/gcrFQH7P/crimea-canal-kahovka.png

    Replies: @QCIC, @A123

    A great deal depends on the treaty line.

    Will Russia obtain sufficient territory on the west bank to control the full span? If so, they would have a clear path to perform the necessary engineering studies, and then rebuild if practical.

    If the dividing line runs directly down the middle of the Dnieper, odds are very high the dam will be abandoned due to the political concerns. Russia will build smaller pools on their side of the Dniper. These will be mated wth pumping stations to provide cooling water to their ZNPP, fill the North Crimea Canal, etc.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @A123

    That picture was from the BBC ~ June 22.

    I think more recent shots of the ruins are still newsworthy but I have not seen any. It may be that images which are not directly part of the original "Russia=Bad" narrative don't make it out of Ukrainian/Russian language sites into the Western media. Or I am simply using poor search terms. The main reason I am interested is to consider rebuilding, so I wanted to see the size of the main channel after the lake is fully drained. This early picture may already be showing this condition.

    I assume it is straightforward to rebuild the central concrete section. It was built around 1950 and looks like about 2000 feet. I have no idea if rebuilding is a hydrologic good idea, maybe they just need a bridge.

    Replies: @A123

  500. @QCIC
    @Beckow

    Mass media can spin the Ukraine narrative at a level appropriate for 10 year old children and even intelligent college graduate adults will accept it. Before this started there were quite a few older anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine fellow travelers such as descendants of Eastern European Jews, ex-Cold Warriors and anti-Communists who were sympathetic to the anti-Russia narrative. I understand these people are a target audience for propaganda. Nonetheless, it amazes me how well the propaganda works on the much larger population who do not fit into these groups. I have not studied the details of how MSM propaganda really works but it is frighteningly effective.

    Big Bad Bear Bad
    Little Ukraine Good
    Bang, bang!
    Biff-pow!
    Boo-who!
    Slava Ukraini!
    :(

    Don't forget to get your booster, kiddies!

    Replies: @Mikhail

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    Thanks, this is a great interview.

    The big picture was always clear. We are now on Plan B and it seems very obvious.

    Plan A: Destroy Russia. Remember that Ukraine is the next big step, not the last step.
    Plan B: If that doesn't work, kill as many Slavs as possible.
    Plan C: When that is over, pretend it never happened.

    The whole thing is disgusting.

    Replies: @QCIC

  501. At first I thought it was just the customary Ukrainian attempt to start WW3 but Jihadi Julian says that the Russian Shaheed did explode inside Romanian territory and he’s usually truthful with this kind of details.

    Whatever the case, the incident shows what a ridiculous situation we’re in. A drunk Russian drone operator causes an accidental massacre on Polish or Romanian soil and it’s Sarajevo again. How could possibly NATO not respond without losing face? And how could Russia defend itself from a NATO retaliation without using the only weapon class where they do have some parity? It’s just unbelievable how anyone can want this catastrophe to carry on one more minute.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mikel

    In a real war Russia has more parity than you suggest. A true NATO-Russia war would be a biblical scale nightmare even without nuclear and biological weapons.

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Mikel


    It’s just unbelievable how anyone can want this catastrophe to carry on one more minute.
     
    Fertilize your imagination. The current schedule is to continue this catastrophe until the last Ukrainian military unit with functioning men, guns, and ammo is spent.

    Empire of Lies.

    https://i.natgeofe.com/n/939ca62b-5de8-4c3e-bbfc-6f1e7bb143a8/main_lastjudge_gettyimages-533794106_3x4.jpg
    , @AP
    @Mikel


    It’s just unbelievable how anyone can want this catastrophe to carry on one more minute.
     
    Would have ended already if Ukraine had been given the weapons to end it.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Mikel

  502. @A123
    @sudden death

    A great deal depends on the treaty line.

    Will Russia obtain sufficient territory on the west bank to control the full span? If so, they would have a clear path to perform the necessary engineering studies, and then rebuild if practical.

    If the dividing line runs directly down the middle of the Dnieper, odds are very high the dam will be abandoned due to the political concerns. Russia will build smaller pools on their side of the Dniper. These will be mated wth pumping stations to provide cooling water to their ZNPP, fill the North Crimea Canal, etc.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @QCIC

    That picture was from the BBC ~ June 22.

    I think more recent shots of the ruins are still newsworthy but I have not seen any. It may be that images which are not directly part of the original “Russia=Bad” narrative don’t make it out of Ukrainian/Russian language sites into the Western media. Or I am simply using poor search terms. The main reason I am interested is to consider rebuilding, so I wanted to see the size of the main channel after the lake is fully drained. This early picture may already be showing this condition.

    I assume it is straightforward to rebuild the central concrete section. It was built around 1950 and looks like about 2000 feet. I have no idea if rebuilding is a hydrologic good idea, maybe they just need a bridge.

    • Replies: @A123
    @QCIC


    I wanted to see the size of the main channel after the lake is fully drained. This early picture may already be showing this condition.
     
    Dry areas immediately upstream of the dam. The image likely represents a snapshot of a natural river level.

    I assume it is straightforward to rebuild the central concrete section. It was built around 1950 and looks like about 2000 feet. I have no idea if rebuilding is a hydrologic good idea, maybe they just need a bridge.
     
    While it is by far the most likely explanation -- There is no solid proof that Ukraine destroyed the dam to flood RF positions. It could also be a design mistake made decades ago combined with extremely high levels in the reservoir.

    Also, water flows outside of design calculations can be incredibly destructive. A huge amount of scouring has taken place. The entire site needs to be reevaluated to make sure none of the foundations have been undercut.

    If Russia controls both banks, having the bridge back would be immensely valuable. If the banks are different countries, it is unlikely to make sense as a customs clearing point.

    PEACE 😇

  503. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Sher Singh

    You are far less repetitious and repetitive than Indian scripture I will give you that buddy!

    and repetitious

    Replies: @Sher Singh

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Sher Singh

    Makes them sound a bit like these people:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorian

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Sher Singh

    Nobody thinks about being small more than a big dude.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXJ0kyZQXj4&t=782s&ab_channel=BroScienceLife

  504. @QCIC
    @A123

    That picture was from the BBC ~ June 22.

    I think more recent shots of the ruins are still newsworthy but I have not seen any. It may be that images which are not directly part of the original "Russia=Bad" narrative don't make it out of Ukrainian/Russian language sites into the Western media. Or I am simply using poor search terms. The main reason I am interested is to consider rebuilding, so I wanted to see the size of the main channel after the lake is fully drained. This early picture may already be showing this condition.

    I assume it is straightforward to rebuild the central concrete section. It was built around 1950 and looks like about 2000 feet. I have no idea if rebuilding is a hydrologic good idea, maybe they just need a bridge.

    Replies: @A123

    I wanted to see the size of the main channel after the lake is fully drained. This early picture may already be showing this condition.

    Dry areas immediately upstream of the dam. The image likely represents a snapshot of a natural river level.

    I assume it is straightforward to rebuild the central concrete section. It was built around 1950 and looks like about 2000 feet. I have no idea if rebuilding is a hydrologic good idea, maybe they just need a bridge.

    While it is by far the most likely explanation — There is no solid proof that Ukraine destroyed the dam to flood RF positions. It could also be a design mistake made decades ago combined with extremely high levels in the reservoir.

    Also, water flows outside of design calculations can be incredibly destructive. A huge amount of scouring has taken place. The entire site needs to be reevaluated to make sure none of the foundations have been undercut.

    If Russia controls both banks, having the bridge back would be immensely valuable. If the banks are different countries, it is unlikely to make sense as a customs clearing point.

    PEACE 😇

  505. @Mikhail
    @QCIC

    https://www.rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/582357-ukraine-conflict-hollywood-scenario/

    Replies: @QCIC

    Thanks, this is a great interview.

    The big picture was always clear. We are now on Plan B and it seems very obvious.

    Plan A: Destroy Russia. Remember that Ukraine is the next big step, not the last step.
    Plan B: If that doesn’t work, kill as many Slavs as possible.
    Plan C: When that is over, pretend it never happened.

    The whole thing is disgusting.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @QCIC

    The clip at 25:00 of Zelensky acting is noteworthy.

    Oksana Boyko did a good job with the interview. Her clear communication reminded me a bit of Maria Z.

  506. @Mikel
    At first I thought it was just the customary Ukrainian attempt to start WW3 but Jihadi Julian says that the Russian Shaheed did explode inside Romanian territory and he's usually truthful with this kind of details.

    Whatever the case, the incident shows what a ridiculous situation we're in. A drunk Russian drone operator causes an accidental massacre on Polish or Romanian soil and it's Sarajevo again. How could possibly NATO not respond without losing face? And how could Russia defend itself from a NATO retaliation without using the only weapon class where they do have some parity? It's just unbelievable how anyone can want this catastrophe to carry on one more minute.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Emil Nikola Richard, @AP

    In a real war Russia has more parity than you suggest. A true NATO-Russia war would be a biblical scale nightmare even without nuclear and biological weapons.

  507. @Mikel
    At first I thought it was just the customary Ukrainian attempt to start WW3 but Jihadi Julian says that the Russian Shaheed did explode inside Romanian territory and he's usually truthful with this kind of details.

    Whatever the case, the incident shows what a ridiculous situation we're in. A drunk Russian drone operator causes an accidental massacre on Polish or Romanian soil and it's Sarajevo again. How could possibly NATO not respond without losing face? And how could Russia defend itself from a NATO retaliation without using the only weapon class where they do have some parity? It's just unbelievable how anyone can want this catastrophe to carry on one more minute.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Emil Nikola Richard, @AP

    It’s just unbelievable how anyone can want this catastrophe to carry on one more minute.

    Fertilize your imagination. The current schedule is to continue this catastrophe until the last Ukrainian military unit with functioning men, guns, and ammo is spent.

    Empire of Lies.

  508. @Mikel
    At first I thought it was just the customary Ukrainian attempt to start WW3 but Jihadi Julian says that the Russian Shaheed did explode inside Romanian territory and he's usually truthful with this kind of details.

    Whatever the case, the incident shows what a ridiculous situation we're in. A drunk Russian drone operator causes an accidental massacre on Polish or Romanian soil and it's Sarajevo again. How could possibly NATO not respond without losing face? And how could Russia defend itself from a NATO retaliation without using the only weapon class where they do have some parity? It's just unbelievable how anyone can want this catastrophe to carry on one more minute.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Emil Nikola Richard, @AP

    It’s just unbelievable how anyone can want this catastrophe to carry on one more minute.

    Would have ended already if Ukraine had been given the weapons to end it.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @AP

    If Ukraine had those weapons you imagine, Kiev would have been bombed to blood-soaked rubble. Be careful what you wish for.

    Replies: @LatW

    , @Mikel
    @AP


    Would have ended already if Ukraine had been given the weapons to end it.
     
    Probably. But the calculation seems to be that the Russians would escalate dangerously if Ukraine is given all those weapons at once so it's better to play Russian roulette by dragging the conflict on and providing the same weapons piecemeal in the hopes that the Russians will get used to the pain little by little and no irremediable accidents will happen (much though the Ukrainians would love the contrary to be true). Crazy and unprecedented since the Berlin airlift. The Cuban missile crisis was a short standoff with little scope for accidental outcomes.

    Of course the piecemeal strategy means that many more Ukrainian soldiers and civilians need to die in order to keep Western lives safe.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @AP

  509. @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    Thanks, this is a great interview.

    The big picture was always clear. We are now on Plan B and it seems very obvious.

    Plan A: Destroy Russia. Remember that Ukraine is the next big step, not the last step.
    Plan B: If that doesn't work, kill as many Slavs as possible.
    Plan C: When that is over, pretend it never happened.

    The whole thing is disgusting.

    Replies: @QCIC

    The clip at 25:00 of Zelensky acting is noteworthy.

    Oksana Boyko did a good job with the interview. Her clear communication reminded me a bit of Maria Z.

  510. @AP
    @Mikel


    It’s just unbelievable how anyone can want this catastrophe to carry on one more minute.
     
    Would have ended already if Ukraine had been given the weapons to end it.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Mikel

    If Ukraine had those weapons you imagine, Kiev would have been bombed to blood-soaked rubble. Be careful what you wish for.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @QCIC


    If Ukraine had those weapons you imagine, Kiev would have been bombed to blood-soaked rubble.
     
    It would've depended on the nomenclature since the F16 is a multi-role fighter and could be used to intercept missiles. So it could've served as air defense and could've in fact protected the Ukrainian civilians from Russian wrath. Servicing it of course is another question (not sure Ukraine would've been ready for it). As to ATACMS, Ukraine was already given a long range missile by the UK.

    Replies: @QCIC

  511. @Beckow
    @LatW


    ...There were deliberate media operations...Do not trivialize.
     
    Sure by all sides, don't be selective. I am skeptical when I see a "crucified boy" or "kidnapped kids" stories - it is right out of Goebels' manual. But let's be honest - all sides do it.

    Those are their internationally recognized borders.
     
    I thought that went out with the Nato attack on Serbia to redraw the 'internationally recognized" borders and create Kosovo. You are behind the times, there is the Kosovo precedent.

    Replies: @LatW

    Sure by all sides, don’t be selective. I am skeptical when I see a “crucified boy” or “kidnapped kids” stories – it is right out of Goebels’ manual. But let’s be honest – all sides do it.

    In this case, timing was crucial – the “story” came out at the worst possible moment, and it first appeared on Dugin’s account. It was a sinister misinformation stint to incite hatred against Ukraine and rile up Russian militia men to travel to Ukraine to murder Ukrainians. Ukraine or Ukraine’s allies have not waged this kind of an info war inside of Russia. Our side also never infiltrated the security forces as blatantly as Russia did with Ukraine.

    There are small but real separatist movements across Russia, yet the West never took advantage of it (besides marginal Paul Goble articles and some minor outreach). Much more could’ve been done and relatively easily – we could’ve nurtured these movements and sponsored them, we could’ve imported spouses and groomed them to promote our interests within Russia.

    The capability for this could be developed – Ukraine herself can even do it, since Budanov has a good network of assets in Ukraine and they are capable of serious work, as shown by the Russian pilot who just defected (this is an operation on the level of Mossad, similar to Operation Diamond, however, simpler operations could have been carried out over time, there were willing Russians out there and most likely still are). But the West hasn’t done it in any significant manner. Maybe it felt tactless or maybe there simply wasn’t enough interest. Yet Russia put it in their policy documents (the Karaganov doctrine) and later created a whole separatist movement.

    So, no, there are no two sides to it, it’s actually somewhat asymmetric in this particular area.

    I thought that went out with the Nato attack on Serbia to redraw the ‘internationally recognized” borders and create Kosovo. You are behind the times, there is the Kosovo precedent.

    Some time has already passed since then, and I’m not sure Kosovo is the best example (without delving into it since it’s been done before many times, Kosovo is over 90% Albanian, there was no such homogeneity in Donbas – and even with the Kosovo situation many do argue that the solution was not fair).

    Above all, the global system is going to change after this war. It will be necessary to put new arrangements in place. But the principle of territorial integrity is a good one and will most likely be somewhat respected going forward – enough populations have a stake in it to support it. To start randomly partitioning countries with the use of extreme force is not something that the world will readily accept.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @LatW


    In this case, timing was crucial – the “story” came out at the worst possible moment
     
    That's the whole point, to time it well (again Goebels). Kiev has also timed the "kidnapped kids" stories to rile up its "militias" and some Western emotional fools. All wars now tend to be an emotional circus in the media.

    ...separatist movements across Russia, yet the West never took advantage of it
     
    Ahh, Chechnya?

    there are no two sides to it, it’s actually somewhat asymmetric
     
    The charm of all wars is that each side fervently believes it. When examined it is never true. Let me remind you that it was Nato and Kiev who came up with the cockamamie idea to move Nato to Ukraine - of course, you see that as "friendly", or sometimes even deny that was the plan. That kind takes the cake when it comes 'symmetry'...

    Some time has already passed since then, and I’m not sure Kosovo is the best example...
    many do argue that the solution was not fair.
     
    Really? So there is a statute of limitations on changing borders? Let's see, Crimea and Donbas have been 9 years, how much longer? Kosovo is the "best example" and a precedent: the same basic situation, force was used to change borders - amazingly all the West is taking the exactly opposite view. How f..ed do you have to be to do that?

    ... 'many argue that the Kosovo solution was not fair"...so, it is ok then? Nato bombs, kills people to change borders, but maybe there are some voices in the West who timidly say "well, maybe that was unfair..." - and voila, you just let it go. I am sure in the next few years we will find many voices in Russia who will say that the whole Ukie thing was "unfair". Now we see how it is done, even the dissident voices have a role...:)


    ...the principle of territorial integrity is a good one... – enough populations have a stake in it ...To start randomly partitioning countries with the use of force is not something that the world will readily accept.
     
    True. And yet the superior Western populations readily accepted it in Kosovo. A few months of Goebels-like propaganda was all that was needed. It is hard to put it back in the box. I would suggest that before preaching to the others, maybe the West should reexamine its own actions and hold the responsible people accountable. The only way to lead is by example...

    Replies: @songbird, @AP, @LatW

  512. @QCIC
    @AP

    If Ukraine had those weapons you imagine, Kiev would have been bombed to blood-soaked rubble. Be careful what you wish for.

    Replies: @LatW

    If Ukraine had those weapons you imagine, Kiev would have been bombed to blood-soaked rubble.

    It would’ve depended on the nomenclature since the F16 is a multi-role fighter and could be used to intercept missiles. So it could’ve served as air defense and could’ve in fact protected the Ukrainian civilians from Russian wrath. Servicing it of course is another question (not sure Ukraine would’ve been ready for it). As to ATACMS, Ukraine was already given a long range missile by the UK.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @LatW

    Sure, sure.

    At some point it turns into a real war. Then Russia starts taking out Western satellites and AWACs-type aircraft, leaving F-16s no better than the aircraft Ukraine started out with. Don't forget the MiG-29/Su-27 were generally comparable with and in some ways superior to F-16s. Maybe next a serious blitzkrieg is launched on and around Kiev to take out air defenses. High altitude bombing commences and all military and government installations in Kiev are rapidly destroyed. Tragically the entire power grid, pipelines, water plants and sewage plants around the city are also destroyed. All major runways and bridges are destroyed. Two million people are locked down with less than two weeks of food and no clean water. No trains, no air travel, minimal gasoline.

    This is the difference between a war and the SMO.

    The high population density of the modern world depends on cooperation. All of the moves by the West and Ukraine against Russia were the opposite of cooperation.

    Replies: @Mikel, @LatW

  513. @LatW
    @QCIC


    If Ukraine had those weapons you imagine, Kiev would have been bombed to blood-soaked rubble.
     
    It would've depended on the nomenclature since the F16 is a multi-role fighter and could be used to intercept missiles. So it could've served as air defense and could've in fact protected the Ukrainian civilians from Russian wrath. Servicing it of course is another question (not sure Ukraine would've been ready for it). As to ATACMS, Ukraine was already given a long range missile by the UK.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Sure, sure.

    At some point it turns into a real war. Then Russia starts taking out Western satellites and AWACs-type aircraft, leaving F-16s no better than the aircraft Ukraine started out with. Don’t forget the MiG-29/Su-27 were generally comparable with and in some ways superior to F-16s. Maybe next a serious blitzkrieg is launched on and around Kiev to take out air defenses. High altitude bombing commences and all military and government installations in Kiev are rapidly destroyed. Tragically the entire power grid, pipelines, water plants and sewage plants around the city are also destroyed. All major runways and bridges are destroyed. Two million people are locked down with less than two weeks of food and no clean water. No trains, no air travel, minimal gasoline.

    This is the difference between a war and the SMO.

    The high population density of the modern world depends on cooperation. All of the moves by the West and Ukraine against Russia were the opposite of cooperation.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @QCIC


    High altitude bombing commences and all military and government installations in Kiev are rapidly destroyed. Tragically the entire power grid, pipelines, water plants and sewage plants around the city are also destroyed. All major runways and bridges are destroyed. Two million people are locked down with less than two weeks of food and no clean water. No trains, no air travel, minimal gasoline.
     
    Before you get carried away with those fantasies, the Russians stopped using high altitude bombing after the initial stages of the SMO for what reason?

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @LatW
    @QCIC


    At some point it turns into a real war.
     
    It is a real war now. It was a real war from the get go, this was never an "SMO". The Russian media use a lot of blurs when they show explosions, ruined houses, anything significant is getting blurred out so even they themselves know deep down that is not just an "SMO". They're trying to hide the gravity of it from their audience.

    Well, Russia might try to employ all their planes (they are trying to find all the available pilots, btw, control over the pilots might be increased because of the pilot who defected, his parents left, too, which is interesting how Ukraine was able to pull that off). So Ukraine needs more SAMP/T air-defence systems to protect them on the battle field (this is where the diplomatic effort needs to increase). It's a risk for Russia, too, because a lot of those planes can be downed.

    In the beginning, the Ukrainians downed a bunch of Russian planes (I think even using their own air defense systems and they're using surface to air missiles for helicopters, Ukraine is producing those), so they started flying more carefully. The Russian planes have flown back and forth testing the air defense and the Ukrainian reaction. So it's not like it's impossible to down a Russian plane. Or even a significant number of them.

    High altitude bombing commences
     
    That is extremely complicated and difficult for the pilot, at that height and speed, it requires constant practice.

    And it's actually very complicated to employ a large number of fighters simultaneously. When was the last time they did it? In Syria, how many planes did they use? I'm not saying Russia cannot do major damage or harm Ukraine even more, but it's not as easy to do what you describe.

    Kyiv is covered by a couple of layers of air defense, the most advanced and the newest systems (Iris T, NASAMS, Patriot).

    Looks like the Ukrainians have found a way to permeate the Russian air defenses with their drones (they may have figured out something about the radar codes). The Ukrainians are trying to destroy transport planes, ships, so that if/when they neutralize the bridge, the Russians cannot use other means to resupply. But I'm not sure if these drones can find or harm the strategic bombers.

    Actually, almost kind of sad to see all these planes and helis destroyed... they are kind of cool (and expensive). Too bad they're being used for such sinister goals.

    Replies: @QCIC

  514. @AP
    @Mikel


    It’s just unbelievable how anyone can want this catastrophe to carry on one more minute.
     
    Would have ended already if Ukraine had been given the weapons to end it.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Mikel

    Would have ended already if Ukraine had been given the weapons to end it.

    Probably. But the calculation seems to be that the Russians would escalate dangerously if Ukraine is given all those weapons at once so it’s better to play Russian roulette by dragging the conflict on and providing the same weapons piecemeal in the hopes that the Russians will get used to the pain little by little and no irremediable accidents will happen (much though the Ukrainians would love the contrary to be true). Crazy and unprecedented since the Berlin airlift. The Cuban missile crisis was a short standoff with little scope for accidental outcomes.

    Of course the piecemeal strategy means that many more Ukrainian soldiers and civilians need to die in order to keep Western lives safe.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    The Cuban missile crisis was a short standoff with little scope for accidental outcomes.
     
    There was a limited time horizon, but the scope for misunderstandings leading to mishaps leading to calamity was quite substantial.

    Of course the piecemeal strategy means that many more Ukrainian soldiers and civilians need to die in order to keep Western lives safe.
     
    Russia didn't and doesn't pose any immediate threat to western lives. Russia is only a threat - an all too real threat - to her neighbors. Perhaps you spoke hastily.

    The longer this conflict goes on, the more I am souring on Russia. I was never a fan of that country - as I could demonstrate through multiple posts dating back to when AK and his Russian troll army showed up here - but I did hope they would prevail quickly, take control of Donbas, and that would be that. I guess I completely misread the situation (since I hardly care about Russia and don't keep informed about goings on there, and skip 90% of Russia posts here), because Russia seems to have been after a great deal more than that. In their own way, they are as unreasonable as the Ukrainian maximalist side.

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @AP
    @Mikel


    Probably. But the calculation seems to be that the Russians would escalate dangerously if Ukraine is given all those weapons at once so it’s better to play Russian roulette by dragging the conflict on and providing the same weapons piecemeal in the hopes that the Russians will get used to the pain little by little and no irremediable accidents will happen
     
    Maybe, maybe not.

    Perhaps the goal was to lull the Russians into a long-term war, the better to destroy their military capacity, rather than to go for a quick and reasonable peace that would have left their military mostly intact.

    However, the pro-Russian policy of the Obama and early Biden administrations suggests ambivalence - opposition to Russia’s outrageous invasion, but also an element of fear and quasi-appeasement.

    Btw, shouldn’t the pro-Russian shills on here be huge fans of Obama and his administration? This could be them talking:



    https://twitter.com/macaesbruno/status/745829862137552900?s=46&t=Qz3eXZWFYIvyHmaAk32tcg

    Replies: @Dmitry

  515. @QCIC
    @LatW

    Sure, sure.

    At some point it turns into a real war. Then Russia starts taking out Western satellites and AWACs-type aircraft, leaving F-16s no better than the aircraft Ukraine started out with. Don't forget the MiG-29/Su-27 were generally comparable with and in some ways superior to F-16s. Maybe next a serious blitzkrieg is launched on and around Kiev to take out air defenses. High altitude bombing commences and all military and government installations in Kiev are rapidly destroyed. Tragically the entire power grid, pipelines, water plants and sewage plants around the city are also destroyed. All major runways and bridges are destroyed. Two million people are locked down with less than two weeks of food and no clean water. No trains, no air travel, minimal gasoline.

    This is the difference between a war and the SMO.

    The high population density of the modern world depends on cooperation. All of the moves by the West and Ukraine against Russia were the opposite of cooperation.

    Replies: @Mikel, @LatW

    High altitude bombing commences and all military and government installations in Kiev are rapidly destroyed. Tragically the entire power grid, pipelines, water plants and sewage plants around the city are also destroyed. All major runways and bridges are destroyed. Two million people are locked down with less than two weeks of food and no clean water. No trains, no air travel, minimal gasoline.

    Before you get carried away with those fantasies, the Russians stopped using high altitude bombing after the initial stages of the SMO for what reason?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mikel

    The beginning of the SMO was very strange and has not been publicly explained. I subscribe to a "desperate feint theory" where the Russians were forced to react on short notice and did so with a feint in the North which predictably incurred very heavy losses but got the job done. The job was probably protecting Crimea from a sneak attack of some sort.

    More extensive high altitude bombing would be counter-productive for the Russian mission which is apparently to protect civilians while killing NeoNazis, destroying NATO interlopers and wiping out Ukrainian military forces. High altitude bombing takes out critical military and infrastructure targets but also indiscriminately kills many civilians. In the close-range combat of the past 18 months many civilians leave an area as artillery bombardment becomes intolerable and then the armies fight it out. Many civilians are still killed, but perhaps not so many as from heavy bombing.

    That is the way it looks to me.

    Replies: @LatW, @Mikel

  516. Assange and the Australian government should not be asking for a plea deal because Assange is innocent of all charges levied against him. This is totally asinnine. The government is humiliating the hell out of itself with their narcissistic rage. I think that it is more the vault 7 leaks that embarrassed the government the most, far more than the Manning leaks did. This is coming from the spy and technology sector. Peter Thiel, Silicon Valley Vulture Capitalist and self proclaimed Libertarian said several years ago when considering an electoral run for office that if elected, prosecuting Assange would be a top priority. Thiel knows what Silicon Valley wamts, and it was his primary targeted electoral base. Silicon Valley and Wall St have much more power than the government does, and that is the fault of the government for allowing them to get away with it! Only in Silicon Valley or Wall St, can someone get away with claiming to be a Libertarian that so vehemently opposes the first amendment, and the fourth amendment! The governments actions are not supposed to be secret! The government is not supposed to be sneaking around committing espionage on American citizens, and neither is Wall St, Silicon Valley, or InfraGard! They are committing espionage, not Assange! They deserve a taste of their own medicine! The sentences that they seek to illegally impose on Assange!

  517. @Mikel
    @AP


    Would have ended already if Ukraine had been given the weapons to end it.
     
    Probably. But the calculation seems to be that the Russians would escalate dangerously if Ukraine is given all those weapons at once so it's better to play Russian roulette by dragging the conflict on and providing the same weapons piecemeal in the hopes that the Russians will get used to the pain little by little and no irremediable accidents will happen (much though the Ukrainians would love the contrary to be true). Crazy and unprecedented since the Berlin airlift. The Cuban missile crisis was a short standoff with little scope for accidental outcomes.

    Of course the piecemeal strategy means that many more Ukrainian soldiers and civilians need to die in order to keep Western lives safe.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @AP

    The Cuban missile crisis was a short standoff with little scope for accidental outcomes.

    There was a limited time horizon, but the scope for misunderstandings leading to mishaps leading to calamity was quite substantial.

    Of course the piecemeal strategy means that many more Ukrainian soldiers and civilians need to die in order to keep Western lives safe.

    Russia didn’t and doesn’t pose any immediate threat to western lives. Russia is only a threat – an all too real threat – to her neighbors. Perhaps you spoke hastily.

    The longer this conflict goes on, the more I am souring on Russia. I was never a fan of that country – as I could demonstrate through multiple posts dating back to when AK and his Russian troll army showed up here – but I did hope they would prevail quickly, take control of Donbas, and that would be that. I guess I completely misread the situation (since I hardly care about Russia and don’t keep informed about goings on there, and skip 90% of Russia posts here), because Russia seems to have been after a great deal more than that. In their own way, they are as unreasonable as the Ukrainian maximalist side.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    Russia is only a threat – an all too real threat – to her neighbors. Perhaps you spoke hastily.
     
    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea, as they keep saying they will with Western support?

    Of course the Russians are a threat to Western lives. That's the only reason why the West is only doing a fraction of what it could do to stop the invasion. If the Russians were unable to threaten Western lives (tens of millions of Western lives to be accurate) a No Fly Zone would have been declared on day one and an Operation Desert Storm would have been prepared to give them the Saddam treatment, including perhaps the public hanging of Putin.

    The problem I was speaking about is that even with all those precautions and the relatively deferential treatment the Russians are receiving compared to much less dangerous enemies, we may end up having a nuclear exchange all the same. The longer this war goes on, the higher the probability of that happening for purely accidental reasons (Romania has just confirmed that "part of a drone" fell on its territory).

    Perhaps it was worth it to run that risk when the threat extended to our way of life and we faced the real risk of Communism spreading to the whole world. But what threat are we risking nuclear holocaust now for? The right of anyone who wants to join NATO, no matter how many thousands of miles away from the Atlantic Ocean they are, to do so? The possibility of some rearrangement of the old Soviet administrative borders to accommodate them to some real ethnic realities on the ground that would threaten us in the West... exactly how?

    If, for any internal reason, Spain was to disintegrate and new independent countries emerged from its current 17 autonomous communities, I can imagine many people ending up on the wrong side of the new borders. It would be a miracle if at some point or another, once the initial shock of whatever caused the disintegration faded away, some of those people didn't start demanding some rearrangement along more reasonable ethnic or linguistic lines. And it would be an even bigger miracle if the Castilians/Madridians weren't the ones making the most noise and seeking to recover some of their lost prestige on the peninsula. But wouldn't it be totally insane for outside countries to go a planet-destructing war to make sure that the old 17 Spanish administrative borders remain intact and Castilians never get their aspirations fulfilled?

    Replies: @LatW, @Wokechoke, @silviosilver, @AP

  518. @QCIC
    @LatW

    Sure, sure.

    At some point it turns into a real war. Then Russia starts taking out Western satellites and AWACs-type aircraft, leaving F-16s no better than the aircraft Ukraine started out with. Don't forget the MiG-29/Su-27 were generally comparable with and in some ways superior to F-16s. Maybe next a serious blitzkrieg is launched on and around Kiev to take out air defenses. High altitude bombing commences and all military and government installations in Kiev are rapidly destroyed. Tragically the entire power grid, pipelines, water plants and sewage plants around the city are also destroyed. All major runways and bridges are destroyed. Two million people are locked down with less than two weeks of food and no clean water. No trains, no air travel, minimal gasoline.

    This is the difference between a war and the SMO.

    The high population density of the modern world depends on cooperation. All of the moves by the West and Ukraine against Russia were the opposite of cooperation.

    Replies: @Mikel, @LatW

    At some point it turns into a real war.

    It is a real war now. It was a real war from the get go, this was never an “SMO”. The Russian media use a lot of blurs when they show explosions, ruined houses, anything significant is getting blurred out so even they themselves know deep down that is not just an “SMO”. They’re trying to hide the gravity of it from their audience.

    Well, Russia might try to employ all their planes (they are trying to find all the available pilots, btw, control over the pilots might be increased because of the pilot who defected, his parents left, too, which is interesting how Ukraine was able to pull that off). So Ukraine needs more SAMP/T air-defence systems to protect them on the battle field (this is where the diplomatic effort needs to increase). It’s a risk for Russia, too, because a lot of those planes can be downed.

    In the beginning, the Ukrainians downed a bunch of Russian planes (I think even using their own air defense systems and they’re using surface to air missiles for helicopters, Ukraine is producing those), so they started flying more carefully. The Russian planes have flown back and forth testing the air defense and the Ukrainian reaction. So it’s not like it’s impossible to down a Russian plane. Or even a significant number of them.

    High altitude bombing commences

    That is extremely complicated and difficult for the pilot, at that height and speed, it requires constant practice.

    And it’s actually very complicated to employ a large number of fighters simultaneously. When was the last time they did it? In Syria, how many planes did they use? I’m not saying Russia cannot do major damage or harm Ukraine even more, but it’s not as easy to do what you describe.

    Kyiv is covered by a couple of layers of air defense, the most advanced and the newest systems (Iris T, NASAMS, Patriot).

    Looks like the Ukrainians have found a way to permeate the Russian air defenses with their drones (they may have figured out something about the radar codes). The Ukrainians are trying to destroy transport planes, ships, so that if/when they neutralize the bridge, the Russians cannot use other means to resupply. But I’m not sure if these drones can find or harm the strategic bombers.

    Actually, almost kind of sad to see all these planes and helis destroyed… they are kind of cool (and expensive). Too bad they’re being used for such sinister goals.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @LatW

    I still call it an SMO because I have not seen any cities leveled by high altitude bombing. That is still my pivot point in the way I look at this. I have seen images of cities that were bombed to the ground with artillery, rocket strikes and low-altitude strike bombing. Low altitude strikes are what cost most of the Russian helicopters and aircraft.

    Both sides had a lot of serious air-defense systems at the beginning, but the numbers are small compared to the number of targets which need to be protected, especially against drones.

    For every pro-Ukraine report saying one thing there is a pro-Russia report saying something different, often the opposite. People are dying in large numbers so propaganda and misdirection are expected. Reports where the information from the two sides agree may be factual, otherwise a person needs to base their understanding on different information.

    Many people seem to believe Russia has not completed extensive bombing because Ukrainian air defenses have prevented this. I believe Russia has the capability to overwhelm Ukrainian high altitude air defenses at will and has not bombed cities because they do not want to do so. Nothing reported at Unz has refuted this position.

  519. One thing that is remarkable about this whole picture is that Russia has concentrated such a huge portion of her military hardware in Ukraine – how is the rest of the country covered? If they had adversaries elsewhere, they’d be in a perilous situation.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @LatW

    It isn't the Russian's running short of equipment, NATO is increasingly stripped bare.

    Replies: @LatW

  520. @LatW
    One thing that is remarkable about this whole picture is that Russia has concentrated such a huge portion of her military hardware in Ukraine - how is the rest of the country covered? If they had adversaries elsewhere, they'd be in a perilous situation.

    Replies: @LondonBob

    It isn’t the Russian’s running short of equipment, NATO is increasingly stripped bare.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @LondonBob


    It isn’t the Russian’s running short of equipment, NATO is increasingly stripped bare.
     
    You missed my point entirely (and living on Planet MacGregor, it's no surprise you're so myopic). Is the NATO core territory exposed? Not really. Yet the Russian territory is huge, but is it all protected? If a drone swarm hits a vital airport in Pskov, then where is the air defense? Russia is lucky she doesn't have adversaries or enemies elsewhere on her vast border. All the troops are in Ukraine. Including the ones that used to be stationed on the NATO borders. But Russia knows that it's safe there, so it's fine to remove the troops from there and move them to Ukraine, NATO is not going to attack Russia (they knew it all along, but just used the threat for propaganda purposes).

    It's actually a moral issue. Oh, everything is ok on the NATO (or China and Japan) border, it admits us to take the troops from there and plunder elsewhere (Ukraine).

  521. @QCIC
    @A123

    My guess is Russia prefers to keep going until Ukraine voluntarily and sincerely capitulates. Assuming I am mistaken, I think your list is a realistic start but they may need more.

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines
    Odessa needs to be part of Russian sector
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians
    • No NATO Ever for Ukraine
    Ukraine fully demilitarized except for new Ukrainian-Russia homeguard/Western border patrol
    • Ending sanctions on Russia
    Reimbursement for stolen funds and Nordstream
    • No reparations or one sided war crimes trials
    Russian trials of NeoNazi thugs and their enablers
    • Security guarantees by the West of some sort


    In this war Ukraine loses no matter what. For Russia this is not a face saving or cut your losses scenario. For their security this needs to be a loss for the West, not just a stalemate. The cleanest way is to simply fight until all NATO assets in Ukraine, NeoNazis and their Ukrainian masters are gone and the Ukrainian people wake up. This will be a lesson to help prevent future proxy wars. If it has to end before things get to that point I think Russia will be looking for real concessions and reparations from the West. They don't want this war to flare up next year either in Ukraine or somewhere else.

    Replies: @Beckow, @John Johnson, @LondonBob

    Land locking the Ukraine would be my goal, do what NATO did to Serbia, dismantle it to a rump state.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  522. @Mikel
    @Coconuts

    I don't really understand what you're saying here or how those new kooky definitions of what an animal species is affect the matter of male celibacy.

    Some men are born with less sexual drive than others in the same way that some people are born less gluttonous than others but that doesn't matter too much. When people try to follow extreme deprivation diets they tend to end up overcompensating in one way or another. It is a well known phenomenon in nutritional medicine. Thinking that this overcompensation response only affects food but not other human instincts doesn't look very realistic to me.


    There is a lot of monitoring and enforcement in most developed countries around MAPs and pedophile activity within the non-celibate population, very likely this curbs the behaviour.
     
    Well, I wonder what it would be like if the pedophilia taboo (one of the few taboos worth enforcing in a healthy society) wouldn't be there.

    But sadly in Puritan societies like the American one (and I think increasingly in most other Western countries) this pedophilia taboo is enforced in a pretty backassward way, mixing real child molestation with things that have nothing to do with it, like the guy in his 20s who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and is made to spend the rest of his life in a sexual predator registry. By those standards a good chunk of my teenage friends would be pedophiles. Or that sick habit of showing 1st page mugshots of female teachers who allegedly were caught "raping" some teenage student (as if that was physically possible). When I was the age of some of those students I would have maybe given a kidney for having sex with some of my female teachers. In fact, one of my own first experiences was with a woman 24 years older than me but I'm not sure I'd be able to metoo her now if she was American, I was already 19 at the time.

    Let's hope there's no backlash to this insanity that puts the real victims (children) at risk.

    Replies: @sudden death, @Coconuts

    I don’t really understand what you’re saying here or how those new kooky definitions of what an animal species is affect the matter of male celibacy.

    They weren’t new, one was from Darwin and the other one was from Aristotle. It was related to making strong normative generalisations about human nature without looking at any data.

    Some men are born with less sexual drive than others in the same way that some people are born less gluttonous than others but that doesn’t matter too much.

    Assuming that the analogy between sex drive and appetite for food holds. Until a few decades ago heterosexual non-celibacy would mean reproduction and having children, more complex social undertaking than eating if the non-celibates are part of a group of any size.

    Maybe you could look at reproductive success of either groups or kin including the celibates to test whether the behaviour brought some reproductive advantage.

    Thinking that this overcompensation response only affects food but not other human instincts doesn’t look very realistic to me.

    This seems an intuition about analogies so far, it might hold or it may not. In terms of reproductive success it may not hold, some research seems to indicate that.

    But sadly in Puritan societies like the American one (and I think increasingly in most other Western countries) this pedophilia taboo is enforced in a pretty backassward way, mixing real child molestation with things that have nothing to do with it, like the guy in his 20s who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and is made to spend the rest of his life in a sexual predator registry.

    We don’t really have that in the UK. The teachers thing I also associate with America, Daily Mail used to have stories like that from the US reasonably regularly. Involving British teachers it seems rarer, there are less stories about it at least.

    When I was the age of some of those students I would have maybe given a kidney for having sex with some of my female teachers. In fact, one of my own first experiences was with a woman 24 years older than me but I’m not sure I’d be able to metoo her now if she was American, I was already 19 at the time.

    That’s true about some of the better looking female teachers. I heard an interesting explanation of Metoo, that it has come from a mismatch between lower female socio-sexuality and liberal feminist ideas about emancipation. And the US is the most liberal country, so it is strongest there.

    Social taboos around sex may be like a kind of market regulation, trying to prevent monopolies, oversupply of commodity, misallocation of resources etc. There will always be some of them, what they are will relate to the kind of society people create.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Coconuts


    reproductive advantage.

     

    Not exactly answering your post, but to say some thing which was natural historically, doesn't mean it would be good for the human genetics, as this concept of "good" is based in our value or desire, while the "natural" is just what reality has been in the past in relation to the environment of those times.

    An example, is the age of reproduction of humans.

    If you wanted to increase the extension of life there is selection pressure for human genetics, you would ban reproduction before age 40.

    To ban reproduction before age 40, would be not very natural, but the result would be good in terms of increasing the health of the human population across generations.

    Selected traits for almost all evolution's history are to allow survival to reproductive age which is only around 16-18 for humans, life expectancy was around 25. For the non-human ancestors of humans it would be mostly lower and lower the more generations they go to the past. .

    Other animals with the closest common ancestor with humans are Chimpanzees and Bonobos, with similar life expectancy outside the zoo.

    Although humans who lived to 40 could potentially have more children, could add more iteration in the gene pool, than someone who died in the first pregnancy. So there would be some selection for surviving pregnancy.

    In all the developed Western countries today (except USA), people are expected to live over 80. So, for more than half of life, we don't have benefit of selection pressure on our ancestors' genes adapted for this life expectancy.

    An example of the film "Idiocracy" in the beginning, is a middle class couple using contraception, delaying children until they are older and older, while the working class family has many children already.

    Of course, if the middle class pattern is more common in the population especially if you banned people having children before 40, it would increase the proportion of human's life there is a selection pressure on the population.

    There would be genetic selection for women who have later menopause, are more healthy at age 40. After enough generations, average 50 year old people would look like average 30 year old people today as there would be biological adaption with more resources for continuing health.

    Then you would raise the ban on reproduction to age 45, age 50 etc, at some point there would be a limit.


    the US is the most liberal
     
    You mean "least liberal" in terms of social liberalism, although liberal in terms of company law, taxation, technology etc.

    In social life, the US is the most religious and puritan culture outside of Asia/Africa. If you include only industrialized or developed countries, it is the most religious and puritan culture outside the Middle East.

    I would say, there is confusion in terms of the idea of traditional and liberal. USA is one of more nontraditional cultures, or it is a culture which bases its tradition on parts of modernity like machines and technology.

    Americans are nontraditional to an extent, "conservative Republicans" are supporting covering the country with asphalt. A sign of the "conservative values" in America are driving pickup trucks, supporting stealth military planes, deregulating laws about destruction of the natural environment.

    US is also the technology leader. Technology leader in the 21st century is "owner of the means of production". So, the other cultures are modulated by the people who operate the technology and the American influence in culture will increase. For example, some parts of the "more liberal attitude" about sexual life of countries in comparison with the US, like France or Italy can be removed by the filter of MeToo, which is not negative in this example, but it is a sign of how America has become "owner of the means of production" in this century because they are leader of technology.

    Replies: @Coconuts, @Coconuts

  523. @A123
    @LatW


    It was a totally pragmatic option to create a stronghold in the occupied parts of Donbas and the occupied Crimea, .
     
    It was also totally pragmatic to advance to the Dnieper, removing the illegal dam being used to collectively punish civilians in Crimea.

    Now that there is "land bridge" securing the civilian water supply, the chances of Kiev retaking it are exceedingly slim. The terrain favours Russian doctrine and equipment. And, they have had months to prepare the defense.


    instead of trying to invade the whole country.
     
    Ukraine is huge. We can be reasonably sure that RF generals never had a plan requiring extensive manpower to hold that much land area. There was never the mass mobilization to support it. The SMO option had less troop strength, and thus more limited goals.

    The initial push at Kiev appears to be an attempt at removing Ukrainian leadership and forcing an immediate surrender. With all sides pushing propaganda, we are unlikely to ever find out for sure. Even if a document makes it out of the Kremlin, how could it be authenticated?


    Even if Ukraine militarized in a very serious way, they should’ve have been able to create a decent buffer from those positions.
     
    Minsk Deal negotiations were a Kiev deception to cover for arming up. Knowing that Ukrainian leaders are inherently untrustworthy, the current contact line is a decent and pragmatic buffer.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @sudden death, @YetAnotherAnon

    “the current contact line is a decent and pragmatic buffer”

    Not as long as Donetsk is still being shelled daily and civilians dying.

    I would be surprised if the whole coast as far as Transnistria wasn’t a target, although that does give hostages to fortune (drive to the sea) without a pretty big advance to the north.

    • Replies: @A123
    @YetAnotherAnon



    “the current contact line is a decent and pragmatic buffer”
     
    Not as long as Donetsk is still being shelled daily and civilians dying.
     
    I was counting on readers remembering my earlier post (1), which included more detail:

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines.
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians

    This combination would stop Kiev from senselessly attacking civilians.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-227/#comment-6139722
  524. @YetAnotherAnon
    @A123

    "the current contact line is a decent and pragmatic buffer"

    Not as long as Donetsk is still being shelled daily and civilians dying.

    I would be surprised if the whole coast as far as Transnistria wasn't a target, although that does give hostages to fortune (drive to the sea) without a pretty big advance to the north.

    Replies: @A123

    “the current contact line is a decent and pragmatic buffer”

    Not as long as Donetsk is still being shelled daily and civilians dying.

    I was counting on readers remembering my earlier post (1), which included more detail:

    • Separation along more-or-less current lines.
    • A wide DMZ with limited numbers of civilians

    This combination would stop Kiev from senselessly attacking civilians.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-227/#comment-6139722

  525. Blinken is admiring his handiwork in Ukraine:

    • Replies: @AP
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The price of not giving Ukraine more and better weapons.

    Of course, giving Ukraine nothing as the pro-Russians would want, would result in far more deaths because the fight would be off the battlefields and in the cities.

  526. Battle of the Nations
    United States Latvia

    [MORE]

  527. @Mikel
    @AP


    Would have ended already if Ukraine had been given the weapons to end it.
     
    Probably. But the calculation seems to be that the Russians would escalate dangerously if Ukraine is given all those weapons at once so it's better to play Russian roulette by dragging the conflict on and providing the same weapons piecemeal in the hopes that the Russians will get used to the pain little by little and no irremediable accidents will happen (much though the Ukrainians would love the contrary to be true). Crazy and unprecedented since the Berlin airlift. The Cuban missile crisis was a short standoff with little scope for accidental outcomes.

    Of course the piecemeal strategy means that many more Ukrainian soldiers and civilians need to die in order to keep Western lives safe.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @AP

    Probably. But the calculation seems to be that the Russians would escalate dangerously if Ukraine is given all those weapons at once so it’s better to play Russian roulette by dragging the conflict on and providing the same weapons piecemeal in the hopes that the Russians will get used to the pain little by little and no irremediable accidents will happen

    Maybe, maybe not.

    Perhaps the goal was to lull the Russians into a long-term war, the better to destroy their military capacity, rather than to go for a quick and reasonable peace that would have left their military mostly intact.

    However, the pro-Russian policy of the Obama and early Biden administrations suggests ambivalence – opposition to Russia’s outrageous invasion, but also an element of fear and quasi-appeasement.

    Btw, shouldn’t the pro-Russian shills on here be huge fans of Obama and his administration? This could be them talking:

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @AP

    Obama's relation to the Ukrainian crisis was not simple. It was Euromaidan while he was president, on the other hand, the response for the annexation of Crimea was relatively moderate, he probably was causing a lot of diplomatic isolation for Russia as the situation after 2014 was already bad.

    The plan to invade Ukraine was developed when Trump is president, although maybe the final approval of the plan is only while Biden is president.

    Part of the failure of the invasion, although with many other reasons for the failure, is because of misprediction of Biden's response. Biden has been very subtle how he would respond. If Trump won the election in 2020, there would have been probably less support for Ukraine and therefore the difficulty level would be lower.


    into a long-term war, the better to destroy their military capacity,
     
    I would assume it is not intentional, but it operates like a mouse trap designed by a hunter against a not intelligent prey.

    If the US has given advanced weapons to Kiev before 2022 like Patriot missiles, then Russia would not have invaded in 2022.

    But the US avoided giving advanced weapons to Ukraine. The weakness of Ukraine was like the cheese in the mouse trap, so Moscow views Ukraine as an undefended food. Then after the mouse goes to eat the cheese, NATO begins to give heavy weapons to Ukraine. This is now like a trap falling on the mouse's head and it's too late to escape with losing some bodyparts.

    Although we can assume it was not such an intentional plan, as Europe and US were not resolving their oil/gas problems before the invasion.

    Replies: @AP, @Mr. XYZ

  528. @YetAnotherAnon
    Blinken is admiring his handiwork in Ukraine:

    https://i.postimg.cc/Z55ct1D5/blinken.jpg

    Replies: @AP

    The price of not giving Ukraine more and better weapons.

    Of course, giving Ukraine nothing as the pro-Russians would want, would result in far more deaths because the fight would be off the battlefields and in the cities.

  529. @LatW
    @QCIC


    At some point it turns into a real war.
     
    It is a real war now. It was a real war from the get go, this was never an "SMO". The Russian media use a lot of blurs when they show explosions, ruined houses, anything significant is getting blurred out so even they themselves know deep down that is not just an "SMO". They're trying to hide the gravity of it from their audience.

    Well, Russia might try to employ all their planes (they are trying to find all the available pilots, btw, control over the pilots might be increased because of the pilot who defected, his parents left, too, which is interesting how Ukraine was able to pull that off). So Ukraine needs more SAMP/T air-defence systems to protect them on the battle field (this is where the diplomatic effort needs to increase). It's a risk for Russia, too, because a lot of those planes can be downed.

    In the beginning, the Ukrainians downed a bunch of Russian planes (I think even using their own air defense systems and they're using surface to air missiles for helicopters, Ukraine is producing those), so they started flying more carefully. The Russian planes have flown back and forth testing the air defense and the Ukrainian reaction. So it's not like it's impossible to down a Russian plane. Or even a significant number of them.

    High altitude bombing commences
     
    That is extremely complicated and difficult for the pilot, at that height and speed, it requires constant practice.

    And it's actually very complicated to employ a large number of fighters simultaneously. When was the last time they did it? In Syria, how many planes did they use? I'm not saying Russia cannot do major damage or harm Ukraine even more, but it's not as easy to do what you describe.

    Kyiv is covered by a couple of layers of air defense, the most advanced and the newest systems (Iris T, NASAMS, Patriot).

    Looks like the Ukrainians have found a way to permeate the Russian air defenses with their drones (they may have figured out something about the radar codes). The Ukrainians are trying to destroy transport planes, ships, so that if/when they neutralize the bridge, the Russians cannot use other means to resupply. But I'm not sure if these drones can find or harm the strategic bombers.

    Actually, almost kind of sad to see all these planes and helis destroyed... they are kind of cool (and expensive). Too bad they're being used for such sinister goals.

    Replies: @QCIC

    I still call it an SMO because I have not seen any cities leveled by high altitude bombing. That is still my pivot point in the way I look at this. I have seen images of cities that were bombed to the ground with artillery, rocket strikes and low-altitude strike bombing. Low altitude strikes are what cost most of the Russian helicopters and aircraft.

    Both sides had a lot of serious air-defense systems at the beginning, but the numbers are small compared to the number of targets which need to be protected, especially against drones.

    For every pro-Ukraine report saying one thing there is a pro-Russia report saying something different, often the opposite. People are dying in large numbers so propaganda and misdirection are expected. Reports where the information from the two sides agree may be factual, otherwise a person needs to base their understanding on different information.

    Many people seem to believe Russia has not completed extensive bombing because Ukrainian air defenses have prevented this. I believe Russia has the capability to overwhelm Ukrainian high altitude air defenses at will and has not bombed cities because they do not want to do so. Nothing reported at Unz has refuted this position.

  530. In Japan, when someone creates a teenaged female character, and they are asked about it, it is possible for them to answer something like “I admire the pure heart of a maiden.”

    But I don’t think this is really possible in the modern West. I think it would be seen as criminal due to the combination of militant feminism, AA staffing, and perhaps a puritanical streak.

    They can’t admit to a thing like the beauty of youth or purity, without being compared to malformed psychopaths abusing children, so they need an ideological justification. Make her an inventor or a leader, and challenge the patriarchy in some way.

  531. @Sher Singh
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/777363024196796426/1146560281233858691/IMG_7909.png

    Replies: @songbird, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Makes them sound a bit like these people:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorian

  532. @Mikel
    @QCIC


    High altitude bombing commences and all military and government installations in Kiev are rapidly destroyed. Tragically the entire power grid, pipelines, water plants and sewage plants around the city are also destroyed. All major runways and bridges are destroyed. Two million people are locked down with less than two weeks of food and no clean water. No trains, no air travel, minimal gasoline.
     
    Before you get carried away with those fantasies, the Russians stopped using high altitude bombing after the initial stages of the SMO for what reason?

    Replies: @QCIC

    The beginning of the SMO was very strange and has not been publicly explained. I subscribe to a “desperate feint theory” where the Russians were forced to react on short notice and did so with a feint in the North which predictably incurred very heavy losses but got the job done. The job was probably protecting Crimea from a sneak attack of some sort.

    More extensive high altitude bombing would be counter-productive for the Russian mission which is apparently to protect civilians while killing NeoNazis, destroying NATO interlopers and wiping out Ukrainian military forces. High altitude bombing takes out critical military and infrastructure targets but also indiscriminately kills many civilians. In the close-range combat of the past 18 months many civilians leave an area as artillery bombardment becomes intolerable and then the armies fight it out. Many civilians are still killed, but perhaps not so many as from heavy bombing.

    That is the way it looks to me.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @LatW
    @QCIC


    More extensive high altitude bombing would be counter-productive for the Russian mission which is apparently to protect civilians while killing NeoNazis
     
    You do realize that the troops are the relatives of these civilians? It is the sons, husbands, dads, boyfriends, and yes, wives and moms and young girlfriends of these mysterious civilians, that are being killed, maimed and tormented in front of their eyes. Everyone is being tormented by Russia. Geez, Planet MacGregor is a really misanthropic place.

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @Mikel
    @QCIC


    That is the way it looks to me.
     
    That's the way it looks to you because you are forcing yourself to ignore plenty of crucial facts. For example, that the Russians lost plenty of planes in those initial high altitude bombings (even though the Ukrainians only had refurbished Soviet AA defenses at the time) and Russia has never dared to send its air force back into Ukrainian airspace outside of short incursions very close to the front lines.

    Contrary to what HMS was saying the other day, I don't think that the pro-Russian delusions are the worst ones you can find nowadays. Gender-related delusions are even crazier and more widespread in the West (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/google-search-tells-users-men-can-menstruate-and-that-its-not-a-feminine-thing/). But they're pretty bad nonetheless, especially considering that it's also a purely Western phenomenon. The Russians themselves are much more realistic, no matter how pro-Putin they are.

    Replies: @QCIC

  533. I know a lot of people are blocked from reading RT, but I thought this article was pretty funny:

    [MORE]

    Pope praises ‘epic times’ of Mongolian Empire
    The sprawling empire of Genghis Khan ensured an “absence of conflicts” that the modern world lacks, the Pontiff has said

    Pope Francis has offered his take on the largest contiguous land empire in history, the Mongol Empire, praising the massive 13th-century state for its “absence of conflicts,” as well as for “embracing” various lands under its rule.

    The Pontiff made the remarks last week during his Apostolic Journey to Mongolia, extolling the country’s present-day “religious freedom” and speaking highly of the “epic times of the Mongolian empire.”

    “The fact that the empire could embrace such distant and varied lands over the centuries bears witness to the remarkable ability of your ancestors to acknowledge the outstanding qualities of the peoples present in its immense territory and to put those qualities at the service of a common development,” the Pope stated in his address.

    The Mongol Empire model “should be valued and re-proposed in our own day,” he declared…

    https://www.rt.com/news/582438-pope-epic-mongol-empire/

    If I follow, he wants to convert Mongolians to Catholicism, while they are lying low and might accept it, and then increase their TFR to the point where they can start conquering again.

    Am not sure a Mongolian pope who grew up hawking and riding on the steppe would be a bad idea.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @songbird


    ...Pope praises ‘epic times’ of Mongolian Empire...praising the massive 13th-century state for its “absence of conflicts,” as well as for “embracing” various lands under its rule.
     
    It is not going to endear him to China, Russia or anyone in the Middle East and Ukraine. If it is deliberate then the audience is Central Asia and Turkey. But maybe the Pope is just his usual foolish self, he wanted to see the steppes and got carried away.

    Next the Pope will praise the epic times Spanish brought to South America, how they embraced all lands. Maybe they killed about half of the people, but what a divine blessing...and they converted the rest.

    The Popes have always been natural empire-builders, that's what "catholic" implies - universal and everywhere. But this one is a real piece of work. Didn't he use to bless throwing leftists into the ocean from helicopters when he was younger in Argentina?

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    , @LatW
    @songbird

    The Pope has praised a lot of "epic times" lately, I wonder if he will make the full circle and praise the "epic times" of The Crusades. :)

    Mongolia is actually a very calm and civilized country these days. They even have a functioning multi-party democracy. And that statue is awesome.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @songbird

    The Mongols were in contact with the Vatican, demanded submission from the Pope, the letter was written in Persian

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Güyük_Khan_to_Pope_Innocent_IV

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/AscelinOfCremone.jpg

    Ascelin of Lombardia receiving a letter from Pope Innocent IV (left), and remitting it to the Mongol general Baiju (right).



    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/LetterGuyugToInnocence.jpg

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere

  534. @songbird
    I know a lot of people are blocked from reading RT, but I thought this article was pretty funny:
    Pope praises ‘epic times’ of Mongolian Empire
    The sprawling empire of Genghis Khan ensured an “absence of conflicts” that the modern world lacks, the Pontiff has said

    Pope Francis has offered his take on the largest contiguous land empire in history, the Mongol Empire, praising the massive 13th-century state for its “absence of conflicts,” as well as for “embracing” various lands under its rule.

    The Pontiff made the remarks last week during his Apostolic Journey to Mongolia, extolling the country’s present-day “religious freedom” and speaking highly of the “epic times of the Mongolian empire.”

    “The fact that the empire could embrace such distant and varied lands over the centuries bears witness to the remarkable ability of your ancestors to acknowledge the outstanding qualities of the peoples present in its immense territory and to put those qualities at the service of a common development,” the Pope stated in his address.

    The Mongol Empire model “should be valued and re-proposed in our own day,” he declared...

    https://www.rt.com/news/582438-pope-epic-mongol-empire/

    If I follow, he wants to convert Mongolians to Catholicism, while they are lying low and might accept it, and then increase their TFR to the point where they can start conquering again.

    Am not sure a Mongolian pope who grew up hawking and riding on the steppe would be a bad idea.

    Replies: @Beckow, @LatW, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    …Pope praises ‘epic times’ of Mongolian Empire…praising the massive 13th-century state for its “absence of conflicts,” as well as for “embracing” various lands under its rule.

    It is not going to endear him to China, Russia or anyone in the Middle East and Ukraine. If it is deliberate then the audience is Central Asia and Turkey. But maybe the Pope is just his usual foolish self, he wanted to see the steppes and got carried away.

    Next the Pope will praise the epic times Spanish brought to South America, how they embraced all lands. Maybe they killed about half of the people, but what a divine blessing…and they converted the rest.

    The Popes have always been natural empire-builders, that’s what “catholic” implies – universal and everywhere. But this one is a real piece of work. Didn’t he use to bless throwing leftists into the ocean from helicopters when he was younger in Argentina?

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Beckow

    For his time Genghis Khan was progressive. They had religious freedom and diversity. If a guy could fight, Genghis would take him in.

    He would accept negroes if they were up for it though I doubt he had many takers. Also he had style. There's something about heaps of skulls that leaves an impression in the history books.

    https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/MSNBC/Sections/Travel%20Section/______EDIT/strangest%20monuments_genghis%20khan.jpg

    Replies: @Beckow

  535. @LatW
    @Beckow


    Sure by all sides, don’t be selective. I am skeptical when I see a “crucified boy” or “kidnapped kids” stories – it is right out of Goebels’ manual. But let’s be honest – all sides do it.
     
    In this case, timing was crucial - the "story" came out at the worst possible moment, and it first appeared on Dugin's account. It was a sinister misinformation stint to incite hatred against Ukraine and rile up Russian militia men to travel to Ukraine to murder Ukrainians. Ukraine or Ukraine's allies have not waged this kind of an info war inside of Russia. Our side also never infiltrated the security forces as blatantly as Russia did with Ukraine.

    There are small but real separatist movements across Russia, yet the West never took advantage of it (besides marginal Paul Goble articles and some minor outreach). Much more could've been done and relatively easily - we could've nurtured these movements and sponsored them, we could've imported spouses and groomed them to promote our interests within Russia.

    The capability for this could be developed - Ukraine herself can even do it, since Budanov has a good network of assets in Ukraine and they are capable of serious work, as shown by the Russian pilot who just defected (this is an operation on the level of Mossad, similar to Operation Diamond, however, simpler operations could have been carried out over time, there were willing Russians out there and most likely still are). But the West hasn't done it in any significant manner. Maybe it felt tactless or maybe there simply wasn't enough interest. Yet Russia put it in their policy documents (the Karaganov doctrine) and later created a whole separatist movement.

    So, no, there are no two sides to it, it's actually somewhat asymmetric in this particular area.

    I thought that went out with the Nato attack on Serbia to redraw the ‘internationally recognized” borders and create Kosovo. You are behind the times, there is the Kosovo precedent.
     
    Some time has already passed since then, and I'm not sure Kosovo is the best example (without delving into it since it's been done before many times, Kosovo is over 90% Albanian, there was no such homogeneity in Donbas - and even with the Kosovo situation many do argue that the solution was not fair).

    Above all, the global system is going to change after this war. It will be necessary to put new arrangements in place. But the principle of territorial integrity is a good one and will most likely be somewhat respected going forward - enough populations have a stake in it to support it. To start randomly partitioning countries with the use of extreme force is not something that the world will readily accept.

    Replies: @Beckow

    In this case, timing was crucial – the “story” came out at the worst possible moment

    That’s the whole point, to time it well (again Goebels). Kiev has also timed the “kidnapped kids” stories to rile up its “militias” and some Western emotional fools. All wars now tend to be an emotional circus in the media.

    …separatist movements across Russia, yet the West never took advantage of it

    Ahh, Chechnya?

    there are no two sides to it, it’s actually somewhat asymmetric

    The charm of all wars is that each side fervently believes it. When examined it is never true. Let me remind you that it was Nato and Kiev who came up with the cockamamie idea to move Nato to Ukraine – of course, you see that as “friendly”, or sometimes even deny that was the plan. That kind takes the cake when it comes ‘symmetry’…

    Some time has already passed since then, and I’m not sure Kosovo is the best example…
    many do argue that the solution was not fair.

    Really? So there is a statute of limitations on changing borders? Let’s see, Crimea and Donbas have been 9 years, how much longer? Kosovo is the “best example” and a precedent: the same basic situation, force was used to change borders – amazingly all the West is taking the exactly opposite view. How f..ed do you have to be to do that?

    … ‘many argue that the Kosovo solution was not fair“…so, it is ok then? Nato bombs, kills people to change borders, but maybe there are some voices in the West who timidly say “well, maybe that was unfair…” – and voila, you just let it go. I am sure in the next few years we will find many voices in Russia who will say that the whole Ukie thing was “unfair”. Now we see how it is done, even the dissident voices have a role…:)

    …the principle of territorial integrity is a good one… – enough populations have a stake in it …To start randomly partitioning countries with the use of force is not something that the world will readily accept.

    True. And yet the superior Western populations readily accepted it in Kosovo. A few months of Goebels-like propaganda was all that was needed. It is hard to put it back in the box. I would suggest that before preaching to the others, maybe the West should reexamine its own actions and hold the responsible people accountable. The only way to lead is by example…

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Beckow

    I think he'll get a pass so long as he didn't say anything about Inner Mongolia. Mongolians do not seem much of a threat today, being landlocked and having lost much of their territory and with technology having degraded the power of their advantages in pasture.

    I don't know much about his deep past, but in the present he is like a a Justin Trudeau, putting on a Genghis costume, as easily as he would go on a TV show about trannies, or wear Sikh clothing.

    , @AP
    @Beckow


    Really? So there is a statute of limitations on changing borders? Let’s see, Crimea and Donbas have been 9 years, how much longer? Kosovo is the “best example” and a precedent
     
    Before Kosovo was Moldova. So NATO followed the precedent set by Russia. Blame Russia for Kosovo, since you like to use “precedent” as an excuse. Crimea followed the same precedent.

    Russia grabbing the Crimean corridor (Kherson and Zaporizhia) is something new. In the Moldova precedent (which NATO followed in Kosovo), border changes centered on ethnic majorities: most Transnistrians were Slavs rather than Moldovans, most Kosovars were Albanians rather than Serbs, most Crimeans were Russians rather than Ukrainians. But most people in Kherson and Zaporizhia are Ukrainians.

    So Russia now has created a new precedent: take what you can, regardless of local wishes and ethnicity, drive the local majority into exile if they don’t like it and resettle those lands. Or rather followed a much older one not seen in Europe since World War II.

    Based on Russia’s new precedent one can take a Russian lands too if things go badly for Russia. Crimea might be the example. Since you like to use precedent as an excuse, you shouldn’t object if the Russian majority of Crimea were to be treated like the Ukrainian majority of Kherson.

    Replies: @Beckow

    , @LatW
    @Beckow


    That’s the whole point, to time it well
     
    Well, then don't complain when there are Russian speaking victims because this kind of intervention leads exactly to that.

    Ahh, Chechnya?
     
    Chechnya is practically an independent country and a nation that has fought for its independence for hundreds of years. They even have a government in exile. And during the Chechen wars the West helped very little, the Chechens were on their own, with limited supplies. The Ummah probably helped them more than anyone.

    The Donbas was never anywhere near like Chechnya, they don't have a monolithic nation to separate smoothly (not that that would be a reason to let them), and the Donbas rebels recently admitted themselves that their uprising was quelled, but then "miracuosly", Russian troops entered Ukraine to help keep the "uprising" going. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. If Russia had not intervened militarily, the "uprising" would've stopped and the war would not have begun. The full scale war started on February 2022 is just a highly inflamed phase of the larger war.

    Besides, what I had in mind is not examples like Chechnya, but more like Ingria, Kenig, Komi, Tatarstan, the Far East, independent Russian formations, the West never worked with these, probably because they have cultural inhibitions (and there is not much status in working with these seemingly powerless entities).

    The West interfered when Serbs were massacring their minorities, but they will not interfere directly even if Ukrainians are being massacred in much larger numbers. All the morality has gone out of the window with this war.

    That kind takes the cake when it comes ‘symmetry’…
     
    Again, we're talking about two different things here. The West never interfered on Russia proper. Even though there are examples where Russia's neighbors would've had a moral right to be active (where there are ancestral cultural ties), the way that Russia interfered on the independent Ukrainian territory. This is crucial. Ukraine has diaspora all over the place, in the Far East, in Southern Russia. Yet Ukraine has never messed with Russia proper, up until now (and even Budanov is doing it mildly, not even comparable to what Russia has done).


    And yet the superior Western populations readily accepted it in Kosovo.
     
    I would say right now, it is actually two large countries for which the principle of territorial integrity is of utmost importance - China (with Taiwan and Uyghurs) and Russia (still an empire, technically, with a strange power vertical). It's just that large countries typically are ok with smaller countries having to compromise, but they will not compromise themselves. It's all mostly geopolitical anyway.
  536. @Beckow
    @songbird


    ...Pope praises ‘epic times’ of Mongolian Empire...praising the massive 13th-century state for its “absence of conflicts,” as well as for “embracing” various lands under its rule.
     
    It is not going to endear him to China, Russia or anyone in the Middle East and Ukraine. If it is deliberate then the audience is Central Asia and Turkey. But maybe the Pope is just his usual foolish self, he wanted to see the steppes and got carried away.

    Next the Pope will praise the epic times Spanish brought to South America, how they embraced all lands. Maybe they killed about half of the people, but what a divine blessing...and they converted the rest.

    The Popes have always been natural empire-builders, that's what "catholic" implies - universal and everywhere. But this one is a real piece of work. Didn't he use to bless throwing leftists into the ocean from helicopters when he was younger in Argentina?

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    For his time Genghis Khan was progressive. They had religious freedom and diversity. If a guy could fight, Genghis would take him in.

    He would accept negroes if they were up for it though I doubt he had many takers. Also he had style. There’s something about heaps of skulls that leaves an impression in the history books.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    ...For his time Genghis Khan was progressive....If a guy could fight, Genghis would take him in....heaps of skulls...
     
    You could say the same about Hitler and the British Empire. Of course, with some modifications regarding diversity. The poor Mongols ended up as a spent-up force, declining into peevish insignificance.

    It looks like that may be the fate of Germans in the long run. This warlike progressive thing doesn't work very well...:)

    Replies: @Coconuts

  537. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Beckow

    For his time Genghis Khan was progressive. They had religious freedom and diversity. If a guy could fight, Genghis would take him in.

    He would accept negroes if they were up for it though I doubt he had many takers. Also he had style. There's something about heaps of skulls that leaves an impression in the history books.

    https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/MSNBC/Sections/Travel%20Section/______EDIT/strangest%20monuments_genghis%20khan.jpg

    Replies: @Beckow

    …For his time Genghis Khan was progressive….If a guy could fight, Genghis would take him in….heaps of skulls…

    You could say the same about Hitler and the British Empire. Of course, with some modifications regarding diversity. The poor Mongols ended up as a spent-up force, declining into peevish insignificance.

    It looks like that may be the fate of Germans in the long run. This warlike progressive thing doesn’t work very well…:)

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @Beckow

    Hitler?

  538. @Beckow
    @LatW


    In this case, timing was crucial – the “story” came out at the worst possible moment
     
    That's the whole point, to time it well (again Goebels). Kiev has also timed the "kidnapped kids" stories to rile up its "militias" and some Western emotional fools. All wars now tend to be an emotional circus in the media.

    ...separatist movements across Russia, yet the West never took advantage of it
     
    Ahh, Chechnya?

    there are no two sides to it, it’s actually somewhat asymmetric
     
    The charm of all wars is that each side fervently believes it. When examined it is never true. Let me remind you that it was Nato and Kiev who came up with the cockamamie idea to move Nato to Ukraine - of course, you see that as "friendly", or sometimes even deny that was the plan. That kind takes the cake when it comes 'symmetry'...

    Some time has already passed since then, and I’m not sure Kosovo is the best example...
    many do argue that the solution was not fair.
     
    Really? So there is a statute of limitations on changing borders? Let's see, Crimea and Donbas have been 9 years, how much longer? Kosovo is the "best example" and a precedent: the same basic situation, force was used to change borders - amazingly all the West is taking the exactly opposite view. How f..ed do you have to be to do that?

    ... 'many argue that the Kosovo solution was not fair"...so, it is ok then? Nato bombs, kills people to change borders, but maybe there are some voices in the West who timidly say "well, maybe that was unfair..." - and voila, you just let it go. I am sure in the next few years we will find many voices in Russia who will say that the whole Ukie thing was "unfair". Now we see how it is done, even the dissident voices have a role...:)


    ...the principle of territorial integrity is a good one... – enough populations have a stake in it ...To start randomly partitioning countries with the use of force is not something that the world will readily accept.
     
    True. And yet the superior Western populations readily accepted it in Kosovo. A few months of Goebels-like propaganda was all that was needed. It is hard to put it back in the box. I would suggest that before preaching to the others, maybe the West should reexamine its own actions and hold the responsible people accountable. The only way to lead is by example...

    Replies: @songbird, @AP, @LatW

    I think he’ll get a pass so long as he didn’t say anything about Inner Mongolia. Mongolians do not seem much of a threat today, being landlocked and having lost much of their territory and with technology having degraded the power of their advantages in pasture.

    I don’t know much about his deep past, but in the present he is like a a Justin Trudeau, putting on a Genghis costume, as easily as he would go on a TV show about trannies, or wear Sikh clothing.

  539. Funny how feminism seems to be bankrupting Birmingham. Would have thought it would be racial stuff. (Though likely that is a major factor as well)

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/05/councils-in-england-in-crisis-as-birmingham-declares-itself-bankrupt

  540. @LondonBob
    @LatW

    It isn't the Russian's running short of equipment, NATO is increasingly stripped bare.

    Replies: @LatW

    It isn’t the Russian’s running short of equipment, NATO is increasingly stripped bare.

    You missed my point entirely (and living on Planet MacGregor, it’s no surprise you’re so myopic). Is the NATO core territory exposed? Not really. Yet the Russian territory is huge, but is it all protected? If a drone swarm hits a vital airport in Pskov, then where is the air defense? Russia is lucky she doesn’t have adversaries or enemies elsewhere on her vast border. All the troops are in Ukraine. Including the ones that used to be stationed on the NATO borders. But Russia knows that it’s safe there, so it’s fine to remove the troops from there and move them to Ukraine, NATO is not going to attack Russia (they knew it all along, but just used the threat for propaganda purposes).

    It’s actually a moral issue. Oh, everything is ok on the NATO (or China and Japan) border, it admits us to take the troops from there and plunder elsewhere (Ukraine).

  541. @Beckow
    @LatW


    In this case, timing was crucial – the “story” came out at the worst possible moment
     
    That's the whole point, to time it well (again Goebels). Kiev has also timed the "kidnapped kids" stories to rile up its "militias" and some Western emotional fools. All wars now tend to be an emotional circus in the media.

    ...separatist movements across Russia, yet the West never took advantage of it
     
    Ahh, Chechnya?

    there are no two sides to it, it’s actually somewhat asymmetric
     
    The charm of all wars is that each side fervently believes it. When examined it is never true. Let me remind you that it was Nato and Kiev who came up with the cockamamie idea to move Nato to Ukraine - of course, you see that as "friendly", or sometimes even deny that was the plan. That kind takes the cake when it comes 'symmetry'...

    Some time has already passed since then, and I’m not sure Kosovo is the best example...
    many do argue that the solution was not fair.
     
    Really? So there is a statute of limitations on changing borders? Let's see, Crimea and Donbas have been 9 years, how much longer? Kosovo is the "best example" and a precedent: the same basic situation, force was used to change borders - amazingly all the West is taking the exactly opposite view. How f..ed do you have to be to do that?

    ... 'many argue that the Kosovo solution was not fair"...so, it is ok then? Nato bombs, kills people to change borders, but maybe there are some voices in the West who timidly say "well, maybe that was unfair..." - and voila, you just let it go. I am sure in the next few years we will find many voices in Russia who will say that the whole Ukie thing was "unfair". Now we see how it is done, even the dissident voices have a role...:)


    ...the principle of territorial integrity is a good one... – enough populations have a stake in it ...To start randomly partitioning countries with the use of force is not something that the world will readily accept.
     
    True. And yet the superior Western populations readily accepted it in Kosovo. A few months of Goebels-like propaganda was all that was needed. It is hard to put it back in the box. I would suggest that before preaching to the others, maybe the West should reexamine its own actions and hold the responsible people accountable. The only way to lead is by example...

    Replies: @songbird, @AP, @LatW

    Really? So there is a statute of limitations on changing borders? Let’s see, Crimea and Donbas have been 9 years, how much longer? Kosovo is the “best example” and a precedent

    Before Kosovo was Moldova. So NATO followed the precedent set by Russia. Blame Russia for Kosovo, since you like to use “precedent” as an excuse. Crimea followed the same precedent.

    Russia grabbing the Crimean corridor (Kherson and Zaporizhia) is something new. In the Moldova precedent (which NATO followed in Kosovo), border changes centered on ethnic majorities: most Transnistrians were Slavs rather than Moldovans, most Kosovars were Albanians rather than Serbs, most Crimeans were Russians rather than Ukrainians. But most people in Kherson and Zaporizhia are Ukrainians.

    So Russia now has created a new precedent: take what you can, regardless of local wishes and ethnicity, drive the local majority into exile if they don’t like it and resettle those lands. Or rather followed a much older one not seen in Europe since World War II.

    Based on Russia’s new precedent one can take a Russian lands too if things go badly for Russia. Crimea might be the example. Since you like to use precedent as an excuse, you shouldn’t object if the Russian majority of Crimea were to be treated like the Ukrainian majority of Kherson.

    • Agree: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AP

    Your bizarre rant smells of desperation. "Moldova?" No kidding. I guess Kishinov was bombed to Middle Ages by Russia, pompous Russian politicians were strutting around talking about some hapless Moldova Prime Minister as the "new Hitler". Riiiight...are you totally insane? It was at the time basically an inside former Soviet space non-event.

    Kosovo with the Nato massive bombing and insistence on changing borders by force, recognizing the new state - that is the precedent. And Iraq, Afgan,, Syria, Libya...where were you for the last 20 years?

    To put it bluntly you seem a bit of an idiot. You are so desperate because your side is losing that any infantile nonsense will do. You invent evil "Russian plans" and ignore what was actually going on: inviting Kiev to join Nato, building up its arm forces, and then the idiotic attack post-Maidan on the Russian minority.

    Kiev is like a horse with no speed that eventually quits. It will take some time, it is not a pretty picture, all those unnecessary dead. But what else did you expect? That Russia would just roll-over, abandon its people, and watch Nato gradually placing bases and missiles on its very long strategic borders with Ukraine?

    Replies: @AP

  542. Concerning some of the recent comments here, the initial SMO action successfully brought the Kiev regime to the negotiating table, where a reasonably good deal was about to be made – only to be thwarted with mischievous neocon/neolib meddling.

    From the comments section –

    When Putin speaks I listen, when Biden speaks I laugh. When Biden stumbles up the stairs, I laugh some more. When Zelensky speaks I hide my wallet.

    Calling Ukraine’s offensives a success is like calling Challenger tanks a game changer.

    People who think that Ukraine is winning are living in denial. They seek comfort in subjective reality and ignore all the facts.

    Put more simply, they childishly refuse to acknowledge they were wrong all along.

  543. @QCIC
    @Mikel

    The beginning of the SMO was very strange and has not been publicly explained. I subscribe to a "desperate feint theory" where the Russians were forced to react on short notice and did so with a feint in the North which predictably incurred very heavy losses but got the job done. The job was probably protecting Crimea from a sneak attack of some sort.

    More extensive high altitude bombing would be counter-productive for the Russian mission which is apparently to protect civilians while killing NeoNazis, destroying NATO interlopers and wiping out Ukrainian military forces. High altitude bombing takes out critical military and infrastructure targets but also indiscriminately kills many civilians. In the close-range combat of the past 18 months many civilians leave an area as artillery bombardment becomes intolerable and then the armies fight it out. Many civilians are still killed, but perhaps not so many as from heavy bombing.

    That is the way it looks to me.

    Replies: @LatW, @Mikel

    More extensive high altitude bombing would be counter-productive for the Russian mission which is apparently to protect civilians while killing NeoNazis

    You do realize that the troops are the relatives of these civilians? It is the sons, husbands, dads, boyfriends, and yes, wives and moms and young girlfriends of these mysterious civilians, that are being killed, maimed and tormented in front of their eyes. Everyone is being tormented by Russia. Geez, Planet MacGregor is a really misanthropic place.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @LatW

    I do realize the locals and many of the troops are related. I realize many of the troops are attempting to defend their homeland against outside invaders. Unfortunately this is often true in proxy wars, but doesn't change the reality that the war is the West/USA/NATO against Russia and is not really about Ukraine. That makes it all the more tragic for the Ukrainians who got caught up in a mess their leaders should have avoided.

    I don't live on Planet Macgregor. I am from the real world where a nuclear World War 3 is to be avoided at all costs.

    Replies: @LatW

  544. @Beckow
    @LatW


    In this case, timing was crucial – the “story” came out at the worst possible moment
     
    That's the whole point, to time it well (again Goebels). Kiev has also timed the "kidnapped kids" stories to rile up its "militias" and some Western emotional fools. All wars now tend to be an emotional circus in the media.

    ...separatist movements across Russia, yet the West never took advantage of it
     
    Ahh, Chechnya?

    there are no two sides to it, it’s actually somewhat asymmetric
     
    The charm of all wars is that each side fervently believes it. When examined it is never true. Let me remind you that it was Nato and Kiev who came up with the cockamamie idea to move Nato to Ukraine - of course, you see that as "friendly", or sometimes even deny that was the plan. That kind takes the cake when it comes 'symmetry'...

    Some time has already passed since then, and I’m not sure Kosovo is the best example...
    many do argue that the solution was not fair.
     
    Really? So there is a statute of limitations on changing borders? Let's see, Crimea and Donbas have been 9 years, how much longer? Kosovo is the "best example" and a precedent: the same basic situation, force was used to change borders - amazingly all the West is taking the exactly opposite view. How f..ed do you have to be to do that?

    ... 'many argue that the Kosovo solution was not fair"...so, it is ok then? Nato bombs, kills people to change borders, but maybe there are some voices in the West who timidly say "well, maybe that was unfair..." - and voila, you just let it go. I am sure in the next few years we will find many voices in Russia who will say that the whole Ukie thing was "unfair". Now we see how it is done, even the dissident voices have a role...:)


    ...the principle of territorial integrity is a good one... – enough populations have a stake in it ...To start randomly partitioning countries with the use of force is not something that the world will readily accept.
     
    True. And yet the superior Western populations readily accepted it in Kosovo. A few months of Goebels-like propaganda was all that was needed. It is hard to put it back in the box. I would suggest that before preaching to the others, maybe the West should reexamine its own actions and hold the responsible people accountable. The only way to lead is by example...

    Replies: @songbird, @AP, @LatW

    That’s the whole point, to time it well

    Well, then don’t complain when there are Russian speaking victims because this kind of intervention leads exactly to that.

    Ahh, Chechnya?

    Chechnya is practically an independent country and a nation that has fought for its independence for hundreds of years. They even have a government in exile. And during the Chechen wars the West helped very little, the Chechens were on their own, with limited supplies. The Ummah probably helped them more than anyone.

    The Donbas was never anywhere near like Chechnya, they don’t have a monolithic nation to separate smoothly (not that that would be a reason to let them), and the Donbas rebels recently admitted themselves that their uprising was quelled, but then “miracuosly”, Russian troops entered Ukraine to help keep the “uprising” going. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. If Russia had not intervened militarily, the “uprising” would’ve stopped and the war would not have begun. The full scale war started on February 2022 is just a highly inflamed phase of the larger war.

    Besides, what I had in mind is not examples like Chechnya, but more like Ingria, Kenig, Komi, Tatarstan, the Far East, independent Russian formations, the West never worked with these, probably because they have cultural inhibitions (and there is not much status in working with these seemingly powerless entities).

    The West interfered when Serbs were massacring their minorities, but they will not interfere directly even if Ukrainians are being massacred in much larger numbers. All the morality has gone out of the window with this war.

    That kind takes the cake when it comes ‘symmetry’…

    Again, we’re talking about two different things here. The West never interfered on Russia proper. Even though there are examples where Russia’s neighbors would’ve had a moral right to be active (where there are ancestral cultural ties), the way that Russia interfered on the independent Ukrainian territory. This is crucial. Ukraine has diaspora all over the place, in the Far East, in Southern Russia. Yet Ukraine has never messed with Russia proper, up until now (and even Budanov is doing it mildly, not even comparable to what Russia has done).

    And yet the superior Western populations readily accepted it in Kosovo.

    I would say right now, it is actually two large countries for which the principle of territorial integrity is of utmost importance – China (with Taiwan and Uyghurs) and Russia (still an empire, technically, with a strange power vertical). It’s just that large countries typically are ok with smaller countries having to compromise, but they will not compromise themselves. It’s all mostly geopolitical anyway.

  545. @songbird
    I know a lot of people are blocked from reading RT, but I thought this article was pretty funny:
    Pope praises ‘epic times’ of Mongolian Empire
    The sprawling empire of Genghis Khan ensured an “absence of conflicts” that the modern world lacks, the Pontiff has said

    Pope Francis has offered his take on the largest contiguous land empire in history, the Mongol Empire, praising the massive 13th-century state for its “absence of conflicts,” as well as for “embracing” various lands under its rule.

    The Pontiff made the remarks last week during his Apostolic Journey to Mongolia, extolling the country’s present-day “religious freedom” and speaking highly of the “epic times of the Mongolian empire.”

    “The fact that the empire could embrace such distant and varied lands over the centuries bears witness to the remarkable ability of your ancestors to acknowledge the outstanding qualities of the peoples present in its immense territory and to put those qualities at the service of a common development,” the Pope stated in his address.

    The Mongol Empire model “should be valued and re-proposed in our own day,” he declared...

    https://www.rt.com/news/582438-pope-epic-mongol-empire/

    If I follow, he wants to convert Mongolians to Catholicism, while they are lying low and might accept it, and then increase their TFR to the point where they can start conquering again.

    Am not sure a Mongolian pope who grew up hawking and riding on the steppe would be a bad idea.

    Replies: @Beckow, @LatW, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    The Pope has praised a lot of “epic times” lately, I wonder if he will make the full circle and praise the “epic times” of The Crusades. 🙂

    Mongolia is actually a very calm and civilized country these days. They even have a functioning multi-party democracy. And that statue is awesome.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @LatW


    I wonder if he will make the full circle and praise the “epic times” of The Crusades.
     
    I'm not entirely sure that Progressives wouldn't praise the Crusades, if not for their identification with the West.

    For one thing, it was probably the first time in history that people who ranged over such a diverse landscape of geography, politics, and ethnicity came together without being tributary states or peoples in some Empire, but rather through some spiritual connection and a call to work together.

    And they came together to protect diverse peoples from the incursions of empire and conquest.

    Mongolia is actually a very calm and civilized country these days. They even have a functioning multi-party democracy.
     
    Didn't AK reference some novel about an a star-crossed pair of homos, one Armenian, one Azerbaijani, that was rather bizarrely printed in Ulaanbaatar?
  546. @LatW
    @QCIC


    More extensive high altitude bombing would be counter-productive for the Russian mission which is apparently to protect civilians while killing NeoNazis
     
    You do realize that the troops are the relatives of these civilians? It is the sons, husbands, dads, boyfriends, and yes, wives and moms and young girlfriends of these mysterious civilians, that are being killed, maimed and tormented in front of their eyes. Everyone is being tormented by Russia. Geez, Planet MacGregor is a really misanthropic place.

    Replies: @QCIC

    I do realize the locals and many of the troops are related. I realize many of the troops are attempting to defend their homeland against outside invaders. Unfortunately this is often true in proxy wars, but doesn’t change the reality that the war is the West/USA/NATO against Russia and is not really about Ukraine. That makes it all the more tragic for the Ukrainians who got caught up in a mess their leaders should have avoided.

    I don’t live on Planet Macgregor. I am from the real world where a nuclear World War 3 is to be avoided at all costs.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @QCIC


    I do realize the locals and many of the troops are related.
     
    Let me correct you - the locals and ALL or most of the troops are closely related (mothers' sons).

    The troops ARE the locals. In the case of foreigners, who are comparatively few, they are close friends and allies, or close neighbors (such as Belarusians, Poles or Georgians).


    That makes it all the more tragic for the Ukrainians who got caught up in a mess their leaders should have avoided.
     
    I agree with this one. Ukraine should've never allowed itself to be disarmed. This thing should've been avoided at all costs:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction

    The question is why they disarmed Ukraine (and other post-Soviet states), but not Russia. They created a completely artificial and harmful situation and that sowed the seeds for this war. If it wasn't for this, there may not have been a war at all. This was a fatal mistake.

    Kuchma and Kravchuk, despite all the criticisms, weren't such bad statesmen, but they clearly lacked the balls to stand up to the US (or any other big powers). That whole period was just so naive. To believe that Russia would become "democratic" when they have never been that way in their entire history (except for veche)... artists, musicians and naive youths can make such mistaken assumptions, but seasoned politicians?

    Replies: @QCIC, @Wokechoke

  547. @Beckow
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    ...For his time Genghis Khan was progressive....If a guy could fight, Genghis would take him in....heaps of skulls...
     
    You could say the same about Hitler and the British Empire. Of course, with some modifications regarding diversity. The poor Mongols ended up as a spent-up force, declining into peevish insignificance.

    It looks like that may be the fate of Germans in the long run. This warlike progressive thing doesn't work very well...:)

    Replies: @Coconuts

    Hitler?

  548. @QCIC
    @LatW

    I do realize the locals and many of the troops are related. I realize many of the troops are attempting to defend their homeland against outside invaders. Unfortunately this is often true in proxy wars, but doesn't change the reality that the war is the West/USA/NATO against Russia and is not really about Ukraine. That makes it all the more tragic for the Ukrainians who got caught up in a mess their leaders should have avoided.

    I don't live on Planet Macgregor. I am from the real world where a nuclear World War 3 is to be avoided at all costs.

    Replies: @LatW

    I do realize the locals and many of the troops are related.

    Let me correct you – the locals and ALL or most of the troops are closely related (mothers’ sons).

    The troops ARE the locals. In the case of foreigners, who are comparatively few, they are close friends and allies, or close neighbors (such as Belarusians, Poles or Georgians).

    That makes it all the more tragic for the Ukrainians who got caught up in a mess their leaders should have avoided.

    I agree with this one. Ukraine should’ve never allowed itself to be disarmed. This thing should’ve been avoided at all costs:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction

    The question is why they disarmed Ukraine (and other post-Soviet states), but not Russia. They created a completely artificial and harmful situation and that sowed the seeds for this war. If it wasn’t for this, there may not have been a war at all. This was a fatal mistake.

    Kuchma and Kravchuk, despite all the criticisms, weren’t such bad statesmen, but they clearly lacked the balls to stand up to the US (or any other big powers). That whole period was just so naive. To believe that Russia would become “democratic” when they have never been that way in their entire history (except for veche)… artists, musicians and naive youths can make such mistaken assumptions, but seasoned politicians?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @LatW

    I think Nunn-Lugar seemed like a good idea at the time. It probably was fine until we found out the West was supporting development of targeted anti-Slav bioweapons in Ukraine!

    There are a lot of what-ifs. Russia could have kept Ukraine and Belarus as part of a tight Russian-speaking confederation. But this would have been too strong for the West. With some internal cooperation and privatization this group of people could have rapidly become a powerhouse which is exactly what the West did not want.

    I see Macgregor and Ritter as somewhat remorseful cold-warriors. Their predictions are obviously foolish but their general understanding of Russian military technology and the Russian-Soviet military thought process seems solid. I think it is difficult for these former military men to understand that Russia is choosing to fight a war of attrition when it might be possible to wrap things up more quickly in a shock and awe campaign. This confuses a lot of people.

    Replies: @LatW

    , @Wokechoke
    @LatW

    Ukraine was being set up as punching bag.
    You’re the naive one.

  549. @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    The Cuban missile crisis was a short standoff with little scope for accidental outcomes.
     
    There was a limited time horizon, but the scope for misunderstandings leading to mishaps leading to calamity was quite substantial.

    Of course the piecemeal strategy means that many more Ukrainian soldiers and civilians need to die in order to keep Western lives safe.
     
    Russia didn't and doesn't pose any immediate threat to western lives. Russia is only a threat - an all too real threat - to her neighbors. Perhaps you spoke hastily.

    The longer this conflict goes on, the more I am souring on Russia. I was never a fan of that country - as I could demonstrate through multiple posts dating back to when AK and his Russian troll army showed up here - but I did hope they would prevail quickly, take control of Donbas, and that would be that. I guess I completely misread the situation (since I hardly care about Russia and don't keep informed about goings on there, and skip 90% of Russia posts here), because Russia seems to have been after a great deal more than that. In their own way, they are as unreasonable as the Ukrainian maximalist side.

    Replies: @Mikel

    Russia is only a threat – an all too real threat – to her neighbors. Perhaps you spoke hastily.

    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea, as they keep saying they will with Western support?

    Of course the Russians are a threat to Western lives. That’s the only reason why the West is only doing a fraction of what it could do to stop the invasion. If the Russians were unable to threaten Western lives (tens of millions of Western lives to be accurate) a No Fly Zone would have been declared on day one and an Operation Desert Storm would have been prepared to give them the Saddam treatment, including perhaps the public hanging of Putin.

    The problem I was speaking about is that even with all those precautions and the relatively deferential treatment the Russians are receiving compared to much less dangerous enemies, we may end up having a nuclear exchange all the same. The longer this war goes on, the higher the probability of that happening for purely accidental reasons (Romania has just confirmed that “part of a drone” fell on its territory).

    Perhaps it was worth it to run that risk when the threat extended to our way of life and we faced the real risk of Communism spreading to the whole world. But what threat are we risking nuclear holocaust now for? The right of anyone who wants to join NATO, no matter how many thousands of miles away from the Atlantic Ocean they are, to do so? The possibility of some rearrangement of the old Soviet administrative borders to accommodate them to some real ethnic realities on the ground that would threaten us in the West… exactly how?

    If, for any internal reason, Spain was to disintegrate and new independent countries emerged from its current 17 autonomous communities, I can imagine many people ending up on the wrong side of the new borders. It would be a miracle if at some point or another, once the initial shock of whatever caused the disintegration faded away, some of those people didn’t start demanding some rearrangement along more reasonable ethnic or linguistic lines. And it would be an even bigger miracle if the Castilians/Madridians weren’t the ones making the most noise and seeking to recover some of their lost prestige on the peninsula. But wouldn’t it be totally insane for outside countries to go a planet-destructing war to make sure that the old 17 Spanish administrative borders remain intact and Castilians never get their aspirations fulfilled?

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikel

    I think the threat (or challenge, if one prefers) here is not so much the possible disintegration of some states from a bottom up process, but a threat of grabbing against the will of the locals (and in Ukraine's case against the will of a very large population) and being rewarded for it (or at least not being punished or held accountable). So return to late 1930s or 1940s. The problem is that a nuclear armed state is doing this to a non-nuclear state that was deliberately disarmed. That's a very bad example for the world. Basically this encourages various dinosaurs (in Thorfinnssonian terms) to run around wild and act feral.

    The problem is that up to now there were no nuclear states doing this, and that's new - and, of course, quite unsettling. But this needs to be solved for the world first and foremost, not even just for Ukraine and Russia or Europe. The situation is very complicated because one cannot move either way - you cannot let the dinosaur show a bad example to other dinosaurs, but containing it also entails risk.

    In this particular case it might be overhyped (Russia proper is not being attacked and that would be more serious, even if the Russians believe they're on their land, instinctively they know they are not, Crimea is the only issue here, they don't really care about Donbas, but there is a chance that they could swallow even the loss of Crimea, they don't want to die - even if there is a risk).

    And the nuclear risk is not the only problem here. There are vast and absolutely hideous war crimes taking place and the world is essentially enabling these war crimes at this point. Not just the US but the UN and all the rest.

    Remember also that the Ukrainians are a donor ethnos - they have bolstered other nations (at their own expense) - there will be no new Ukrainians in their place, this is it. Once they are gone, it will be a big black hole in the middle of Europe. No more buffer, no more donor ethnos.

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @Wokechoke
    @Mikel

    This is what happened in the Spanish Civil War recently enough.

    , @silviosilver
    @Mikel

    It's difficult to respond to this post because you're saying too many contradictory things - or that is how it seems to me.

    You earlier expressed a wish for this conflict to be over as soon as possible. Taken at face value, that means you should be fine with withdrawing all support for Ukraine and letting the Russians have their way with them. Then it's done, conflict over.

    But at the same time you contend that Ukrainians are fighting to keep western lives safe, that Russia is a threat to the west. So seen this way, Ukraine would simply be the first domino to fall. In that case, it would be proper to continue to arm Ukrainians, even to ramp up the aid.

    But then you caution that if Ukraine is to be supplied with arms, it should be gradual, so as not to provoke the Russians into doing something crazy like launching a nuclear strike. Which in effect means prolonging the conflict - quite contrary to your desire to see it end as soon as possible.

    I don't see how these different positions can be reconciled.

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @AP
    @Mikel


    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea
     
    Since launching all those missiles will be the total end of Russia, they will not be launched for the sake of anything in Ukraine, including Crimea. Losing Crimea would not be grounds for self-extinction by Russia.

    If Russia took Hawaii or Guam, would America respond by ending the USA by launching nukes against Russia? Of course not.

    You will say that the Putin regime may fall if Crimea falls, so Putin will end Russia and the world in response to the possibility of losing power. That, too, is unrealistic. He is not a death-cultist. He has children and grandchildren. As do many (most) in his circle. The Russian high command is not a collection of bin Ladens.

    This fear is convenient for Russian imperialists, of course.

    If the theoretical risk of being nuked by Russia prevents Ukraine from getting help, why would it be different for Estonia? Finland? Poland, even? Germany would be a prize too.

    Your approach essentially gives carte blanche to any nuclear power to invade or bomb whomever it wants, because of the "risk" of nuclear war. A "pro peace" approach? The response will be for everyone to get nukes, dramatically increasing the probability of them falling into the hands of non-state actors who would be incapable of a global nuclear holocaust but much more likely to create a localized one somewhere. Nuclear Poland, nuclear Japan, nuclear Iran, Egypt, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Brazil, etc.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel, @Dmitry

  550. @Coconuts
    @Mikel


    I don’t really understand what you’re saying here or how those new kooky definitions of what an animal species is affect the matter of male celibacy.
     
    They weren't new, one was from Darwin and the other one was from Aristotle. It was related to making strong normative generalisations about human nature without looking at any data.

    Some men are born with less sexual drive than others in the same way that some people are born less gluttonous than others but that doesn’t matter too much.
     
    Assuming that the analogy between sex drive and appetite for food holds. Until a few decades ago heterosexual non-celibacy would mean reproduction and having children, more complex social undertaking than eating if the non-celibates are part of a group of any size.

    Maybe you could look at reproductive success of either groups or kin including the celibates to test whether the behaviour brought some reproductive advantage.


    Thinking that this overcompensation response only affects food but not other human instincts doesn’t look very realistic to me.
     
    This seems an intuition about analogies so far, it might hold or it may not. In terms of reproductive success it may not hold, some research seems to indicate that.

    But sadly in Puritan societies like the American one (and I think increasingly in most other Western countries) this pedophilia taboo is enforced in a pretty backassward way, mixing real child molestation with things that have nothing to do with it, like the guy in his 20s who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and is made to spend the rest of his life in a sexual predator registry.
     
    We don't really have that in the UK. The teachers thing I also associate with America, Daily Mail used to have stories like that from the US reasonably regularly. Involving British teachers it seems rarer, there are less stories about it at least.

    When I was the age of some of those students I would have maybe given a kidney for having sex with some of my female teachers. In fact, one of my own first experiences was with a woman 24 years older than me but I’m not sure I’d be able to metoo her now if she was American, I was already 19 at the time.
     
    That's true about some of the better looking female teachers. I heard an interesting explanation of Metoo, that it has come from a mismatch between lower female socio-sexuality and liberal feminist ideas about emancipation. And the US is the most liberal country, so it is strongest there.

    Social taboos around sex may be like a kind of market regulation, trying to prevent monopolies, oversupply of commodity, misallocation of resources etc. There will always be some of them, what they are will relate to the kind of society people create.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    reproductive advantage.

    Not exactly answering your post, but to say some thing which was natural historically, doesn’t mean it would be good for the human genetics, as this concept of “good” is based in our value or desire, while the “natural” is just what reality has been in the past in relation to the environment of those times.

    An example, is the age of reproduction of humans.

    If you wanted to increase the extension of life there is selection pressure for human genetics, you would ban reproduction before age 40.

    To ban reproduction before age 40, would be not very natural, but the result would be good in terms of increasing the health of the human population across generations.

    Selected traits for almost all evolution’s history are to allow survival to reproductive age which is only around 16-18 for humans, life expectancy was around 25. For the non-human ancestors of humans it would be mostly lower and lower the more generations they go to the past. .

    Other animals with the closest common ancestor with humans are Chimpanzees and Bonobos, with similar life expectancy outside the zoo.

    Although humans who lived to 40 could potentially have more children, could add more iteration in the gene pool, than someone who died in the first pregnancy. So there would be some selection for surviving pregnancy.

    In all the developed Western countries today (except USA), people are expected to live over 80. So, for more than half of life, we don’t have benefit of selection pressure on our ancestors’ genes adapted for this life expectancy.

    An example of the film “Idiocracy” in the beginning, is a middle class couple using contraception, delaying children until they are older and older, while the working class family has many children already.

    Of course, if the middle class pattern is more common in the population especially if you banned people having children before 40, it would increase the proportion of human’s life there is a selection pressure on the population.

    There would be genetic selection for women who have later menopause, are more healthy at age 40. After enough generations, average 50 year old people would look like average 30 year old people today as there would be biological adaption with more resources for continuing health.

    Then you would raise the ban on reproduction to age 45, age 50 etc, at some point there would be a limit.

    the US is the most liberal

    You mean “least liberal” in terms of social liberalism, although liberal in terms of company law, taxation, technology etc.

    In social life, the US is the most religious and puritan culture outside of Asia/Africa. If you include only industrialized or developed countries, it is the most religious and puritan culture outside the Middle East.

    I would say, there is confusion in terms of the idea of traditional and liberal. USA is one of more nontraditional cultures, or it is a culture which bases its tradition on parts of modernity like machines and technology.

    Americans are nontraditional to an extent, “conservative Republicans” are supporting covering the country with asphalt. A sign of the “conservative values” in America are driving pickup trucks, supporting stealth military planes, deregulating laws about destruction of the natural environment.

    US is also the technology leader. Technology leader in the 21st century is “owner of the means of production”. So, the other cultures are modulated by the people who operate the technology and the American influence in culture will increase. For example, some parts of the “more liberal attitude” about sexual life of countries in comparison with the US, like France or Italy can be removed by the filter of MeToo, which is not negative in this example, but it is a sign of how America has become “owner of the means of production” in this century because they are leader of technology.

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @Dmitry


    Not exactly answering your post, but to say some thing which was natural historically, doesn’t mean it would be good for the human genetics, as this concept of “good” is based in our value or desire...
     
    Well, it is definitely based on our desire, because the good, or something we take to be good is the usual object of our desire. My opinion on fact/value division varies, sometimes it seems more plausible than others, I'm not sure whether anything at all can really be willed as the good.

    Hume has that example of being prepared to destroy the whole world to avoid a graze on his thumb as not being contrary to reason, which if fact/value applies it wouldn't be.


    To ban reproduction before age 40, would be not very natural, but the result would be good in terms of increasing the health of the human population across generations.
     
    It may be impossible in practice, because too many other genes would be lost in such large numbers of people failing to reproduce. First there would be all the people who can't conceive after 40 who would fail to reproduce, then a chunk of the next generation who might have the usual issues coming from older pregnancies, and so on.

    It seems a bit like that idea about removing modern medical care from mothers and children so infant mortality rises (it would ultimately strengthen the remaining population genetically), but from an ethical pov no one will try to do this. More of the population would survive doing this, but there would be more suffering. In the 40+ mothers there may be less suffering but a lot smaller population.

    , @Coconuts
    @Dmitry


    You mean “least liberal” in terms of social liberalism, although liberal in terms of company law, taxation, technology etc.
     
    It must be one of the most liberal in terms of political liberalism; the individualism, contractualism, lower taxation, freedom of speech etc. Most European countries seem to lean more to the social- democratic end of liberalism.

    Or like the French:

    https://unherd.com/2023/09/in-france-money-is-dirtier-than-sex/

    I remember De Tocqueville's old theory in his 'Democracy in America' that the American version of democracy was somehow inspired/sustained by the Puritan spirit.


    In social life, the US is the most religious and puritan culture outside of Asia/Africa.
     
    It seems to be a mixture (which would fit with the individualism?), because it still is a major producer and innovator in fields like porn, all kinds of progressive social causes and identity politics (feminism, gay liberation, trans etc.) and counter cultural products like red-pill. At the same time as it retains a religious culture.

    For example, some parts of the “more liberal attitude” about sexual life of countries in comparison with the US, like France or Italy can be removed by the filter of MeToo, which is not negative in this example, but it is a sign of how America has become “owner of the means of production” in this century because they are leader of technology.
     
    It might have been the case for even longer, hearing about the Congress for Cultural Freedom and other affiliated organizations, the US seemed to have been sustaining the cultural activities of large parts of the non-Communist European left for years after WW2 with its financial resources.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  551. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    Russia is only a threat – an all too real threat – to her neighbors. Perhaps you spoke hastily.
     
    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea, as they keep saying they will with Western support?

    Of course the Russians are a threat to Western lives. That's the only reason why the West is only doing a fraction of what it could do to stop the invasion. If the Russians were unable to threaten Western lives (tens of millions of Western lives to be accurate) a No Fly Zone would have been declared on day one and an Operation Desert Storm would have been prepared to give them the Saddam treatment, including perhaps the public hanging of Putin.

    The problem I was speaking about is that even with all those precautions and the relatively deferential treatment the Russians are receiving compared to much less dangerous enemies, we may end up having a nuclear exchange all the same. The longer this war goes on, the higher the probability of that happening for purely accidental reasons (Romania has just confirmed that "part of a drone" fell on its territory).

    Perhaps it was worth it to run that risk when the threat extended to our way of life and we faced the real risk of Communism spreading to the whole world. But what threat are we risking nuclear holocaust now for? The right of anyone who wants to join NATO, no matter how many thousands of miles away from the Atlantic Ocean they are, to do so? The possibility of some rearrangement of the old Soviet administrative borders to accommodate them to some real ethnic realities on the ground that would threaten us in the West... exactly how?

    If, for any internal reason, Spain was to disintegrate and new independent countries emerged from its current 17 autonomous communities, I can imagine many people ending up on the wrong side of the new borders. It would be a miracle if at some point or another, once the initial shock of whatever caused the disintegration faded away, some of those people didn't start demanding some rearrangement along more reasonable ethnic or linguistic lines. And it would be an even bigger miracle if the Castilians/Madridians weren't the ones making the most noise and seeking to recover some of their lost prestige on the peninsula. But wouldn't it be totally insane for outside countries to go a planet-destructing war to make sure that the old 17 Spanish administrative borders remain intact and Castilians never get their aspirations fulfilled?

    Replies: @LatW, @Wokechoke, @silviosilver, @AP

    I think the threat (or challenge, if one prefers) here is not so much the possible disintegration of some states from a bottom up process, but a threat of grabbing against the will of the locals (and in Ukraine’s case against the will of a very large population) and being rewarded for it (or at least not being punished or held accountable). So return to late 1930s or 1940s. The problem is that a nuclear armed state is doing this to a non-nuclear state that was deliberately disarmed. That’s a very bad example for the world. Basically this encourages various dinosaurs (in Thorfinnssonian terms) to run around wild and act feral.

    The problem is that up to now there were no nuclear states doing this, and that’s new – and, of course, quite unsettling. But this needs to be solved for the world first and foremost, not even just for Ukraine and Russia or Europe. The situation is very complicated because one cannot move either way – you cannot let the dinosaur show a bad example to other dinosaurs, but containing it also entails risk.

    In this particular case it might be overhyped (Russia proper is not being attacked and that would be more serious, even if the Russians believe they’re on their land, instinctively they know they are not, Crimea is the only issue here, they don’t really care about Donbas, but there is a chance that they could swallow even the loss of Crimea, they don’t want to die – even if there is a risk).

    And the nuclear risk is not the only problem here. There are vast and absolutely hideous war crimes taking place and the world is essentially enabling these war crimes at this point. Not just the US but the UN and all the rest.

    Remember also that the Ukrainians are a donor ethnos – they have bolstered other nations (at their own expense) – there will be no new Ukrainians in their place, this is it. Once they are gone, it will be a big black hole in the middle of Europe. No more buffer, no more donor ethnos.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @LatW


    I think the threat (or challenge, if one prefers) here is not so much the possible disintegration of some states from a bottom up process, but a threat of grabbing against the will of the locals (and in Ukraine’s case against the will of a very large population) and being rewarded for it
     
    Well, yes, no doubt about it. In the Spanish disintegration example I put if Castile started grabbing territories from its neighbors by force after having recognized those neighbors' sovereignty I would certainly be opposed to that, especially if they attacked Basque lands. But I don't think anyone should risk nuclear war to prevent the Castilians from setting a bad precedent. A nuclear war would not even help the Basques at all, or any other of the new countries threatened by Castilian revanchism. There's a huge disproportionality between the evil you would be trying to prevent and the global catastrophe you'd be risking to unleash.

    The matter would be even much worse if your policies were arguably to blame for Castile's aggressive behavior. For example, if you had invited all new Iberian countries except for Castile to join NATO, had sided with these Iberian countries in their ethnic disputes with Castile and had supported a rebellion in a neighbor of Castile with a sizeable Castilian population in order to to topple its pro-Castilian government. Perhaps Castile never had any concrete intention of invading any neighbor but she perceived all of these hostile moves as threats against her and her old paranoid and imperialistic tendencies eventually returned with a vengeance.
  552. @AP
    @Mikel


    Probably. But the calculation seems to be that the Russians would escalate dangerously if Ukraine is given all those weapons at once so it’s better to play Russian roulette by dragging the conflict on and providing the same weapons piecemeal in the hopes that the Russians will get used to the pain little by little and no irremediable accidents will happen
     
    Maybe, maybe not.

    Perhaps the goal was to lull the Russians into a long-term war, the better to destroy their military capacity, rather than to go for a quick and reasonable peace that would have left their military mostly intact.

    However, the pro-Russian policy of the Obama and early Biden administrations suggests ambivalence - opposition to Russia’s outrageous invasion, but also an element of fear and quasi-appeasement.

    Btw, shouldn’t the pro-Russian shills on here be huge fans of Obama and his administration? This could be them talking:



    https://twitter.com/macaesbruno/status/745829862137552900?s=46&t=Qz3eXZWFYIvyHmaAk32tcg

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Obama’s relation to the Ukrainian crisis was not simple. It was Euromaidan while he was president, on the other hand, the response for the annexation of Crimea was relatively moderate, he probably was causing a lot of diplomatic isolation for Russia as the situation after 2014 was already bad.

    The plan to invade Ukraine was developed when Trump is president, although maybe the final approval of the plan is only while Biden is president.

    Part of the failure of the invasion, although with many other reasons for the failure, is because of misprediction of Biden’s response. Biden has been very subtle how he would respond. If Trump won the election in 2020, there would have been probably less support for Ukraine and therefore the difficulty level would be lower.

    into a long-term war, the better to destroy their military capacity,

    I would assume it is not intentional, but it operates like a mouse trap designed by a hunter against a not intelligent prey.

    If the US has given advanced weapons to Kiev before 2022 like Patriot missiles, then Russia would not have invaded in 2022.

    But the US avoided giving advanced weapons to Ukraine. The weakness of Ukraine was like the cheese in the mouse trap, so Moscow views Ukraine as an undefended food. Then after the mouse goes to eat the cheese, NATO begins to give heavy weapons to Ukraine. This is now like a trap falling on the mouse’s head and it’s too late to escape with losing some bodyparts.

    Although we can assume it was not such an intentional plan, as Europe and US were not resolving their oil/gas problems before the invasion.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Dmitry


    Obama’s relation to the Ukrainian crisis was not simple. It was Euromaidan while he was president, on the other hand, the response for the annexation of Crimea was relatively moderate, he probably was causing a lot of diplomatic isolation for Russia as the situation after 2014 was already bad.
     
    He was very weak militarily, and the sanctions were not terribly strong, either. The quote I provided captured it It's what pro-Russians on Unz say. I'm surprised they are not partisans of Obama.

    The plan to invade Ukraine was developed when Trump is president, although maybe the final approval of the plan is only while Biden is president.
     
    It may have been developed even earlier. The first moves (like the practice run) were under Biden.

    Part of the failure of the invasion, although with many other reasons for the failure, is because of misprediction of Biden’s response. Biden has been very subtle how he would respond.
     
    Biden was weak prior to the invasion. He continued to state what America would not do - it would not provide heavy missiles, it would not provide tanks, etc. Well, since it wouldn't do these things, Putin figured it would be an easy invasion.

    But then Biden did.


    If Trump won the election in 2020, there would have been probably less support for Ukraine and therefore the difficulty level would be lower.
     
    Trump's team during his presidency consisted of people who were more pro-Ukraine than the Joe Biden administration (and much more so, than the Obama administration). Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks compared to Biden. As is Trump's friend Lindsay Graham. Bolton left under poor circumstances but the others did not.

    Trump's policies were also more aggressive towards Russia. He attacked Nordstream with sanctions, shutting it down, pursued energy policies that made oil and gas cheaper, condemned Germany and Europe for its dependence on Russian gas, and provided lethal weapons to Ukraine (something that Obama had refused to do). The bizarre offer to take Greenland was probably about containing Russia in the Arctic and locking up more potential energy sources.

    In addition, Biden's botched Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump's watch a bunch of Wagner mercenaries were slaughtered by US troops in Syria, and the Iranian general was killed.

    I suspect that Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won reelection. I had a sinking feeling after Biden won, that Ukraine would be in danger.

    I don't think this was because Trump himself cares a lot either way. He may have a pro-Russian team this time, like with Vivek. Or not. Graham and Pompeo are still in his good graces. His vague 24 hour plan may be bad for Russia if Russia doesn't play along with him. Until his team becomes clear I am not supporting him, though, as I did in 2020.

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry


    If the US has given advanced weapons to Kiev before 2022 like Patriot missiles, then Russia would not have invaded in 2022.
     
    Or Russia would have concluded that its fears about the situation in Ukraine being an existential threat to Russia were indeed justified and would have thus invaded Ukraine even more quickly than it did in real life, presumably with similar results as in real life.

    Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba made a US invasion of Cuba more, not less, likely in 1962.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  553. Now there is an inner market fuel&oils crisis emerging in RF for whatever reason – Patrushev’s son, who is also agriculture minister there, is whining publicly and offering to ban exports:

    The head of the Ministry of agriculture: the fuel crisis can disrupt the harvest

    According to Dmitry Patrushev, now the problems are not so much with the cost of fuel, but with its physical presence.

    “We will now stop harvesting, and we will not be weeded out for winter crops. It will be a disaster,” Patrushev said at a meeting of the committees on control and agrarian issues of the State Duma on Wednesday. – “And the second – well, these are thoughts aloud. Maybe, in general, now temporarily close the export of petroleum products until we stabilize the situation on the domestic market?” he suggested.

    https://t.me/papagaz/14822

    Reasons are bit unclear for this, as so far there’s certainly no much lack of raw oil in RF market, but according some rumours, at least several domestic RF oil refineries were experiencing troubles with importing spare technical parts, so planned repairing procedures and timelines might be extended notably, thus reducing overall outputs of finished refined production.

  554. @QCIC
    @Mikel

    The beginning of the SMO was very strange and has not been publicly explained. I subscribe to a "desperate feint theory" where the Russians were forced to react on short notice and did so with a feint in the North which predictably incurred very heavy losses but got the job done. The job was probably protecting Crimea from a sneak attack of some sort.

    More extensive high altitude bombing would be counter-productive for the Russian mission which is apparently to protect civilians while killing NeoNazis, destroying NATO interlopers and wiping out Ukrainian military forces. High altitude bombing takes out critical military and infrastructure targets but also indiscriminately kills many civilians. In the close-range combat of the past 18 months many civilians leave an area as artillery bombardment becomes intolerable and then the armies fight it out. Many civilians are still killed, but perhaps not so many as from heavy bombing.

    That is the way it looks to me.

    Replies: @LatW, @Mikel

    That is the way it looks to me.

    That’s the way it looks to you because you are forcing yourself to ignore plenty of crucial facts. For example, that the Russians lost plenty of planes in those initial high altitude bombings (even though the Ukrainians only had refurbished Soviet AA defenses at the time) and Russia has never dared to send its air force back into Ukrainian airspace outside of short incursions very close to the front lines.

    Contrary to what HMS was saying the other day, I don’t think that the pro-Russian delusions are the worst ones you can find nowadays. Gender-related delusions are even crazier and more widespread in the West (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/google-search-tells-users-men-can-menstruate-and-that-its-not-a-feminine-thing/). But they’re pretty bad nonetheless, especially considering that it’s also a purely Western phenomenon. The Russians themselves are much more realistic, no matter how pro-Putin they are.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mikel

    The Russians have lost a lot of planes including a surprising number of Su-34. Losses of Su-34 are like Ka-52 and Su-25 losses and probably occur mostly during high risk missions. Last time I checked they have not lost any Tu-22, Tu-160, Tu-95 bombers in active combat. Losses on the ground are a different topic.

    Don't underestimate the original Ukrainian ground-based air defenses. They had S-300 and Buk systems which are not that different from Patriots and possibly superior. Plus many formidable shorter range Tor, Tunguska and Osa missile systems. Not to mention older systems which still have a place. I think a great many of these SAMs have been destroyed but I do not have a percentage. Nonetheless, I think massed Russian attacks can take them out and clear a corridor to allow heavy bombing. I believe they would have done this if the battle plans required it.

    I see this as a West vs Russia conflict. Putin is the man at the helm, but the conflict predates him.

  555. @Mikel
    @QCIC


    That is the way it looks to me.
     
    That's the way it looks to you because you are forcing yourself to ignore plenty of crucial facts. For example, that the Russians lost plenty of planes in those initial high altitude bombings (even though the Ukrainians only had refurbished Soviet AA defenses at the time) and Russia has never dared to send its air force back into Ukrainian airspace outside of short incursions very close to the front lines.

    Contrary to what HMS was saying the other day, I don't think that the pro-Russian delusions are the worst ones you can find nowadays. Gender-related delusions are even crazier and more widespread in the West (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/google-search-tells-users-men-can-menstruate-and-that-its-not-a-feminine-thing/). But they're pretty bad nonetheless, especially considering that it's also a purely Western phenomenon. The Russians themselves are much more realistic, no matter how pro-Putin they are.

    Replies: @QCIC

    The Russians have lost a lot of planes including a surprising number of Su-34. Losses of Su-34 are like Ka-52 and Su-25 losses and probably occur mostly during high risk missions. Last time I checked they have not lost any Tu-22, Tu-160, Tu-95 bombers in active combat. Losses on the ground are a different topic.

    Don’t underestimate the original Ukrainian ground-based air defenses. They had S-300 and Buk systems which are not that different from Patriots and possibly superior. Plus many formidable shorter range Tor, Tunguska and Osa missile systems. Not to mention older systems which still have a place. I think a great many of these SAMs have been destroyed but I do not have a percentage. Nonetheless, I think massed Russian attacks can take them out and clear a corridor to allow heavy bombing. I believe they would have done this if the battle plans required it.

    I see this as a West vs Russia conflict. Putin is the man at the helm, but the conflict predates him.

  556. @LatW
    @QCIC


    I do realize the locals and many of the troops are related.
     
    Let me correct you - the locals and ALL or most of the troops are closely related (mothers' sons).

    The troops ARE the locals. In the case of foreigners, who are comparatively few, they are close friends and allies, or close neighbors (such as Belarusians, Poles or Georgians).


    That makes it all the more tragic for the Ukrainians who got caught up in a mess their leaders should have avoided.
     
    I agree with this one. Ukraine should've never allowed itself to be disarmed. This thing should've been avoided at all costs:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction

    The question is why they disarmed Ukraine (and other post-Soviet states), but not Russia. They created a completely artificial and harmful situation and that sowed the seeds for this war. If it wasn't for this, there may not have been a war at all. This was a fatal mistake.

    Kuchma and Kravchuk, despite all the criticisms, weren't such bad statesmen, but they clearly lacked the balls to stand up to the US (or any other big powers). That whole period was just so naive. To believe that Russia would become "democratic" when they have never been that way in their entire history (except for veche)... artists, musicians and naive youths can make such mistaken assumptions, but seasoned politicians?

    Replies: @QCIC, @Wokechoke

    I think Nunn-Lugar seemed like a good idea at the time. It probably was fine until we found out the West was supporting development of targeted anti-Slav bioweapons in Ukraine!

    There are a lot of what-ifs. Russia could have kept Ukraine and Belarus as part of a tight Russian-speaking confederation. But this would have been too strong for the West. With some internal cooperation and privatization this group of people could have rapidly become a powerhouse which is exactly what the West did not want.

    I see Macgregor and Ritter as somewhat remorseful cold-warriors. Their predictions are obviously foolish but their general understanding of Russian military technology and the Russian-Soviet military thought process seems solid. I think it is difficult for these former military men to understand that Russia is choosing to fight a war of attrition when it might be possible to wrap things up more quickly in a shock and awe campaign. This confuses a lot of people.

    • LOL: sudden death
    • Replies: @LatW
    @QCIC


    I think Nunn-Lugar seemed like a good idea at the time.
     
    Of course, trying to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction or mitigate any risks after a totalitarian empire crumbles is a good idea (and America, too, partially disarmed, afaik). But the problem is how it was done, it wasn't done fairly. Maybe they should've allowed each country to retain enough proportionate to what they had or some other formula that didn't leave Ukraine so exposed, defanged, but Russia still able to inherit the nukes and the rest. I even heard that Ukraine was made to give Russia some weapons and Russia is now using those against Ukraine (!!). I understand that they may have done it partly for geopolitical reasons, but look at what happened.

    Just look at this from the Wiki article:

    "This program made important contributions in the disarmament of nuclear warheads in many counties. The Nunn-Lugar program eliminated former strategic weapons outside of Russia. This was most evident in the removal of these weapons in Ukraine,[11] after the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances."

    Look at what they decommissioned (in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan):

    "Weapons deactivated and destroyed under this program include:

    537 ICBMs
    459 ICBM silos
    11 ICBM mobile missile launchers
    128 bombers
    708 nuclear air-to-surface missiles
    408 submarine missile launchers
    496 submarine-launched missiles
    27 nuclear submarines
    194 nuclear test tunnels"

    Bombers? Why and what kind of bombers? So they wouldn't ever fly to Germany just in case? The children and grandchildren demand for the bombers to be returned to Ukraine! (this is only half-jokingly).

    The missile launchers, too, they should've not taken, I understand why they took them, precaution, but had they been left in Ukraine, this could've served as extra security for Ukraine, knowing that they could launch a long range missile.

    Ukrainians participated in creating all those weapons, yet look at what is being done to them now. This is wrong.

    Replies: @LatW

  557. @songbird
    I know a lot of people are blocked from reading RT, but I thought this article was pretty funny:
    Pope praises ‘epic times’ of Mongolian Empire
    The sprawling empire of Genghis Khan ensured an “absence of conflicts” that the modern world lacks, the Pontiff has said

    Pope Francis has offered his take on the largest contiguous land empire in history, the Mongol Empire, praising the massive 13th-century state for its “absence of conflicts,” as well as for “embracing” various lands under its rule.

    The Pontiff made the remarks last week during his Apostolic Journey to Mongolia, extolling the country’s present-day “religious freedom” and speaking highly of the “epic times of the Mongolian empire.”

    “The fact that the empire could embrace such distant and varied lands over the centuries bears witness to the remarkable ability of your ancestors to acknowledge the outstanding qualities of the peoples present in its immense territory and to put those qualities at the service of a common development,” the Pope stated in his address.

    The Mongol Empire model “should be valued and re-proposed in our own day,” he declared...

    https://www.rt.com/news/582438-pope-epic-mongol-empire/

    If I follow, he wants to convert Mongolians to Catholicism, while they are lying low and might accept it, and then increase their TFR to the point where they can start conquering again.

    Am not sure a Mongolian pope who grew up hawking and riding on the steppe would be a bad idea.

    Replies: @Beckow, @LatW, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    The Mongols were in contact with the Vatican, demanded submission from the Pope, the letter was written in Persian

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Güyük_Khan_to_Pope_Innocent_IV

    Ascelin of Lombardia receiving a letter from Pope Innocent IV (left), and remitting it to the Mongol general Baiju (right).

    [MORE]

    • Thanks: songbird
    • Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    https://youtu.be/6jDHRW6fngg?si=r6pS-4AEmUW4Ez1n&t=25

  558. @LatW
    @Mikel

    I think the threat (or challenge, if one prefers) here is not so much the possible disintegration of some states from a bottom up process, but a threat of grabbing against the will of the locals (and in Ukraine's case against the will of a very large population) and being rewarded for it (or at least not being punished or held accountable). So return to late 1930s or 1940s. The problem is that a nuclear armed state is doing this to a non-nuclear state that was deliberately disarmed. That's a very bad example for the world. Basically this encourages various dinosaurs (in Thorfinnssonian terms) to run around wild and act feral.

    The problem is that up to now there were no nuclear states doing this, and that's new - and, of course, quite unsettling. But this needs to be solved for the world first and foremost, not even just for Ukraine and Russia or Europe. The situation is very complicated because one cannot move either way - you cannot let the dinosaur show a bad example to other dinosaurs, but containing it also entails risk.

    In this particular case it might be overhyped (Russia proper is not being attacked and that would be more serious, even if the Russians believe they're on their land, instinctively they know they are not, Crimea is the only issue here, they don't really care about Donbas, but there is a chance that they could swallow even the loss of Crimea, they don't want to die - even if there is a risk).

    And the nuclear risk is not the only problem here. There are vast and absolutely hideous war crimes taking place and the world is essentially enabling these war crimes at this point. Not just the US but the UN and all the rest.

    Remember also that the Ukrainians are a donor ethnos - they have bolstered other nations (at their own expense) - there will be no new Ukrainians in their place, this is it. Once they are gone, it will be a big black hole in the middle of Europe. No more buffer, no more donor ethnos.

    Replies: @Mikel

    I think the threat (or challenge, if one prefers) here is not so much the possible disintegration of some states from a bottom up process, but a threat of grabbing against the will of the locals (and in Ukraine’s case against the will of a very large population) and being rewarded for it

    Well, yes, no doubt about it. In the Spanish disintegration example I put if Castile started grabbing territories from its neighbors by force after having recognized those neighbors’ sovereignty I would certainly be opposed to that, especially if they attacked Basque lands. But I don’t think anyone should risk nuclear war to prevent the Castilians from setting a bad precedent. A nuclear war would not even help the Basques at all, or any other of the new countries threatened by Castilian revanchism. There’s a huge disproportionality between the evil you would be trying to prevent and the global catastrophe you’d be risking to unleash.

    The matter would be even much worse if your policies were arguably to blame for Castile’s aggressive behavior. For example, if you had invited all new Iberian countries except for Castile to join NATO, had sided with these Iberian countries in their ethnic disputes with Castile and had supported a rebellion in a neighbor of Castile with a sizeable Castilian population in order to to topple its pro-Castilian government. Perhaps Castile never had any concrete intention of invading any neighbor but she perceived all of these hostile moves as threats against her and her old paranoid and imperialistic tendencies eventually returned with a vengeance.

  559. @LatW
    @QCIC


    I do realize the locals and many of the troops are related.
     
    Let me correct you - the locals and ALL or most of the troops are closely related (mothers' sons).

    The troops ARE the locals. In the case of foreigners, who are comparatively few, they are close friends and allies, or close neighbors (such as Belarusians, Poles or Georgians).


    That makes it all the more tragic for the Ukrainians who got caught up in a mess their leaders should have avoided.
     
    I agree with this one. Ukraine should've never allowed itself to be disarmed. This thing should've been avoided at all costs:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction

    The question is why they disarmed Ukraine (and other post-Soviet states), but not Russia. They created a completely artificial and harmful situation and that sowed the seeds for this war. If it wasn't for this, there may not have been a war at all. This was a fatal mistake.

    Kuchma and Kravchuk, despite all the criticisms, weren't such bad statesmen, but they clearly lacked the balls to stand up to the US (or any other big powers). That whole period was just so naive. To believe that Russia would become "democratic" when they have never been that way in their entire history (except for veche)... artists, musicians and naive youths can make such mistaken assumptions, but seasoned politicians?

    Replies: @QCIC, @Wokechoke

    Ukraine was being set up as punching bag.
    You’re the naive one.

    • Agree: LondonBob
  560. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    Russia is only a threat – an all too real threat – to her neighbors. Perhaps you spoke hastily.
     
    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea, as they keep saying they will with Western support?

    Of course the Russians are a threat to Western lives. That's the only reason why the West is only doing a fraction of what it could do to stop the invasion. If the Russians were unable to threaten Western lives (tens of millions of Western lives to be accurate) a No Fly Zone would have been declared on day one and an Operation Desert Storm would have been prepared to give them the Saddam treatment, including perhaps the public hanging of Putin.

    The problem I was speaking about is that even with all those precautions and the relatively deferential treatment the Russians are receiving compared to much less dangerous enemies, we may end up having a nuclear exchange all the same. The longer this war goes on, the higher the probability of that happening for purely accidental reasons (Romania has just confirmed that "part of a drone" fell on its territory).

    Perhaps it was worth it to run that risk when the threat extended to our way of life and we faced the real risk of Communism spreading to the whole world. But what threat are we risking nuclear holocaust now for? The right of anyone who wants to join NATO, no matter how many thousands of miles away from the Atlantic Ocean they are, to do so? The possibility of some rearrangement of the old Soviet administrative borders to accommodate them to some real ethnic realities on the ground that would threaten us in the West... exactly how?

    If, for any internal reason, Spain was to disintegrate and new independent countries emerged from its current 17 autonomous communities, I can imagine many people ending up on the wrong side of the new borders. It would be a miracle if at some point or another, once the initial shock of whatever caused the disintegration faded away, some of those people didn't start demanding some rearrangement along more reasonable ethnic or linguistic lines. And it would be an even bigger miracle if the Castilians/Madridians weren't the ones making the most noise and seeking to recover some of their lost prestige on the peninsula. But wouldn't it be totally insane for outside countries to go a planet-destructing war to make sure that the old 17 Spanish administrative borders remain intact and Castilians never get their aspirations fulfilled?

    Replies: @LatW, @Wokechoke, @silviosilver, @AP

    This is what happened in the Spanish Civil War recently enough.

  561. @John Johnson
    @Mikel

    Oh, thank you. I never though what you posted was based on something written at some point by Joseph Smith. Would you please kindly find me the part where God told him that men could marry multiple women? I need to inform my Mormon friend about that too!

    Joseph Smith is just as important to the Mormons as Jesus Christ. You seem to assume it is Christianity but with another Luther or Paul. Joseph Smith is not considered a man in the least. He is a god to them with a direct connection to all creation. The religion doesn't exist without him. You can't just take his beliefs on the afterlife with subjective interpretation. He was very clear that Mormons must marry Mormons to become gods and rule over their own planet. Rejecting that belief is a rejection of Mormonism. To question Joseph Smith on the afterlife would be to question all of it since it would mean that his translation of the plates was wrong or was made up. You might as well switch to being a Presbyterian. Only a fake Mormon could pick and choose from his prophecies.

    As for polygamy it is not required to enter the highest level of heaven. But here is a quote from him:

    For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous then the gentiles. - Joseph Smith

    Likewise if you suggest that the Lamanites and Nephites never existed then the whole thing falls apart.

    You don't know anything about their religion if you think you can just pick and choose. Disbelief in Joseph Smith means you are faking it. It would be like a Christian claiming to be faithful but without believing in the divinity of Christ. That would be a contradiction that makes zero sense.

    Well, there are only two possibilities here. The first one is that your opinion on this matter is more authoritative than that of an atheist who has spent almost a decade surrounded by Mormons on all cardinal points and done almost daily business with them. The other one is that it’s not, which would make you a moron for trying to pass it as such.

    Mormons have a sordid reputation in business. Admitting this is not the end of the world. Various religions have negative associations and most were not created from ether.

    Another thread from ex-Mormons spilling the dirt:
    xxxhttps://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/rvtpam/mormons_are_bad_for_business/

    Of course it won't be 100% but the stereotype exists for a reason. I didn't believe it until I saw a Mormon business first hand. I left before taking any serious losses. The stereotype is real. They hire incompetent Mormon pals and then try to cut corners to make up for it.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    If Mormon doctrine can’t be changed, how could they change their doctrine on black priests in 1978?

  562. @Dmitry
    @AP

    Obama's relation to the Ukrainian crisis was not simple. It was Euromaidan while he was president, on the other hand, the response for the annexation of Crimea was relatively moderate, he probably was causing a lot of diplomatic isolation for Russia as the situation after 2014 was already bad.

    The plan to invade Ukraine was developed when Trump is president, although maybe the final approval of the plan is only while Biden is president.

    Part of the failure of the invasion, although with many other reasons for the failure, is because of misprediction of Biden's response. Biden has been very subtle how he would respond. If Trump won the election in 2020, there would have been probably less support for Ukraine and therefore the difficulty level would be lower.


    into a long-term war, the better to destroy their military capacity,
     
    I would assume it is not intentional, but it operates like a mouse trap designed by a hunter against a not intelligent prey.

    If the US has given advanced weapons to Kiev before 2022 like Patriot missiles, then Russia would not have invaded in 2022.

    But the US avoided giving advanced weapons to Ukraine. The weakness of Ukraine was like the cheese in the mouse trap, so Moscow views Ukraine as an undefended food. Then after the mouse goes to eat the cheese, NATO begins to give heavy weapons to Ukraine. This is now like a trap falling on the mouse's head and it's too late to escape with losing some bodyparts.

    Although we can assume it was not such an intentional plan, as Europe and US were not resolving their oil/gas problems before the invasion.

    Replies: @AP, @Mr. XYZ

    Obama’s relation to the Ukrainian crisis was not simple. It was Euromaidan while he was president, on the other hand, the response for the annexation of Crimea was relatively moderate, he probably was causing a lot of diplomatic isolation for Russia as the situation after 2014 was already bad.

    He was very weak militarily, and the sanctions were not terribly strong, either. The quote I provided captured it It’s what pro-Russians on Unz say. I’m surprised they are not partisans of Obama.

    The plan to invade Ukraine was developed when Trump is president, although maybe the final approval of the plan is only while Biden is president.

    It may have been developed even earlier. The first moves (like the practice run) were under Biden.

    Part of the failure of the invasion, although with many other reasons for the failure, is because of misprediction of Biden’s response. Biden has been very subtle how he would respond.

    Biden was weak prior to the invasion. He continued to state what America would not do – it would not provide heavy missiles, it would not provide tanks, etc. Well, since it wouldn’t do these things, Putin figured it would be an easy invasion.

    But then Biden did.

    If Trump won the election in 2020, there would have been probably less support for Ukraine and therefore the difficulty level would be lower.

    Trump’s team during his presidency consisted of people who were more pro-Ukraine than the Joe Biden administration (and much more so, than the Obama administration). Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks compared to Biden. As is Trump’s friend Lindsay Graham. Bolton left under poor circumstances but the others did not.

    Trump’s policies were also more aggressive towards Russia. He attacked Nordstream with sanctions, shutting it down, pursued energy policies that made oil and gas cheaper, condemned Germany and Europe for its dependence on Russian gas, and provided lethal weapons to Ukraine (something that Obama had refused to do). The bizarre offer to take Greenland was probably about containing Russia in the Arctic and locking up more potential energy sources.

    In addition, Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump’s watch a bunch of Wagner mercenaries were slaughtered by US troops in Syria, and the Iranian general was killed.

    I suspect that Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won reelection. I had a sinking feeling after Biden won, that Ukraine would be in danger.

    I don’t think this was because Trump himself cares a lot either way. He may have a pro-Russian team this time, like with Vivek. Or not. Graham and Pompeo are still in his good graces. His vague 24 hour plan may be bad for Russia if Russia doesn’t play along with him. Until his team becomes clear I am not supporting him, though, as I did in 2020.

    • Replies: @A123
    @AP


    [Obama] was very weak militarily, and the sanctions were not terribly strong, either. The quote I provided captured it It’s what pro-Russians on Unz say. I’m surprised they are not partisans of Obama.
     
    Obama was silent in 2014 when war criminal Poreshenko built the illegal Punishment Dam targeting civilians in Crimea. Only Ukie Maximalist ideologues would support Obama.

    Trump’s team during his presidency consisted of people who were more pro-Ukraine than the Joe Biden administration (and much more so, than the Obama administration). Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks compared to Biden
     
    The first two of those names are ludicrous.

    -1- Bolton was forced on Trump's 1st term in a political horse trade. He was routinely humiliated in the White House. Excluded from important meetings. And, was set up as "bad cop" so Trump could publicly disagree with him. The janitorial staff were more influential on foreign policy than Bolton.

    -2- The office of VP is focused on the Senate. Pence's portfolio was limited & primarily domestic. In terms of Ukraine policy, a zero.

    -3- What did Pompeo actually obtain for Ukraine? In four full years, one modest package (>$100MM). And, that was focused on domestic considerations. It mostly got through because of a re-election of Putin, the "Russia, Russia, Russia" myth, and the associated Special Counsel.

    It is pretty obvious that Trump had no interest in provoking Russia. He did what was politically viable to keep the neocons foisted on his administration in check. Trump's 1st term was more appealing than Obama on essentially every foreign policy issue, including Ukraine.


    Trump’s policies were also more aggressive towards Russia.
    ...
    pursued energy policies that made oil and gas cheaper

     

    Trump was strong on energy independence as part of MAGA. Why would anyone expect anything else? When you have a surplus, that implies exports. These are good for balance of trade. Trying to misrepresent Trump as "aggressive towards Russia" is either disingenuous or very silly wishful thinking.

    IIRC the idea of making China energy dependent on the U.S. was floated. It was a short lived idea, as it would have caused an immediate negative reaction from the Saudi monarchy. Keeping them away from sociopath Khamenei's extremist theocracy was part of Trump's 1st term policies for Middle East region stabilization.


    His vague 24 hour plan may be bad for Russia if Russia doesn’t play along with him.
     
    The only possible fast, though obviously not 24 hour, option must involve freezing the current line with an armistice. Why would Putin refuse such a pragmatic armistice?

    Until his team becomes clear I am not supporting him, though, as I did in 2020.
     
    How can you know his 2nd term team before he is elected? Making an 'ask' that cannot be resolved is highly suggestive when there are only two viable possibilities.

    Did you just admit that you are planning to vote for Not-The-President Biden? You are both NeoConDemocrats, so that would be consistent.

    PEACE 😇

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Trump’s policies were also more aggressive towards Russia. He attacked Nordstream with sanctions, shutting it down, pursued energy policies that made oil and gas cheaper, condemned Germany and Europe for its dependence on Russian gas, and provided lethal weapons to Ukraine (something that Obama had refused to do). The bizarre offer to take Greenland was probably about containing Russia in the Arctic and locking up more potential energy sources.
     
    Interestingly enough, EHarding (Enopoletus) blames Trump much more than Biden for Putin's Ukraine invasion:

    https://eharding.substack.com/p/why-donald-trump-is-primarily-responsible

    There has been quite a bit of debate about who is responsible for the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Putin? No. Only a moron would claim that. Biden? Certainly a candidate, but not the best one -more on that later. Zelensky? Like his predecessor Poroshenko, a puppet not worth attention. But there is one man who tends to be missing from these debates, despite his prominence.

    By far the most dramatically underrated culprit for the Ukrainian war is none other than the great heel of the American political arena, Donald J. Trump. Before the Trump administration, Putin was still very much willing and waiting to reach a compromise with the West that did not involve full-scale war in Ukraine. By the end of the Trump administration, that was obviously retarded. Putin, in probably the most embarrassing moment of his presidency, went so far as claiming that he would vote for Trump if he were an American. I do not believe he’d make such a cuck move again.

    It was Trump, not Biden, who invited Montenegro and North Macedonia into NATO, thus totally encircling Serbia. It was Trump, not Biden, who first broke the dam of sending arms to Ukraine in December 2017. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first sanctioned the Internet Research Agency (see also Trump’s treatment of Jeff Sessions) and who bears exclusive responsibility for the Russiagate narrative. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who signed into law the CAATSA, which made removal of sanctions on Russia impossible. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who closed all the American consulates in Russia. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first blocked NordStream 2 from going forward, thus demonstrating Germany to be an American puppet state and that any future Republican president would do likewise. This list, of course, is just the tip of a giant iceberg of Trumpist Russia hostility. It was, thus, Trump, not Biden, who, by running as the most Russia-friendly serious GOP candidate and then proceeding to act as the most Russia-hawkish president of the 21st century, permanently solidified the caducean framework of the Democrats perpetrually and without dissent condemning Republicans for being communists or whatever and the Republicans being more hawkish on Russia than ever before -Trump, after all, presented the most dovish version of a GOP Russia policy, and any future GOP president would be guaranteed to be at least as hawkish.

    Biden, despite his relentlessly Russophobic presidential campaign, actually did not turn out nearly as hawkish on Russia as he could have been. Though the USA continued to deliver military equipment to the Zelensky regime, very little of it was seen on the battlefield after February 23. The pace of sanctions following the election of Biden slowed down relative to the Trump presidency. The threat to NordStream 2 was removed. However, Biden’s hope that mere bribery (given the Dems’ 2024 loss and Republicans’ petroleum protectionism, obviously extremely temporary regardless) could prevent a Russian invasion was sorely mistaken (I do not buy the idea Washington wanted this war; Ukraine was a safe haven for American corruption that is effectively gone now). Biden continued relentlessly supporting the breakdown of electoral democracy in Ukraine and its replacement with a nationalist autocracy, and, though it would have been unlikely that Ukraine would have entered NATO during his term, at no point considered recognizing Crimea or even closing off the path to future Ukrainian NATO entry. Though Biden’s relative dovishness as opposed to Trump’s extreme hawkishness broadly contributed to Putin’s (rational and proven correct) calculation re: direct Western involvement in the Ukrainian fight, the fact is that the war in Ukraine was a response to Western hawkishness against Russia in regards to Ukraine, not any other country. Biden’s effective independence is also questionable, and, given his dovishness in practice relative to his campigning, this makes it unlikely he is the man most responsible for this war. Any other U.S. president would, after all, surely have been at least as hawkish as Biden. Within the expectable -indeed, probably even the realistic- limits of potential U.S. policymaking post-Trump, the point of no return in Ukraine, thus, was already past when Biden stepped into office.

    Why isn’t Trump mentioned as being to blame for the Ukrainian crisis? Because Americans, with a couple of exceptions, disproportionately under the age of 30, are bloodthirsty monsters who believe everything they read and watch. They are, for the most part, cuck faggots who have, despite ceasing to talk about it, fully internalized the Russiagate narrative and view the lack of a Russian offensive during his term as a result of his completely imaginary dovishness.
     

    In addition, Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump’s watch a bunch of Wagner mercenaries were slaughtered by US troops in Syria, and the Iranian general was killed.
     
    Biden withdrew from Afghanistan as per the deal that Trump himself negotiated, just several months later. Would Trump have really organized the Afghan withdrawal better than Biden did? I don't seem to recall Trump making any serious plans to evacuate huge numbers of Afghans if/once Afghanistan would have fallen to the Taliban, for instance.

    I suspect that Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won reelection. I had a sinking feeling after Biden won, that Ukraine would be in danger.
     
    I disagree with you on this. For so long as Russia would have felt that the West could place nukes and/or missiles in Ukraine, Russia would have considered the situation in Ukraine an existential threat. (The fact that Russia's perceptions of the situation differed from reality is besides the point; perceptions matter much more than reality.) If anything, had Trump withdrawn the US from NATO during his second term like he apparently wanted to do, Russia might have felt even more emboldened to invade Ukraine, knowing that a US that had a President who is unwilling to commit to the continuation of the NATO alliance would not be willing to do much to help Ukraine if it was invaded. Also, had Trump sent HIMARS, ATAMACS, and/or et cetera to Ukraine before any Russian invasion in an attempt to look tough, Russia might have concluded that its fears about the situation in Ukraine being an existential threat to it were indeed justified and thus have still decided to invade Ukraine.

    And if Russia would have still invaded Ukraine, it's entirely possible that Trump would be scared of nuclear war and thus decide to throw Ukraine under the bus, viewing corrupt Ukraine as not worth the sacrifice of a large amount of US taxpayer money.

    Replies: @AP

    , @Dmitry
    @AP


    Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks

    Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won
     

    These "hawks" didn't move the military equipment to Ukraine which would have prevented the invasion. Actually it would have stopped many thousands of people killed now by creating a kind of peace by more balance of power.

    I would doubt Trump winning in 2020 would change the situation, as Ukraine was without many defenses. Although this was now like a mouse trap, as the easy cheese for a mouse to eat, is followed by the large supply of equipment to Ukraine after the Russian army is trapped inside Ukraine.

    If Trump has given Ukraine old things from NATO like Patriot missiles, F-16, even 155mm artillery, Moscow wouldn't invade Ukraine in 2022.

    Before 2022, part of military balance was the ammunition level, where the 152mm ammunition stocks were destroyed in Czech Republic and Bulgaria before the war. https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/bulgaria-investigates-four-arms-depot-blasts-for-russian-covert-action/

    So, even if Obama/Trump/Biden has given 155mm artillery to Ukraine before the war, the deterrence situation would have been different and this could have prevented the war.

    From the view of realpolitik, this would have been a failure of Obama/Trump/Biden for punishing rivals. As the result of their policy of not defending Ukraine before the war, now they partly they trapped Russia in Ukraine. Although I don't think this is intentional policy, they have broken the Russian army by not stopping the self-destructive invasion.


    Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump’s watch a bunch of Wagner

     

    Afghanistan withdrawal was planned by Donald Trump.

    A question maybe we could only speculate, how important the personal bias about different countries is for the international relations of the American presidents, or this is not as important as we think.

    For example, Donald Trump is very anti-Iran personally it seems. But it seems doesn't personally care about Russia or Ukraine.

    Mitt Romney, John McCain and after 2014 Hillary Clinton were seeming very anti-Russia in terms of personal bias. For Romney, it can be related possibly to the persecution of the Mormon church in Russia. This can be part of the explanation of the anti-Russia views of Mormons in general.

    John McCain possibly partly because his experience of the Cold War, military career in Vietnam in a plane was destroyed by a Soviet missile.

    Hillary Clinton was very anti-Russia after 2014. This is because the personal experience as The Secretary of State who has uncomfortable relations in 2014.

    Barack Obama thinks Russia is a weak regional power which isn't so important for America. In terms of the size of the priority for America, Obama's views actually look more accurate now after 2022.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg


    24 hour plan may be bad for Russia if Russia doesn’t play along with him. Until his team
     
    Trump's view is copied from Obama, it's Obama "isolationism", although in the 2000s Trump was not isolationist and after 2014 Obama was becoming less isolationist. In 2020, Biden is also promoting more isolationist views.

    The reason is, because Obama wins in 2008 and 2012 partly because of the isolationist doctrine. After this, Trump sees this is the popular strategy to win the election and Swing States.

    On the other hand, the Republican ideology more consistent for the companies like Lockheed Martin, is followed by Mitt Romney or Nikki Haley, it's not been popular in the recent elections with the independent votes.

    A most popular policy for winning in the Swing States will be more isolationism for external policy, more protectionism for local industry. The kind of speech to win election will be "We need to spend less money outside America and more money in Michigan and Minnesota".

    Replies: @AP

  563. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    Russia is only a threat – an all too real threat – to her neighbors. Perhaps you spoke hastily.
     
    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea, as they keep saying they will with Western support?

    Of course the Russians are a threat to Western lives. That's the only reason why the West is only doing a fraction of what it could do to stop the invasion. If the Russians were unable to threaten Western lives (tens of millions of Western lives to be accurate) a No Fly Zone would have been declared on day one and an Operation Desert Storm would have been prepared to give them the Saddam treatment, including perhaps the public hanging of Putin.

    The problem I was speaking about is that even with all those precautions and the relatively deferential treatment the Russians are receiving compared to much less dangerous enemies, we may end up having a nuclear exchange all the same. The longer this war goes on, the higher the probability of that happening for purely accidental reasons (Romania has just confirmed that "part of a drone" fell on its territory).

    Perhaps it was worth it to run that risk when the threat extended to our way of life and we faced the real risk of Communism spreading to the whole world. But what threat are we risking nuclear holocaust now for? The right of anyone who wants to join NATO, no matter how many thousands of miles away from the Atlantic Ocean they are, to do so? The possibility of some rearrangement of the old Soviet administrative borders to accommodate them to some real ethnic realities on the ground that would threaten us in the West... exactly how?

    If, for any internal reason, Spain was to disintegrate and new independent countries emerged from its current 17 autonomous communities, I can imagine many people ending up on the wrong side of the new borders. It would be a miracle if at some point or another, once the initial shock of whatever caused the disintegration faded away, some of those people didn't start demanding some rearrangement along more reasonable ethnic or linguistic lines. And it would be an even bigger miracle if the Castilians/Madridians weren't the ones making the most noise and seeking to recover some of their lost prestige on the peninsula. But wouldn't it be totally insane for outside countries to go a planet-destructing war to make sure that the old 17 Spanish administrative borders remain intact and Castilians never get their aspirations fulfilled?

    Replies: @LatW, @Wokechoke, @silviosilver, @AP

    It’s difficult to respond to this post because you’re saying too many contradictory things – or that is how it seems to me.

    You earlier expressed a wish for this conflict to be over as soon as possible. Taken at face value, that means you should be fine with withdrawing all support for Ukraine and letting the Russians have their way with them. Then it’s done, conflict over.

    But at the same time you contend that Ukrainians are fighting to keep western lives safe, that Russia is a threat to the west. So seen this way, Ukraine would simply be the first domino to fall. In that case, it would be proper to continue to arm Ukrainians, even to ramp up the aid.

    But then you caution that if Ukraine is to be supplied with arms, it should be gradual, so as not to provoke the Russians into doing something crazy like launching a nuclear strike. Which in effect means prolonging the conflict – quite contrary to your desire to see it end as soon as possible.

    I don’t see how these different positions can be reconciled.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    But at the same time you contend that Ukrainians are fighting to keep western lives safe
     
    Ouch. That hurt. I can't have possibly explained myself so poorly.

    It wasn't one of those old Thorfinsson-style effort posts, certainly, but I did put some thought into it, entering even into the alt-history terrain of a disintegrated Spain to illustrate my position better. Seeing that your lack of understanding of my views is so deep, I won't try to restate them. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
  564. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    Happy to hear the actual people are not that much different to anyone else.
     
    Well, yes, I guess so. But these days that means that you can find gay, trans and woke Mormons too. There's always a Mormon delegation at the SLC pride parade. Though this is just my personal experience, having met them and even had dinner with one of them once. Perhaps if you need to know if all this is true you should consult the real expert in Mormonism here, Mr Johnson :-)

    I know very well what you mean with that unsettling remark. I've discussed religion with Mormons often enough, sometimes with not particularly educated ones, and imagine my feelings when I mention European history and they bring up the tribes of Israel and the Tower of Babel. But in my experience belief in the most freakish parts of Joseph Smith's delusions fades as you climb up the educational ladder. As with any other religion, people choose what to really believe in and what to find some justification to leave provisionally aside.

    In fact, I still need to be convinced that Mormon beliefs are substantially weirder than mainstream Christian ones. If I had never had any knowledge of what the Christian belief is about and someone gave me the Bible to learn what their sacred book says, I would also be stunned. Who can believe those stories in the 21st century? All the LDS Church needs to do to get even with the rest of Christianity is declare that Joseph Smith's teachings are just "allegories", not to be taken literally, and problem solved. I'm pretty sure that this will eventually happen. Mormon doctrine is in fact much more flexible than most other ones. Abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, for example, is a modern invention from the 20th century. Fundamentalist Mormons continue drinking and smoking as in the 19th century. And the big polygamy flip-over of the late 19th century must be among the most spectacular religious upheavals in history. The way Mormons resolve these doctrinal issues is technically the same as in Catholicism. Instead of an infallible Pope they have their First President, who receives revelations from God (and Joseph Smith himself, if I'm not mistaken), to make doctrinal changes as required. But the Mormons are much more flexible, as the Pope has two millennia of tradition to respect and lots of different congregations to keep in tune. Not so with the LDS.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @silviosilver

    If I had never had any knowledge of what the Christian belief is about and someone gave me the Bible to learn what their sacred book says, I would also be stunned. Who can believe those stories in the 21st century?

    Sure. Further, I’d say that if Christianity had never taken off, and the bible was only unearthed today, virtually nobody would take it as anything but a bunch of made up stories, often silly, often completely uninteresting.

    The difference with Mormonism is that Christianity’s antiquity makes it easier to read the weirder stuff allegorically. People in those days were more ignorant etc therefore we need to look past the literal meaning to discover the deeper meaning. For people who are determined, it’s not at all difficult.

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @silviosilver


    The difference with Mormonism is that Christianity’s antiquity makes it easier to read the weirder stuff allegorically.
     
    Maybe the weird content and the fact it lends itself to allegorical reading is related to the subject matter, God. Because it seems like the kind of philosophy that leads to the identification of God with the classic triad of goodness, truth and being was already floating around the culture that Christianity appeared in, had been already latent in Plato.

    If someone's subject matter is The Good or the Truth, what is produced being weird or inherently allegorical/mythological doesn't seem as surprising.

    Christianity probably proved a well pitched synthesis of reflection and practice related to the topic, and that explains why it spread. Its fairly common for people to hold other semi-compatible beliefs on the same subjects simultaneously with professing mainstream Christianity, Mormonism might be playing on that.

  565. @LatW
    @songbird

    The Pope has praised a lot of "epic times" lately, I wonder if he will make the full circle and praise the "epic times" of The Crusades. :)

    Mongolia is actually a very calm and civilized country these days. They even have a functioning multi-party democracy. And that statue is awesome.

    Replies: @songbird

    I wonder if he will make the full circle and praise the “epic times” of The Crusades.

    I’m not entirely sure that Progressives wouldn’t praise the Crusades, if not for their identification with the West.

    [MORE]

    For one thing, it was probably the first time in history that people who ranged over such a diverse landscape of geography, politics, and ethnicity came together without being tributary states or peoples in some Empire, but rather through some spiritual connection and a call to work together.

    And they came together to protect diverse peoples from the incursions of empire and conquest.

    Mongolia is actually a very calm and civilized country these days. They even have a functioning multi-party democracy.

    Didn’t AK reference some novel about an a star-crossed pair of homos, one Armenian, one Azerbaijani, that was rather bizarrely printed in Ulaanbaatar?

    • Thanks: Mr. XYZ
  566. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    Russia is only a threat – an all too real threat – to her neighbors. Perhaps you spoke hastily.
     
    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea, as they keep saying they will with Western support?

    Of course the Russians are a threat to Western lives. That's the only reason why the West is only doing a fraction of what it could do to stop the invasion. If the Russians were unable to threaten Western lives (tens of millions of Western lives to be accurate) a No Fly Zone would have been declared on day one and an Operation Desert Storm would have been prepared to give them the Saddam treatment, including perhaps the public hanging of Putin.

    The problem I was speaking about is that even with all those precautions and the relatively deferential treatment the Russians are receiving compared to much less dangerous enemies, we may end up having a nuclear exchange all the same. The longer this war goes on, the higher the probability of that happening for purely accidental reasons (Romania has just confirmed that "part of a drone" fell on its territory).

    Perhaps it was worth it to run that risk when the threat extended to our way of life and we faced the real risk of Communism spreading to the whole world. But what threat are we risking nuclear holocaust now for? The right of anyone who wants to join NATO, no matter how many thousands of miles away from the Atlantic Ocean they are, to do so? The possibility of some rearrangement of the old Soviet administrative borders to accommodate them to some real ethnic realities on the ground that would threaten us in the West... exactly how?

    If, for any internal reason, Spain was to disintegrate and new independent countries emerged from its current 17 autonomous communities, I can imagine many people ending up on the wrong side of the new borders. It would be a miracle if at some point or another, once the initial shock of whatever caused the disintegration faded away, some of those people didn't start demanding some rearrangement along more reasonable ethnic or linguistic lines. And it would be an even bigger miracle if the Castilians/Madridians weren't the ones making the most noise and seeking to recover some of their lost prestige on the peninsula. But wouldn't it be totally insane for outside countries to go a planet-destructing war to make sure that the old 17 Spanish administrative borders remain intact and Castilians never get their aspirations fulfilled?

    Replies: @LatW, @Wokechoke, @silviosilver, @AP

    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea

    Since launching all those missiles will be the total end of Russia, they will not be launched for the sake of anything in Ukraine, including Crimea. Losing Crimea would not be grounds for self-extinction by Russia.

    If Russia took Hawaii or Guam, would America respond by ending the USA by launching nukes against Russia? Of course not.

    You will say that the Putin regime may fall if Crimea falls, so Putin will end Russia and the world in response to the possibility of losing power. That, too, is unrealistic. He is not a death-cultist. He has children and grandchildren. As do many (most) in his circle. The Russian high command is not a collection of bin Ladens.

    This fear is convenient for Russian imperialists, of course.

    If the theoretical risk of being nuked by Russia prevents Ukraine from getting help, why would it be different for Estonia? Finland? Poland, even? Germany would be a prize too.

    Your approach essentially gives carte blanche to any nuclear power to invade or bomb whomever it wants, because of the “risk” of nuclear war. A “pro peace” approach? The response will be for everyone to get nukes, dramatically increasing the probability of them falling into the hands of non-state actors who would be incapable of a global nuclear holocaust but much more likely to create a localized one somewhere. Nuclear Poland, nuclear Japan, nuclear Iran, Egypt, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Brazil, etc.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    You will say that the Putin regime may fall if Crimea falls, so Putin will end Russia and the world in response to the possibility of losing power. That, too, is unrealistic. He is not a death-cultist. He has children and grandchildren. As do many (most) in his circle. The Russian high command is not a collection of bin Ladens.
     
    I think that Russia's gamble might be to use some tactical nukes against Ukrainian cities in response to a Ukrainian attempt to reconquer Crimea (if Russia can't repulse Ukraine militarily, that is). The West could directly militarily intervene in the Ukraine War in such a scenario, but I don't know if the West would actually be willing to fight Russia for Crimea. They might want to simply teach Russia a serious lesson.
    , @Mikel
    @AP


    If Russia took Hawaii or Guam, would America respond by ending the USA by launching nukes against Russia? Of course not.
     
    Of course it would. Starting a nuclear war in the MAD era is a tremendously grave decision that has never been taken so neither you nor I can claim 100% certainty on what would happen but all historic precedents establish that the Russians invading Hawaii (and much less than that) would trigger a nuclear confrontation real fast. For all intents and purposes, Hitler's decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision. He surely expected Germany and himself to be liquidated without mercy but he went ahead with the order to resists anyway and more importantly, the order was fanatically obeyed until Berlin was taken and the Fuhrer died.

    I'm pretty certain that a Russian invasion of Hawaii would eventually lead to nuclear war even if Biden has secretly promised to himself that he will never launch the nukes. Looking at all of human history, these situations establish their own dynamics, the weaklings are set aside and self-preservation is almost never the decisive factor. Just look at those Ukrainian soldiers going willingly to an almost certain death right now in order to breach the Russian defenses.

    In fact, what you're saying is that it doesn't make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?

    I guess you're also saying that JFK never intended to attack the Russians if they refused to remove their missiles from Cuba and his naval blockade was only for show. Nobody would ever launch any ICBM because that would mean their own destruction.... I wish.

    It doesn't matter what you think anyway. What matters is what our political leaders think and their actions clearly reveal that they do believe in the possibility of nuclear war. The absence of a NFZ over Ukraine proves it, along with hundreds of other precautionary decisions taken since the start of the Cold War.


    Your approach essentially gives carte blanche to any nuclear power to invade or bomb whomever it wants
     
    No, not in slightest. But my approach, which was just everybody's approach in the previous Cold War does mean that nuclear states, especially nuclear superpowers, can get away with much more than non-nuclear states. Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences. It is very unfair but to some extent also good in the sense that at least this state of affairs has so far prevented another world war. The previous one took barely 20 years to reignite.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP, @silviosilver

    , @Dmitry
    @AP


    end of Russia, they will not be used in Ukraine, including Crimea.
     
    If Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, this will not cause a nuclear response from the West. It would perhaps not cause a direct military response.

    For example, if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army. West could response by increasing sanctions which are still not so strong yet, or they could give more weapons to Ukraine. They might avoid any kind of military response.

    But the West slow cook the frog in a way so soon the tactical nuclear weapon against the Ukrainian army probably wouldn't rescue the situation for the Russian army, which will be in a worse situation with each subsequent year.

    If Ukraine is reconquering Crimea in 2026 or 2027, the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army could probably only delay the situation, as Ukraine already in 2026 if Biden continues will have much more advanced Western planes like F-16 and long-range weapons which would isolate Crimea anyway.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  567. @LatW
    @silviosilver


    “On the field,” lol. Not a longtime basketball fan, I take it.
     
    Hahaha, on the "court", of course. Sorry for my lousy English. In my language it is just field for all sports - including tennis. lol

    Oh, and I don't really follow the NBA (occasional Eurobasket is more my cup of tea) - I only watch my little Zinga highlights and then I'm done! So I don't even know the basketball terms in English (I've watched it in my language all my life).


    Most pleasing to me so far is “France”(aka Africa-in-Europe) being eliminated early.
     
    I know... disgrace.

    (btw, just between you and I - thanks for putting the pajeet in his place, that's one of the reasons I wanted you to come back because he was talking some major trash to me a while back and I wanted someone to spank him back real hard which only you can do, so much appreciated).

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Hahaha, on the “court”, of course. Sorry for my lousy English. In my language it is just field for all sports – including tennis. lol

    It’s the same in Serbo-Croatian too (“na terenu”).

    Too bad about Latvia v Germany. A valiant effort that came up short.

    Can Serbia do it? Probably not vs USA, but should be able to get past Canada.

    (btw, just between you and I

    In this week’s grammar nazi hour we point out that it’s only “you and I” when you and I are the subject of the sentence; all other times, it’s you and me. When you and I are doing something, it’s you and I doing it. When something is done to us, it’s done to you and me. This also holds for prepositions: between you and me, above, underneath, next to etc.

    Also, to Mikel, which may have been a typo (“i” and “o” are next to each other), it’s insist on, not in.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @silviosilver


    It’s the same in Serbo-Croatian too (“na terenu”).
     
    That's cool, btw, that sounds like a Latinism ("terra", similar to "terrain").

    Too bad about Latvia v Germany. A valiant effort that came up short.
     
    I know, heart wrenching. :) But they deserve praise for trying hard. So damn close.. I think Lithuania could've beat Germany, so it would've been better if they had played Germany but Latvia had played Serbia (even if Latvia would've lost to Serbia, that way at least Lithuania could've won over Germany but I know that's not how it works). Now they're gonna be exhausted for Italy (they should rotate).

    Btw, there are 3 blacks on the German team and a player named Wagner. :)


    Can Serbia do it? Probably not vs USA, but should be able to get past Canada.
     
    Serbia is a traditionally strong team, among the best... if we won the US, Serbia should definitely be able to as well. :) Hahahaha!

    this week’s grammar nazi hour
     
    Oh, feel free to correct, I can't promise I'll be a good student, but I'll try.

    Replies: @WS

  568. Shoigu Assesses Kiev Regime’s Failed Offensive, North Korea to Provide Russia with Munitions for Ukraine?
    https://marksleboda.substack.com/p/shoigu-assesses-kiev-regimes-failed?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

    Ukr Attacks Fail, Syrsky Situation ‘Complex’; West Fears Rus Offensive, Alarmed Rus North Korea Ties

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    Whenever I hear a rumor that North Korea is supplying something or other to Russia, I wonder if the truth is the opposite. Maybe Russia is preparing to supply something to North Korea? Does North Korea even have anything which Russia needs?

    My reasoning is that the DPRK is one of the hot spots on the Russian border which the West/US might chose to nip away at and stir up trouble. The West would have to be careful on the Korean peninsula due to the proximity of China, but no more so than on Taiwan. North Korea is important to Russia because she keeps South Korea, Japan, the USA and even China somewhat at bay on Russia's Eastern border. On the other hand, the independence of North Korea is the strongest and longest lasting affront against American military power and Western hegemony.

    Gooks with Nukes, talk about embarrassment!

    Once the Ukraine project winds down we may get to find out if the South Koreans are foolish enough to fall for the same proxy war con as the Ukrainians.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  569. @AP
    @Mikel


    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea
     
    Since launching all those missiles will be the total end of Russia, they will not be launched for the sake of anything in Ukraine, including Crimea. Losing Crimea would not be grounds for self-extinction by Russia.

    If Russia took Hawaii or Guam, would America respond by ending the USA by launching nukes against Russia? Of course not.

    You will say that the Putin regime may fall if Crimea falls, so Putin will end Russia and the world in response to the possibility of losing power. That, too, is unrealistic. He is not a death-cultist. He has children and grandchildren. As do many (most) in his circle. The Russian high command is not a collection of bin Ladens.

    This fear is convenient for Russian imperialists, of course.

    If the theoretical risk of being nuked by Russia prevents Ukraine from getting help, why would it be different for Estonia? Finland? Poland, even? Germany would be a prize too.

    Your approach essentially gives carte blanche to any nuclear power to invade or bomb whomever it wants, because of the "risk" of nuclear war. A "pro peace" approach? The response will be for everyone to get nukes, dramatically increasing the probability of them falling into the hands of non-state actors who would be incapable of a global nuclear holocaust but much more likely to create a localized one somewhere. Nuclear Poland, nuclear Japan, nuclear Iran, Egypt, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Brazil, etc.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel, @Dmitry

    You will say that the Putin regime may fall if Crimea falls, so Putin will end Russia and the world in response to the possibility of losing power. That, too, is unrealistic. He is not a death-cultist. He has children and grandchildren. As do many (most) in his circle. The Russian high command is not a collection of bin Ladens.

    I think that Russia’s gamble might be to use some tactical nukes against Ukrainian cities in response to a Ukrainian attempt to reconquer Crimea (if Russia can’t repulse Ukraine militarily, that is). The West could directly militarily intervene in the Ukraine War in such a scenario, but I don’t know if the West would actually be willing to fight Russia for Crimea. They might want to simply teach Russia a serious lesson.

  570. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Obama’s relation to the Ukrainian crisis was not simple. It was Euromaidan while he was president, on the other hand, the response for the annexation of Crimea was relatively moderate, he probably was causing a lot of diplomatic isolation for Russia as the situation after 2014 was already bad.
     
    He was very weak militarily, and the sanctions were not terribly strong, either. The quote I provided captured it It's what pro-Russians on Unz say. I'm surprised they are not partisans of Obama.

    The plan to invade Ukraine was developed when Trump is president, although maybe the final approval of the plan is only while Biden is president.
     
    It may have been developed even earlier. The first moves (like the practice run) were under Biden.

    Part of the failure of the invasion, although with many other reasons for the failure, is because of misprediction of Biden’s response. Biden has been very subtle how he would respond.
     
    Biden was weak prior to the invasion. He continued to state what America would not do - it would not provide heavy missiles, it would not provide tanks, etc. Well, since it wouldn't do these things, Putin figured it would be an easy invasion.

    But then Biden did.


    If Trump won the election in 2020, there would have been probably less support for Ukraine and therefore the difficulty level would be lower.
     
    Trump's team during his presidency consisted of people who were more pro-Ukraine than the Joe Biden administration (and much more so, than the Obama administration). Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks compared to Biden. As is Trump's friend Lindsay Graham. Bolton left under poor circumstances but the others did not.

    Trump's policies were also more aggressive towards Russia. He attacked Nordstream with sanctions, shutting it down, pursued energy policies that made oil and gas cheaper, condemned Germany and Europe for its dependence on Russian gas, and provided lethal weapons to Ukraine (something that Obama had refused to do). The bizarre offer to take Greenland was probably about containing Russia in the Arctic and locking up more potential energy sources.

    In addition, Biden's botched Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump's watch a bunch of Wagner mercenaries were slaughtered by US troops in Syria, and the Iranian general was killed.

    I suspect that Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won reelection. I had a sinking feeling after Biden won, that Ukraine would be in danger.

    I don't think this was because Trump himself cares a lot either way. He may have a pro-Russian team this time, like with Vivek. Or not. Graham and Pompeo are still in his good graces. His vague 24 hour plan may be bad for Russia if Russia doesn't play along with him. Until his team becomes clear I am not supporting him, though, as I did in 2020.

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

    [Obama] was very weak militarily, and the sanctions were not terribly strong, either. The quote I provided captured it It’s what pro-Russians on Unz say. I’m surprised they are not partisans of Obama.

    Obama was silent in 2014 when war criminal Poreshenko built the illegal Punishment Dam targeting civilians in Crimea. Only Ukie Maximalist ideologues would support Obama.

    Trump’s team during his presidency consisted of people who were more pro-Ukraine than the Joe Biden administration (and much more so, than the Obama administration). Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks compared to Biden

    The first two of those names are ludicrous.

    -1- Bolton was forced on Trump’s 1st term in a political horse trade. He was routinely humiliated in the White House. Excluded from important meetings. And, was set up as “bad cop” so Trump could publicly disagree with him. The janitorial staff were more influential on foreign policy than Bolton.

    -2- The office of VP is focused on the Senate. Pence’s portfolio was limited & primarily domestic. In terms of Ukraine policy, a zero.

    -3- What did Pompeo actually obtain for Ukraine? In four full years, one modest package (>$100MM). And, that was focused on domestic considerations. It mostly got through because of a re-election of Putin, the “Russia, Russia, Russia” myth, and the associated Special Counsel.

    It is pretty obvious that Trump had no interest in provoking Russia. He did what was politically viable to keep the neocons foisted on his administration in check. Trump’s 1st term was more appealing than Obama on essentially every foreign policy issue, including Ukraine.

    Trump’s policies were also more aggressive towards Russia.

    pursued energy policies that made oil and gas cheaper

    Trump was strong on energy independence as part of MAGA. Why would anyone expect anything else? When you have a surplus, that implies exports. These are good for balance of trade. Trying to misrepresent Trump as “aggressive towards Russia” is either disingenuous or very silly wishful thinking.

    IIRC the idea of making China energy dependent on the U.S. was floated. It was a short lived idea, as it would have caused an immediate negative reaction from the Saudi monarchy. Keeping them away from sociopath Khamenei’s extremist theocracy was part of Trump’s 1st term policies for Middle East region stabilization.

    His vague 24 hour plan may be bad for Russia if Russia doesn’t play along with him.

    The only possible fast, though obviously not 24 hour, option must involve freezing the current line with an armistice. Why would Putin refuse such a pragmatic armistice?

    Until his team becomes clear I am not supporting him, though, as I did in 2020.

    How can you know his 2nd term team before he is elected? Making an ‘ask’ that cannot be resolved is highly suggestive when there are only two viable possibilities.

    Did you just admit that you are planning to vote for Not-The-President Biden? You are both NeoConDemocrats, so that would be consistent.

    PEACE 😇

  571. WTF is this?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Yes, the all meat diet has side effects...like insanity.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

  572. @Mikhail
    Shoigu Assesses Kiev Regime's Failed Offensive, North Korea to Provide Russia with Munitions for Ukraine?
    https://marksleboda.substack.com/p/shoigu-assesses-kiev-regimes-failed?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

    Ukr Attacks Fail, Syrsky Situation 'Complex'; West Fears Rus Offensive, Alarmed Rus North Korea Ties
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAF-9P0_Y04

    Replies: @QCIC

    Whenever I hear a rumor that North Korea is supplying something or other to Russia, I wonder if the truth is the opposite. Maybe Russia is preparing to supply something to North Korea? Does North Korea even have anything which Russia needs?

    My reasoning is that the DPRK is one of the hot spots on the Russian border which the West/US might chose to nip away at and stir up trouble. The West would have to be careful on the Korean peninsula due to the proximity of China, but no more so than on Taiwan. North Korea is important to Russia because she keeps South Korea, Japan, the USA and even China somewhat at bay on Russia’s Eastern border. On the other hand, the independence of North Korea is the strongest and longest lasting affront against American military power and Western hegemony.

    Gooks with Nukes, talk about embarrassment!

    Once the Ukraine project winds down we may get to find out if the South Koreans are foolish enough to fall for the same proxy war con as the Ukrainians.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @QCIC

    Ray McGovern said just that about Russia supplying the DPRK. The reverse isn't the laughable insult that the CNN propaganda projection likes of John Vause suggest. He had a segment last night with Jill Dougherty on how Russia is (supposedly) running out of available manpower and equipment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17OOvgUXJlU

  573. @Emil Nikola Richard
    WTF is this?

    https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2187074/jordan-peterson-heaven-hell-suit.jpg

    Replies: @QCIC

    Yes, the all meat diet has side effects…like insanity.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @QCIC

    Do the bad demons and good angels reverse sides for left handed people?

    Maybe it's hemispheric coriolis dependent and they reverse sides for antipodal residents?

    I read Maps of Meaning. I was looking forward to the experience. This was a user error. I make a lot of those. ***

    *** when the reading material quality plummets I skim. I did not read every sentence-word in that book.

    Replies: @QCIC

  574. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Obama’s relation to the Ukrainian crisis was not simple. It was Euromaidan while he was president, on the other hand, the response for the annexation of Crimea was relatively moderate, he probably was causing a lot of diplomatic isolation for Russia as the situation after 2014 was already bad.
     
    He was very weak militarily, and the sanctions were not terribly strong, either. The quote I provided captured it It's what pro-Russians on Unz say. I'm surprised they are not partisans of Obama.

    The plan to invade Ukraine was developed when Trump is president, although maybe the final approval of the plan is only while Biden is president.
     
    It may have been developed even earlier. The first moves (like the practice run) were under Biden.

    Part of the failure of the invasion, although with many other reasons for the failure, is because of misprediction of Biden’s response. Biden has been very subtle how he would respond.
     
    Biden was weak prior to the invasion. He continued to state what America would not do - it would not provide heavy missiles, it would not provide tanks, etc. Well, since it wouldn't do these things, Putin figured it would be an easy invasion.

    But then Biden did.


    If Trump won the election in 2020, there would have been probably less support for Ukraine and therefore the difficulty level would be lower.
     
    Trump's team during his presidency consisted of people who were more pro-Ukraine than the Joe Biden administration (and much more so, than the Obama administration). Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks compared to Biden. As is Trump's friend Lindsay Graham. Bolton left under poor circumstances but the others did not.

    Trump's policies were also more aggressive towards Russia. He attacked Nordstream with sanctions, shutting it down, pursued energy policies that made oil and gas cheaper, condemned Germany and Europe for its dependence on Russian gas, and provided lethal weapons to Ukraine (something that Obama had refused to do). The bizarre offer to take Greenland was probably about containing Russia in the Arctic and locking up more potential energy sources.

    In addition, Biden's botched Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump's watch a bunch of Wagner mercenaries were slaughtered by US troops in Syria, and the Iranian general was killed.

    I suspect that Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won reelection. I had a sinking feeling after Biden won, that Ukraine would be in danger.

    I don't think this was because Trump himself cares a lot either way. He may have a pro-Russian team this time, like with Vivek. Or not. Graham and Pompeo are still in his good graces. His vague 24 hour plan may be bad for Russia if Russia doesn't play along with him. Until his team becomes clear I am not supporting him, though, as I did in 2020.

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

    Trump’s policies were also more aggressive towards Russia. He attacked Nordstream with sanctions, shutting it down, pursued energy policies that made oil and gas cheaper, condemned Germany and Europe for its dependence on Russian gas, and provided lethal weapons to Ukraine (something that Obama had refused to do). The bizarre offer to take Greenland was probably about containing Russia in the Arctic and locking up more potential energy sources.

    Interestingly enough, EHarding (Enopoletus) blames Trump much more than Biden for Putin’s Ukraine invasion:

    https://eharding.substack.com/p/why-donald-trump-is-primarily-responsible

    There has been quite a bit of debate about who is responsible for the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Putin? No. Only a moron would claim that. Biden? Certainly a candidate, but not the best one -more on that later. Zelensky? Like his predecessor Poroshenko, a puppet not worth attention. But there is one man who tends to be missing from these debates, despite his prominence.

    By far the most dramatically underrated culprit for the Ukrainian war is none other than the great heel of the American political arena, Donald J. Trump. Before the Trump administration, Putin was still very much willing and waiting to reach a compromise with the West that did not involve full-scale war in Ukraine. By the end of the Trump administration, that was obviously retarded. Putin, in probably the most embarrassing moment of his presidency, went so far as claiming that he would vote for Trump if he were an American. I do not believe he’d make such a cuck move again.

    It was Trump, not Biden, who invited Montenegro and North Macedonia into NATO, thus totally encircling Serbia. It was Trump, not Biden, who first broke the dam of sending arms to Ukraine in December 2017. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first sanctioned the Internet Research Agency (see also Trump’s treatment of Jeff Sessions) and who bears exclusive responsibility for the Russiagate narrative. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who signed into law the CAATSA, which made removal of sanctions on Russia impossible. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who closed all the American consulates in Russia. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first blocked NordStream 2 from going forward, thus demonstrating Germany to be an American puppet state and that any future Republican president would do likewise. This list, of course, is just the tip of a giant iceberg of Trumpist Russia hostility. It was, thus, Trump, not Biden, who, by running as the most Russia-friendly serious GOP candidate and then proceeding to act as the most Russia-hawkish president of the 21st century, permanently solidified the caducean framework of the Democrats perpetrually and without dissent condemning Republicans for being communists or whatever and the Republicans being more hawkish on Russia than ever before -Trump, after all, presented the most dovish version of a GOP Russia policy, and any future GOP president would be guaranteed to be at least as hawkish.

    Biden, despite his relentlessly Russophobic presidential campaign, actually did not turn out nearly as hawkish on Russia as he could have been. Though the USA continued to deliver military equipment to the Zelensky regime, very little of it was seen on the battlefield after February 23. The pace of sanctions following the election of Biden slowed down relative to the Trump presidency. The threat to NordStream 2 was removed. However, Biden’s hope that mere bribery (given the Dems’ 2024 loss and Republicans’ petroleum protectionism, obviously extremely temporary regardless) could prevent a Russian invasion was sorely mistaken (I do not buy the idea Washington wanted this war; Ukraine was a safe haven for American corruption that is effectively gone now). Biden continued relentlessly supporting the breakdown of electoral democracy in Ukraine and its replacement with a nationalist autocracy, and, though it would have been unlikely that Ukraine would have entered NATO during his term, at no point considered recognizing Crimea or even closing off the path to future Ukrainian NATO entry. Though Biden’s relative dovishness as opposed to Trump’s extreme hawkishness broadly contributed to Putin’s (rational and proven correct) calculation re: direct Western involvement in the Ukrainian fight, the fact is that the war in Ukraine was a response to Western hawkishness against Russia in regards to Ukraine, not any other country. Biden’s effective independence is also questionable, and, given his dovishness in practice relative to his campigning, this makes it unlikely he is the man most responsible for this war. Any other U.S. president would, after all, surely have been at least as hawkish as Biden. Within the expectable -indeed, probably even the realistic- limits of potential U.S. policymaking post-Trump, the point of no return in Ukraine, thus, was already past when Biden stepped into office.

    Why isn’t Trump mentioned as being to blame for the Ukrainian crisis? Because Americans, with a couple of exceptions, disproportionately under the age of 30, are bloodthirsty monsters who believe everything they read and watch. They are, for the most part, cuck faggots who have, despite ceasing to talk about it, fully internalized the Russiagate narrative and view the lack of a Russian offensive during his term as a result of his completely imaginary dovishness.

    In addition, Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump’s watch a bunch of Wagner mercenaries were slaughtered by US troops in Syria, and the Iranian general was killed.

    Biden withdrew from Afghanistan as per the deal that Trump himself negotiated, just several months later. Would Trump have really organized the Afghan withdrawal better than Biden did? I don’t seem to recall Trump making any serious plans to evacuate huge numbers of Afghans if/once Afghanistan would have fallen to the Taliban, for instance.

    I suspect that Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won reelection. I had a sinking feeling after Biden won, that Ukraine would be in danger.

    I disagree with you on this. For so long as Russia would have felt that the West could place nukes and/or missiles in Ukraine, Russia would have considered the situation in Ukraine an existential threat. (The fact that Russia’s perceptions of the situation differed from reality is besides the point; perceptions matter much more than reality.) If anything, had Trump withdrawn the US from NATO during his second term like he apparently wanted to do, Russia might have felt even more emboldened to invade Ukraine, knowing that a US that had a President who is unwilling to commit to the continuation of the NATO alliance would not be willing to do much to help Ukraine if it was invaded. Also, had Trump sent HIMARS, ATAMACS, and/or et cetera to Ukraine before any Russian invasion in an attempt to look tough, Russia might have concluded that its fears about the situation in Ukraine being an existential threat to it were indeed justified and thus have still decided to invade Ukraine.

    And if Russia would have still invaded Ukraine, it’s entirely possible that Trump would be scared of nuclear war and thus decide to throw Ukraine under the bus, viewing corrupt Ukraine as not worth the sacrifice of a large amount of US taxpayer money.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mr. XYZ


    I disagree with you on this. For so long as Russia would have felt that the West could place nukes and/or missiles in Ukraine, Russia would have considered the situation in Ukraine an existential threat
     
    Russia did not invade Ukraine due to any perceived existential threat to itself (that is a lie told for propaganda purposes) but because:

    1. Ukraine was falsely perceived as weak and unwilling to resist, so an invasion would incur little cost

    2. Eventually uniting with Ukraine (and Belarus) was seen as necessary for Russia to achieve something close to superpower status

    3. Ukraine's economy was improving as the country was integrating with the EU, Russian language/culture were getting erased in Ukraine (Ukraine leaving the Russian world cultural space behind) thus the prospect of losing the possibility (2) forever if Russia didn't act soon
    Biden's weakness early in his presidency (and the precedent of Obama, the weakest president ever on Russia) both regarding Russia, and as seen in Afghanistan, probably encouraged (1).

    This which you posted is mostly accurate, about Trump being more anti-Russian than Obama and prewar Biden. But I disagree that this made Putin invade Ukraine:

    Before the Trump administration, Putin was still very much willing and waiting to reach a compromise with the West that did not involve full-scale war in Ukraine. By the end of the Trump administration, that was obviously retarded. Putin, in probably the most embarrassing moment of his presidency, went so far as claiming that he would vote for Trump if he were an American. I do not believe he’d make such a cuck move again.

    It was Trump, not Biden, who invited Montenegro and North Macedonia into NATO, thus totally encircling Serbia. It was Trump, not Biden, who first broke the dam of sending arms to Ukraine in December 2017. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first sanctioned the Internet Research Agency (see also Trump’s treatment of Jeff Sessions) and who bears exclusive responsibility for the Russiagate narrative. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who signed into law the CAATSA, which made removal of sanctions on Russia impossible. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who closed all the American consulates in Russia. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first blocked NordStream 2 from going forward, thus demonstrating Germany to be an American puppet state and that any future Republican president would do likewise. This list, of course, is just the tip of a giant iceberg of Trumpist Russia hostility. It was, thus, Trump, not Biden, who, by running as the most Russia-friendly serious GOP candidate and then proceeding to act as the most Russia-hawkish president of the 21st century, permanently solidified the caducean framework of the Democrats perpetrually and without dissent condemning Republicans for being communists or whatever and the Republicans being more hawkish on Russia than ever before -Trump, after all, presented the most dovish version of a GOP Russia policy, and any future GOP president would be guaranteed to be at least as hawkish.

    Biden, despite his relentlessly Russophobic presidential campaign, actually did not turn out nearly as hawkish on Russia as he could have been. Though the USA continued to deliver military equipment to the Zelensky regime, very little of it was seen on the battlefield after February 23. The pace of sanctions following the election of Biden slowed down relative to the Trump presidency. The threat to NordStream 2 was removed. However, Biden’s hope that mere bribery (given the Dems’ 2024 loss and Republicans’ petroleum protectionism, obviously extremely temporary regardless) could prevent a Russian invasion was sorely mistaken (I do not buy the idea Washington wanted this war; Ukraine was a safe haven for American corruption that is effectively gone now). Biden continued relentlessly supporting the breakdown of electoral democracy in Ukraine and its replacement with a nationalist autocracy, and, though it would have been unlikely that Ukraine would have entered NATO during his term, at no point considered recognizing Crimea or even closing off the path to future Ukrainian NATO entry. Though Biden’s relative dovishness as opposed to Trump’s extreme hawkishness broadly contributed to Putin’s (rational and proven correct) calculation re: direct Western involvement in the Ukrainian fight, the fact is that the war in Ukraine was a response to Western hawkishness against Russia in regards to Ukraine, not any other country. Biden’s effective independence is also questionable, and, given his dovishness in practice relative to his campigning, this makes it unlikely he is the man most responsible for this war. Any other U.S. president would, after all, surely have been at least as hawkish as Biden. Within the expectable -indeed, probably even the realistic- limits of potential U.S. policymaking post-Trump, the point of no return in Ukraine, thus, was already past when Biden stepped into office.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  575. @Dmitry
    @AP

    Obama's relation to the Ukrainian crisis was not simple. It was Euromaidan while he was president, on the other hand, the response for the annexation of Crimea was relatively moderate, he probably was causing a lot of diplomatic isolation for Russia as the situation after 2014 was already bad.

    The plan to invade Ukraine was developed when Trump is president, although maybe the final approval of the plan is only while Biden is president.

    Part of the failure of the invasion, although with many other reasons for the failure, is because of misprediction of Biden's response. Biden has been very subtle how he would respond. If Trump won the election in 2020, there would have been probably less support for Ukraine and therefore the difficulty level would be lower.


    into a long-term war, the better to destroy their military capacity,
     
    I would assume it is not intentional, but it operates like a mouse trap designed by a hunter against a not intelligent prey.

    If the US has given advanced weapons to Kiev before 2022 like Patriot missiles, then Russia would not have invaded in 2022.

    But the US avoided giving advanced weapons to Ukraine. The weakness of Ukraine was like the cheese in the mouse trap, so Moscow views Ukraine as an undefended food. Then after the mouse goes to eat the cheese, NATO begins to give heavy weapons to Ukraine. This is now like a trap falling on the mouse's head and it's too late to escape with losing some bodyparts.

    Although we can assume it was not such an intentional plan, as Europe and US were not resolving their oil/gas problems before the invasion.

    Replies: @AP, @Mr. XYZ

    If the US has given advanced weapons to Kiev before 2022 like Patriot missiles, then Russia would not have invaded in 2022.

    Or Russia would have concluded that its fears about the situation in Ukraine being an existential threat to Russia were indeed justified and would have thus invaded Ukraine even more quickly than it did in real life, presumably with similar results as in real life.

    Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba made a US invasion of Cuba more, not less, likely in 1962.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ


    existential threat to Russia
     
    There were not any fears about "existential threat to Russia". It was just viewed as a weak third world country, which wasn't supported by the West and easy victory before 2022, even a police invasion partly.

    After the invasion, the balance of power is changing as Western countries begin to supply Ukraine with although mainly old weapons, they are a lot of heavy weapons and significant ammunition. In the future years like 2025 and 2026, the supply of the ammunition will increase, while on the other side the Soviet stock of ammunition and equipment is likely to have become low already after only a year and half of the conflict.


    Ukrainian attempt to reconquer Crimea (if Russia can’t repulse Ukraine militarily, that is). The West

     

    It's a kind of theatre. In Russia people care about Crimea only because the government says, everything in the internal politics in Russia is manufactured and a fake astro-turf. It's a dogs' controlling of sheep and then pretending the sheep are moving the dogs.

    Because the politics is manufactured and fake astro-turf, the leader has a lot of flexibility compared to Western leaders.

    I think many people from other countries don't understand this and believe there exist something like "organic political views" in Russia and there are fixed opinions, local politics, etc. You can see this inaccurate view also in the experts' views.

    I can remember before 2014, most people don't think more about Crimea than about Odessa. Ukrainians were brothers. In one day, you can reverse the situation all everyone will agree.

    Even three months ago, the Group Wagner were the heroes, with pictures in the cities, in the public transport etc. They were patriotic heroes. Three months later, nobody cares about Wagner. If Putin wants, everyone would forget Crimea even more fast.

    Although I think now Putin will feel more safe if Russia would be able to freeze conflict while still controlling part of Donetsk, then going more in the Iran/North Korea direction. I'm not sure there is so much motivation for peace with Ukraine, paying reparations to Ukraine etc.


    West could directly militarily intervene in the Ukraine War in such a scenario, but I don’t know if the West
     
    You can guess already now if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, there wouldn't be need for the West to directly militarily intervene. They would instead supply more advanced strategic weapons for Ukraine and the problem for Russia would only be temporarily reduced by the tactical nuclear weapons destroying of some of the land units of Ukraine.

    Ukraine's army is distributed over a large area and some of the area has air defense. Maybe tactical nuclear weapons would be used in places like the Ukrainian fortification West of Donetsk. If this is actually a successful military policy, nobody has tested.

    Replies: @QCIC

  576. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Obama’s relation to the Ukrainian crisis was not simple. It was Euromaidan while he was president, on the other hand, the response for the annexation of Crimea was relatively moderate, he probably was causing a lot of diplomatic isolation for Russia as the situation after 2014 was already bad.
     
    He was very weak militarily, and the sanctions were not terribly strong, either. The quote I provided captured it It's what pro-Russians on Unz say. I'm surprised they are not partisans of Obama.

    The plan to invade Ukraine was developed when Trump is president, although maybe the final approval of the plan is only while Biden is president.
     
    It may have been developed even earlier. The first moves (like the practice run) were under Biden.

    Part of the failure of the invasion, although with many other reasons for the failure, is because of misprediction of Biden’s response. Biden has been very subtle how he would respond.
     
    Biden was weak prior to the invasion. He continued to state what America would not do - it would not provide heavy missiles, it would not provide tanks, etc. Well, since it wouldn't do these things, Putin figured it would be an easy invasion.

    But then Biden did.


    If Trump won the election in 2020, there would have been probably less support for Ukraine and therefore the difficulty level would be lower.
     
    Trump's team during his presidency consisted of people who were more pro-Ukraine than the Joe Biden administration (and much more so, than the Obama administration). Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks compared to Biden. As is Trump's friend Lindsay Graham. Bolton left under poor circumstances but the others did not.

    Trump's policies were also more aggressive towards Russia. He attacked Nordstream with sanctions, shutting it down, pursued energy policies that made oil and gas cheaper, condemned Germany and Europe for its dependence on Russian gas, and provided lethal weapons to Ukraine (something that Obama had refused to do). The bizarre offer to take Greenland was probably about containing Russia in the Arctic and locking up more potential energy sources.

    In addition, Biden's botched Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump's watch a bunch of Wagner mercenaries were slaughtered by US troops in Syria, and the Iranian general was killed.

    I suspect that Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won reelection. I had a sinking feeling after Biden won, that Ukraine would be in danger.

    I don't think this was because Trump himself cares a lot either way. He may have a pro-Russian team this time, like with Vivek. Or not. Graham and Pompeo are still in his good graces. His vague 24 hour plan may be bad for Russia if Russia doesn't play along with him. Until his team becomes clear I am not supporting him, though, as I did in 2020.

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

    Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks

    Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won

    These “hawks” didn’t move the military equipment to Ukraine which would have prevented the invasion. Actually it would have stopped many thousands of people killed now by creating a kind of peace by more balance of power.

    I would doubt Trump winning in 2020 would change the situation, as Ukraine was without many defenses. Although this was now like a mouse trap, as the easy cheese for a mouse to eat, is followed by the large supply of equipment to Ukraine after the Russian army is trapped inside Ukraine.

    If Trump has given Ukraine old things from NATO like Patriot missiles, F-16, even 155mm artillery, Moscow wouldn’t invade Ukraine in 2022.

    Before 2022, part of military balance was the ammunition level, where the 152mm ammunition stocks were destroyed in Czech Republic and Bulgaria before the war. https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/bulgaria-investigates-four-arms-depot-blasts-for-russian-covert-action/

    So, even if Obama/Trump/Biden has given 155mm artillery to Ukraine before the war, the deterrence situation would have been different and this could have prevented the war.

    From the view of realpolitik, this would have been a failure of Obama/Trump/Biden for punishing rivals. As the result of their policy of not defending Ukraine before the war, now they partly they trapped Russia in Ukraine. Although I don’t think this is intentional policy, they have broken the Russian army by not stopping the self-destructive invasion.

    Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump’s watch a bunch of Wagner

    Afghanistan withdrawal was planned by Donald Trump.

    A question maybe we could only speculate, how important the personal bias about different countries is for the international relations of the American presidents, or this is not as important as we think.

    For example, Donald Trump is very anti-Iran personally it seems. But it seems doesn’t personally care about Russia or Ukraine.

    Mitt Romney, John McCain and after 2014 Hillary Clinton were seeming very anti-Russia in terms of personal bias. For Romney, it can be related possibly to the persecution of the Mormon church in Russia. This can be part of the explanation of the anti-Russia views of Mormons in general.

    John McCain possibly partly because his experience of the Cold War, military career in Vietnam in a plane was destroyed by a Soviet missile.

    Hillary Clinton was very anti-Russia after 2014. This is because the personal experience as The Secretary of State who has uncomfortable relations in 2014.

    Barack Obama thinks Russia is a weak regional power which isn’t so important for America. In terms of the size of the priority for America, Obama’s views actually look more accurate now after 2022.

    24 hour plan may be bad for Russia if Russia doesn’t play along with him. Until his team

    Trump’s view is copied from Obama, it’s Obama “isolationism”, although in the 2000s Trump was not isolationist and after 2014 Obama was becoming less isolationist. In 2020, Biden is also promoting more isolationist views.

    The reason is, because Obama wins in 2008 and 2012 partly because of the isolationist doctrine. After this, Trump sees this is the popular strategy to win the election and Swing States.

    On the other hand, the Republican ideology more consistent for the companies like Lockheed Martin, is followed by Mitt Romney or Nikki Haley, it’s not been popular in the recent elections with the independent votes.

    A most popular policy for winning in the Swing States will be more isolationism for external policy, more protectionism for local industry. The kind of speech to win election will be “We need to spend less money outside America and more money in Michigan and Minnesota”.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Dmitry


    Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks

    Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won


    These “hawks” didn’t move the military equipment to Ukraine which would have prevented the invasion.
     
    The invasion wasn't imminent in 2020 yet, however.

    I would doubt Trump winning in 2020 would change the situation, as Ukraine was without many defenses
     
    Putin invaded because he thought there would be very light consequences: Ukraine wouldn't resist, West would be weak about it and wouldn't care.

    A Trump administration in office wouldn't have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition.

    If Trump has given Ukraine old things from NATO like Patriot missiles, F-16, even 155mm artillery, Moscow wouldn’t invade Ukraine in 2022.
     
    I agree.

    As the result of their policy of not defending Ukraine before the war, now they partly they trapped Russia in Ukraine. Although I don’t think this is intentional policy, they have broken the Russian army by not stopping the self-destructive invasion.
     
    Also agree.

    Afghanistan withdrawal was planned by Donald Trump.
     
    Trump planned to withdraw, but I doubt that his administration would have botched the withdrawal as badly, leaving behind all that equipment for the Taliban.

    A most popular policy for winning in the Swing States will be more isolationism for external policy, more protectionism for local industry. The kind of speech to win election will be “We need to spend less money outside America and more money in Michigan and Minnesota”.
     
    Trump won Michigan in 2016 by 11,000 votes.

    In 2021, there were 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in Michigan:

    https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/03/michigan-has-the-9th-most-residents-with-ukrainian-ancestry-in-the-us.html

    A policy of abandoning Eastern Europe to Russia will lose Michigan.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

  577. @silviosilver
    @Mikel

    It's difficult to respond to this post because you're saying too many contradictory things - or that is how it seems to me.

    You earlier expressed a wish for this conflict to be over as soon as possible. Taken at face value, that means you should be fine with withdrawing all support for Ukraine and letting the Russians have their way with them. Then it's done, conflict over.

    But at the same time you contend that Ukrainians are fighting to keep western lives safe, that Russia is a threat to the west. So seen this way, Ukraine would simply be the first domino to fall. In that case, it would be proper to continue to arm Ukrainians, even to ramp up the aid.

    But then you caution that if Ukraine is to be supplied with arms, it should be gradual, so as not to provoke the Russians into doing something crazy like launching a nuclear strike. Which in effect means prolonging the conflict - quite contrary to your desire to see it end as soon as possible.

    I don't see how these different positions can be reconciled.

    Replies: @Mikel

    But at the same time you contend that Ukrainians are fighting to keep western lives safe

    Ouch. That hurt. I can’t have possibly explained myself so poorly.

    It wasn’t one of those old Thorfinsson-style effort posts, certainly, but I did put some thought into it, entering even into the alt-history terrain of a disintegrated Spain to illustrate my position better. Seeing that your lack of understanding of my views is so deep, I won’t try to restate them. I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

  578. @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @songbird

    The Mongols were in contact with the Vatican, demanded submission from the Pope, the letter was written in Persian

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Güyük_Khan_to_Pope_Innocent_IV

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/AscelinOfCremone.jpg

    Ascelin of Lombardia receiving a letter from Pope Innocent IV (left), and remitting it to the Mongol general Baiju (right).



    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/LetterGuyugToInnocence.jpg

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere

  579. @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    Whenever I hear a rumor that North Korea is supplying something or other to Russia, I wonder if the truth is the opposite. Maybe Russia is preparing to supply something to North Korea? Does North Korea even have anything which Russia needs?

    My reasoning is that the DPRK is one of the hot spots on the Russian border which the West/US might chose to nip away at and stir up trouble. The West would have to be careful on the Korean peninsula due to the proximity of China, but no more so than on Taiwan. North Korea is important to Russia because she keeps South Korea, Japan, the USA and even China somewhat at bay on Russia's Eastern border. On the other hand, the independence of North Korea is the strongest and longest lasting affront against American military power and Western hegemony.

    Gooks with Nukes, talk about embarrassment!

    Once the Ukraine project winds down we may get to find out if the South Koreans are foolish enough to fall for the same proxy war con as the Ukrainians.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Ray McGovern said just that about Russia supplying the DPRK. The reverse isn’t the laughable insult that the CNN propaganda projection likes of John Vause suggest. He had a segment last night with Jill Dougherty on how Russia is (supposedly) running out of available manpower and equipment.

  580. @QCIC
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Yes, the all meat diet has side effects...like insanity.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    Do the bad demons and good angels reverse sides for left handed people?

    Maybe it’s hemispheric coriolis dependent and they reverse sides for antipodal residents?

    I read Maps of Meaning. I was looking forward to the experience. This was a user error. I make a lot of those. ***

    *** when the reading material quality plummets I skim. I did not read every sentence-word in that book.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Emil Nikola Richard



    My response is at 1:40, the rest is the real world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yYDzLUH1NE

  581. @AP
    @Mikel


    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea
     
    Since launching all those missiles will be the total end of Russia, they will not be launched for the sake of anything in Ukraine, including Crimea. Losing Crimea would not be grounds for self-extinction by Russia.

    If Russia took Hawaii or Guam, would America respond by ending the USA by launching nukes against Russia? Of course not.

    You will say that the Putin regime may fall if Crimea falls, so Putin will end Russia and the world in response to the possibility of losing power. That, too, is unrealistic. He is not a death-cultist. He has children and grandchildren. As do many (most) in his circle. The Russian high command is not a collection of bin Ladens.

    This fear is convenient for Russian imperialists, of course.

    If the theoretical risk of being nuked by Russia prevents Ukraine from getting help, why would it be different for Estonia? Finland? Poland, even? Germany would be a prize too.

    Your approach essentially gives carte blanche to any nuclear power to invade or bomb whomever it wants, because of the "risk" of nuclear war. A "pro peace" approach? The response will be for everyone to get nukes, dramatically increasing the probability of them falling into the hands of non-state actors who would be incapable of a global nuclear holocaust but much more likely to create a localized one somewhere. Nuclear Poland, nuclear Japan, nuclear Iran, Egypt, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Brazil, etc.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel, @Dmitry

    If Russia took Hawaii or Guam, would America respond by ending the USA by launching nukes against Russia? Of course not.

    Of course it would. Starting a nuclear war in the MAD era is a tremendously grave decision that has never been taken so neither you nor I can claim 100% certainty on what would happen but all historic precedents establish that the Russians invading Hawaii (and much less than that) would trigger a nuclear confrontation real fast. For all intents and purposes, Hitler’s decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision. He surely expected Germany and himself to be liquidated without mercy but he went ahead with the order to resists anyway and more importantly, the order was fanatically obeyed until Berlin was taken and the Fuhrer died.

    I’m pretty certain that a Russian invasion of Hawaii would eventually lead to nuclear war even if Biden has secretly promised to himself that he will never launch the nukes. Looking at all of human history, these situations establish their own dynamics, the weaklings are set aside and self-preservation is almost never the decisive factor. Just look at those Ukrainian soldiers going willingly to an almost certain death right now in order to breach the Russian defenses.

    In fact, what you’re saying is that it doesn’t make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?

    I guess you’re also saying that JFK never intended to attack the Russians if they refused to remove their missiles from Cuba and his naval blockade was only for show. Nobody would ever launch any ICBM because that would mean their own destruction…. I wish.

    It doesn’t matter what you think anyway. What matters is what our political leaders think and their actions clearly reveal that they do believe in the possibility of nuclear war. The absence of a NFZ over Ukraine proves it, along with hundreds of other precautionary decisions taken since the start of the Cold War.

    Your approach essentially gives carte blanche to any nuclear power to invade or bomb whomever it wants

    No, not in slightest. But my approach, which was just everybody’s approach in the previous Cold War does mean that nuclear states, especially nuclear superpowers, can get away with much more than non-nuclear states. Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences. It is very unfair but to some extent also good in the sense that at least this state of affairs has so far prevented another world war. The previous one took barely 20 years to reignite.

    • Thanks: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikel


    For all intents and purposes, Hitler’s decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision. He surely expected Germany and himself to be liquidated without mercy but he went ahead with the order to resists anyway and more importantly, the order was fanatically obeyed until Berlin was taken and the Fuhrer died.
     
    TBF, the Allies offered only unconditional surrender for Germany. Though had there been a non-Nazi German government in power, it's possible that they would have unconditionally surrendered earlier.

    Russia won't get any offer akin to unconditional surrender. At worst, what Russia would get is a demand that it return to its 2013 borders and pay reparations. Possibly still unrealistic, but nothing comparable to what Germany got after WWII, which included the expulsions of over ten million ethnic Germans from territories that were internationally recognized as being a part of Germany right before the start of World War II. And of course partition into two separate countries (three separate countries if one includes Austria, which was recreated after WWII) for almost half a century afterwards.

    , @AP
    @Mikel


    I’m pretty certain that a Russian invasion of Hawaii would eventually lead to nuclear war even if Biden has secretly promised to himself that he will never launch the nukes.
     
    Perhaps eventually, after 10 more steps, like Russian troops defeating a liberation attempt and then storming the beaches of California, more American defeats, Russians taking Denver and moving eastward. But not immediately. And even then, no 100% guarantee (though I wouldn't take that chance). Biden would not launch the missiles that would result in the total destruction of the USA , over Hawaii alone.

    Just look at those Ukrainian soldiers going willingly to an almost certain death right now in order to breach the Russian defenses.
     
    Defending their country on their own lands.

    In fact, what you’re saying is that it doesn’t make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?
     
    NATO provides a strong conventional deterrent. Zero chance that the USA would launch nukes over Estonia, Poland, etc. because that would mean instant total annihilation of the USA. But massive numbers of Russian troops would be destroyed by American conventional arms if Russia tried to attack those countries.

    Unless you were running NATO. You would think that a conventional response would too risky, too provocative, not worth the possibility of nuclear war, so you would have no military response at all.


    I guess you’re also saying that JFK never intended to attack the Russians if they refused to remove their missiles from Cuba and his naval blockade was only for show.
     
    He might have attacked positions in Cuba but would not have bombed all of Russia.

    Furthermore, in 1962 the Soviets did not have the means to destroy all of the USA with ICBMs.

    So Kennedy was risking a very nasty war but not an existential one, as in the 21st century.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

    Therefore, Soviet nuclear capability in 1962 placed less emphasis on ICBMs than on medium and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs). The missiles could hit American allies and most of Alaska from Soviet territory but not the contiguous United States. Graham Allison, the director of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, points out, "The Soviet Union could not right the nuclear imbalance by deploying new ICBMs on its own soil. In order to meet the threat it faced in 1962, 1963, and 1964, it had very few options. Moving existing nuclear weapons to locations from which they could reach American targets was one


    No, not in slightest. But my approach, which was just everybody’s approach in the previous Cold War does mean that nuclear states, especially nuclear superpowers, can get away with much more than non-nuclear states. Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences
     
    In Korea and probably Vietnam, America's opponents were lavishly provided with weapons, and Russian soldiers were shooting down American pilots. When American volunteer-pilots in F-16s start shooting down Russian planes. we will have parity with the Vietnam War experience.

    Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were outcast regimes, unlike Ukraine which Russia attacked.

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    Of course it would.
     
    As an immediate reaction? That's extremely doubtful. And what if Russia was stopped at Hawaii and never penetrated further? I bet plenty of Americans would, after a time, be willing to cut their losses rather than risk total annihilation. (Not necessarily a majority of Americans, but a significant number nonetheless.)

    all historic precedents establish that the Russians invading Hawaii (and much less than that) would trigger a nuclear confrontation real fast. Hitler’s decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision.
     
    How can Germany fighting on when they knew the war was lost possibly be considered the equivalent situation to America only losing Hawaii (or even, according to you, "much less than that")? An America that has only lost Hawaii would at worst be more like the Germans being stopped at Moscow rather than the Germans, say, retreating from Warsaw. Imo, there would be plenty of opportunity to pursue conventional warfare before even considering nukes in those circumstances.

    In fact, what you’re saying is that it doesn’t make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?
     
    This is obviously a false dichotomy. The choice isn't either immediately go nuclear or don't bother fighting.

    It doesn’t matter what you think anyway. What matters is what our political leaders think and their actions clearly reveal that they do believe in the possibility of nuclear war.
     
    Nobody doubts they've considered the possibility. We're discussing the likelihood.

    Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences.
     
    Surely the more reasonable explanation for that is those countries' incapacity to impose "consequences" on America, rather than their fear of American nuclear strike. It's not as if those countries didn't even attempt to put up a fight, which is what your "nuclear fear" model would assume. On the contrary, they fought bitterly.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mikel

  582. @Mikel
    @AP


    If Russia took Hawaii or Guam, would America respond by ending the USA by launching nukes against Russia? Of course not.
     
    Of course it would. Starting a nuclear war in the MAD era is a tremendously grave decision that has never been taken so neither you nor I can claim 100% certainty on what would happen but all historic precedents establish that the Russians invading Hawaii (and much less than that) would trigger a nuclear confrontation real fast. For all intents and purposes, Hitler's decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision. He surely expected Germany and himself to be liquidated without mercy but he went ahead with the order to resists anyway and more importantly, the order was fanatically obeyed until Berlin was taken and the Fuhrer died.

    I'm pretty certain that a Russian invasion of Hawaii would eventually lead to nuclear war even if Biden has secretly promised to himself that he will never launch the nukes. Looking at all of human history, these situations establish their own dynamics, the weaklings are set aside and self-preservation is almost never the decisive factor. Just look at those Ukrainian soldiers going willingly to an almost certain death right now in order to breach the Russian defenses.

    In fact, what you're saying is that it doesn't make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?

    I guess you're also saying that JFK never intended to attack the Russians if they refused to remove their missiles from Cuba and his naval blockade was only for show. Nobody would ever launch any ICBM because that would mean their own destruction.... I wish.

    It doesn't matter what you think anyway. What matters is what our political leaders think and their actions clearly reveal that they do believe in the possibility of nuclear war. The absence of a NFZ over Ukraine proves it, along with hundreds of other precautionary decisions taken since the start of the Cold War.


    Your approach essentially gives carte blanche to any nuclear power to invade or bomb whomever it wants
     
    No, not in slightest. But my approach, which was just everybody's approach in the previous Cold War does mean that nuclear states, especially nuclear superpowers, can get away with much more than non-nuclear states. Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences. It is very unfair but to some extent also good in the sense that at least this state of affairs has so far prevented another world war. The previous one took barely 20 years to reignite.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP, @silviosilver

    For all intents and purposes, Hitler’s decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision. He surely expected Germany and himself to be liquidated without mercy but he went ahead with the order to resists anyway and more importantly, the order was fanatically obeyed until Berlin was taken and the Fuhrer died.

    TBF, the Allies offered only unconditional surrender for Germany. Though had there been a non-Nazi German government in power, it’s possible that they would have unconditionally surrendered earlier.

    Russia won’t get any offer akin to unconditional surrender. At worst, what Russia would get is a demand that it return to its 2013 borders and pay reparations. Possibly still unrealistic, but nothing comparable to what Germany got after WWII, which included the expulsions of over ten million ethnic Germans from territories that were internationally recognized as being a part of Germany right before the start of World War II. And of course partition into two separate countries (three separate countries if one includes Austria, which was recreated after WWII) for almost half a century afterwards.

  583. @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry


    If the US has given advanced weapons to Kiev before 2022 like Patriot missiles, then Russia would not have invaded in 2022.
     
    Or Russia would have concluded that its fears about the situation in Ukraine being an existential threat to Russia were indeed justified and would have thus invaded Ukraine even more quickly than it did in real life, presumably with similar results as in real life.

    Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba made a US invasion of Cuba more, not less, likely in 1962.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    existential threat to Russia

    There were not any fears about “existential threat to Russia”. It was just viewed as a weak third world country, which wasn’t supported by the West and easy victory before 2022, even a police invasion partly.

    After the invasion, the balance of power is changing as Western countries begin to supply Ukraine with although mainly old weapons, they are a lot of heavy weapons and significant ammunition. In the future years like 2025 and 2026, the supply of the ammunition will increase, while on the other side the Soviet stock of ammunition and equipment is likely to have become low already after only a year and half of the conflict.

    Ukrainian attempt to reconquer Crimea (if Russia can’t repulse Ukraine militarily, that is). The West

    It’s a kind of theatre. In Russia people care about Crimea only because the government says, everything in the internal politics in Russia is manufactured and a fake astro-turf. It’s a dogs’ controlling of sheep and then pretending the sheep are moving the dogs.

    Because the politics is manufactured and fake astro-turf, the leader has a lot of flexibility compared to Western leaders.

    I think many people from other countries don’t understand this and believe there exist something like “organic political views” in Russia and there are fixed opinions, local politics, etc. You can see this inaccurate view also in the experts’ views.

    I can remember before 2014, most people don’t think more about Crimea than about Odessa. Ukrainians were brothers. In one day, you can reverse the situation all everyone will agree.

    Even three months ago, the Group Wagner were the heroes, with pictures in the cities, in the public transport etc. They were patriotic heroes. Three months later, nobody cares about Wagner. If Putin wants, everyone would forget Crimea even more fast.

    Although I think now Putin will feel more safe if Russia would be able to freeze conflict while still controlling part of Donetsk, then going more in the Iran/North Korea direction. I’m not sure there is so much motivation for peace with Ukraine, paying reparations to Ukraine etc.

    West could directly militarily intervene in the Ukraine War in such a scenario, but I don’t know if the West

    You can guess already now if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, there wouldn’t be need for the West to directly militarily intervene. They would instead supply more advanced strategic weapons for Ukraine and the problem for Russia would only be temporarily reduced by the tactical nuclear weapons destroying of some of the land units of Ukraine.

    Ukraine’s army is distributed over a large area and some of the area has air defense. Maybe tactical nuclear weapons would be used in places like the Ukrainian fortification West of Donetsk. If this is actually a successful military policy, nobody has tested.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Dmitry

    I think the propaganda is as thick and pervasive in the US and the West as it is in Russia. Maybe news in Israel is different and more realistic because the many Russian emigres create a unique relationship between the two countries.

    +++

    Some military experts at the top must have always recognized Russia was militarily powerful enough to be a potential threat to Western hegemony. This was mainly but not entirely because of her nuclear capability. At least a handful of Western military leaders would have recognized that recent US wars demonstrated much less military prowess than was advertised in the mainstream. They would have also recognized that expeditionary warfare based on aircraft carriers and long-range aircraft could be extremely risky against a potential near-peer adversary. Until maybe 20 years ago Russia was the only one and would have been monitored carefully. The entire program of pressure against Russia is not because they are militarily weak, it is because Russia is strong. The premise for the Western aggression is that maybe Russia is relatively weak, perhaps weak enough to be cleanly taken out of the picture once and for all. This is much different than being weak in absolute terms.

    Russia does not have the ability to project power to far away places whereas the USA is the opposite. It "defends" itself by attacking people far away which is just Imperialism 101. Russia is playing a different game, simply defending her borders and "near away" areas. Having a border with China and reasonable access to India she is not isolated in existential terms. As long as China and India are adversaries, Russia will likely always have at least one as a close partner.

    The West moving into Ukraine is not incidentally a threat or perhaps some Sovok misunderstanding of benign capitalism at work. The West moving into Ukraine and working to move it out of Russia's orbit is fundamentally a threat. That is what Ukraine is all about, pressing Russia militarily. The only surprise is how long it look Russia to respond. There was apparently strong internal conflict which tied her hands until the last minute.

    Much of the Soviet engineering and productive capability dissipated after the 1990s. Nonetheless, Russia retained a top nuclear power industry (with a complete fuel cycle), a top aerospace and rocket industry along with a few others. Why are people talking about Russia's weakness? After the 2015 sanctions Russia actively worked to become self-sufficient in many areas which had been vulnerabilities.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  584. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @QCIC

    Do the bad demons and good angels reverse sides for left handed people?

    Maybe it's hemispheric coriolis dependent and they reverse sides for antipodal residents?

    I read Maps of Meaning. I was looking forward to the experience. This was a user error. I make a lot of those. ***

    *** when the reading material quality plummets I skim. I did not read every sentence-word in that book.

    Replies: @QCIC

    [MORE]

    My response is at 1:40, the rest is the real world.

  585. @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ


    existential threat to Russia
     
    There were not any fears about "existential threat to Russia". It was just viewed as a weak third world country, which wasn't supported by the West and easy victory before 2022, even a police invasion partly.

    After the invasion, the balance of power is changing as Western countries begin to supply Ukraine with although mainly old weapons, they are a lot of heavy weapons and significant ammunition. In the future years like 2025 and 2026, the supply of the ammunition will increase, while on the other side the Soviet stock of ammunition and equipment is likely to have become low already after only a year and half of the conflict.


    Ukrainian attempt to reconquer Crimea (if Russia can’t repulse Ukraine militarily, that is). The West

     

    It's a kind of theatre. In Russia people care about Crimea only because the government says, everything in the internal politics in Russia is manufactured and a fake astro-turf. It's a dogs' controlling of sheep and then pretending the sheep are moving the dogs.

    Because the politics is manufactured and fake astro-turf, the leader has a lot of flexibility compared to Western leaders.

    I think many people from other countries don't understand this and believe there exist something like "organic political views" in Russia and there are fixed opinions, local politics, etc. You can see this inaccurate view also in the experts' views.

    I can remember before 2014, most people don't think more about Crimea than about Odessa. Ukrainians were brothers. In one day, you can reverse the situation all everyone will agree.

    Even three months ago, the Group Wagner were the heroes, with pictures in the cities, in the public transport etc. They were patriotic heroes. Three months later, nobody cares about Wagner. If Putin wants, everyone would forget Crimea even more fast.

    Although I think now Putin will feel more safe if Russia would be able to freeze conflict while still controlling part of Donetsk, then going more in the Iran/North Korea direction. I'm not sure there is so much motivation for peace with Ukraine, paying reparations to Ukraine etc.


    West could directly militarily intervene in the Ukraine War in such a scenario, but I don’t know if the West
     
    You can guess already now if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, there wouldn't be need for the West to directly militarily intervene. They would instead supply more advanced strategic weapons for Ukraine and the problem for Russia would only be temporarily reduced by the tactical nuclear weapons destroying of some of the land units of Ukraine.

    Ukraine's army is distributed over a large area and some of the area has air defense. Maybe tactical nuclear weapons would be used in places like the Ukrainian fortification West of Donetsk. If this is actually a successful military policy, nobody has tested.

    Replies: @QCIC

    I think the propaganda is as thick and pervasive in the US and the West as it is in Russia. Maybe news in Israel is different and more realistic because the many Russian emigres create a unique relationship between the two countries.

    +++

    Some military experts at the top must have always recognized Russia was militarily powerful enough to be a potential threat to Western hegemony. This was mainly but not entirely because of her nuclear capability. At least a handful of Western military leaders would have recognized that recent US wars demonstrated much less military prowess than was advertised in the mainstream. They would have also recognized that expeditionary warfare based on aircraft carriers and long-range aircraft could be extremely risky against a potential near-peer adversary. Until maybe 20 years ago Russia was the only one and would have been monitored carefully. The entire program of pressure against Russia is not because they are militarily weak, it is because Russia is strong. The premise for the Western aggression is that maybe Russia is relatively weak, perhaps weak enough to be cleanly taken out of the picture once and for all. This is much different than being weak in absolute terms.

    Russia does not have the ability to project power to far away places whereas the USA is the opposite. It “defends” itself by attacking people far away which is just Imperialism 101. Russia is playing a different game, simply defending her borders and “near away” areas. Having a border with China and reasonable access to India she is not isolated in existential terms. As long as China and India are adversaries, Russia will likely always have at least one as a close partner.

    The West moving into Ukraine is not incidentally a threat or perhaps some Sovok misunderstanding of benign capitalism at work. The West moving into Ukraine and working to move it out of Russia’s orbit is fundamentally a threat. That is what Ukraine is all about, pressing Russia militarily. The only surprise is how long it look Russia to respond. There was apparently strong internal conflict which tied her hands until the last minute.

    Much of the Soviet engineering and productive capability dissipated after the 1990s. Nonetheless, Russia retained a top nuclear power industry (with a complete fuel cycle), a top aerospace and rocket industry along with a few others. Why are people talking about Russia’s weakness? After the 2015 sanctions Russia actively worked to become self-sufficient in many areas which had been vulnerabilities.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @QCIC


    Israel is different and more realistic because the many Russian emigres
     
    The main channel there is Channel 11, is neutral centrist or slightly liberal.

    Channel 9 which is Russian language is pro-Ukraine and managed by Ukrainians for the last years.

    Channel 14 is like the Israeli version of Fox News and "patriotic". I don't know if it's true, but the Channel 14 is accused by Ukrainians of being pro-Russia.

    I would say the difference from the US, is the main channel is a government channel which tries to be neutral. This is more like in a West European country. While in America, there isn't really a government television channel for both sides.


    Russian emigres create
     
    As result of the war, Israel will be receiving some proportion of the opportunist non-patriotic people, which is the character of the postsoviet society nowadays.

    There was an article last week in Moscow Times.

    Having Fled War, Russian Emigres in Israel Find Themselves Drafted to IDF

    Alice, a 17-year-old photographer, fled Russia for Israel shortly after the start of the war in Ukraine. Months later, she was summoned to serve in the Israeli army.

    “I left Russia because of the war, and I cannot imagine myself serving in any army, in any country,” Alice told The Moscow Times in a phone interview.

    “I don't want to have anything to do with killing people at all. Even if I don’t do it myself, I don’t want to wear the same uniform as people who, for whatever reason, kill others.”

    She is one of hundreds of Russian emigres who, after fleeing their country’s wartime crackdown or mobilization, now find themselves facing military service in Israel — and the moral dilemmas that come with it.

    Though aware of Israel's conscription policy prior to her arrival there, Alice, who had Russian police knocking on her door, was more focused on getting out of Russia as soon as possible.

    According to New Profile, an Israeli movement that opposes militarism and advises conscientious objectors, more than 100 recent Russian migrants have reached out in recent months for guidance on how to avoid conscription to the IDF.

    There are several ways to dodge the draft in Israel, including marriage, medical reasons, or conscientious objection.

    However, for new emigres like Alice, who do not speak Hebrew and lack connections in the army that can help them navigate the Israeli bureaucracy, the chances of being recognized as a pacifist and declared a conscientious objector are minimal. This led her to explore other avenues.

    After receiving three military summons and facing the risk of arrest by the military police, Alice and her boyfriend, Matvey, who also fled Russia for Israel, decided to get married.

    But because the state only acknowledges religious weddings, Alice and Matvey, as secular Israelis, had to travel abroad for a civil marriage. Their union's official recognition is still pending. After several months of grappling with the military bureaucracy, Alice finally secured a discharge on medical grounds.

    Matvey, 19, took part in numerous protests in Russia and was reluctant to serve in the IDF.

    “I don’t agree with many actions of the Israeli army, so to speak, and I don’t want to kill people. There is also, of course, the issue of Israel’s occupation [of Palestine],” he told The Moscow Times. “But we understand that the main goal of the Israeli army, is to defend Israel. I still try to limit as much as possible participation in all sorts of illegal actions that exist in the Israeli army. And, well, to not be a part of it.”

    The policies of the current Israeli government, the most right-wing in the country's history, only make the decision to serve harder. Its policies include the persistent expansion of settlements in the West Bank and harsh tactics against Palestinian civilians living in the occupied territories. So far in 2023, the Israeli military killed nearly 180 Palestinians, including 28 children.

    “I do not support all of the aspects of the Israeli army; especially given the current situation, I do not want to serve in the Israeli army,” Alice said.
    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/08/31/having-fled-war-russian-emigres-in-israel-find-themselves-drafted-to-idf-a82316

     

    Replies: @A123, @QCIC

  586. @Dmitry
    @AP


    Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks

    Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won
     

    These "hawks" didn't move the military equipment to Ukraine which would have prevented the invasion. Actually it would have stopped many thousands of people killed now by creating a kind of peace by more balance of power.

    I would doubt Trump winning in 2020 would change the situation, as Ukraine was without many defenses. Although this was now like a mouse trap, as the easy cheese for a mouse to eat, is followed by the large supply of equipment to Ukraine after the Russian army is trapped inside Ukraine.

    If Trump has given Ukraine old things from NATO like Patriot missiles, F-16, even 155mm artillery, Moscow wouldn't invade Ukraine in 2022.

    Before 2022, part of military balance was the ammunition level, where the 152mm ammunition stocks were destroyed in Czech Republic and Bulgaria before the war. https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/bulgaria-investigates-four-arms-depot-blasts-for-russian-covert-action/

    So, even if Obama/Trump/Biden has given 155mm artillery to Ukraine before the war, the deterrence situation would have been different and this could have prevented the war.

    From the view of realpolitik, this would have been a failure of Obama/Trump/Biden for punishing rivals. As the result of their policy of not defending Ukraine before the war, now they partly they trapped Russia in Ukraine. Although I don't think this is intentional policy, they have broken the Russian army by not stopping the self-destructive invasion.


    Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump’s watch a bunch of Wagner

     

    Afghanistan withdrawal was planned by Donald Trump.

    A question maybe we could only speculate, how important the personal bias about different countries is for the international relations of the American presidents, or this is not as important as we think.

    For example, Donald Trump is very anti-Iran personally it seems. But it seems doesn't personally care about Russia or Ukraine.

    Mitt Romney, John McCain and after 2014 Hillary Clinton were seeming very anti-Russia in terms of personal bias. For Romney, it can be related possibly to the persecution of the Mormon church in Russia. This can be part of the explanation of the anti-Russia views of Mormons in general.

    John McCain possibly partly because his experience of the Cold War, military career in Vietnam in a plane was destroyed by a Soviet missile.

    Hillary Clinton was very anti-Russia after 2014. This is because the personal experience as The Secretary of State who has uncomfortable relations in 2014.

    Barack Obama thinks Russia is a weak regional power which isn't so important for America. In terms of the size of the priority for America, Obama's views actually look more accurate now after 2022.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg


    24 hour plan may be bad for Russia if Russia doesn’t play along with him. Until his team
     
    Trump's view is copied from Obama, it's Obama "isolationism", although in the 2000s Trump was not isolationist and after 2014 Obama was becoming less isolationist. In 2020, Biden is also promoting more isolationist views.

    The reason is, because Obama wins in 2008 and 2012 partly because of the isolationist doctrine. After this, Trump sees this is the popular strategy to win the election and Swing States.

    On the other hand, the Republican ideology more consistent for the companies like Lockheed Martin, is followed by Mitt Romney or Nikki Haley, it's not been popular in the recent elections with the independent votes.

    A most popular policy for winning in the Swing States will be more isolationism for external policy, more protectionism for local industry. The kind of speech to win election will be "We need to spend less money outside America and more money in Michigan and Minnesota".

    Replies: @AP

    Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks

    Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won

    These “hawks” didn’t move the military equipment to Ukraine which would have prevented the invasion.

    The invasion wasn’t imminent in 2020 yet, however.

    I would doubt Trump winning in 2020 would change the situation, as Ukraine was without many defenses

    Putin invaded because he thought there would be very light consequences: Ukraine wouldn’t resist, West would be weak about it and wouldn’t care.

    A Trump administration in office wouldn’t have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition.

    If Trump has given Ukraine old things from NATO like Patriot missiles, F-16, even 155mm artillery, Moscow wouldn’t invade Ukraine in 2022.

    I agree.

    As the result of their policy of not defending Ukraine before the war, now they partly they trapped Russia in Ukraine. Although I don’t think this is intentional policy, they have broken the Russian army by not stopping the self-destructive invasion.

    Also agree.

    Afghanistan withdrawal was planned by Donald Trump.

    Trump planned to withdraw, but I doubt that his administration would have botched the withdrawal as badly, leaving behind all that equipment for the Taliban.

    A most popular policy for winning in the Swing States will be more isolationism for external policy, more protectionism for local industry. The kind of speech to win election will be “We need to spend less money outside America and more money in Michigan and Minnesota”.

    Trump won Michigan in 2016 by 11,000 votes.

    In 2021, there were 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in Michigan:

    https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/03/michigan-has-the-9th-most-residents-with-ukrainian-ancestry-in-the-us.html

    A policy of abandoning Eastern Europe to Russia will lose Michigan.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    A policy of abandoning Eastern Europe to Russia will lose Michigan.
     
    Except that if Trump would have already won reelection in 2020, he himself could have cared less about this--unless of course other Trump family members would have also had their own presidential ambitions.
    , @Dmitry
    @AP


    Trump administration in office wouldn’t have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition
     
    The response of Trump would have been weaker for Russia in comparison with Biden where the response has been more strong than probably anyone has expected, especially in Moscow.

    planned to withdraw, but I doubt that his administration
     
    Trump planned the withdraw and signed the peace agreement in 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/58271943

    36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in
     
    There is confusing language. Except a small minority, these people are not Ukrainians and Poles. Only a small proportion of this number are people from Ukraine or Poland.

    They are mostly native Americans which have ancestry from Poland or Ukraine in a different century like most Americans. Americans who are arrivals of the late 19th century and later created a concept of ethnic pride and express this with some events like "Columbus day" or "St Patrick's day". If the external objectives of the country the American peoples' ancestors had immigrated before in previous centuries will change voting is not so clear as their enjoyment of the Shamrock flag.

    In 2012, most Polish Americans voted for Obama against Romney. In 2016, mostly voted for Trump against Clinton (Trump was pro-Russia/Clinton anti-Russia). In 2020, they voted for Biden against Trump.

    In every year after 1980 a majority have voted for the president which wins the election, so this looks like a mainstream voting group without so much nationally nonrepresentative views.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-American_vote#Presidential_voting_results

    Replies: @AP

  587. @Mikel
    @AP


    If Russia took Hawaii or Guam, would America respond by ending the USA by launching nukes against Russia? Of course not.
     
    Of course it would. Starting a nuclear war in the MAD era is a tremendously grave decision that has never been taken so neither you nor I can claim 100% certainty on what would happen but all historic precedents establish that the Russians invading Hawaii (and much less than that) would trigger a nuclear confrontation real fast. For all intents and purposes, Hitler's decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision. He surely expected Germany and himself to be liquidated without mercy but he went ahead with the order to resists anyway and more importantly, the order was fanatically obeyed until Berlin was taken and the Fuhrer died.

    I'm pretty certain that a Russian invasion of Hawaii would eventually lead to nuclear war even if Biden has secretly promised to himself that he will never launch the nukes. Looking at all of human history, these situations establish their own dynamics, the weaklings are set aside and self-preservation is almost never the decisive factor. Just look at those Ukrainian soldiers going willingly to an almost certain death right now in order to breach the Russian defenses.

    In fact, what you're saying is that it doesn't make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?

    I guess you're also saying that JFK never intended to attack the Russians if they refused to remove their missiles from Cuba and his naval blockade was only for show. Nobody would ever launch any ICBM because that would mean their own destruction.... I wish.

    It doesn't matter what you think anyway. What matters is what our political leaders think and their actions clearly reveal that they do believe in the possibility of nuclear war. The absence of a NFZ over Ukraine proves it, along with hundreds of other precautionary decisions taken since the start of the Cold War.


    Your approach essentially gives carte blanche to any nuclear power to invade or bomb whomever it wants
     
    No, not in slightest. But my approach, which was just everybody's approach in the previous Cold War does mean that nuclear states, especially nuclear superpowers, can get away with much more than non-nuclear states. Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences. It is very unfair but to some extent also good in the sense that at least this state of affairs has so far prevented another world war. The previous one took barely 20 years to reignite.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP, @silviosilver

    I’m pretty certain that a Russian invasion of Hawaii would eventually lead to nuclear war even if Biden has secretly promised to himself that he will never launch the nukes.

    Perhaps eventually, after 10 more steps, like Russian troops defeating a liberation attempt and then storming the beaches of California, more American defeats, Russians taking Denver and moving eastward. But not immediately. And even then, no 100% guarantee (though I wouldn’t take that chance). Biden would not launch the missiles that would result in the total destruction of the USA , over Hawaii alone.

    Just look at those Ukrainian soldiers going willingly to an almost certain death right now in order to breach the Russian defenses.

    Defending their country on their own lands.

    In fact, what you’re saying is that it doesn’t make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?

    NATO provides a strong conventional deterrent. Zero chance that the USA would launch nukes over Estonia, Poland, etc. because that would mean instant total annihilation of the USA. But massive numbers of Russian troops would be destroyed by American conventional arms if Russia tried to attack those countries.

    Unless you were running NATO. You would think that a conventional response would too risky, too provocative, not worth the possibility of nuclear war, so you would have no military response at all.

    I guess you’re also saying that JFK never intended to attack the Russians if they refused to remove their missiles from Cuba and his naval blockade was only for show.

    He might have attacked positions in Cuba but would not have bombed all of Russia.

    Furthermore, in 1962 the Soviets did not have the means to destroy all of the USA with ICBMs.

    So Kennedy was risking a very nasty war but not an existential one, as in the 21st century.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

    Therefore, Soviet nuclear capability in 1962 placed less emphasis on ICBMs than on medium and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs). The missiles could hit American allies and most of Alaska from Soviet territory but not the contiguous United States. Graham Allison, the director of Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, points out, “The Soviet Union could not right the nuclear imbalance by deploying new ICBMs on its own soil. In order to meet the threat it faced in 1962, 1963, and 1964, it had very few options. Moving existing nuclear weapons to locations from which they could reach American targets was one

    No, not in slightest. But my approach, which was just everybody’s approach in the previous Cold War does mean that nuclear states, especially nuclear superpowers, can get away with much more than non-nuclear states. Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences

    In Korea and probably Vietnam, America’s opponents were lavishly provided with weapons, and Russian soldiers were shooting down American pilots. When American volunteer-pilots in F-16s start shooting down Russian planes. we will have parity with the Vietnam War experience.

    Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were outcast regimes, unlike Ukraine which Russia attacked.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @AP


    and then storming the beaches of California, more American defeats, Russians taking Denver and moving eastward.
     
    Jeez. So all those nukes would do nothing for me and my family if the Russians decide to annex Utah as long as they stay west of Denver. What a scam.

    Defending their country on their own lands.
     
    There we go again. Location, location, location. I don't want to belittle the impressive bravery of those youngsters, honestly. But that's not so determinant when it comes to killing and dying. Mohammed Atta and his team did it very far away from their lands.

    Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were outcast regimes, unlike Ukraine which Russia attacked.
     
    I wasn't comparing those countries to Ukraine or the Basque Country. I was just pointing out the well known fact that down here on planet Earth nuclear superpowers get advantages that the rest don't. In fact, Afghanistan was invaded with impunity by both of them. Brezhnev died of natural causes and in all likelihood so will Bush.

    Replies: @AP

  588. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Trump’s policies were also more aggressive towards Russia. He attacked Nordstream with sanctions, shutting it down, pursued energy policies that made oil and gas cheaper, condemned Germany and Europe for its dependence on Russian gas, and provided lethal weapons to Ukraine (something that Obama had refused to do). The bizarre offer to take Greenland was probably about containing Russia in the Arctic and locking up more potential energy sources.
     
    Interestingly enough, EHarding (Enopoletus) blames Trump much more than Biden for Putin's Ukraine invasion:

    https://eharding.substack.com/p/why-donald-trump-is-primarily-responsible

    There has been quite a bit of debate about who is responsible for the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Putin? No. Only a moron would claim that. Biden? Certainly a candidate, but not the best one -more on that later. Zelensky? Like his predecessor Poroshenko, a puppet not worth attention. But there is one man who tends to be missing from these debates, despite his prominence.

    By far the most dramatically underrated culprit for the Ukrainian war is none other than the great heel of the American political arena, Donald J. Trump. Before the Trump administration, Putin was still very much willing and waiting to reach a compromise with the West that did not involve full-scale war in Ukraine. By the end of the Trump administration, that was obviously retarded. Putin, in probably the most embarrassing moment of his presidency, went so far as claiming that he would vote for Trump if he were an American. I do not believe he’d make such a cuck move again.

    It was Trump, not Biden, who invited Montenegro and North Macedonia into NATO, thus totally encircling Serbia. It was Trump, not Biden, who first broke the dam of sending arms to Ukraine in December 2017. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first sanctioned the Internet Research Agency (see also Trump’s treatment of Jeff Sessions) and who bears exclusive responsibility for the Russiagate narrative. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who signed into law the CAATSA, which made removal of sanctions on Russia impossible. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who closed all the American consulates in Russia. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first blocked NordStream 2 from going forward, thus demonstrating Germany to be an American puppet state and that any future Republican president would do likewise. This list, of course, is just the tip of a giant iceberg of Trumpist Russia hostility. It was, thus, Trump, not Biden, who, by running as the most Russia-friendly serious GOP candidate and then proceeding to act as the most Russia-hawkish president of the 21st century, permanently solidified the caducean framework of the Democrats perpetrually and without dissent condemning Republicans for being communists or whatever and the Republicans being more hawkish on Russia than ever before -Trump, after all, presented the most dovish version of a GOP Russia policy, and any future GOP president would be guaranteed to be at least as hawkish.

    Biden, despite his relentlessly Russophobic presidential campaign, actually did not turn out nearly as hawkish on Russia as he could have been. Though the USA continued to deliver military equipment to the Zelensky regime, very little of it was seen on the battlefield after February 23. The pace of sanctions following the election of Biden slowed down relative to the Trump presidency. The threat to NordStream 2 was removed. However, Biden’s hope that mere bribery (given the Dems’ 2024 loss and Republicans’ petroleum protectionism, obviously extremely temporary regardless) could prevent a Russian invasion was sorely mistaken (I do not buy the idea Washington wanted this war; Ukraine was a safe haven for American corruption that is effectively gone now). Biden continued relentlessly supporting the breakdown of electoral democracy in Ukraine and its replacement with a nationalist autocracy, and, though it would have been unlikely that Ukraine would have entered NATO during his term, at no point considered recognizing Crimea or even closing off the path to future Ukrainian NATO entry. Though Biden’s relative dovishness as opposed to Trump’s extreme hawkishness broadly contributed to Putin’s (rational and proven correct) calculation re: direct Western involvement in the Ukrainian fight, the fact is that the war in Ukraine was a response to Western hawkishness against Russia in regards to Ukraine, not any other country. Biden’s effective independence is also questionable, and, given his dovishness in practice relative to his campigning, this makes it unlikely he is the man most responsible for this war. Any other U.S. president would, after all, surely have been at least as hawkish as Biden. Within the expectable -indeed, probably even the realistic- limits of potential U.S. policymaking post-Trump, the point of no return in Ukraine, thus, was already past when Biden stepped into office.

    Why isn’t Trump mentioned as being to blame for the Ukrainian crisis? Because Americans, with a couple of exceptions, disproportionately under the age of 30, are bloodthirsty monsters who believe everything they read and watch. They are, for the most part, cuck faggots who have, despite ceasing to talk about it, fully internalized the Russiagate narrative and view the lack of a Russian offensive during his term as a result of his completely imaginary dovishness.
     

    In addition, Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal projected weakness. Trump had a stronger, perhaps more reckless image. Under Trump’s watch a bunch of Wagner mercenaries were slaughtered by US troops in Syria, and the Iranian general was killed.
     
    Biden withdrew from Afghanistan as per the deal that Trump himself negotiated, just several months later. Would Trump have really organized the Afghan withdrawal better than Biden did? I don't seem to recall Trump making any serious plans to evacuate huge numbers of Afghans if/once Afghanistan would have fallen to the Taliban, for instance.

    I suspect that Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won reelection. I had a sinking feeling after Biden won, that Ukraine would be in danger.
     
    I disagree with you on this. For so long as Russia would have felt that the West could place nukes and/or missiles in Ukraine, Russia would have considered the situation in Ukraine an existential threat. (The fact that Russia's perceptions of the situation differed from reality is besides the point; perceptions matter much more than reality.) If anything, had Trump withdrawn the US from NATO during his second term like he apparently wanted to do, Russia might have felt even more emboldened to invade Ukraine, knowing that a US that had a President who is unwilling to commit to the continuation of the NATO alliance would not be willing to do much to help Ukraine if it was invaded. Also, had Trump sent HIMARS, ATAMACS, and/or et cetera to Ukraine before any Russian invasion in an attempt to look tough, Russia might have concluded that its fears about the situation in Ukraine being an existential threat to it were indeed justified and thus have still decided to invade Ukraine.

    And if Russia would have still invaded Ukraine, it's entirely possible that Trump would be scared of nuclear war and thus decide to throw Ukraine under the bus, viewing corrupt Ukraine as not worth the sacrifice of a large amount of US taxpayer money.

    Replies: @AP

    I disagree with you on this. For so long as Russia would have felt that the West could place nukes and/or missiles in Ukraine, Russia would have considered the situation in Ukraine an existential threat

    Russia did not invade Ukraine due to any perceived existential threat to itself (that is a lie told for propaganda purposes) but because:

    1. Ukraine was falsely perceived as weak and unwilling to resist, so an invasion would incur little cost

    2. Eventually uniting with Ukraine (and Belarus) was seen as necessary for Russia to achieve something close to superpower status

    3. Ukraine’s economy was improving as the country was integrating with the EU, Russian language/culture were getting erased in Ukraine (Ukraine leaving the Russian world cultural space behind) thus the prospect of losing the possibility (2) forever if Russia didn’t act soon
    Biden’s weakness early in his presidency (and the precedent of Obama, the weakest president ever on Russia) both regarding Russia, and as seen in Afghanistan, probably encouraged (1).

    This which you posted is mostly accurate, about Trump being more anti-Russian than Obama and prewar Biden. But I disagree that this made Putin invade Ukraine:

    [MORE]

    Before the Trump administration, Putin was still very much willing and waiting to reach a compromise with the West that did not involve full-scale war in Ukraine. By the end of the Trump administration, that was obviously retarded. Putin, in probably the most embarrassing moment of his presidency, went so far as claiming that he would vote for Trump if he were an American. I do not believe he’d make such a cuck move again.

    It was Trump, not Biden, who invited Montenegro and North Macedonia into NATO, thus totally encircling Serbia. It was Trump, not Biden, who first broke the dam of sending arms to Ukraine in December 2017. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first sanctioned the Internet Research Agency (see also Trump’s treatment of Jeff Sessions) and who bears exclusive responsibility for the Russiagate narrative. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who signed into law the CAATSA, which made removal of sanctions on Russia impossible. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who closed all the American consulates in Russia. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first blocked NordStream 2 from going forward, thus demonstrating Germany to be an American puppet state and that any future Republican president would do likewise. This list, of course, is just the tip of a giant iceberg of Trumpist Russia hostility. It was, thus, Trump, not Biden, who, by running as the most Russia-friendly serious GOP candidate and then proceeding to act as the most Russia-hawkish president of the 21st century, permanently solidified the caducean framework of the Democrats perpetrually and without dissent condemning Republicans for being communists or whatever and the Republicans being more hawkish on Russia than ever before -Trump, after all, presented the most dovish version of a GOP Russia policy, and any future GOP president would be guaranteed to be at least as hawkish.

    Biden, despite his relentlessly Russophobic presidential campaign, actually did not turn out nearly as hawkish on Russia as he could have been. Though the USA continued to deliver military equipment to the Zelensky regime, very little of it was seen on the battlefield after February 23. The pace of sanctions following the election of Biden slowed down relative to the Trump presidency. The threat to NordStream 2 was removed. However, Biden’s hope that mere bribery (given the Dems’ 2024 loss and Republicans’ petroleum protectionism, obviously extremely temporary regardless) could prevent a Russian invasion was sorely mistaken (I do not buy the idea Washington wanted this war; Ukraine was a safe haven for American corruption that is effectively gone now). Biden continued relentlessly supporting the breakdown of electoral democracy in Ukraine and its replacement with a nationalist autocracy, and, though it would have been unlikely that Ukraine would have entered NATO during his term, at no point considered recognizing Crimea or even closing off the path to future Ukrainian NATO entry. Though Biden’s relative dovishness as opposed to Trump’s extreme hawkishness broadly contributed to Putin’s (rational and proven correct) calculation re: direct Western involvement in the Ukrainian fight, the fact is that the war in Ukraine was a response to Western hawkishness against Russia in regards to Ukraine, not any other country. Biden’s effective independence is also questionable, and, given his dovishness in practice relative to his campigning, this makes it unlikely he is the man most responsible for this war. Any other U.S. president would, after all, surely have been at least as hawkish as Biden. Within the expectable -indeed, probably even the realistic- limits of potential U.S. policymaking post-Trump, the point of no return in Ukraine, thus, was already past when Biden stepped into office.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Russia did not invade Ukraine due to any perceived existential threat to itself (that is a lie told for propaganda purposes) but because:
     
    One might think that, but at the same time, one can't help but wonder whether Russia's leadership also believes their own propaganda. Here is an actual direct recent conversation from Twitter:

    Jerry le Joker @JerryleJoker1

    "@phl43 You are underestimating Russians. They knew NATO won't attack Russia and felt totally safe. Russians just thought that US Americans want to take away their last sphere of influence and were totally right, but not paranoiac."

    The response to this:

    Philippe Lemoine @phl43

    "I agree for the most when it comes to the reasonable part of the Russian foreign policy establishment, but 1) even they overestimated the effect of that stuff and 2) a lot of people in Russia were completely hysterical and sincerely believed absurd things."

    So, I myself wouldn't be surprised if Russians' tendencies to believe in conspiracy theories also applied to some of their politicians, generals, et cetera. Interestingly enough, Ukrainians were probably more-or-less roughly as hostile towards NATO as Russians were until 2014 or so:

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/127094/ukrainians-likely-support-move-away-nato.aspx

    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vjb1a4iylu6utcv3ru-3ba.gif

    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/3ih5qp-pbe2pt58w7cq7cq.gif

    (FWIW, this is why I think that having NATO say back in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia will eventually become members was a mistake. Ukrainian public opinion back then was simply way too hostile towards this idea. But after 2014, there wasn't an easy solution for this dilemma since Russia had already begun taking Ukrainian territory and wasn't going to return all of it in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality.)

    Anyway, back to your post here:


    1. Ukraine was falsely perceived as weak and unwilling to resist, so an invasion would incur little cost
     
    Yep, that's correct!

    2. Eventually uniting with Ukraine (and Belarus) was seen as necessary for Russia to achieve something close to superpower status
     
    Correct again!

    3. Ukraine’s economy was improving as the country was integrating with the EU, Russian language/culture were getting erased in Ukraine (Ukraine leaving the Russian world cultural space behind) thus the prospect of losing the possibility (2) forever if Russia didn’t act soon
     
    Correct again! I'm just unsure if these three factors alone would have been sufficient had Russia not been paranoid about Western nukes and/or missiles in Ukraine, either combined with or separate from Ukrainian NATO membership. Maybe they would have been, but it's not guaranteed. The fact that Russia already got some Western sanctions placed on it and would have had more Western sanctions placed on it had it moved in to protect the Donbass from a Ukrainian version of Operation Storm by annexing the Donbass probably didn't help matters either. (Still doesn't come anywhere near justifying what Russia did, of course.) FWIW, I think that having some prominent Ukrainians flirt with an Operation Storm-style operation, even though no definitive plans in regards to this were made as of yet, was a mistake due to the fact that the Donbass War had massively quieted down by 2021, though I ultimately doubt that it would have affected Russia's final calculations in regards to its invasion of Ukraine.

    Biden’s weakness early in his presidency (and the precedent of Obama, the weakest president ever on Russia) both regarding Russia, and as seen in Afghanistan, probably encouraged (1).
     
    Frankly, I don't think that Trump's Afghan withdrawal would have been any better-executed since AFAIK Trump didn't make any better Afghan withdrawal plans relative to Biden. But Yes, Trump was more unpredictable. Though as I previously said, if US missiles would have indeed ended up in Ukraine as a result of Trump, even if Trump would have tried pulling the US out of NATO, then Russia could have indeed become paranoid and still invaded Ukraine. As I previously said, I really do suspect that the Russian leadership might genuinely believe its own paranoia in regards to this. And TBF, I myself didn't support giving Western missiles to Ukraine until the start of the current (2022-2023) war. Don't want to provoke another Cuba-style situation, after all. After the start of the war, it's a different story, of course.

    This which you posted is mostly accurate, about Trump being more anti-Russian than Obama and prewar Biden. But I disagree that this made Putin invade Ukraine:
     
    I think that his argument is that after Trump (Russophilic as a candidate and Russophobic as a president), Putin realized that someone like Biden is the best that he and Russia can expect from any US President and got scared of what exactly the worst that he and Russia can expect from any future US President would be. Thus, Putin decided to invade Ukraine while he and Russia still had a relatively friendly US President in the Oval Office in an attempt to minimize the fallout from this.

    But had Trump actually been Russophilic like he campaigned on being, then Putin would have concluded that someone like Biden is not the best that he and Russia can expect from any US President and that instead they can actually get a real Russophile in the White House.

    Replies: @LatW

  589. @silviosilver
    @LatW


    Hahaha, on the “court”, of course. Sorry for my lousy English. In my language it is just field for all sports – including tennis. lol
     
    It's the same in Serbo-Croatian too ("na terenu").

    Too bad about Latvia v Germany. A valiant effort that came up short.

    Can Serbia do it? Probably not vs USA, but should be able to get past Canada.

    (btw, just between you and I
     
    In this week's grammar nazi hour we point out that it's only "you and I" when you and I are the subject of the sentence; all other times, it's you and me. When you and I are doing something, it's you and I doing it. When something is done to us, it's done to you and me. This also holds for prepositions: between you and me, above, underneath, next to etc.

    Also, to Mikel, which may have been a typo ("i" and "o" are next to each other), it's insist on, not in.

    Replies: @LatW

    It’s the same in Serbo-Croatian too (“na terenu”).

    That’s cool, btw, that sounds like a Latinism (“terra”, similar to “terrain”).

    Too bad about Latvia v Germany. A valiant effort that came up short.

    I know, heart wrenching. 🙂 But they deserve praise for trying hard. So damn close.. I think Lithuania could’ve beat Germany, so it would’ve been better if they had played Germany but Latvia had played Serbia (even if Latvia would’ve lost to Serbia, that way at least Lithuania could’ve won over Germany but I know that’s not how it works). Now they’re gonna be exhausted for Italy (they should rotate).

    Btw, there are 3 blacks on the German team and a player named Wagner. 🙂

    Can Serbia do it? Probably not vs USA, but should be able to get past Canada.

    Serbia is a traditionally strong team, among the best… if we won the US, Serbia should definitely be able to as well. 🙂 Hahahaha!

    this week’s grammar nazi hour

    Oh, feel free to correct, I can’t promise I’ll be a good student, but I’ll try.

    • Replies: @WS
    @LatW


    But they deserve praise for trying hard. So damn close.. I think Lithuania could’ve beat Germany, so it would’ve been better if they had played Germany but Latvia had played Serbia (even if Latvia would’ve lost to Serbia, that way at least Lithuania could’ve won over Germany but I know that’s not how it works). Now they’re gonna be exhausted for Italy (they should rotate).

     

    News from Manila tell me that Latvians hate Lithuanians even more than Russians;))

    Replies: @LatW

  590. @QCIC
    @LatW

    I think Nunn-Lugar seemed like a good idea at the time. It probably was fine until we found out the West was supporting development of targeted anti-Slav bioweapons in Ukraine!

    There are a lot of what-ifs. Russia could have kept Ukraine and Belarus as part of a tight Russian-speaking confederation. But this would have been too strong for the West. With some internal cooperation and privatization this group of people could have rapidly become a powerhouse which is exactly what the West did not want.

    I see Macgregor and Ritter as somewhat remorseful cold-warriors. Their predictions are obviously foolish but their general understanding of Russian military technology and the Russian-Soviet military thought process seems solid. I think it is difficult for these former military men to understand that Russia is choosing to fight a war of attrition when it might be possible to wrap things up more quickly in a shock and awe campaign. This confuses a lot of people.

    Replies: @LatW

    I think Nunn-Lugar seemed like a good idea at the time.

    Of course, trying to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction or mitigate any risks after a totalitarian empire crumbles is a good idea (and America, too, partially disarmed, afaik). But the problem is how it was done, it wasn’t done fairly. Maybe they should’ve allowed each country to retain enough proportionate to what they had or some other formula that didn’t leave Ukraine so exposed, defanged, but Russia still able to inherit the nukes and the rest. I even heard that Ukraine was made to give Russia some weapons and Russia is now using those against Ukraine (!!). I understand that they may have done it partly for geopolitical reasons, but look at what happened.

    Just look at this from the Wiki article:

    “This program made important contributions in the disarmament of nuclear warheads in many counties. The Nunn-Lugar program eliminated former strategic weapons outside of Russia. This was most evident in the removal of these weapons in Ukraine,[11] after the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.”

    Look at what they decommissioned (in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan):

    “Weapons deactivated and destroyed under this program include:

    537 ICBMs
    459 ICBM silos
    11 ICBM mobile missile launchers
    128 bombers
    708 nuclear air-to-surface missiles
    408 submarine missile launchers
    496 submarine-launched missiles
    27 nuclear submarines
    194 nuclear test tunnels”

    Bombers? Why and what kind of bombers? So they wouldn’t ever fly to Germany just in case? The children and grandchildren demand for the bombers to be returned to Ukraine! (this is only half-jokingly).

    The missile launchers, too, they should’ve not taken, I understand why they took them, precaution, but had they been left in Ukraine, this could’ve served as extra security for Ukraine, knowing that they could launch a long range missile.

    Ukrainians participated in creating all those weapons, yet look at what is being done to them now. This is wrong.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @LatW


    Ukrainians participated in creating all those weapons, yet look at what is being done to them now. This is wrong.
     
    And what is even more insulting is that it is the Ukrainians who are trying to at least have a democratic system, while Russia is pseudo-fascist. What does this teach you - do not be the chump. :(

    Replies: @Wokechoke

  591. @AP
    @Mr. XYZ


    I disagree with you on this. For so long as Russia would have felt that the West could place nukes and/or missiles in Ukraine, Russia would have considered the situation in Ukraine an existential threat
     
    Russia did not invade Ukraine due to any perceived existential threat to itself (that is a lie told for propaganda purposes) but because:

    1. Ukraine was falsely perceived as weak and unwilling to resist, so an invasion would incur little cost

    2. Eventually uniting with Ukraine (and Belarus) was seen as necessary for Russia to achieve something close to superpower status

    3. Ukraine's economy was improving as the country was integrating with the EU, Russian language/culture were getting erased in Ukraine (Ukraine leaving the Russian world cultural space behind) thus the prospect of losing the possibility (2) forever if Russia didn't act soon
    Biden's weakness early in his presidency (and the precedent of Obama, the weakest president ever on Russia) both regarding Russia, and as seen in Afghanistan, probably encouraged (1).

    This which you posted is mostly accurate, about Trump being more anti-Russian than Obama and prewar Biden. But I disagree that this made Putin invade Ukraine:

    Before the Trump administration, Putin was still very much willing and waiting to reach a compromise with the West that did not involve full-scale war in Ukraine. By the end of the Trump administration, that was obviously retarded. Putin, in probably the most embarrassing moment of his presidency, went so far as claiming that he would vote for Trump if he were an American. I do not believe he’d make such a cuck move again.

    It was Trump, not Biden, who invited Montenegro and North Macedonia into NATO, thus totally encircling Serbia. It was Trump, not Biden, who first broke the dam of sending arms to Ukraine in December 2017. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first sanctioned the Internet Research Agency (see also Trump’s treatment of Jeff Sessions) and who bears exclusive responsibility for the Russiagate narrative. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who signed into law the CAATSA, which made removal of sanctions on Russia impossible. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who closed all the American consulates in Russia. It was Trump, not Biden or Obama, who first blocked NordStream 2 from going forward, thus demonstrating Germany to be an American puppet state and that any future Republican president would do likewise. This list, of course, is just the tip of a giant iceberg of Trumpist Russia hostility. It was, thus, Trump, not Biden, who, by running as the most Russia-friendly serious GOP candidate and then proceeding to act as the most Russia-hawkish president of the 21st century, permanently solidified the caducean framework of the Democrats perpetrually and without dissent condemning Republicans for being communists or whatever and the Republicans being more hawkish on Russia than ever before -Trump, after all, presented the most dovish version of a GOP Russia policy, and any future GOP president would be guaranteed to be at least as hawkish.

    Biden, despite his relentlessly Russophobic presidential campaign, actually did not turn out nearly as hawkish on Russia as he could have been. Though the USA continued to deliver military equipment to the Zelensky regime, very little of it was seen on the battlefield after February 23. The pace of sanctions following the election of Biden slowed down relative to the Trump presidency. The threat to NordStream 2 was removed. However, Biden’s hope that mere bribery (given the Dems’ 2024 loss and Republicans’ petroleum protectionism, obviously extremely temporary regardless) could prevent a Russian invasion was sorely mistaken (I do not buy the idea Washington wanted this war; Ukraine was a safe haven for American corruption that is effectively gone now). Biden continued relentlessly supporting the breakdown of electoral democracy in Ukraine and its replacement with a nationalist autocracy, and, though it would have been unlikely that Ukraine would have entered NATO during his term, at no point considered recognizing Crimea or even closing off the path to future Ukrainian NATO entry. Though Biden’s relative dovishness as opposed to Trump’s extreme hawkishness broadly contributed to Putin’s (rational and proven correct) calculation re: direct Western involvement in the Ukrainian fight, the fact is that the war in Ukraine was a response to Western hawkishness against Russia in regards to Ukraine, not any other country. Biden’s effective independence is also questionable, and, given his dovishness in practice relative to his campigning, this makes it unlikely he is the man most responsible for this war. Any other U.S. president would, after all, surely have been at least as hawkish as Biden. Within the expectable -indeed, probably even the realistic- limits of potential U.S. policymaking post-Trump, the point of no return in Ukraine, thus, was already past when Biden stepped into office.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Russia did not invade Ukraine due to any perceived existential threat to itself (that is a lie told for propaganda purposes) but because:

    One might think that, but at the same time, one can’t help but wonder whether Russia’s leadership also believes their own propaganda. Here is an actual direct recent conversation from Twitter:

    Jerry le Joker @JerryleJoker1

    “@phl43 You are underestimating Russians. They knew NATO won’t attack Russia and felt totally safe. Russians just thought that US Americans want to take away their last sphere of influence and were totally right, but not paranoiac.”

    The response to this:

    Philippe Lemoine @phl43

    “I agree for the most when it comes to the reasonable part of the Russian foreign policy establishment, but 1) even they overestimated the effect of that stuff and 2) a lot of people in Russia were completely hysterical and sincerely believed absurd things.”

    So, I myself wouldn’t be surprised if Russians’ tendencies to believe in conspiracy theories also applied to some of their politicians, generals, et cetera. Interestingly enough, Ukrainians were probably more-or-less roughly as hostile towards NATO as Russians were until 2014 or so:

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/127094/ukrainians-likely-support-move-away-nato.aspx

    (FWIW, this is why I think that having NATO say back in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia will eventually become members was a mistake. Ukrainian public opinion back then was simply way too hostile towards this idea. But after 2014, there wasn’t an easy solution for this dilemma since Russia had already begun taking Ukrainian territory and wasn’t going to return all of it in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality.)

    Anyway, back to your post here:

    1. Ukraine was falsely perceived as weak and unwilling to resist, so an invasion would incur little cost

    Yep, that’s correct!

    2. Eventually uniting with Ukraine (and Belarus) was seen as necessary for Russia to achieve something close to superpower status

    Correct again!

    3. Ukraine’s economy was improving as the country was integrating with the EU, Russian language/culture were getting erased in Ukraine (Ukraine leaving the Russian world cultural space behind) thus the prospect of losing the possibility (2) forever if Russia didn’t act soon

    Correct again! I’m just unsure if these three factors alone would have been sufficient had Russia not been paranoid about Western nukes and/or missiles in Ukraine, either combined with or separate from Ukrainian NATO membership. Maybe they would have been, but it’s not guaranteed. The fact that Russia already got some Western sanctions placed on it and would have had more Western sanctions placed on it had it moved in to protect the Donbass from a Ukrainian version of Operation Storm by annexing the Donbass probably didn’t help matters either. (Still doesn’t come anywhere near justifying what Russia did, of course.) FWIW, I think that having some prominent Ukrainians flirt with an Operation Storm-style operation, even though no definitive plans in regards to this were made as of yet, was a mistake due to the fact that the Donbass War had massively quieted down by 2021, though I ultimately doubt that it would have affected Russia’s final calculations in regards to its invasion of Ukraine.

    Biden’s weakness early in his presidency (and the precedent of Obama, the weakest president ever on Russia) both regarding Russia, and as seen in Afghanistan, probably encouraged (1).

    Frankly, I don’t think that Trump’s Afghan withdrawal would have been any better-executed since AFAIK Trump didn’t make any better Afghan withdrawal plans relative to Biden. But Yes, Trump was more unpredictable. Though as I previously said, if US missiles would have indeed ended up in Ukraine as a result of Trump, even if Trump would have tried pulling the US out of NATO, then Russia could have indeed become paranoid and still invaded Ukraine. As I previously said, I really do suspect that the Russian leadership might genuinely believe its own paranoia in regards to this. And TBF, I myself didn’t support giving Western missiles to Ukraine until the start of the current (2022-2023) war. Don’t want to provoke another Cuba-style situation, after all. After the start of the war, it’s a different story, of course.

    This which you posted is mostly accurate, about Trump being more anti-Russian than Obama and prewar Biden. But I disagree that this made Putin invade Ukraine:

    I think that his argument is that after Trump (Russophilic as a candidate and Russophobic as a president), Putin realized that someone like Biden is the best that he and Russia can expect from any US President and got scared of what exactly the worst that he and Russia can expect from any future US President would be. Thus, Putin decided to invade Ukraine while he and Russia still had a relatively friendly US President in the Oval Office in an attempt to minimize the fallout from this.

    But had Trump actually been Russophilic like he campaigned on being, then Putin would have concluded that someone like Biden is not the best that he and Russia can expect from any US President and that instead they can actually get a real Russophile in the White House.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mr. XYZ


    So, I myself wouldn’t be surprised if Russians’ tendencies to believe in conspiracy theories also applied to some of their politicians, generals, et cetera
     
    Apparently, Patrushev (the elder) is prone to conspiracies. That's why he kept talking about the Yellowstone volcano that would destroy America.
  592. @Mikel
    @AP


    If Russia took Hawaii or Guam, would America respond by ending the USA by launching nukes against Russia? Of course not.
     
    Of course it would. Starting a nuclear war in the MAD era is a tremendously grave decision that has never been taken so neither you nor I can claim 100% certainty on what would happen but all historic precedents establish that the Russians invading Hawaii (and much less than that) would trigger a nuclear confrontation real fast. For all intents and purposes, Hitler's decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision. He surely expected Germany and himself to be liquidated without mercy but he went ahead with the order to resists anyway and more importantly, the order was fanatically obeyed until Berlin was taken and the Fuhrer died.

    I'm pretty certain that a Russian invasion of Hawaii would eventually lead to nuclear war even if Biden has secretly promised to himself that he will never launch the nukes. Looking at all of human history, these situations establish their own dynamics, the weaklings are set aside and self-preservation is almost never the decisive factor. Just look at those Ukrainian soldiers going willingly to an almost certain death right now in order to breach the Russian defenses.

    In fact, what you're saying is that it doesn't make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?

    I guess you're also saying that JFK never intended to attack the Russians if they refused to remove their missiles from Cuba and his naval blockade was only for show. Nobody would ever launch any ICBM because that would mean their own destruction.... I wish.

    It doesn't matter what you think anyway. What matters is what our political leaders think and their actions clearly reveal that they do believe in the possibility of nuclear war. The absence of a NFZ over Ukraine proves it, along with hundreds of other precautionary decisions taken since the start of the Cold War.


    Your approach essentially gives carte blanche to any nuclear power to invade or bomb whomever it wants
     
    No, not in slightest. But my approach, which was just everybody's approach in the previous Cold War does mean that nuclear states, especially nuclear superpowers, can get away with much more than non-nuclear states. Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences. It is very unfair but to some extent also good in the sense that at least this state of affairs has so far prevented another world war. The previous one took barely 20 years to reignite.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP, @silviosilver

    Of course it would.

    As an immediate reaction? That’s extremely doubtful. And what if Russia was stopped at Hawaii and never penetrated further? I bet plenty of Americans would, after a time, be willing to cut their losses rather than risk total annihilation. (Not necessarily a majority of Americans, but a significant number nonetheless.)

    all historic precedents establish that the Russians invading Hawaii (and much less than that) would trigger a nuclear confrontation real fast. Hitler’s decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision.

    How can Germany fighting on when they knew the war was lost possibly be considered the equivalent situation to America only losing Hawaii (or even, according to you, “much less than that”)? An America that has only lost Hawaii would at worst be more like the Germans being stopped at Moscow rather than the Germans, say, retreating from Warsaw. Imo, there would be plenty of opportunity to pursue conventional warfare before even considering nukes in those circumstances.

    In fact, what you’re saying is that it doesn’t make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?

    This is obviously a false dichotomy. The choice isn’t either immediately go nuclear or don’t bother fighting.

    It doesn’t matter what you think anyway. What matters is what our political leaders think and their actions clearly reveal that they do believe in the possibility of nuclear war.

    Nobody doubts they’ve considered the possibility. We’re discussing the likelihood.

    Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences.

    Surely the more reasonable explanation for that is those countries’ incapacity to impose “consequences” on America, rather than their fear of American nuclear strike. It’s not as if those countries didn’t even attempt to put up a fight, which is what your “nuclear fear” model would assume. On the contrary, they fought bitterly.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    I bet plenty of Americans would, after a time, be willing to cut their losses rather than risk total annihilation.
     
    Their opinion would matter as much as the opinion of ordinary Russians and Ukrainians matters today.

    How can Germany fighting on when they knew the war was lost possibly be considered the equivalent situation to America only losing Hawaii
     
    You're totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation. And so did millions of Germans. That's how humans have behaved for millennia (look up Numantia). Nobody wants it. Nobody probably even thinks that it's totally rational. But if a Russian missile lands on a Polish town killing scores of people it's WW3. In fact, that's pretty much why there is a war in Ukraine. Few people in the West really wanted Ukraine to join NATO and some were actually opposed to the idea. But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd't join NATO. Which meant that Putin wouls lose face if he didn't act. So he launched the invasion, even though he couldn't possibly know if that would lead to Russia's and his personal anihilation. It's still in the cards.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP, @YetAnotherAnon, @silviosilver

    , @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    It’s not as if those countries didn’t even attempt to put up a fight, which is what your “nuclear fear” model would assume. On the contrary, they fought bitterly.
     
    Of course, failure to address some point never means agreement with it. But just to dispel any doubt, the privilege of being a nuclear superpower is not at all that if you invade a non-nuclear country they will not put up a fight (though they will probably only fight to the extent that they believe that you won't nuke them to ashes). The privilege is that if you invade a non-nuclear country nobody will make you pay for it. As we've seen once and again, international norms will cease to apply or will be bent beyond recognition to let your action go unpunished. Who's going to punish you after all? The only ones who could possibly punish you would face nuclear retaliation if they tried seriously so you can go invading and bombing countries that you don't like and get off scot-free. No Milosevic, Saddam or Gadaffi treatment for you.

    This is actually an important point because it is also at the core of the current war. The USSR used to enjoy more or less the same benefits as the US. Hence Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. But Putin grew tired of the Americans now exercising in practice much more privileges than the Russians while having the same number of nukes. Thinking of all the statements made by Putin and his entourage over the years, especially as we grew closer to the SMO, I would say that this point was actually more important than Ukraine joining NATO and tremendously more important than defending the people of Donbas. Russia just wasn't getting the respect she thought she deserved. I think we should expect China making the same point sooner or later. Let's hope our Western leaders are wise enough to accept a new international modus vivendi like they did in the previous Cold War rather than maintain the super-privilege they've grown accustomed to after the fall of the USSR. I for one don't need us to continue being able to invade faraway countries for anything at all.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @LatW, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @silviosilver

  593. @LatW
    @QCIC


    I think Nunn-Lugar seemed like a good idea at the time.
     
    Of course, trying to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction or mitigate any risks after a totalitarian empire crumbles is a good idea (and America, too, partially disarmed, afaik). But the problem is how it was done, it wasn't done fairly. Maybe they should've allowed each country to retain enough proportionate to what they had or some other formula that didn't leave Ukraine so exposed, defanged, but Russia still able to inherit the nukes and the rest. I even heard that Ukraine was made to give Russia some weapons and Russia is now using those against Ukraine (!!). I understand that they may have done it partly for geopolitical reasons, but look at what happened.

    Just look at this from the Wiki article:

    "This program made important contributions in the disarmament of nuclear warheads in many counties. The Nunn-Lugar program eliminated former strategic weapons outside of Russia. This was most evident in the removal of these weapons in Ukraine,[11] after the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances."

    Look at what they decommissioned (in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan):

    "Weapons deactivated and destroyed under this program include:

    537 ICBMs
    459 ICBM silos
    11 ICBM mobile missile launchers
    128 bombers
    708 nuclear air-to-surface missiles
    408 submarine missile launchers
    496 submarine-launched missiles
    27 nuclear submarines
    194 nuclear test tunnels"

    Bombers? Why and what kind of bombers? So they wouldn't ever fly to Germany just in case? The children and grandchildren demand for the bombers to be returned to Ukraine! (this is only half-jokingly).

    The missile launchers, too, they should've not taken, I understand why they took them, precaution, but had they been left in Ukraine, this could've served as extra security for Ukraine, knowing that they could launch a long range missile.

    Ukrainians participated in creating all those weapons, yet look at what is being done to them now. This is wrong.

    Replies: @LatW

    Ukrainians participated in creating all those weapons, yet look at what is being done to them now. This is wrong.

    And what is even more insulting is that it is the Ukrainians who are trying to at least have a democratic system, while Russia is pseudo-fascist. What does this teach you – do not be the chump. 🙁

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @LatW

    Classic.

    As Ezra Pound pointed out Democracy is just a term used to describe a political regime run by and for Jews. There’s Jud Zelenskyy Suss King of Ukraine.

    Putin, who apparently has killed a few Jewish usurpers or banished them, well, he’s just a Pseudo Fascist. (LatW whose basic sympathies in the context of ww2 would be Axis can’t just dignify the guy with straight up “Fascist”.) Either Putin is Fascist and you are Antifa or he’s not.

    You’ve got all sorts of wires crossed mentally. Must make you squirm.

    Have some courage Dearie.

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW

  594. @AP
    @Mikel


    I’m pretty certain that a Russian invasion of Hawaii would eventually lead to nuclear war even if Biden has secretly promised to himself that he will never launch the nukes.
     
    Perhaps eventually, after 10 more steps, like Russian troops defeating a liberation attempt and then storming the beaches of California, more American defeats, Russians taking Denver and moving eastward. But not immediately. And even then, no 100% guarantee (though I wouldn't take that chance). Biden would not launch the missiles that would result in the total destruction of the USA , over Hawaii alone.

    Just look at those Ukrainian soldiers going willingly to an almost certain death right now in order to breach the Russian defenses.
     
    Defending their country on their own lands.

    In fact, what you’re saying is that it doesn’t make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?
     
    NATO provides a strong conventional deterrent. Zero chance that the USA would launch nukes over Estonia, Poland, etc. because that would mean instant total annihilation of the USA. But massive numbers of Russian troops would be destroyed by American conventional arms if Russia tried to attack those countries.

    Unless you were running NATO. You would think that a conventional response would too risky, too provocative, not worth the possibility of nuclear war, so you would have no military response at all.


    I guess you’re also saying that JFK never intended to attack the Russians if they refused to remove their missiles from Cuba and his naval blockade was only for show.
     
    He might have attacked positions in Cuba but would not have bombed all of Russia.

    Furthermore, in 1962 the Soviets did not have the means to destroy all of the USA with ICBMs.

    So Kennedy was risking a very nasty war but not an existential one, as in the 21st century.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

    Therefore, Soviet nuclear capability in 1962 placed less emphasis on ICBMs than on medium and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs). The missiles could hit American allies and most of Alaska from Soviet territory but not the contiguous United States. Graham Allison, the director of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, points out, "The Soviet Union could not right the nuclear imbalance by deploying new ICBMs on its own soil. In order to meet the threat it faced in 1962, 1963, and 1964, it had very few options. Moving existing nuclear weapons to locations from which they could reach American targets was one


    No, not in slightest. But my approach, which was just everybody’s approach in the previous Cold War does mean that nuclear states, especially nuclear superpowers, can get away with much more than non-nuclear states. Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences
     
    In Korea and probably Vietnam, America's opponents were lavishly provided with weapons, and Russian soldiers were shooting down American pilots. When American volunteer-pilots in F-16s start shooting down Russian planes. we will have parity with the Vietnam War experience.

    Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were outcast regimes, unlike Ukraine which Russia attacked.

    Replies: @Mikel

    and then storming the beaches of California, more American defeats, Russians taking Denver and moving eastward.

    Jeez. So all those nukes would do nothing for me and my family if the Russians decide to annex Utah as long as they stay west of Denver. What a scam.

    Defending their country on their own lands.

    There we go again. Location, location, location. I don’t want to belittle the impressive bravery of those youngsters, honestly. But that’s not so determinant when it comes to killing and dying. Mohammed Atta and his team did it very far away from their lands.

    Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were outcast regimes, unlike Ukraine which Russia attacked.

    I wasn’t comparing those countries to Ukraine or the Basque Country. I was just pointing out the well known fact that down here on planet Earth nuclear superpowers get advantages that the rest don’t. In fact, Afghanistan was invaded with impunity by both of them. Brezhnev died of natural causes and in all likelihood so will Bush.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikel


    and then storming the beaches of California, more American defeats, Russians taking Denver and moving eastward.

    Jeez. So all those nukes would do nothing for me and my family if the Russians decide to annex Utah as long as they stay west of Denver. What a scam
     
    Well, nobody likes Mormons anyways.

    My point of course is that a nuclear response against Russia (or the USA) entails nuclear annihilation for oneself and one’s loved ones. Will Americans choose this death for themselves and everyone they care about over Hawaii, or perhaps even California? No. As Russians would not over Crimea. Only if their entire country was about to be occupied would this become a possibility, and even in that case not 100%. If occupation merely meant the elites losing power and the installation of some friendly regime (Vivek Ramaswamy or Colonel MacGregor as president) maybe mutual nuclear destruction wouldn’t be chosen, the people in charge of the nukes might figure that this result is better than their children being burned alive in a nuclear holocaust (though I wouldn’t take my chances). If occupation meant concentration camps, mass killings, mass rapes - nukes would be very likely.

    Defending their country on their own lands.

    There we go again. Location, location, location. I don’t want to belittle the impressive bravery of those youngsters, honestly. But that’s not so determinant when it comes to killing and dying
     
    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.

    Mohammed Atta and his team did it very far away from their lands
     
    Ukrainians aren’t Muslim terrorist fanatics, they are normal people defending their lands. Your neighbors would probably do the same if someone tried invading the USA.

    Replies: @Sean, @Mikel

  595. @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    Of course it would.
     
    As an immediate reaction? That's extremely doubtful. And what if Russia was stopped at Hawaii and never penetrated further? I bet plenty of Americans would, after a time, be willing to cut their losses rather than risk total annihilation. (Not necessarily a majority of Americans, but a significant number nonetheless.)

    all historic precedents establish that the Russians invading Hawaii (and much less than that) would trigger a nuclear confrontation real fast. Hitler’s decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision.
     
    How can Germany fighting on when they knew the war was lost possibly be considered the equivalent situation to America only losing Hawaii (or even, according to you, "much less than that")? An America that has only lost Hawaii would at worst be more like the Germans being stopped at Moscow rather than the Germans, say, retreating from Warsaw. Imo, there would be plenty of opportunity to pursue conventional warfare before even considering nukes in those circumstances.

    In fact, what you’re saying is that it doesn’t make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?
     
    This is obviously a false dichotomy. The choice isn't either immediately go nuclear or don't bother fighting.

    It doesn’t matter what you think anyway. What matters is what our political leaders think and their actions clearly reveal that they do believe in the possibility of nuclear war.
     
    Nobody doubts they've considered the possibility. We're discussing the likelihood.

    Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences.
     
    Surely the more reasonable explanation for that is those countries' incapacity to impose "consequences" on America, rather than their fear of American nuclear strike. It's not as if those countries didn't even attempt to put up a fight, which is what your "nuclear fear" model would assume. On the contrary, they fought bitterly.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mikel

    I bet plenty of Americans would, after a time, be willing to cut their losses rather than risk total annihilation.

    Their opinion would matter as much as the opinion of ordinary Russians and Ukrainians matters today.

    How can Germany fighting on when they knew the war was lost possibly be considered the equivalent situation to America only losing Hawaii

    You’re totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation. And so did millions of Germans. That’s how humans have behaved for millennia (look up Numantia). Nobody wants it. Nobody probably even thinks that it’s totally rational. But if a Russian missile lands on a Polish town killing scores of people it’s WW3. In fact, that’s pretty much why there is a war in Ukraine. Few people in the West really wanted Ukraine to join NATO and some were actually opposed to the idea. But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd’t join NATO. Which meant that Putin wouls lose face if he didn’t act. So he launched the invasion, even though he couldn’t possibly know if that would lead to Russia’s and his personal anihilation. It’s still in the cards.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikel


    But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd’t join NATO.
     
    Maybe Russia should have made this offer more attractive by offering to return Crimea to Ukraine? But that wasn't politically feasible. So, at least Russia could have offered to impose a trade embargo on China in the event that China would have ever attacked Taiwan. That would have appealed to the West (though not sure if actually enough to agree to no NATO membership for Ukraine forever), but would Russia have actually been interested in backstabbing its friend, trading partner, and de facto ally China?

    Replies: @Beckow

    , @AP
    @Mikel


    You’re totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation
     
    Hitler was a childless extremist freak. In the end he believed the German people deserved total annihilation because they failed him and the Nazi cause. Goebbels had children but was a fanatic who poisoned all of his kids so that they wouldn’t live in a world without National Socialism.

    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.

    No risk of nuclear holocaust over Ukraine, Crimea (or Estonia for that matter). Just risk of conventional escalation.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Mikel

    "Few people in the West really wanted Ukraine to join NATO and some were actually opposed to the idea. But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd’t join NATO."

    Any leader in Europe making that statement would soon have found themselves in a lot of trouble seemingly unrelated to their view on NATO and Ukraine. Maybe an unwise private conversation leaked, maybe what they got up to on that last conference trip, maybe that large private donation they forgot to declare.

    Didn't Biden or someone say that the CIA or FBI has "seven ways to Sunday" to make life hard for their enemies?

    , @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation. And so did millions of Germans. That’s how humans have behaved for millennia (look up Numantia).
     
    Are you saying leaders/people throughout the ages have regularly preferred total annihilation over accepting their defeat (or accepting a military/geopolitical setback)? This assertion doesn't accord at all with any historical pattern I am aware of. I think the opposite is clearly true: that both leaders and the people they have led have regularly accepted peace terms. This seems so obvious to me that I'm really not sure I'm understanding your point properly.

    Anyway, I did look up Numantia. I was initially surprised that I'd never heard of it before, since I've done considerable reading in Roman history. But then I guess it's not so surprising, since Iberia is commonly glossed over in introductory/popular histories of Rome. (Lots about Carthage, lots about Greece, lots about Gaul, very little about Hispania). With respect to our discussion, though, what makes Numantia notable is how exceptional the decision to commit mass suicide rather than accept defeat and enslavement is. You would have to supply me with many more such examples before I can take seriously the idea the this is commonplace behavior.

    Going back to the example of Hitler and the Germans, another crucial difference is that Hitler knew that he was toast. He could have no expecation of making it out alive. This made it easier to live out his bleak "all or nothing" view of geopolitics to the very last. In contrast, an American leader could quite conceivably expect to survive a nuclear showdown, and would thus have to exercise much more caution before taking his country down that path. That is, his people had better believe that there truly was no alternative to going nuclear, otherwise they might well make him pay a horrible price even if he survived the nuclear exchange. All of which is to say that I really don't see the parallels between Russians invading (your word, not necessarily even taking) Hawaii and the position Hitler found himself in.

    It’s still in the cards.
     
    According to your own logic, isn't it already virtually ineluctable? Wouldn't western military to Ukraine constitute something close to the "much less than that" (much less than Hawaii being invaded) in your American example?

    Like you, I think, I have very little faith that rationality can prevail against strong emotions, but unlike you, it seems, I do have faith that fear - perhaps the most formidable emotion - can prevent people from embarking on such an obviously self-destructive path as nuclear war, especially when the stakes are not (yet) particularly high.

    Replies: @Mikel

  596. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Russia did not invade Ukraine due to any perceived existential threat to itself (that is a lie told for propaganda purposes) but because:
     
    One might think that, but at the same time, one can't help but wonder whether Russia's leadership also believes their own propaganda. Here is an actual direct recent conversation from Twitter:

    Jerry le Joker @JerryleJoker1

    "@phl43 You are underestimating Russians. They knew NATO won't attack Russia and felt totally safe. Russians just thought that US Americans want to take away their last sphere of influence and were totally right, but not paranoiac."

    The response to this:

    Philippe Lemoine @phl43

    "I agree for the most when it comes to the reasonable part of the Russian foreign policy establishment, but 1) even they overestimated the effect of that stuff and 2) a lot of people in Russia were completely hysterical and sincerely believed absurd things."

    So, I myself wouldn't be surprised if Russians' tendencies to believe in conspiracy theories also applied to some of their politicians, generals, et cetera. Interestingly enough, Ukrainians were probably more-or-less roughly as hostile towards NATO as Russians were until 2014 or so:

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/127094/ukrainians-likely-support-move-away-nato.aspx

    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vjb1a4iylu6utcv3ru-3ba.gif

    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/3ih5qp-pbe2pt58w7cq7cq.gif

    (FWIW, this is why I think that having NATO say back in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia will eventually become members was a mistake. Ukrainian public opinion back then was simply way too hostile towards this idea. But after 2014, there wasn't an easy solution for this dilemma since Russia had already begun taking Ukrainian territory and wasn't going to return all of it in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality.)

    Anyway, back to your post here:


    1. Ukraine was falsely perceived as weak and unwilling to resist, so an invasion would incur little cost
     
    Yep, that's correct!

    2. Eventually uniting with Ukraine (and Belarus) was seen as necessary for Russia to achieve something close to superpower status
     
    Correct again!

    3. Ukraine’s economy was improving as the country was integrating with the EU, Russian language/culture were getting erased in Ukraine (Ukraine leaving the Russian world cultural space behind) thus the prospect of losing the possibility (2) forever if Russia didn’t act soon
     
    Correct again! I'm just unsure if these three factors alone would have been sufficient had Russia not been paranoid about Western nukes and/or missiles in Ukraine, either combined with or separate from Ukrainian NATO membership. Maybe they would have been, but it's not guaranteed. The fact that Russia already got some Western sanctions placed on it and would have had more Western sanctions placed on it had it moved in to protect the Donbass from a Ukrainian version of Operation Storm by annexing the Donbass probably didn't help matters either. (Still doesn't come anywhere near justifying what Russia did, of course.) FWIW, I think that having some prominent Ukrainians flirt with an Operation Storm-style operation, even though no definitive plans in regards to this were made as of yet, was a mistake due to the fact that the Donbass War had massively quieted down by 2021, though I ultimately doubt that it would have affected Russia's final calculations in regards to its invasion of Ukraine.

    Biden’s weakness early in his presidency (and the precedent of Obama, the weakest president ever on Russia) both regarding Russia, and as seen in Afghanistan, probably encouraged (1).
     
    Frankly, I don't think that Trump's Afghan withdrawal would have been any better-executed since AFAIK Trump didn't make any better Afghan withdrawal plans relative to Biden. But Yes, Trump was more unpredictable. Though as I previously said, if US missiles would have indeed ended up in Ukraine as a result of Trump, even if Trump would have tried pulling the US out of NATO, then Russia could have indeed become paranoid and still invaded Ukraine. As I previously said, I really do suspect that the Russian leadership might genuinely believe its own paranoia in regards to this. And TBF, I myself didn't support giving Western missiles to Ukraine until the start of the current (2022-2023) war. Don't want to provoke another Cuba-style situation, after all. After the start of the war, it's a different story, of course.

    This which you posted is mostly accurate, about Trump being more anti-Russian than Obama and prewar Biden. But I disagree that this made Putin invade Ukraine:
     
    I think that his argument is that after Trump (Russophilic as a candidate and Russophobic as a president), Putin realized that someone like Biden is the best that he and Russia can expect from any US President and got scared of what exactly the worst that he and Russia can expect from any future US President would be. Thus, Putin decided to invade Ukraine while he and Russia still had a relatively friendly US President in the Oval Office in an attempt to minimize the fallout from this.

    But had Trump actually been Russophilic like he campaigned on being, then Putin would have concluded that someone like Biden is not the best that he and Russia can expect from any US President and that instead they can actually get a real Russophile in the White House.

    Replies: @LatW

    So, I myself wouldn’t be surprised if Russians’ tendencies to believe in conspiracy theories also applied to some of their politicians, generals, et cetera

    Apparently, Patrushev (the elder) is prone to conspiracies. That’s why he kept talking about the Yellowstone volcano that would destroy America.

    • Thanks: Mr. XYZ
  597. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    I bet plenty of Americans would, after a time, be willing to cut their losses rather than risk total annihilation.
     
    Their opinion would matter as much as the opinion of ordinary Russians and Ukrainians matters today.

    How can Germany fighting on when they knew the war was lost possibly be considered the equivalent situation to America only losing Hawaii
     
    You're totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation. And so did millions of Germans. That's how humans have behaved for millennia (look up Numantia). Nobody wants it. Nobody probably even thinks that it's totally rational. But if a Russian missile lands on a Polish town killing scores of people it's WW3. In fact, that's pretty much why there is a war in Ukraine. Few people in the West really wanted Ukraine to join NATO and some were actually opposed to the idea. But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd't join NATO. Which meant that Putin wouls lose face if he didn't act. So he launched the invasion, even though he couldn't possibly know if that would lead to Russia's and his personal anihilation. It's still in the cards.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP, @YetAnotherAnon, @silviosilver

    But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd’t join NATO.

    Maybe Russia should have made this offer more attractive by offering to return Crimea to Ukraine? But that wasn’t politically feasible. So, at least Russia could have offered to impose a trade embargo on China in the event that China would have ever attacked Taiwan. That would have appealed to the West (though not sure if actually enough to agree to no NATO membership for Ukraine forever), but would Russia have actually been interested in backstabbing its friend, trading partner, and de facto ally China?

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Mr. XYZ


    none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd’t join NATO.

    ...Russia should have made this offer more attractive by offering to return Crimea
     

    Chisken-and-egg...both sides made moves and counter-moves. Pre-2014 Crimea was inside Ukraine and still Nato couldn't bring itself to say: we will not bring Ukraine into Nato.

    That is the core issue and without addressing it the war will not end...or end in one-sided victory, most likely by Russia with Ukraine largely destroyed.

    This as a catastrophic failure by the West - they are unable to think strategically, unable to even pretend s "Oh, don't worry Russians, no Nato ever in Ukraine." Instead they have second-tier people like Merkel-Hollande whisper pointless reassurances. Nato can't even play a smart strategic game - they are so deep into their own backsides, 'negotiate' only with each other, full of hubris and lacking historical perspective.

    Imagine if they were smart: they would publicly reassure Moscow, smile and not provoke. They would tell Kiev to keep a tight lid on the crazies, punish excesses like Odessa, keep the Russian minority included.

    Instead post-Maidan became a horror-show of vengeful arrogance by what is ultimately the weaker side in the region: fanatics and dreamers, and what is worse the ones in charge are even unwilling to put their own soldiers on the line. This will be studied as one of the stupidest civilizational over-reaches in human history.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  598. @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    If I had never had any knowledge of what the Christian belief is about and someone gave me the Bible to learn what their sacred book says, I would also be stunned. Who can believe those stories in the 21st century?
     
    Sure. Further, I'd say that if Christianity had never taken off, and the bible was only unearthed today, virtually nobody would take it as anything but a bunch of made up stories, often silly, often completely uninteresting.

    The difference with Mormonism is that Christianity's antiquity makes it easier to read the weirder stuff allegorically. People in those days were more ignorant etc therefore we need to look past the literal meaning to discover the deeper meaning. For people who are determined, it's not at all difficult.

    Replies: @Coconuts

    The difference with Mormonism is that Christianity’s antiquity makes it easier to read the weirder stuff allegorically.

    Maybe the weird content and the fact it lends itself to allegorical reading is related to the subject matter, God. Because it seems like the kind of philosophy that leads to the identification of God with the classic triad of goodness, truth and being was already floating around the culture that Christianity appeared in, had been already latent in Plato.

    If someone’s subject matter is The Good or the Truth, what is produced being weird or inherently allegorical/mythological doesn’t seem as surprising.

    Christianity probably proved a well pitched synthesis of reflection and practice related to the topic, and that explains why it spread. Its fairly common for people to hold other semi-compatible beliefs on the same subjects simultaneously with professing mainstream Christianity, Mormonism might be playing on that.

  599. @A123
    Peter Zeihan may not have the academic credentials of the thoroughly discredited Jeffery Sachs. However, Zeihan does have a better track record of accuracy. (1)


    https://youtu.be/A9-wfHgjTB8

    • Product that was normally produced for export from China is now being locked up within the Chinese system at the same time that the population is purchasing less. You have an oversupply of goods and an under demand, both at home and abroad. With all those extra goods prices go down, and you get deflation.”

    • “The Chinese economic system isn’t really based on exports or consumption, it’s based on investment, the idea that the state fosters mass borrowing in order to build industrial plant infrastructure. Based on whose numbers you’re using, those are somewhere between 40-70% of the entirety of the Chinese economy, and has generated the vast majority of economic growth.”

    • “You can only do that for so long. Eventually you don’t need any more bridges, or any more factories, and I would argue the Chinese reached that point before Covid. Again, there’s been this three, four year lag between reality and the data finally manifesting.”
    More spending won’t help.
     
    It is also important to note that gradual decoupling from CCP goods is NOT inflationary. (2)

    New Trade Analysis Shows Longevity of President Trump’s Tariffs Diminishing Chinese Imports – China fell from 21.6% of U.S. imports in 2017 to 16.5% in 2022

     

    New analysis of the long-term impact from Section 301 tariffs triggered by President Trump against China, shows just how consequential economic nationalism can become.

    Our own analysis of U.S. consumer prices in 2019 showed that prices of imported goods actually declined despite the tariffs. A recent report from CPA takes a look at the impact to Chinese exports to the U.S. Bottom line, the tariffs worked to reduce Chinese imports.

    With the leading opponent to President Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, not supporting tariffs on behalf of the multinationals and Club for Growth donors who stand behind him, it’s worth revisiting the actual outcome to American consumers to dispel the popular myths about tariffs raising prices here at home.
     
    Most of the analysis is, for obvious reasons, looking at data before the CCP lost control of their WUHAN-19 virus. There are more detailed statistics in the article.

    Did CCP officials intentionally release the virus to cover up their own poor economic performance? That is much more plausible than a shady international conspiracy. All it takes is an idiot with more authority than competence. Plus, an easily cowed workforce trained to blindly obey government/party authority.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=55592

    (2) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/07/01/new-trade-analysis-shows-longevity-of-president-trumps-tariffs-diminishing-chinese-imports-china-fell-from-21-6-of-u-s-imports-in-2017-to-16-5-in-2022/

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Wokechoke

    This is grasping at straws.

    The Chinks are back after 300 years of hurt.

  600. @LatW
    @LatW


    Ukrainians participated in creating all those weapons, yet look at what is being done to them now. This is wrong.
     
    And what is even more insulting is that it is the Ukrainians who are trying to at least have a democratic system, while Russia is pseudo-fascist. What does this teach you - do not be the chump. :(

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    Classic.

    As Ezra Pound pointed out Democracy is just a term used to describe a political regime run by and for Jews. There’s Jud Zelenskyy Suss King of Ukraine.

    Putin, who apparently has killed a few Jewish usurpers or banished them, well, he’s just a Pseudo Fascist. (LatW whose basic sympathies in the context of ww2 would be Axis can’t just dignify the guy with straight up “Fascist”.) Either Putin is Fascist and you are Antifa or he’s not.

    You’ve got all sorts of wires crossed mentally. Must make you squirm.

    Have some courage Dearie.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Wokechoke

    The post-Soviet nuclear disarmament was related to the dissolution of the USSR but also may have been part of the international disarmament process which had been going on since the 1970s.

    Some in the West were concerned that nuclear weapons from Russia and CIS countries could easily be sold on the black market and should be rounded up while the Russian defense organizations still had control over them. I think the West sweetened the deal by making payments to the countries (bribes?).

    It would have been nice if nuclear disarmament of Ukraine had led to greater nuclear disarmament of France and the UK. I don't think nuclear weapons increase the security of either country.

    It is a bit surprising that Ukraine did not keep a few nuclear weapons. Maybe they did and these were subsequently sold on the black market by some crooks.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    , @LatW
    @Wokechoke


    Putin, who apparently has killed a few Jewish usurpers or banished them, well, he’s just a Pseudo Fascist
     
    Er, yea, he is a pseudo fascist because he doesn't take care of his people, floods his country with foreigners and gives away land to China. Murders a close ethnicity, murders Whites en masse. Russians get the bad sides of fascism without the benefits (except their ultra-nationalism, but even that they have to share with the likes of Kadyrov).

    He banished only a few Jews, he's enabled several Jewish oligarchs. The Kovalchuks are half Jewish. Why, did you not know that or are you just pretending not to know that because it's convenient to you?

  601. Greatest hits of planet Mcgregor:

    But he has bit of that special kind of old swindler charisma with ability to pour neverending streams of nonsense unbothered by any reality but with completely serious pomp face all the time, kind of Naked Gun film series style, while Ritter lags in this department;)

    • LOL: LatW
    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @sudden death

    Yet Ukraine is no where near coming out on top.

    The entire western aid package is just putting off the day they cede Crimea.

  602. @Dmitry
    @Coconuts


    reproductive advantage.

     

    Not exactly answering your post, but to say some thing which was natural historically, doesn't mean it would be good for the human genetics, as this concept of "good" is based in our value or desire, while the "natural" is just what reality has been in the past in relation to the environment of those times.

    An example, is the age of reproduction of humans.

    If you wanted to increase the extension of life there is selection pressure for human genetics, you would ban reproduction before age 40.

    To ban reproduction before age 40, would be not very natural, but the result would be good in terms of increasing the health of the human population across generations.

    Selected traits for almost all evolution's history are to allow survival to reproductive age which is only around 16-18 for humans, life expectancy was around 25. For the non-human ancestors of humans it would be mostly lower and lower the more generations they go to the past. .

    Other animals with the closest common ancestor with humans are Chimpanzees and Bonobos, with similar life expectancy outside the zoo.

    Although humans who lived to 40 could potentially have more children, could add more iteration in the gene pool, than someone who died in the first pregnancy. So there would be some selection for surviving pregnancy.

    In all the developed Western countries today (except USA), people are expected to live over 80. So, for more than half of life, we don't have benefit of selection pressure on our ancestors' genes adapted for this life expectancy.

    An example of the film "Idiocracy" in the beginning, is a middle class couple using contraception, delaying children until they are older and older, while the working class family has many children already.

    Of course, if the middle class pattern is more common in the population especially if you banned people having children before 40, it would increase the proportion of human's life there is a selection pressure on the population.

    There would be genetic selection for women who have later menopause, are more healthy at age 40. After enough generations, average 50 year old people would look like average 30 year old people today as there would be biological adaption with more resources for continuing health.

    Then you would raise the ban on reproduction to age 45, age 50 etc, at some point there would be a limit.


    the US is the most liberal
     
    You mean "least liberal" in terms of social liberalism, although liberal in terms of company law, taxation, technology etc.

    In social life, the US is the most religious and puritan culture outside of Asia/Africa. If you include only industrialized or developed countries, it is the most religious and puritan culture outside the Middle East.

    I would say, there is confusion in terms of the idea of traditional and liberal. USA is one of more nontraditional cultures, or it is a culture which bases its tradition on parts of modernity like machines and technology.

    Americans are nontraditional to an extent, "conservative Republicans" are supporting covering the country with asphalt. A sign of the "conservative values" in America are driving pickup trucks, supporting stealth military planes, deregulating laws about destruction of the natural environment.

    US is also the technology leader. Technology leader in the 21st century is "owner of the means of production". So, the other cultures are modulated by the people who operate the technology and the American influence in culture will increase. For example, some parts of the "more liberal attitude" about sexual life of countries in comparison with the US, like France or Italy can be removed by the filter of MeToo, which is not negative in this example, but it is a sign of how America has become "owner of the means of production" in this century because they are leader of technology.

    Replies: @Coconuts, @Coconuts

    Not exactly answering your post, but to say some thing which was natural historically, doesn’t mean it would be good for the human genetics, as this concept of “good” is based in our value or desire…

    Well, it is definitely based on our desire, because the good, or something we take to be good is the usual object of our desire. My opinion on fact/value division varies, sometimes it seems more plausible than others, I’m not sure whether anything at all can really be willed as the good.

    Hume has that example of being prepared to destroy the whole world to avoid a graze on his thumb as not being contrary to reason, which if fact/value applies it wouldn’t be.

    To ban reproduction before age 40, would be not very natural, but the result would be good in terms of increasing the health of the human population across generations.

    It may be impossible in practice, because too many other genes would be lost in such large numbers of people failing to reproduce. First there would be all the people who can’t conceive after 40 who would fail to reproduce, then a chunk of the next generation who might have the usual issues coming from older pregnancies, and so on.

    It seems a bit like that idea about removing modern medical care from mothers and children so infant mortality rises (it would ultimately strengthen the remaining population genetically), but from an ethical pov no one will try to do this. More of the population would survive doing this, but there would be more suffering. In the 40+ mothers there may be less suffering but a lot smaller population.

  603. I infer that Japan’s ‘Moon Sniper’ mission must be about sending robots to the moon to build a mass driver, so they can stop being America’s vassal.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/sep/07/japan-moon-sniper-slim-probe

  604. @Wokechoke
    @LatW

    Classic.

    As Ezra Pound pointed out Democracy is just a term used to describe a political regime run by and for Jews. There’s Jud Zelenskyy Suss King of Ukraine.

    Putin, who apparently has killed a few Jewish usurpers or banished them, well, he’s just a Pseudo Fascist. (LatW whose basic sympathies in the context of ww2 would be Axis can’t just dignify the guy with straight up “Fascist”.) Either Putin is Fascist and you are Antifa or he’s not.

    You’ve got all sorts of wires crossed mentally. Must make you squirm.

    Have some courage Dearie.

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW

    The post-Soviet nuclear disarmament was related to the dissolution of the USSR but also may have been part of the international disarmament process which had been going on since the 1970s.

    Some in the West were concerned that nuclear weapons from Russia and CIS countries could easily be sold on the black market and should be rounded up while the Russian defense organizations still had control over them. I think the West sweetened the deal by making payments to the countries (bribes?).

    It would have been nice if nuclear disarmament of Ukraine had led to greater nuclear disarmament of France and the UK. I don’t think nuclear weapons increase the security of either country.

    It is a bit surprising that Ukraine did not keep a few nuclear weapons. Maybe they did and these were subsequently sold on the black market by some crooks.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @QCIC

    They sold them.

  605. @Mikel
    @AP


    and then storming the beaches of California, more American defeats, Russians taking Denver and moving eastward.
     
    Jeez. So all those nukes would do nothing for me and my family if the Russians decide to annex Utah as long as they stay west of Denver. What a scam.

    Defending their country on their own lands.
     
    There we go again. Location, location, location. I don't want to belittle the impressive bravery of those youngsters, honestly. But that's not so determinant when it comes to killing and dying. Mohammed Atta and his team did it very far away from their lands.

    Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were outcast regimes, unlike Ukraine which Russia attacked.
     
    I wasn't comparing those countries to Ukraine or the Basque Country. I was just pointing out the well known fact that down here on planet Earth nuclear superpowers get advantages that the rest don't. In fact, Afghanistan was invaded with impunity by both of them. Brezhnev died of natural causes and in all likelihood so will Bush.

    Replies: @AP

    and then storming the beaches of California, more American defeats, Russians taking Denver and moving eastward.

    Jeez. So all those nukes would do nothing for me and my family if the Russians decide to annex Utah as long as they stay west of Denver. What a scam

    Well, nobody likes Mormons anyways.

    My point of course is that a nuclear response against Russia (or the USA) entails nuclear annihilation for oneself and one’s loved ones. Will Americans choose this death for themselves and everyone they care about over Hawaii, or perhaps even California? No. As Russians would not over Crimea. Only if their entire country was about to be occupied would this become a possibility, and even in that case not 100%. If occupation merely meant the elites losing power and the installation of some friendly regime (Vivek Ramaswamy or Colonel MacGregor as president) maybe mutual nuclear destruction wouldn’t be chosen, the people in charge of the nukes might figure that this result is better than their children being burned alive in a nuclear holocaust (though I wouldn’t take my chances). If occupation meant concentration camps, mass killings, mass rapes – nukes would be very likely.

    Defending their country on their own lands.

    There we go again. Location, location, location. I don’t want to belittle the impressive bravery of those youngsters, honestly. But that’s not so determinant when it comes to killing and dying

    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.

    Mohammed Atta and his team did it very far away from their lands

    Ukrainians aren’t Muslim terrorist fanatics, they are normal people defending their lands. Your neighbors would probably do the same if someone tried invading the USA.

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Sean
    @AP

    The deal being mooted to end the war is Russia gets a measure of international recognition of its position in Crimea and agrees to Ukraine joining Nato and gets a full security guarantee.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @QCIC, @Mr. XYZ

    , @Mikel
    @AP


    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.
     
    Yes, that must be the main motivation for some of them. I'd fear those things if I was a native of Northern Zaporizhia. But probably not for most right now. Let's not forget that many Ukrainian soldiers were already killing and dying before the invasion in faraway lands for them. Nobody in Lviv feared the Donbas rebels torturing their loved ones at home but many traveled to hostile Donbas to quell the rebellion by force.

    Human motivations are complex. Probably what leads people to give their lives for their countries is a combination of altruism, peer pressure, social conditioning through school, family, media,.., atavic instincts, fear of being considered a coward, individual circumstances,...

    Whatever their motivations, as long as they're not committing crimes against civilians, I feel maximum respect for the Ukrainian men who are giving their lives fighting against the invaders.

    At the same time, I also feel a lot of empathy for all the Ukrainian men who are leaving their country with their families in seek of a better future. We are seeing increasing numbers of them here in Utah. One recently started working at a nearby Walmart. Of course, during my recent trip to Poland it was impossible not to notice the presence of lots of foreigners in Warsaw. My son told me that it's not just Ukrainians but lots of Belarussians and Russians too are escaping the madness of the war and settling in Warsaw. At the basketball court where he trains Belarussian refugees have already formed their own team.

    In fact, out of 4 Uber drivers I used in Warsaw one was Belarussian and another one Ukrainian from Kharkov (his spelling). The latter told me that he escaped Ukraine with his family some months ago and has no intention of going back. He wasn't too interested in talking about the war, he just wanted to know what life in the US was like and what the best places were to get work. His dream was to emigrate to the US but he didn't know anyone in the country and was hoping to find some "sponsor".

    I actually felt a lot of positive vitality in all these young families trying to escape the insanity of the war concocted by the leaders of their countries. One cannot forget that, war or no war, these countries are pretty messed up. They never really left their Soviet past. While some Russian officials are making money by stripping military vehicles of essential parts on the other side officials are making money with the foreign military aid they are receiving or selling fake permits to all these young men to leave Ukraine. Who wants to live in or fight for these countries? Some certainly do but many others (possibly a majority even in Ukraine) don't.

    Your neighbors would probably do the same if someone tried invading the USA.
     
    Yes, some of them would. Although, as Greasy Williams said, there is less and less left in common among Americans. And we can actually see right here in this blog how many Westerners are so fed up with their societies that actually root for our supposed enemies.

    But even though we now live far removed from the tribal structures that we evolved in, I don't deny that patriotism is a strong force clearly linked to our tribal instincts and that these instincts are natural to the human psyche. I don't deny either that there's a lot of poetry and heroism in the fight for our tribes and our nations. It has certainly given us fascinating stories to enjoy in documentaries, books and movies. But I wish we were now able to start leaving war behind as a species and build a less violent future for the next generations. In the nuclear era survival of civilization depends on that.

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @AP

  606. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    I bet plenty of Americans would, after a time, be willing to cut their losses rather than risk total annihilation.
     
    Their opinion would matter as much as the opinion of ordinary Russians and Ukrainians matters today.

    How can Germany fighting on when they knew the war was lost possibly be considered the equivalent situation to America only losing Hawaii
     
    You're totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation. And so did millions of Germans. That's how humans have behaved for millennia (look up Numantia). Nobody wants it. Nobody probably even thinks that it's totally rational. But if a Russian missile lands on a Polish town killing scores of people it's WW3. In fact, that's pretty much why there is a war in Ukraine. Few people in the West really wanted Ukraine to join NATO and some were actually opposed to the idea. But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd't join NATO. Which meant that Putin wouls lose face if he didn't act. So he launched the invasion, even though he couldn't possibly know if that would lead to Russia's and his personal anihilation. It's still in the cards.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP, @YetAnotherAnon, @silviosilver

    You’re totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation

    Hitler was a childless extremist freak. In the end he believed the German people deserved total annihilation because they failed him and the Nazi cause. Goebbels had children but was a fanatic who poisoned all of his kids so that they wouldn’t live in a world without National Socialism.

    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.

    No risk of nuclear holocaust over Ukraine, Crimea (or Estonia for that matter). Just risk of conventional escalation.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @AP

    Wait wait, wasn't he failed artist? You fucking people.

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    I think that the fear is of a conventional war accidentally going nuclear due to a computer error/malfunction or some kind of misunderstanding, similar to what almost happened back in 1962 before Vasily Arkhipov's common sense prevented a nuclear Holocaust. Stanislav Petrov is another example of a person who was a hero in similar circumstances.

    BTW, off-topic, but in regards to your comment about Saddam Hussein, Yes, I do think that there is a solid case that Saddam Hussein's behavior in the decades leading up to 2003 helped pave the way for his overthrow. Would Saddam Hussein have been viewed as anywhere near as much of a threat to regional stability had he not invaded two countries in the couple of decades before 2003 in order to massively increase his own country's oil reserves? I don't think so. Saddam Hussein was definitively a power maximizer, though arguably that stage of his career was over by 2003 due to Iraq's military weakness.

    , @Mikel
    @AP


    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.
     
    It wasn't only Hitler and Goebbels at all (and Goebbels didn't even matter). It was the whole chain of command, including hedonistic Goering, and everyone underneath who fought fanatically while the Wehrmacht was destroyed, German cities were turned to rubble and German women were raped and murdered by the advancing enemies. As I said, for all intents and purposes the German military chose a nuclear holocaust of their country over an ignominious surrender until they had basically nothing left to defend.

    The Nazis were particularly fanatical but this behavior wasn't so unexpected or unprecedented. This is how all militaries work in times of war. It is not about you or your family, it is about The Fatherland. And The Fatherland can only be defended through iron discipline by following orders from your superiors, even if they look insane to you. Is there any other way to defeat a formidable enemy?

    No risk of nuclear holocaust over Ukraine, Crimea (or Estonia for that matter).
     
    It must be that you don't like the idea of the country of your ancestors being the trigger of a new world war so you prefer to pretend that you know it wouldn't happen and play down the possibilities. But, as I said, everyone that matters acts as if that risk that you deny exists was perfectly real. Even the British kamikazes have put conditions on what the Ukrainians can use their weapons for.

    In fact, all of this has been discussed for decades. For the MAD deterrent to work both parties must believe that the other side would use their nukes. The moment one side believes that the other one would chicken out the nuclear deterrent stops altogether. This is why we have actually been very close to accidental nuclear war several times in the past. Both sides have automatic mechanisms in place to launch their nukes as soon as they believe they have detected a first strike by the other side. Biden and Putin may have just a few minutes to decide what to do under the pressure of the information and advice given by their military advisers.

    It may not matter too much what both have decided in advance for the event of Crimea or Estonia falling. The uncertainty about what the other side is about to do may trigger by itself a chain of events that leads to someone starting the first ICBM salvo. This is what everyone (luckily) feared and why no NFZ was declared in early 2022 against powerful voices that demanded it.

    Replies: @AP, @silviosilver

  607. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    I bet plenty of Americans would, after a time, be willing to cut their losses rather than risk total annihilation.
     
    Their opinion would matter as much as the opinion of ordinary Russians and Ukrainians matters today.

    How can Germany fighting on when they knew the war was lost possibly be considered the equivalent situation to America only losing Hawaii
     
    You're totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation. And so did millions of Germans. That's how humans have behaved for millennia (look up Numantia). Nobody wants it. Nobody probably even thinks that it's totally rational. But if a Russian missile lands on a Polish town killing scores of people it's WW3. In fact, that's pretty much why there is a war in Ukraine. Few people in the West really wanted Ukraine to join NATO and some were actually opposed to the idea. But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd't join NATO. Which meant that Putin wouls lose face if he didn't act. So he launched the invasion, even though he couldn't possibly know if that would lead to Russia's and his personal anihilation. It's still in the cards.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP, @YetAnotherAnon, @silviosilver

    “Few people in the West really wanted Ukraine to join NATO and some were actually opposed to the idea. But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd’t join NATO.”

    Any leader in Europe making that statement would soon have found themselves in a lot of trouble seemingly unrelated to their view on NATO and Ukraine. Maybe an unwise private conversation leaked, maybe what they got up to on that last conference trip, maybe that large private donation they forgot to declare.

    Didn’t Biden or someone say that the CIA or FBI has “seven ways to Sunday” to make life hard for their enemies?

  608. @QCIC
    @Wokechoke

    The post-Soviet nuclear disarmament was related to the dissolution of the USSR but also may have been part of the international disarmament process which had been going on since the 1970s.

    Some in the West were concerned that nuclear weapons from Russia and CIS countries could easily be sold on the black market and should be rounded up while the Russian defense organizations still had control over them. I think the West sweetened the deal by making payments to the countries (bribes?).

    It would have been nice if nuclear disarmament of Ukraine had led to greater nuclear disarmament of France and the UK. I don't think nuclear weapons increase the security of either country.

    It is a bit surprising that Ukraine did not keep a few nuclear weapons. Maybe they did and these were subsequently sold on the black market by some crooks.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    They sold them.

  609. @AP
    @Mikel


    You’re totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation
     
    Hitler was a childless extremist freak. In the end he believed the German people deserved total annihilation because they failed him and the Nazi cause. Goebbels had children but was a fanatic who poisoned all of his kids so that they wouldn’t live in a world without National Socialism.

    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.

    No risk of nuclear holocaust over Ukraine, Crimea (or Estonia for that matter). Just risk of conventional escalation.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel

    Wait wait, wasn’t he failed artist? You fucking people.

  610. @Wokechoke
    @LatW

    Classic.

    As Ezra Pound pointed out Democracy is just a term used to describe a political regime run by and for Jews. There’s Jud Zelenskyy Suss King of Ukraine.

    Putin, who apparently has killed a few Jewish usurpers or banished them, well, he’s just a Pseudo Fascist. (LatW whose basic sympathies in the context of ww2 would be Axis can’t just dignify the guy with straight up “Fascist”.) Either Putin is Fascist and you are Antifa or he’s not.

    You’ve got all sorts of wires crossed mentally. Must make you squirm.

    Have some courage Dearie.

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW

    Putin, who apparently has killed a few Jewish usurpers or banished them, well, he’s just a Pseudo Fascist

    Er, yea, he is a pseudo fascist because he doesn’t take care of his people, floods his country with foreigners and gives away land to China. Murders a close ethnicity, murders Whites en masse. Russians get the bad sides of fascism without the benefits (except their ultra-nationalism, but even that they have to share with the likes of Kadyrov).

    He banished only a few Jews, he’s enabled several Jewish oligarchs. The Kovalchuks are half Jewish. Why, did you not know that or are you just pretending not to know that because it’s convenient to you?

  611. @AP
    @Mikel


    and then storming the beaches of California, more American defeats, Russians taking Denver and moving eastward.

    Jeez. So all those nukes would do nothing for me and my family if the Russians decide to annex Utah as long as they stay west of Denver. What a scam
     
    Well, nobody likes Mormons anyways.

    My point of course is that a nuclear response against Russia (or the USA) entails nuclear annihilation for oneself and one’s loved ones. Will Americans choose this death for themselves and everyone they care about over Hawaii, or perhaps even California? No. As Russians would not over Crimea. Only if their entire country was about to be occupied would this become a possibility, and even in that case not 100%. If occupation merely meant the elites losing power and the installation of some friendly regime (Vivek Ramaswamy or Colonel MacGregor as president) maybe mutual nuclear destruction wouldn’t be chosen, the people in charge of the nukes might figure that this result is better than their children being burned alive in a nuclear holocaust (though I wouldn’t take my chances). If occupation meant concentration camps, mass killings, mass rapes - nukes would be very likely.

    Defending their country on their own lands.

    There we go again. Location, location, location. I don’t want to belittle the impressive bravery of those youngsters, honestly. But that’s not so determinant when it comes to killing and dying
     
    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.

    Mohammed Atta and his team did it very far away from their lands
     
    Ukrainians aren’t Muslim terrorist fanatics, they are normal people defending their lands. Your neighbors would probably do the same if someone tried invading the USA.

    Replies: @Sean, @Mikel

    The deal being mooted to end the war is Russia gets a measure of international recognition of its position in Crimea and agrees to Ukraine joining Nato and gets a full security guarantee.

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Sean

    And Russia will say no missiles in Poland or Romania for starters, let alone in Ukraine. The thing is, the US wanted this conflict, so I can't see a deal happening, and Russia is prepared to keep going - it's not 1917.

    Replies: @AP

    , @QCIC
    @Sean

    Mooted by whom, Jake Sullivan's assistant?

    Replies: @Sean

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @Sean

    Seems like a good deal. If offered, Ukraine should take it if also coupled with Russian reparations and free and fair UN-supervised plebiscites in Crimea and the Donbass, limited to 2014 inhabitants only. Such a deal would have, of course, been much better to have before the start of the current war and in place of the current war.

  612. @Sean
    @AP

    The deal being mooted to end the war is Russia gets a measure of international recognition of its position in Crimea and agrees to Ukraine joining Nato and gets a full security guarantee.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @QCIC, @Mr. XYZ

    And Russia will say no missiles in Poland or Romania for starters, let alone in Ukraine. The thing is, the US wanted this conflict, so I can’t see a deal happening, and Russia is prepared to keep going – it’s not 1917.

    • Agree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @AP
    @YetAnotherAnon


    and Russia is prepared to keep going – it’s not 1917.
     
    More like 1916. Or 1920? Or 1905?

    Because it isn’t the 1940s.

    Replies: @Sean

  613. @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikel


    But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd’t join NATO.
     
    Maybe Russia should have made this offer more attractive by offering to return Crimea to Ukraine? But that wasn't politically feasible. So, at least Russia could have offered to impose a trade embargo on China in the event that China would have ever attacked Taiwan. That would have appealed to the West (though not sure if actually enough to agree to no NATO membership for Ukraine forever), but would Russia have actually been interested in backstabbing its friend, trading partner, and de facto ally China?

    Replies: @Beckow

    none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd’t join NATO.

    …Russia should have made this offer more attractive by offering to return Crimea

    Chisken-and-egg…both sides made moves and counter-moves. Pre-2014 Crimea was inside Ukraine and still Nato couldn’t bring itself to say: we will not bring Ukraine into Nato.

    That is the core issue and without addressing it the war will not end…or end in one-sided victory, most likely by Russia with Ukraine largely destroyed.

    This as a catastrophic failure by the West – they are unable to think strategically, unable to even pretend s “Oh, don’t worry Russians, no Nato ever in Ukraine.” Instead they have second-tier people like Merkel-Hollande whisper pointless reassurances. Nato can’t even play a smart strategic game – they are so deep into their own backsides, ‘negotiate’ only with each other, full of hubris and lacking historical perspective.

    Imagine if they were smart: they would publicly reassure Moscow, smile and not provoke. They would tell Kiev to keep a tight lid on the crazies, punish excesses like Odessa, keep the Russian minority included.

    Instead post-Maidan became a horror-show of vengeful arrogance by what is ultimately the weaker side in the region: fanatics and dreamers, and what is worse the ones in charge are even unwilling to put their own soldiers on the line. This will be studied as one of the stupidest civilizational over-reaches in human history.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Beckow

    FWIW, I think that NATO's 2008 Bucharest declaration was a mistake since Ukrainian public opinion back then was still very hostile towards NATO. Honestly, back then, it would have been interesting to see if a deal could have been made in regards to no further NATO expansion into the former USSR in exchange for huge Russian cooperation with the West against China, up to the point of Russia actually being willing to wage a trade embargo against China if China will ever attack Taiwan.

    Replies: @Beckow

  614. It could all have been so different, had the US wanted it or the EU any testes.

    “While we know that NATO is a purely defensive organisation *cough* (Belgrade) *cough*… we understand Russian historical sensitivities and concerns … so no NATO invite … Crimean bases on 500 year leases to Russia… Russian language equal status in schools and universities… Ukraine to join EU as soon as possible, meanwhile special trade deals and maybe some deals for Russia too…”

    German industry, literally the only decent manufacturing industry left in the West, continues to boom, Russia makes nice with everyone, oligarchs carry on spending in London and Paris, maybe Russia and Germany draw ever closer.

    Then I wake, and look around me, and four grey walls that surround me,
    And then I realise, yeah, I was only dreaming

    Instead we have war and this…

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @YetAnotherAnon

    yawwwnnnn. This is someting the Germans can correct with one Kystal Mnacht.

  615. @AP
    @Beckow


    Really? So there is a statute of limitations on changing borders? Let’s see, Crimea and Donbas have been 9 years, how much longer? Kosovo is the “best example” and a precedent
     
    Before Kosovo was Moldova. So NATO followed the precedent set by Russia. Blame Russia for Kosovo, since you like to use “precedent” as an excuse. Crimea followed the same precedent.

    Russia grabbing the Crimean corridor (Kherson and Zaporizhia) is something new. In the Moldova precedent (which NATO followed in Kosovo), border changes centered on ethnic majorities: most Transnistrians were Slavs rather than Moldovans, most Kosovars were Albanians rather than Serbs, most Crimeans were Russians rather than Ukrainians. But most people in Kherson and Zaporizhia are Ukrainians.

    So Russia now has created a new precedent: take what you can, regardless of local wishes and ethnicity, drive the local majority into exile if they don’t like it and resettle those lands. Or rather followed a much older one not seen in Europe since World War II.

    Based on Russia’s new precedent one can take a Russian lands too if things go badly for Russia. Crimea might be the example. Since you like to use precedent as an excuse, you shouldn’t object if the Russian majority of Crimea were to be treated like the Ukrainian majority of Kherson.

    Replies: @Beckow

    Your bizarre rant smells of desperation. “Moldova?” No kidding. I guess Kishinov was bombed to Middle Ages by Russia, pompous Russian politicians were strutting around talking about some hapless Moldova Prime Minister as the “new Hitler”. Riiiight…are you totally insane? It was at the time basically an inside former Soviet space non-event.

    Kosovo with the Nato massive bombing and insistence on changing borders by force, recognizing the new state – that is the precedent. And Iraq, Afgan,, Syria, Libya…where were you for the last 20 years?

    To put it bluntly you seem a bit of an idiot. You are so desperate because your side is losing that any infantile nonsense will do. You invent evil “Russian plans” and ignore what was actually going on: inviting Kiev to join Nato, building up its arm forces, and then the idiotic attack post-Maidan on the Russian minority.

    Kiev is like a horse with no speed that eventually quits. It will take some time, it is not a pretty picture, all those unnecessary dead. But what else did you expect? That Russia would just roll-over, abandon its people, and watch Nato gradually placing bases and missiles on its very long strategic borders with Ukraine?

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    Your bizarre rant smells of desperation. “Moldova?”
     
    Yes, Moldova. Never heard of it? It’s the first time that borders were changed by force in Eastern Europe. Russia did it. Russia made the precedent. You like that word.

    NATO later copied in Yugoslavia.


    I guess Kishinov was bombed to Middle Ages by Russia
     
    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?

    It was at the time basically an inside former Soviet space non-event
     
    And Kosovo was a Balkan non-event. And Ukraine an Eastern European non-event. Life hasn’t changed much in Moscow, London, or New York as a result.

    Moldova set the precedent, and after Russia started changing European borders by force there has been a gradual escalation. Yugoslavia bigger than Moldova, Ukraine bigger than Yugoslavia.

    In addition to setting a precedent in Moldova regarding changing of other countries borders, Russia also set a precedent in Chechnya on how to deal with rebellion in one’s own country: bomb the rebel cities and kill 10,000s of one’s own citizens.

    This is a precedent set by Russia that Ukraine has fortunately not followed in the Russia way. Only a fraction of the civilian death toll.

    You must be disappointed, given your love of precedent.


    You are so desperate because your side is losing that any infantile nonsense will do
     
    Projection again.

    You invent evil “Russian plans“

     

    We see what Russians did in the areas they occupied. No inventions. That’s what you do.

    ignore what was actually going on: inviting Kiev to join Nato, building up its arm forces, and then the idiotic attack post-Maidan on the Russian minority

     

    1. Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack. Those who oppose Ukraine joining NATO are just confessing that they want to leave open the option of invading Ukraine. Same for building up armed forces.

    2. Repealing the unpopular 2012 language law in 2o14 just returned Ukraine to the status of the previous 20 years.


    Kiev is like a horse with no speed that eventually quits

     

    According to the moron who claimed Kiev would quit in a couple of weeks.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Mikhail, @Beckow

  616. @Dmitry
    @Coconuts


    reproductive advantage.

     

    Not exactly answering your post, but to say some thing which was natural historically, doesn't mean it would be good for the human genetics, as this concept of "good" is based in our value or desire, while the "natural" is just what reality has been in the past in relation to the environment of those times.

    An example, is the age of reproduction of humans.

    If you wanted to increase the extension of life there is selection pressure for human genetics, you would ban reproduction before age 40.

    To ban reproduction before age 40, would be not very natural, but the result would be good in terms of increasing the health of the human population across generations.

    Selected traits for almost all evolution's history are to allow survival to reproductive age which is only around 16-18 for humans, life expectancy was around 25. For the non-human ancestors of humans it would be mostly lower and lower the more generations they go to the past. .

    Other animals with the closest common ancestor with humans are Chimpanzees and Bonobos, with similar life expectancy outside the zoo.

    Although humans who lived to 40 could potentially have more children, could add more iteration in the gene pool, than someone who died in the first pregnancy. So there would be some selection for surviving pregnancy.

    In all the developed Western countries today (except USA), people are expected to live over 80. So, for more than half of life, we don't have benefit of selection pressure on our ancestors' genes adapted for this life expectancy.

    An example of the film "Idiocracy" in the beginning, is a middle class couple using contraception, delaying children until they are older and older, while the working class family has many children already.

    Of course, if the middle class pattern is more common in the population especially if you banned people having children before 40, it would increase the proportion of human's life there is a selection pressure on the population.

    There would be genetic selection for women who have later menopause, are more healthy at age 40. After enough generations, average 50 year old people would look like average 30 year old people today as there would be biological adaption with more resources for continuing health.

    Then you would raise the ban on reproduction to age 45, age 50 etc, at some point there would be a limit.


    the US is the most liberal
     
    You mean "least liberal" in terms of social liberalism, although liberal in terms of company law, taxation, technology etc.

    In social life, the US is the most religious and puritan culture outside of Asia/Africa. If you include only industrialized or developed countries, it is the most religious and puritan culture outside the Middle East.

    I would say, there is confusion in terms of the idea of traditional and liberal. USA is one of more nontraditional cultures, or it is a culture which bases its tradition on parts of modernity like machines and technology.

    Americans are nontraditional to an extent, "conservative Republicans" are supporting covering the country with asphalt. A sign of the "conservative values" in America are driving pickup trucks, supporting stealth military planes, deregulating laws about destruction of the natural environment.

    US is also the technology leader. Technology leader in the 21st century is "owner of the means of production". So, the other cultures are modulated by the people who operate the technology and the American influence in culture will increase. For example, some parts of the "more liberal attitude" about sexual life of countries in comparison with the US, like France or Italy can be removed by the filter of MeToo, which is not negative in this example, but it is a sign of how America has become "owner of the means of production" in this century because they are leader of technology.

    Replies: @Coconuts, @Coconuts

    You mean “least liberal” in terms of social liberalism, although liberal in terms of company law, taxation, technology etc.

    It must be one of the most liberal in terms of political liberalism; the individualism, contractualism, lower taxation, freedom of speech etc. Most European countries seem to lean more to the social- democratic end of liberalism.

    Or like the French:

    https://unherd.com/2023/09/in-france-money-is-dirtier-than-sex/

    I remember De Tocqueville’s old theory in his ‘Democracy in America’ that the American version of democracy was somehow inspired/sustained by the Puritan spirit.

    In social life, the US is the most religious and puritan culture outside of Asia/Africa.

    It seems to be a mixture (which would fit with the individualism?), because it still is a major producer and innovator in fields like porn, all kinds of progressive social causes and identity politics (feminism, gay liberation, trans etc.) and counter cultural products like red-pill. At the same time as it retains a religious culture.

    For example, some parts of the “more liberal attitude” about sexual life of countries in comparison with the US, like France or Italy can be removed by the filter of MeToo, which is not negative in this example, but it is a sign of how America has become “owner of the means of production” in this century because they are leader of technology.

    It might have been the case for even longer, hearing about the Congress for Cultural Freedom and other affiliated organizations, the US seemed to have been sustaining the cultural activities of large parts of the non-Communist European left for years after WW2 with its financial resources.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Coconuts


    liberalism; the individualism, contractualism, lower taxation, freedom of speech etc. Most European countries seem to lean more to the social- democratic
     
    Yes they are probably the most liberal country in the world in terms of free speech and it's a value which is deep and cannot be explained as a business value or as only a business value at least. . .

    I would also observe excluding free speech, most or many of the areas America is liberal are seeming like they are result of the prioritization of business.


    d innovator in fields like porn,
     
    This is another successful business though, so it has a capitalist halo in the society even a large part of Republicans would admire some things about it from the business view. Historicallym responsible for developing the online payment systems. As Calvin Coolidge said, “The business of America is business.”

    Although probably more accurate, less witty “The business of America is business, especially business relating to technology/engineering and its downstream results in environment/food/culture etc".


    progressive social causes and identity politics (feminism, gay liberation, trans etc.
     
    This is not from America originally, local adaption or importation from countries like France. America's "intellectual culture" is mainly a cargo-cult for the European writers in those kind of areas. It's like a relation of Rome with Greece, ideas goes from Europe to America, although the new technology is more from America to Europe.

    may be impossible in practice, because too many other genes would be lost in such large numbers of people failing to reproduce. First there would be all the people who can’t conceive after 40 who would fail to reproduce, then a chunk of the next generation who might have the usual issues coming from older pregnancies,
     
    It's a famous experiment in animals.

    For example, with fruit flies. If you allow them to reproduce at the beginning of their reproductive stage (I guess in human version, it would be like having children at 16) or only at the end of their reproductive stage (for humans, maybe over 40).

    In the line where they only allow the delayed reproduction, the animals developed longer life expectancy and delayed senescence, as the genes which allow the animals to be healthy at the end of reproductive life are selected.

    From the view of ethics, can you try eugenical experiments with humans? No, even some unethical country like North Korea doesn't.

    But what's happening spontaneously in industrialized countries with middle class population? There is increasing age of reproduction. Although some of the expensive technology like IVF would reduce the selective pressure that was in the animal model.

    Replies: @Coconuts

  617. @Beckow
    @AP

    Your bizarre rant smells of desperation. "Moldova?" No kidding. I guess Kishinov was bombed to Middle Ages by Russia, pompous Russian politicians were strutting around talking about some hapless Moldova Prime Minister as the "new Hitler". Riiiight...are you totally insane? It was at the time basically an inside former Soviet space non-event.

    Kosovo with the Nato massive bombing and insistence on changing borders by force, recognizing the new state - that is the precedent. And Iraq, Afgan,, Syria, Libya...where were you for the last 20 years?

    To put it bluntly you seem a bit of an idiot. You are so desperate because your side is losing that any infantile nonsense will do. You invent evil "Russian plans" and ignore what was actually going on: inviting Kiev to join Nato, building up its arm forces, and then the idiotic attack post-Maidan on the Russian minority.

    Kiev is like a horse with no speed that eventually quits. It will take some time, it is not a pretty picture, all those unnecessary dead. But what else did you expect? That Russia would just roll-over, abandon its people, and watch Nato gradually placing bases and missiles on its very long strategic borders with Ukraine?

    Replies: @AP

    Your bizarre rant smells of desperation. “Moldova?”

    Yes, Moldova. Never heard of it? It’s the first time that borders were changed by force in Eastern Europe. Russia did it. Russia made the precedent. You like that word.

    NATO later copied in Yugoslavia.

    I guess Kishinov was bombed to Middle Ages by Russia

    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?

    It was at the time basically an inside former Soviet space non-event

    And Kosovo was a Balkan non-event. And Ukraine an Eastern European non-event. Life hasn’t changed much in Moscow, London, or New York as a result.

    Moldova set the precedent, and after Russia started changing European borders by force there has been a gradual escalation. Yugoslavia bigger than Moldova, Ukraine bigger than Yugoslavia.

    In addition to setting a precedent in Moldova regarding changing of other countries borders, Russia also set a precedent in Chechnya on how to deal with rebellion in one’s own country: bomb the rebel cities and kill 10,000s of one’s own citizens.

    This is a precedent set by Russia that Ukraine has fortunately not followed in the Russia way. Only a fraction of the civilian death toll.

    You must be disappointed, given your love of precedent.

    You are so desperate because your side is losing that any infantile nonsense will do

    Projection again.

    You invent evil “Russian plans“

    We see what Russians did in the areas they occupied. No inventions. That’s what you do.

    ignore what was actually going on: inviting Kiev to join Nato, building up its arm forces, and then the idiotic attack post-Maidan on the Russian minority

    1. Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack. Those who oppose Ukraine joining NATO are just confessing that they want to leave open the option of invading Ukraine. Same for building up armed forces.

    2. Repealing the unpopular 2012 language law in 2o14 just returned Ukraine to the status of the previous 20 years.

    Kiev is like a horse with no speed that eventually quits

    According to the moron who claimed Kiev would quit in a couple of weeks.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @AP

    Discussions of Ukraine joining NATO simply forced Russia to act. This cause and effect is inherent in the definition of NATO as a de facto military alliance against Russia. It took a long time for Russia to move so now people are surprised, but they should have expected it.

    This is not complicated. You want an independent Ukraine so you do not like to face this fact, but your wish doesn't change the situation that the USA and Russia are large nuclear-armed superpowers. NATO was created to threaten Russia, though of course this is sometimes stated as defend against Russia. Recall that in a nuclear MAD scenario "defend against" and "threaten" were conflated to be the same thing! The Warsaw pact was vaguely similar to NATO on the Russian side. The bottom line is that these alliances were intrinsically warlike. When the Soviet Union disbanded there was a chance to internationally carefully craft a lasting peace between the West and Russia. Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart and NATO was expanded. This was very warlike. The USA dropped out of nuclear arms control treaties. This was very warlike. The USA put missile bases in Eastern Europe. This was very warlike. There was a clear pattern forming by 2005. Once the Western involvement in Ukraine was serious this pattern of Western aggression represented a clear and present danger to Russia.

    What did you expect to happen with this ill-conceived Western project in Ukraine? Of course it builds on existing sincere nationalist threads and dreams, that is often a crucial part of war. Did Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans forget all the previous wars? Did they really fall for the "End of History" tripe?

    Replies: @AP

    , @Mikhail
    @AP


    Yes, Moldova. Never heard of it? It’s the first time that borders were changed by force in Eastern Europe. Russia did it. Russia made the precedent. You like that word.

    NATO later copied in Yugoslavia.
     

    Russia hasn't recognized Pridnestrovie's independence. Russia didn't attack Moldova proper. Leading NATO nations attacked Yugoslavia and then severed Kosovo from the latter with full diplomatic recognition.

    There's also the earlier matter of Northern Cyprus, with Turkey facing little if any any opposition.


    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?
     
    It was on on the verge of being bombed like that. NATO had limited success at successfully hitting Yugo military assets. This lead to a noticeable increase in destroying civilian Yugo infrastructure. Hiroshima and Nagasaki a prime example.

    Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack. Those who oppose Ukraine joining NATO are just confessing that they want to leave open the option of invading Ukraine. Same for building up armed forces.
     
    NATO membership is theoretically only possible if the candidate member is at peace and in control of the boundary it claims. "A Russian attack" is prevented by honoring signed reasonable existing internationally recognized agreements (like Minsk and the earlier power sharing agreement), maintaining a neutral stance and not showing preference for vile Banderite nationalists.

    Russia also set a precedent in Chechnya on how to deal with rebellion in one’s own country: bomb the rebel cities and kill 10,000s of one’s own citizens.
     
    Turkey's Kurdish population as well as those in Iraq and Syria. On the subject of killing, since 1950, the US has attacked more nations, killing more people than any other nation.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    , @Beckow
    @AP


    Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack.
     
    No, planning to join Nato has started a war. There will be no Nato in Ukraine unless Kiev miraculously wins the war.

    Repealing the unpopular 2012 language law in 2o14
     
    It was a fatal error. It was popular with the Russian minority and we don't follow what is popular with some nationalists when it comes to basic human rights - that's the European way. They failed to uphold their own values in Ukraine - that will have unfortunate consequences.

    Your "Moldova" blabbing is just embarrassing - read what others responded to you. You really sound like a drowning moron willing to just lie. I understand that things are not going well for Kiev, they are losing the war, losing huge number of soldiers and arms, they have no way out other than wait to be defeated or sue for peace. They should have taken the Minsk deal.

    Replies: @AP

  618. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Sean

    And Russia will say no missiles in Poland or Romania for starters, let alone in Ukraine. The thing is, the US wanted this conflict, so I can't see a deal happening, and Russia is prepared to keep going - it's not 1917.

    Replies: @AP

    and Russia is prepared to keep going – it’s not 1917.

    More like 1916. Or 1920? Or 1905?

    Because it isn’t the 1940s.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @AP

    Or the 80's or 90's. Russia is smaller but it is a nation state now and Putin values his popularity above all else (it has actually increased since 2014), because it is what the entire system rests on and he wants it to outlive him. The populace won't let the him quit, too many dead Russian sons he sent in with militarily insane Kremlin orders that made troops easy meat.. The parents being told it was all for nothing? Completely impossible!

  619. @Sean
    @AP

    The deal being mooted to end the war is Russia gets a measure of international recognition of its position in Crimea and agrees to Ukraine joining Nato and gets a full security guarantee.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @QCIC, @Mr. XYZ

    Mooted by whom, Jake Sullivan’s assistant?

    • Replies: @Sean
    @QCIC

    Stian Jenssen, chief of staff to the NATO Secretary General,

    Replies: @QCIC

  620. @AP
    @Beckow


    Your bizarre rant smells of desperation. “Moldova?”
     
    Yes, Moldova. Never heard of it? It’s the first time that borders were changed by force in Eastern Europe. Russia did it. Russia made the precedent. You like that word.

    NATO later copied in Yugoslavia.


    I guess Kishinov was bombed to Middle Ages by Russia
     
    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?

    It was at the time basically an inside former Soviet space non-event
     
    And Kosovo was a Balkan non-event. And Ukraine an Eastern European non-event. Life hasn’t changed much in Moscow, London, or New York as a result.

    Moldova set the precedent, and after Russia started changing European borders by force there has been a gradual escalation. Yugoslavia bigger than Moldova, Ukraine bigger than Yugoslavia.

    In addition to setting a precedent in Moldova regarding changing of other countries borders, Russia also set a precedent in Chechnya on how to deal with rebellion in one’s own country: bomb the rebel cities and kill 10,000s of one’s own citizens.

    This is a precedent set by Russia that Ukraine has fortunately not followed in the Russia way. Only a fraction of the civilian death toll.

    You must be disappointed, given your love of precedent.


    You are so desperate because your side is losing that any infantile nonsense will do
     
    Projection again.

    You invent evil “Russian plans“

     

    We see what Russians did in the areas they occupied. No inventions. That’s what you do.

    ignore what was actually going on: inviting Kiev to join Nato, building up its arm forces, and then the idiotic attack post-Maidan on the Russian minority

     

    1. Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack. Those who oppose Ukraine joining NATO are just confessing that they want to leave open the option of invading Ukraine. Same for building up armed forces.

    2. Repealing the unpopular 2012 language law in 2o14 just returned Ukraine to the status of the previous 20 years.


    Kiev is like a horse with no speed that eventually quits

     

    According to the moron who claimed Kiev would quit in a couple of weeks.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Mikhail, @Beckow

    Discussions of Ukraine joining NATO simply forced Russia to act. This cause and effect is inherent in the definition of NATO as a de facto military alliance against Russia. It took a long time for Russia to move so now people are surprised, but they should have expected it.

    This is not complicated. You want an independent Ukraine so you do not like to face this fact, but your wish doesn’t change the situation that the USA and Russia are large nuclear-armed superpowers. NATO was created to threaten Russia, though of course this is sometimes stated as defend against Russia. Recall that in a nuclear MAD scenario “defend against” and “threaten” were conflated to be the same thing! The Warsaw pact was vaguely similar to NATO on the Russian side. The bottom line is that these alliances were intrinsically warlike. When the Soviet Union disbanded there was a chance to internationally carefully craft a lasting peace between the West and Russia. Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart and NATO was expanded. This was very warlike. The USA dropped out of nuclear arms control treaties. This was very warlike. The USA put missile bases in Eastern Europe. This was very warlike. There was a clear pattern forming by 2005. Once the Western involvement in Ukraine was serious this pattern of Western aggression represented a clear and present danger to Russia.

    What did you expect to happen with this ill-conceived Western project in Ukraine? Of course it builds on existing sincere nationalist threads and dreams, that is often a crucial part of war. Did Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans forget all the previous wars? Did they really fall for the “End of History” tripe?

    • Replies: @AP
    @QCIC


    Discussions of Ukraine joining NATO simply forced Russia to act
     
    In the same way that a well-armed would-be thief is “forced” to assault a potential victim when he sees the victim reaching for a phone.

    NATO presented no threat to Russia but NATO membership would have blocked Russia from invading Ukraine. Hence Russia, which hoped to one day invade Ukraine, acted.

    This is not complicated

     

    Indeed it is not. Russia, a traditional invader, didn’t want to be blocked from invading in the future (either by Ukraine’s NATO membership or by Ukraine’s growing ties to EU, improved economy and improved native military capability) so it struck while it felt it still could.

    Very simple.

    Recall that in a nuclear MAD scenario “defend against” and “threaten” were conflated to be the same thing
     
    Indeed. A pistol both defends against an attacker and can kill him. So if you want to rob or rape a victim, do it while the victim is still unarmed. And if you notice your victim trying to get armed, do what you will, while you still can.

    And someone of your moral depravity will blame the victim for trying to get a pistol. And say the criminal was the innocent one, “forced” to act.

    Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart

     

    You feel sad that the Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe fell and that Soviet tanks could no longer crush Eastern Europeans.

    Tells us all we need to know about you.

    NATO was expanded. This was very warlike. The USA dropped out of nuclear arms control treaties. This was very warlike. The USA put missile bases in Eastern Europe. This was very warlike
     
    War is worse than “warlike.”

    Did Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans forget all the previous wars? Did they really fall for the “End of History” tripe?
     
    If they did, they would not have been preparing themselves against the Russian threat.

    Replies: @LatW, @Sean, @Mr. XYZ

  621. @AP
    @Beckow


    Your bizarre rant smells of desperation. “Moldova?”
     
    Yes, Moldova. Never heard of it? It’s the first time that borders were changed by force in Eastern Europe. Russia did it. Russia made the precedent. You like that word.

    NATO later copied in Yugoslavia.


    I guess Kishinov was bombed to Middle Ages by Russia
     
    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?

    It was at the time basically an inside former Soviet space non-event
     
    And Kosovo was a Balkan non-event. And Ukraine an Eastern European non-event. Life hasn’t changed much in Moscow, London, or New York as a result.

    Moldova set the precedent, and after Russia started changing European borders by force there has been a gradual escalation. Yugoslavia bigger than Moldova, Ukraine bigger than Yugoslavia.

    In addition to setting a precedent in Moldova regarding changing of other countries borders, Russia also set a precedent in Chechnya on how to deal with rebellion in one’s own country: bomb the rebel cities and kill 10,000s of one’s own citizens.

    This is a precedent set by Russia that Ukraine has fortunately not followed in the Russia way. Only a fraction of the civilian death toll.

    You must be disappointed, given your love of precedent.


    You are so desperate because your side is losing that any infantile nonsense will do
     
    Projection again.

    You invent evil “Russian plans“

     

    We see what Russians did in the areas they occupied. No inventions. That’s what you do.

    ignore what was actually going on: inviting Kiev to join Nato, building up its arm forces, and then the idiotic attack post-Maidan on the Russian minority

     

    1. Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack. Those who oppose Ukraine joining NATO are just confessing that they want to leave open the option of invading Ukraine. Same for building up armed forces.

    2. Repealing the unpopular 2012 language law in 2o14 just returned Ukraine to the status of the previous 20 years.


    Kiev is like a horse with no speed that eventually quits

     

    According to the moron who claimed Kiev would quit in a couple of weeks.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Mikhail, @Beckow

    Yes, Moldova. Never heard of it? It’s the first time that borders were changed by force in Eastern Europe. Russia did it. Russia made the precedent. You like that word.

    NATO later copied in Yugoslavia.

    Russia hasn’t recognized Pridnestrovie’s independence. Russia didn’t attack Moldova proper. Leading NATO nations attacked Yugoslavia and then severed Kosovo from the latter with full diplomatic recognition.

    There’s also the earlier matter of Northern Cyprus, with Turkey facing little if any any opposition.

    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?

    It was on on the verge of being bombed like that. NATO had limited success at successfully hitting Yugo military assets. This lead to a noticeable increase in destroying civilian Yugo infrastructure. Hiroshima and Nagasaki a prime example.

    Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack. Those who oppose Ukraine joining NATO are just confessing that they want to leave open the option of invading Ukraine. Same for building up armed forces.

    NATO membership is theoretically only possible if the candidate member is at peace and in control of the boundary it claims. “A Russian attack” is prevented by honoring signed reasonable existing internationally recognized agreements (like Minsk and the earlier power sharing agreement), maintaining a neutral stance and not showing preference for vile Banderite nationalists.

    Russia also set a precedent in Chechnya on how to deal with rebellion in one’s own country: bomb the rebel cities and kill 10,000s of one’s own citizens.

    Turkey’s Kurdish population as well as those in Iraq and Syria. On the subject of killing, since 1950, the US has attacked more nations, killing more people than any other nation.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikhail


    There’s also the earlier matter of Northern Cyprus, with Turkey facing little if any any opposition.
     
    Cyprus isn't in Europe.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    , @AP
    @Mikhail


    Russia hasn’t recognized Pridnestrovie’s independence. Russia didn’t attack Moldova proper.
     
    It de facto did, opening a consulate there, stationing troops there to keep the Moldovans out, and having its proxy in South Ossetia recognize it.

    After its precedent each additional step was an escalation. Kosovo followed the precedent but added diplomatic recognition. Crimea followed the precedent but added outright annexation (Albania didn't get to annex Kosovo - nor did any NATO member).

    Russia didn't attack Moldova proper because Moldova gave up Transnistria without getting itself bombed.

    This lead to a noticeable increase in destroying civilian Yugo infrastructure. Hiroshima and Nagasaki a prime example.
     
    Your little brain having some trouble here?

    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?

    It was on on the verge of being bombed like that.
     
    "On the verge." It wasn't.

    Kharkiv was bombed by Russia, worse than Belgrade was bombed by NATO.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  622. @YetAnotherAnon
    It could all have been so different, had the US wanted it or the EU any testes.

    "While we know that NATO is a purely defensive organisation *cough* (Belgrade) *cough*... we understand Russian historical sensitivities and concerns ... so no NATO invite ... Crimean bases on 500 year leases to Russia... Russian language equal status in schools and universities... Ukraine to join EU as soon as possible, meanwhile special trade deals and maybe some deals for Russia too..."
     
    German industry, literally the only decent manufacturing industry left in the West, continues to boom, Russia makes nice with everyone, oligarchs carry on spending in London and Paris, maybe Russia and Germany draw ever closer.

    "Then I wake, and look around me, and four grey walls that surround me,
    And then I realise, yeah, I was only dreaming
    "
     
    Instead we have war and this...

    https://twitter.com/chigrl/status/1699737574456070210

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    yawwwnnnn. This is someting the Germans can correct with one Kystal Mnacht.

  623. @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    Of course it would.
     
    As an immediate reaction? That's extremely doubtful. And what if Russia was stopped at Hawaii and never penetrated further? I bet plenty of Americans would, after a time, be willing to cut their losses rather than risk total annihilation. (Not necessarily a majority of Americans, but a significant number nonetheless.)

    all historic precedents establish that the Russians invading Hawaii (and much less than that) would trigger a nuclear confrontation real fast. Hitler’s decision to fight to the bitter end when the war was lost was an equivalent decision.
     
    How can Germany fighting on when they knew the war was lost possibly be considered the equivalent situation to America only losing Hawaii (or even, according to you, "much less than that")? An America that has only lost Hawaii would at worst be more like the Germans being stopped at Moscow rather than the Germans, say, retreating from Warsaw. Imo, there would be plenty of opportunity to pursue conventional warfare before even considering nukes in those circumstances.

    In fact, what you’re saying is that it doesn’t make any sense for Ukraine to join NATO. If the US is unwilling to use all its power to defend one of its 50 states, who is going to defend Ukraine if it joins NATO and Russia attacks it again? Germany?
     
    This is obviously a false dichotomy. The choice isn't either immediately go nuclear or don't bother fighting.

    It doesn’t matter what you think anyway. What matters is what our political leaders think and their actions clearly reveal that they do believe in the possibility of nuclear war.
     
    Nobody doubts they've considered the possibility. We're discussing the likelihood.

    Just look at the long list of countries invaded or bombed by the US in the past decades with virtually no consequences.
     
    Surely the more reasonable explanation for that is those countries' incapacity to impose "consequences" on America, rather than their fear of American nuclear strike. It's not as if those countries didn't even attempt to put up a fight, which is what your "nuclear fear" model would assume. On the contrary, they fought bitterly.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mikel

    It’s not as if those countries didn’t even attempt to put up a fight, which is what your “nuclear fear” model would assume. On the contrary, they fought bitterly.

    Of course, failure to address some point never means agreement with it. But just to dispel any doubt, the privilege of being a nuclear superpower is not at all that if you invade a non-nuclear country they will not put up a fight (though they will probably only fight to the extent that they believe that you won’t nuke them to ashes). The privilege is that if you invade a non-nuclear country nobody will make you pay for it. As we’ve seen once and again, international norms will cease to apply or will be bent beyond recognition to let your action go unpunished. Who’s going to punish you after all? The only ones who could possibly punish you would face nuclear retaliation if they tried seriously so you can go invading and bombing countries that you don’t like and get off scot-free. No Milosevic, Saddam or Gadaffi treatment for you.

    This is actually an important point because it is also at the core of the current war. The USSR used to enjoy more or less the same benefits as the US. Hence Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. But Putin grew tired of the Americans now exercising in practice much more privileges than the Russians while having the same number of nukes. Thinking of all the statements made by Putin and his entourage over the years, especially as we grew closer to the SMO, I would say that this point was actually more important than Ukraine joining NATO and tremendously more important than defending the people of Donbas. Russia just wasn’t getting the respect she thought she deserved. I think we should expect China making the same point sooner or later. Let’s hope our Western leaders are wise enough to accept a new international modus vivendi like they did in the previous Cold War rather than maintain the super-privilege they’ve grown accustomed to after the fall of the USSR. I for one don’t need us to continue being able to invade faraway countries for anything at all.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Mikel


    “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?”

     

    — Madeleine Albright

    The quote site was missing her disgusting Serbs when I searched.

    https://quotefancy.com/quote/1064344/Madeleine-Albright-What-s-the-point-of-having-this-superb-military-you-re-always-talking
    , @LatW
    @Mikel


    Putin grew tired of the Americans now exercising in practice much more privileges than the Russians while having the same number of nukes.
     
    Doesn't Russia have more nukes than the US (despite having a much smaller population and despite not having to defend a large number of allies the way the US does)? They took the Ukrainian nukes, have the highest number of nukes in the world, so they are in fact overprivileged in that sense. Sure, they have a large territory, but so does the US and the allies taken together.

    Russia also very conveniently just changed her nuclear doctrine from defensive to something more aggressive. So the way they acted was, despite of the previous global consensus - "Oh, let me invade my neighbor, and while I'm at it, let me change the nuclear doctrine". See the quote from Wiki below.


    Russia just wasn’t getting the respect she thought she deserved.
     
    This is true, they have very subjective perceptions of what they are entitled to.

    I think we should expect China making the same point sooner or later.
     
    When it comes to nuclear, China has a small arsenal, and they have pledged no first use, so China is a much more benign and peaceful country in that regard. China looks down on the use of nuclear threats for geopolitical purposes. So China is much much less of a problem for the world in that regard, if at all.

    From Wiki:

    Russia describes its entire military doctrine as defensive military doctrine. With regard to nuclear weapons specifically, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons:

    in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also
    in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.[32]
    The military doctrine of 2014 did not depart from this stance.[33] The 2020 Presidential Executive Order on Nuclear Deterrence in Article 4 uses the following wording: "deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies. In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies."

    , @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere
    @Mikel

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5IaRzFWYAAbxgq.jpg


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5IZNNaW0AAfFMe.jpg

    , @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    The privilege is that if you invade a non-nuclear country nobody will make you pay for it. As we’ve seen once and again, international norms will cease to apply or will be bent beyond recognition to let your action go unpunished.
     
    Doesn't the example of Russia today disprove that? Aren't they being made to pay for invading Ukraine? And I would put it to you that this has less to do with America being a nuclear peer and more to do with conventional economic and diplomatic means America has at is disposal - the very means that the USSR or China tended to comparatively lack when it came to punishing America.

    And to change the subject, is "once and again" a translation from "una y otra vez"? The English analog you might have been thinking of is "time and again" (or more commonly "again and again" or "over and over").

    Replies: @Mikel

  624. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    It’s not as if those countries didn’t even attempt to put up a fight, which is what your “nuclear fear” model would assume. On the contrary, they fought bitterly.
     
    Of course, failure to address some point never means agreement with it. But just to dispel any doubt, the privilege of being a nuclear superpower is not at all that if you invade a non-nuclear country they will not put up a fight (though they will probably only fight to the extent that they believe that you won't nuke them to ashes). The privilege is that if you invade a non-nuclear country nobody will make you pay for it. As we've seen once and again, international norms will cease to apply or will be bent beyond recognition to let your action go unpunished. Who's going to punish you after all? The only ones who could possibly punish you would face nuclear retaliation if they tried seriously so you can go invading and bombing countries that you don't like and get off scot-free. No Milosevic, Saddam or Gadaffi treatment for you.

    This is actually an important point because it is also at the core of the current war. The USSR used to enjoy more or less the same benefits as the US. Hence Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. But Putin grew tired of the Americans now exercising in practice much more privileges than the Russians while having the same number of nukes. Thinking of all the statements made by Putin and his entourage over the years, especially as we grew closer to the SMO, I would say that this point was actually more important than Ukraine joining NATO and tremendously more important than defending the people of Donbas. Russia just wasn't getting the respect she thought she deserved. I think we should expect China making the same point sooner or later. Let's hope our Western leaders are wise enough to accept a new international modus vivendi like they did in the previous Cold War rather than maintain the super-privilege they've grown accustomed to after the fall of the USSR. I for one don't need us to continue being able to invade faraway countries for anything at all.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @LatW, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @silviosilver

    “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?”

    — Madeleine Albright

    The quote site was missing her disgusting Serbs when I searched.

    https://quotefancy.com/quote/1064344/Madeleine-Albright-What-s-the-point-of-having-this-superb-military-you-re-always-talking

  625. @AP
    @YetAnotherAnon


    and Russia is prepared to keep going – it’s not 1917.
     
    More like 1916. Or 1920? Or 1905?

    Because it isn’t the 1940s.

    Replies: @Sean

    Or the 80’s or 90’s. Russia is smaller but it is a nation state now and Putin values his popularity above all else (it has actually increased since 2014), because it is what the entire system rests on and he wants it to outlive him. The populace won’t let the him quit, too many dead Russian sons he sent in with militarily insane Kremlin orders that made troops easy meat.. The parents being told it was all for nothing? Completely impossible!

  626. @QCIC
    @AP

    Discussions of Ukraine joining NATO simply forced Russia to act. This cause and effect is inherent in the definition of NATO as a de facto military alliance against Russia. It took a long time for Russia to move so now people are surprised, but they should have expected it.

    This is not complicated. You want an independent Ukraine so you do not like to face this fact, but your wish doesn't change the situation that the USA and Russia are large nuclear-armed superpowers. NATO was created to threaten Russia, though of course this is sometimes stated as defend against Russia. Recall that in a nuclear MAD scenario "defend against" and "threaten" were conflated to be the same thing! The Warsaw pact was vaguely similar to NATO on the Russian side. The bottom line is that these alliances were intrinsically warlike. When the Soviet Union disbanded there was a chance to internationally carefully craft a lasting peace between the West and Russia. Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart and NATO was expanded. This was very warlike. The USA dropped out of nuclear arms control treaties. This was very warlike. The USA put missile bases in Eastern Europe. This was very warlike. There was a clear pattern forming by 2005. Once the Western involvement in Ukraine was serious this pattern of Western aggression represented a clear and present danger to Russia.

    What did you expect to happen with this ill-conceived Western project in Ukraine? Of course it builds on existing sincere nationalist threads and dreams, that is often a crucial part of war. Did Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans forget all the previous wars? Did they really fall for the "End of History" tripe?

    Replies: @AP

    Discussions of Ukraine joining NATO simply forced Russia to act

    In the same way that a well-armed would-be thief is “forced” to assault a potential victim when he sees the victim reaching for a phone.

    NATO presented no threat to Russia but NATO membership would have blocked Russia from invading Ukraine. Hence Russia, which hoped to one day invade Ukraine, acted.

    This is not complicated

    Indeed it is not. Russia, a traditional invader, didn’t want to be blocked from invading in the future (either by Ukraine’s NATO membership or by Ukraine’s growing ties to EU, improved economy and improved native military capability) so it struck while it felt it still could.

    Very simple.

    Recall that in a nuclear MAD scenario “defend against” and “threaten” were conflated to be the same thing

    Indeed. A pistol both defends against an attacker and can kill him. So if you want to rob or rape a victim, do it while the victim is still unarmed. And if you notice your victim trying to get armed, do what you will, while you still can.

    And someone of your moral depravity will blame the victim for trying to get a pistol. And say the criminal was the innocent one, “forced” to act.

    Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart

    You feel sad that the Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe fell and that Soviet tanks could no longer crush Eastern Europeans.

    Tells us all we need to know about you.

    NATO was expanded. This was very warlike. The USA dropped out of nuclear arms control treaties. This was very warlike. The USA put missile bases in Eastern Europe. This was very warlike

    War is worse than “warlike.”

    Did Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans forget all the previous wars? Did they really fall for the “End of History” tripe?

    If they did, they would not have been preparing themselves against the Russian threat.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @AP


    Tells us all we need to know about you.
     
    I was just going to say that - that says all we need to know about this person and his delusions.

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @Sean
    @AP


    NATO presented no threat to Russia but NATO membership would have blocked Russia from invading Ukraine. Hence Russia, which hoped to one day invade Ukraine, acted.
     
    So predictable how nation states behave, if they are strong enough.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    AP, I have a somewhat off-topic question: What are your thoughts on this almost decade-old pro-Russian article by a French nationalist?

    https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/americas-losing-strategy-ukraine/

    FWIW, he's advocating in favor of a principle of foreign policy called realism (similar to what John Mearsheimer preaches) and also recently (earlier this year) advocated letting Ukraine fall to Russia (by cutting off all Western military aid to Ukraine for the duration of the conventional Ukrainian war against Russia, thus causing Ukraine to get conquered by Russia) so that the West could subsequently sponsor an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine because doing so is cheaper and would ostensibly be less likely to provoke Russia than having the West sponsor an anti-Russian Ukrainian conventional war effort would be (thus allowing the West to maintain Russian cooperation on things like arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, et cetera). He argues that Russia won't be able to hold Ukraine long-term anyway (due to widespread Ukrainian civil disobedience and a Ukrainian IRA-style terrorism campaign giving Russia a huge headache) and that it's thus cheaper for both the West and Ukrainians to let Russia conquer Ukraine 'coz Russia is eventually going to be pulling out of Ukraine anyway and West-Russia relations won't be as destroyed as they are right now. (The last stuff here he's advocating right now, not in his almost decade-old article above.)

    Replies: @A123, @AP

  627. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    It’s not as if those countries didn’t even attempt to put up a fight, which is what your “nuclear fear” model would assume. On the contrary, they fought bitterly.
     
    Of course, failure to address some point never means agreement with it. But just to dispel any doubt, the privilege of being a nuclear superpower is not at all that if you invade a non-nuclear country they will not put up a fight (though they will probably only fight to the extent that they believe that you won't nuke them to ashes). The privilege is that if you invade a non-nuclear country nobody will make you pay for it. As we've seen once and again, international norms will cease to apply or will be bent beyond recognition to let your action go unpunished. Who's going to punish you after all? The only ones who could possibly punish you would face nuclear retaliation if they tried seriously so you can go invading and bombing countries that you don't like and get off scot-free. No Milosevic, Saddam or Gadaffi treatment for you.

    This is actually an important point because it is also at the core of the current war. The USSR used to enjoy more or less the same benefits as the US. Hence Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. But Putin grew tired of the Americans now exercising in practice much more privileges than the Russians while having the same number of nukes. Thinking of all the statements made by Putin and his entourage over the years, especially as we grew closer to the SMO, I would say that this point was actually more important than Ukraine joining NATO and tremendously more important than defending the people of Donbas. Russia just wasn't getting the respect she thought she deserved. I think we should expect China making the same point sooner or later. Let's hope our Western leaders are wise enough to accept a new international modus vivendi like they did in the previous Cold War rather than maintain the super-privilege they've grown accustomed to after the fall of the USSR. I for one don't need us to continue being able to invade faraway countries for anything at all.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @LatW, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @silviosilver

    Putin grew tired of the Americans now exercising in practice much more privileges than the Russians while having the same number of nukes.

    Doesn’t Russia have more nukes than the US (despite having a much smaller population and despite not having to defend a large number of allies the way the US does)? They took the Ukrainian nukes, have the highest number of nukes in the world, so they are in fact overprivileged in that sense. Sure, they have a large territory, but so does the US and the allies taken together.

    Russia also very conveniently just changed her nuclear doctrine from defensive to something more aggressive. So the way they acted was, despite of the previous global consensus – “Oh, let me invade my neighbor, and while I’m at it, let me change the nuclear doctrine”. See the quote from Wiki below.

    Russia just wasn’t getting the respect she thought she deserved.

    This is true, they have very subjective perceptions of what they are entitled to.

    I think we should expect China making the same point sooner or later.

    When it comes to nuclear, China has a small arsenal, and they have pledged no first use, so China is a much more benign and peaceful country in that regard. China looks down on the use of nuclear threats for geopolitical purposes. So China is much much less of a problem for the world in that regard, if at all.

    From Wiki:

    Russia describes its entire military doctrine as defensive military doctrine. With regard to nuclear weapons specifically, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons:

    in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also
    in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.[32]
    The military doctrine of 2014 did not depart from this stance.[33] The 2020 Presidential Executive Order on Nuclear Deterrence in Article 4 uses the following wording: “deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies. In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”

  628. @AP
    @QCIC


    Discussions of Ukraine joining NATO simply forced Russia to act
     
    In the same way that a well-armed would-be thief is “forced” to assault a potential victim when he sees the victim reaching for a phone.

    NATO presented no threat to Russia but NATO membership would have blocked Russia from invading Ukraine. Hence Russia, which hoped to one day invade Ukraine, acted.

    This is not complicated

     

    Indeed it is not. Russia, a traditional invader, didn’t want to be blocked from invading in the future (either by Ukraine’s NATO membership or by Ukraine’s growing ties to EU, improved economy and improved native military capability) so it struck while it felt it still could.

    Very simple.

    Recall that in a nuclear MAD scenario “defend against” and “threaten” were conflated to be the same thing
     
    Indeed. A pistol both defends against an attacker and can kill him. So if you want to rob or rape a victim, do it while the victim is still unarmed. And if you notice your victim trying to get armed, do what you will, while you still can.

    And someone of your moral depravity will blame the victim for trying to get a pistol. And say the criminal was the innocent one, “forced” to act.

    Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart

     

    You feel sad that the Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe fell and that Soviet tanks could no longer crush Eastern Europeans.

    Tells us all we need to know about you.

    NATO was expanded. This was very warlike. The USA dropped out of nuclear arms control treaties. This was very warlike. The USA put missile bases in Eastern Europe. This was very warlike
     
    War is worse than “warlike.”

    Did Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans forget all the previous wars? Did they really fall for the “End of History” tripe?
     
    If they did, they would not have been preparing themselves against the Russian threat.

    Replies: @LatW, @Sean, @Mr. XYZ

    Tells us all we need to know about you.

    I was just going to say that – that says all we need to know about this person and his delusions.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @LatW

    I loathe communism and am no friend of the Warsaw Pact. I'm glad it fell apart.

    My "delusion" if you want to call it that is I am concerned about nuclear weapons and their use. My blood pressure really goes up when I remember that the people controlling these weapons probably have about as much sense as some foaming at the mouth Unz commenters. Nonetheless, some things might be worth the risk of seriously escalating the chances for nuclear war. In my view a cynically stoked-up crisis in Ukraine designed to harm Russia is not one of them.

    You hotheads misunderstood my meaning so let me clarify my statement. I will try not to call you names but I'm not making any promises. I wrote:


    Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart and NATO was expanded.
     
    In the context of my comment, this means that NATO should have voluntarily contracted when the Communist bloc shrank. The problem now is the problem then: Both sides have enormous nuclear arsenals which are effectively on a hair trigger (to some degree) because of real concerns such as MAD, launch on warning, "use 'em or lose 'em". None of you people have addressed these major concerns of the new Cold War. If nuclear weapons did not exist it would have become a hot war like you bloodthirsty people seem to want. MAD and the cold war were about a balance which we could grow out of. Instead of maintaining balance at a lower threat level, the West took advantage of the fall of the USSR and increased the military pressure on Russia. We did temporarily reduce the prevalence of tactical nuclear weapons, but apparently this was just a brief anomaly. Russia has recovered and all of the moves by the West have made the risk of nuclear war as high or higher than ever.

    You idiots see the Ukraine war as just another conflict like you have had for thousands of years with spears and swords, then arrows, bullets and bombs. After 1945 things changed. The conflict between the West and the Soviet Union was the biggest military crisis in human history. Lots of strong and wise people on all sides recognized this terrible mistake we humans had made. Sadly most of those voices of reason are long gone. All that is left is the mainstream media and your little pet internet and X channels telling you what you want to hear and pretending this is not the most dangerous conflict in human history. In your mind it is just another bloody street fight. I wonder if your view is that one can round up enough men with guns, bayonets and grenades and then show the Russian bastards whose great-great-grandparents really were the best. This is absolutely insane.

    You should know better and I have come to believe you are willfully evading the big picture. You are willing to take down billions of people for your arrogance. We will be very lucky if the people who share your mindset only get a few million Ukrainians killed. Do you realize what you are doing, I said millions? Are you really that callous?

    The tradeoff was not war versus capitulation to the new Russia. There was a once in a lifetime opportunity to forge some uneasy coexistence which could be built on over time. Too bad all we have are morons incapable of achieving that. What a bunch of losers.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Wokechoke, @LatW

  629. @QCIC
    @Sean

    Mooted by whom, Jake Sullivan's assistant?

    Replies: @Sean

    Stian Jenssen, chief of staff to the NATO Secretary General,

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Sean

    This is the guy who said Ukraine would have to give up territory and then got spanked for it. LOL.

    Replies: @Sean

  630. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    It’s not as if those countries didn’t even attempt to put up a fight, which is what your “nuclear fear” model would assume. On the contrary, they fought bitterly.
     
    Of course, failure to address some point never means agreement with it. But just to dispel any doubt, the privilege of being a nuclear superpower is not at all that if you invade a non-nuclear country they will not put up a fight (though they will probably only fight to the extent that they believe that you won't nuke them to ashes). The privilege is that if you invade a non-nuclear country nobody will make you pay for it. As we've seen once and again, international norms will cease to apply or will be bent beyond recognition to let your action go unpunished. Who's going to punish you after all? The only ones who could possibly punish you would face nuclear retaliation if they tried seriously so you can go invading and bombing countries that you don't like and get off scot-free. No Milosevic, Saddam or Gadaffi treatment for you.

    This is actually an important point because it is also at the core of the current war. The USSR used to enjoy more or less the same benefits as the US. Hence Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. But Putin grew tired of the Americans now exercising in practice much more privileges than the Russians while having the same number of nukes. Thinking of all the statements made by Putin and his entourage over the years, especially as we grew closer to the SMO, I would say that this point was actually more important than Ukraine joining NATO and tremendously more important than defending the people of Donbas. Russia just wasn't getting the respect she thought she deserved. I think we should expect China making the same point sooner or later. Let's hope our Western leaders are wise enough to accept a new international modus vivendi like they did in the previous Cold War rather than maintain the super-privilege they've grown accustomed to after the fall of the USSR. I for one don't need us to continue being able to invade faraway countries for anything at all.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @LatW, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @silviosilver


    [MORE]

  631. @Beckow
    @Mr. XYZ


    none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd’t join NATO.

    ...Russia should have made this offer more attractive by offering to return Crimea
     

    Chisken-and-egg...both sides made moves and counter-moves. Pre-2014 Crimea was inside Ukraine and still Nato couldn't bring itself to say: we will not bring Ukraine into Nato.

    That is the core issue and without addressing it the war will not end...or end in one-sided victory, most likely by Russia with Ukraine largely destroyed.

    This as a catastrophic failure by the West - they are unable to think strategically, unable to even pretend s "Oh, don't worry Russians, no Nato ever in Ukraine." Instead they have second-tier people like Merkel-Hollande whisper pointless reassurances. Nato can't even play a smart strategic game - they are so deep into their own backsides, 'negotiate' only with each other, full of hubris and lacking historical perspective.

    Imagine if they were smart: they would publicly reassure Moscow, smile and not provoke. They would tell Kiev to keep a tight lid on the crazies, punish excesses like Odessa, keep the Russian minority included.

    Instead post-Maidan became a horror-show of vengeful arrogance by what is ultimately the weaker side in the region: fanatics and dreamers, and what is worse the ones in charge are even unwilling to put their own soldiers on the line. This will be studied as one of the stupidest civilizational over-reaches in human history.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    FWIW, I think that NATO’s 2008 Bucharest declaration was a mistake since Ukrainian public opinion back then was still very hostile towards NATO. Honestly, back then, it would have been interesting to see if a deal could have been made in regards to no further NATO expansion into the former USSR in exchange for huge Russian cooperation with the West against China, up to the point of Russia actually being willing to wage a trade embargo against China if China will ever attack Taiwan.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Mr. XYZ


    ...NATO’s 2008 Bucharest declaration was a mistake
     
    If it was only 2008 we could write it off as the Bushites being too enthusiastic. But the policy continued with annual declaration under 3 more presidents! Not very smart. The way you do this is without pre-announcing and by timing it when the other side is weak and distracted.

    It makes one wonder if what is happening was the real objective: trigger a bloody Ukraine-Russia war to weaken both and pick up the pieces. Everything Washington does is aimed at prolonging and deepening the war and the Ukie suffering - as if they want to empty the country to buy up the land. That Ukies are (largely) going along with it suggests that they are not very smart or that they don't plan to stick around.

    Russia is very unlikely to turn on China now - and vice-versa. In 2008 maybe, but at that time the US elites were still enamored by China and hoping to get rich there. The timing didn't work out. And based on the distribution of power and resources today it is probably inevitable that the West will be taken down a notch. Sooner they realize it, stop sloganeering and face the reality, less painful it will be.

  632. @Beckow
    @LatW


    Whatever insinuations they very seldomly use (often only in private) – are not meant in a hostile...
     
    You see inside Scandie souls? You are the only one, tell us how you do it... The mutual Scandie dislikes exist, they hide it better because they are dull, scared and conformist people. They have again lamely switched to hating "Russia!", seeing Russian subs underwater - a good reflection of their fearful and indirect personalities.

    Ukies were jumping up and down in 2014 about "killing Moskali", it was openly embraced by Maidanistas - can you find a better example of ethnic hostility? In Russia, UK...? Don't preach.


    Were the Germans not once expelled from their old colonial lands in Eastern Europe? Is it how things should be? No. But it is not impossible. There have been examples in the past.
     
    The idea that you will expel millions of Russians is quite ugly and dangerous. Germany killed tens of millions in and lost the war. It is not a good analogy. That it comes to you so easily is worrisome. It is a mutual road to hell. Don't pine for it.

    ...it can be contained (even if that is bad, as it is, it’s an enormous tragedy). Most of the world is not interested in a bigger war over these issues.
     
    I agree. But EE has been falling. Some experience it as exhilaration, they dream of 'others' who are hurt more, but the falling has not slowed and it affects everyone. To contain it you need to stop the idiotic dreams about weakening Russia and expelling Russians.

    It is very simple: Ukraine needs to be neutral and has to treat its millions of Russian citizens as equal - or they allow them to secede and join Russia. Or we can fight this to the last standing Ukie or possibly go nuclear. But nobody is "marching on Moscow", or taking Crimea and expelling 2 million people there.

    It will take some time before it sinks in, but the way it will end is a neutral rump-Ukraine with more rational leaders. Or we pretty much all perish, at least in Central-Eastern Europe.

    Replies: @LatW, @LatW, @Thulean Friend

    The mutual Scandi dislikes exist

    It’s actually amazing how much Beckow lies about the most trivial things. The guy knows nothing about Scandinavia and just word-vomits pure falsehoods.

    AP’s comments about him being a pathological liar always struck me as hyperbole but I am beginning to see his point. Another funny aspect is how his lying is so dumb and low-stakes, e.g. AP calling him out on his lies pretending Poles were emigrating more to Slovakia than vice versa. He’s not even smart about being a liar and gets mad when he gets caught (again and again).

    I hate to make generalised comments about entire nations, but if Beckow is representative of the average Slovak then we can rest assured that they will remain a poor shithole forever.

    Still, he has his utility. Mainly as an unwitting performance artist for our collective amusement.

    • LOL: silviosilver
    • Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere
    @Thulean Friend


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5LdYHUWIAAg89d.jpg

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Thulean Friend

    There might not be 1000 outsiders on planet earth combined who can distinguish Slovakia and Slovenia so we maybe could give him a break. : )

    , @sudden death
    @Thulean Friend


    Still, he has his utility. Mainly as an unwitting performance artist for our collective amusement.
     
    He also does thorough cosplay of former Slovakian PM Robert Fico for us out there - might be useful as that guy might do a victorious comeback soon in Slovakia election this month IIRC;)
    , @Wokechoke
    @Thulean Friend

    The conclusion Beckow reaches sounds about right.

    , @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere
    @Thulean Friend

    All those Ruzzians on the beaches of Antalya are having a real effect on trade flows.


    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQ7p-1MOXvNHHMPqj46olICyOKv1R8I1VmXQ&usqp.jpg


    Some are even starting to holiday in Bishkek.

  633. @Mikhail
    @AP


    Yes, Moldova. Never heard of it? It’s the first time that borders were changed by force in Eastern Europe. Russia did it. Russia made the precedent. You like that word.

    NATO later copied in Yugoslavia.
     

    Russia hasn't recognized Pridnestrovie's independence. Russia didn't attack Moldova proper. Leading NATO nations attacked Yugoslavia and then severed Kosovo from the latter with full diplomatic recognition.

    There's also the earlier matter of Northern Cyprus, with Turkey facing little if any any opposition.


    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?
     
    It was on on the verge of being bombed like that. NATO had limited success at successfully hitting Yugo military assets. This lead to a noticeable increase in destroying civilian Yugo infrastructure. Hiroshima and Nagasaki a prime example.

    Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack. Those who oppose Ukraine joining NATO are just confessing that they want to leave open the option of invading Ukraine. Same for building up armed forces.
     
    NATO membership is theoretically only possible if the candidate member is at peace and in control of the boundary it claims. "A Russian attack" is prevented by honoring signed reasonable existing internationally recognized agreements (like Minsk and the earlier power sharing agreement), maintaining a neutral stance and not showing preference for vile Banderite nationalists.

    Russia also set a precedent in Chechnya on how to deal with rebellion in one’s own country: bomb the rebel cities and kill 10,000s of one’s own citizens.
     
    Turkey's Kurdish population as well as those in Iraq and Syria. On the subject of killing, since 1950, the US has attacked more nations, killing more people than any other nation.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    There’s also the earlier matter of Northern Cyprus, with Turkey facing little if any any opposition.

    Cyprus isn’t in Europe.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Mr. XYZ

    The matter of precedent was brought up.

    Cyprus is an island nation in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Technically Cyprus is located in Asia but it is often considered to be culturally and politically a part of Europe and it has been in the European Union since 2004.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=is+cyprus+in+europe&sca_esv=563547874&source=hp&ei=Nlr6ZLKvCJKbptQPmNWggAM&iflsig=AD69kcEAAAAAZPpoRsbD01Ehb-5hbCCEFYKoGm3W_KIT&gs_ssp=eJzj4tDP1TcwLCgoNGD0Es4sVkiuLCgqLVbIzFNILS3KL0gFAJldCmc&oq=is+cyprus+in+europe&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhNpcyBjeXBydXMgaW4gZXVyb3BlKgIIADIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARI_TpQAFinKnAAeACQAQCYAUagAYMJqgECMTm4AQHIAQD4AQHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCxAAGIoFGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YigUYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIIEAAYgAQYyQPCAggQABiKBRiSAw&sclient=gws-wiz

  634. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks

    Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won


    These “hawks” didn’t move the military equipment to Ukraine which would have prevented the invasion.
     
    The invasion wasn't imminent in 2020 yet, however.

    I would doubt Trump winning in 2020 would change the situation, as Ukraine was without many defenses
     
    Putin invaded because he thought there would be very light consequences: Ukraine wouldn't resist, West would be weak about it and wouldn't care.

    A Trump administration in office wouldn't have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition.

    If Trump has given Ukraine old things from NATO like Patriot missiles, F-16, even 155mm artillery, Moscow wouldn’t invade Ukraine in 2022.
     
    I agree.

    As the result of their policy of not defending Ukraine before the war, now they partly they trapped Russia in Ukraine. Although I don’t think this is intentional policy, they have broken the Russian army by not stopping the self-destructive invasion.
     
    Also agree.

    Afghanistan withdrawal was planned by Donald Trump.
     
    Trump planned to withdraw, but I doubt that his administration would have botched the withdrawal as badly, leaving behind all that equipment for the Taliban.

    A most popular policy for winning in the Swing States will be more isolationism for external policy, more protectionism for local industry. The kind of speech to win election will be “We need to spend less money outside America and more money in Michigan and Minnesota”.
     
    Trump won Michigan in 2016 by 11,000 votes.

    In 2021, there were 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in Michigan:

    https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/03/michigan-has-the-9th-most-residents-with-ukrainian-ancestry-in-the-us.html

    A policy of abandoning Eastern Europe to Russia will lose Michigan.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

    A policy of abandoning Eastern Europe to Russia will lose Michigan.

    Except that if Trump would have already won reelection in 2020, he himself could have cared less about this–unless of course other Trump family members would have also had their own presidential ambitions.

  635. @Thulean Friend
    @Beckow


    The mutual Scandi dislikes exist
     
    It's actually amazing how much Beckow lies about the most trivial things. The guy knows nothing about Scandinavia and just word-vomits pure falsehoods.

    AP's comments about him being a pathological liar always struck me as hyperbole but I am beginning to see his point. Another funny aspect is how his lying is so dumb and low-stakes, e.g. AP calling him out on his lies pretending Poles were emigrating more to Slovakia than vice versa. He's not even smart about being a liar and gets mad when he gets caught (again and again).

    I hate to make generalised comments about entire nations, but if Beckow is representative of the average Slovak then we can rest assured that they will remain a poor shithole forever.

    Still, he has his utility. Mainly as an unwitting performance artist for our collective amusement.

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @Emil Nikola Richard, @sudden death, @Wokechoke, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere

    [MORE]

  636. @AP
    @Mikel


    and then storming the beaches of California, more American defeats, Russians taking Denver and moving eastward.

    Jeez. So all those nukes would do nothing for me and my family if the Russians decide to annex Utah as long as they stay west of Denver. What a scam
     
    Well, nobody likes Mormons anyways.

    My point of course is that a nuclear response against Russia (or the USA) entails nuclear annihilation for oneself and one’s loved ones. Will Americans choose this death for themselves and everyone they care about over Hawaii, or perhaps even California? No. As Russians would not over Crimea. Only if their entire country was about to be occupied would this become a possibility, and even in that case not 100%. If occupation merely meant the elites losing power and the installation of some friendly regime (Vivek Ramaswamy or Colonel MacGregor as president) maybe mutual nuclear destruction wouldn’t be chosen, the people in charge of the nukes might figure that this result is better than their children being burned alive in a nuclear holocaust (though I wouldn’t take my chances). If occupation meant concentration camps, mass killings, mass rapes - nukes would be very likely.

    Defending their country on their own lands.

    There we go again. Location, location, location. I don’t want to belittle the impressive bravery of those youngsters, honestly. But that’s not so determinant when it comes to killing and dying
     
    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.

    Mohammed Atta and his team did it very far away from their lands
     
    Ukrainians aren’t Muslim terrorist fanatics, they are normal people defending their lands. Your neighbors would probably do the same if someone tried invading the USA.

    Replies: @Sean, @Mikel

    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.

    Yes, that must be the main motivation for some of them. I’d fear those things if I was a native of Northern Zaporizhia. But probably not for most right now. Let’s not forget that many Ukrainian soldiers were already killing and dying before the invasion in faraway lands for them. Nobody in Lviv feared the Donbas rebels torturing their loved ones at home but many traveled to hostile Donbas to quell the rebellion by force.

    Human motivations are complex. Probably what leads people to give their lives for their countries is a combination of altruism, peer pressure, social conditioning through school, family, media,.., atavic instincts, fear of being considered a coward, individual circumstances,…

    Whatever their motivations, as long as they’re not committing crimes against civilians, I feel maximum respect for the Ukrainian men who are giving their lives fighting against the invaders.

    At the same time, I also feel a lot of empathy for all the Ukrainian men who are leaving their country with their families in seek of a better future. We are seeing increasing numbers of them here in Utah. One recently started working at a nearby Walmart. Of course, during my recent trip to Poland it was impossible not to notice the presence of lots of foreigners in Warsaw. My son told me that it’s not just Ukrainians but lots of Belarussians and Russians too are escaping the madness of the war and settling in Warsaw. At the basketball court where he trains Belarussian refugees have already formed their own team.

    In fact, out of 4 Uber drivers I used in Warsaw one was Belarussian and another one Ukrainian from Kharkov (his spelling). The latter told me that he escaped Ukraine with his family some months ago and has no intention of going back. He wasn’t too interested in talking about the war, he just wanted to know what life in the US was like and what the best places were to get work. His dream was to emigrate to the US but he didn’t know anyone in the country and was hoping to find some “sponsor”.

    I actually felt a lot of positive vitality in all these young families trying to escape the insanity of the war concocted by the leaders of their countries. One cannot forget that, war or no war, these countries are pretty messed up. They never really left their Soviet past. While some Russian officials are making money by stripping military vehicles of essential parts on the other side officials are making money with the foreign military aid they are receiving or selling fake permits to all these young men to leave Ukraine. Who wants to live in or fight for these countries? Some certainly do but many others (possibly a majority even in Ukraine) don’t.

    Your neighbors would probably do the same if someone tried invading the USA.

    Yes, some of them would. Although, as Greasy Williams said, there is less and less left in common among Americans. And we can actually see right here in this blog how many Westerners are so fed up with their societies that actually root for our supposed enemies.

    But even though we now live far removed from the tribal structures that we evolved in, I don’t deny that patriotism is a strong force clearly linked to our tribal instincts and that these instincts are natural to the human psyche. I don’t deny either that there’s a lot of poetry and heroism in the fight for our tribes and our nations. It has certainly given us fascinating stories to enjoy in documentaries, books and movies. But I wish we were now able to start leaving war behind as a species and build a less violent future for the next generations. In the nuclear era survival of civilization depends on that.

    • Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere
    @Mikel


    But even though we now live far removed from the tribal structures that we evolved in, I don’t deny that patriotism is a strong force clearly linked to our tribal instincts and that these instincts are natural to the human psyche.
     
    https://twitter.com/nycphotog/status/1699607841483465122?s=20

    as Greasy Williams said, there is less and less left in common among Americans. And we can actually see right here in this blog how many Westerners are so fed up with their societies
     

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @AP
    @Mikel


    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.

    Yes, that must be the main motivation for some of them. I’d fear those things if I was a native of Northern Zaporizhia. But probably not for most right now
     
    Because the Russians wouldn't just stop if they took northern Zaporizhia. They would take as much as they can. So, many Ukrainians from all over the place are fighting there, in order to keep their families safe. Also, what's wrong with a Ukrainian from Lviv helping Ukrainians from northern Zaporizhia to keep their families safe from Russian would-be occupiers? If someone tried to invade Utah from Mexico it would be appropriate for patriots from New Hampshire to help out, wouldn't it?

    Nobody in Lviv feared the Donbas rebels torturing their loved ones at home but many traveled to hostile Donbas to quell the rebellion by force.
     
    Donbas rebels were clear that they wanted all of so-called New Russia (not Lviv of course, but Odessa, Dnipro, Kharkiv) and would pacify Kiev and Lviv if they could.

    In 2014 most of the pro-Ukrainian fighters were not from Lviv but from places like Kharkiv (home base of Azov) and Dnipropetrovsk (home base of Right Sector). Areas that are adjacent to Donetsk. Back in 2015 or 2016 a woman I met from Dnipropetrovsk told me that boys from her city were fighting in Donetsk to keep their city safe, to keep the Russians from moving the war into their city.

    Whatever their motivations, as long as they’re not committing crimes against civilians, I feel maximum respect for the Ukrainian men who are giving their lives fighting against the invaders.
     
    Thank you. I agree.

    In fact, out of 4 Uber drivers I used in Warsaw one was Belarussian and another one Ukrainian from Kharkov (his spelling).
     
    When I was in in Krakow (April 2022) I had two Uber drivers from Zaporizhia. They didn't flee the war, they lived there before it started but hadn't returned. They said almost all the men from Kiev (which had been directly threatened by Russia early in the war) and other places in the west and center who had been living or working in Poland had gone back to Ukraine to fight for their country, only easterners remained. I have a friend in the USA from Dnipropetrovsk; he has a small child and did not go back, but his friend from the same city despite having two kids and a nice job in the West returned to fight (over the objections of his non-Ukrainian wife and of my friend); he was killed in Bakhmut.

    Who wants to live in or fight for these countries? Some certainly do but many others (possibly a majority even in Ukraine) don’t.
     
    Refusal rates among Ukrainians is not over 50%, IIRC it was around 30%.

    But even though we now live far removed from the tribal structures that we evolved in, I don’t deny that patriotism is a strong force clearly linked to our tribal instincts and that these instincts are natural to the human psyche. I don’t deny either that there’s a lot of poetry and heroism in the fight for our tribes and our nations. It has certainly given us fascinating stories to enjoy in documentaries, books and movies. But I wish we were now able to start leaving war behind as a species
     
    I wish so too. I see nothing good in wars of aggression. Ukrainians are not doing that, they are fighting the aggressors.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  637. @sudden death
    Greatest hits of planet Mcgregor:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5Y9E7EXUAAXP3_.jpg

    But he has bit of that special kind of old swindler charisma with ability to pour neverending streams of nonsense unbothered by any reality but with completely serious pomp face all the time, kind of Naked Gun film series style, while Ritter lags in this department;)

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    Yet Ukraine is no where near coming out on top.

    The entire western aid package is just putting off the day they cede Crimea.

  638. @Thulean Friend
    @Beckow


    The mutual Scandi dislikes exist
     
    It's actually amazing how much Beckow lies about the most trivial things. The guy knows nothing about Scandinavia and just word-vomits pure falsehoods.

    AP's comments about him being a pathological liar always struck me as hyperbole but I am beginning to see his point. Another funny aspect is how his lying is so dumb and low-stakes, e.g. AP calling him out on his lies pretending Poles were emigrating more to Slovakia than vice versa. He's not even smart about being a liar and gets mad when he gets caught (again and again).

    I hate to make generalised comments about entire nations, but if Beckow is representative of the average Slovak then we can rest assured that they will remain a poor shithole forever.

    Still, he has his utility. Mainly as an unwitting performance artist for our collective amusement.

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @Emil Nikola Richard, @sudden death, @Wokechoke, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere

    There might not be 1000 outsiders on planet earth combined who can distinguish Slovakia and Slovenia so we maybe could give him a break. : )

  639. @Thulean Friend
    @Beckow


    The mutual Scandi dislikes exist
     
    It's actually amazing how much Beckow lies about the most trivial things. The guy knows nothing about Scandinavia and just word-vomits pure falsehoods.

    AP's comments about him being a pathological liar always struck me as hyperbole but I am beginning to see his point. Another funny aspect is how his lying is so dumb and low-stakes, e.g. AP calling him out on his lies pretending Poles were emigrating more to Slovakia than vice versa. He's not even smart about being a liar and gets mad when he gets caught (again and again).

    I hate to make generalised comments about entire nations, but if Beckow is representative of the average Slovak then we can rest assured that they will remain a poor shithole forever.

    Still, he has his utility. Mainly as an unwitting performance artist for our collective amusement.

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @Emil Nikola Richard, @sudden death, @Wokechoke, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere

    Still, he has his utility. Mainly as an unwitting performance artist for our collective amusement.

    He also does thorough cosplay of former Slovakian PM Robert Fico for us out there – might be useful as that guy might do a victorious comeback soon in Slovakia election this month IIRC;)

  640. @Mikel
    @AP


    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.
     
    Yes, that must be the main motivation for some of them. I'd fear those things if I was a native of Northern Zaporizhia. But probably not for most right now. Let's not forget that many Ukrainian soldiers were already killing and dying before the invasion in faraway lands for them. Nobody in Lviv feared the Donbas rebels torturing their loved ones at home but many traveled to hostile Donbas to quell the rebellion by force.

    Human motivations are complex. Probably what leads people to give their lives for their countries is a combination of altruism, peer pressure, social conditioning through school, family, media,.., atavic instincts, fear of being considered a coward, individual circumstances,...

    Whatever their motivations, as long as they're not committing crimes against civilians, I feel maximum respect for the Ukrainian men who are giving their lives fighting against the invaders.

    At the same time, I also feel a lot of empathy for all the Ukrainian men who are leaving their country with their families in seek of a better future. We are seeing increasing numbers of them here in Utah. One recently started working at a nearby Walmart. Of course, during my recent trip to Poland it was impossible not to notice the presence of lots of foreigners in Warsaw. My son told me that it's not just Ukrainians but lots of Belarussians and Russians too are escaping the madness of the war and settling in Warsaw. At the basketball court where he trains Belarussian refugees have already formed their own team.

    In fact, out of 4 Uber drivers I used in Warsaw one was Belarussian and another one Ukrainian from Kharkov (his spelling). The latter told me that he escaped Ukraine with his family some months ago and has no intention of going back. He wasn't too interested in talking about the war, he just wanted to know what life in the US was like and what the best places were to get work. His dream was to emigrate to the US but he didn't know anyone in the country and was hoping to find some "sponsor".

    I actually felt a lot of positive vitality in all these young families trying to escape the insanity of the war concocted by the leaders of their countries. One cannot forget that, war or no war, these countries are pretty messed up. They never really left their Soviet past. While some Russian officials are making money by stripping military vehicles of essential parts on the other side officials are making money with the foreign military aid they are receiving or selling fake permits to all these young men to leave Ukraine. Who wants to live in or fight for these countries? Some certainly do but many others (possibly a majority even in Ukraine) don't.

    Your neighbors would probably do the same if someone tried invading the USA.
     
    Yes, some of them would. Although, as Greasy Williams said, there is less and less left in common among Americans. And we can actually see right here in this blog how many Westerners are so fed up with their societies that actually root for our supposed enemies.

    But even though we now live far removed from the tribal structures that we evolved in, I don't deny that patriotism is a strong force clearly linked to our tribal instincts and that these instincts are natural to the human psyche. I don't deny either that there's a lot of poetry and heroism in the fight for our tribes and our nations. It has certainly given us fascinating stories to enjoy in documentaries, books and movies. But I wish we were now able to start leaving war behind as a species and build a less violent future for the next generations. In the nuclear era survival of civilization depends on that.

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @AP

    But even though we now live far removed from the tribal structures that we evolved in, I don’t deny that patriotism is a strong force clearly linked to our tribal instincts and that these instincts are natural to the human psyche.

    as Greasy Williams said, there is less and less left in common among Americans. And we can actually see right here in this blog how many Westerners are so fed up with their societies

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere

    He wants to run for President. To quote (((Kinky Friedman))), "How Hard Could It Be?"

    This is the "MNYGA" gambit--Make New York Great Again!

    Maybe he will align with Trump. Remember this is 2023, it could actually happen.

    Replies: @A123

  641. @LatW
    @AP


    Tells us all we need to know about you.
     
    I was just going to say that - that says all we need to know about this person and his delusions.

    Replies: @QCIC

    I loathe communism and am no friend of the Warsaw Pact. I’m glad it fell apart.

    My “delusion” if you want to call it that is I am concerned about nuclear weapons and their use. My blood pressure really goes up when I remember that the people controlling these weapons probably have about as much sense as some foaming at the mouth Unz commenters. Nonetheless, some things might be worth the risk of seriously escalating the chances for nuclear war. In my view a cynically stoked-up crisis in Ukraine designed to harm Russia is not one of them.

    You hotheads misunderstood my meaning so let me clarify my statement. I will try not to call you names but I’m not making any promises. I wrote:

    Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart and NATO was expanded.

    In the context of my comment, this means that NATO should have voluntarily contracted when the Communist bloc shrank. The problem now is the problem then: Both sides have enormous nuclear arsenals which are effectively on a hair trigger (to some degree) because of real concerns such as MAD, launch on warning, “use ’em or lose ’em”. None of you people have addressed these major concerns of the new Cold War. If nuclear weapons did not exist it would have become a hot war like you bloodthirsty people seem to want. MAD and the cold war were about a balance which we could grow out of. Instead of maintaining balance at a lower threat level, the West took advantage of the fall of the USSR and increased the military pressure on Russia. We did temporarily reduce the prevalence of tactical nuclear weapons, but apparently this was just a brief anomaly. Russia has recovered and all of the moves by the West have made the risk of nuclear war as high or higher than ever.

    You idiots see the Ukraine war as just another conflict like you have had for thousands of years with spears and swords, then arrows, bullets and bombs. After 1945 things changed. The conflict between the West and the Soviet Union was the biggest military crisis in human history. Lots of strong and wise people on all sides recognized this terrible mistake we humans had made. Sadly most of those voices of reason are long gone. All that is left is the mainstream media and your little pet internet and X channels telling you what you want to hear and pretending this is not the most dangerous conflict in human history. In your mind it is just another bloody street fight. I wonder if your view is that one can round up enough men with guns, bayonets and grenades and then show the Russian bastards whose great-great-grandparents really were the best. This is absolutely insane.

    You should know better and I have come to believe you are willfully evading the big picture. You are willing to take down billions of people for your arrogance. We will be very lucky if the people who share your mindset only get a few million Ukrainians killed. Do you realize what you are doing, I said millions? Are you really that callous?

    The tradeoff was not war versus capitulation to the new Russia. There was a once in a lifetime opportunity to forge some uneasy coexistence which could be built on over time. Too bad all we have are morons incapable of achieving that. What a bunch of losers.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @QCIC

    Okay, but the same reasoning applies to Russia and her actions. But you don't seem to criticize Russians for embarking on a course which might lead to nuclear disaster. Only the west criticized along these lines.

    Now, I actually do think Russia has legitimate security concerns in Ukraine. NATO might not have any plans to invade Russia now. But geopolitics doesn't simply consider the present, it has to look towards the distant future too. Russia within living memory was invaded through Ukraine, so it really ought to be obvious they'd seek to prevent a repeat of that history.

    Other countries have similar security concerns, of course, but are not in a position to be able to do as much to safeguard them as a powerful country like Russia is. That's just the highly imperfect (imperfectible?) world we live in.

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @Wokechoke
    @QCIC

    It'll be the Balts and Poles who get wiped out if they persist with their Bantam Weight posturing.

    , @LatW
    @QCIC


    In the context of my comment, this means that NATO should have voluntarily contracted when the Communist bloc shrank.
     
    You can take it to the Western societies and ask them if they wanted for NATO to contract or for NATO to be disbanded. Had NATO been disbanded, Western Euros would've built some other alliance really quickly.

    The bigger picture is that the historic event of European re-unification was taking place. We all used to be part of Europe before WW2. We were trading, traveling, exchanging culture, we belong to the same Christian denominations.

    For Eastern Europe it would've been great if after the Cold War, the Intermarium would've been established for real.

    This would've required a way to revive the economy independently and avoiding the shock therapy (we were left pretty much bankrupt by the Soviets), this would have required that the post-Soviet states retain their military assets (what I already wrote about above - the USSR wouldn't have gone to space without Ukrainians so Ukraine was entitled to all those assets they were stripped off in exchange for the piece of toilet paper called the Budapest memorandum, I apologize, but it is so), and it would be an issue of access - obviously, no sell off of whatever valuable assets there were to the Westerners (or to the Russians), only selective Western investments, protectionism, no access to our political system for either side. The Russian 5th column would've needed to be removed from the get-go (through peaceful negotiation), all their assets cleared out (secret agents). National militaries built up Finnish (or even Israeli) style.

    But the parents' generation did not commit to this. It may not have been possible. At the time European integration and NATO membership was a better option. So that's what was chosen. It was a good choice.

    The only problem is there was no solution for Ukraine (and Belarus). Historically, they were partly connected to Europe as well (for example, the real Belarusian identity, their old identity, is quite different from what you see now). And racially they are our brothers and sisters.

    Don't harbor any illusions that Russia would have abandoned her true nature. Ideas by Solzhenitsyn and Ilyin were always simmering underneath and, of course, they would finally come on top. These are the ideological foundation for the invasion of Ukraine.


    The problem now is the problem then: Both sides have enormous nuclear arsenals which are effectively on a hair trigger (to some degree) because of real concerns such as MAD, launch on warning, “use ’em or lose ’em”. None of you people have addressed these major concerns of the new Cold War.
     
    Then both sides should've worked to reduce those arsenals when there was good will or even going forward (with new governments).

    If nuclear weapons did not exist it would have become a hot war like you bloodthirsty people seem to want.
     
    Well, it has been that way most of human history - if you think the current set up is horrible, then maybe that would be better? At least that way the constant threat of nuclear exchange would not be hanging over you?

    By the way, have you heard Putin say that the world is not worth living in if there is no Russia in it? I'm assuming his version of Russia (that is in its imperial form or the so called "historic Russia" which includes states that are currently independent). So it's ok to use nuclear weapons because "we will be going to heaven, but they [meaning the West] will croak". Frankly, I wouldn't be all that sure about those fuckers getting into heaven, it might be that other place instead. But anyway - how do you like that statement? Do you think the world would agree with it?


    My blood pressure really goes up when I remember that the people controlling these weapons probably have about as much sense as some foaming at the mouth Unz commenters.
     
    We are defending our livelihoods and our progeny so we will not stop. Especially in the face of lies and half-truths - if you want to transmit those, be ready that one of us will call you out on them.

    But if you're having high blood pressure, you shouldn't fret about nuclear weapons so much (yes, the current situation is not pleasant, to put it mildly, but contrary to what you say, the people in charge of these weapons are not careless, even if there is a nuclear blast in Russia's vicinity, the US will not respond with nuclear weapons - they will respond conventionally, swiftly, and then the world will turn the lights off on Russia, America will survive, most of the world will).

    There is no need to risk your health or comfort because of politics or internet talk. You'll be prone to high blood pressure if you're older. I know someone who was still in his late 30s and used to ocassionally get high blood pressure, while living in a big city, kind of stressful environment, but then he moved to a small town and his blood pressure went down. Maybe you should take breaks from Unz, or move to Moon of Alabama, I'm sure people are way more agreeable to your outlook there.

    Replies: @QCIC

  642. @AP
    @QCIC


    Discussions of Ukraine joining NATO simply forced Russia to act
     
    In the same way that a well-armed would-be thief is “forced” to assault a potential victim when he sees the victim reaching for a phone.

    NATO presented no threat to Russia but NATO membership would have blocked Russia from invading Ukraine. Hence Russia, which hoped to one day invade Ukraine, acted.

    This is not complicated

     

    Indeed it is not. Russia, a traditional invader, didn’t want to be blocked from invading in the future (either by Ukraine’s NATO membership or by Ukraine’s growing ties to EU, improved economy and improved native military capability) so it struck while it felt it still could.

    Very simple.

    Recall that in a nuclear MAD scenario “defend against” and “threaten” were conflated to be the same thing
     
    Indeed. A pistol both defends against an attacker and can kill him. So if you want to rob or rape a victim, do it while the victim is still unarmed. And if you notice your victim trying to get armed, do what you will, while you still can.

    And someone of your moral depravity will blame the victim for trying to get a pistol. And say the criminal was the innocent one, “forced” to act.

    Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart

     

    You feel sad that the Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe fell and that Soviet tanks could no longer crush Eastern Europeans.

    Tells us all we need to know about you.

    NATO was expanded. This was very warlike. The USA dropped out of nuclear arms control treaties. This was very warlike. The USA put missile bases in Eastern Europe. This was very warlike
     
    War is worse than “warlike.”

    Did Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans forget all the previous wars? Did they really fall for the “End of History” tripe?
     
    If they did, they would not have been preparing themselves against the Russian threat.

    Replies: @LatW, @Sean, @Mr. XYZ

    NATO presented no threat to Russia but NATO membership would have blocked Russia from invading Ukraine. Hence Russia, which hoped to one day invade Ukraine, acted.

    So predictable how nation states behave, if they are strong enough.

  643. @AP
    @QCIC


    Discussions of Ukraine joining NATO simply forced Russia to act
     
    In the same way that a well-armed would-be thief is “forced” to assault a potential victim when he sees the victim reaching for a phone.

    NATO presented no threat to Russia but NATO membership would have blocked Russia from invading Ukraine. Hence Russia, which hoped to one day invade Ukraine, acted.

    This is not complicated

     

    Indeed it is not. Russia, a traditional invader, didn’t want to be blocked from invading in the future (either by Ukraine’s NATO membership or by Ukraine’s growing ties to EU, improved economy and improved native military capability) so it struck while it felt it still could.

    Very simple.

    Recall that in a nuclear MAD scenario “defend against” and “threaten” were conflated to be the same thing
     
    Indeed. A pistol both defends against an attacker and can kill him. So if you want to rob or rape a victim, do it while the victim is still unarmed. And if you notice your victim trying to get armed, do what you will, while you still can.

    And someone of your moral depravity will blame the victim for trying to get a pistol. And say the criminal was the innocent one, “forced” to act.

    Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart

     

    You feel sad that the Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe fell and that Soviet tanks could no longer crush Eastern Europeans.

    Tells us all we need to know about you.

    NATO was expanded. This was very warlike. The USA dropped out of nuclear arms control treaties. This was very warlike. The USA put missile bases in Eastern Europe. This was very warlike
     
    War is worse than “warlike.”

    Did Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans forget all the previous wars? Did they really fall for the “End of History” tripe?
     
    If they did, they would not have been preparing themselves against the Russian threat.

    Replies: @LatW, @Sean, @Mr. XYZ

    AP, I have a somewhat off-topic question: What are your thoughts on this almost decade-old pro-Russian article by a French nationalist?

    https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/americas-losing-strategy-ukraine/

    FWIW, he’s advocating in favor of a principle of foreign policy called realism (similar to what John Mearsheimer preaches) and also recently (earlier this year) advocated letting Ukraine fall to Russia (by cutting off all Western military aid to Ukraine for the duration of the conventional Ukrainian war against Russia, thus causing Ukraine to get conquered by Russia) so that the West could subsequently sponsor an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine because doing so is cheaper and would ostensibly be less likely to provoke Russia than having the West sponsor an anti-Russian Ukrainian conventional war effort would be (thus allowing the West to maintain Russian cooperation on things like arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, et cetera). He argues that Russia won’t be able to hold Ukraine long-term anyway (due to widespread Ukrainian civil disobedience and a Ukrainian IRA-style terrorism campaign giving Russia a huge headache) and that it’s thus cheaper for both the West and Ukrainians to let Russia conquer Ukraine ‘coz Russia is eventually going to be pulling out of Ukraine anyway and West-Russia relations won’t be as destroyed as they are right now. (The last stuff here he’s advocating right now, not in his almost decade-old article above.)

    • Replies: @A123
    @Mr. XYZ


    a principle of foreign policy called realism (similar to what John Mearsheimer preaches) and also recently (earlier this year) advocated letting Ukraine fall to Russia (by cutting off all Western military aid to Ukraine for the duration of the conventional Ukrainian war against Russia, thus causing Ukraine to get conquered by Russia) so that the West could subsequently sponsor an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine
     
    Putin fully grasps the above trap and will not bite on it. The situation is most likely headed to a different and much more stable realism.

    • Ukraine is cut off and forced to capitulate.
    • Russia does *NOT* take all of Ukraine.
    • Zelensky's replacement makes pragmatic treaty concessions. Formally conceding territory to Russia. Permanently limiting the Kiev threat to Russian ethnics, including No NATO Ever.
    • Insurgency will be off the table. Any Kiev aggression in Russia will draw proportional response the other direction.

    As I have mentioned multiple times. Ukraine is huge. A wide DMZ can be established, keeping sides away from opportunities for irregular activity.

    PEACE 😇
    , @AP
    @Mr. XYZ

    That's a monstrous idea. Many more deaths and a lot more destruction. The war would move to civilian areas rather than fields in lightly populated southern Ukraine. Eventual independence would look like that of East Timor, which was a catastrophe.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

  644. @AP
    @Mikel


    You’re totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation
     
    Hitler was a childless extremist freak. In the end he believed the German people deserved total annihilation because they failed him and the Nazi cause. Goebbels had children but was a fanatic who poisoned all of his kids so that they wouldn’t live in a world without National Socialism.

    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.

    No risk of nuclear holocaust over Ukraine, Crimea (or Estonia for that matter). Just risk of conventional escalation.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel

    I think that the fear is of a conventional war accidentally going nuclear due to a computer error/malfunction or some kind of misunderstanding, similar to what almost happened back in 1962 before Vasily Arkhipov’s common sense prevented a nuclear Holocaust. Stanislav Petrov is another example of a person who was a hero in similar circumstances.

    BTW, off-topic, but in regards to your comment about Saddam Hussein, Yes, I do think that there is a solid case that Saddam Hussein’s behavior in the decades leading up to 2003 helped pave the way for his overthrow. Would Saddam Hussein have been viewed as anywhere near as much of a threat to regional stability had he not invaded two countries in the couple of decades before 2003 in order to massively increase his own country’s oil reserves? I don’t think so. Saddam Hussein was definitively a power maximizer, though arguably that stage of his career was over by 2003 due to Iraq’s military weakness.

  645. @Sean
    @QCIC

    Stian Jenssen, chief of staff to the NATO Secretary General,

    Replies: @QCIC

    This is the guy who said Ukraine would have to give up territory and then got spanked for it. LOL.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @QCIC

    Stoltenberg's deputy is articulating the European point of view: they are likely keen to close the war down because there is nothing to be gained for Nato members. I imagine it was intended to stimulate interest by Russia about what might be put on the table and not to be taken as an initial negotiating position. The spanking took the form of comparing RusFed to Nazi Germany, but Russia is now exposed as more like pre ww2 France, militarily incompetent with overrated weapons and blundering alcoholic generals poorly handling unmotivated reservists the reality behind a big reputation as a war winning country. So rather than being outnumbered 4:1 against Nato on the ground, Russia effectively faces more like 12:1.

    The reason the proposal was made 3 weeks ago is Ukraine looks very unlikely to get a military solution and Russia is no longer any kind of threat, and so there is nothing to be gained in drawing out the Ukrainian conflict to weaken Russia because it already is very weak (relative to its size) yet Ukraine holding its own as the war continues for years would cause an lot of economic disruption to Western counties who are in Nato to freeload off of US taxpayers not spend vast amounts on artillery ammunition restocking ECT. Ukraine will have to listen to the Europeans in a year or so, unless their plan to keep the US paying for European defence while Western Europe enjoys ever more massive social spending works, as it increasingly has since WW2.

    Replies: @QCIC

  646. @Sean
    @AP

    The deal being mooted to end the war is Russia gets a measure of international recognition of its position in Crimea and agrees to Ukraine joining Nato and gets a full security guarantee.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @QCIC, @Mr. XYZ

    Seems like a good deal. If offered, Ukraine should take it if also coupled with Russian reparations and free and fair UN-supervised plebiscites in Crimea and the Donbass, limited to 2014 inhabitants only. Such a deal would have, of course, been much better to have before the start of the current war and in place of the current war.

  647. I wonder if men remember more kanji than women, and to what degree there might be a sex tilt.

  648. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    I bet plenty of Americans would, after a time, be willing to cut their losses rather than risk total annihilation.
     
    Their opinion would matter as much as the opinion of ordinary Russians and Ukrainians matters today.

    How can Germany fighting on when they knew the war was lost possibly be considered the equivalent situation to America only losing Hawaii
     
    You're totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation. And so did millions of Germans. That's how humans have behaved for millennia (look up Numantia). Nobody wants it. Nobody probably even thinks that it's totally rational. But if a Russian missile lands on a Polish town killing scores of people it's WW3. In fact, that's pretty much why there is a war in Ukraine. Few people in the West really wanted Ukraine to join NATO and some were actually opposed to the idea. But none of them was capable of losing face and promising Putin that Kiev woulnd't join NATO. Which meant that Putin wouls lose face if he didn't act. So he launched the invasion, even though he couldn't possibly know if that would lead to Russia's and his personal anihilation. It's still in the cards.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP, @YetAnotherAnon, @silviosilver

    Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation. And so did millions of Germans. That’s how humans have behaved for millennia (look up Numantia).

    Are you saying leaders/people throughout the ages have regularly preferred total annihilation over accepting their defeat (or accepting a military/geopolitical setback)? This assertion doesn’t accord at all with any historical pattern I am aware of. I think the opposite is clearly true: that both leaders and the people they have led have regularly accepted peace terms. This seems so obvious to me that I’m really not sure I’m understanding your point properly.

    Anyway, I did look up Numantia. I was initially surprised that I’d never heard of it before, since I’ve done considerable reading in Roman history. But then I guess it’s not so surprising, since Iberia is commonly glossed over in introductory/popular histories of Rome. (Lots about Carthage, lots about Greece, lots about Gaul, very little about Hispania). With respect to our discussion, though, what makes Numantia notable is how exceptional the decision to commit mass suicide rather than accept defeat and enslavement is. You would have to supply me with many more such examples before I can take seriously the idea the this is commonplace behavior.

    Going back to the example of Hitler and the Germans, another crucial difference is that Hitler knew that he was toast. He could have no expecation of making it out alive. This made it easier to live out his bleak “all or nothing” view of geopolitics to the very last. In contrast, an American leader could quite conceivably expect to survive a nuclear showdown, and would thus have to exercise much more caution before taking his country down that path. That is, his people had better believe that there truly was no alternative to going nuclear, otherwise they might well make him pay a horrible price even if he survived the nuclear exchange. All of which is to say that I really don’t see the parallels between Russians invading (your word, not necessarily even taking) Hawaii and the position Hitler found himself in.

    It’s still in the cards.

    According to your own logic, isn’t it already virtually ineluctable? Wouldn’t western military to Ukraine constitute something close to the “much less than that” (much less than Hawaii being invaded) in your American example?

    Like you, I think, I have very little faith that rationality can prevail against strong emotions, but unlike you, it seems, I do have faith that fear – perhaps the most formidable emotion – can prevent people from embarking on such an obviously self-destructive path as nuclear war, especially when the stakes are not (yet) particularly high.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @silviosilver

    You make some good points here but you're just choosing to focus on what my examples don't prove instead of what they do prove for the argument I was postulating.

    So let's go back to the original disagreement. AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange because that would be so horrible that fear and the instinct of self-preservation would prevent it. I think there are multiple reasons to discard your optimism as the most rational attitude:

    - If fear of horrible scenarios and the instinct of self-preservation always prevailed, there would be no wars at all. Right now, as we're having this debate, some Ukrainian special forces must have just embarked on some semi-suicidal mission or are about to do so. Likewise, the Russians took Severodonetsk and Bakhmut with their time-honored tactic of sending human waves to certain death. It varies across time and culture but it's just part of human nature. In times of war fear and self-preservation are overwhelmed by stronger instincts.

    - As I have argued elsewhere, escalation to nuclear conflict has its own dynamic and can perfectly happen even if no one wants it. For example, a big f*ckup that cannot be left unanswered followed by the uncertainty and the lack of time imposed by the "launch on warning" doctrine.

    - The words and actions of TPTB, the only ones that matter for all of this, show that they do consider that escalation perfectly possible. It doesn't look sensible to brush off such a strong evidence as mere posturing. We buy insurance policy against much less catastrophic events that also look very unlikely to happen. Even if, regardless of all of the above, we have a very strong faith in Biden and Putin's good judgment and mental stability, it's wiser to assume that at least one of them, if not both, will let us down badly.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @LatW, @AP

  649. @Mr. XYZ
    @Beckow

    FWIW, I think that NATO's 2008 Bucharest declaration was a mistake since Ukrainian public opinion back then was still very hostile towards NATO. Honestly, back then, it would have been interesting to see if a deal could have been made in regards to no further NATO expansion into the former USSR in exchange for huge Russian cooperation with the West against China, up to the point of Russia actually being willing to wage a trade embargo against China if China will ever attack Taiwan.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …NATO’s 2008 Bucharest declaration was a mistake

    If it was only 2008 we could write it off as the Bushites being too enthusiastic. But the policy continued with annual declaration under 3 more presidents! Not very smart. The way you do this is without pre-announcing and by timing it when the other side is weak and distracted.

    It makes one wonder if what is happening was the real objective: trigger a bloody Ukraine-Russia war to weaken both and pick up the pieces. Everything Washington does is aimed at prolonging and deepening the war and the Ukie suffering – as if they want to empty the country to buy up the land. That Ukies are (largely) going along with it suggests that they are not very smart or that they don’t plan to stick around.

    Russia is very unlikely to turn on China now – and vice-versa. In 2008 maybe, but at that time the US elites were still enamored by China and hoping to get rich there. The timing didn’t work out. And based on the distribution of power and resources today it is probably inevitable that the West will be taken down a notch. Sooner they realize it, stop sloganeering and face the reality, less painful it will be.

  650. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    AP, I have a somewhat off-topic question: What are your thoughts on this almost decade-old pro-Russian article by a French nationalist?

    https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/americas-losing-strategy-ukraine/

    FWIW, he's advocating in favor of a principle of foreign policy called realism (similar to what John Mearsheimer preaches) and also recently (earlier this year) advocated letting Ukraine fall to Russia (by cutting off all Western military aid to Ukraine for the duration of the conventional Ukrainian war against Russia, thus causing Ukraine to get conquered by Russia) so that the West could subsequently sponsor an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine because doing so is cheaper and would ostensibly be less likely to provoke Russia than having the West sponsor an anti-Russian Ukrainian conventional war effort would be (thus allowing the West to maintain Russian cooperation on things like arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, et cetera). He argues that Russia won't be able to hold Ukraine long-term anyway (due to widespread Ukrainian civil disobedience and a Ukrainian IRA-style terrorism campaign giving Russia a huge headache) and that it's thus cheaper for both the West and Ukrainians to let Russia conquer Ukraine 'coz Russia is eventually going to be pulling out of Ukraine anyway and West-Russia relations won't be as destroyed as they are right now. (The last stuff here he's advocating right now, not in his almost decade-old article above.)

    Replies: @A123, @AP

    a principle of foreign policy called realism (similar to what John Mearsheimer preaches) and also recently (earlier this year) advocated letting Ukraine fall to Russia (by cutting off all Western military aid to Ukraine for the duration of the conventional Ukrainian war against Russia, thus causing Ukraine to get conquered by Russia) so that the West could subsequently sponsor an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine

    Putin fully grasps the above trap and will not bite on it. The situation is most likely headed to a different and much more stable realism.

    • Ukraine is cut off and forced to capitulate.
    • Russia does *NOT* take all of Ukraine.
    • Zelensky’s replacement makes pragmatic treaty concessions. Formally conceding territory to Russia. Permanently limiting the Kiev threat to Russian ethnics, including No NATO Ever.
    • Insurgency will be off the table. Any Kiev aggression in Russia will draw proportional response the other direction.

    As I have mentioned multiple times. Ukraine is huge. A wide DMZ can be established, keeping sides away from opportunities for irregular activity.

    PEACE 😇

  651. @QCIC
    @LatW

    I loathe communism and am no friend of the Warsaw Pact. I'm glad it fell apart.

    My "delusion" if you want to call it that is I am concerned about nuclear weapons and their use. My blood pressure really goes up when I remember that the people controlling these weapons probably have about as much sense as some foaming at the mouth Unz commenters. Nonetheless, some things might be worth the risk of seriously escalating the chances for nuclear war. In my view a cynically stoked-up crisis in Ukraine designed to harm Russia is not one of them.

    You hotheads misunderstood my meaning so let me clarify my statement. I will try not to call you names but I'm not making any promises. I wrote:


    Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart and NATO was expanded.
     
    In the context of my comment, this means that NATO should have voluntarily contracted when the Communist bloc shrank. The problem now is the problem then: Both sides have enormous nuclear arsenals which are effectively on a hair trigger (to some degree) because of real concerns such as MAD, launch on warning, "use 'em or lose 'em". None of you people have addressed these major concerns of the new Cold War. If nuclear weapons did not exist it would have become a hot war like you bloodthirsty people seem to want. MAD and the cold war were about a balance which we could grow out of. Instead of maintaining balance at a lower threat level, the West took advantage of the fall of the USSR and increased the military pressure on Russia. We did temporarily reduce the prevalence of tactical nuclear weapons, but apparently this was just a brief anomaly. Russia has recovered and all of the moves by the West have made the risk of nuclear war as high or higher than ever.

    You idiots see the Ukraine war as just another conflict like you have had for thousands of years with spears and swords, then arrows, bullets and bombs. After 1945 things changed. The conflict between the West and the Soviet Union was the biggest military crisis in human history. Lots of strong and wise people on all sides recognized this terrible mistake we humans had made. Sadly most of those voices of reason are long gone. All that is left is the mainstream media and your little pet internet and X channels telling you what you want to hear and pretending this is not the most dangerous conflict in human history. In your mind it is just another bloody street fight. I wonder if your view is that one can round up enough men with guns, bayonets and grenades and then show the Russian bastards whose great-great-grandparents really were the best. This is absolutely insane.

    You should know better and I have come to believe you are willfully evading the big picture. You are willing to take down billions of people for your arrogance. We will be very lucky if the people who share your mindset only get a few million Ukrainians killed. Do you realize what you are doing, I said millions? Are you really that callous?

    The tradeoff was not war versus capitulation to the new Russia. There was a once in a lifetime opportunity to forge some uneasy coexistence which could be built on over time. Too bad all we have are morons incapable of achieving that. What a bunch of losers.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Wokechoke, @LatW

    Okay, but the same reasoning applies to Russia and her actions. But you don’t seem to criticize Russians for embarking on a course which might lead to nuclear disaster. Only the west criticized along these lines.

    Now, I actually do think Russia has legitimate security concerns in Ukraine. NATO might not have any plans to invade Russia now. But geopolitics doesn’t simply consider the present, it has to look towards the distant future too. Russia within living memory was invaded through Ukraine, so it really ought to be obvious they’d seek to prevent a repeat of that history.

    Other countries have similar security concerns, of course, but are not in a position to be able to do as much to safeguard them as a powerful country like Russia is. That’s just the highly imperfect (imperfectible?) world we live in.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @silviosilver

    This situation is not symmetric at all. The USA and the USSR were effectively locked in war for fifty years. Once the USSR dissolved into Russia the USA began ramping up the pressure. The Sachs video I just linked is a good brief overview with emphasis on some crucial points.

    After listening to that I have lost some of my optimism. I think a lot more Ukrainians are going to die as the West keeps paying them to commit suicide.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

  652. @AP
    @Beckow


    Your bizarre rant smells of desperation. “Moldova?”
     
    Yes, Moldova. Never heard of it? It’s the first time that borders were changed by force in Eastern Europe. Russia did it. Russia made the precedent. You like that word.

    NATO later copied in Yugoslavia.


    I guess Kishinov was bombed to Middle Ages by Russia
     
    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?

    It was at the time basically an inside former Soviet space non-event
     
    And Kosovo was a Balkan non-event. And Ukraine an Eastern European non-event. Life hasn’t changed much in Moscow, London, or New York as a result.

    Moldova set the precedent, and after Russia started changing European borders by force there has been a gradual escalation. Yugoslavia bigger than Moldova, Ukraine bigger than Yugoslavia.

    In addition to setting a precedent in Moldova regarding changing of other countries borders, Russia also set a precedent in Chechnya on how to deal with rebellion in one’s own country: bomb the rebel cities and kill 10,000s of one’s own citizens.

    This is a precedent set by Russia that Ukraine has fortunately not followed in the Russia way. Only a fraction of the civilian death toll.

    You must be disappointed, given your love of precedent.


    You are so desperate because your side is losing that any infantile nonsense will do
     
    Projection again.

    You invent evil “Russian plans“

     

    We see what Russians did in the areas they occupied. No inventions. That’s what you do.

    ignore what was actually going on: inviting Kiev to join Nato, building up its arm forces, and then the idiotic attack post-Maidan on the Russian minority

     

    1. Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack. Those who oppose Ukraine joining NATO are just confessing that they want to leave open the option of invading Ukraine. Same for building up armed forces.

    2. Repealing the unpopular 2012 language law in 2o14 just returned Ukraine to the status of the previous 20 years.


    Kiev is like a horse with no speed that eventually quits

     

    According to the moron who claimed Kiev would quit in a couple of weeks.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Mikhail, @Beckow

    Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack.

    No, planning to join Nato has started a war. There will be no Nato in Ukraine unless Kiev miraculously wins the war.

    Repealing the unpopular 2012 language law in 2o14

    It was a fatal error. It was popular with the Russian minority and we don’t follow what is popular with some nationalists when it comes to basic human rights – that’s the European way. They failed to uphold their own values in Ukraine – that will have unfortunate consequences.

    Your “Moldova” blabbing is just embarrassing – read what others responded to you. You really sound like a drowning moron willing to just lie. I understand that things are not going well for Kiev, they are losing the war, losing huge number of soldiers and arms, they have no way out other than wait to be defeated or sue for peace. They should have taken the Minsk deal.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    Your “Moldova” blabbing is just embarrassing – read what others responded to you.
     
    You mean the idiot who claimed that because Russia provided troops and opened a consulate but didn't recognize formal independence, it wasn't a precedent for Kosovo?

    In that case, since Kosovo involved independence but not outright annexation then it couldn't have been a precedent for Crimea.

    You see how stupid your argument is?

    The first time that post--Commie borders were adjusted for the sake of ethnic groups was in Moldova. Russia opened that door. NATO followed and escalated by recognizing outright independence. Russia followed up and took it to another level in Crimea by not only separating it from Ukraine but also actually annexing it to itself.

    Kiev, they are losing the war, losing huge number of soldiers and arms, they have no way out other than wait to be defeated or sue for peace
     
    I'm glad you make this prediction; you are well known for what your predictions are worth.

    You predicted that Ukraine's economy would never grow (you said this in late 2015 IIRC); this prediction was followed by four years of solid, consistent growth until Covid. The growth started right after your prediction.

    You predicted Ukraine would capitulate within a few weeks because everyone would flee or surrender. After your prediction, Ukrainians drove the Russians out of Kiev and Kharkiv areas.

    I still give Ukraine only 50/50 odds of taking the Crimean corridor, but your prediction suggests that I may be too pessimistic.
  653. Here is an articulate speech describing the Western role in Ukraine by Jeffrey Sachs. I think it explains most of the Ukraine mess fairly well.

  654. @AP
    @Mikel


    You’re totally missing the point. Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation
     
    Hitler was a childless extremist freak. In the end he believed the German people deserved total annihilation because they failed him and the Nazi cause. Goebbels had children but was a fanatic who poisoned all of his kids so that they wouldn’t live in a world without National Socialism.

    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.

    No risk of nuclear holocaust over Ukraine, Crimea (or Estonia for that matter). Just risk of conventional escalation.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel

    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.

    It wasn’t only Hitler and Goebbels at all (and Goebbels didn’t even matter). It was the whole chain of command, including hedonistic Goering, and everyone underneath who fought fanatically while the Wehrmacht was destroyed, German cities were turned to rubble and German women were raped and murdered by the advancing enemies. As I said, for all intents and purposes the German military chose a nuclear holocaust of their country over an ignominious surrender until they had basically nothing left to defend.

    The Nazis were particularly fanatical but this behavior wasn’t so unexpected or unprecedented. This is how all militaries work in times of war. It is not about you or your family, it is about The Fatherland. And The Fatherland can only be defended through iron discipline by following orders from your superiors, even if they look insane to you. Is there any other way to defeat a formidable enemy?

    No risk of nuclear holocaust over Ukraine, Crimea (or Estonia for that matter).

    It must be that you don’t like the idea of the country of your ancestors being the trigger of a new world war so you prefer to pretend that you know it wouldn’t happen and play down the possibilities. But, as I said, everyone that matters acts as if that risk that you deny exists was perfectly real. Even the British kamikazes have put conditions on what the Ukrainians can use their weapons for.

    In fact, all of this has been discussed for decades. For the MAD deterrent to work both parties must believe that the other side would use their nukes. The moment one side believes that the other one would chicken out the nuclear deterrent stops altogether. This is why we have actually been very close to accidental nuclear war several times in the past. Both sides have automatic mechanisms in place to launch their nukes as soon as they believe they have detected a first strike by the other side. Biden and Putin may have just a few minutes to decide what to do under the pressure of the information and advice given by their military advisers.

    It may not matter too much what both have decided in advance for the event of Crimea or Estonia falling. The uncertainty about what the other side is about to do may trigger by itself a chain of events that leads to someone starting the first ICBM salvo. This is what everyone (luckily) feared and why no NFZ was declared in early 2022 against powerful voices that demanded it.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikel


    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.

    It wasn’t only Hitler and Goebbels at all (and Goebbels didn’t even matter). It was the whole chain of command, including hedonistic Goering, and everyone underneath who fought fanatically while the Wehrmacht was destroyed,
     
    Many of the normal ones were purged and killed when they tried to kill Hitler. The fanatic freaks remained and were dominant.

    In fact, all of this has been discussed for decades. For the MAD deterrent to work both parties must believe that the other side would use their nukes. The moment one side believes that the other one would chicken out the nuclear deterrent stops altogether.
     
    The other side would use nukes if it came down to existential risk. Real one, not imagined. New York, Washington, Moscow occupied or destroyed. That kind of thing. Nobody will risk doing that, and rightly so.

    Claiming risk of nuclear holocaust over Crimea or Estonia is a silly excuse to give carte blanche to imperialists.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ

    , @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    This is why we have actually been very close to accidental nuclear war several times in the past.
     
    What does "this" refer to? Does it refer to the belief by one side that other side would chicken out of a second strike? This is what has brought us close to nuclear war? If this is what you are claiming, then you need to cite some evidence that this is what was going through the minds of decision makers, that they thought the other side was looking weak and here was a big opportunity for a decisive first strike. I wonder if you'll find any.

    This is what everyone (luckily) feared and why no NFZ was declared in early 2022 against powerful voices that demanded it.
     
    Everything in diplomacy and geopolitics seems to reduce down to the nuclear factor for you. There might be a dozen other considerations that influenced that decision - eg in this case, preferring to avoid conventional escalation - but they are all ignored in favor of the nuclear explanation. It's like a literary critic ignoring every aspect of a classic novel except the "racism" and insisting that this alone is the work's most outstanding feature.
  655. Blinken’s Cheerleading Trip to Kiev, Kiev’s Drone Procurement Woes, Did a Russian Drone Crash in Romania, NABU vs Zelensky?
    https://marksleboda.substack.com/p/blinkens-cheerleading-trip-to-kiev?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2#details

  656. @silviosilver
    @QCIC

    Okay, but the same reasoning applies to Russia and her actions. But you don't seem to criticize Russians for embarking on a course which might lead to nuclear disaster. Only the west criticized along these lines.

    Now, I actually do think Russia has legitimate security concerns in Ukraine. NATO might not have any plans to invade Russia now. But geopolitics doesn't simply consider the present, it has to look towards the distant future too. Russia within living memory was invaded through Ukraine, so it really ought to be obvious they'd seek to prevent a repeat of that history.

    Other countries have similar security concerns, of course, but are not in a position to be able to do as much to safeguard them as a powerful country like Russia is. That's just the highly imperfect (imperfectible?) world we live in.

    Replies: @QCIC

    This situation is not symmetric at all. The USA and the USSR were effectively locked in war for fifty years. Once the USSR dissolved into Russia the USA began ramping up the pressure. The Sachs video I just linked is a good brief overview with emphasis on some crucial points.

    After listening to that I have lost some of my optimism. I think a lot more Ukrainians are going to die as the West keeps paying them to commit suicide.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @QCIC

    They are hardcore lunatic. It took a lot of mind programming to get them to be like this. But there may have been an undercurrent of the sentiment among the Ukies from Zap Sich.

    Relistening to Flashman at the Charge we read about a Tzarist Count, express a little contempt for Muscovy and Tzars. What's funny here is that the Count tries to get the English rogue Flashy to impregnate Valla the Count's daughter.

    Fraser saw that Ukraine was both savage and a whorehouse all in one. Also we read about a Jewish agitator on the Pencherjevsky estate who starts a revolt, this allows Flashy to escape the clutches of the Ukie Lord with Valla.

    4:46:00

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yms5Ihx_zs4

    "Once we carried our liberty on our lancetips...Stay with us here and get yourself a son with Valla to hold my land.There must be a man to follow me here."

  657. @QCIC
    @LatW

    I loathe communism and am no friend of the Warsaw Pact. I'm glad it fell apart.

    My "delusion" if you want to call it that is I am concerned about nuclear weapons and their use. My blood pressure really goes up when I remember that the people controlling these weapons probably have about as much sense as some foaming at the mouth Unz commenters. Nonetheless, some things might be worth the risk of seriously escalating the chances for nuclear war. In my view a cynically stoked-up crisis in Ukraine designed to harm Russia is not one of them.

    You hotheads misunderstood my meaning so let me clarify my statement. I will try not to call you names but I'm not making any promises. I wrote:


    Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart and NATO was expanded.
     
    In the context of my comment, this means that NATO should have voluntarily contracted when the Communist bloc shrank. The problem now is the problem then: Both sides have enormous nuclear arsenals which are effectively on a hair trigger (to some degree) because of real concerns such as MAD, launch on warning, "use 'em or lose 'em". None of you people have addressed these major concerns of the new Cold War. If nuclear weapons did not exist it would have become a hot war like you bloodthirsty people seem to want. MAD and the cold war were about a balance which we could grow out of. Instead of maintaining balance at a lower threat level, the West took advantage of the fall of the USSR and increased the military pressure on Russia. We did temporarily reduce the prevalence of tactical nuclear weapons, but apparently this was just a brief anomaly. Russia has recovered and all of the moves by the West have made the risk of nuclear war as high or higher than ever.

    You idiots see the Ukraine war as just another conflict like you have had for thousands of years with spears and swords, then arrows, bullets and bombs. After 1945 things changed. The conflict between the West and the Soviet Union was the biggest military crisis in human history. Lots of strong and wise people on all sides recognized this terrible mistake we humans had made. Sadly most of those voices of reason are long gone. All that is left is the mainstream media and your little pet internet and X channels telling you what you want to hear and pretending this is not the most dangerous conflict in human history. In your mind it is just another bloody street fight. I wonder if your view is that one can round up enough men with guns, bayonets and grenades and then show the Russian bastards whose great-great-grandparents really were the best. This is absolutely insane.

    You should know better and I have come to believe you are willfully evading the big picture. You are willing to take down billions of people for your arrogance. We will be very lucky if the people who share your mindset only get a few million Ukrainians killed. Do you realize what you are doing, I said millions? Are you really that callous?

    The tradeoff was not war versus capitulation to the new Russia. There was a once in a lifetime opportunity to forge some uneasy coexistence which could be built on over time. Too bad all we have are morons incapable of achieving that. What a bunch of losers.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Wokechoke, @LatW

    It’ll be the Balts and Poles who get wiped out if they persist with their Bantam Weight posturing.

  658. @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere
    @Mikel


    But even though we now live far removed from the tribal structures that we evolved in, I don’t deny that patriotism is a strong force clearly linked to our tribal instincts and that these instincts are natural to the human psyche.
     
    https://twitter.com/nycphotog/status/1699607841483465122?s=20

    as Greasy Williams said, there is less and less left in common among Americans. And we can actually see right here in this blog how many Westerners are so fed up with their societies
     

    Replies: @QCIC

    He wants to run for President. To quote (((Kinky Friedman))), “How Hard Could It Be?”

    This is the “MNYGA” gambit–Make New York Great Again!

    Maybe he will align with Trump. Remember this is 2023, it could actually happen.

    • Replies: @A123
    @QCIC



    BREAKING: Mayor Adams basically conceding New York City is done because of illegal immigration and warns New Yorkers illegals will flood ALL neighborhoods.
     
    This is the “MNYGA” gambit–Make New York Great Again!

    Maybe he will align with Trump. Remember this is 2023, it could actually happen.
     
    Being a "sanctuary city" was great for Leftoid feelings when the numbers were limited. Now that they have to foot the bill, the tune is rapidly changing.

    Chicago is also struggling with busing (1). Yep. Progressives are now complaining about busing.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/as-the-number-of-migrants-in-chicago-tops-13000-the-citys-struggle-to-provide-housing-continues/3218640/
  659. @Mikel
    @AP


    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.
     
    Yes, that must be the main motivation for some of them. I'd fear those things if I was a native of Northern Zaporizhia. But probably not for most right now. Let's not forget that many Ukrainian soldiers were already killing and dying before the invasion in faraway lands for them. Nobody in Lviv feared the Donbas rebels torturing their loved ones at home but many traveled to hostile Donbas to quell the rebellion by force.

    Human motivations are complex. Probably what leads people to give their lives for their countries is a combination of altruism, peer pressure, social conditioning through school, family, media,.., atavic instincts, fear of being considered a coward, individual circumstances,...

    Whatever their motivations, as long as they're not committing crimes against civilians, I feel maximum respect for the Ukrainian men who are giving their lives fighting against the invaders.

    At the same time, I also feel a lot of empathy for all the Ukrainian men who are leaving their country with their families in seek of a better future. We are seeing increasing numbers of them here in Utah. One recently started working at a nearby Walmart. Of course, during my recent trip to Poland it was impossible not to notice the presence of lots of foreigners in Warsaw. My son told me that it's not just Ukrainians but lots of Belarussians and Russians too are escaping the madness of the war and settling in Warsaw. At the basketball court where he trains Belarussian refugees have already formed their own team.

    In fact, out of 4 Uber drivers I used in Warsaw one was Belarussian and another one Ukrainian from Kharkov (his spelling). The latter told me that he escaped Ukraine with his family some months ago and has no intention of going back. He wasn't too interested in talking about the war, he just wanted to know what life in the US was like and what the best places were to get work. His dream was to emigrate to the US but he didn't know anyone in the country and was hoping to find some "sponsor".

    I actually felt a lot of positive vitality in all these young families trying to escape the insanity of the war concocted by the leaders of their countries. One cannot forget that, war or no war, these countries are pretty messed up. They never really left their Soviet past. While some Russian officials are making money by stripping military vehicles of essential parts on the other side officials are making money with the foreign military aid they are receiving or selling fake permits to all these young men to leave Ukraine. Who wants to live in or fight for these countries? Some certainly do but many others (possibly a majority even in Ukraine) don't.

    Your neighbors would probably do the same if someone tried invading the USA.
     
    Yes, some of them would. Although, as Greasy Williams said, there is less and less left in common among Americans. And we can actually see right here in this blog how many Westerners are so fed up with their societies that actually root for our supposed enemies.

    But even though we now live far removed from the tribal structures that we evolved in, I don't deny that patriotism is a strong force clearly linked to our tribal instincts and that these instincts are natural to the human psyche. I don't deny either that there's a lot of poetry and heroism in the fight for our tribes and our nations. It has certainly given us fascinating stories to enjoy in documentaries, books and movies. But I wish we were now able to start leaving war behind as a species and build a less violent future for the next generations. In the nuclear era survival of civilization depends on that.

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @AP

    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.

    Yes, that must be the main motivation for some of them. I’d fear those things if I was a native of Northern Zaporizhia. But probably not for most right now

    Because the Russians wouldn’t just stop if they took northern Zaporizhia. They would take as much as they can. So, many Ukrainians from all over the place are fighting there, in order to keep their families safe. Also, what’s wrong with a Ukrainian from Lviv helping Ukrainians from northern Zaporizhia to keep their families safe from Russian would-be occupiers? If someone tried to invade Utah from Mexico it would be appropriate for patriots from New Hampshire to help out, wouldn’t it?

    Nobody in Lviv feared the Donbas rebels torturing their loved ones at home but many traveled to hostile Donbas to quell the rebellion by force.

    Donbas rebels were clear that they wanted all of so-called New Russia (not Lviv of course, but Odessa, Dnipro, Kharkiv) and would pacify Kiev and Lviv if they could.

    In 2014 most of the pro-Ukrainian fighters were not from Lviv but from places like Kharkiv (home base of Azov) and Dnipropetrovsk (home base of Right Sector). Areas that are adjacent to Donetsk. Back in 2015 or 2016 a woman I met from Dnipropetrovsk told me that boys from her city were fighting in Donetsk to keep their city safe, to keep the Russians from moving the war into their city.

    Whatever their motivations, as long as they’re not committing crimes against civilians, I feel maximum respect for the Ukrainian men who are giving their lives fighting against the invaders.

    Thank you. I agree.

    In fact, out of 4 Uber drivers I used in Warsaw one was Belarussian and another one Ukrainian from Kharkov (his spelling).

    When I was in in Krakow (April 2022) I had two Uber drivers from Zaporizhia. They didn’t flee the war, they lived there before it started but hadn’t returned. They said almost all the men from Kiev (which had been directly threatened by Russia early in the war) and other places in the west and center who had been living or working in Poland had gone back to Ukraine to fight for their country, only easterners remained. I have a friend in the USA from Dnipropetrovsk; he has a small child and did not go back, but his friend from the same city despite having two kids and a nice job in the West returned to fight (over the objections of his non-Ukrainian wife and of my friend); he was killed in Bakhmut.

    Who wants to live in or fight for these countries? Some certainly do but many others (possibly a majority even in Ukraine) don’t.

    Refusal rates among Ukrainians is not over 50%, IIRC it was around 30%.

    But even though we now live far removed from the tribal structures that we evolved in, I don’t deny that patriotism is a strong force clearly linked to our tribal instincts and that these instincts are natural to the human psyche. I don’t deny either that there’s a lot of poetry and heroism in the fight for our tribes and our nations. It has certainly given us fascinating stories to enjoy in documentaries, books and movies. But I wish we were now able to start leaving war behind as a species

    I wish so too. I see nothing good in wars of aggression. Ukrainians are not doing that, they are fighting the aggressors.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    but his friend from the same city despite having two kids and a nice job in the West returned to fight (over the objections of his non-Ukrainian wife and of my friend); he was killed in Bakhmut.
     
    Extremely sad. :( Ukraine should be honoring guys like him much more and guys like Bandera much less. Maybe they will do that in the future now that they've got a lot of much better heroes than Bandera.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  660. @QCIC
    @silviosilver

    This situation is not symmetric at all. The USA and the USSR were effectively locked in war for fifty years. Once the USSR dissolved into Russia the USA began ramping up the pressure. The Sachs video I just linked is a good brief overview with emphasis on some crucial points.

    After listening to that I have lost some of my optimism. I think a lot more Ukrainians are going to die as the West keeps paying them to commit suicide.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    They are hardcore lunatic. It took a lot of mind programming to get them to be like this. But there may have been an undercurrent of the sentiment among the Ukies from Zap Sich.

    Relistening to Flashman at the Charge we read about a Tzarist Count, express a little contempt for Muscovy and Tzars. What’s funny here is that the Count tries to get the English rogue Flashy to impregnate Valla the Count’s daughter.

    Fraser saw that Ukraine was both savage and a whorehouse all in one. Also we read about a Jewish agitator on the Pencherjevsky estate who starts a revolt, this allows Flashy to escape the clutches of the Ukie Lord with Valla.

    4:46:00

    “Once we carried our liberty on our lancetips…Stay with us here and get yourself a son with Valla to hold my land.There must be a man to follow me here.”

  661. @Mikel
    @AP


    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.
     
    It wasn't only Hitler and Goebbels at all (and Goebbels didn't even matter). It was the whole chain of command, including hedonistic Goering, and everyone underneath who fought fanatically while the Wehrmacht was destroyed, German cities were turned to rubble and German women were raped and murdered by the advancing enemies. As I said, for all intents and purposes the German military chose a nuclear holocaust of their country over an ignominious surrender until they had basically nothing left to defend.

    The Nazis were particularly fanatical but this behavior wasn't so unexpected or unprecedented. This is how all militaries work in times of war. It is not about you or your family, it is about The Fatherland. And The Fatherland can only be defended through iron discipline by following orders from your superiors, even if they look insane to you. Is there any other way to defeat a formidable enemy?

    No risk of nuclear holocaust over Ukraine, Crimea (or Estonia for that matter).
     
    It must be that you don't like the idea of the country of your ancestors being the trigger of a new world war so you prefer to pretend that you know it wouldn't happen and play down the possibilities. But, as I said, everyone that matters acts as if that risk that you deny exists was perfectly real. Even the British kamikazes have put conditions on what the Ukrainians can use their weapons for.

    In fact, all of this has been discussed for decades. For the MAD deterrent to work both parties must believe that the other side would use their nukes. The moment one side believes that the other one would chicken out the nuclear deterrent stops altogether. This is why we have actually been very close to accidental nuclear war several times in the past. Both sides have automatic mechanisms in place to launch their nukes as soon as they believe they have detected a first strike by the other side. Biden and Putin may have just a few minutes to decide what to do under the pressure of the information and advice given by their military advisers.

    It may not matter too much what both have decided in advance for the event of Crimea or Estonia falling. The uncertainty about what the other side is about to do may trigger by itself a chain of events that leads to someone starting the first ICBM salvo. This is what everyone (luckily) feared and why no NFZ was declared in early 2022 against powerful voices that demanded it.

    Replies: @AP, @silviosilver

    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.

    It wasn’t only Hitler and Goebbels at all (and Goebbels didn’t even matter). It was the whole chain of command, including hedonistic Goering, and everyone underneath who fought fanatically while the Wehrmacht was destroyed,

    Many of the normal ones were purged and killed when they tried to kill Hitler. The fanatic freaks remained and were dominant.

    In fact, all of this has been discussed for decades. For the MAD deterrent to work both parties must believe that the other side would use their nukes. The moment one side believes that the other one would chicken out the nuclear deterrent stops altogether.

    The other side would use nukes if it came down to existential risk. Real one, not imagined. New York, Washington, Moscow occupied or destroyed. That kind of thing. Nobody will risk doing that, and rightly so.

    Claiming risk of nuclear holocaust over Crimea or Estonia is a silly excuse to give carte blanche to imperialists.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @AP


    Claiming risk of nuclear holocaust over Crimea or Estonia is a silly excuse to give carte blanche to imperialists.
     
    Then Biden, Stoltenberg and even Bojo have spent a year and a half making silly excuses in favor of the Russian imperialists.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Many of the normal ones were purged and killed when they tried to kill Hitler. The fanatic freaks remained and were dominant.
     
    Arguably, killing Hitler should have been done back in 1939. Maybe that's what would have indeed happened had the Anglo-French actually managed to secure a Soviet alliance in 1939 and Hitler still went to war anyway. Had an Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance been secured AND Poland would have made territorial concessions (at least Danzig and an extraterritorial German highway through the Polish Corridor) to Nazi Germany and Hitler would have still attacked Poland afterwards, the odds of an anti-Nazi coup attempt in 1939 might have been considerably higher than they were in real life.

    By July 1944, most of the damage was already done. Even April-early May 1944 would have been better, before the mass murder of half a million Greater Hungarian Jews.
  662. @Mikhail
    @AP


    Yes, Moldova. Never heard of it? It’s the first time that borders were changed by force in Eastern Europe. Russia did it. Russia made the precedent. You like that word.

    NATO later copied in Yugoslavia.
     

    Russia hasn't recognized Pridnestrovie's independence. Russia didn't attack Moldova proper. Leading NATO nations attacked Yugoslavia and then severed Kosovo from the latter with full diplomatic recognition.

    There's also the earlier matter of Northern Cyprus, with Turkey facing little if any any opposition.


    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?
     
    It was on on the verge of being bombed like that. NATO had limited success at successfully hitting Yugo military assets. This lead to a noticeable increase in destroying civilian Yugo infrastructure. Hiroshima and Nagasaki a prime example.

    Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack. Those who oppose Ukraine joining NATO are just confessing that they want to leave open the option of invading Ukraine. Same for building up armed forces.
     
    NATO membership is theoretically only possible if the candidate member is at peace and in control of the boundary it claims. "A Russian attack" is prevented by honoring signed reasonable existing internationally recognized agreements (like Minsk and the earlier power sharing agreement), maintaining a neutral stance and not showing preference for vile Banderite nationalists.

    Russia also set a precedent in Chechnya on how to deal with rebellion in one’s own country: bomb the rebel cities and kill 10,000s of one’s own citizens.
     
    Turkey's Kurdish population as well as those in Iraq and Syria. On the subject of killing, since 1950, the US has attacked more nations, killing more people than any other nation.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    Russia hasn’t recognized Pridnestrovie’s independence. Russia didn’t attack Moldova proper.

    It de facto did, opening a consulate there, stationing troops there to keep the Moldovans out, and having its proxy in South Ossetia recognize it.

    After its precedent each additional step was an escalation. Kosovo followed the precedent but added diplomatic recognition. Crimea followed the precedent but added outright annexation (Albania didn’t get to annex Kosovo – nor did any NATO member).

    Russia didn’t attack Moldova proper because Moldova gave up Transnistria without getting itself bombed.

    This lead to a noticeable increase in destroying civilian Yugo infrastructure. Hiroshima and Nagasaki a prime example.

    Your little brain having some trouble here?

    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?

    It was on on the verge of being bombed like that.

    “On the verge.” It wasn’t.

    Kharkiv was bombed by Russia, worse than Belgrade was bombed by NATO.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @AP

    You reveal the immature svido Kiev regime which is gradually turning away others, yuh small minded punk troll.

    South Ossetia recognizes Pridnestrovie independence but Russia doesn't. Russia not attacking into Moldova proper reveals its non-expansionist preference. At the same time, Russia can't be expected to see pro-Russian people in its near abroad get quashed. BTW, the Ukrainians in Pridnestrovie are generally like their non-svido brethren in Crimea. Former Pridnestrovie president Yevgeny Shevchuk is an ethnic Ukrainian and supporter of Pridnestrovie's reunification with Russia.

    The examples of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki exhibit bombing civilian infrastructure at its extreme. Russia's SMO is comparatively limited in scope. This latter and current situation includes Kiev regime forces using civilian infrastructure, Kiev regime weapons periodically going up and landing on such areas and the instances when the Kiev regime hits an ongoing missile leading to debris landing in an unintended area. Keep pretending that the Kiev regime hasn't targeted civilians prior to 2/24/22. Poroshenko is on tape confirming otherwise. Later with the dubious claim that such occurrences are limited.

    NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia ended in 78 days. Serbs didn't have a major power able to substantively back it at the time. Without Anglo-American neocon/neolib meddling, there's good reason to believe that Russia's SMO could've ended in March 2022.

  663. @AP
    @Mikel


    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.

    It wasn’t only Hitler and Goebbels at all (and Goebbels didn’t even matter). It was the whole chain of command, including hedonistic Goering, and everyone underneath who fought fanatically while the Wehrmacht was destroyed,
     
    Many of the normal ones were purged and killed when they tried to kill Hitler. The fanatic freaks remained and were dominant.

    In fact, all of this has been discussed for decades. For the MAD deterrent to work both parties must believe that the other side would use their nukes. The moment one side believes that the other one would chicken out the nuclear deterrent stops altogether.
     
    The other side would use nukes if it came down to existential risk. Real one, not imagined. New York, Washington, Moscow occupied or destroyed. That kind of thing. Nobody will risk doing that, and rightly so.

    Claiming risk of nuclear holocaust over Crimea or Estonia is a silly excuse to give carte blanche to imperialists.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ

    Claiming risk of nuclear holocaust over Crimea or Estonia is a silly excuse to give carte blanche to imperialists.

    Then Biden, Stoltenberg and even Bojo have spent a year and a half making silly excuses in favor of the Russian imperialists.

    • Agree: AP
  664. @Thulean Friend
    @Beckow


    The mutual Scandi dislikes exist
     
    It's actually amazing how much Beckow lies about the most trivial things. The guy knows nothing about Scandinavia and just word-vomits pure falsehoods.

    AP's comments about him being a pathological liar always struck me as hyperbole but I am beginning to see his point. Another funny aspect is how his lying is so dumb and low-stakes, e.g. AP calling him out on his lies pretending Poles were emigrating more to Slovakia than vice versa. He's not even smart about being a liar and gets mad when he gets caught (again and again).

    I hate to make generalised comments about entire nations, but if Beckow is representative of the average Slovak then we can rest assured that they will remain a poor shithole forever.

    Still, he has his utility. Mainly as an unwitting performance artist for our collective amusement.

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @Emil Nikola Richard, @sudden death, @Wokechoke, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere

    The conclusion Beckow reaches sounds about right.

  665. Mister AP, even if many of your claims were accurate (I don’t think so) you are still left with the practical problem. If following your gut instincts gets your beloved country destroyed with MILLIONS killed and tens of MILLIONS driven away, maybe you should have thought a bit longer and come up with Plan B.

    I recommend you reach out to all of your Ukrainian contacts and beseech them to capitulate immediately. NO demands, NO caveats, NO reservations. Just give up. Drive out all Westerners as part of the process.

    This is the only plan I can think of to slow down Russia’s inexorable course which doesn’t require World War Three. If WW3 happens I imagine the entire Ukraine could be leveled. There are still a lot of nuclear reactors there and much of the country may become radioactively contaminated. Is this really what you want? This is not a joke, not a trick, not hyperbole.

    This capitulation approach slightly blunts Russia’s sword. I realize the Svidos along with their safe and sound Western cheerleaders are too angry to understand, but Ukraine has been living on Russian good will. The Russian combat strategy is the opposite of what you think. You can use this against her by capitulating. This capitulation should not be a ploy to resume fighting next year. By embracing the Dove Ukrainians may find a way to coexist with the Russians before it is too late. Of course it will be painful, but much less so than if Ukraine keeps accepting Western money and weapons. The West is perfectly willing to ‘fight’ to THE LAST UKRAINIAN.

    • Agree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @AP
    @QCIC


    Mister AP, even if many of your claims were accurate (I don’t think so)
     
    Because you are an ignorant fool*, out for Slavic blood. Sorry, but that's accurate.

    If following your gut instincts gets your beloved country destroyed with MILLIONS killed and tens of MILLIONS driven away
     
    The choice was Russia's to invade. Ukrainians just chose to fight back against the murderers. You want them to be defenseless, of course.

    I recommend you reach out to all of your Ukrainian contacts and beseech them to capitulate immediately
     
    Russian occupation means mass murder, rapes, etc. which is what happened in every place they occupied. Ukrainians don't want that. You want that for them, as you make clear, because of a foolish fear of something that won't happen - nuclear war with the West. That is, because of your (misguided) fear for your home, you demand that Ukrainians sacrifice their kids to be executed and gang raped. Such are the depths of your anti-Slavic arrogance.

    I suggest you give up Alaska or a sizable chunk of whatever country you live to Russia, in exchange for peace in Ukraine. One with 30 million people. Let the Chechen and Buryats have their way with your people, it will be fun for them. Russia might go for it. If you are against it, then don't demand that Ukrainians surrender their country.


    This is the only plan I can think of to slow down Russia’s inexorable course which doesn’t require World War Three.
     
    Your constant invocation of this reveals something more sick about your nature.

    If WW3 happens I imagine the entire Ukraine could be leveled.
     
    I'm sure you do imagine that.

    Ukraine has been living on Russian good will
     
    The idea that Russia has been holding back in any way with respect to conventional forces is one of the most foolish things one can come up with. Russia is so generous.

    Russia assumed Ukrainians would not fight back much, planned accordingly, and thereby failed in its main objectives. If every failure means goodwill, it means the Germans during World War II had the biggest hearts in history.

    * Your comments about Vietnam, Ukrainians wanting to united with Russians, etc. etc. all demonstrate a pattern of ignorance

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

  666. @AP
    @Mikel


    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.

    It wasn’t only Hitler and Goebbels at all (and Goebbels didn’t even matter). It was the whole chain of command, including hedonistic Goering, and everyone underneath who fought fanatically while the Wehrmacht was destroyed,
     
    Many of the normal ones were purged and killed when they tried to kill Hitler. The fanatic freaks remained and were dominant.

    In fact, all of this has been discussed for decades. For the MAD deterrent to work both parties must believe that the other side would use their nukes. The moment one side believes that the other one would chicken out the nuclear deterrent stops altogether.
     
    The other side would use nukes if it came down to existential risk. Real one, not imagined. New York, Washington, Moscow occupied or destroyed. That kind of thing. Nobody will risk doing that, and rightly so.

    Claiming risk of nuclear holocaust over Crimea or Estonia is a silly excuse to give carte blanche to imperialists.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ

    Many of the normal ones were purged and killed when they tried to kill Hitler. The fanatic freaks remained and were dominant.

    Arguably, killing Hitler should have been done back in 1939. Maybe that’s what would have indeed happened had the Anglo-French actually managed to secure a Soviet alliance in 1939 and Hitler still went to war anyway. Had an Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance been secured AND Poland would have made territorial concessions (at least Danzig and an extraterritorial German highway through the Polish Corridor) to Nazi Germany and Hitler would have still attacked Poland afterwards, the odds of an anti-Nazi coup attempt in 1939 might have been considerably higher than they were in real life.

    By July 1944, most of the damage was already done. Even April-early May 1944 would have been better, before the mass murder of half a million Greater Hungarian Jews.

  667. @AP
    @Mikel


    Because Russians coming to their lands means some of them or their loved ones being bound and shot in the head, tortured with electric shots, gang-raped by Chechens or Buryats. Made homeless, etc.

    Yes, that must be the main motivation for some of them. I’d fear those things if I was a native of Northern Zaporizhia. But probably not for most right now
     
    Because the Russians wouldn't just stop if they took northern Zaporizhia. They would take as much as they can. So, many Ukrainians from all over the place are fighting there, in order to keep their families safe. Also, what's wrong with a Ukrainian from Lviv helping Ukrainians from northern Zaporizhia to keep their families safe from Russian would-be occupiers? If someone tried to invade Utah from Mexico it would be appropriate for patriots from New Hampshire to help out, wouldn't it?

    Nobody in Lviv feared the Donbas rebels torturing their loved ones at home but many traveled to hostile Donbas to quell the rebellion by force.
     
    Donbas rebels were clear that they wanted all of so-called New Russia (not Lviv of course, but Odessa, Dnipro, Kharkiv) and would pacify Kiev and Lviv if they could.

    In 2014 most of the pro-Ukrainian fighters were not from Lviv but from places like Kharkiv (home base of Azov) and Dnipropetrovsk (home base of Right Sector). Areas that are adjacent to Donetsk. Back in 2015 or 2016 a woman I met from Dnipropetrovsk told me that boys from her city were fighting in Donetsk to keep their city safe, to keep the Russians from moving the war into their city.

    Whatever their motivations, as long as they’re not committing crimes against civilians, I feel maximum respect for the Ukrainian men who are giving their lives fighting against the invaders.
     
    Thank you. I agree.

    In fact, out of 4 Uber drivers I used in Warsaw one was Belarussian and another one Ukrainian from Kharkov (his spelling).
     
    When I was in in Krakow (April 2022) I had two Uber drivers from Zaporizhia. They didn't flee the war, they lived there before it started but hadn't returned. They said almost all the men from Kiev (which had been directly threatened by Russia early in the war) and other places in the west and center who had been living or working in Poland had gone back to Ukraine to fight for their country, only easterners remained. I have a friend in the USA from Dnipropetrovsk; he has a small child and did not go back, but his friend from the same city despite having two kids and a nice job in the West returned to fight (over the objections of his non-Ukrainian wife and of my friend); he was killed in Bakhmut.

    Who wants to live in or fight for these countries? Some certainly do but many others (possibly a majority even in Ukraine) don’t.
     
    Refusal rates among Ukrainians is not over 50%, IIRC it was around 30%.

    But even though we now live far removed from the tribal structures that we evolved in, I don’t deny that patriotism is a strong force clearly linked to our tribal instincts and that these instincts are natural to the human psyche. I don’t deny either that there’s a lot of poetry and heroism in the fight for our tribes and our nations. It has certainly given us fascinating stories to enjoy in documentaries, books and movies. But I wish we were now able to start leaving war behind as a species
     
    I wish so too. I see nothing good in wars of aggression. Ukrainians are not doing that, they are fighting the aggressors.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    but his friend from the same city despite having two kids and a nice job in the West returned to fight (over the objections of his non-Ukrainian wife and of my friend); he was killed in Bakhmut.

    Extremely sad. 🙁 Ukraine should be honoring guys like him much more and guys like Bandera much less. Maybe they will do that in the future now that they’ve got a lot of much better heroes than Bandera.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mr. XYZ

    Before the war, I said that Ukraine needed better heroes, and this war has thankfully but very tragically indeed provided such better heroes for Ukraine. It would thus be ironic if Russia will unintentionally help Ukrainian nationalists transcend their love of Stephan Bandera.

  668. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    AP, I have a somewhat off-topic question: What are your thoughts on this almost decade-old pro-Russian article by a French nationalist?

    https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/americas-losing-strategy-ukraine/

    FWIW, he's advocating in favor of a principle of foreign policy called realism (similar to what John Mearsheimer preaches) and also recently (earlier this year) advocated letting Ukraine fall to Russia (by cutting off all Western military aid to Ukraine for the duration of the conventional Ukrainian war against Russia, thus causing Ukraine to get conquered by Russia) so that the West could subsequently sponsor an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine because doing so is cheaper and would ostensibly be less likely to provoke Russia than having the West sponsor an anti-Russian Ukrainian conventional war effort would be (thus allowing the West to maintain Russian cooperation on things like arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, et cetera). He argues that Russia won't be able to hold Ukraine long-term anyway (due to widespread Ukrainian civil disobedience and a Ukrainian IRA-style terrorism campaign giving Russia a huge headache) and that it's thus cheaper for both the West and Ukrainians to let Russia conquer Ukraine 'coz Russia is eventually going to be pulling out of Ukraine anyway and West-Russia relations won't be as destroyed as they are right now. (The last stuff here he's advocating right now, not in his almost decade-old article above.)

    Replies: @A123, @AP

    That’s a monstrous idea. Many more deaths and a lot more destruction. The war would move to civilian areas rather than fields in lightly populated southern Ukraine. Eventual independence would look like that of East Timor, which was a catastrophe.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    IIRC, he's anticipating that the suffering will stop once the Ukrainians will run out of weapons to fight with.

    Re: East Timor: You're absolutely correct that it was a disaster:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_East_Timorese_crisis

    One can also look at what happened before South Sudan gained independence:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War

    And of course the Algerian War of 1954-1962:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War

    At least one positive side of the current war is that the damage to Ukrainian cities is relatively limited. What if, after a successful Russian conquest of Ukraine, Russia would have attempted to raze to the ground any Ukrainian cities with an active Ukrainian insurgent/terrorist movement, especially if Russia could not effectively deal with this insurgency/terrorism through less drastic means? Ordinary Russians could conclude that the Banderists deserve this and thus simply not give a rat's ass about what is happening to them. It's also possible that Russia could start sending suspected Ukrainian insurgents/terrorists or even their sympathizers to gulags en masse if Russia will believe that it's the only way to crush this rebellion; mass murder is unlikely (though targeted poisonings/assassinations/killings are very possible and indeed probably very likely), but Russia can make things very brutal for suspected Banderists in its neo-gulag system.

    I mean, for goodness sake, France sometimes guillotined captured Algerian rebels in the 1950s! And 1950s France was a relatively civilized democratic Western European country, not a mentally half-Asiatic brutal authoritarian autocratic dictatorship.

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    As a side note, even if Russia would have eventually felt compelled to withdraw from western and/or central Ukraine, Russia might have insisted on keeping Novorossiya and perhaps Kiev as well (in Kiev's case, probably after seeing almost all of its population get expelled since Russia values Kiev much more for its history and much less for its vehemently anti-Russian population). The people in Novorossiya would have disliked Russian rule but would have probably been pretty passive about it, similar to Czechs during World War II. The occasional terrorist attack (as with the Czechs with Heydrich) but nothing that would cause Russia too many problems. Of course, letting Russia keep Novorossiya would be completely unacceptable to Ukrainians, so the crisis could have been prolonged for a long time in a scenario where Russia would have previously been allowed to conquer all of Ukraine. Especially if a lot of Russians would have already purchased property in Novorossiya due to its sunny climate.

  669. @QCIC
    @LatW

    I loathe communism and am no friend of the Warsaw Pact. I'm glad it fell apart.

    My "delusion" if you want to call it that is I am concerned about nuclear weapons and their use. My blood pressure really goes up when I remember that the people controlling these weapons probably have about as much sense as some foaming at the mouth Unz commenters. Nonetheless, some things might be worth the risk of seriously escalating the chances for nuclear war. In my view a cynically stoked-up crisis in Ukraine designed to harm Russia is not one of them.

    You hotheads misunderstood my meaning so let me clarify my statement. I will try not to call you names but I'm not making any promises. I wrote:


    Unfortunately the Warsaw pact fell apart and NATO was expanded.
     
    In the context of my comment, this means that NATO should have voluntarily contracted when the Communist bloc shrank. The problem now is the problem then: Both sides have enormous nuclear arsenals which are effectively on a hair trigger (to some degree) because of real concerns such as MAD, launch on warning, "use 'em or lose 'em". None of you people have addressed these major concerns of the new Cold War. If nuclear weapons did not exist it would have become a hot war like you bloodthirsty people seem to want. MAD and the cold war were about a balance which we could grow out of. Instead of maintaining balance at a lower threat level, the West took advantage of the fall of the USSR and increased the military pressure on Russia. We did temporarily reduce the prevalence of tactical nuclear weapons, but apparently this was just a brief anomaly. Russia has recovered and all of the moves by the West have made the risk of nuclear war as high or higher than ever.

    You idiots see the Ukraine war as just another conflict like you have had for thousands of years with spears and swords, then arrows, bullets and bombs. After 1945 things changed. The conflict between the West and the Soviet Union was the biggest military crisis in human history. Lots of strong and wise people on all sides recognized this terrible mistake we humans had made. Sadly most of those voices of reason are long gone. All that is left is the mainstream media and your little pet internet and X channels telling you what you want to hear and pretending this is not the most dangerous conflict in human history. In your mind it is just another bloody street fight. I wonder if your view is that one can round up enough men with guns, bayonets and grenades and then show the Russian bastards whose great-great-grandparents really were the best. This is absolutely insane.

    You should know better and I have come to believe you are willfully evading the big picture. You are willing to take down billions of people for your arrogance. We will be very lucky if the people who share your mindset only get a few million Ukrainians killed. Do you realize what you are doing, I said millions? Are you really that callous?

    The tradeoff was not war versus capitulation to the new Russia. There was a once in a lifetime opportunity to forge some uneasy coexistence which could be built on over time. Too bad all we have are morons incapable of achieving that. What a bunch of losers.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Wokechoke, @LatW

    In the context of my comment, this means that NATO should have voluntarily contracted when the Communist bloc shrank.

    You can take it to the Western societies and ask them if they wanted for NATO to contract or for NATO to be disbanded. Had NATO been disbanded, Western Euros would’ve built some other alliance really quickly.

    The bigger picture is that the historic event of European re-unification was taking place. We all used to be part of Europe before WW2. We were trading, traveling, exchanging culture, we belong to the same Christian denominations.

    For Eastern Europe it would’ve been great if after the Cold War, the Intermarium would’ve been established for real.

    This would’ve required a way to revive the economy independently and avoiding the shock therapy (we were left pretty much bankrupt by the Soviets), this would have required that the post-Soviet states retain their military assets (what I already wrote about above – the USSR wouldn’t have gone to space without Ukrainians so Ukraine was entitled to all those assets they were stripped off in exchange for the piece of toilet paper called the Budapest memorandum, I apologize, but it is so), and it would be an issue of access – obviously, no sell off of whatever valuable assets there were to the Westerners (or to the Russians), only selective Western investments, protectionism, no access to our political system for either side. The Russian 5th column would’ve needed to be removed from the get-go (through peaceful negotiation), all their assets cleared out (secret agents). National militaries built up Finnish (or even Israeli) style.

    But the parents’ generation did not commit to this. It may not have been possible. At the time European integration and NATO membership was a better option. So that’s what was chosen. It was a good choice.

    The only problem is there was no solution for Ukraine (and Belarus). Historically, they were partly connected to Europe as well (for example, the real Belarusian identity, their old identity, is quite different from what you see now). And racially they are our brothers and sisters.

    Don’t harbor any illusions that Russia would have abandoned her true nature. Ideas by Solzhenitsyn and Ilyin were always simmering underneath and, of course, they would finally come on top. These are the ideological foundation for the invasion of Ukraine.

    [MORE]

    The problem now is the problem then: Both sides have enormous nuclear arsenals which are effectively on a hair trigger (to some degree) because of real concerns such as MAD, launch on warning, “use ’em or lose ’em”. None of you people have addressed these major concerns of the new Cold War.

    Then both sides should’ve worked to reduce those arsenals when there was good will or even going forward (with new governments).

    If nuclear weapons did not exist it would have become a hot war like you bloodthirsty people seem to want.

    Well, it has been that way most of human history – if you think the current set up is horrible, then maybe that would be better? At least that way the constant threat of nuclear exchange would not be hanging over you?

    By the way, have you heard Putin say that the world is not worth living in if there is no Russia in it? I’m assuming his version of Russia (that is in its imperial form or the so called “historic Russia” which includes states that are currently independent). So it’s ok to use nuclear weapons because “we will be going to heaven, but they [meaning the West] will croak”. Frankly, I wouldn’t be all that sure about those fuckers getting into heaven, it might be that other place instead. But anyway – how do you like that statement? Do you think the world would agree with it?

    My blood pressure really goes up when I remember that the people controlling these weapons probably have about as much sense as some foaming at the mouth Unz commenters.

    We are defending our livelihoods and our progeny so we will not stop. Especially in the face of lies and half-truths – if you want to transmit those, be ready that one of us will call you out on them.

    But if you’re having high blood pressure, you shouldn’t fret about nuclear weapons so much (yes, the current situation is not pleasant, to put it mildly, but contrary to what you say, the people in charge of these weapons are not careless, even if there is a nuclear blast in Russia’s vicinity, the US will not respond with nuclear weapons – they will respond conventionally, swiftly, and then the world will turn the lights off on Russia, America will survive, most of the world will).

    There is no need to risk your health or comfort because of politics or internet talk. You’ll be prone to high blood pressure if you’re older. I know someone who was still in his late 30s and used to ocassionally get high blood pressure, while living in a big city, kind of stressful environment, but then he moved to a small town and his blood pressure went down. Maybe you should take breaks from Unz, or move to Moon of Alabama, I’m sure people are way more agreeable to your outlook there.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @LatW

    My blood pressure remark was mostly a figure of speech, but I do need to take longer walks. That is good for the mind, body and spirit.

    I am not looking for agreement, I am looking for insight. I am trying to help people here understand a part of the bigger picture. This includes explaining why outside forces want to manipulate countries such as Ukraine. To the weaker smaller country this may seem like a blessing, but it is usually a trick.

    I think people underestimate how strongly the threat of nuclear weapons and similar dangers impact the military and political leadership of some countries including Russia. The general population is intentionally shielded from most of these concerns. By the 1980's this wall of silence had been partially been broken and it led to a thawing of the cold war. I hope the same thing can happen again.

    I think your peoples are stuck having to coexist with Russia. It is a good time for someone to stand up and make a difference without getting everyone else killed in the process.

  670. @AP
    @Mr. XYZ

    That's a monstrous idea. Many more deaths and a lot more destruction. The war would move to civilian areas rather than fields in lightly populated southern Ukraine. Eventual independence would look like that of East Timor, which was a catastrophe.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

    IIRC, he’s anticipating that the suffering will stop once the Ukrainians will run out of weapons to fight with.

    Re: East Timor: You’re absolutely correct that it was a disaster:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_East_Timorese_crisis

    One can also look at what happened before South Sudan gained independence:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War

    And of course the Algerian War of 1954-1962:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War

    At least one positive side of the current war is that the damage to Ukrainian cities is relatively limited. What if, after a successful Russian conquest of Ukraine, Russia would have attempted to raze to the ground any Ukrainian cities with an active Ukrainian insurgent/terrorist movement, especially if Russia could not effectively deal with this insurgency/terrorism through less drastic means? Ordinary Russians could conclude that the Banderists deserve this and thus simply not give a rat’s ass about what is happening to them. It’s also possible that Russia could start sending suspected Ukrainian insurgents/terrorists or even their sympathizers to gulags en masse if Russia will believe that it’s the only way to crush this rebellion; mass murder is unlikely (though targeted poisonings/assassinations/killings are very possible and indeed probably very likely), but Russia can make things very brutal for suspected Banderists in its neo-gulag system.

    I mean, for goodness sake, France sometimes guillotined captured Algerian rebels in the 1950s! And 1950s France was a relatively civilized democratic Western European country, not a mentally half-Asiatic brutal authoritarian autocratic dictatorship.

  671. @QCIC
    Mister AP, even if many of your claims were accurate (I don't think so) you are still left with the practical problem. If following your gut instincts gets your beloved country destroyed with MILLIONS killed and tens of MILLIONS driven away, maybe you should have thought a bit longer and come up with Plan B.

    I recommend you reach out to all of your Ukrainian contacts and beseech them to capitulate immediately. NO demands, NO caveats, NO reservations. Just give up. Drive out all Westerners as part of the process.

    This is the only plan I can think of to slow down Russia's inexorable course which doesn't require World War Three. If WW3 happens I imagine the entire Ukraine could be leveled. There are still a lot of nuclear reactors there and much of the country may become radioactively contaminated. Is this really what you want? This is not a joke, not a trick, not hyperbole.

    This capitulation approach slightly blunts Russia's sword. I realize the Svidos along with their safe and sound Western cheerleaders are too angry to understand, but Ukraine has been living on Russian good will. The Russian combat strategy is the opposite of what you think. You can use this against her by capitulating. This capitulation should not be a ploy to resume fighting next year. By embracing the Dove Ukrainians may find a way to coexist with the Russians before it is too late. Of course it will be painful, but much less so than if Ukraine keeps accepting Western money and weapons. The West is perfectly willing to 'fight' to THE LAST UKRAINIAN.

    Replies: @AP

    Mister AP, even if many of your claims were accurate (I don’t think so)

    Because you are an ignorant fool*, out for Slavic blood. Sorry, but that’s accurate.

    If following your gut instincts gets your beloved country destroyed with MILLIONS killed and tens of MILLIONS driven away

    The choice was Russia’s to invade. Ukrainians just chose to fight back against the murderers. You want them to be defenseless, of course.

    I recommend you reach out to all of your Ukrainian contacts and beseech them to capitulate immediately

    Russian occupation means mass murder, rapes, etc. which is what happened in every place they occupied. Ukrainians don’t want that. You want that for them, as you make clear, because of a foolish fear of something that won’t happen – nuclear war with the West. That is, because of your (misguided) fear for your home, you demand that Ukrainians sacrifice their kids to be executed and gang raped. Such are the depths of your anti-Slavic arrogance.

    I suggest you give up Alaska or a sizable chunk of whatever country you live to Russia, in exchange for peace in Ukraine. One with 30 million people. Let the Chechen and Buryats have their way with your people, it will be fun for them. Russia might go for it. If you are against it, then don’t demand that Ukrainians surrender their country.

    This is the only plan I can think of to slow down Russia’s inexorable course which doesn’t require World War Three.

    Your constant invocation of this reveals something more sick about your nature.

    If WW3 happens I imagine the entire Ukraine could be leveled.

    I’m sure you do imagine that.

    Ukraine has been living on Russian good will

    The idea that Russia has been holding back in any way with respect to conventional forces is one of the most foolish things one can come up with. Russia is so generous.

    Russia assumed Ukrainians would not fight back much, planned accordingly, and thereby failed in its main objectives. If every failure means goodwill, it means the Germans during World War II had the biggest hearts in history.

    * Your comments about Vietnam, Ukrainians wanting to united with Russians, etc. etc. all demonstrate a pattern of ignorance

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Russia might go for it.
     
    Indeed, Russia might enjoy having a place near the US's borders to station missiles and/or nuclear weapons in. Cuba was off-limits for this purpose since 1962. Good luck having the US tell Russia that Russia can't do this on its own sovereign territory! ;)

    As a side note, I feel bad for the Buryats specifically. They were possibly brainwashed by Putin into supporting this war, and them being poor could make them more inclined to loot Ukraine. Though their Asiatic character could also play a role in their barbarity. Chechens of course are probably just naturally brutal in a lot of cases. Had they been Christian, they could have been a lower-IQ, Eastern Orthodox version of the Scots lol.

    * Your comments about Vietnam, Ukrainians wanting to united with Russians, etc. etc. all demonstrate a pattern of ignorance
     
    You know, I wonder how exactly Ukrainians back in December 1991 would have voted in their December 1991 independence referendum had they been able to see the next 32 years of the future. I suspect that they would have been deeply shocked by Russia and deeply disappointed in Ukraine's political elites for wasting so many decades of potential opportunities. Would they have become determined immediately in December 1991 to become a second Poland and thus to vote for Chornovil instead of Kravchuk as their President?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_presidential_election

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Ukraine_presidential_elections_1991.png

    In real life, in 1991, Ukrainians wanted freedom but still voted like Sovoks outside of Galicia!

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    , @QCIC
    @AP

    I mention the serious aspects including nuclear weapons and WW3 because no one else does. Many people can't see through the red mist.

    I may be a fool, but I am not out for Slavic blood. I think my position would be comparable if we were discussing a similar situation with Korea or Georgia.

    Which would be worse in your eyes: A Russia or the RusFed as Ivashka describes these things?

  672. @AP
    @Mr. XYZ

    That's a monstrous idea. Many more deaths and a lot more destruction. The war would move to civilian areas rather than fields in lightly populated southern Ukraine. Eventual independence would look like that of East Timor, which was a catastrophe.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

    As a side note, even if Russia would have eventually felt compelled to withdraw from western and/or central Ukraine, Russia might have insisted on keeping Novorossiya and perhaps Kiev as well (in Kiev’s case, probably after seeing almost all of its population get expelled since Russia values Kiev much more for its history and much less for its vehemently anti-Russian population). The people in Novorossiya would have disliked Russian rule but would have probably been pretty passive about it, similar to Czechs during World War II. The occasional terrorist attack (as with the Czechs with Heydrich) but nothing that would cause Russia too many problems. Of course, letting Russia keep Novorossiya would be completely unacceptable to Ukrainians, so the crisis could have been prolonged for a long time in a scenario where Russia would have previously been allowed to conquer all of Ukraine. Especially if a lot of Russians would have already purchased property in Novorossiya due to its sunny climate.

  673. @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    Hitler could have tried, if not to save himself, at least save as much as he could of the country he loved so much. He preferred total anihilation. And so did millions of Germans. That’s how humans have behaved for millennia (look up Numantia).
     
    Are you saying leaders/people throughout the ages have regularly preferred total annihilation over accepting their defeat (or accepting a military/geopolitical setback)? This assertion doesn't accord at all with any historical pattern I am aware of. I think the opposite is clearly true: that both leaders and the people they have led have regularly accepted peace terms. This seems so obvious to me that I'm really not sure I'm understanding your point properly.

    Anyway, I did look up Numantia. I was initially surprised that I'd never heard of it before, since I've done considerable reading in Roman history. But then I guess it's not so surprising, since Iberia is commonly glossed over in introductory/popular histories of Rome. (Lots about Carthage, lots about Greece, lots about Gaul, very little about Hispania). With respect to our discussion, though, what makes Numantia notable is how exceptional the decision to commit mass suicide rather than accept defeat and enslavement is. You would have to supply me with many more such examples before I can take seriously the idea the this is commonplace behavior.

    Going back to the example of Hitler and the Germans, another crucial difference is that Hitler knew that he was toast. He could have no expecation of making it out alive. This made it easier to live out his bleak "all or nothing" view of geopolitics to the very last. In contrast, an American leader could quite conceivably expect to survive a nuclear showdown, and would thus have to exercise much more caution before taking his country down that path. That is, his people had better believe that there truly was no alternative to going nuclear, otherwise they might well make him pay a horrible price even if he survived the nuclear exchange. All of which is to say that I really don't see the parallels between Russians invading (your word, not necessarily even taking) Hawaii and the position Hitler found himself in.

    It’s still in the cards.
     
    According to your own logic, isn't it already virtually ineluctable? Wouldn't western military to Ukraine constitute something close to the "much less than that" (much less than Hawaii being invaded) in your American example?

    Like you, I think, I have very little faith that rationality can prevail against strong emotions, but unlike you, it seems, I do have faith that fear - perhaps the most formidable emotion - can prevent people from embarking on such an obviously self-destructive path as nuclear war, especially when the stakes are not (yet) particularly high.

    Replies: @Mikel

    You make some good points here but you’re just choosing to focus on what my examples don’t prove instead of what they do prove for the argument I was postulating.

    So let’s go back to the original disagreement. AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange because that would be so horrible that fear and the instinct of self-preservation would prevent it. I think there are multiple reasons to discard your optimism as the most rational attitude:

    – If fear of horrible scenarios and the instinct of self-preservation always prevailed, there would be no wars at all. Right now, as we’re having this debate, some Ukrainian special forces must have just embarked on some semi-suicidal mission or are about to do so. Likewise, the Russians took Severodonetsk and Bakhmut with their time-honored tactic of sending human waves to certain death. It varies across time and culture but it’s just part of human nature. In times of war fear and self-preservation are overwhelmed by stronger instincts.

    – As I have argued elsewhere, escalation to nuclear conflict has its own dynamic and can perfectly happen even if no one wants it. For example, a big f*ckup that cannot be left unanswered followed by the uncertainty and the lack of time imposed by the “launch on warning” doctrine.

    – The words and actions of TPTB, the only ones that matter for all of this, show that they do consider that escalation perfectly possible. It doesn’t look sensible to brush off such a strong evidence as mere posturing. We buy insurance policy against much less catastrophic events that also look very unlikely to happen. Even if, regardless of all of the above, we have a very strong faith in Biden and Putin’s good judgment and mental stability, it’s wiser to assume that at least one of them, if not both, will let us down badly.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    If fear of horrible scenarios and the instinct of self-preservation always prevailed, there would be no wars at all. Right now, as we’re having this debate, some Ukrainian special forces must have just embarked on some semi-suicidal mission or are about to do so.
     
    There are degrees of horror, it's not a binary horrible/not horrible. And not only are there degrees, but people differ in their assessments of what is "too horrible" to contemplate. So just because some men figure the "horror" (maybe it's honor) of going to their death in defense of their country is acceptable, it doesn't mean they'd consider the nuclear devastation of their country (even in an exchange they "won") to also be acceptable.

    In times of war fear and self-preservation are overwhelmed by stronger instincts.
     
    The stronger instinct is love of one's country, one's people. An individual valiantly going to his death may reasonably believe his sacrifice will help defend his people - leave his people with something worth living for. But the same instinct wouldn't necessarily cause him to leap to nuclear escalation, since in that case it wouldn't just be his own death, but the deaths of millions of his people, along with the possibility there'd be nothing left worth living for.

    Also, we have actual evidence that rationality has prevailed in these tense moments. When the Soviet early warning system alerted Stanislav Petrov in 1983 that America had launched a first strike, he didn't lose his mind or go into an automatic escalation protocol; he considered the possibility of a false alarm, and posited it would be unlikely America would launch a single nuke if it was a real first strike. And this was even during a tense period of time in which the Soviets had been concerned about Reagan's "evil empire" rhetoric and there had been a stand-off on the issue of Pershing II's in Europe. It's only one person, so we can't infer too much from the incident, but it gives an indication that perhaps escalation isn't quite as automatic as you contend.
    , @LatW
    @Mikel


    If fear of horrible scenarios and the instinct of self-preservation always prevailed, there would be no wars at all.
     
    Sorry to interfere, but just to qualify this one: this one doesn't apply to Putin's regime. So far they have tried as much as they could to fight the war with others' hands - first the Donbas militias, then the military company (mercenaries), then the zeks, then those mobilized in the occupied Ukrainian territories, then those mobilized from poor and ethnic regions (they are even thinking of recruiting female zeks).

    Sure, they have lost regular troops and will keep losing more. However, the war so far has been waged outside of RusFed, and the affluent regions have not been affected as well as more serious assets have not been lost. That could change soon. For example, the Russians are now pulling air defense systems from the Arctic and even the Far East, to cover the European part of Russia. They are pulling up more air defenses to the location where Putin's residences are. The fact that they are doing this, indicates that they didn't really anticipate things to get this far.

    But the point is that the warmongering elite has not been endangered in any way so far, physically. If the war is brought back to the territory of the aggressor (the boomerang principle), then the attitudes of Russian leadership could change. They were assuming they'd never be touched. So at some point their instinct of self-preservation could kick in.

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @AP
    @Mikel

    This correct comment appeared on my twitter feed:

    “ For years, the specter of WW3 has featured prominently in Russian propaganda. Today, I am more certain than ever that this was designed to make the world so scared of a possible future war that we wouldn’t take action to stop the war that’s already happening.”

    “ The point of this propaganda was never to have a rational discussion about avoiding nuclear war/WW3 — the point was and is to create a world where Russia can act with impunity by threatening to destroy humanity if anyone gets in their way.”


    AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange
     
    Never, as long as Russia isn’t threatened with complete destruction. And in no circumstances would it be. Taking Crimea wouldn’t do it.

    Silvio’s points were more than adequate so I will add this:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    But as long as making threats works, Russia will logically make those threats.

    Replies: @A123, @Mikel, @Sean, @WS, @Mr. XYZ

  674. @AP
    @QCIC


    Mister AP, even if many of your claims were accurate (I don’t think so)
     
    Because you are an ignorant fool*, out for Slavic blood. Sorry, but that's accurate.

    If following your gut instincts gets your beloved country destroyed with MILLIONS killed and tens of MILLIONS driven away
     
    The choice was Russia's to invade. Ukrainians just chose to fight back against the murderers. You want them to be defenseless, of course.

    I recommend you reach out to all of your Ukrainian contacts and beseech them to capitulate immediately
     
    Russian occupation means mass murder, rapes, etc. which is what happened in every place they occupied. Ukrainians don't want that. You want that for them, as you make clear, because of a foolish fear of something that won't happen - nuclear war with the West. That is, because of your (misguided) fear for your home, you demand that Ukrainians sacrifice their kids to be executed and gang raped. Such are the depths of your anti-Slavic arrogance.

    I suggest you give up Alaska or a sizable chunk of whatever country you live to Russia, in exchange for peace in Ukraine. One with 30 million people. Let the Chechen and Buryats have their way with your people, it will be fun for them. Russia might go for it. If you are against it, then don't demand that Ukrainians surrender their country.


    This is the only plan I can think of to slow down Russia’s inexorable course which doesn’t require World War Three.
     
    Your constant invocation of this reveals something more sick about your nature.

    If WW3 happens I imagine the entire Ukraine could be leveled.
     
    I'm sure you do imagine that.

    Ukraine has been living on Russian good will
     
    The idea that Russia has been holding back in any way with respect to conventional forces is one of the most foolish things one can come up with. Russia is so generous.

    Russia assumed Ukrainians would not fight back much, planned accordingly, and thereby failed in its main objectives. If every failure means goodwill, it means the Germans during World War II had the biggest hearts in history.

    * Your comments about Vietnam, Ukrainians wanting to united with Russians, etc. etc. all demonstrate a pattern of ignorance

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

    Russia might go for it.

    Indeed, Russia might enjoy having a place near the US’s borders to station missiles and/or nuclear weapons in. Cuba was off-limits for this purpose since 1962. Good luck having the US tell Russia that Russia can’t do this on its own sovereign territory! 😉

    As a side note, I feel bad for the Buryats specifically. They were possibly brainwashed by Putin into supporting this war, and them being poor could make them more inclined to loot Ukraine. Though their Asiatic character could also play a role in their barbarity. Chechens of course are probably just naturally brutal in a lot of cases. Had they been Christian, they could have been a lower-IQ, Eastern Orthodox version of the Scots lol.

    * Your comments about Vietnam, Ukrainians wanting to united with Russians, etc. etc. all demonstrate a pattern of ignorance

    You know, I wonder how exactly Ukrainians back in December 1991 would have voted in their December 1991 independence referendum had they been able to see the next 32 years of the future. I suspect that they would have been deeply shocked by Russia and deeply disappointed in Ukraine’s political elites for wasting so many decades of potential opportunities. Would they have become determined immediately in December 1991 to become a second Poland and thus to vote for Chornovil instead of Kravchuk as their President?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_presidential_election

    In real life, in 1991, Ukrainians wanted freedom but still voted like Sovoks outside of Galicia!

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mr. XYZ

    As a side note, I think that, had both the West and Ukraine saw the next 30 years of the future back in the 1990s, they might have reached a deal with Russia where Ukraine got to have its own nuclear weapons program in exchange for Ukraine permanently renouncing NATO membership while NATO was allowed to expand elsewhere. John Mearsheimer actually did advocate in favor of this back in the early 1990s and argued that Bill Clinton was making a mistake in pressuring Ukraine to disarm.

    Had Ukrainians been able to see the future, they almost certainly would have never elected Yanykovych in 2010. That's another huge change. It's just sad that Ukraine's post-independence political class was, in general, so mediocre. Ukraine's main hope has been its people, especially (but not only, especially since 2014) in the center and west.

    Replies: @LatW

  675. @Beckow
    @AP


    Joining NATO prevents a Russian attack.
     
    No, planning to join Nato has started a war. There will be no Nato in Ukraine unless Kiev miraculously wins the war.

    Repealing the unpopular 2012 language law in 2o14
     
    It was a fatal error. It was popular with the Russian minority and we don't follow what is popular with some nationalists when it comes to basic human rights - that's the European way. They failed to uphold their own values in Ukraine - that will have unfortunate consequences.

    Your "Moldova" blabbing is just embarrassing - read what others responded to you. You really sound like a drowning moron willing to just lie. I understand that things are not going well for Kiev, they are losing the war, losing huge number of soldiers and arms, they have no way out other than wait to be defeated or sue for peace. They should have taken the Minsk deal.

    Replies: @AP

    Your “Moldova” blabbing is just embarrassing – read what others responded to you.

    You mean the idiot who claimed that because Russia provided troops and opened a consulate but didn’t recognize formal independence, it wasn’t a precedent for Kosovo?

    In that case, since Kosovo involved independence but not outright annexation then it couldn’t have been a precedent for Crimea.

    You see how stupid your argument is?

    The first time that post–Commie borders were adjusted for the sake of ethnic groups was in Moldova. Russia opened that door. NATO followed and escalated by recognizing outright independence. Russia followed up and took it to another level in Crimea by not only separating it from Ukraine but also actually annexing it to itself.

    Kiev, they are losing the war, losing huge number of soldiers and arms, they have no way out other than wait to be defeated or sue for peace

    I’m glad you make this prediction; you are well known for what your predictions are worth.

    You predicted that Ukraine’s economy would never grow (you said this in late 2015 IIRC); this prediction was followed by four years of solid, consistent growth until Covid. The growth started right after your prediction.

    You predicted Ukraine would capitulate within a few weeks because everyone would flee or surrender. After your prediction, Ukrainians drove the Russians out of Kiev and Kharkiv areas.

    I still give Ukraine only 50/50 odds of taking the Crimean corridor, but your prediction suggests that I may be too pessimistic.

  676. @Mikel
    @AP


    Neither Russian nor American elites are anything close to this.
     
    It wasn't only Hitler and Goebbels at all (and Goebbels didn't even matter). It was the whole chain of command, including hedonistic Goering, and everyone underneath who fought fanatically while the Wehrmacht was destroyed, German cities were turned to rubble and German women were raped and murdered by the advancing enemies. As I said, for all intents and purposes the German military chose a nuclear holocaust of their country over an ignominious surrender until they had basically nothing left to defend.

    The Nazis were particularly fanatical but this behavior wasn't so unexpected or unprecedented. This is how all militaries work in times of war. It is not about you or your family, it is about The Fatherland. And The Fatherland can only be defended through iron discipline by following orders from your superiors, even if they look insane to you. Is there any other way to defeat a formidable enemy?

    No risk of nuclear holocaust over Ukraine, Crimea (or Estonia for that matter).
     
    It must be that you don't like the idea of the country of your ancestors being the trigger of a new world war so you prefer to pretend that you know it wouldn't happen and play down the possibilities. But, as I said, everyone that matters acts as if that risk that you deny exists was perfectly real. Even the British kamikazes have put conditions on what the Ukrainians can use their weapons for.

    In fact, all of this has been discussed for decades. For the MAD deterrent to work both parties must believe that the other side would use their nukes. The moment one side believes that the other one would chicken out the nuclear deterrent stops altogether. This is why we have actually been very close to accidental nuclear war several times in the past. Both sides have automatic mechanisms in place to launch their nukes as soon as they believe they have detected a first strike by the other side. Biden and Putin may have just a few minutes to decide what to do under the pressure of the information and advice given by their military advisers.

    It may not matter too much what both have decided in advance for the event of Crimea or Estonia falling. The uncertainty about what the other side is about to do may trigger by itself a chain of events that leads to someone starting the first ICBM salvo. This is what everyone (luckily) feared and why no NFZ was declared in early 2022 against powerful voices that demanded it.

    Replies: @AP, @silviosilver

    This is why we have actually been very close to accidental nuclear war several times in the past.

    What does “this” refer to? Does it refer to the belief by one side that other side would chicken out of a second strike? This is what has brought us close to nuclear war? If this is what you are claiming, then you need to cite some evidence that this is what was going through the minds of decision makers, that they thought the other side was looking weak and here was a big opportunity for a decisive first strike. I wonder if you’ll find any.

    This is what everyone (luckily) feared and why no NFZ was declared in early 2022 against powerful voices that demanded it.

    Everything in diplomacy and geopolitics seems to reduce down to the nuclear factor for you. There might be a dozen other considerations that influenced that decision – eg in this case, preferring to avoid conventional escalation – but they are all ignored in favor of the nuclear explanation. It’s like a literary critic ignoring every aspect of a classic novel except the “racism” and insisting that this alone is the work’s most outstanding feature.

  677. @Mikel
    @silviosilver

    You make some good points here but you're just choosing to focus on what my examples don't prove instead of what they do prove for the argument I was postulating.

    So let's go back to the original disagreement. AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange because that would be so horrible that fear and the instinct of self-preservation would prevent it. I think there are multiple reasons to discard your optimism as the most rational attitude:

    - If fear of horrible scenarios and the instinct of self-preservation always prevailed, there would be no wars at all. Right now, as we're having this debate, some Ukrainian special forces must have just embarked on some semi-suicidal mission or are about to do so. Likewise, the Russians took Severodonetsk and Bakhmut with their time-honored tactic of sending human waves to certain death. It varies across time and culture but it's just part of human nature. In times of war fear and self-preservation are overwhelmed by stronger instincts.

    - As I have argued elsewhere, escalation to nuclear conflict has its own dynamic and can perfectly happen even if no one wants it. For example, a big f*ckup that cannot be left unanswered followed by the uncertainty and the lack of time imposed by the "launch on warning" doctrine.

    - The words and actions of TPTB, the only ones that matter for all of this, show that they do consider that escalation perfectly possible. It doesn't look sensible to brush off such a strong evidence as mere posturing. We buy insurance policy against much less catastrophic events that also look very unlikely to happen. Even if, regardless of all of the above, we have a very strong faith in Biden and Putin's good judgment and mental stability, it's wiser to assume that at least one of them, if not both, will let us down badly.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @LatW, @AP

    If fear of horrible scenarios and the instinct of self-preservation always prevailed, there would be no wars at all. Right now, as we’re having this debate, some Ukrainian special forces must have just embarked on some semi-suicidal mission or are about to do so.

    There are degrees of horror, it’s not a binary horrible/not horrible. And not only are there degrees, but people differ in their assessments of what is “too horrible” to contemplate. So just because some men figure the “horror” (maybe it’s honor) of going to their death in defense of their country is acceptable, it doesn’t mean they’d consider the nuclear devastation of their country (even in an exchange they “won”) to also be acceptable.

    In times of war fear and self-preservation are overwhelmed by stronger instincts.

    The stronger instinct is love of one’s country, one’s people. An individual valiantly going to his death may reasonably believe his sacrifice will help defend his people – leave his people with something worth living for. But the same instinct wouldn’t necessarily cause him to leap to nuclear escalation, since in that case it wouldn’t just be his own death, but the deaths of millions of his people, along with the possibility there’d be nothing left worth living for.

    Also, we have actual evidence that rationality has prevailed in these tense moments. When the Soviet early warning system alerted Stanislav Petrov in 1983 that America had launched a first strike, he didn’t lose his mind or go into an automatic escalation protocol; he considered the possibility of a false alarm, and posited it would be unlikely America would launch a single nuke if it was a real first strike. And this was even during a tense period of time in which the Soviets had been concerned about Reagan’s “evil empire” rhetoric and there had been a stand-off on the issue of Pershing II’s in Europe. It’s only one person, so we can’t infer too much from the incident, but it gives an indication that perhaps escalation isn’t quite as automatic as you contend.

  678. @LatW
    @QCIC


    In the context of my comment, this means that NATO should have voluntarily contracted when the Communist bloc shrank.
     
    You can take it to the Western societies and ask them if they wanted for NATO to contract or for NATO to be disbanded. Had NATO been disbanded, Western Euros would've built some other alliance really quickly.

    The bigger picture is that the historic event of European re-unification was taking place. We all used to be part of Europe before WW2. We were trading, traveling, exchanging culture, we belong to the same Christian denominations.

    For Eastern Europe it would've been great if after the Cold War, the Intermarium would've been established for real.

    This would've required a way to revive the economy independently and avoiding the shock therapy (we were left pretty much bankrupt by the Soviets), this would have required that the post-Soviet states retain their military assets (what I already wrote about above - the USSR wouldn't have gone to space without Ukrainians so Ukraine was entitled to all those assets they were stripped off in exchange for the piece of toilet paper called the Budapest memorandum, I apologize, but it is so), and it would be an issue of access - obviously, no sell off of whatever valuable assets there were to the Westerners (or to the Russians), only selective Western investments, protectionism, no access to our political system for either side. The Russian 5th column would've needed to be removed from the get-go (through peaceful negotiation), all their assets cleared out (secret agents). National militaries built up Finnish (or even Israeli) style.

    But the parents' generation did not commit to this. It may not have been possible. At the time European integration and NATO membership was a better option. So that's what was chosen. It was a good choice.

    The only problem is there was no solution for Ukraine (and Belarus). Historically, they were partly connected to Europe as well (for example, the real Belarusian identity, their old identity, is quite different from what you see now). And racially they are our brothers and sisters.

    Don't harbor any illusions that Russia would have abandoned her true nature. Ideas by Solzhenitsyn and Ilyin were always simmering underneath and, of course, they would finally come on top. These are the ideological foundation for the invasion of Ukraine.


    The problem now is the problem then: Both sides have enormous nuclear arsenals which are effectively on a hair trigger (to some degree) because of real concerns such as MAD, launch on warning, “use ’em or lose ’em”. None of you people have addressed these major concerns of the new Cold War.
     
    Then both sides should've worked to reduce those arsenals when there was good will or even going forward (with new governments).

    If nuclear weapons did not exist it would have become a hot war like you bloodthirsty people seem to want.
     
    Well, it has been that way most of human history - if you think the current set up is horrible, then maybe that would be better? At least that way the constant threat of nuclear exchange would not be hanging over you?

    By the way, have you heard Putin say that the world is not worth living in if there is no Russia in it? I'm assuming his version of Russia (that is in its imperial form or the so called "historic Russia" which includes states that are currently independent). So it's ok to use nuclear weapons because "we will be going to heaven, but they [meaning the West] will croak". Frankly, I wouldn't be all that sure about those fuckers getting into heaven, it might be that other place instead. But anyway - how do you like that statement? Do you think the world would agree with it?


    My blood pressure really goes up when I remember that the people controlling these weapons probably have about as much sense as some foaming at the mouth Unz commenters.
     
    We are defending our livelihoods and our progeny so we will not stop. Especially in the face of lies and half-truths - if you want to transmit those, be ready that one of us will call you out on them.

    But if you're having high blood pressure, you shouldn't fret about nuclear weapons so much (yes, the current situation is not pleasant, to put it mildly, but contrary to what you say, the people in charge of these weapons are not careless, even if there is a nuclear blast in Russia's vicinity, the US will not respond with nuclear weapons - they will respond conventionally, swiftly, and then the world will turn the lights off on Russia, America will survive, most of the world will).

    There is no need to risk your health or comfort because of politics or internet talk. You'll be prone to high blood pressure if you're older. I know someone who was still in his late 30s and used to ocassionally get high blood pressure, while living in a big city, kind of stressful environment, but then he moved to a small town and his blood pressure went down. Maybe you should take breaks from Unz, or move to Moon of Alabama, I'm sure people are way more agreeable to your outlook there.

    Replies: @QCIC

    My blood pressure remark was mostly a figure of speech, but I do need to take longer walks. That is good for the mind, body and spirit.

    I am not looking for agreement, I am looking for insight. I am trying to help people here understand a part of the bigger picture. This includes explaining why outside forces want to manipulate countries such as Ukraine. To the weaker smaller country this may seem like a blessing, but it is usually a trick.

    I think people underestimate how strongly the threat of nuclear weapons and similar dangers impact the military and political leadership of some countries including Russia. The general population is intentionally shielded from most of these concerns. By the 1980’s this wall of silence had been partially been broken and it led to a thawing of the cold war. I hope the same thing can happen again.

    I think your peoples are stuck having to coexist with Russia. It is a good time for someone to stand up and make a difference without getting everyone else killed in the process.

  679. @AP
    @QCIC


    Mister AP, even if many of your claims were accurate (I don’t think so)
     
    Because you are an ignorant fool*, out for Slavic blood. Sorry, but that's accurate.

    If following your gut instincts gets your beloved country destroyed with MILLIONS killed and tens of MILLIONS driven away
     
    The choice was Russia's to invade. Ukrainians just chose to fight back against the murderers. You want them to be defenseless, of course.

    I recommend you reach out to all of your Ukrainian contacts and beseech them to capitulate immediately
     
    Russian occupation means mass murder, rapes, etc. which is what happened in every place they occupied. Ukrainians don't want that. You want that for them, as you make clear, because of a foolish fear of something that won't happen - nuclear war with the West. That is, because of your (misguided) fear for your home, you demand that Ukrainians sacrifice their kids to be executed and gang raped. Such are the depths of your anti-Slavic arrogance.

    I suggest you give up Alaska or a sizable chunk of whatever country you live to Russia, in exchange for peace in Ukraine. One with 30 million people. Let the Chechen and Buryats have their way with your people, it will be fun for them. Russia might go for it. If you are against it, then don't demand that Ukrainians surrender their country.


    This is the only plan I can think of to slow down Russia’s inexorable course which doesn’t require World War Three.
     
    Your constant invocation of this reveals something more sick about your nature.

    If WW3 happens I imagine the entire Ukraine could be leveled.
     
    I'm sure you do imagine that.

    Ukraine has been living on Russian good will
     
    The idea that Russia has been holding back in any way with respect to conventional forces is one of the most foolish things one can come up with. Russia is so generous.

    Russia assumed Ukrainians would not fight back much, planned accordingly, and thereby failed in its main objectives. If every failure means goodwill, it means the Germans during World War II had the biggest hearts in history.

    * Your comments about Vietnam, Ukrainians wanting to united with Russians, etc. etc. all demonstrate a pattern of ignorance

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

    I mention the serious aspects including nuclear weapons and WW3 because no one else does. Many people can’t see through the red mist.

    I may be a fool, but I am not out for Slavic blood. I think my position would be comparable if we were discussing a similar situation with Korea or Georgia.

    Which would be worse in your eyes: A Russia or the RusFed as Ivashka describes these things?

  680. It’s like a literary critic ignoring every aspect of a classic novel except the “racism” 

    Even if Biden had not clearly explained to the world when the invasion took place and the possibility of a NFZ and NATO intervention was being discussed that he wasn’t willing to start WW3 (his choice of words), what other possible reason could there be for that refusal?

    These are recent events that will be written about in history books for centuries to come. Please do tell us what other reasons you have in mind for the absence of a NFZ over Ukraine other than the fear of WW3.

    And if you concede that Biden was not lying and WW3 was indeed the reason, then explain what you think has prevented WW3 from breaking out in the past 7 decades other than a certain class of weapons with an unprecendented destructive power coupled with catastrophic post-explotion effects.

  681. @Mikel
    @silviosilver

    You make some good points here but you're just choosing to focus on what my examples don't prove instead of what they do prove for the argument I was postulating.

    So let's go back to the original disagreement. AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange because that would be so horrible that fear and the instinct of self-preservation would prevent it. I think there are multiple reasons to discard your optimism as the most rational attitude:

    - If fear of horrible scenarios and the instinct of self-preservation always prevailed, there would be no wars at all. Right now, as we're having this debate, some Ukrainian special forces must have just embarked on some semi-suicidal mission or are about to do so. Likewise, the Russians took Severodonetsk and Bakhmut with their time-honored tactic of sending human waves to certain death. It varies across time and culture but it's just part of human nature. In times of war fear and self-preservation are overwhelmed by stronger instincts.

    - As I have argued elsewhere, escalation to nuclear conflict has its own dynamic and can perfectly happen even if no one wants it. For example, a big f*ckup that cannot be left unanswered followed by the uncertainty and the lack of time imposed by the "launch on warning" doctrine.

    - The words and actions of TPTB, the only ones that matter for all of this, show that they do consider that escalation perfectly possible. It doesn't look sensible to brush off such a strong evidence as mere posturing. We buy insurance policy against much less catastrophic events that also look very unlikely to happen. Even if, regardless of all of the above, we have a very strong faith in Biden and Putin's good judgment and mental stability, it's wiser to assume that at least one of them, if not both, will let us down badly.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @LatW, @AP

    If fear of horrible scenarios and the instinct of self-preservation always prevailed, there would be no wars at all.

    Sorry to interfere, but just to qualify this one: this one doesn’t apply to Putin’s regime. So far they have tried as much as they could to fight the war with others’ hands – first the Donbas militias, then the military company (mercenaries), then the zeks, then those mobilized in the occupied Ukrainian territories, then those mobilized from poor and ethnic regions (they are even thinking of recruiting female zeks).

    Sure, they have lost regular troops and will keep losing more. However, the war so far has been waged outside of RusFed, and the affluent regions have not been affected as well as more serious assets have not been lost. That could change soon. For example, the Russians are now pulling air defense systems from the Arctic and even the Far East, to cover the European part of Russia. They are pulling up more air defenses to the location where Putin’s residences are. The fact that they are doing this, indicates that they didn’t really anticipate things to get this far.

    But the point is that the warmongering elite has not been endangered in any way so far, physically. If the war is brought back to the territory of the aggressor (the boomerang principle), then the attitudes of Russian leadership could change. They were assuming they’d never be touched. So at some point their instinct of self-preservation could kick in.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @LatW


    They were assuming they’d never be touched. So at some point their instinct of self-preservation could kick in.
     
    It's not happening though, even after a coup attempt. What you say is very unlikely to reflect the real thought processes of the people who matter today in Russia, especially Putin. With his decision to invade Ukraine he traded the possibility of a placid retirement with plenty of friends in the West and a majority support of the Russians for the ambition to become some sort of Peter the Great. He's not a total idiot so must have known from the start that he was going to become a pariah unable to ever visit large parts of the world again and, no matter how confident he was in the Russian military machine, he was taking the huge gamble of risking a Western over-reaction or a domestic uprising if things didn't go as planned. Both possibilities are still very much real but he's not backing down at all. Fear and self-preservation are most definitely not the main drivers of his actions since 2022.

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW, @Dmitry

  682. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Russia might go for it.
     
    Indeed, Russia might enjoy having a place near the US's borders to station missiles and/or nuclear weapons in. Cuba was off-limits for this purpose since 1962. Good luck having the US tell Russia that Russia can't do this on its own sovereign territory! ;)

    As a side note, I feel bad for the Buryats specifically. They were possibly brainwashed by Putin into supporting this war, and them being poor could make them more inclined to loot Ukraine. Though their Asiatic character could also play a role in their barbarity. Chechens of course are probably just naturally brutal in a lot of cases. Had they been Christian, they could have been a lower-IQ, Eastern Orthodox version of the Scots lol.

    * Your comments about Vietnam, Ukrainians wanting to united with Russians, etc. etc. all demonstrate a pattern of ignorance
     
    You know, I wonder how exactly Ukrainians back in December 1991 would have voted in their December 1991 independence referendum had they been able to see the next 32 years of the future. I suspect that they would have been deeply shocked by Russia and deeply disappointed in Ukraine's political elites for wasting so many decades of potential opportunities. Would they have become determined immediately in December 1991 to become a second Poland and thus to vote for Chornovil instead of Kravchuk as their President?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_presidential_election

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Ukraine_presidential_elections_1991.png

    In real life, in 1991, Ukrainians wanted freedom but still voted like Sovoks outside of Galicia!

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    As a side note, I think that, had both the West and Ukraine saw the next 30 years of the future back in the 1990s, they might have reached a deal with Russia where Ukraine got to have its own nuclear weapons program in exchange for Ukraine permanently renouncing NATO membership while NATO was allowed to expand elsewhere. John Mearsheimer actually did advocate in favor of this back in the early 1990s and argued that Bill Clinton was making a mistake in pressuring Ukraine to disarm.

    Had Ukrainians been able to see the future, they almost certainly would have never elected Yanykovych in 2010. That’s another huge change. It’s just sad that Ukraine’s post-independence political class was, in general, so mediocre. Ukraine’s main hope has been its people, especially (but not only, especially since 2014) in the center and west.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mr. XYZ


    had both the West and Ukraine saw the next 30 years of the future back in the 1990s, they might have reached a deal with Russia where Ukraine got to have its own nuclear weapons program in exchange for Ukraine permanently renouncing NATO membership while NATO was allowed to expand elsewhere.
     
    Russia may not have agreed to this, especially if they knew back then that Ukraine would change their ideology. And maybe even with a friendly Ukraine that's controlled by Russia they would not have been ok with that (and probably even the long range missiles). All these states around Russia were not supposed to acquire any subjectivity or true independence. The only hope for a bold and self-respecting leadership at the time would have been to simply use Russia's weakness at the time and not give the weapons away. And not take any IMF loans if these were used as bargaining tool by the West (no matter how tough the situation was).

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  683. @Mr. XYZ
    @Mr. XYZ

    As a side note, I think that, had both the West and Ukraine saw the next 30 years of the future back in the 1990s, they might have reached a deal with Russia where Ukraine got to have its own nuclear weapons program in exchange for Ukraine permanently renouncing NATO membership while NATO was allowed to expand elsewhere. John Mearsheimer actually did advocate in favor of this back in the early 1990s and argued that Bill Clinton was making a mistake in pressuring Ukraine to disarm.

    Had Ukrainians been able to see the future, they almost certainly would have never elected Yanykovych in 2010. That's another huge change. It's just sad that Ukraine's post-independence political class was, in general, so mediocre. Ukraine's main hope has been its people, especially (but not only, especially since 2014) in the center and west.

    Replies: @LatW

    had both the West and Ukraine saw the next 30 years of the future back in the 1990s, they might have reached a deal with Russia where Ukraine got to have its own nuclear weapons program in exchange for Ukraine permanently renouncing NATO membership while NATO was allowed to expand elsewhere.

    Russia may not have agreed to this, especially if they knew back then that Ukraine would change their ideology. And maybe even with a friendly Ukraine that’s controlled by Russia they would not have been ok with that (and probably even the long range missiles). All these states around Russia were not supposed to acquire any subjectivity or true independence. The only hope for a bold and self-respecting leadership at the time would have been to simply use Russia’s weakness at the time and not give the weapons away. And not take any IMF loans if these were used as bargaining tool by the West (no matter how tough the situation was).

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW


    All these states around Russia were not supposed to acquire any subjectivity or true independence.
     
    Yes, Philippe Lemoine wrote on Twitter based on reading relevant books that Russia's leadership didn't actually expect the Soviet collapse to be permanent but instead expected the other former SSRs to eventually voluntarily reunite with Russia. That didn't happen, of course.

    The only hope for a bold and self-respecting leadership at the time would have been to simply use Russia’s weakness at the time and not give the weapons away. And not take any IMF loans if these were used as bargaining tool by the West (no matter how tough the situation was).
     
    Or, alternatively, to only give up their nukes in exchange for NATO membership. Both would have to happen simultaneously in order to avoid empty promises.
  684. @Coconuts
    @Dmitry


    You mean “least liberal” in terms of social liberalism, although liberal in terms of company law, taxation, technology etc.
     
    It must be one of the most liberal in terms of political liberalism; the individualism, contractualism, lower taxation, freedom of speech etc. Most European countries seem to lean more to the social- democratic end of liberalism.

    Or like the French:

    https://unherd.com/2023/09/in-france-money-is-dirtier-than-sex/

    I remember De Tocqueville's old theory in his 'Democracy in America' that the American version of democracy was somehow inspired/sustained by the Puritan spirit.


    In social life, the US is the most religious and puritan culture outside of Asia/Africa.
     
    It seems to be a mixture (which would fit with the individualism?), because it still is a major producer and innovator in fields like porn, all kinds of progressive social causes and identity politics (feminism, gay liberation, trans etc.) and counter cultural products like red-pill. At the same time as it retains a religious culture.

    For example, some parts of the “more liberal attitude” about sexual life of countries in comparison with the US, like France or Italy can be removed by the filter of MeToo, which is not negative in this example, but it is a sign of how America has become “owner of the means of production” in this century because they are leader of technology.
     
    It might have been the case for even longer, hearing about the Congress for Cultural Freedom and other affiliated organizations, the US seemed to have been sustaining the cultural activities of large parts of the non-Communist European left for years after WW2 with its financial resources.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    liberalism; the individualism, contractualism, lower taxation, freedom of speech etc. Most European countries seem to lean more to the social- democratic

    Yes they are probably the most liberal country in the world in terms of free speech and it’s a value which is deep and cannot be explained as a business value or as only a business value at least. . .

    I would also observe excluding free speech, most or many of the areas America is liberal are seeming like they are result of the prioritization of business.

    d innovator in fields like porn,

    This is another successful business though, so it has a capitalist halo in the society even a large part of Republicans would admire some things about it from the business view. Historicallym responsible for developing the online payment systems. As Calvin Coolidge said, “The business of America is business.”

    Although probably more accurate, less witty “The business of America is business, especially business relating to technology/engineering and its downstream results in environment/food/culture etc”.

    progressive social causes and identity politics (feminism, gay liberation, trans etc.

    This is not from America originally, local adaption or importation from countries like France. America’s “intellectual culture” is mainly a cargo-cult for the European writers in those kind of areas. It’s like a relation of Rome with Greece, ideas goes from Europe to America, although the new technology is more from America to Europe.

    may be impossible in practice, because too many other genes would be lost in such large numbers of people failing to reproduce. First there would be all the people who can’t conceive after 40 who would fail to reproduce, then a chunk of the next generation who might have the usual issues coming from older pregnancies,

    It’s a famous experiment in animals.

    For example, with fruit flies. If you allow them to reproduce at the beginning of their reproductive stage (I guess in human version, it would be like having children at 16) or only at the end of their reproductive stage (for humans, maybe over 40).

    In the line where they only allow the delayed reproduction, the animals developed longer life expectancy and delayed senescence, as the genes which allow the animals to be healthy at the end of reproductive life are selected.

    From the view of ethics, can you try eugenical experiments with humans? No, even some unethical country like North Korea doesn’t.

    But what’s happening spontaneously in industrialized countries with middle class population? There is increasing age of reproduction. Although some of the expensive technology like IVF would reduce the selective pressure that was in the animal model.

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @Dmitry


    I would also observe excluding free speech, most or many of the areas America is liberal are seeming like they are result of the prioritization of business.
     
    It does seem like liberalism has always been indebted to business and commerce, from its early beginnings. There was some analysis which would try to explain it as being originally the ideology of the Protestant commercial middle class, where business relationships are made the model for political ones.  

    There is another argument that to liberalise some area of life is to introduce market relations into it, especially when this happens within a liberal political/economic system.
     

    Although probably more accurate, less witty “The business of America is business, especially business relating to technology/engineering and its downstream results in environment/food/culture etc”.
     
    There are books like 'Why Liberalism Failed', where the discussion becomes about how the decline of Protestantism had contributed to producing this more purely commercial and technological version of liberalism. 

    This is not from America originally, local adaption or importation from countries like France. America’s “intellectual culture” is mainly a cargo-cult for the European writers in those kind of areas.
     
    But looking back, French republicanism and liberalism was stimulated by British ideas themselves, the same ideas were also part of the inspiration behind the US Republic.

    Given that it is not as surprising that the Americans have been able to take French ideas and innovate with them to make them more politically accessible and applicable within a business orientated world, so French academics now talk about 'le French theory', and 'les Studies' (black, queer, gender etc.) meaning the rewritten Anglo versions, and complain about 'les Studies' moving into French academia and culture.


    But what’s happening spontaneously in industrialized countries with middle class population? There is increasing age of reproduction. Although some of the expensive technology like IVF would reduce the selective pressure that was in the animal model.
     
    It seems IFV use is reasonably widespread beyond a certain age, at least from anecdotal experience.

    Afaik the children have older parents have higher rates of various diseases that make it harder for them to reproduce themselves, so if they had to wait till they were over 40 as well, I guess a steep inverted age pyramid would develop due to the strength of the selection pressures.

    Something similar may happen with the current middle classes, even with the smaller pressures of not waiting so long. Probably we have to observe what happens between them and the other classes and groups.

    Replies: @Beckow

  685. @LatW
    @Mr. XYZ


    had both the West and Ukraine saw the next 30 years of the future back in the 1990s, they might have reached a deal with Russia where Ukraine got to have its own nuclear weapons program in exchange for Ukraine permanently renouncing NATO membership while NATO was allowed to expand elsewhere.
     
    Russia may not have agreed to this, especially if they knew back then that Ukraine would change their ideology. And maybe even with a friendly Ukraine that's controlled by Russia they would not have been ok with that (and probably even the long range missiles). All these states around Russia were not supposed to acquire any subjectivity or true independence. The only hope for a bold and self-respecting leadership at the time would have been to simply use Russia's weakness at the time and not give the weapons away. And not take any IMF loans if these were used as bargaining tool by the West (no matter how tough the situation was).

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    All these states around Russia were not supposed to acquire any subjectivity or true independence.

    Yes, Philippe Lemoine wrote on Twitter based on reading relevant books that Russia’s leadership didn’t actually expect the Soviet collapse to be permanent but instead expected the other former SSRs to eventually voluntarily reunite with Russia. That didn’t happen, of course.

    The only hope for a bold and self-respecting leadership at the time would have been to simply use Russia’s weakness at the time and not give the weapons away. And not take any IMF loans if these were used as bargaining tool by the West (no matter how tough the situation was).

    Or, alternatively, to only give up their nukes in exchange for NATO membership. Both would have to happen simultaneously in order to avoid empty promises.

  686. @AP
    @Mikhail


    Russia hasn’t recognized Pridnestrovie’s independence. Russia didn’t attack Moldova proper.
     
    It de facto did, opening a consulate there, stationing troops there to keep the Moldovans out, and having its proxy in South Ossetia recognize it.

    After its precedent each additional step was an escalation. Kosovo followed the precedent but added diplomatic recognition. Crimea followed the precedent but added outright annexation (Albania didn't get to annex Kosovo - nor did any NATO member).

    Russia didn't attack Moldova proper because Moldova gave up Transnistria without getting itself bombed.

    This lead to a noticeable increase in destroying civilian Yugo infrastructure. Hiroshima and Nagasaki a prime example.
     
    Your little brain having some trouble here?

    Was Belgrade bombed to Middle Ages by NATO, little dummy?

    It was on on the verge of being bombed like that.
     
    "On the verge." It wasn't.

    Kharkiv was bombed by Russia, worse than Belgrade was bombed by NATO.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    You reveal the immature svido Kiev regime which is gradually turning away others, yuh small minded punk troll.

    South Ossetia recognizes Pridnestrovie independence but Russia doesn’t. Russia not attacking into Moldova proper reveals its non-expansionist preference. At the same time, Russia can’t be expected to see pro-Russian people in its near abroad get quashed. BTW, the Ukrainians in Pridnestrovie are generally like their non-svido brethren in Crimea. Former Pridnestrovie president Yevgeny Shevchuk is an ethnic Ukrainian and supporter of Pridnestrovie’s reunification with Russia.

    The examples of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki exhibit bombing civilian infrastructure at its extreme. Russia’s SMO is comparatively limited in scope. This latter and current situation includes Kiev regime forces using civilian infrastructure, Kiev regime weapons periodically going up and landing on such areas and the instances when the Kiev regime hits an ongoing missile leading to debris landing in an unintended area. Keep pretending that the Kiev regime hasn’t targeted civilians prior to 2/24/22. Poroshenko is on tape confirming otherwise. Later with the dubious claim that such occurrences are limited.

    NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia ended in 78 days. Serbs didn’t have a major power able to substantively back it at the time. Without Anglo-American neocon/neolib meddling, there’s good reason to believe that Russia’s SMO could’ve ended in March 2022.

  687. How incompetent is the White House occupant? I am glad you asked: (1)

    Biden Cancels Previously Issued ANWR Oil and Gas Leases in Alaska

    24 hours before Joe Biden announced he was cancelling all previously issued oil and gas leases in Alaska’s ANWR region, Saudi Arabia and Russia announced oil production limits would continue. Oil prices spiked near $100/bbl and then Joe Biden amplifies the problem by cancelling previously sold oil and gas leases.

    There’s no other way to look at the timing here, other than to accept this is Joe Biden intentionally driving up the cost of domestic energy in the U.S. and creating as much pain as possible.

     

    How will the DNC campaign duck the gasoline price hikes that their candidate just created?

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/09/07/biden-cancels-previously-issued-oanwr-oil-and-gas-leases-in-alaska/

  688. @QCIC
    @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere

    He wants to run for President. To quote (((Kinky Friedman))), "How Hard Could It Be?"

    This is the "MNYGA" gambit--Make New York Great Again!

    Maybe he will align with Trump. Remember this is 2023, it could actually happen.

    Replies: @A123

    BREAKING: Mayor Adams basically conceding New York City is done because of illegal immigration and warns New Yorkers illegals will flood ALL neighborhoods.

    This is the “MNYGA” gambit–Make New York Great Again!

    Maybe he will align with Trump. Remember this is 2023, it could actually happen.

    Being a “sanctuary city” was great for Leftoid feelings when the numbers were limited. Now that they have to foot the bill, the tune is rapidly changing.

    Chicago is also struggling with busing (1). Yep. Progressives are now complaining about busing.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/as-the-number-of-migrants-in-chicago-tops-13000-the-citys-struggle-to-provide-housing-continues/3218640/

  689. @Thulean Friend
    @Beckow


    The mutual Scandi dislikes exist
     
    It's actually amazing how much Beckow lies about the most trivial things. The guy knows nothing about Scandinavia and just word-vomits pure falsehoods.

    AP's comments about him being a pathological liar always struck me as hyperbole but I am beginning to see his point. Another funny aspect is how his lying is so dumb and low-stakes, e.g. AP calling him out on his lies pretending Poles were emigrating more to Slovakia than vice versa. He's not even smart about being a liar and gets mad when he gets caught (again and again).

    I hate to make generalised comments about entire nations, but if Beckow is representative of the average Slovak then we can rest assured that they will remain a poor shithole forever.

    Still, he has his utility. Mainly as an unwitting performance artist for our collective amusement.

    Replies: @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @Emil Nikola Richard, @sudden death, @Wokechoke, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere

    All those Ruzzians on the beaches of Antalya are having a real effect on trade flows.

    [MORE]

    Some are even starting to holiday in Bishkek.

  690. @Mikel
    @silviosilver

    You make some good points here but you're just choosing to focus on what my examples don't prove instead of what they do prove for the argument I was postulating.

    So let's go back to the original disagreement. AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange because that would be so horrible that fear and the instinct of self-preservation would prevent it. I think there are multiple reasons to discard your optimism as the most rational attitude:

    - If fear of horrible scenarios and the instinct of self-preservation always prevailed, there would be no wars at all. Right now, as we're having this debate, some Ukrainian special forces must have just embarked on some semi-suicidal mission or are about to do so. Likewise, the Russians took Severodonetsk and Bakhmut with their time-honored tactic of sending human waves to certain death. It varies across time and culture but it's just part of human nature. In times of war fear and self-preservation are overwhelmed by stronger instincts.

    - As I have argued elsewhere, escalation to nuclear conflict has its own dynamic and can perfectly happen even if no one wants it. For example, a big f*ckup that cannot be left unanswered followed by the uncertainty and the lack of time imposed by the "launch on warning" doctrine.

    - The words and actions of TPTB, the only ones that matter for all of this, show that they do consider that escalation perfectly possible. It doesn't look sensible to brush off such a strong evidence as mere posturing. We buy insurance policy against much less catastrophic events that also look very unlikely to happen. Even if, regardless of all of the above, we have a very strong faith in Biden and Putin's good judgment and mental stability, it's wiser to assume that at least one of them, if not both, will let us down badly.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @LatW, @AP

    This correct comment appeared on my twitter feed:

    “ For years, the specter of WW3 has featured prominently in Russian propaganda. Today, I am more certain than ever that this was designed to make the world so scared of a possible future war that we wouldn’t take action to stop the war that’s already happening.”

    “ The point of this propaganda was never to have a rational discussion about avoiding nuclear war/WW3 — the point was and is to create a world where Russia can act with impunity by threatening to destroy humanity if anyone gets in their way.”

    AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange

    Never, as long as Russia isn’t threatened with complete destruction. And in no circumstances would it be. Taking Crimea wouldn’t do it.

    Silvio’s points were more than adequate so I will add this:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    But as long as making threats works, Russia will logically make those threats.

    • Thanks: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @A123
    @AP


    any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?
     
    People who know that Ukraine has no nukes -and- there is no treaty provision protecting Kiev. They also believe the desired European endgame is dismantling Russia into multiple nations.

    To the decision makers, it is existential fight for the survival of Russia and its children.

    #1 -- The nature of the Russian decision makers is to protect their children.

    #2 -- What it would take is what THEY PERCEIVE as, a terminal threat towards Russian children.

    The Veggie-in-Chief cannot nuke Russians without a Declaration of War, which he does not have. There is not even an Authorization for Use of Military Force [AUMF] for Ukraine. Would the UK or France launch an offensive against Russia, thus voiding their article 5 protection?

    Knowing that no counterstrike is coming, there is substantial motivation to use nukes to save Russian children in Russian Crimea, Russian Donbas, and other Russian oblasts.

    PEACE 😇
    , @Mikel
    @AP


    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.
     
    This seems to have morphed into a continuation of our religious discussions. I would like to share your beliefs but unfortunately my reasoning abilities prevent me from doing it. I don't feel there is anything I could possibly say to make you change those beliefs either.

    In fact, I'm just a guy on the internet posting my random thoughts as they come to my mind but I'm very likely understating the risk for lack of better argumentative skills. If our leaders weren't all a bunch of reckless morons (look at the southern border or the crime epidemic spreading to all cities) we wouldn't have ended up having this idiotic war to begin with.

    Some more random thoughts:

    -- There are lots of people in the West, some with a history of being in positions of maximum responsibility (eg Petraeus, Breedlove) who have been advocating direct NATO intervention from the start. This is exactly what Putin warned would provoke an "unprecedented response". They don't care. They keep insisting that we should call the bluff. Not much to lose if it's not a bluff at all, I guess. Regardless of Trump's empty promises and half-cocked peace plans, there's quite a few hawks and neocons lining up to become part of his administration. Ultra-hawk O'Brien from Utah is reportedly being considered for VP or Secretary of State.

    -- Biden, Stoltenberg and all the rest promised that the use of a tactical nuke or some other WMD would trigger a NATO military response. But in Russia there is increasing talk by influential figures about Russia's need to use all its means, including nukes, in light of the ever increasing Western involvement in Ukraine. Strelkov argued that from a military point of view, it would become the only way for Russia to avoid defeat, absent general mobilization and war economy. Again, everyone on both sides painting themselves into a corner and again, no reason to assume that some of these hardliners may not eventually come to power in Moscow.

    -- I don't remember the exact wording but the destruction of a nuclear plant in Ukraine would also trigger a NATO response. Which creates a very evil incentive for the Ukrainians, btw. This seems to have subsided for the moment but I don't know what was more insane, Ukrainians shelling the Energodar nuclear plant or the Western media covering for them and claiming that it was the Russians shelling themselves. In any case, is NATO going to sit on its hands if a f^ckup occurs and a nuclear cloud starts spreading to Europe from Ukraine?

    I guess there must also have been voices calling for war in 1956 and 1968, especially among diaspora Hungarians and Czechs. And perhaps they were right. The USSR conventional forces were also a paper tiger then and Khrushchev or Brezhnev wouldn't have dared use their nukes if a NATO contingent pushed the Soviet troops back from Hungary or Czechia. No Western leader thought it was sensible to act based on those assumptions. We're in the exact same situation right now. What you're saying is that the whole Cold War architecture was a charade and there never was a possibility of MAD.

    Of course none of this means that I think that WW3 is imminent or that self-preservation wouldn't prevail under most scenarios. Much less am I trying to use WW3 as a scarecrow to whitewash Putin's crimes, as someone else is doing here. I'm just pointing out the trivial fact that, in spite of of all that, the danger is real and it's extremely reckless to act as if it didn't exist.

    Every single Cold War leader, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, found this position self-evident at the time. The only reason why we have abandoned the mentality that kept us safe for many decades is just hubris. Russia's nuclear arsenal is in fact much stronger compared to ours than the USSR's was during most of the Cold War and its weakness makes them more, not less, likely to use it.

    Replies: @AP

    , @Sean
    @AP


    For years, the specter of WW3 has featured prominently in Russian propaganda. Today, I am more certain than ever that this was designed to make the world so scared of a possible future war that we wouldn’t take action to stop the war that’s already happening.”

    “ The point of this propaganda was never to have a rational discussion about avoiding nuclear war/WW3 — the point was and is to create a world where Russia can act with impunity by threatening to destroy humanity if anyone gets in their way.”
     
    In my opinion Russia thought Ukraine would be influenceable by economic ad military pressure short of hostilites plus valuable economic emoluments such as cheap gas and buying Ukrainian bonds would do the rest. Russia never anticipated that Ukraine could fight a Russian invasion to a standstill and draw Russia into an all out war. Kiev has made the Kremlin look stupid, but the ordinary people of West Ukraine especially have paid a terrible price for it. Both sides have blundered into this.

    Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk
    . Not even the loss of Crimea
     
    Correct, but battlefield theatre thermonuclear annihilations of the Ukrainian army main formations in the east and south would be to Russia's advantage. If I was Putin I would be preparing such an option, not just for the contingency of Ukraine breaking through, but to end the current predicament of Russia in which America controls the war's course and intensity on a frog boiling strategy against Russia intended to keep it thinking tactical nuclear use is an unnecessary escalation and Russia should keep plugging away. There is ZERO evidence that the Russian are planning an operational level offensive with a material effect on the outcome of the conflict, so what are they planning; they are going to concede the initiative, stand on the defensive and wait for Ukrainian attack after attack at a time and place of their choosing while they plan with omniscient intel of Russian order of battle and from US surveillance on how to pin all units available to the Russian commander (not that there seems to be unified command furthering a master plan on the Russian side).

    Replies: @AP

    , @WS
    @AP


    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    (3) No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

     

    WRONG
    (3) Ukraine scenarios are irelevant, just mid-game to other interferences till final aim is achieved by adversary. Yes, lost of Crimea would not carry great real risk by itself but realisation of military decision makers on Russian side that war will never stop whatsoever they do, could.
    (1) Strike will come out from second, third... eshalon of leadership living mostly without mentioned perks and remembering the rampage of nineties. They will not allow the state to slide in the chaos again Not for patriotic reasons, but very personal reasons noticed above, wellbeing of their families. It will come as reverse Stanislav Petrov effect. Somebody is going to ignore false alarm and take it real.
    (2)So, I should not be so conclusive, check midnight clock.

    Replies: @AP

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    AP, what do you make of Anatoly Karlin's support of destroying Western (and other) satellites in space en masse as a way to help Russia win the Ukraine War back when he still thought that Russia had a chance to win this war? Wouldn't that have been an extremely radical action/move as well?

  691. Hotel Ukraine – You can never leave w/ Alastair Crooke, Alexander Mercouris and Glenn Diesen

  692. How do all the crypto-Indians here feel about the proposed name change?

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    Elizabeth Warren endorses it.

    Replies: @songbird

  693. [MORE]

    King William’s hand turns white from Indian PM’s iron grip.

    • LOL: songbird
  694. @LatW
    @Mikel


    If fear of horrible scenarios and the instinct of self-preservation always prevailed, there would be no wars at all.
     
    Sorry to interfere, but just to qualify this one: this one doesn't apply to Putin's regime. So far they have tried as much as they could to fight the war with others' hands - first the Donbas militias, then the military company (mercenaries), then the zeks, then those mobilized in the occupied Ukrainian territories, then those mobilized from poor and ethnic regions (they are even thinking of recruiting female zeks).

    Sure, they have lost regular troops and will keep losing more. However, the war so far has been waged outside of RusFed, and the affluent regions have not been affected as well as more serious assets have not been lost. That could change soon. For example, the Russians are now pulling air defense systems from the Arctic and even the Far East, to cover the European part of Russia. They are pulling up more air defenses to the location where Putin's residences are. The fact that they are doing this, indicates that they didn't really anticipate things to get this far.

    But the point is that the warmongering elite has not been endangered in any way so far, physically. If the war is brought back to the territory of the aggressor (the boomerang principle), then the attitudes of Russian leadership could change. They were assuming they'd never be touched. So at some point their instinct of self-preservation could kick in.

    Replies: @Mikel

    They were assuming they’d never be touched. So at some point their instinct of self-preservation could kick in.

    It’s not happening though, even after a coup attempt. What you say is very unlikely to reflect the real thought processes of the people who matter today in Russia, especially Putin. With his decision to invade Ukraine he traded the possibility of a placid retirement with plenty of friends in the West and a majority support of the Russians for the ambition to become some sort of Peter the Great. He’s not a total idiot so must have known from the start that he was going to become a pariah unable to ever visit large parts of the world again and, no matter how confident he was in the Russian military machine, he was taking the huge gamble of risking a Western over-reaction or a domestic uprising if things didn’t go as planned. Both possibilities are still very much real but he’s not backing down at all. Fear and self-preservation are most definitely not the main drivers of his actions since 2022.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mikel

    As a thought experiment consider this:

    Th background is NATO expansion, USA dropping out of nuclear arms control treaties, new USA missile bases in Eastern Europe and general Western meddling in Russia's border countries. If you were a leader in the Russian military do you think these Western actions would concern you? The first two are direct violations of promises or commitments, while the third breaks the precedent established by the Cuban missile crisis. If you were a bureaucrat in the Russian military industrial complex do you think you would notice these actions by foreign countries which were explicitly against Russia?

    If you are Putin and his inner circle, would you be likely to respond to pressure from these important and powerful Russian groups tasked with protecting the Rodina?

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @LatW
    @Mikel


    With his decision to invade Ukraine he traded the possibility of a placid retirement with plenty of friends in the West and a majority support of the Russians for the ambition to become some sort of Peter the Great. He’s not a total idiot so must have known from the start that he was going to become a pariah unable to ever visit large parts of the world again
     
    Well, not being able to visit large parts of the world again OR his over privileged daughters and Kabaeva's children, as well as tens of millions of Russians, dying in a nuclear blast are two different things. His system could live in Russia in isolation forever if they needed to.

    By the way, he once said that his dream for retirement is travel but this was a long time ago and, of course, his geopolitical ambitions trump that.

    He is very cowardly and fears death (yet has no issue murdering children, at the dawn of their life).

    And he is nothing like Peter, nowhere near (except that they are both bloody dictators) - Peter was a creator and a builder, Putin is a grey KGB mouse, managing oligarchs, and he is destroying everything Peter created. Eventually he could lose what even Yeltsin had (friends in the near abroad).

    Replies: @LatW

    , @Dmitry
    @Mikel


    known from the start that he was going to become a pariah
     
    No, they didn't. They didn't expect so much of a negative reaction from the West.* It was expected it would be like Azerbaijan in 2020 or Crimea in 2014, where the West would see it as fait accompli and only follow mild sanctions.** For example, the Russian central bank stored $300 billion in NATO countries until after the invasion.

    Part of the reason of the unexpected strong reaction in the West, which I explained at the time, is because Western intelligence publicized the invasion four months before.

    Around October or November 2022, everyone who watches mainstream media in the world and CNN knew Russia was going to invade Ukraine, this is months before even most of the Russian army knew they were going to invade Ukraine all the American television was posting the plan to invade Ukraine. Russia has prepared no casus belli and Moscow has to lie to even friendly allies like Macron before the invasion.

    Another issue is there has been years of anti-Western propaganda supported by Moscow, so Russia was becoming labeled as "anti-Western", while Azerbaijan was more intelligent and viewed as ambiguous.

    -

    *In 2015, they believed the military operation in Syria would improve relations with the West as a result of leverage, this was also how it was promoted in the television at the time. The prediction of how the West will respond is not very developed.

    **Sanctions after 2014 were very weak. The cause of the problem in the Russian economy was lower prices of oil.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ

  695. @QCIC
    @Sean

    This is the guy who said Ukraine would have to give up territory and then got spanked for it. LOL.

    Replies: @Sean

    Stoltenberg’s deputy is articulating the European point of view: they are likely keen to close the war down because there is nothing to be gained for Nato members. I imagine it was intended to stimulate interest by Russia about what might be put on the table and not to be taken as an initial negotiating position. The spanking took the form of comparing RusFed to Nazi Germany, but Russia is now exposed as more like pre ww2 France, militarily incompetent with overrated weapons and blundering alcoholic generals poorly handling unmotivated reservists the reality behind a big reputation as a war winning country. So rather than being outnumbered 4:1 against Nato on the ground, Russia effectively faces more like 12:1.

    The reason the proposal was made 3 weeks ago is Ukraine looks very unlikely to get a military solution and Russia is no longer any kind of threat, and so there is nothing to be gained in drawing out the Ukrainian conflict to weaken Russia because it already is very weak (relative to its size) yet Ukraine holding its own as the war continues for years would cause an lot of economic disruption to Western counties who are in Nato to freeload off of US taxpayers not spend vast amounts on artillery ammunition restocking ECT. Ukraine will have to listen to the Europeans in a year or so, unless their plan to keep the US paying for European defence while Western Europe enjoys ever more massive social spending works, as it increasingly has since WW2.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Sean

    I thought Jenssen's statement was a trial ballon, this may be similar to your position on his comments. He seems to be socializing the Ukrainian military failure as are many others. Jake Sullivan made a weak threat the other day against North Korea which sounded like Ukrainian failure as well. It was something about DPRK weapons given to Russia (LOL) are not to be used against Ukrainian winter heating infrastructure.

    Several commenters here like to point out the total incompetence of the Russian military and the general pitiful nature of the Russian economy. Somehow they never acknowledge the aspects of the Russian systems which seem to be working pretty well. These include nuclear submarines, the mostly coastal surface Navy, a substantial strategic airforce, space and satellite capabilities, dominant missile capabilities, perhaps the strongest commercial and military nuclear industries, advanced radar and electronic warfare capabilities, top fighter aircraft, etc.

    In your mind, how does this large mass of self-evident capability jive with the weak, incompetent, misguided, backward Russians perspective?

  696. @songbird
    How do all the crypto-Indians here feel about the proposed name change?

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    Elizabeth Warren endorses it.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    If a different term were employed, she would not have had to go through the trouble of writing "American Indian" on her bar registration card.

    I suspect a name change for India would be popular with real Amerinds, who, by now, seem to be taking a backseat.

    IMO, every country should have at least three poetic names.

  697. @Mikel
    @LatW


    They were assuming they’d never be touched. So at some point their instinct of self-preservation could kick in.
     
    It's not happening though, even after a coup attempt. What you say is very unlikely to reflect the real thought processes of the people who matter today in Russia, especially Putin. With his decision to invade Ukraine he traded the possibility of a placid retirement with plenty of friends in the West and a majority support of the Russians for the ambition to become some sort of Peter the Great. He's not a total idiot so must have known from the start that he was going to become a pariah unable to ever visit large parts of the world again and, no matter how confident he was in the Russian military machine, he was taking the huge gamble of risking a Western over-reaction or a domestic uprising if things didn't go as planned. Both possibilities are still very much real but he's not backing down at all. Fear and self-preservation are most definitely not the main drivers of his actions since 2022.

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW, @Dmitry

    As a thought experiment consider this:

    Th background is NATO expansion, USA dropping out of nuclear arms control treaties, new USA missile bases in Eastern Europe and general Western meddling in Russia’s border countries. If you were a leader in the Russian military do you think these Western actions would concern you? The first two are direct violations of promises or commitments, while the third breaks the precedent established by the Cuban missile crisis. If you were a bureaucrat in the Russian military industrial complex do you think you would notice these actions by foreign countries which were explicitly against Russia?

    If you are Putin and his inner circle, would you be likely to respond to pressure from these important and powerful Russian groups tasked with protecting the Rodina?

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @QCIC


    If you are Putin and his inner circle, would you be likely to respond to pressure from these important and powerful Russian groups tasked with protecting the Rodina?
     
    No, not at all. In Putin's position I would have actually sacked all those bastards (the Russian military seems to be also a den of crooks anyway) and focused on developing Russia economically to make it a real superpower. Russia doesn't need any more territories and "respect" would come by itself once the per capita GDP reached parity with the advanced economies and Russia developed good relations with everybody. But I would have also kept my powder dry and made sure that the ICBMs work flawlessly, to keep the Western crazies at bay.

    Any objections to my strategy?

    Replies: @Sean, @QCIC

  698. @AP
    @Mikel

    This correct comment appeared on my twitter feed:

    “ For years, the specter of WW3 has featured prominently in Russian propaganda. Today, I am more certain than ever that this was designed to make the world so scared of a possible future war that we wouldn’t take action to stop the war that’s already happening.”

    “ The point of this propaganda was never to have a rational discussion about avoiding nuclear war/WW3 — the point was and is to create a world where Russia can act with impunity by threatening to destroy humanity if anyone gets in their way.”


    AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange
     
    Never, as long as Russia isn’t threatened with complete destruction. And in no circumstances would it be. Taking Crimea wouldn’t do it.

    Silvio’s points were more than adequate so I will add this:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    But as long as making threats works, Russia will logically make those threats.

    Replies: @A123, @Mikel, @Sean, @WS, @Mr. XYZ

    any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    People who know that Ukraine has no nukes -and- there is no treaty provision protecting Kiev. They also believe the desired European endgame is dismantling Russia into multiple nations.

    To the decision makers, it is existential fight for the survival of Russia and its children.

    #1 — The nature of the Russian decision makers is to protect their children.

    #2 — What it would take is what THEY PERCEIVE as, a terminal threat towards Russian children.

    The Veggie-in-Chief cannot nuke Russians without a Declaration of War, which he does not have. There is not even an Authorization for Use of Military Force [AUMF] for Ukraine. Would the UK or France launch an offensive against Russia, thus voiding their article 5 protection?

    Knowing that no counterstrike is coming, there is substantial motivation to use nukes to save Russian children in Russian Crimea, Russian Donbas, and other Russian oblasts.

    PEACE 😇

  699. @Mikel
    @LatW


    They were assuming they’d never be touched. So at some point their instinct of self-preservation could kick in.
     
    It's not happening though, even after a coup attempt. What you say is very unlikely to reflect the real thought processes of the people who matter today in Russia, especially Putin. With his decision to invade Ukraine he traded the possibility of a placid retirement with plenty of friends in the West and a majority support of the Russians for the ambition to become some sort of Peter the Great. He's not a total idiot so must have known from the start that he was going to become a pariah unable to ever visit large parts of the world again and, no matter how confident he was in the Russian military machine, he was taking the huge gamble of risking a Western over-reaction or a domestic uprising if things didn't go as planned. Both possibilities are still very much real but he's not backing down at all. Fear and self-preservation are most definitely not the main drivers of his actions since 2022.

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW, @Dmitry

    With his decision to invade Ukraine he traded the possibility of a placid retirement with plenty of friends in the West and a majority support of the Russians for the ambition to become some sort of Peter the Great. He’s not a total idiot so must have known from the start that he was going to become a pariah unable to ever visit large parts of the world again

    Well, not being able to visit large parts of the world again OR his over privileged daughters and Kabaeva’s children, as well as tens of millions of Russians, dying in a nuclear blast are two different things. His system could live in Russia in isolation forever if they needed to.

    By the way, he once said that his dream for retirement is travel but this was a long time ago and, of course, his geopolitical ambitions trump that.

    He is very cowardly and fears death (yet has no issue murdering children, at the dawn of their life).

    And he is nothing like Peter, nowhere near (except that they are both bloody dictators) – Peter was a creator and a builder, Putin is a grey KGB mouse, managing oligarchs, and he is destroying everything Peter created. Eventually he could lose what even Yeltsin had (friends in the near abroad).

    • Replies: @LatW
    @LatW

    Granted, it might be that during the X hour, it may not even be Putin making the ultimate decisions, if the "SMO" fails, the security services could eventually remove him or could make the decisions for him.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @Mr. XYZ

  700. @LatW
    @Mikel


    With his decision to invade Ukraine he traded the possibility of a placid retirement with plenty of friends in the West and a majority support of the Russians for the ambition to become some sort of Peter the Great. He’s not a total idiot so must have known from the start that he was going to become a pariah unable to ever visit large parts of the world again
     
    Well, not being able to visit large parts of the world again OR his over privileged daughters and Kabaeva's children, as well as tens of millions of Russians, dying in a nuclear blast are two different things. His system could live in Russia in isolation forever if they needed to.

    By the way, he once said that his dream for retirement is travel but this was a long time ago and, of course, his geopolitical ambitions trump that.

    He is very cowardly and fears death (yet has no issue murdering children, at the dawn of their life).

    And he is nothing like Peter, nowhere near (except that they are both bloody dictators) - Peter was a creator and a builder, Putin is a grey KGB mouse, managing oligarchs, and he is destroying everything Peter created. Eventually he could lose what even Yeltsin had (friends in the near abroad).

    Replies: @LatW

    Granted, it might be that during the X hour, it may not even be Putin making the ultimate decisions, if the “SMO” fails, the security services could eventually remove him or could make the decisions for him.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @LatW

    The Russian military appeared to be keener than Putin about invading Ukraine. Characters like Strelkov were demanding action.


    If anything Putin put off the day that the Russian military would flood back into Crimea and Donbas.

    Replies: @LatW

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW

    Similar to what happened to Khrushchev back in 1964?

  701. @AP
    @Mikel

    This correct comment appeared on my twitter feed:

    “ For years, the specter of WW3 has featured prominently in Russian propaganda. Today, I am more certain than ever that this was designed to make the world so scared of a possible future war that we wouldn’t take action to stop the war that’s already happening.”

    “ The point of this propaganda was never to have a rational discussion about avoiding nuclear war/WW3 — the point was and is to create a world where Russia can act with impunity by threatening to destroy humanity if anyone gets in their way.”


    AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange
     
    Never, as long as Russia isn’t threatened with complete destruction. And in no circumstances would it be. Taking Crimea wouldn’t do it.

    Silvio’s points were more than adequate so I will add this:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    But as long as making threats works, Russia will logically make those threats.

    Replies: @A123, @Mikel, @Sean, @WS, @Mr. XYZ

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    This seems to have morphed into a continuation of our religious discussions. I would like to share your beliefs but unfortunately my reasoning abilities prevent me from doing it. I don’t feel there is anything I could possibly say to make you change those beliefs either.

    In fact, I’m just a guy on the internet posting my random thoughts as they come to my mind but I’m very likely understating the risk for lack of better argumentative skills. If our leaders weren’t all a bunch of reckless morons (look at the southern border or the crime epidemic spreading to all cities) we wouldn’t have ended up having this idiotic war to begin with.

    Some more random thoughts:

    — There are lots of people in the West, some with a history of being in positions of maximum responsibility (eg Petraeus, Breedlove) who have been advocating direct NATO intervention from the start. This is exactly what Putin warned would provoke an “unprecedented response”. They don’t care. They keep insisting that we should call the bluff. Not much to lose if it’s not a bluff at all, I guess. Regardless of Trump’s empty promises and half-cocked peace plans, there’s quite a few hawks and neocons lining up to become part of his administration. Ultra-hawk O’Brien from Utah is reportedly being considered for VP or Secretary of State.

    — Biden, Stoltenberg and all the rest promised that the use of a tactical nuke or some other WMD would trigger a NATO military response. But in Russia there is increasing talk by influential figures about Russia’s need to use all its means, including nukes, in light of the ever increasing Western involvement in Ukraine. Strelkov argued that from a military point of view, it would become the only way for Russia to avoid defeat, absent general mobilization and war economy. Again, everyone on both sides painting themselves into a corner and again, no reason to assume that some of these hardliners may not eventually come to power in Moscow.

    — I don’t remember the exact wording but the destruction of a nuclear plant in Ukraine would also trigger a NATO response. Which creates a very evil incentive for the Ukrainians, btw. This seems to have subsided for the moment but I don’t know what was more insane, Ukrainians shelling the Energodar nuclear plant or the Western media covering for them and claiming that it was the Russians shelling themselves. In any case, is NATO going to sit on its hands if a f^ckup occurs and a nuclear cloud starts spreading to Europe from Ukraine?

    I guess there must also have been voices calling for war in 1956 and 1968, especially among diaspora Hungarians and Czechs. And perhaps they were right. The USSR conventional forces were also a paper tiger then and Khrushchev or Brezhnev wouldn’t have dared use their nukes if a NATO contingent pushed the Soviet troops back from Hungary or Czechia. No Western leader thought it was sensible to act based on those assumptions. We’re in the exact same situation right now. What you’re saying is that the whole Cold War architecture was a charade and there never was a possibility of MAD.

    Of course none of this means that I think that WW3 is imminent or that self-preservation wouldn’t prevail under most scenarios. Much less am I trying to use WW3 as a scarecrow to whitewash Putin’s crimes, as someone else is doing here. I’m just pointing out the trivial fact that, in spite of of all that, the danger is real and it’s extremely reckless to act as if it didn’t exist.

    Every single Cold War leader, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, found this position self-evident at the time. The only reason why we have abandoned the mentality that kept us safe for many decades is just hubris. Russia’s nuclear arsenal is in fact much stronger compared to ours than the USSR’s was during most of the Cold War and its weakness makes them more, not less, likely to use it.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikel


    I would like to share your beliefs but unfortunately my reasoning abilities prevent me from doing it.
     
    Unfortunately it's not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.

    Biden, Stoltenberg and all the rest promised that the use of a tactical nuke or some other WMD would trigger a NATO military response. But in Russia there is increasing talk by influential figures about Russia’s need to use all its means, including nukes, in light of the ever increasing Western involvement in Ukraine.
     
    We are talking about the risk to the USA of a nuclear strike upon America if, say, Russia loses Crimea. The supposed risk to you, that leads you to want to abandon Ukraine to Russia.

    There is a very small but greater than zero risk of Russia using a tactical nuke or a few of them in Ukraine. But zero risk the use of nukes against the USA which would result in the deaths of most Russians and the end of their civilization.

    don’t remember the exact wording but the destruction of a nuclear plant in Ukraine would also trigger a NATO response.
     
    Yes. A conventional one.

    Ukrainians shelling the Energodar nuclear plant or the Western media covering for them and claiming that it was the Russians shelling themselves.
     
    The side that retreats is the most likely to blow it up, in a scorched Earth policy. Ukraine would not blow up a plant it plans to take over, and irradiate a region it is about to liberate.

    So if the plant blows up as Russia is retreating, the most likely culprit is Russia blowing it up, in order to kill in-coming troops and in order to render the lands Ukraine gets back useless.

    I guess there must also have been voices calling for war in 1956 and 1968, especially among diaspora Hungarians and Czechs. And perhaps they were right. The USSR conventional forces were also a paper tiger then and Khrushchev or Brezhnev wouldn’t have dared use their nukes if a NATO contingent pushed the Soviet troops back from Hungary or Czechia. No Western leader thought it was sensible to act based on those assumptions
     
    During the Cold War, Soviet troops outnumbered Western ones and had conventional dominance. This, not fear of New York getting nuked, kept the Western allies from liberating Eastern Europe.

    What you’re saying is that the whole Cold War architecture was a charade and there never was a possibility of MAD.
     
    MAD made sure that neither side attempted a nuclear strike on the other. Otherwise one side or the other would have been tempted to Hiroshima the other into submission. MAD made that impossible.

    This holds today. Neither side is going to nuke the other. But supplying planes and pilots to kill American troops in Vietnam or the US helping Ukraine retake Crimea is not one side nuking the other. And such activities would not result in nukes.

    You compare what I wrote to a religious belief. Which of those statements, according to you, was wrong:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC, @Mikel

  702. It’s been announced quietly today that the UK is flying aerial ‘patrols’ over the Black Sea to ‘protect’ Ukrainian grain shipments.

    This seems potentially a bigger story than they are making it out to be, though they are somewhat vague about what exactly constitutes RAF Black Sea ‘patrolling’, ie is it a few additional high altitude flights providing some real time reconnaissance to Ukrainian ship captains and naval elements, something they may have already been in effect doing with satellites, or is it something that is only a step or two away from close to the action WWII era Atlantic convoy ‘aerial escorts’?

    It will be interesting if we hear anything more about this.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/08/raf-russia-ukraine-black-sea-grain-exports/

    ‘As part of these surveillance operations, RAF aircraft are conducting flights over the [Black Sea] area to deter Russia from carrying out illegal strikes against civilian vessels transporting grain.’

    UK planes protecting Ukraine ships from Russian attack after grain deal collapse

    RAF is conducting patrols over the Black Sea to deter Putin from carrying out attacks on civilian vessels carrying grain exports

    RAF aircraft are protecting cargo vessels carrying grain from Ukraine, following Russian attacks, Downing Street has revealed.

    In recent weeks, British aircraft have been conducting patrols over the Black Sea to deter Russia from carrying out strikes on civilian vessels.

    The Ministry of Defence stepped up its activity in the area after Moscow began attacking grain infrastructure in July, when it scrapped a deal that allowed Ukraine to export grain from its Black Sea ports.

    Grain from the Black Sea region is considered vital for staving off hunger in lower-income countries. Russia said it had pulled out of the deal because Ukraine refused to reopen an ammonia pipeline that runs from central Russia to the Black Sea.

    Downing Street said: “We will use our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance to monitor Russian activity in the Black Sea … As part of these surveillance operations, RAF aircraft are conducting flights over the area to deter Russia from carrying out illegal strikes against civilian vessels transporting grain.”

    The disclosure came as the Government announced that the UK will host an international food security summit in November “to tackle the causes of food insecurity and malnutrition.”

    [MORE]

    cont.

    ‘The G20 will work together against Putin’
    The issue is expected to feature at the G20 summit in Delhi, which Rishi Sunak is attending this weekend.

    The Prime Minister said: “Once again, Vladimir Putin is failing to show his face at the G20. He is the architect of his own diplomatic exile, isolating himself in his presidential palace and blocking out criticism and reality.

    “The rest of the G20, meanwhile, are demonstrating that we will turn up and work together to pick up the pieces of Putin’s destruction.

    “That starts with dealing with the terrible global consequences of Putin’s stranglehold over the most fundamental resources, including his blockade of and attacks on Ukrainian grain.”

  703. @AP
    @Mikel

    This correct comment appeared on my twitter feed:

    “ For years, the specter of WW3 has featured prominently in Russian propaganda. Today, I am more certain than ever that this was designed to make the world so scared of a possible future war that we wouldn’t take action to stop the war that’s already happening.”

    “ The point of this propaganda was never to have a rational discussion about avoiding nuclear war/WW3 — the point was and is to create a world where Russia can act with impunity by threatening to destroy humanity if anyone gets in their way.”


    AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange
     
    Never, as long as Russia isn’t threatened with complete destruction. And in no circumstances would it be. Taking Crimea wouldn’t do it.

    Silvio’s points were more than adequate so I will add this:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    But as long as making threats works, Russia will logically make those threats.

    Replies: @A123, @Mikel, @Sean, @WS, @Mr. XYZ

    For years, the specter of WW3 has featured prominently in Russian propaganda. Today, I am more certain than ever that this was designed to make the world so scared of a possible future war that we wouldn’t take action to stop the war that’s already happening.”

    “ The point of this propaganda was never to have a rational discussion about avoiding nuclear war/WW3 — the point was and is to create a world where Russia can act with impunity by threatening to destroy humanity if anyone gets in their way.”

    In my opinion Russia thought Ukraine would be influenceable by economic ad military pressure short of hostilites plus valuable economic emoluments such as cheap gas and buying Ukrainian bonds would do the rest. Russia never anticipated that Ukraine could fight a Russian invasion to a standstill and draw Russia into an all out war. Kiev has made the Kremlin look stupid, but the ordinary people of West Ukraine especially have paid a terrible price for it. Both sides have blundered into this.

    Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea

    Correct, but battlefield theatre thermonuclear annihilations of the Ukrainian army main formations in the east and south would be to Russia’s advantage. If I was Putin I would be preparing such an option, not just for the contingency of Ukraine breaking through, but to end the current predicament of Russia in which America controls the war’s course and intensity on a frog boiling strategy against Russia intended to keep it thinking tactical nuclear use is an unnecessary escalation and Russia should keep plugging away. There is ZERO evidence that the Russian are planning an operational level offensive with a material effect on the outcome of the conflict, so what are they planning; they are going to concede the initiative, stand on the defensive and wait for Ukrainian attack after attack at a time and place of their choosing while they plan with omniscient intel of Russian order of battle and from US surveillance on how to pin all units available to the Russian commander (not that there seems to be unified command furthering a master plan on the Russian side).

    • Replies: @AP
    @Sean


    In my opinion Russia thought Ukraine would be influenceable by economic ad military pressure short of hostilites plus valuable economic emoluments such as cheap gas and buying Ukrainian bonds would do the rest. Russia never anticipated that Ukraine could fight a Russian invasion to a standstill and draw Russia into an all out war. Kiev has made the Kremlin look stupid, but the ordinary people of West Ukraine especially have paid a terrible price for it.
     
    Correct.

    Both sides have blundered into this.
     
    Not Ukraine. It did not make that choice. Unless you mean - it chose to be invaded because it chose not to join the Eurasian Customs Union and voluntarily submit to Russia.

    Correct, but battlefield theatre thermonuclear annihilations of the Ukrainian army main formations in the east and south would be to Russia’s advantage
     
    Not necessarily. Ukrainians have been careful to keep their forces spread out enough in order to avoid making this a good choice. The only exception is in the breakthrough areas but here the Russian forces are packed just as densely if not more so. So a tactical strike would wipe out plenty of Russian forces too. Would it clear minefields?

    So I suspect it would be militarily neutral (or close to it), and would carry a heavy diplomatic price. The West obviously wouldn't go nuclear over it, but Ukraine would probably finally get those heavier missiles it would want - the capability of taking out the Black Sea fleet.

    I'm not saying Russia would never use tactical nukes, but it would be very unlikely.

    But, as per the discussion with Mikel, zero chance of anything in Ukraine resulting in Russia nuking the USA and thereby getting itself completely wiped out too.

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. XYZ, @Sean

  704. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    Elizabeth Warren endorses it.

    Replies: @songbird

    If a different term were employed, she would not have had to go through the trouble of writing “American Indian” on her bar registration card.

    I suspect a name change for India would be popular with real Amerinds, who, by now, seem to be taking a backseat.

    IMO, every country should have at least three poetic names.

  705. @QCIC
    @Mikel

    As a thought experiment consider this:

    Th background is NATO expansion, USA dropping out of nuclear arms control treaties, new USA missile bases in Eastern Europe and general Western meddling in Russia's border countries. If you were a leader in the Russian military do you think these Western actions would concern you? The first two are direct violations of promises or commitments, while the third breaks the precedent established by the Cuban missile crisis. If you were a bureaucrat in the Russian military industrial complex do you think you would notice these actions by foreign countries which were explicitly against Russia?

    If you are Putin and his inner circle, would you be likely to respond to pressure from these important and powerful Russian groups tasked with protecting the Rodina?

    Replies: @Mikel

    If you are Putin and his inner circle, would you be likely to respond to pressure from these important and powerful Russian groups tasked with protecting the Rodina?

    No, not at all. In Putin’s position I would have actually sacked all those bastards (the Russian military seems to be also a den of crooks anyway) and focused on developing Russia economically to make it a real superpower. Russia doesn’t need any more territories and “respect” would come by itself once the per capita GDP reached parity with the advanced economies and Russia developed good relations with everybody. But I would have also kept my powder dry and made sure that the ICBMs work flawlessly, to keep the Western crazies at bay.

    Any objections to my strategy?

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Mikel


    I would have actually sacked all those bastards (the Russian military seems to be also a den of crooks anyway) and focused on developing Russia economically to make it a real superpower. Russia doesn’t need any more territories and “respect” would come by itself once the per capita GDP reached parity with the advanced economies and Russia developed good relations with everybody
     
    Russia has been backward for half a millennium and their ICBM force becomeing completely nullified by Western technology and Nato forward bases just over the border with Russia is only a matter of time as Putin admitted some years ago .

    But I would have also kept my powder dry and made sure that the ICBMs work flawlessly, to keep the Western crazies at bay.
     
    Russia could crawl or fight, they have decided to go out shooting. Ukraine foolishly ignored the advice of Professor Mearsheimer and renounced nuclear weapons, so they sent the thermonuclear cruise missiles of the type designated Kh-55 back to Russia and in 2022 the Ukrainians realised that those very same missiles identified by the serial number had been fired into Ukraine by the Russians

    https://unherd.com/2023/06/why-putin-will-use-nuclear-weapons/

    Last autumn, officials in Kyiv reported that Russia was firing “Kh-55 nuclear cruise missiles” with dummy warheads. Observers suggested these missiles — which are designed to carry only a nuclear weapon — were launched to erode Ukrainian air defences by “decoying” them into destroying the Kh-55s rather than missiles with conventional explosives. This claim makes little sense: missiles, even unarmed, would be too valuable for Russia to use as decoys. What does make sense, however, is launching Cold War-era missiles with dummy warheads to test their reliability for use in a real nuclear strike.
     
    Theatre thermonuclear weapon systems are are what Russia needs to use in Ukraine.

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @QCIC
    @Mikel

    You created a different scenario and that's OK.

    Russia's response to US and NATO actions in Ukraine IS keeping the Western crazies at bay. Thank you for making it clear. Ukraine is not about territory. It is about having a buffer, sovereignty, conventional military power, among other factors.

    Putin is the leader of a large organization. I don't believe he has arbitrary power to do whatever he wants. His power flows from being a popular and respected leader within Russia.

  706. @AP
    @Mikel

    This correct comment appeared on my twitter feed:

    “ For years, the specter of WW3 has featured prominently in Russian propaganda. Today, I am more certain than ever that this was designed to make the world so scared of a possible future war that we wouldn’t take action to stop the war that’s already happening.”

    “ The point of this propaganda was never to have a rational discussion about avoiding nuclear war/WW3 — the point was and is to create a world where Russia can act with impunity by threatening to destroy humanity if anyone gets in their way.”


    AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange
     
    Never, as long as Russia isn’t threatened with complete destruction. And in no circumstances would it be. Taking Crimea wouldn’t do it.

    Silvio’s points were more than adequate so I will add this:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    But as long as making threats works, Russia will logically make those threats.

    Replies: @A123, @Mikel, @Sean, @WS, @Mr. XYZ

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    (3) No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    WRONG
    (3) Ukraine scenarios are irelevant, just mid-game to other interferences till final aim is achieved by adversary. Yes, lost of Crimea would not carry great real risk by itself but realisation of military decision makers on Russian side that war will never stop whatsoever they do, could.
    (1) Strike will come out from second, third… eshalon of leadership living mostly without mentioned perks and remembering the rampage of nineties. They will not allow the state to slide in the chaos again Not for patriotic reasons, but very personal reasons noticed above, wellbeing of their families. It will come as reverse Stanislav Petrov effect. Somebody is going to ignore false alarm and take it real.
    (2)So, I should not be so conclusive, check midnight clock.

    • Replies: @AP
    @WS


    hey will not allow the state to slide in the chaos again Not for patriotic reasons, but very personal reasons noticed above, wellbeing of their families.
     
    Their families would be incinerated if they nuked the USA.

    Replies: @WS

  707. @Mikel
    @QCIC


    If you are Putin and his inner circle, would you be likely to respond to pressure from these important and powerful Russian groups tasked with protecting the Rodina?
     
    No, not at all. In Putin's position I would have actually sacked all those bastards (the Russian military seems to be also a den of crooks anyway) and focused on developing Russia economically to make it a real superpower. Russia doesn't need any more territories and "respect" would come by itself once the per capita GDP reached parity with the advanced economies and Russia developed good relations with everybody. But I would have also kept my powder dry and made sure that the ICBMs work flawlessly, to keep the Western crazies at bay.

    Any objections to my strategy?

    Replies: @Sean, @QCIC

    I would have actually sacked all those bastards (the Russian military seems to be also a den of crooks anyway) and focused on developing Russia economically to make it a real superpower. Russia doesn’t need any more territories and “respect” would come by itself once the per capita GDP reached parity with the advanced economies and Russia developed good relations with everybody

    Russia has been backward for half a millennium and their ICBM force becomeing completely nullified by Western technology and Nato forward bases just over the border with Russia is only a matter of time as Putin admitted some years ago .

    But I would have also kept my powder dry and made sure that the ICBMs work flawlessly, to keep the Western crazies at bay.

    Russia could crawl or fight, they have decided to go out shooting. Ukraine foolishly ignored the advice of Professor Mearsheimer and renounced nuclear weapons, so they sent the thermonuclear cruise missiles of the type designated Kh-55 back to Russia and in 2022 the Ukrainians realised that those very same missiles identified by the serial number had been fired into Ukraine by the Russians

    https://unherd.com/2023/06/why-putin-will-use-nuclear-weapons/

    Last autumn, officials in Kyiv reported that Russia was firing “Kh-55 nuclear cruise missiles” with dummy warheads. Observers suggested these missiles — which are designed to carry only a nuclear weapon — were launched to erode Ukrainian air defences by “decoying” them into destroying the Kh-55s rather than missiles with conventional explosives. This claim makes little sense: missiles, even unarmed, would be too valuable for Russia to use as decoys. What does make sense, however, is launching Cold War-era missiles with dummy warheads to test their reliability for use in a real nuclear strike.

    Theatre thermonuclear weapon systems are are what Russia needs to use in Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @Sean


    their ICBM force becomeing completely nullified by Western technology and Nato forward bases just over the border with Russia is only a matter of time as Putin admitted some years ago .
     
    Considering the huge strategic depth Russia has in the East, I doubt that is accurate. But I'm not an expert on these matters. If that was Putin's real concern, he made a rather poor job at explaining it for all of us in the West to understand it. He should have insisted on that issue time and again, and not engage in distractions about Ukraine's alleged fake history or the need to stop genocides in Donbas. That is not to say that our intransigence with having Ukraine join NATO was not idiotic though.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  708. @LatW
    @LatW

    Granted, it might be that during the X hour, it may not even be Putin making the ultimate decisions, if the "SMO" fails, the security services could eventually remove him or could make the decisions for him.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @Mr. XYZ

    The Russian military appeared to be keener than Putin about invading Ukraine. Characters like Strelkov were demanding action.

    If anything Putin put off the day that the Russian military would flood back into Crimea and Donbas.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Wokechoke


    The Russian military appeared to be keener than Putin about invading Ukraine. Characters like Strelkov were demanding action.
     
    Wrong, many in the General Staff were reluctant. Strelkov is in the FSB, not the military.

    The ones in RusFed demanding action are the Z-scum (10% of the population). And a few in the top leadership. But not the military, the military are only eager now out of sense of duty (see remarks by General Popov who was in fact taken out of the picture).

    If anything Putin put off the day that the Russian military would flood back into Crimea and Donbas.
     
    Well, it might be true that Russia wanted Crimea back since the 1990s.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  709. @Wokechoke
    @LatW

    The Russian military appeared to be keener than Putin about invading Ukraine. Characters like Strelkov were demanding action.


    If anything Putin put off the day that the Russian military would flood back into Crimea and Donbas.

    Replies: @LatW

    The Russian military appeared to be keener than Putin about invading Ukraine. Characters like Strelkov were demanding action.

    Wrong, many in the General Staff were reluctant. Strelkov is in the FSB, not the military.

    The ones in RusFed demanding action are the Z-scum (10% of the population). And a few in the top leadership. But not the military, the military are only eager now out of sense of duty (see remarks by General Popov who was in fact taken out of the picture).

    If anything Putin put off the day that the Russian military would flood back into Crimea and Donbas.

    Well, it might be true that Russia wanted Crimea back since the 1990s.

    • Agree: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW


    Well, it might be true that Russia wanted Crimea back since the 1990s.

     

    The pre-2014 Russian logic would be that Crimea would be reintegrated into Russia along with the rest of Ukraine as a part of a Eurasian super-state (which would essentially be a restored Greater Russia). It's only when the goal of pulling all of Ukraine back into the Russian orbit failed that Russia annexed Crimea separately.

    I deeply regret my 2014 support for Crimea's annexation and would have never supported it had I realized that it would help pave the way for the current Russo-Ukrainian War. I thought that Putin was akin to 1938 Hitler (but without the rabid anti-Semitism), not akin to 1939+ Hitler (but without the physical genocide). I was wrong. :(

    Replies: @silviosilver

  710. @AP
    @Mikel

    This correct comment appeared on my twitter feed:

    “ For years, the specter of WW3 has featured prominently in Russian propaganda. Today, I am more certain than ever that this was designed to make the world so scared of a possible future war that we wouldn’t take action to stop the war that’s already happening.”

    “ The point of this propaganda was never to have a rational discussion about avoiding nuclear war/WW3 — the point was and is to create a world where Russia can act with impunity by threatening to destroy humanity if anyone gets in their way.”


    AP and you are stating that the war in Ukraine will never escalate to a nuclear exchange
     
    Never, as long as Russia isn’t threatened with complete destruction. And in no circumstances would it be. Taking Crimea wouldn’t do it.

    Silvio’s points were more than adequate so I will add this:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    But as long as making threats works, Russia will logically make those threats.

    Replies: @A123, @Mikel, @Sean, @WS, @Mr. XYZ

    AP, what do you make of Anatoly Karlin’s support of destroying Western (and other) satellites in space en masse as a way to help Russia win the Ukraine War back when he still thought that Russia had a chance to win this war? Wouldn’t that have been an extremely radical action/move as well?

  711. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    but his friend from the same city despite having two kids and a nice job in the West returned to fight (over the objections of his non-Ukrainian wife and of my friend); he was killed in Bakhmut.
     
    Extremely sad. :( Ukraine should be honoring guys like him much more and guys like Bandera much less. Maybe they will do that in the future now that they've got a lot of much better heroes than Bandera.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Before the war, I said that Ukraine needed better heroes, and this war has thankfully but very tragically indeed provided such better heroes for Ukraine. It would thus be ironic if Russia will unintentionally help Ukrainian nationalists transcend their love of Stephan Bandera.

  712. @LatW
    @Wokechoke


    The Russian military appeared to be keener than Putin about invading Ukraine. Characters like Strelkov were demanding action.
     
    Wrong, many in the General Staff were reluctant. Strelkov is in the FSB, not the military.

    The ones in RusFed demanding action are the Z-scum (10% of the population). And a few in the top leadership. But not the military, the military are only eager now out of sense of duty (see remarks by General Popov who was in fact taken out of the picture).

    If anything Putin put off the day that the Russian military would flood back into Crimea and Donbas.
     
    Well, it might be true that Russia wanted Crimea back since the 1990s.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Well, it might be true that Russia wanted Crimea back since the 1990s.

    The pre-2014 Russian logic would be that Crimea would be reintegrated into Russia along with the rest of Ukraine as a part of a Eurasian super-state (which would essentially be a restored Greater Russia). It’s only when the goal of pulling all of Ukraine back into the Russian orbit failed that Russia annexed Crimea separately.

    I deeply regret my 2014 support for Crimea’s annexation and would have never supported it had I realized that it would help pave the way for the current Russo-Ukrainian War. I thought that Putin was akin to 1938 Hitler (but without the rabid anti-Semitism), not akin to 1939+ Hitler (but without the physical genocide). I was wrong. 🙁

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ


    I thought that Putin was akin to 1938 Hitler (but without the rabid anti-Semitism), not akin to 1939+ Hitler (but without the physical genocide). I was wrong.
     
    The problem with that is the 1938 Hitler and the 1939 Hitler were the same man, pursuing the same goals; differing only in the means they employed.

    That's the conclusion I draw even being as charitable as I could to the "Germany was maneuvered into war" thesis. (I'm having a hard time figuring out what game Ron Unz is playing with his revisionist ww2 and holocaust takes, but I'm sure it's a game of some sort, definitely not to be taken at face value.)

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  713. @Mikel
    @AP


    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.
     
    This seems to have morphed into a continuation of our religious discussions. I would like to share your beliefs but unfortunately my reasoning abilities prevent me from doing it. I don't feel there is anything I could possibly say to make you change those beliefs either.

    In fact, I'm just a guy on the internet posting my random thoughts as they come to my mind but I'm very likely understating the risk for lack of better argumentative skills. If our leaders weren't all a bunch of reckless morons (look at the southern border or the crime epidemic spreading to all cities) we wouldn't have ended up having this idiotic war to begin with.

    Some more random thoughts:

    -- There are lots of people in the West, some with a history of being in positions of maximum responsibility (eg Petraeus, Breedlove) who have been advocating direct NATO intervention from the start. This is exactly what Putin warned would provoke an "unprecedented response". They don't care. They keep insisting that we should call the bluff. Not much to lose if it's not a bluff at all, I guess. Regardless of Trump's empty promises and half-cocked peace plans, there's quite a few hawks and neocons lining up to become part of his administration. Ultra-hawk O'Brien from Utah is reportedly being considered for VP or Secretary of State.

    -- Biden, Stoltenberg and all the rest promised that the use of a tactical nuke or some other WMD would trigger a NATO military response. But in Russia there is increasing talk by influential figures about Russia's need to use all its means, including nukes, in light of the ever increasing Western involvement in Ukraine. Strelkov argued that from a military point of view, it would become the only way for Russia to avoid defeat, absent general mobilization and war economy. Again, everyone on both sides painting themselves into a corner and again, no reason to assume that some of these hardliners may not eventually come to power in Moscow.

    -- I don't remember the exact wording but the destruction of a nuclear plant in Ukraine would also trigger a NATO response. Which creates a very evil incentive for the Ukrainians, btw. This seems to have subsided for the moment but I don't know what was more insane, Ukrainians shelling the Energodar nuclear plant or the Western media covering for them and claiming that it was the Russians shelling themselves. In any case, is NATO going to sit on its hands if a f^ckup occurs and a nuclear cloud starts spreading to Europe from Ukraine?

    I guess there must also have been voices calling for war in 1956 and 1968, especially among diaspora Hungarians and Czechs. And perhaps they were right. The USSR conventional forces were also a paper tiger then and Khrushchev or Brezhnev wouldn't have dared use their nukes if a NATO contingent pushed the Soviet troops back from Hungary or Czechia. No Western leader thought it was sensible to act based on those assumptions. We're in the exact same situation right now. What you're saying is that the whole Cold War architecture was a charade and there never was a possibility of MAD.

    Of course none of this means that I think that WW3 is imminent or that self-preservation wouldn't prevail under most scenarios. Much less am I trying to use WW3 as a scarecrow to whitewash Putin's crimes, as someone else is doing here. I'm just pointing out the trivial fact that, in spite of of all that, the danger is real and it's extremely reckless to act as if it didn't exist.

    Every single Cold War leader, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, found this position self-evident at the time. The only reason why we have abandoned the mentality that kept us safe for many decades is just hubris. Russia's nuclear arsenal is in fact much stronger compared to ours than the USSR's was during most of the Cold War and its weakness makes them more, not less, likely to use it.

    Replies: @AP

    I would like to share your beliefs but unfortunately my reasoning abilities prevent me from doing it.

    Unfortunately it’s not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.

    Biden, Stoltenberg and all the rest promised that the use of a tactical nuke or some other WMD would trigger a NATO military response. But in Russia there is increasing talk by influential figures about Russia’s need to use all its means, including nukes, in light of the ever increasing Western involvement in Ukraine.

    We are talking about the risk to the USA of a nuclear strike upon America if, say, Russia loses Crimea. The supposed risk to you, that leads you to want to abandon Ukraine to Russia.

    There is a very small but greater than zero risk of Russia using a tactical nuke or a few of them in Ukraine. But zero risk the use of nukes against the USA which would result in the deaths of most Russians and the end of their civilization.

    don’t remember the exact wording but the destruction of a nuclear plant in Ukraine would also trigger a NATO response.

    Yes. A conventional one.

    Ukrainians shelling the Energodar nuclear plant or the Western media covering for them and claiming that it was the Russians shelling themselves.

    The side that retreats is the most likely to blow it up, in a scorched Earth policy. Ukraine would not blow up a plant it plans to take over, and irradiate a region it is about to liberate.

    So if the plant blows up as Russia is retreating, the most likely culprit is Russia blowing it up, in order to kill in-coming troops and in order to render the lands Ukraine gets back useless.

    I guess there must also have been voices calling for war in 1956 and 1968, especially among diaspora Hungarians and Czechs. And perhaps they were right. The USSR conventional forces were also a paper tiger then and Khrushchev or Brezhnev wouldn’t have dared use their nukes if a NATO contingent pushed the Soviet troops back from Hungary or Czechia. No Western leader thought it was sensible to act based on those assumptions

    During the Cold War, Soviet troops outnumbered Western ones and had conventional dominance. This, not fear of New York getting nuked, kept the Western allies from liberating Eastern Europe.

    What you’re saying is that the whole Cold War architecture was a charade and there never was a possibility of MAD.

    MAD made sure that neither side attempted a nuclear strike on the other. Otherwise one side or the other would have been tempted to Hiroshima the other into submission. MAD made that impossible.

    This holds today. Neither side is going to nuke the other. But supplying planes and pilots to kill American troops in Vietnam or the US helping Ukraine retake Crimea is not one side nuking the other. And such activities would not result in nukes.

    You compare what I wrote to a religious belief. Which of those statements, according to you, was wrong:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    AP, I have a somewhat off-topic question for you? What are your thoughts on this article?

    https://www.philippelemoine.com/p/the-case-against-liberal-imperialism

    As in, that Western foreign policy should not be based on a contrast between democracy and autocracy and that Western leaders and diplomats should humor the delusions of foreign leaders/politicians, such as that of any Russian leader/politician/diplomat who is so deep in his delusions that he actually believes that NATO is an existential threat to Russia and/or that color revolutions in Russia's "Near Abroad" are an existential threat to the current Russian regime?

    This article argues that fostering such paranoia, even unintentionally, among foreign leaders/politicians creates a security dilemma for them, with bad consequences:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/26/misperception-security-dilemma-ir-theory-russia-ukraine/

    Of course, one could probably just as easily apply security dilemma logic to explain why the Nazis believed that they were justified in conducting the Holocaust and why the Ottomans believing that they were justified in conducting the Armenian Genocide.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @QCIC
    @AP

    The main concerns about nuclear weapons use are escalation, miscalculation and use-them-or-lose-them scenarios. The risk of some escalation goes up enormously because the West has created a war situation in Ukraine. Western propaganda is churning out Russian hate at a record pace. What do you think the crews of US submarines are thinking about Russia? How much has the margin for error and simple misunderstanding been reduced? All sides will have surely escalated to a much higher level of readiness and paranoia than they had prior to the current conflict. "Increased Readiness" for nuclear submarines is very close to outright nuclear war. You will say this was all created by the boogeyman, but Putin the boogeyman gave many warnings that Western actions against Russia would be treated as an act of War.

    The Russian response to Ukraine seems like an intervention to prevent a domino effect of the West encroaching and and arming hostile border states directly on the Russian border. Your camp apparently thinks this is a good idea, so just accept it and stop lying about it and making whiny excuses. It is no secret that the West wanted bases in Sevastopol. It is no secret that the West would put heavy weapons and missiles in Ukraine pointed at Russia. You hope Ukraine and the West are strong enough to pull this off but then you try to justify it with a shallow self-serving explanation.

    Even if escalation is the main concern, there are always some who believe a limited nuclear war is survivable and practical. The key to this outlook may be a first strike combined with outstanding anti-submarine warfare, some missile defenses and probably a few high altitude EMPs. The Ukrainian bloodfest has probably brought a few modern "General Ripper" types out of the closet who are scheming even now to make this happen.

    Replies: @AP

    , @Mikel
    @AP


    Unfortunately it’s not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.
     
    If that's the case, then I share my character flaws with several generations of Western leaders. They also thought that the risk of nuclear war was real and tried to avoid it by letting the USSR do what they wouldn't have tolerated from any other country.

    But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.
     
    I would be repeating myself and I have already spent enough bandwidth in this thread. Re-read my answers to Silvio and yourself.


    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they?
     
    Yes. The US does the same all the time and it works even better. Having the tremendous destruction capability of nukes, WMDs and high-tech weapons gives you a great advantage. How could it not? In fact, Russia's complaint is that they're no longer taken as seriously as the USSR was and they are not wrong.

    The supposed risk to you, that leads you to want to abandon Ukraine to Russia.
     
    Not exactly. The risk of escalation to a nuclear exchange, that not only me but all Western decision makers consider real, makes involvement in that foreign war even less rational. But what I want is a return of the US to its old non-interventionist policy. A policy that would have actually prevented this war.

    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic. The US can perfectly keep crucial supply routes open and a more or less stable immediate neighborhood without spending trillions on conflicts that are older than the US itself (like the current one in Ukraine).

    And you know perfectly well why I oppose US interventionism. We discussed it very recently, when you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami. Or their enemies, whoever has the upper hand at the moment. Your theory implies that I don't even need to know who I am supporting in order to be a supporter of that group.

    Btw, things are changing very rapidly in the US. I remember explaining to Dmitry (or Sudden Death, not sure) not long ago that the Tucker Carlson anti-war phenomenon was a rather fringe movement with a limited audience of just a segment of Fox News viewers. That is definitely not the case anymore. Only yesterday I was listening to a local Utah radio program in my car and all of a sudden they start interviewing none other than Douglas McGregor! The interview was as lame and pathetic as you might expect but, all things considered, this is positive development. An increasing amount of Americans are being exposed to a narrative different from the standard neocon one and the anti-foreign wars sentiment is decidedly on the rise. It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

  714. @Sean
    @AP


    For years, the specter of WW3 has featured prominently in Russian propaganda. Today, I am more certain than ever that this was designed to make the world so scared of a possible future war that we wouldn’t take action to stop the war that’s already happening.”

    “ The point of this propaganda was never to have a rational discussion about avoiding nuclear war/WW3 — the point was and is to create a world where Russia can act with impunity by threatening to destroy humanity if anyone gets in their way.”
     
    In my opinion Russia thought Ukraine would be influenceable by economic ad military pressure short of hostilites plus valuable economic emoluments such as cheap gas and buying Ukrainian bonds would do the rest. Russia never anticipated that Ukraine could fight a Russian invasion to a standstill and draw Russia into an all out war. Kiev has made the Kremlin look stupid, but the ordinary people of West Ukraine especially have paid a terrible price for it. Both sides have blundered into this.

    Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk
    . Not even the loss of Crimea
     
    Correct, but battlefield theatre thermonuclear annihilations of the Ukrainian army main formations in the east and south would be to Russia's advantage. If I was Putin I would be preparing such an option, not just for the contingency of Ukraine breaking through, but to end the current predicament of Russia in which America controls the war's course and intensity on a frog boiling strategy against Russia intended to keep it thinking tactical nuclear use is an unnecessary escalation and Russia should keep plugging away. There is ZERO evidence that the Russian are planning an operational level offensive with a material effect on the outcome of the conflict, so what are they planning; they are going to concede the initiative, stand on the defensive and wait for Ukrainian attack after attack at a time and place of their choosing while they plan with omniscient intel of Russian order of battle and from US surveillance on how to pin all units available to the Russian commander (not that there seems to be unified command furthering a master plan on the Russian side).

    Replies: @AP

    In my opinion Russia thought Ukraine would be influenceable by economic ad military pressure short of hostilites plus valuable economic emoluments such as cheap gas and buying Ukrainian bonds would do the rest. Russia never anticipated that Ukraine could fight a Russian invasion to a standstill and draw Russia into an all out war. Kiev has made the Kremlin look stupid, but the ordinary people of West Ukraine especially have paid a terrible price for it.

    Correct.

    Both sides have blundered into this.

    Not Ukraine. It did not make that choice. Unless you mean – it chose to be invaded because it chose not to join the Eurasian Customs Union and voluntarily submit to Russia.

    Correct, but battlefield theatre thermonuclear annihilations of the Ukrainian army main formations in the east and south would be to Russia’s advantage

    Not necessarily. Ukrainians have been careful to keep their forces spread out enough in order to avoid making this a good choice. The only exception is in the breakthrough areas but here the Russian forces are packed just as densely if not more so. So a tactical strike would wipe out plenty of Russian forces too. Would it clear minefields?

    So I suspect it would be militarily neutral (or close to it), and would carry a heavy diplomatic price. The West obviously wouldn’t go nuclear over it, but Ukraine would probably finally get those heavier missiles it would want – the capability of taking out the Black Sea fleet.

    I’m not saying Russia would never use tactical nukes, but it would be very unlikely.

    But, as per the discussion with Mikel, zero chance of anything in Ukraine resulting in Russia nuking the USA and thereby getting itself completely wiped out too.

    • Replies: @A123
    @AP

    The scenario you keep ignoring is a strategic package of 20-30 large warheads within Ukraine. Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, and all rail connectivity wiped out.

    It would be unconstitutional for the Veggie-in-Chief to launch U.S. nukes without a Declaration of War, which he does not have. Yes. The corrupt White House occupant routinely breaks the law. However, it is hard to believe that the military would comply with obviously illegal, treasonous orders.

    Kremlin leadership believes they are in and existential fight for the survival of Russia. They also are 99%+ certain that the Veggie-in-Chief cannot respond.

    So, the rational thought process is:

    1. They cannot surrender Crimea without ending Russia
    2. They can use nukes 100% in Ukraine with no similar retaliation.

    Trying to call Russia's bluff when Putin is not bluffing would be a mass fatality error.

    Hopefully, the months long failure of the Kiev Offensive and the inability to obtain funding (1) will force Zelensky (or his successor) to negotiate in good faith. This should keep us away from Ukrainian national suicide.


    Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced legislation with his colleague Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Wednesday that would provide emergency relief funding for natural disasters, including Hurricane Idalia in Florida and the Hawaii wildfires, separate from increasingly controversial Ukraine aid.

    The legislation, titled the Federal Disaster Responsibility Act, would replenish the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund with $16.5 billion. It would also ensure final passage of the Block Grant Assistance Act, which provides authority to the Department of Agriculture to issue grants to all U.S. agriculture producers affected by natural disasters in 2022, as well as the Hurricane Tax Relief Act, which provides disaster-loss tax relief to families affected by hurricanes.

    This bill comes in response to a White House request for $44 billion in emergency spending that would tie the $16 billion in disaster relief to $24 billion in Ukraine aid as the war-torn country defends itself against Russia’s invasion.

    This has received major pushback from the Republican senators, who say President Joe Biden is holding the disaster aid "hostage" to get the Ukraine aid through Congress more easily. The legislation by Scott and Rubio has bicameral support, with Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) leading a companion bill in the House.

     

    Hurricane Lee could cause damage in New York and Massachusetts. Imagine if FEMA is broke when blue states are run over. It is an easy win for America if Republicans show minimal backbone. And, with Marco Rubio on board, you have to know which way the political winds are blowing.


    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rick-scott-introduces-bicameral-bill-separating-disaster-relief-from-ukraine-aid-demands-senate-vote/ar-AA1gkuzb

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Not Ukraine. It did not make that choice. Unless you mean – it chose to be invaded because it chose not to join the Eurasian Customs Union and voluntarily submit to Russia.
     
    I have a question in regards to this part: Had Ukrainians done Maidan and then Russia would have subsequently conquered half of Ukraine in 2014 (Novorossiya and perhaps the Malorossiyan territories to the east of Kiev, but excluding Kiev itself, obviously) due to Putin being much more ambitious in 2014, would Ukrainians have then had any regret about Maidan? In such a scenario, Ukrainians would have quite literally lost half of their country rather than only a small part of it and also would not have had a realistic chance of getting it back short of huge political changes in Russia or Russia invading the rest of Ukraine later on and Ukraine managing to hold out and fight back (as was the case in real life in 2022-2023).

    I suspect that in such a scenario, the Ukrainians under Russian rule, especially the Novorossiyans, would have acted like the Czechs did under Nazi rule/occupation--or, alternatively, like Crimeans did back when they were still under Ukrainian rule. Protest sometimes, possibly the occasional terrorist attack (perhaps with help from the Ukrainian special forces from rump Ukraine), but otherwise not have done much in response to Russian rule and be thankful for the increased economic prosperity that Russian rule would have provided, even if Russian rule was not their preference.
    , @Sean
    @AP


    So a tactical strike would wipe out plenty of Russian forces too.
     
    Nato did not seem to think that as it was their official doctrine to use tactical thermonuclear strikes. In a stalemate it would be easy to hit behind the Ukrainian front line and eliminate even dispersed units in airbursts. There would likely be a change in US policy towards direct retaliation on Russia's armed forces after the first nuclear use, so Putin will be better of using several at one time I think.

    Would it clear minefields?
     
    I think Putin surely has some ideas in mind for an ending to the war with Russia keeping its territorial gains up until this point, and it does not seem to be any kind of conventional offensive into West Ukraine by the Russian army or missile onslaught against critical Ukrainian infrastructure he is banking on. Both those have been tried and failed the former incurred serious losses than mean he has only really reconstituted his forces from their decimation

    I’m not saying Russia would never use tactical nukes, but it would be very unlikely.
     
    Yes. Unless the decision makers in the Kremlin come to the conclusion they are powerless to terminate this debacle with their great power status reasonably intact by conventional means. Which happens to be what the Western military experts already believe in a great many cases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggtPW4MKUsc

    A strategic nuclear threat to the US is already on the table, of course it is.

  715. @WS
    @AP


    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    (3) No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

     

    WRONG
    (3) Ukraine scenarios are irelevant, just mid-game to other interferences till final aim is achieved by adversary. Yes, lost of Crimea would not carry great real risk by itself but realisation of military decision makers on Russian side that war will never stop whatsoever they do, could.
    (1) Strike will come out from second, third... eshalon of leadership living mostly without mentioned perks and remembering the rampage of nineties. They will not allow the state to slide in the chaos again Not for patriotic reasons, but very personal reasons noticed above, wellbeing of their families. It will come as reverse Stanislav Petrov effect. Somebody is going to ignore false alarm and take it real.
    (2)So, I should not be so conclusive, check midnight clock.

    Replies: @AP

    hey will not allow the state to slide in the chaos again Not for patriotic reasons, but very personal reasons noticed above, wellbeing of their families.

    Their families would be incinerated if they nuked the USA.

    • Replies: @WS
    @AP


    Their families would be incinerated if they nuked the USA.
     
    Probably, but if imaginary Stanislav Petrov could foresee that his beloved daughter going to ballet school would end as a prostitute in NY brothel, he might pushed that button anyway........
  716. @Mikel
    @QCIC


    If you are Putin and his inner circle, would you be likely to respond to pressure from these important and powerful Russian groups tasked with protecting the Rodina?
     
    No, not at all. In Putin's position I would have actually sacked all those bastards (the Russian military seems to be also a den of crooks anyway) and focused on developing Russia economically to make it a real superpower. Russia doesn't need any more territories and "respect" would come by itself once the per capita GDP reached parity with the advanced economies and Russia developed good relations with everybody. But I would have also kept my powder dry and made sure that the ICBMs work flawlessly, to keep the Western crazies at bay.

    Any objections to my strategy?

    Replies: @Sean, @QCIC

    You created a different scenario and that’s OK.

    Russia’s response to US and NATO actions in Ukraine IS keeping the Western crazies at bay. Thank you for making it clear. Ukraine is not about territory. It is about having a buffer, sovereignty, conventional military power, among other factors.

    Putin is the leader of a large organization. I don’t believe he has arbitrary power to do whatever he wants. His power flows from being a popular and respected leader within Russia.

  717. @AP
    @Mikel


    I would like to share your beliefs but unfortunately my reasoning abilities prevent me from doing it.
     
    Unfortunately it's not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.

    Biden, Stoltenberg and all the rest promised that the use of a tactical nuke or some other WMD would trigger a NATO military response. But in Russia there is increasing talk by influential figures about Russia’s need to use all its means, including nukes, in light of the ever increasing Western involvement in Ukraine.
     
    We are talking about the risk to the USA of a nuclear strike upon America if, say, Russia loses Crimea. The supposed risk to you, that leads you to want to abandon Ukraine to Russia.

    There is a very small but greater than zero risk of Russia using a tactical nuke or a few of them in Ukraine. But zero risk the use of nukes against the USA which would result in the deaths of most Russians and the end of their civilization.

    don’t remember the exact wording but the destruction of a nuclear plant in Ukraine would also trigger a NATO response.
     
    Yes. A conventional one.

    Ukrainians shelling the Energodar nuclear plant or the Western media covering for them and claiming that it was the Russians shelling themselves.
     
    The side that retreats is the most likely to blow it up, in a scorched Earth policy. Ukraine would not blow up a plant it plans to take over, and irradiate a region it is about to liberate.

    So if the plant blows up as Russia is retreating, the most likely culprit is Russia blowing it up, in order to kill in-coming troops and in order to render the lands Ukraine gets back useless.

    I guess there must also have been voices calling for war in 1956 and 1968, especially among diaspora Hungarians and Czechs. And perhaps they were right. The USSR conventional forces were also a paper tiger then and Khrushchev or Brezhnev wouldn’t have dared use their nukes if a NATO contingent pushed the Soviet troops back from Hungary or Czechia. No Western leader thought it was sensible to act based on those assumptions
     
    During the Cold War, Soviet troops outnumbered Western ones and had conventional dominance. This, not fear of New York getting nuked, kept the Western allies from liberating Eastern Europe.

    What you’re saying is that the whole Cold War architecture was a charade and there never was a possibility of MAD.
     
    MAD made sure that neither side attempted a nuclear strike on the other. Otherwise one side or the other would have been tempted to Hiroshima the other into submission. MAD made that impossible.

    This holds today. Neither side is going to nuke the other. But supplying planes and pilots to kill American troops in Vietnam or the US helping Ukraine retake Crimea is not one side nuking the other. And such activities would not result in nukes.

    You compare what I wrote to a religious belief. Which of those statements, according to you, was wrong:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC, @Mikel

    AP, I have a somewhat off-topic question for you? What are your thoughts on this article?

    https://www.philippelemoine.com/p/the-case-against-liberal-imperialism

    As in, that Western foreign policy should not be based on a contrast between democracy and autocracy and that Western leaders and diplomats should humor the delusions of foreign leaders/politicians, such as that of any Russian leader/politician/diplomat who is so deep in his delusions that he actually believes that NATO is an existential threat to Russia and/or that color revolutions in Russia’s “Near Abroad” are an existential threat to the current Russian regime?

    This article argues that fostering such paranoia, even unintentionally, among foreign leaders/politicians creates a security dilemma for them, with bad consequences:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/26/misperception-security-dilemma-ir-theory-russia-ukraine/

    Of course, one could probably just as easily apply security dilemma logic to explain why the Nazis believed that they were justified in conducting the Holocaust and why the Ottomans believing that they were justified in conducting the Armenian Genocide.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ


    Of course, one could probably just as easily apply security dilemma logic to explain why the Nazis believed that they were justified in conducting the Holocaust and why the Ottomans believing that they were justified in conducting the Armenian Genocide.
     
    Oh come on, hell no, one could not "just as easily apply security dilemma logic" to those events. They had nothing to do with security dilemma logic, except in the most indirect, convoluted fashion in which any phenomenon in this world can be extremely tenuously "linked" to another.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  718. @AP
    @Sean


    In my opinion Russia thought Ukraine would be influenceable by economic ad military pressure short of hostilites plus valuable economic emoluments such as cheap gas and buying Ukrainian bonds would do the rest. Russia never anticipated that Ukraine could fight a Russian invasion to a standstill and draw Russia into an all out war. Kiev has made the Kremlin look stupid, but the ordinary people of West Ukraine especially have paid a terrible price for it.
     
    Correct.

    Both sides have blundered into this.
     
    Not Ukraine. It did not make that choice. Unless you mean - it chose to be invaded because it chose not to join the Eurasian Customs Union and voluntarily submit to Russia.

    Correct, but battlefield theatre thermonuclear annihilations of the Ukrainian army main formations in the east and south would be to Russia’s advantage
     
    Not necessarily. Ukrainians have been careful to keep their forces spread out enough in order to avoid making this a good choice. The only exception is in the breakthrough areas but here the Russian forces are packed just as densely if not more so. So a tactical strike would wipe out plenty of Russian forces too. Would it clear minefields?

    So I suspect it would be militarily neutral (or close to it), and would carry a heavy diplomatic price. The West obviously wouldn't go nuclear over it, but Ukraine would probably finally get those heavier missiles it would want - the capability of taking out the Black Sea fleet.

    I'm not saying Russia would never use tactical nukes, but it would be very unlikely.

    But, as per the discussion with Mikel, zero chance of anything in Ukraine resulting in Russia nuking the USA and thereby getting itself completely wiped out too.

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. XYZ, @Sean

    The scenario you keep ignoring is a strategic package of 20-30 large warheads within Ukraine. Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, and all rail connectivity wiped out.

    It would be unconstitutional for the Veggie-in-Chief to launch U.S. nukes without a Declaration of War, which he does not have. Yes. The corrupt White House occupant routinely breaks the law. However, it is hard to believe that the military would comply with obviously illegal, treasonous orders.

    Kremlin leadership believes they are in and existential fight for the survival of Russia. They also are 99%+ certain that the Veggie-in-Chief cannot respond.

    So, the rational thought process is:

    1. They cannot surrender Crimea without ending Russia
    2. They can use nukes 100% in Ukraine with no similar retaliation.

    Trying to call Russia’s bluff when Putin is not bluffing would be a mass fatality error.

    Hopefully, the months long failure of the Kiev Offensive and the inability to obtain funding (1) will force Zelensky (or his successor) to negotiate in good faith. This should keep us away from Ukrainian national suicide.

    Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced legislation with his colleague Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Wednesday that would provide emergency relief funding for natural disasters, including Hurricane Idalia in Florida and the Hawaii wildfires, separate from increasingly controversial Ukraine aid.

    The legislation, titled the Federal Disaster Responsibility Act, would replenish the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster relief fund with $16.5 billion. It would also ensure final passage of the Block Grant Assistance Act, which provides authority to the Department of Agriculture to issue grants to all U.S. agriculture producers affected by natural disasters in 2022, as well as the Hurricane Tax Relief Act, which provides disaster-loss tax relief to families affected by hurricanes.

    This bill comes in response to a White House request for $44 billion in emergency spending that would tie the $16 billion in disaster relief to $24 billion in Ukraine aid as the war-torn country defends itself against Russia’s invasion.

    This has received major pushback from the Republican senators, who say President Joe Biden is holding the disaster aid “hostage” to get the Ukraine aid through Congress more easily. The legislation by Scott and Rubio has bicameral support, with Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) leading a companion bill in the House.

    Hurricane Lee could cause damage in New York and Massachusetts. Imagine if FEMA is broke when blue states are run over. It is an easy win for America if Republicans show minimal backbone. And, with Marco Rubio on board, you have to know which way the political winds are blowing.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rick-scott-introduces-bicameral-bill-separating-disaster-relief-from-ukraine-aid-demands-senate-vote/ar-AA1gkuzb

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @A123

    The Russian leadership seems to be fighting a very patient war. At some point the military, the general population or other circumstances may force Russia to increase the tempo of the combat. I don't think they need nuclear weapons to do this. In my amateur opinion, nuclear weapons use would either be for some emergency or to make a point as an attempt to forestall Western escalation. This could easily backfire and would only happen in extreme circumstances.

    If Russia does step up the tempo they may attack targets which involve serious civilian casualties or irreparable infrastructure damage which so far they have been working to avoid. This always raises the horrible question for the likes of AP and his misguided ilk: How many Ukrainian civilian casualties are you willing to accept in this stupid war you blundered into?

    What would it take for some good souls in the Ukrainian military to wake up tomorrow and go arrest all their leadership who is prolonging this war? If their love of the national ideal and commitment to their military honor would not yet allow them to make this hard decision, then how many civilians need to die to change their minds?

    I wonder if there are now a lot of suicides by Ukrainian soldiers who know this needs to be done but simply do not have the will to do it? Having recognized this fact, their lives are no longer worth living. Live by the sword, die by (one's own) sword.

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson, @sudden death

  719. @AP
    @Sean


    In my opinion Russia thought Ukraine would be influenceable by economic ad military pressure short of hostilites plus valuable economic emoluments such as cheap gas and buying Ukrainian bonds would do the rest. Russia never anticipated that Ukraine could fight a Russian invasion to a standstill and draw Russia into an all out war. Kiev has made the Kremlin look stupid, but the ordinary people of West Ukraine especially have paid a terrible price for it.
     
    Correct.

    Both sides have blundered into this.
     
    Not Ukraine. It did not make that choice. Unless you mean - it chose to be invaded because it chose not to join the Eurasian Customs Union and voluntarily submit to Russia.

    Correct, but battlefield theatre thermonuclear annihilations of the Ukrainian army main formations in the east and south would be to Russia’s advantage
     
    Not necessarily. Ukrainians have been careful to keep their forces spread out enough in order to avoid making this a good choice. The only exception is in the breakthrough areas but here the Russian forces are packed just as densely if not more so. So a tactical strike would wipe out plenty of Russian forces too. Would it clear minefields?

    So I suspect it would be militarily neutral (or close to it), and would carry a heavy diplomatic price. The West obviously wouldn't go nuclear over it, but Ukraine would probably finally get those heavier missiles it would want - the capability of taking out the Black Sea fleet.

    I'm not saying Russia would never use tactical nukes, but it would be very unlikely.

    But, as per the discussion with Mikel, zero chance of anything in Ukraine resulting in Russia nuking the USA and thereby getting itself completely wiped out too.

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. XYZ, @Sean

    Not Ukraine. It did not make that choice. Unless you mean – it chose to be invaded because it chose not to join the Eurasian Customs Union and voluntarily submit to Russia.

    I have a question in regards to this part: Had Ukrainians done Maidan and then Russia would have subsequently conquered half of Ukraine in 2014 (Novorossiya and perhaps the Malorossiyan territories to the east of Kiev, but excluding Kiev itself, obviously) due to Putin being much more ambitious in 2014, would Ukrainians have then had any regret about Maidan? In such a scenario, Ukrainians would have quite literally lost half of their country rather than only a small part of it and also would not have had a realistic chance of getting it back short of huge political changes in Russia or Russia invading the rest of Ukraine later on and Ukraine managing to hold out and fight back (as was the case in real life in 2022-2023).

    I suspect that in such a scenario, the Ukrainians under Russian rule, especially the Novorossiyans, would have acted like the Czechs did under Nazi rule/occupation–or, alternatively, like Crimeans did back when they were still under Ukrainian rule. Protest sometimes, possibly the occasional terrorist attack (perhaps with help from the Ukrainian special forces from rump Ukraine), but otherwise not have done much in response to Russian rule and be thankful for the increased economic prosperity that Russian rule would have provided, even if Russian rule was not their preference.

  720. @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW


    Well, it might be true that Russia wanted Crimea back since the 1990s.

     

    The pre-2014 Russian logic would be that Crimea would be reintegrated into Russia along with the rest of Ukraine as a part of a Eurasian super-state (which would essentially be a restored Greater Russia). It's only when the goal of pulling all of Ukraine back into the Russian orbit failed that Russia annexed Crimea separately.

    I deeply regret my 2014 support for Crimea's annexation and would have never supported it had I realized that it would help pave the way for the current Russo-Ukrainian War. I thought that Putin was akin to 1938 Hitler (but without the rabid anti-Semitism), not akin to 1939+ Hitler (but without the physical genocide). I was wrong. :(

    Replies: @silviosilver

    I thought that Putin was akin to 1938 Hitler (but without the rabid anti-Semitism), not akin to 1939+ Hitler (but without the physical genocide). I was wrong.

    The problem with that is the 1938 Hitler and the 1939 Hitler were the same man, pursuing the same goals; differing only in the means they employed.

    That’s the conclusion I draw even being as charitable as I could to the “Germany was maneuvered into war” thesis. (I’m having a hard time figuring out what game Ron Unz is playing with his revisionist ww2 and holocaust takes, but I’m sure it’s a game of some sort, definitely not to be taken at face value.)

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver

    Oh, I know! In his two books, Hitler said that even Germany's 1914 borders were inadequate for Germany.

    I still think that the Anglo-French should have done a Soviet alliance against Nazi Germany in 1939 and been willing to pay any price for it, including sacrificing the independence of Finland and the Baltic countries. They should have also pressured Poland much harder to make concessions to Nazi Germany (in regards to Danzig, an extraterritorial road through the Polish Corridor, the status of the German minority in Poland, and perhaps even a plebiscite in the Polish Corridor itself, excluding Gdynia, of course) rather than giving Poland an *unconditional* guarantee (let alone so without any Soviet participation in this guarantee!) in early 1939. The Anglo-Franco-Soviets should have been ambiguous as to whether a limited Nazi incursion into Danzig and even Poland would have meant war but should have made it clear that a full Nazi invasion of Poland would have indeed meant war. Had Poland made concessions to Nazi Germany before the start of the war, and Nazi Germany would have invaded anyway, then Germans would have been more likely to view the war as a predatory imperialist war, which would have made an anti-Nazi coup attempt in Germany easier relative to real life and would have also made a subsequent post-successful coup status quo ante bellum peace settlement actually realistic rather than brutally fighting WWII to an extremely bloody finish right up to the Allied conquest of Berlin.

    Replies: @Coconuts

  721. @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ


    I thought that Putin was akin to 1938 Hitler (but without the rabid anti-Semitism), not akin to 1939+ Hitler (but without the physical genocide). I was wrong.
     
    The problem with that is the 1938 Hitler and the 1939 Hitler were the same man, pursuing the same goals; differing only in the means they employed.

    That's the conclusion I draw even being as charitable as I could to the "Germany was maneuvered into war" thesis. (I'm having a hard time figuring out what game Ron Unz is playing with his revisionist ww2 and holocaust takes, but I'm sure it's a game of some sort, definitely not to be taken at face value.)

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Oh, I know! In his two books, Hitler said that even Germany’s 1914 borders were inadequate for Germany.

    I still think that the Anglo-French should have done a Soviet alliance against Nazi Germany in 1939 and been willing to pay any price for it, including sacrificing the independence of Finland and the Baltic countries. They should have also pressured Poland much harder to make concessions to Nazi Germany (in regards to Danzig, an extraterritorial road through the Polish Corridor, the status of the German minority in Poland, and perhaps even a plebiscite in the Polish Corridor itself, excluding Gdynia, of course) rather than giving Poland an *unconditional* guarantee (let alone so without any Soviet participation in this guarantee!) in early 1939. The Anglo-Franco-Soviets should have been ambiguous as to whether a limited Nazi incursion into Danzig and even Poland would have meant war but should have made it clear that a full Nazi invasion of Poland would have indeed meant war. Had Poland made concessions to Nazi Germany before the start of the war, and Nazi Germany would have invaded anyway, then Germans would have been more likely to view the war as a predatory imperialist war, which would have made an anti-Nazi coup attempt in Germany easier relative to real life and would have also made a subsequent post-successful coup status quo ante bellum peace settlement actually realistic rather than brutally fighting WWII to an extremely bloody finish right up to the Allied conquest of Berlin.

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @Mr. XYZ


    I still think that the Anglo-French should have done a Soviet alliance against Nazi Germany in 1939 and been willing to pay any price for it, including sacrificing the independence of Finland and the Baltic countries.
     
    This is all in hindsight though, if the real military power of the French and Soviet armies vs the German had been known in 1939 they probably would have been much more likely to make such an alliance.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  722. @AP
    @Mikel


    I would like to share your beliefs but unfortunately my reasoning abilities prevent me from doing it.
     
    Unfortunately it's not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.

    Biden, Stoltenberg and all the rest promised that the use of a tactical nuke or some other WMD would trigger a NATO military response. But in Russia there is increasing talk by influential figures about Russia’s need to use all its means, including nukes, in light of the ever increasing Western involvement in Ukraine.
     
    We are talking about the risk to the USA of a nuclear strike upon America if, say, Russia loses Crimea. The supposed risk to you, that leads you to want to abandon Ukraine to Russia.

    There is a very small but greater than zero risk of Russia using a tactical nuke or a few of them in Ukraine. But zero risk the use of nukes against the USA which would result in the deaths of most Russians and the end of their civilization.

    don’t remember the exact wording but the destruction of a nuclear plant in Ukraine would also trigger a NATO response.
     
    Yes. A conventional one.

    Ukrainians shelling the Energodar nuclear plant or the Western media covering for them and claiming that it was the Russians shelling themselves.
     
    The side that retreats is the most likely to blow it up, in a scorched Earth policy. Ukraine would not blow up a plant it plans to take over, and irradiate a region it is about to liberate.

    So if the plant blows up as Russia is retreating, the most likely culprit is Russia blowing it up, in order to kill in-coming troops and in order to render the lands Ukraine gets back useless.

    I guess there must also have been voices calling for war in 1956 and 1968, especially among diaspora Hungarians and Czechs. And perhaps they were right. The USSR conventional forces were also a paper tiger then and Khrushchev or Brezhnev wouldn’t have dared use their nukes if a NATO contingent pushed the Soviet troops back from Hungary or Czechia. No Western leader thought it was sensible to act based on those assumptions
     
    During the Cold War, Soviet troops outnumbered Western ones and had conventional dominance. This, not fear of New York getting nuked, kept the Western allies from liberating Eastern Europe.

    What you’re saying is that the whole Cold War architecture was a charade and there never was a possibility of MAD.
     
    MAD made sure that neither side attempted a nuclear strike on the other. Otherwise one side or the other would have been tempted to Hiroshima the other into submission. MAD made that impossible.

    This holds today. Neither side is going to nuke the other. But supplying planes and pilots to kill American troops in Vietnam or the US helping Ukraine retake Crimea is not one side nuking the other. And such activities would not result in nukes.

    You compare what I wrote to a religious belief. Which of those statements, according to you, was wrong:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC, @Mikel

    The main concerns about nuclear weapons use are escalation, miscalculation and use-them-or-lose-them scenarios. The risk of some escalation goes up enormously because the West has created a war situation in Ukraine. Western propaganda is churning out Russian hate at a record pace. What do you think the crews of US submarines are thinking about Russia? How much has the margin for error and simple misunderstanding been reduced? All sides will have surely escalated to a much higher level of readiness and paranoia than they had prior to the current conflict. “Increased Readiness” for nuclear submarines is very close to outright nuclear war. You will say this was all created by the boogeyman, but Putin the boogeyman gave many warnings that Western actions against Russia would be treated as an act of War.

    The Russian response to Ukraine seems like an intervention to prevent a domino effect of the West encroaching and and arming hostile border states directly on the Russian border. Your camp apparently thinks this is a good idea, so just accept it and stop lying about it and making whiny excuses. It is no secret that the West wanted bases in Sevastopol. It is no secret that the West would put heavy weapons and missiles in Ukraine pointed at Russia. You hope Ukraine and the West are strong enough to pull this off but then you try to justify it with a shallow self-serving explanation.

    Even if escalation is the main concern, there are always some who believe a limited nuclear war is survivable and practical. The key to this outlook may be a first strike combined with outstanding anti-submarine warfare, some missile defenses and probably a few high altitude EMPs. The Ukrainian bloodfest has probably brought a few modern “General Ripper” types out of the closet who are scheming even now to make this happen.

    • Replies: @AP
    @QCIC


    The risk of some escalation goes up enormously because the West has created a war situation in Ukraine
     
    It's gone from zero to zero.

    What do you think the crews of US submarines are thinking about Russia?
     
    Not much different than they thought 3 years ago.

    Western propaganda is churning out Russian hate at a record pace.
     
    Correction: Russian actions are churning out Russia hate at a record pace. In Ukraine where they see Russian actions with their own eyes, and in the world.

    The Russian response to Ukraine seems like an intervention to prevent a domino effect of the West encroaching and and arming hostile border states directly on the Russian border.
     
    Russia is now getting a US forces based in Finland, near the Russian border:

    https://tass.com/world/1671309

    Russia doesn't seem to mind. So that wasn't an issue, after all.

    Your camp apparently thinks this is a good idea
     
    Preventing Russian aggression by joining NATO is an excellent idea.

    It is no secret that the West wanted bases in Sevastopol.
     
    Would these have been a threat to Russia? Finland is a lot closer, you know.

    Remind when anyone has ever directly invaded the home territory of a nuclear power. Even a small one like North Korea.

    Tell me more about organ harvesting lol.

    Replies: @QCIC

  723. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    AP, I have a somewhat off-topic question for you? What are your thoughts on this article?

    https://www.philippelemoine.com/p/the-case-against-liberal-imperialism

    As in, that Western foreign policy should not be based on a contrast between democracy and autocracy and that Western leaders and diplomats should humor the delusions of foreign leaders/politicians, such as that of any Russian leader/politician/diplomat who is so deep in his delusions that he actually believes that NATO is an existential threat to Russia and/or that color revolutions in Russia's "Near Abroad" are an existential threat to the current Russian regime?

    This article argues that fostering such paranoia, even unintentionally, among foreign leaders/politicians creates a security dilemma for them, with bad consequences:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/26/misperception-security-dilemma-ir-theory-russia-ukraine/

    Of course, one could probably just as easily apply security dilemma logic to explain why the Nazis believed that they were justified in conducting the Holocaust and why the Ottomans believing that they were justified in conducting the Armenian Genocide.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Of course, one could probably just as easily apply security dilemma logic to explain why the Nazis believed that they were justified in conducting the Holocaust and why the Ottomans believing that they were justified in conducting the Armenian Genocide.

    Oh come on, hell no, one could not “just as easily apply security dilemma logic” to those events. They had nothing to do with security dilemma logic, except in the most indirect, convoluted fashion in which any phenomenon in this world can be extremely tenuously “linked” to another.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver

    I would highly advise you to read the article that I linked to above. Yes, Nazi and Ottoman delusions were primarily responsible for the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. However, they were delusions that pertained to their regime security: Nazi Germany was convinced that International Jewry (which didn't exist except in the Nazis' heads, but perceptions matter much more than reality) was trying to destroy the Nazi German regime and the Ottomans were convinced that the Armenians were a dangerous pro-Russian fifth column who could potentially help the Russians conquer eastern Anatolia and even perhaps ethnically cleanse eastern Anatolia of its Muslims after conquering it.

    The proper strategy from a foreign policy realist perspective in such scenarios would have probably been for the West to give the Nazis a carte blanche to expand eastwards just so long as they will never commit any mass murder or forced sterilization or anything like that and for Russia to give territorial concessions and possibly debt relief to the Ottoman Empire in 1914 in exchange for keeping the Ottoman Empire neutral in WWI and thus making the Ottomans less paranoid about their own Armenian population.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  724. @A123
    @AP

    The scenario you keep ignoring is a strategic package of 20-30 large warheads within Ukraine. Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, and all rail connectivity wiped out.

    It would be unconstitutional for the Veggie-in-Chief to launch U.S. nukes without a Declaration of War, which he does not have. Yes. The corrupt White House occupant routinely breaks the law. However, it is hard to believe that the military would comply with obviously illegal, treasonous orders.

    Kremlin leadership believes they are in and existential fight for the survival of Russia. They also are 99%+ certain that the Veggie-in-Chief cannot respond.

    So, the rational thought process is:

    1. They cannot surrender Crimea without ending Russia
    2. They can use nukes 100% in Ukraine with no similar retaliation.

    Trying to call Russia's bluff when Putin is not bluffing would be a mass fatality error.

    Hopefully, the months long failure of the Kiev Offensive and the inability to obtain funding (1) will force Zelensky (or his successor) to negotiate in good faith. This should keep us away from Ukrainian national suicide.


    Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced legislation with his colleague Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Wednesday that would provide emergency relief funding for natural disasters, including Hurricane Idalia in Florida and the Hawaii wildfires, separate from increasingly controversial Ukraine aid.

    The legislation, titled the Federal Disaster Responsibility Act, would replenish the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund with $16.5 billion. It would also ensure final passage of the Block Grant Assistance Act, which provides authority to the Department of Agriculture to issue grants to all U.S. agriculture producers affected by natural disasters in 2022, as well as the Hurricane Tax Relief Act, which provides disaster-loss tax relief to families affected by hurricanes.

    This bill comes in response to a White House request for $44 billion in emergency spending that would tie the $16 billion in disaster relief to $24 billion in Ukraine aid as the war-torn country defends itself against Russia’s invasion.

    This has received major pushback from the Republican senators, who say President Joe Biden is holding the disaster aid "hostage" to get the Ukraine aid through Congress more easily. The legislation by Scott and Rubio has bicameral support, with Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) leading a companion bill in the House.

     

    Hurricane Lee could cause damage in New York and Massachusetts. Imagine if FEMA is broke when blue states are run over. It is an easy win for America if Republicans show minimal backbone. And, with Marco Rubio on board, you have to know which way the political winds are blowing.


    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rick-scott-introduces-bicameral-bill-separating-disaster-relief-from-ukraine-aid-demands-senate-vote/ar-AA1gkuzb

    Replies: @QCIC

    The Russian leadership seems to be fighting a very patient war. At some point the military, the general population or other circumstances may force Russia to increase the tempo of the combat. I don’t think they need nuclear weapons to do this. In my amateur opinion, nuclear weapons use would either be for some emergency or to make a point as an attempt to forestall Western escalation. This could easily backfire and would only happen in extreme circumstances.

    If Russia does step up the tempo they may attack targets which involve serious civilian casualties or irreparable infrastructure damage which so far they have been working to avoid. This always raises the horrible question for the likes of AP and his misguided ilk: How many Ukrainian civilian casualties are you willing to accept in this stupid war you blundered into?

    What would it take for some good souls in the Ukrainian military to wake up tomorrow and go arrest all their leadership who is prolonging this war? If their love of the national ideal and commitment to their military honor would not yet allow them to make this hard decision, then how many civilians need to die to change their minds?

    I wonder if there are now a lot of suicides by Ukrainian soldiers who know this needs to be done but simply do not have the will to do it? Having recognized this fact, their lives are no longer worth living. Live by the sword, die by (one’s own) sword.

    • Replies: @A123
    @QCIC



    Hopefully, the months long failure of the Kiev Offensive and the inability to obtain funding (1) will force Zelensky (or his successor) to negotiate in good faith. This should keep us away from Ukrainian national suicide.
     
    The Russian leadership seems to be fighting a very patient war.
     
    I concur.

    Time is on Putin's side.

    He is waiting for foreign fatigue to set in. Economically, Ukraine cannot survive without massive external assistance. America is reclaiming its prestige by stepping away from neo-Nazi aggression.

    The last thing Putin wants to do is create sympathy towards Ukie malice. Kiev is trying to create false flags at nuclear plants, dams, etc. Fortunately, it is not working.


    nuclear weapons use would either be for some emergency or to make a point as an attempt to forestall Western escalation. This could easily backfire and would only happen in extreme circumstances.
     
    Again, I concur.

    The Kremlin is happy to stay on defense for the foreseeable future while the Ukrainian military dies trying to breach prepared positions. Nukes would be used if somehow an existential line is crossed, such as any serious threat headed towards Crimea.


    What would it take for some good souls in the Ukrainian military to wake up tomorrow and go arrest all their leadership who is prolonging this war?
     
    Anti-Semite Zelensky has been following the playbook of Mahmoud Abbas. Eradicate potential threats before they have a chance to gather. As funds get tighter, it is likely he will skip the country. Presumably he already has a plan to reach the EU where he will be celebrated. His successor will make the concessions needed to compensate Russia for Kiev's senseless aggression.

    PEACE 😇

    , @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    What would it take for some good souls in the Ukrainian military to wake up tomorrow and go arrest all their leadership who is prolonging this war?

    You believe it is possible for the Ukrainian military to turn against its leadership and fight for a Russian dictatorship? After Putin launched this war?

    What would it take for some good souls in the Russian military to start fragging their commanders Vietnam style?

    Not sure how you can have so much confidence in the Russian military when there are intercepts like this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My0GU-i_sbU

    Putin's 42nd forum defense force clearly has more faith in the Russian military than the actual Russian military.

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @sudden death
    @QCIC


    If Russia does step up the tempo they may attack targets which involve serious civilian casualties or irreparable infrastructure damage which so far they have been working to avoid.
     
    If Ukraine does step up the tempo today and will send just several tens of targeted drones into RF oil refineries instead of Moscow downtown, domestic RF diesel/gasoline production will collapse very quickly, so this is more likely reason for Kremlins stopping the mass attacks on UA infrastructure, like electrical grid, than some abstract patience;)

    Replies: @QCIC

  725. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    It’s not as if those countries didn’t even attempt to put up a fight, which is what your “nuclear fear” model would assume. On the contrary, they fought bitterly.
     
    Of course, failure to address some point never means agreement with it. But just to dispel any doubt, the privilege of being a nuclear superpower is not at all that if you invade a non-nuclear country they will not put up a fight (though they will probably only fight to the extent that they believe that you won't nuke them to ashes). The privilege is that if you invade a non-nuclear country nobody will make you pay for it. As we've seen once and again, international norms will cease to apply or will be bent beyond recognition to let your action go unpunished. Who's going to punish you after all? The only ones who could possibly punish you would face nuclear retaliation if they tried seriously so you can go invading and bombing countries that you don't like and get off scot-free. No Milosevic, Saddam or Gadaffi treatment for you.

    This is actually an important point because it is also at the core of the current war. The USSR used to enjoy more or less the same benefits as the US. Hence Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. But Putin grew tired of the Americans now exercising in practice much more privileges than the Russians while having the same number of nukes. Thinking of all the statements made by Putin and his entourage over the years, especially as we grew closer to the SMO, I would say that this point was actually more important than Ukraine joining NATO and tremendously more important than defending the people of Donbas. Russia just wasn't getting the respect she thought she deserved. I think we should expect China making the same point sooner or later. Let's hope our Western leaders are wise enough to accept a new international modus vivendi like they did in the previous Cold War rather than maintain the super-privilege they've grown accustomed to after the fall of the USSR. I for one don't need us to continue being able to invade faraway countries for anything at all.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @LatW, @Noviop Co-Prosperity Sphere, @silviosilver

    The privilege is that if you invade a non-nuclear country nobody will make you pay for it. As we’ve seen once and again, international norms will cease to apply or will be bent beyond recognition to let your action go unpunished.

    Doesn’t the example of Russia today disprove that? Aren’t they being made to pay for invading Ukraine? And I would put it to you that this has less to do with America being a nuclear peer and more to do with conventional economic and diplomatic means America has at is disposal – the very means that the USSR or China tended to comparatively lack when it came to punishing America.

    And to change the subject, is “once and again” a translation from “una y otra vez”? The English analog you might have been thinking of is “time and again” (or more commonly “again and again” or “over and over”).

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    Doesn’t the example of Russia today disprove that?
     
    If we manage to do to Putin what we did to Saddam and Milosevic, yes, that would disprove my proposition. But only in part because that would imply a radical change in how international relations are conducted, not that up to now they have not been conducted the way I describe.

    Of course the "nobody will make you pay for it" was not meant to be interpreted in a literal sense. Even the US has had to pay quite dearly for its recent adventures in exotic lands but not to the extent of having its leaders punished at an international court or anything close to that.

    Thanks for the grammar lesson, much appreciated, as always. But, no I don't think I was translating from Spanish. I'm pretty sure I've heard that expression often enough. Are you sure it's not idiomatic? Look here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20and%20again

    Replies: @silviosilver

  726. @AP
    @Mikel


    I would like to share your beliefs but unfortunately my reasoning abilities prevent me from doing it.
     
    Unfortunately it's not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.

    Biden, Stoltenberg and all the rest promised that the use of a tactical nuke or some other WMD would trigger a NATO military response. But in Russia there is increasing talk by influential figures about Russia’s need to use all its means, including nukes, in light of the ever increasing Western involvement in Ukraine.
     
    We are talking about the risk to the USA of a nuclear strike upon America if, say, Russia loses Crimea. The supposed risk to you, that leads you to want to abandon Ukraine to Russia.

    There is a very small but greater than zero risk of Russia using a tactical nuke or a few of them in Ukraine. But zero risk the use of nukes against the USA which would result in the deaths of most Russians and the end of their civilization.

    don’t remember the exact wording but the destruction of a nuclear plant in Ukraine would also trigger a NATO response.
     
    Yes. A conventional one.

    Ukrainians shelling the Energodar nuclear plant or the Western media covering for them and claiming that it was the Russians shelling themselves.
     
    The side that retreats is the most likely to blow it up, in a scorched Earth policy. Ukraine would not blow up a plant it plans to take over, and irradiate a region it is about to liberate.

    So if the plant blows up as Russia is retreating, the most likely culprit is Russia blowing it up, in order to kill in-coming troops and in order to render the lands Ukraine gets back useless.

    I guess there must also have been voices calling for war in 1956 and 1968, especially among diaspora Hungarians and Czechs. And perhaps they were right. The USSR conventional forces were also a paper tiger then and Khrushchev or Brezhnev wouldn’t have dared use their nukes if a NATO contingent pushed the Soviet troops back from Hungary or Czechia. No Western leader thought it was sensible to act based on those assumptions
     
    During the Cold War, Soviet troops outnumbered Western ones and had conventional dominance. This, not fear of New York getting nuked, kept the Western allies from liberating Eastern Europe.

    What you’re saying is that the whole Cold War architecture was a charade and there never was a possibility of MAD.
     
    MAD made sure that neither side attempted a nuclear strike on the other. Otherwise one side or the other would have been tempted to Hiroshima the other into submission. MAD made that impossible.

    This holds today. Neither side is going to nuke the other. But supplying planes and pilots to kill American troops in Vietnam or the US helping Ukraine retake Crimea is not one side nuking the other. And such activities would not result in nukes.

    You compare what I wrote to a religious belief. Which of those statements, according to you, was wrong:

    A global nuclear strike would mean certain death for the people initiating the strike, their children and grandchildren, all their loved ones, indeed the extinction of their civilisation, culture, language.

    So any calculation of risk would be based on these two questions:

    1. What is the nature of the people making this decision?

    2. What would it take, for these specific people to pull the nuclear trigger and thereby kill everyone they love in a nuclear holocaust?

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they? But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    :::::::::

    Here are the answers:

    (1) Russian decision-makers are old, greedy family men who value luxury and power. They have children and grandchildren whom they seem to care about and to lavishly support. Many of these live in the West. The 2022 invasion was based on mistaken assumptions: they are not reckless by temperament nor is recklessness a pattern of their behaviour. They are willing to kill, but when they kill they do so it is in a targeted way. They are neither young hot-heads, nor extreme fanatics, nor self-destructive nihilists.

    (2) Given the above, only an imminent massive first nuclear strike against Russia, or a defeat against a genocidal Nazi type enemy about to conquer Russia would carry a real risk of a Russian nuclear strike against the West.

    No possible Ukraine scenario carries that risk. Not even the loss of Crimea.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC, @Mikel

    Unfortunately it’s not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.

    If that’s the case, then I share my character flaws with several generations of Western leaders. They also thought that the risk of nuclear war was real and tried to avoid it by letting the USSR do what they wouldn’t have tolerated from any other country.

    But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.

    I would be repeating myself and I have already spent enough bandwidth in this thread. Re-read my answers to Silvio and yourself.

    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they?

    Yes. The US does the same all the time and it works even better. Having the tremendous destruction capability of nukes, WMDs and high-tech weapons gives you a great advantage. How could it not? In fact, Russia’s complaint is that they’re no longer taken as seriously as the USSR was and they are not wrong.

    The supposed risk to you, that leads you to want to abandon Ukraine to Russia.

    Not exactly. The risk of escalation to a nuclear exchange, that not only me but all Western decision makers consider real, makes involvement in that foreign war even less rational. But what I want is a return of the US to its old non-interventionist policy. A policy that would have actually prevented this war.

    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic. The US can perfectly keep crucial supply routes open and a more or less stable immediate neighborhood without spending trillions on conflicts that are older than the US itself (like the current one in Ukraine).

    And you know perfectly well why I oppose US interventionism. We discussed it very recently, when you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami. Or their enemies, whoever has the upper hand at the moment. Your theory implies that I don’t even need to know who I am supporting in order to be a supporter of that group.

    Btw, things are changing very rapidly in the US. I remember explaining to Dmitry (or Sudden Death, not sure) not long ago that the Tucker Carlson anti-war phenomenon was a rather fringe movement with a limited audience of just a segment of Fox News viewers. That is definitely not the case anymore. Only yesterday I was listening to a local Utah radio program in my car and all of a sudden they start interviewing none other than Douglas McGregor! The interview was as lame and pathetic as you might expect but, all things considered, this is positive development. An increasing amount of Americans are being exposed to a narrative different from the standard neocon one and the anti-foreign wars sentiment is decidedly on the rise. It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikel


    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic. The US can perfectly keep crucial supply routes open and a more or less stable immediate neighborhood without spending trillions on conflicts that are older than the US itself (like the current one in Ukraine).
     
    The West's main interest in Ukraine is securing Ukraine's human capital for itself (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, since Ukrainians themselves also want this). National self-determination matters but not as much since the West doesn't care as much about national self-determination in places that it does not seek to integrate, such as in the Western Sahara.

    Btw, things are changing very rapidly in the US. I remember explaining to Dmitry (or Sudden Death, not sure) not long ago that the Tucker Carlson anti-war phenomenon was a rather fringe movement with a limited audience of just a segment of Fox News viewers. That is definitely not the case anymore. Only yesterday I was listening to a local Utah radio program in my car and all of a sudden they start interviewing none other than Douglas McGregor! The interview was as lame and pathetic as you might expect but, all things considered, this is positive development. An increasing amount of Americans are being exposed to a narrative different from the standard neocon one and the anti-foreign wars sentiment is decidedly on the rise. It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.
     
    AP will respond to you by saying that Putin is the Russian equivalent of a neocon and that you are thus opposing forever wars (in this case, when Russia is doing it) by providing Western military aid to Ukraine. He would also probably argue that a foreign government (such as Iran's) would have been justified in providing military aid to the Taliban and/or pro-Iran Iraqi Shi'a militias if it would have opposed the US's forever wars in those two countries. Right, AP?

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @AP
    @Mikel


    Unfortunately it’s not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.

    If that’s the case, then I share my character flaws with several generations of Western leaders.
     
    The ones who didn't shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    And before you mention Czechoslovakia, that was crushed before anything could be done, plus the Czechoslovak government didn't ask for Western assistance.

    They also thought that the risk of nuclear war was real and tried to avoid it by letting the USSR do what they wouldn’t have tolerated from any other country.
     
    The fact that the USSR's conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.

    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic
     
    So now you are equating regime change in Iraq with protecting a European country from a Russian invasion?

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    And you know perfectly well why I oppose US interventionism. We discussed it very recently, when you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami.
     
    What? When did I do that?

    It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.
     
    I'm opposed to forever wars and was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. But I am also opposed to the invasion of Ukraine.

    If the Republicans choose a pro-Russian ticket they will lose Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and therefore, most likely, the White House. In 2016, Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes and Pennsylvania by 45,000. There are 36,000 Ukrainians and 850,000 Poles in Michigan, and 122,000 Ukrainians and 824,000 Poles in Pennsylvania. Similar ratios in Wisconsin (fewer Ukrainians, but more Poles). Pick a pro-Russian candidate and enjoy 4 more years of Biden. Choose to screw Ukraine and screw yourself.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel

  727. @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ


    Of course, one could probably just as easily apply security dilemma logic to explain why the Nazis believed that they were justified in conducting the Holocaust and why the Ottomans believing that they were justified in conducting the Armenian Genocide.
     
    Oh come on, hell no, one could not "just as easily apply security dilemma logic" to those events. They had nothing to do with security dilemma logic, except in the most indirect, convoluted fashion in which any phenomenon in this world can be extremely tenuously "linked" to another.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    I would highly advise you to read the article that I linked to above. Yes, Nazi and Ottoman delusions were primarily responsible for the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. However, they were delusions that pertained to their regime security: Nazi Germany was convinced that International Jewry (which didn’t exist except in the Nazis’ heads, but perceptions matter much more than reality) was trying to destroy the Nazi German regime and the Ottomans were convinced that the Armenians were a dangerous pro-Russian fifth column who could potentially help the Russians conquer eastern Anatolia and even perhaps ethnically cleanse eastern Anatolia of its Muslims after conquering it.

    The proper strategy from a foreign policy realist perspective in such scenarios would have probably been for the West to give the Nazis a carte blanche to expand eastwards just so long as they will never commit any mass murder or forced sterilization or anything like that and for Russia to give territorial concessions and possibly debt relief to the Ottoman Empire in 1914 in exchange for keeping the Ottoman Empire neutral in WWI and thus making the Ottomans less paranoid about their own Armenian population.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ


    I would highly advise you to read the article that I linked to above.
     
    I did. Unsurprisingly, there was absolutely nothing in there that would help relate Jewish/Armenian genocide to security dilemma logic.

    Yes, Nazi and Ottoman delusions were primarily responsible for the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. However, they were delusions that pertained to their regime security:
     
    That has nothing to do with security dilemma logic. The core of the security dilemma is the misperception (including perfectly rational misperception, not mere "delusion") that defensive measures country A is taking to enhance country A's security are an offensive dagger aimed at the heart of country B, which then feels compelled to respond in kind by enhancing its own security, which country A then misperceives as offensive.... etc.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  728. @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    The privilege is that if you invade a non-nuclear country nobody will make you pay for it. As we’ve seen once and again, international norms will cease to apply or will be bent beyond recognition to let your action go unpunished.
     
    Doesn't the example of Russia today disprove that? Aren't they being made to pay for invading Ukraine? And I would put it to you that this has less to do with America being a nuclear peer and more to do with conventional economic and diplomatic means America has at is disposal - the very means that the USSR or China tended to comparatively lack when it came to punishing America.

    And to change the subject, is "once and again" a translation from "una y otra vez"? The English analog you might have been thinking of is "time and again" (or more commonly "again and again" or "over and over").

    Replies: @Mikel

    Doesn’t the example of Russia today disprove that?

    If we manage to do to Putin what we did to Saddam and Milosevic, yes, that would disprove my proposition. But only in part because that would imply a radical change in how international relations are conducted, not that up to now they have not been conducted the way I describe.

    Of course the “nobody will make you pay for it” was not meant to be interpreted in a literal sense. Even the US has had to pay quite dearly for its recent adventures in exotic lands but not to the extent of having its leaders punished at an international court or anything close to that.

    Thanks for the grammar lesson, much appreciated, as always. But, no I don’t think I was translating from Spanish. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that expression often enough. Are you sure it’s not idiomatic? Look here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20and%20again

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Mikel

    Thanks for that link - it seems you're right! I'm embarrassed, but I'm even more astonished that I've managed to stay ignorant of this usage for so long. (To save face I'll mention that, technically, I did pause and ponder before I replied, because something about it sounded as though it might be a correct usage, but I then decided no, it's definitely not. Mustn't be so common down my way, heh. I also hadn't considered its use as a synonym for "now and again." You learn something new every day.)

    Replies: @Mikel

  729. @Sean
    @Mikel


    I would have actually sacked all those bastards (the Russian military seems to be also a den of crooks anyway) and focused on developing Russia economically to make it a real superpower. Russia doesn’t need any more territories and “respect” would come by itself once the per capita GDP reached parity with the advanced economies and Russia developed good relations with everybody
     
    Russia has been backward for half a millennium and their ICBM force becomeing completely nullified by Western technology and Nato forward bases just over the border with Russia is only a matter of time as Putin admitted some years ago .

    But I would have also kept my powder dry and made sure that the ICBMs work flawlessly, to keep the Western crazies at bay.
     
    Russia could crawl or fight, they have decided to go out shooting. Ukraine foolishly ignored the advice of Professor Mearsheimer and renounced nuclear weapons, so they sent the thermonuclear cruise missiles of the type designated Kh-55 back to Russia and in 2022 the Ukrainians realised that those very same missiles identified by the serial number had been fired into Ukraine by the Russians

    https://unherd.com/2023/06/why-putin-will-use-nuclear-weapons/

    Last autumn, officials in Kyiv reported that Russia was firing “Kh-55 nuclear cruise missiles” with dummy warheads. Observers suggested these missiles — which are designed to carry only a nuclear weapon — were launched to erode Ukrainian air defences by “decoying” them into destroying the Kh-55s rather than missiles with conventional explosives. This claim makes little sense: missiles, even unarmed, would be too valuable for Russia to use as decoys. What does make sense, however, is launching Cold War-era missiles with dummy warheads to test their reliability for use in a real nuclear strike.
     
    Theatre thermonuclear weapon systems are are what Russia needs to use in Ukraine.

    Replies: @Mikel

    their ICBM force becomeing completely nullified by Western technology and Nato forward bases just over the border with Russia is only a matter of time as Putin admitted some years ago .

    Considering the huge strategic depth Russia has in the East, I doubt that is accurate. But I’m not an expert on these matters. If that was Putin’s real concern, he made a rather poor job at explaining it for all of us in the West to understand it. He should have insisted on that issue time and again, and not engage in distractions about Ukraine’s alleged fake history or the need to stop genocides in Donbas. That is not to say that our intransigence with having Ukraine join NATO was not idiotic though.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikel


    That is not to say that our intransigence with having Ukraine join NATO was not idiotic though.
     
    That was indeed a mistake in the 2008-2014 time period, but after 2014, we didn't have any good options. Ukraine realized that it needed security guarantees after 2014, but the West was (at least until the current war--we'll see what will happen after the end of this war) unwilling to provide them in any serious form even outside of the NATO framework for fear that Russia could still eventually attack Ukraine anyway. To make things worse, the West pressured Ukraine to denuclearize back in the early 1990s, against John Mearsheimer's advice. The West was arming Ukraine in an attempt to deter future Russian aggression against Ukraine, since the first round of Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2014-2015 resulted in the Minsk Accords, which Ukraine did not want to implement on Russia's terms due to these terms being unjust and signed under duress.

    The one big mistake that Ukrainian hot-heads made is discussing the possibility of an Operation Storm in the Donbass. That could have made Russia paranoid even though AFAIK Ukraine had made no definitive plans for this as of early 2022.
  730. @QCIC
    @A123

    The Russian leadership seems to be fighting a very patient war. At some point the military, the general population or other circumstances may force Russia to increase the tempo of the combat. I don't think they need nuclear weapons to do this. In my amateur opinion, nuclear weapons use would either be for some emergency or to make a point as an attempt to forestall Western escalation. This could easily backfire and would only happen in extreme circumstances.

    If Russia does step up the tempo they may attack targets which involve serious civilian casualties or irreparable infrastructure damage which so far they have been working to avoid. This always raises the horrible question for the likes of AP and his misguided ilk: How many Ukrainian civilian casualties are you willing to accept in this stupid war you blundered into?

    What would it take for some good souls in the Ukrainian military to wake up tomorrow and go arrest all their leadership who is prolonging this war? If their love of the national ideal and commitment to their military honor would not yet allow them to make this hard decision, then how many civilians need to die to change their minds?

    I wonder if there are now a lot of suicides by Ukrainian soldiers who know this needs to be done but simply do not have the will to do it? Having recognized this fact, their lives are no longer worth living. Live by the sword, die by (one's own) sword.

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson, @sudden death

    Hopefully, the months long failure of the Kiev Offensive and the inability to obtain funding (1) will force Zelensky (or his successor) to negotiate in good faith. This should keep us away from Ukrainian national suicide.

    The Russian leadership seems to be fighting a very patient war.

    I concur.

    Time is on Putin’s side.

    He is waiting for foreign fatigue to set in. Economically, Ukraine cannot survive without massive external assistance. America is reclaiming its prestige by stepping away from neo-Nazi aggression.

    The last thing Putin wants to do is create sympathy towards Ukie malice. Kiev is trying to create false flags at nuclear plants, dams, etc. Fortunately, it is not working.

    nuclear weapons use would either be for some emergency or to make a point as an attempt to forestall Western escalation. This could easily backfire and would only happen in extreme circumstances.

    Again, I concur.

    The Kremlin is happy to stay on defense for the foreseeable future while the Ukrainian military dies trying to breach prepared positions. Nukes would be used if somehow an existential line is crossed, such as any serious threat headed towards Crimea.

    What would it take for some good souls in the Ukrainian military to wake up tomorrow and go arrest all their leadership who is prolonging this war?

    Anti-Semite Zelensky has been following the playbook of Mahmoud Abbas. Eradicate potential threats before they have a chance to gather. As funds get tighter, it is likely he will skip the country. Presumably he already has a plan to reach the EU where he will be celebrated. His successor will make the concessions needed to compensate Russia for Kiev’s senseless aggression.

    PEACE 😇

  731. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    I think Russia needs to control Odessa to prevent the West from rearming Ukraine.

    History may show that if the inhabitants of Odessa did not want Russian rule they should have helped Ukraine follow a policy of good relations with Russia. This might have included explicit military neutrality which slightly favored Russia and was slightly ambiguous from the perspective of the West.

    I don't see Finland joining NATO as much worse than the Baltic countries joining previously. Surely this is a step backwards from Russia's perspective, but problems like that were expected. I think Russia's plan is to stay heavily armed in the Baltic area to protect Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad. Finland has used F-18's since the late 1990's so I don't think they were exactly part of a close family. I think Finland will eventually figure out they have more in common with Russia than Brussels and will eventually undo their accession to NATO. I don't know if this occurs in two years or twenty.

    I think Ukraine and Belarus are the countries Russia could not afford to lose for historical and cultural reasons. This is why they are also the big prizes the West wants to pull away from Russia.

    Georgia and Armenia were mostly lost a long time ago, but they are lower down the priority list. Depending on what nonsense the West, Turkey and Israel are doing in a few decades these former parts of the Russian Empire may seek the security and comfort of Russia's skirts again.

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson

    I think Russia needs to control Odessa to prevent the West from rearming Ukraine.

    What does this mean exactly and how would that work?

    Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can purchase weapons on the market like any other country.

    Most of their Western weapons prior to the war were purchased. The Javalins were in fact purchased when Trump was president.

    Would you be more comfortable with them purchasing weapons from China?

    History may show that if the inhabitants of Odessa did not want Russian rule they should have helped Ukraine follow a policy of good relations with Russia.

    So you are saying the residents shouldn’t get a choice in being part of a Russian dictatorship for not helping Ukraine become pro-Russian?

    I don’t see Finland joining NATO as much worse than the Baltic countries joining previously.

    I don’t either. It is Putin and his fans that spoke of planned missile silos on the border in regard to Ukraine even though the Baltics do not have said missiles and are closer to Moscow/St. Petersburg. Putin’s fans here never explained it to me.

    However Putin himself said that the war was about NATO expansion. By that metric he has already failed. Of course I think that was a lie to begin with and this is really about his ego. He wanted to go out as a Tsar that expanded Russian and eliminated Ukraine. Massively increase the population of Russia and annex the wealth of Ukraine. Would have worked if it wasn’t for those damn kids and their Western anti-tank guns.

    I think Ukraine and Belarus are the countries Russia could not afford to lose for historical and cultural reasons.

    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson


    Massively increase the population of Russia and annex the wealth of Ukraine. Would have worked if it wasn’t for those damn kids and their Western anti-tank guns.
     
    Yep, Russia can't become a superpower without Ukraine in the minds of its leadership, which is also why I suspect that it would have been extraordinarily difficult to dislodge Russia from Ukraine had the West followed Philippe Lemoine's advice and refused to give any military aid to Ukraine during the conventional phase of the Ukrainian War, instead preferring to fund an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine. In such a scenario, the West might have possibly had to *permanently* say goodbye to Ukraine's 25 million-strong human capital reserves, which would have gone over to a rejuvenated Russo-Chinese bloc, possibly permanently.

    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?
     
    That depends on the answer to the question whether late 1930s Poland should have domestic and foreign policies independent of those of Nazi Germany even if this means that Poland will inevitably suffer much more at Nazi hands as a result of this. ;)

    Replies: @Mikhail

    , @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    I think Ukrainian people have the right to do a lot of things. They should consider the consequences of their actions. If they entrust their leaders to start a war with Russia they may regret the outcome. The course followed by the Ukrainian government consorting with the West predictably started a war. Types like you want to justify things on this or that grounds, but it is still stupid. It was a mistake. I think the leaders were stupid, corrupt and coopted and the Ukrainian citizens will pay the price. Something similar is happening in the USA. Personal autonomy does not give one the ability to avoid consequences.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @John Johnson

  732. @QCIC
    @A123

    The Russian leadership seems to be fighting a very patient war. At some point the military, the general population or other circumstances may force Russia to increase the tempo of the combat. I don't think they need nuclear weapons to do this. In my amateur opinion, nuclear weapons use would either be for some emergency or to make a point as an attempt to forestall Western escalation. This could easily backfire and would only happen in extreme circumstances.

    If Russia does step up the tempo they may attack targets which involve serious civilian casualties or irreparable infrastructure damage which so far they have been working to avoid. This always raises the horrible question for the likes of AP and his misguided ilk: How many Ukrainian civilian casualties are you willing to accept in this stupid war you blundered into?

    What would it take for some good souls in the Ukrainian military to wake up tomorrow and go arrest all their leadership who is prolonging this war? If their love of the national ideal and commitment to their military honor would not yet allow them to make this hard decision, then how many civilians need to die to change their minds?

    I wonder if there are now a lot of suicides by Ukrainian soldiers who know this needs to be done but simply do not have the will to do it? Having recognized this fact, their lives are no longer worth living. Live by the sword, die by (one's own) sword.

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson, @sudden death

    What would it take for some good souls in the Ukrainian military to wake up tomorrow and go arrest all their leadership who is prolonging this war?

    You believe it is possible for the Ukrainian military to turn against its leadership and fight for a Russian dictatorship? After Putin launched this war?

    What would it take for some good souls in the Russian military to start fragging their commanders Vietnam style?

    Not sure how you can have so much confidence in the Russian military when there are intercepts like this one:

    Putin’s 42nd forum defense force clearly has more faith in the Russian military than the actual Russian military.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    Nice. I can't understand the Russian but the intonation and the translation seem totally fake, just Western talking points.

    Yes, I'm sure there is still plenty of bad stuff going down on all sides it is combat.

    Do you have any more propaganda for today?

  733. @Mikel
    @AP


    Unfortunately it’s not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.
     
    If that's the case, then I share my character flaws with several generations of Western leaders. They also thought that the risk of nuclear war was real and tried to avoid it by letting the USSR do what they wouldn't have tolerated from any other country.

    But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.
     
    I would be repeating myself and I have already spent enough bandwidth in this thread. Re-read my answers to Silvio and yourself.


    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they?
     
    Yes. The US does the same all the time and it works even better. Having the tremendous destruction capability of nukes, WMDs and high-tech weapons gives you a great advantage. How could it not? In fact, Russia's complaint is that they're no longer taken as seriously as the USSR was and they are not wrong.

    The supposed risk to you, that leads you to want to abandon Ukraine to Russia.
     
    Not exactly. The risk of escalation to a nuclear exchange, that not only me but all Western decision makers consider real, makes involvement in that foreign war even less rational. But what I want is a return of the US to its old non-interventionist policy. A policy that would have actually prevented this war.

    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic. The US can perfectly keep crucial supply routes open and a more or less stable immediate neighborhood without spending trillions on conflicts that are older than the US itself (like the current one in Ukraine).

    And you know perfectly well why I oppose US interventionism. We discussed it very recently, when you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami. Or their enemies, whoever has the upper hand at the moment. Your theory implies that I don't even need to know who I am supporting in order to be a supporter of that group.

    Btw, things are changing very rapidly in the US. I remember explaining to Dmitry (or Sudden Death, not sure) not long ago that the Tucker Carlson anti-war phenomenon was a rather fringe movement with a limited audience of just a segment of Fox News viewers. That is definitely not the case anymore. Only yesterday I was listening to a local Utah radio program in my car and all of a sudden they start interviewing none other than Douglas McGregor! The interview was as lame and pathetic as you might expect but, all things considered, this is positive development. An increasing amount of Americans are being exposed to a narrative different from the standard neocon one and the anti-foreign wars sentiment is decidedly on the rise. It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic. The US can perfectly keep crucial supply routes open and a more or less stable immediate neighborhood without spending trillions on conflicts that are older than the US itself (like the current one in Ukraine).

    The West’s main interest in Ukraine is securing Ukraine’s human capital for itself (and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, since Ukrainians themselves also want this). National self-determination matters but not as much since the West doesn’t care as much about national self-determination in places that it does not seek to integrate, such as in the Western Sahara.

    Btw, things are changing very rapidly in the US. I remember explaining to Dmitry (or Sudden Death, not sure) not long ago that the Tucker Carlson anti-war phenomenon was a rather fringe movement with a limited audience of just a segment of Fox News viewers. That is definitely not the case anymore. Only yesterday I was listening to a local Utah radio program in my car and all of a sudden they start interviewing none other than Douglas McGregor! The interview was as lame and pathetic as you might expect but, all things considered, this is positive development. An increasing amount of Americans are being exposed to a narrative different from the standard neocon one and the anti-foreign wars sentiment is decidedly on the rise. It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.

    AP will respond to you by saying that Putin is the Russian equivalent of a neocon and that you are thus opposing forever wars (in this case, when Russia is doing it) by providing Western military aid to Ukraine. He would also probably argue that a foreign government (such as Iran’s) would have been justified in providing military aid to the Taliban and/or pro-Iran Iraqi Shi’a militias if it would have opposed the US’s forever wars in those two countries. Right, AP?

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mr. XYZ

    XYZ wrote:


    The West’s main interest in Ukraine is securing Ukraine’s human capital for itself (and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, since Ukrainians themselves also want this).
     
    Are you referring to the West's human trafficking to turn young Ukrainian women into prostitutes and then drug addicts? Or do you mean the (((Western))) organ harvesting from healthy Ukrainian men and women?

    I am not convinced that most Ukrainians of any age want this.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  734. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    I think Russia needs to control Odessa to prevent the West from rearming Ukraine.

    What does this mean exactly and how would that work?

    Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can purchase weapons on the market like any other country.

    Most of their Western weapons prior to the war were purchased. The Javalins were in fact purchased when Trump was president.

    Would you be more comfortable with them purchasing weapons from China?

    History may show that if the inhabitants of Odessa did not want Russian rule they should have helped Ukraine follow a policy of good relations with Russia.

    So you are saying the residents shouldn't get a choice in being part of a Russian dictatorship for not helping Ukraine become pro-Russian?

    I don’t see Finland joining NATO as much worse than the Baltic countries joining previously.

    I don't either. It is Putin and his fans that spoke of planned missile silos on the border in regard to Ukraine even though the Baltics do not have said missiles and are closer to Moscow/St. Petersburg. Putin's fans here never explained it to me.

    However Putin himself said that the war was about NATO expansion. By that metric he has already failed. Of course I think that was a lie to begin with and this is really about his ego. He wanted to go out as a Tsar that expanded Russian and eliminated Ukraine. Massively increase the population of Russia and annex the wealth of Ukraine. Would have worked if it wasn't for those damn kids and their Western anti-tank guns.

    I think Ukraine and Belarus are the countries Russia could not afford to lose for historical and cultural reasons.

    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

    Massively increase the population of Russia and annex the wealth of Ukraine. Would have worked if it wasn’t for those damn kids and their Western anti-tank guns.

    Yep, Russia can’t become a superpower without Ukraine in the minds of its leadership, which is also why I suspect that it would have been extraordinarily difficult to dislodge Russia from Ukraine had the West followed Philippe Lemoine’s advice and refused to give any military aid to Ukraine during the conventional phase of the Ukrainian War, instead preferring to fund an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine. In such a scenario, the West might have possibly had to *permanently* say goodbye to Ukraine’s 25 million-strong human capital reserves, which would have gone over to a rejuvenated Russo-Chinese bloc, possibly permanently.

    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?

    That depends on the answer to the question whether late 1930s Poland should have domestic and foreign policies independent of those of Nazi Germany even if this means that Poland will inevitably suffer much more at Nazi hands as a result of this. 😉

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Mr. XYZ


    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?
     
    As you should know, post-Soviet Russia hasn't had the intention of being anti-Western. It sought NATO membership under Yeltsin and Putin. They were rebuffed on account of the US Military Industrial Complex needing a convenient bogeyman to justify expenditures along with the Russia hating types among some central and east Europeans as well as some others.

    As for the above highlighted question, there're two internationally signed treaties saying that no nation should join another at the expense of the security of another country.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/01022022-biden-administrations-flawed-stance-on-russia-oped/

    Excerpt -


    The increased Russian troop buildup in European Russia is in line with the existential threat NATO poses to that country. In addition to having been militarily active in some non-NATO countries, NATO exhibits an anti-Russian bias.

    Prior to the aforementioned Russian military buildup, the Russian government stated its opposition to NATO expanding near Russia for a period running over twenty years. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has referenced the 1999 Istanbul and 2010 Astana declarations, stipulating that an expanded military bloc shouldn’t threaten another country.

    When noting this particular, Lavrov said his US counterpart Antony Blinken gave a shrugged shoulders reply.
     

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson

  735. @Mikel
    @Sean


    their ICBM force becomeing completely nullified by Western technology and Nato forward bases just over the border with Russia is only a matter of time as Putin admitted some years ago .
     
    Considering the huge strategic depth Russia has in the East, I doubt that is accurate. But I'm not an expert on these matters. If that was Putin's real concern, he made a rather poor job at explaining it for all of us in the West to understand it. He should have insisted on that issue time and again, and not engage in distractions about Ukraine's alleged fake history or the need to stop genocides in Donbas. That is not to say that our intransigence with having Ukraine join NATO was not idiotic though.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    That is not to say that our intransigence with having Ukraine join NATO was not idiotic though.

    That was indeed a mistake in the 2008-2014 time period, but after 2014, we didn’t have any good options. Ukraine realized that it needed security guarantees after 2014, but the West was (at least until the current war–we’ll see what will happen after the end of this war) unwilling to provide them in any serious form even outside of the NATO framework for fear that Russia could still eventually attack Ukraine anyway. To make things worse, the West pressured Ukraine to denuclearize back in the early 1990s, against John Mearsheimer’s advice. The West was arming Ukraine in an attempt to deter future Russian aggression against Ukraine, since the first round of Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2014-2015 resulted in the Minsk Accords, which Ukraine did not want to implement on Russia’s terms due to these terms being unjust and signed under duress.

    The one big mistake that Ukrainian hot-heads made is discussing the possibility of an Operation Storm in the Donbass. That could have made Russia paranoid even though AFAIK Ukraine had made no definitive plans for this as of early 2022.

  736. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    What would it take for some good souls in the Ukrainian military to wake up tomorrow and go arrest all their leadership who is prolonging this war?

    You believe it is possible for the Ukrainian military to turn against its leadership and fight for a Russian dictatorship? After Putin launched this war?

    What would it take for some good souls in the Russian military to start fragging their commanders Vietnam style?

    Not sure how you can have so much confidence in the Russian military when there are intercepts like this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My0GU-i_sbU

    Putin's 42nd forum defense force clearly has more faith in the Russian military than the actual Russian military.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Nice. I can’t understand the Russian but the intonation and the translation seem totally fake, just Western talking points.

    Yes, I’m sure there is still plenty of bad stuff going down on all sides it is combat.

    Do you have any more propaganda for today?

    • Agree: Mikhail
  737. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    I think Russia needs to control Odessa to prevent the West from rearming Ukraine.

    What does this mean exactly and how would that work?

    Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can purchase weapons on the market like any other country.

    Most of their Western weapons prior to the war were purchased. The Javalins were in fact purchased when Trump was president.

    Would you be more comfortable with them purchasing weapons from China?

    History may show that if the inhabitants of Odessa did not want Russian rule they should have helped Ukraine follow a policy of good relations with Russia.

    So you are saying the residents shouldn't get a choice in being part of a Russian dictatorship for not helping Ukraine become pro-Russian?

    I don’t see Finland joining NATO as much worse than the Baltic countries joining previously.

    I don't either. It is Putin and his fans that spoke of planned missile silos on the border in regard to Ukraine even though the Baltics do not have said missiles and are closer to Moscow/St. Petersburg. Putin's fans here never explained it to me.

    However Putin himself said that the war was about NATO expansion. By that metric he has already failed. Of course I think that was a lie to begin with and this is really about his ego. He wanted to go out as a Tsar that expanded Russian and eliminated Ukraine. Massively increase the population of Russia and annex the wealth of Ukraine. Would have worked if it wasn't for those damn kids and their Western anti-tank guns.

    I think Ukraine and Belarus are the countries Russia could not afford to lose for historical and cultural reasons.

    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

    I think Ukrainian people have the right to do a lot of things. They should consider the consequences of their actions. If they entrust their leaders to start a war with Russia they may regret the outcome. The course followed by the Ukrainian government consorting with the West predictably started a war. Types like you want to justify things on this or that grounds, but it is still stupid. It was a mistake. I think the leaders were stupid, corrupt and coopted and the Ukrainian citizens will pay the price. Something similar is happening in the USA. Personal autonomy does not give one the ability to avoid consequences.

    • Agree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    I think the leaders were stupid, corrupt and coopted and the Ukrainian citizens will pay the price. Something similar is happening in the USA. Personal autonomy does not give one the ability to avoid consequences.

    If a future Russia were to become pro-Western then in that scenario would it be acceptable for Ukraine to follow the same path?

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    I think Ukrainian people have the right to do a lot of things. They should consider the consequences of their actions. If they entrust their leaders to start a war with Russia they may regret the outcome.

    Armenia has traditionally allied with Russia but recently announced joint military training with the United States.:
    https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-harsh-protest-armenia-unfriendly-actions/32584592.html

    Would a Russian special military invasion along with the elimination of their democracy and sovereignty be justified at this point?

    Would you support such an invasion and would the people of Armenia be to blame?

    Do you believe that Putin's geopolitical moves in the last few years have strengthened relations between Russian and the remaining non-NATO countries of the former eastern bloc?

    Replies: @QCIC

  738. @Sean
    @QCIC

    Stoltenberg's deputy is articulating the European point of view: they are likely keen to close the war down because there is nothing to be gained for Nato members. I imagine it was intended to stimulate interest by Russia about what might be put on the table and not to be taken as an initial negotiating position. The spanking took the form of comparing RusFed to Nazi Germany, but Russia is now exposed as more like pre ww2 France, militarily incompetent with overrated weapons and blundering alcoholic generals poorly handling unmotivated reservists the reality behind a big reputation as a war winning country. So rather than being outnumbered 4:1 against Nato on the ground, Russia effectively faces more like 12:1.

    The reason the proposal was made 3 weeks ago is Ukraine looks very unlikely to get a military solution and Russia is no longer any kind of threat, and so there is nothing to be gained in drawing out the Ukrainian conflict to weaken Russia because it already is very weak (relative to its size) yet Ukraine holding its own as the war continues for years would cause an lot of economic disruption to Western counties who are in Nato to freeload off of US taxpayers not spend vast amounts on artillery ammunition restocking ECT. Ukraine will have to listen to the Europeans in a year or so, unless their plan to keep the US paying for European defence while Western Europe enjoys ever more massive social spending works, as it increasingly has since WW2.

    Replies: @QCIC

    I thought Jenssen’s statement was a trial ballon, this may be similar to your position on his comments. He seems to be socializing the Ukrainian military failure as are many others. Jake Sullivan made a weak threat the other day against North Korea which sounded like Ukrainian failure as well. It was something about DPRK weapons given to Russia (LOL) are not to be used against Ukrainian winter heating infrastructure.

    Several commenters here like to point out the total incompetence of the Russian military and the general pitiful nature of the Russian economy. Somehow they never acknowledge the aspects of the Russian systems which seem to be working pretty well. These include nuclear submarines, the mostly coastal surface Navy, a substantial strategic airforce, space and satellite capabilities, dominant missile capabilities, perhaps the strongest commercial and military nuclear industries, advanced radar and electronic warfare capabilities, top fighter aircraft, etc.

    In your mind, how does this large mass of self-evident capability jive with the weak, incompetent, misguided, backward Russians perspective?

  739. @AP
    @Sean


    In my opinion Russia thought Ukraine would be influenceable by economic ad military pressure short of hostilites plus valuable economic emoluments such as cheap gas and buying Ukrainian bonds would do the rest. Russia never anticipated that Ukraine could fight a Russian invasion to a standstill and draw Russia into an all out war. Kiev has made the Kremlin look stupid, but the ordinary people of West Ukraine especially have paid a terrible price for it.
     
    Correct.

    Both sides have blundered into this.
     
    Not Ukraine. It did not make that choice. Unless you mean - it chose to be invaded because it chose not to join the Eurasian Customs Union and voluntarily submit to Russia.

    Correct, but battlefield theatre thermonuclear annihilations of the Ukrainian army main formations in the east and south would be to Russia’s advantage
     
    Not necessarily. Ukrainians have been careful to keep their forces spread out enough in order to avoid making this a good choice. The only exception is in the breakthrough areas but here the Russian forces are packed just as densely if not more so. So a tactical strike would wipe out plenty of Russian forces too. Would it clear minefields?

    So I suspect it would be militarily neutral (or close to it), and would carry a heavy diplomatic price. The West obviously wouldn't go nuclear over it, but Ukraine would probably finally get those heavier missiles it would want - the capability of taking out the Black Sea fleet.

    I'm not saying Russia would never use tactical nukes, but it would be very unlikely.

    But, as per the discussion with Mikel, zero chance of anything in Ukraine resulting in Russia nuking the USA and thereby getting itself completely wiped out too.

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. XYZ, @Sean

    So a tactical strike would wipe out plenty of Russian forces too.

    Nato did not seem to think that as it was their official doctrine to use tactical thermonuclear strikes. In a stalemate it would be easy to hit behind the Ukrainian front line and eliminate even dispersed units in airbursts. There would likely be a change in US policy towards direct retaliation on Russia’s armed forces after the first nuclear use, so Putin will be better of using several at one time I think.

    Would it clear minefields?

    I think Putin surely has some ideas in mind for an ending to the war with Russia keeping its territorial gains up until this point, and it does not seem to be any kind of conventional offensive into West Ukraine by the Russian army or missile onslaught against critical Ukrainian infrastructure he is banking on. Both those have been tried and failed the former incurred serious losses than mean he has only really reconstituted his forces from their decimation

    I’m not saying Russia would never use tactical nukes, but it would be very unlikely.

    Yes. Unless the decision makers in the Kremlin come to the conclusion they are powerless to terminate this debacle with their great power status reasonably intact by conventional means. Which happens to be what the Western military experts already believe in a great many cases.

    A strategic nuclear threat to the US is already on the table, of course it is.

  740. @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikel


    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic. The US can perfectly keep crucial supply routes open and a more or less stable immediate neighborhood without spending trillions on conflicts that are older than the US itself (like the current one in Ukraine).
     
    The West's main interest in Ukraine is securing Ukraine's human capital for itself (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, since Ukrainians themselves also want this). National self-determination matters but not as much since the West doesn't care as much about national self-determination in places that it does not seek to integrate, such as in the Western Sahara.

    Btw, things are changing very rapidly in the US. I remember explaining to Dmitry (or Sudden Death, not sure) not long ago that the Tucker Carlson anti-war phenomenon was a rather fringe movement with a limited audience of just a segment of Fox News viewers. That is definitely not the case anymore. Only yesterday I was listening to a local Utah radio program in my car and all of a sudden they start interviewing none other than Douglas McGregor! The interview was as lame and pathetic as you might expect but, all things considered, this is positive development. An increasing amount of Americans are being exposed to a narrative different from the standard neocon one and the anti-foreign wars sentiment is decidedly on the rise. It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.
     
    AP will respond to you by saying that Putin is the Russian equivalent of a neocon and that you are thus opposing forever wars (in this case, when Russia is doing it) by providing Western military aid to Ukraine. He would also probably argue that a foreign government (such as Iran's) would have been justified in providing military aid to the Taliban and/or pro-Iran Iraqi Shi'a militias if it would have opposed the US's forever wars in those two countries. Right, AP?

    Replies: @QCIC

    XYZ wrote:

    The West’s main interest in Ukraine is securing Ukraine’s human capital for itself (and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, since Ukrainians themselves also want this).

    Are you referring to the West’s human trafficking to turn young Ukrainian women into prostitutes and then drug addicts? Or do you mean the (((Western))) organ harvesting from healthy Ukrainian men and women?

    I am not convinced that most Ukrainians of any age want this.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @QCIC

    Westerners eagerly harvest organs from Ukrainian men and women? In what universe do you live?

    Replies: @AP

  741. @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson


    Massively increase the population of Russia and annex the wealth of Ukraine. Would have worked if it wasn’t for those damn kids and their Western anti-tank guns.
     
    Yep, Russia can't become a superpower without Ukraine in the minds of its leadership, which is also why I suspect that it would have been extraordinarily difficult to dislodge Russia from Ukraine had the West followed Philippe Lemoine's advice and refused to give any military aid to Ukraine during the conventional phase of the Ukrainian War, instead preferring to fund an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine. In such a scenario, the West might have possibly had to *permanently* say goodbye to Ukraine's 25 million-strong human capital reserves, which would have gone over to a rejuvenated Russo-Chinese bloc, possibly permanently.

    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?
     
    That depends on the answer to the question whether late 1930s Poland should have domestic and foreign policies independent of those of Nazi Germany even if this means that Poland will inevitably suffer much more at Nazi hands as a result of this. ;)

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?

    As you should know, post-Soviet Russia hasn’t had the intention of being anti-Western. It sought NATO membership under Yeltsin and Putin. They were rebuffed on account of the US Military Industrial Complex needing a convenient bogeyman to justify expenditures along with the Russia hating types among some central and east Europeans as well as some others.

    As for the above highlighted question, there’re two internationally signed treaties saying that no nation should join another at the expense of the security of another country.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/01022022-biden-administrations-flawed-stance-on-russia-oped/

    Excerpt –

    The increased Russian troop buildup in European Russia is in line with the existential threat NATO poses to that country. In addition to having been militarily active in some non-NATO countries, NATO exhibits an anti-Russian bias.

    Prior to the aforementioned Russian military buildup, the Russian government stated its opposition to NATO expanding near Russia for a period running over twenty years. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has referenced the 1999 Istanbul and 2010 Astana declarations, stipulating that an expanded military bloc shouldn’t threaten another country.

    When noting this particular, Lavrov said his US counterpart Antony Blinken gave a shrugged shoulders reply.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikhail

    Arguably, Russia should have been given a membership invite into NATO if it would meet sufficient conditions (implementation of democracy, no more murdering political opponents, et cetera). At the very least, the NATO-Russia Council should have been given actual teeth and the ICBM Treaty should not have been scrapped. (Giving NATO membership invitations to Ukraine and Georgia back in 2008 was a mistake, but after 2014, there was no good solution. The post-Maidan Ukrainian government initially said that it didn't want to join NATO, but Russia didn't believe them, and after Russia took Ukrainian territory and refused to return all of it, Ukraine wasn't going to abandon its NATO aspirations. And abandoning Ukraine's EU aspirations was a complete non-starter for Ukrainians since 2014.)

    I think that having an authoritarian Russia join NATO would have been difficult. Spain didn't join NATO until 1982, after the end of the Franco regime. Turkey joined much earlier, but due to Cold War considerations (the USSR was threatening to reconquer Turkish territory). For an autocratic Russia to join NATO, I suspect that it would need to turn strongly anti-China, and I don't think that Putin's Russia would have actually been willing to do that, even for the sake of NATO membership. Russia and China already had warm ties even back in the 1990s, after all.

    I do suspect that even as Russia was seeking NATO membership, it was also trying to balance China and the West against each other, a bit like Viktor Orban is sort of trying to do right now, but with greater force than Orban since Russia is about 15 times more populous than Hungary is.

    , @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    As you should know, post-Soviet Russia hasn’t had the intention of being anti-Western. It sought NATO membership under Yeltsin and Putin. They were rebuffed on account of the US Military Industrial Complex needing a convenient bogeyman to justify expenditures along with the Russia hating types among some central and east Europeans as well as some others.

    Russia never applied to NATO. Yeltsin and Putin merely talked about the possibility.

    Yeltsin could have been serious at one point but it was more likely a political ploy for Putin. In any case they both opposed NATO expansion past Germany. Why would they be serious about wanting to join NATO while not wanting it to expand?

    There would also be a huge problem for Russia joining which would be interoperability. That was always a problem for Ukraine. They basically have too much Soviet hardware. Joining would require massive investments in either Western arms or the production of compatible armaments.

    Russia also wouldn't qualify for the same reason as Ukraine which is that they have a disputed border (Kuril Islands). The EU, US and China all recognize the islands as part of Japan.

    Ukraine didn't qualify because of Donbas and Crimea. In fact Putin could have kept Ukraine out indefinitely by keeping Donbas in the grey area. I pointed this out numerous times before the war started and yet Putin's forum defense forces amusingly thought it was some new revelation when NATO recently reiterated that they don't qualify.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  742. Contrary to sovok influenced socioeconomic historical spin:

    Russia had in fact rebounded well after 1905, thereby explaining in part why Lenin was very much a non-factor. Max Hastings is right that a 1916 WW I start would’ve likely given a different and much better result for Russia.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikhail


    Max Hastings is right that a 1916 WW I start would’ve likely given a different and much better result for Russia.
     
    Do you have a link as to where exactly he specifically says that?

    Anyway, I'm actually very unsure about that since a WWI that breaks out in 1916 or later might mean no Schlieffen Plan. This, combined with Russia's growing military power, could have caused Britain and thus the US to remain neutral in this alt-WWI. Without British and US participation in this war, Germany would have been in a considerably better position, even after accounting for the increase in Russian military strength. The one unknown factor would be just how much Austria-Hungary would wobble in 1917; had Franz Ferdinand lived, he would have almost certainly tried to impose universal suffrage in Hungary, which would have likely triggered a Hungarian secession attempt which Austria and Germany would have needed to subsequently crush. Might Serbia have used the resulting crisis as an opening to spark a revolt in Bosnia and then to argue that its own troops need to move into there in order to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, with Franco-Russian blessings?

    Replies: @Mikhail

  743. @Mikhail
    @Mr. XYZ


    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?
     
    As you should know, post-Soviet Russia hasn't had the intention of being anti-Western. It sought NATO membership under Yeltsin and Putin. They were rebuffed on account of the US Military Industrial Complex needing a convenient bogeyman to justify expenditures along with the Russia hating types among some central and east Europeans as well as some others.

    As for the above highlighted question, there're two internationally signed treaties saying that no nation should join another at the expense of the security of another country.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/01022022-biden-administrations-flawed-stance-on-russia-oped/

    Excerpt -


    The increased Russian troop buildup in European Russia is in line with the existential threat NATO poses to that country. In addition to having been militarily active in some non-NATO countries, NATO exhibits an anti-Russian bias.

    Prior to the aforementioned Russian military buildup, the Russian government stated its opposition to NATO expanding near Russia for a period running over twenty years. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has referenced the 1999 Istanbul and 2010 Astana declarations, stipulating that an expanded military bloc shouldn’t threaten another country.

    When noting this particular, Lavrov said his US counterpart Antony Blinken gave a shrugged shoulders reply.
     

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson

    Arguably, Russia should have been given a membership invite into NATO if it would meet sufficient conditions (implementation of democracy, no more murdering political opponents, et cetera). At the very least, the NATO-Russia Council should have been given actual teeth and the ICBM Treaty should not have been scrapped. (Giving NATO membership invitations to Ukraine and Georgia back in 2008 was a mistake, but after 2014, there was no good solution. The post-Maidan Ukrainian government initially said that it didn’t want to join NATO, but Russia didn’t believe them, and after Russia took Ukrainian territory and refused to return all of it, Ukraine wasn’t going to abandon its NATO aspirations. And abandoning Ukraine’s EU aspirations was a complete non-starter for Ukrainians since 2014.)

    I think that having an authoritarian Russia join NATO would have been difficult. Spain didn’t join NATO until 1982, after the end of the Franco regime. Turkey joined much earlier, but due to Cold War considerations (the USSR was threatening to reconquer Turkish territory). For an autocratic Russia to join NATO, I suspect that it would need to turn strongly anti-China, and I don’t think that Putin’s Russia would have actually been willing to do that, even for the sake of NATO membership. Russia and China already had warm ties even back in the 1990s, after all.

    I do suspect that even as Russia was seeking NATO membership, it was also trying to balance China and the West against each other, a bit like Viktor Orban is sort of trying to do right now, but with greater force than Orban since Russia is about 15 times more populous than Hungary is.

    • LOL: Mikhail
  744. @Mikhail
    Contrary to sovok influenced socioeconomic historical spin:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EFeRgxetUA

    Russia had in fact rebounded well after 1905, thereby explaining in part why Lenin was very much a non-factor. Max Hastings is right that a 1916 WW I start would've likely given a different and much better result for Russia.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Max Hastings is right that a 1916 WW I start would’ve likely given a different and much better result for Russia.

    Do you have a link as to where exactly he specifically says that?

    Anyway, I’m actually very unsure about that since a WWI that breaks out in 1916 or later might mean no Schlieffen Plan. This, combined with Russia’s growing military power, could have caused Britain and thus the US to remain neutral in this alt-WWI. Without British and US participation in this war, Germany would have been in a considerably better position, even after accounting for the increase in Russian military strength. The one unknown factor would be just how much Austria-Hungary would wobble in 1917; had Franz Ferdinand lived, he would have almost certainly tried to impose universal suffrage in Hungary, which would have likely triggered a Hungarian secession attempt which Austria and Germany would have needed to subsequently crush. Might Serbia have used the resulting crisis as an opening to spark a revolt in Bosnia and then to argue that its own troops need to move into there in order to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, with Franco-Russian blessings?

    • Thanks: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Mr. XYZ

    Hastings' comment on Russia in a hypothetical 1916 WW I start time is hyperlinked in this piece:

    https://strategic-culture.su/news/2017/03/22/reexamining-russias-past/

  745. @QCIC
    @Mr. XYZ

    XYZ wrote:


    The West’s main interest in Ukraine is securing Ukraine’s human capital for itself (and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, since Ukrainians themselves also want this).
     
    Are you referring to the West's human trafficking to turn young Ukrainian women into prostitutes and then drug addicts? Or do you mean the (((Western))) organ harvesting from healthy Ukrainian men and women?

    I am not convinced that most Ukrainians of any age want this.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Westerners eagerly harvest organs from Ukrainian men and women? In what universe do you live?

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mr. XYZ

    He read that in whatever place he goes to fill his head with the other nonsense he believes.

    Replies: @QCIC

  746. @Mikel
    @AP


    Unfortunately it’s not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.
     
    If that's the case, then I share my character flaws with several generations of Western leaders. They also thought that the risk of nuclear war was real and tried to avoid it by letting the USSR do what they wouldn't have tolerated from any other country.

    But to judge how real those threats are, answer the two questions.
     
    I would be repeating myself and I have already spent enough bandwidth in this thread. Re-read my answers to Silvio and yourself.


    Russians know that by making threats they can get what they want; therefore, they make threats. Why wouldn’t they?
     
    Yes. The US does the same all the time and it works even better. Having the tremendous destruction capability of nukes, WMDs and high-tech weapons gives you a great advantage. How could it not? In fact, Russia's complaint is that they're no longer taken as seriously as the USSR was and they are not wrong.

    The supposed risk to you, that leads you to want to abandon Ukraine to Russia.
     
    Not exactly. The risk of escalation to a nuclear exchange, that not only me but all Western decision makers consider real, makes involvement in that foreign war even less rational. But what I want is a return of the US to its old non-interventionist policy. A policy that would have actually prevented this war.

    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic. The US can perfectly keep crucial supply routes open and a more or less stable immediate neighborhood without spending trillions on conflicts that are older than the US itself (like the current one in Ukraine).

    And you know perfectly well why I oppose US interventionism. We discussed it very recently, when you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami. Or their enemies, whoever has the upper hand at the moment. Your theory implies that I don't even need to know who I am supporting in order to be a supporter of that group.

    Btw, things are changing very rapidly in the US. I remember explaining to Dmitry (or Sudden Death, not sure) not long ago that the Tucker Carlson anti-war phenomenon was a rather fringe movement with a limited audience of just a segment of Fox News viewers. That is definitely not the case anymore. Only yesterday I was listening to a local Utah radio program in my car and all of a sudden they start interviewing none other than Douglas McGregor! The interview was as lame and pathetic as you might expect but, all things considered, this is positive development. An increasing amount of Americans are being exposed to a narrative different from the standard neocon one and the anti-foreign wars sentiment is decidedly on the rise. It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    Unfortunately it’s not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.

    If that’s the case, then I share my character flaws with several generations of Western leaders.

    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    And before you mention Czechoslovakia, that was crushed before anything could be done, plus the Czechoslovak government didn’t ask for Western assistance.

    They also thought that the risk of nuclear war was real and tried to avoid it by letting the USSR do what they wouldn’t have tolerated from any other country.

    The fact that the USSR’s conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.

    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic

    So now you are equating regime change in Iraq with protecting a European country from a Russian invasion?

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    And you know perfectly well why I oppose US interventionism. We discussed it very recently, when you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami.

    What? When did I do that?

    It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.

    I’m opposed to forever wars and was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. But I am also opposed to the invasion of Ukraine.

    If the Republicans choose a pro-Russian ticket they will lose Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and therefore, most likely, the White House. In 2016, Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes and Pennsylvania by 45,000. There are 36,000 Ukrainians and 850,000 Poles in Michigan, and 122,000 Ukrainians and 824,000 Poles in Pennsylvania. Similar ratios in Wisconsin (fewer Ukrainians, but more Poles). Pick a pro-Russian candidate and enjoy 4 more years of Biden. Choose to screw Ukraine and screw yourself.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?
     
    Interestingly enough, Philippe Lemoine views this as being significantly less provocative to the Soviets than having the West arm Ukrainians right now, and also significantly less costly, since the Afghan aid for an insurgency rather than for a conventional war.

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea.
     
    You forgot to mention Taiwan here, which the US prevented China from conquering in 1950 by sending a part of the US fleet to protect Taiwan from Mao after North Korea invaded South Korea with Chinese blessing and the US became very paranoid about future potential Communist expansion in that part of the world.

    Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.
     
    Very true. Though one can say that the societal moral rot in Ukraine, outside of the west, as a result of Communism was deeper than in countries like Poland due to Communism lasting longer and being more brutal in Ukraine. Ukraine really only shed its Sovok past over the last ten years. Ten years ago, about half of Ukrainians were still Sovoks.
    , @Mikel
    @AP


    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

     
    Yes. Even those ones shared my belief that nuclear war was perfectly possible. They continued their predecessors' habit of having the "red telephone" ready 24x7 to make sure that nuclear war didn't start by accident and carried the nuclear briefcase with the launch codes anywhere the President went to be ready for the eventuality that it did start anyway. Those were also the ones who embarked in the very costly "Star Wars" initiative to intercept the nukes that you say nobody had the intention of launching.

    I could go on and on but those few examples make it spectacularly clear that everybody that matters then and now shared by beliefs and totally disregarded yours.

    Even though obviously nobody wants it, nuclear war is a real possibility. At any given time, there's hundreds of nuclear missiles on each side ready to be launched within minutes and turn the US and Russia into radioactive wastelands. This means that nuclear war is not only possible through accident (as is obviously the case with any other technology invented by man) but also through misunderstandings and miscalculations that make it impossible for the other side to lose face.

    The fact that the USSR’s conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.
     

    Repeating the same assertion over and over has its value in a religious context but it doesn't really help your case in a rational debate.

    Even if common sense wasn't enough, there are reams of contemporary written evidence in the form of declarations, official military doctrines and constant discussions in the media, in Congress, etc showing that nuclear war with the USSR was the biggest fear during Cold War I.

    At the end of WW2 it was of course rational for the Western allies to fear a USSR fully mobilized for total war and perhaps more importantly, people were very tired and nobody wanted a new world war, not even Churchill. That's how EE was lost. But the real freeze in hostilities began in 1949. At the beginning it was just the horrendous realization that now Hiroshima could happen to the US but the danger grew very fast to much worse levels, including, for the first time in human history, the possibility of planetary destruction. Of course, this was the overarching consideration behind all foreign policy decisions during the previous Cold War.

    At a conventional level, the Warsaw Pact did have very large numbers of everything but everyone could see the technological gap in the Middle east and in Asia. All of this was not such a long time ago. I remember it perfectly well and nobody in Europe cared much about Soviet tanks. Everybody's fear was definitely the nukes.


    What? When did I do that?
     
    When you accused me of being pro-Russian.

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.
     
    Well, yes, I guess so. But the authorities in Kiev keep trying to prove the contrary, as the abuse Elon is receiving from them right now shows. He was under no obligation to keep the internet going in Ukraine. It wasn't his business. I'm sure he did it out of empathy under the emotion of the moment in those initial days of the invasion but with certain beneficiaries no good deed goes unpunished. Perhaps not even Saddam or the Mullah Omar would have been so ungrateful.

    Non-interventionism is pointless anyway if you start making exceptions before you even begin. Whether interventionism "worked well" in the places you mentioned or not, I want the US to stop intervening and giving defense guarantees also in Asia and in Europe. Even in the Basque Country, if it ever came to that.

    Replies: @AP, @silviosilver

  747. Arguably, Russia should have been given a membership invite into NATO if it would meet sufficient conditions (implementation of democracy, no more murdering political opponents, et cetera). At the very least, the NATO-Russia Council should have been given actual teeth and the ICBM Treaty should not have been scrapped. (Giving NATO membership invitations to Ukraine and Georgia back in 2008 was a mistake, but after 2014, there was no good solution. The post-Maidan Ukrainian government initially said that it didn’t want to join NATO, but Russia didn’t believe them, and after Russia took Ukrainian territory and refused to return all of it, Ukraine wasn’t going to abandon its NATO aspirations. And abandoning Ukraine’s EU aspirations was a complete non-starter for Ukrainians since 2014.)

    I think that having an authoritarian Russia join NATO would have been difficult. Spain didn’t join NATO until 1982, after the end of the Franco regime. Turkey joined much earlier, but due to Cold War considerations (the USSR was threatening to reconquer Turkish territory). For an autocratic Russia to join NATO, I suspect that it would need to turn strongly anti-China, and I don’t think that Putin’s Russia would have actually been willing to do that, even for the sake of NATO membership. Russia and China already had warm ties even back in the 1990s, after all.

    I do suspect that even as Russia was seeking NATO membership, it was also trying to balance China and the West against each other, a bit like Viktor Orban is sort of trying to do right now, but with greater force than Orban since Russia is about 15 times more populous than Hungary is.

    As if Kiev regime controlled Ukraine is a better example of democracy and tolerance. Your excuse for Turkey is noted. FYI, politically motivated assassinations in Russia are likely not the result of order from the top. US had its period with the Kennedys, MLK, Lowenstein, Wallace, Kent State, et al.

    Like much of the rest of the world and unlike Western neocons and neolibs, Russia doesn’t take a doctrinaire diktat approach on how international relations should be conducted. Hence the example of BRICS Plus, with more on the way.

  748. @Mr. XYZ
    @QCIC

    Westerners eagerly harvest organs from Ukrainian men and women? In what universe do you live?

    Replies: @AP

    He read that in whatever place he goes to fill his head with the other nonsense he believes.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @AP

    Both of these topics have been discussed at Unz. I don't have an opinion on the prevalence of either issue and I was fishing for information. This question is part of the "War is Hell" subtext.

    There have been multiple discussions of Ukrainian prostitutes and whether Donetsk, Kiev, Lvov, Warsaw or some other city had more of these destitute women. This problem predates the SMO and Maidan. I think this discussion was often a rant shared between AP/Hack and Gerard.

    The topic of organ harvesting comes up on the fringes and has been mentioned at Unz. I think this is usually hinted to be an Israeli activity except in China where it is reportedly done by the CPC.

  749. @QCIC
    @AP

    The main concerns about nuclear weapons use are escalation, miscalculation and use-them-or-lose-them scenarios. The risk of some escalation goes up enormously because the West has created a war situation in Ukraine. Western propaganda is churning out Russian hate at a record pace. What do you think the crews of US submarines are thinking about Russia? How much has the margin for error and simple misunderstanding been reduced? All sides will have surely escalated to a much higher level of readiness and paranoia than they had prior to the current conflict. "Increased Readiness" for nuclear submarines is very close to outright nuclear war. You will say this was all created by the boogeyman, but Putin the boogeyman gave many warnings that Western actions against Russia would be treated as an act of War.

    The Russian response to Ukraine seems like an intervention to prevent a domino effect of the West encroaching and and arming hostile border states directly on the Russian border. Your camp apparently thinks this is a good idea, so just accept it and stop lying about it and making whiny excuses. It is no secret that the West wanted bases in Sevastopol. It is no secret that the West would put heavy weapons and missiles in Ukraine pointed at Russia. You hope Ukraine and the West are strong enough to pull this off but then you try to justify it with a shallow self-serving explanation.

    Even if escalation is the main concern, there are always some who believe a limited nuclear war is survivable and practical. The key to this outlook may be a first strike combined with outstanding anti-submarine warfare, some missile defenses and probably a few high altitude EMPs. The Ukrainian bloodfest has probably brought a few modern "General Ripper" types out of the closet who are scheming even now to make this happen.

    Replies: @AP

    The risk of some escalation goes up enormously because the West has created a war situation in Ukraine

    It’s gone from zero to zero.

    What do you think the crews of US submarines are thinking about Russia?

    Not much different than they thought 3 years ago.

    Western propaganda is churning out Russian hate at a record pace.

    Correction: Russian actions are churning out Russia hate at a record pace. In Ukraine where they see Russian actions with their own eyes, and in the world.

    The Russian response to Ukraine seems like an intervention to prevent a domino effect of the West encroaching and and arming hostile border states directly on the Russian border.

    Russia is now getting a US forces based in Finland, near the Russian border:

    https://tass.com/world/1671309

    Russia doesn’t seem to mind. So that wasn’t an issue, after all.

    Your camp apparently thinks this is a good idea

    Preventing Russian aggression by joining NATO is an excellent idea.

    It is no secret that the West wanted bases in Sevastopol.

    Would these have been a threat to Russia? Finland is a lot closer, you know.

    Remind when anyone has ever directly invaded the home territory of a nuclear power. Even a small one like North Korea.

    Tell me more about organ harvesting lol.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @AP

    Blood lust has clouded your thinking. You should put in an order for a new brain.

    You mistakenly believe the risk of nuclear war with Russia is low and are therefore fervently supporting Western moves against Russia. The reality is that Ukraine will be predictably destroyed and the risk of nuclear war will have been greatly increased solely by actions of the West using Ukraine as a pawn.

    Yeah, that was a great plan.

    Replies: @A123

  750. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Pence, Bolton, Pompeo are all hawks

    Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine, had Trump won


    These “hawks” didn’t move the military equipment to Ukraine which would have prevented the invasion.
     
    The invasion wasn't imminent in 2020 yet, however.

    I would doubt Trump winning in 2020 would change the situation, as Ukraine was without many defenses
     
    Putin invaded because he thought there would be very light consequences: Ukraine wouldn't resist, West would be weak about it and wouldn't care.

    A Trump administration in office wouldn't have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition.

    If Trump has given Ukraine old things from NATO like Patriot missiles, F-16, even 155mm artillery, Moscow wouldn’t invade Ukraine in 2022.
     
    I agree.

    As the result of their policy of not defending Ukraine before the war, now they partly they trapped Russia in Ukraine. Although I don’t think this is intentional policy, they have broken the Russian army by not stopping the self-destructive invasion.
     
    Also agree.

    Afghanistan withdrawal was planned by Donald Trump.
     
    Trump planned to withdraw, but I doubt that his administration would have botched the withdrawal as badly, leaving behind all that equipment for the Taliban.

    A most popular policy for winning in the Swing States will be more isolationism for external policy, more protectionism for local industry. The kind of speech to win election will be “We need to spend less money outside America and more money in Michigan and Minnesota”.
     
    Trump won Michigan in 2016 by 11,000 votes.

    In 2021, there were 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in Michigan:

    https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/03/michigan-has-the-9th-most-residents-with-ukrainian-ancestry-in-the-us.html

    A policy of abandoning Eastern Europe to Russia will lose Michigan.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

    Trump administration in office wouldn’t have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition

    The response of Trump would have been weaker for Russia in comparison with Biden where the response has been more strong than probably anyone has expected, especially in Moscow.

    planned to withdraw, but I doubt that his administration

    Trump planned the withdraw and signed the peace agreement in 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/58271943

    36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in

    There is confusing language. Except a small minority, these people are not Ukrainians and Poles. Only a small proportion of this number are people from Ukraine or Poland.

    They are mostly native Americans which have ancestry from Poland or Ukraine in a different century like most Americans. Americans who are arrivals of the late 19th century and later created a concept of ethnic pride and express this with some events like “Columbus day” or “St Patrick’s day”. If the external objectives of the country the American peoples’ ancestors had immigrated before in previous centuries will change voting is not so clear as their enjoyment of the Shamrock flag.

    In 2012, most Polish Americans voted for Obama against Romney. In 2016, mostly voted for Trump against Clinton (Trump was pro-Russia/Clinton anti-Russia). In 2020, they voted for Biden against Trump.

    In every year after 1980 a majority have voted for the president which wins the election, so this looks like a mainstream voting group without so much nationally nonrepresentative views.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-American_vote#Presidential_voting_results

    • Replies: @AP
    @Dmitry


    Trump administration in office wouldn’t have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition

    The response of Trump would have been weaker for Russia in comparison with Biden where the response has been more strong than probably anyone has expected, especially in Moscow.
     
    Doubtful, with Pompeo in charge.

    I think, however, that Trump would have deterred an attack. Biden seemed to be predictably weak like Obama, which encouraged Putin to act. Biden's later behavior was surprising. Your analogy to the mousetrap was a correct one. If Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.

    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.

    36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in

    There is confusing language. Except a small minority, these people are not Ukrainians and Poles. Only a small proportion of this number are people from Ukraine or Poland.
     
    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine. They are more pro-Ukraine than American Jews are pro-Israel. Being born in the USA doesn't change that. Likewise for many Poles.

    Pole are more assimilated than Ukrainians, but there are many more of them. If only 10% of Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe that (plus Ukrainian votes) will be enough to sway the election in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If Trump chooses Vivek, Green or some other pro-Russian as his running mate he will lose those states.

    They are mostly native Americans which have ancestry from Poland or Ukraine in a different century like most Americans. Americans who are arrivals of the late 19th century and later created a concept of ethnic pride and express this with some events like “Columbus day” or “St Patrick’s day”.
     
    If Ireland were invaded what do you think would happen to the Irish-American vote if a candidate supported the invader?

    In 2012, most Polish Americans voted for Obama against Romney. In 2016, mostly voted for Trump against Clinton (Trump was pro-Russia/Clinton anti-Russia).
     
    Most Ukrainian nationalists voted for Trump and against Clinton because they correctly viewed the collusion story as a hoax (probably spread by Russia itself) and because the Obama administration had been anti-Ukrainian. Clinton anti-Russia was a story for ignorant people; Eastern Europeans knew better.

    Here is a Ukrainian nationalist writing about Clinton, in 2016:

    https://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/whos-truly-beholden-to-the-kremlin/

    Let’s cut through the hysteria and examine the facts.

    Long before Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump exchanged compliments, Bill Clinton received a phone call from Mr. Putin in 2010 thanking him personally for delivering a speech for $500,000, paid by a Russian investment bank that was promoting shares in a company that controlled 20 percent of America’s supply of uranium, a critical component in nuclear weapons.

    The State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, signed off on the deal just two months after her husband’s speech, enabling the Russian state nuclear agency to not only acquire 20 percent of America’s uranium but also own the land in which the deposits are located.

    She was also secretary of state when $145 million in donations reached the Clinton Foundation from the shareholders of the company that sold America’s uranium.

    Yet that wasn’t the only money the Clintons raised from the Russians that resulted in the exchange for sensitive materials.

    Out of 28 American, European and Russian companies that participated in the transfer of classified technology to the Skolkovo technology park outside of Moscow, 17 were Clinton Foundation donors or paid for speeches by Mr. Clinton.

    By 2014, when Russia was invading Ukraine, the FBI issued “an extraordinary warning” to several technology companies involved with Skolkovo. The true motives of the Russians is to gain access to classified, sensitive and emerging technology from the companies, an FBI agent warned.

    John Podesta, the chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, sat on the executive board, alongside key Russian officials, of an energy company that received the FBI’s warning. That didn’t stop him from accepting $35 million from a Putin-connected government fund.

    E-mails released by Wikileaks showed that Mr. Podesta continued to be involved in the company in 2015, even after the Russian invasion and after claiming to be divested. Furthermore, Mr. Podesta is reported to have received $5.25 million for his think tank, Center for American Progress, through a secretive chain of entities that could lead to Russian oligarchs, among them Ruben Vardanyan, who sat on the energy company board, according to the Government Accountability Institute.

    Hillary Clinton supporters erupted in outrage when Mr. Trump hired Paul Manafort to help run his campaign. (Is it not a positive signal that Mr. Trump dumped him after such criticism?) But their silence was deafening when it was revealed in late August that Mr. Manafort hired the Podesta Group to lobby on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych’s allies in the Party of Regions.

    The Podesta Group lobbied until 2014 to downplay the need for a congressional resolution to pressure Mr. Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, the Associated Press reported. Moreover, it failed to file the proper paperwork, making the lobbying illegal.

    Clinton supporters also drummed up hysteria about Mr. Trump being too busy to meet with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

    Yet that pales in comparison to the very same Mr. Podesta – having already taken millions as part of sensitive technology transfers – reacting with disinterest (as revealed by Wikileaks) to Victor Pinchuk’s pleas to get Mr. Clinton and a group of Western leaders to voice support for Ukraine as the Russian military aggression peaked in the winter of 2015.

    Now the FBI has confirmed this week that its investigations of Mr. Trump, launched in the summer, have uncovered no ties to the Kremlin. Nothing. Nichoho. Zero.

    Voters should consider that the Clintons and Mr. Podesta have far more questionable ties to the Kremlin, possibly criminal, than Mr. Trump and his entourage.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

  751. @AP
    @Mikel


    Are all those thousands of Russian nuclear warheads going to fail at launch one after the other? Or are they just for show and the Russians will never dare to use them, even if they are at the brink of suffering a catastrophic defeat or the Ukrainians manage to invade Crimea
     
    Since launching all those missiles will be the total end of Russia, they will not be launched for the sake of anything in Ukraine, including Crimea. Losing Crimea would not be grounds for self-extinction by Russia.

    If Russia took Hawaii or Guam, would America respond by ending the USA by launching nukes against Russia? Of course not.

    You will say that the Putin regime may fall if Crimea falls, so Putin will end Russia and the world in response to the possibility of losing power. That, too, is unrealistic. He is not a death-cultist. He has children and grandchildren. As do many (most) in his circle. The Russian high command is not a collection of bin Ladens.

    This fear is convenient for Russian imperialists, of course.

    If the theoretical risk of being nuked by Russia prevents Ukraine from getting help, why would it be different for Estonia? Finland? Poland, even? Germany would be a prize too.

    Your approach essentially gives carte blanche to any nuclear power to invade or bomb whomever it wants, because of the "risk" of nuclear war. A "pro peace" approach? The response will be for everyone to get nukes, dramatically increasing the probability of them falling into the hands of non-state actors who would be incapable of a global nuclear holocaust but much more likely to create a localized one somewhere. Nuclear Poland, nuclear Japan, nuclear Iran, Egypt, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Brazil, etc.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel, @Dmitry

    end of Russia, they will not be used in Ukraine, including Crimea.

    If Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, this will not cause a nuclear response from the West. It would perhaps not cause a direct military response.

    For example, if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army. West could response by increasing sanctions which are still not so strong yet, or they could give more weapons to Ukraine. They might avoid any kind of military response.

    But the West slow cook the frog in a way so soon the tactical nuclear weapon against the Ukrainian army probably wouldn’t rescue the situation for the Russian army, which will be in a worse situation with each subsequent year.

    If Ukraine is reconquering Crimea in 2026 or 2027, the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army could probably only delay the situation, as Ukraine already in 2026 if Biden continues will have much more advanced Western planes like F-16 and long-range weapons which would isolate Crimea anyway.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry


    If Ukraine is reconquering Crimea in 2026 or 2027, the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army could probably only delay the situation, as Ukraine already in 2026 if Biden continues will have much more advanced Western planes like F-16 and long-range weapons which would isolate Crimea anyway.
     
    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics, even if it will successfully reconquer Crimea and Donbass. After the extremely massive French losses of WWI, France only barely broke even with its post-WWI reconquest of Alsace-Lorraine.

    If Ukraine will lose too many of its young and/or middle-aged men, then Ukrainian women are going to need to rely on Polish and other Eastern European sperm donors in order to have families of their own for the sake of the future of their Ukrainian motherland!

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Dmitry

  752. @Mikel
    @LatW


    They were assuming they’d never be touched. So at some point their instinct of self-preservation could kick in.
     
    It's not happening though, even after a coup attempt. What you say is very unlikely to reflect the real thought processes of the people who matter today in Russia, especially Putin. With his decision to invade Ukraine he traded the possibility of a placid retirement with plenty of friends in the West and a majority support of the Russians for the ambition to become some sort of Peter the Great. He's not a total idiot so must have known from the start that he was going to become a pariah unable to ever visit large parts of the world again and, no matter how confident he was in the Russian military machine, he was taking the huge gamble of risking a Western over-reaction or a domestic uprising if things didn't go as planned. Both possibilities are still very much real but he's not backing down at all. Fear and self-preservation are most definitely not the main drivers of his actions since 2022.

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW, @Dmitry

    known from the start that he was going to become a pariah

    No, they didn’t. They didn’t expect so much of a negative reaction from the West.* It was expected it would be like Azerbaijan in 2020 or Crimea in 2014, where the West would see it as fait accompli and only follow mild sanctions.** For example, the Russian central bank stored $300 billion in NATO countries until after the invasion.

    Part of the reason of the unexpected strong reaction in the West, which I explained at the time, is because Western intelligence publicized the invasion four months before.

    Around October or November 2022, everyone who watches mainstream media in the world and CNN knew Russia was going to invade Ukraine, this is months before even most of the Russian army knew they were going to invade Ukraine all the American television was posting the plan to invade Ukraine. Russia has prepared no casus belli and Moscow has to lie to even friendly allies like Macron before the invasion.

    Another issue is there has been years of anti-Western propaganda supported by Moscow, so Russia was becoming labeled as “anti-Western”, while Azerbaijan was more intelligent and viewed as ambiguous.

    *In 2015, they believed the military operation in Syria would improve relations with the West as a result of leverage, this was also how it was promoted in the television at the time. The prediction of how the West will respond is not very developed.

    **Sanctions after 2014 were very weak. The cause of the problem in the Russian economy was lower prices of oil.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Mikel
    @Dmitry


    No, they didn’t. They didn’t expect so much of a negative reaction from the West.* It was expected it would be like Azerbaijan in 2020 or Crimea in 2014, where the West would see it as fait accompli and only follow mild sanctions
     
    .

    Then the situation may be worse than I thought because that would mean that the Kremlin is run by complete idiots. The possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine made Western leaders appear more united than ever. They all clearly announced that they would support Ukraine and impose unprecedented sanctions on Russia. Did the kremlins think that they were just joking?

    In fact, I think that Russia lucked out. People all over the West were fuming with the media telling them non stop that this was the most outrageous crime and the most unjustified invasion ever. For a time the sanest person in the room seemed to be.... Biden! He must have been under tremendous pressure to do much more but he remained as stubborn as in Afghanistan and perhaps not only Russia but all of us here lucked out.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry


    *In 2015, they believed the military operation in Syria would improve relations with the West as a result of leverage, this was also how it was promoted in the television at the time. The prediction of how the West will respond is not very developed.
     
    Russia's intervention in Syria was arguably a good thing since I fear that what could replace Assad (in spite of Assad himself being a huge ass) could be even worse than Assad himself would be. But the West would not sacrifice Ukraine for the sake of achieving Russian concessions in Syria. Ukraine is much more important for the West than Syria is. Syria doesn't have Ukraine's levels of human capital, after all.
  753. @QCIC
    @Dmitry

    I think the propaganda is as thick and pervasive in the US and the West as it is in Russia. Maybe news in Israel is different and more realistic because the many Russian emigres create a unique relationship between the two countries.

    +++

    Some military experts at the top must have always recognized Russia was militarily powerful enough to be a potential threat to Western hegemony. This was mainly but not entirely because of her nuclear capability. At least a handful of Western military leaders would have recognized that recent US wars demonstrated much less military prowess than was advertised in the mainstream. They would have also recognized that expeditionary warfare based on aircraft carriers and long-range aircraft could be extremely risky against a potential near-peer adversary. Until maybe 20 years ago Russia was the only one and would have been monitored carefully. The entire program of pressure against Russia is not because they are militarily weak, it is because Russia is strong. The premise for the Western aggression is that maybe Russia is relatively weak, perhaps weak enough to be cleanly taken out of the picture once and for all. This is much different than being weak in absolute terms.

    Russia does not have the ability to project power to far away places whereas the USA is the opposite. It "defends" itself by attacking people far away which is just Imperialism 101. Russia is playing a different game, simply defending her borders and "near away" areas. Having a border with China and reasonable access to India she is not isolated in existential terms. As long as China and India are adversaries, Russia will likely always have at least one as a close partner.

    The West moving into Ukraine is not incidentally a threat or perhaps some Sovok misunderstanding of benign capitalism at work. The West moving into Ukraine and working to move it out of Russia's orbit is fundamentally a threat. That is what Ukraine is all about, pressing Russia militarily. The only surprise is how long it look Russia to respond. There was apparently strong internal conflict which tied her hands until the last minute.

    Much of the Soviet engineering and productive capability dissipated after the 1990s. Nonetheless, Russia retained a top nuclear power industry (with a complete fuel cycle), a top aerospace and rocket industry along with a few others. Why are people talking about Russia's weakness? After the 2015 sanctions Russia actively worked to become self-sufficient in many areas which had been vulnerabilities.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Israel is different and more realistic because the many Russian emigres

    The main channel there is Channel 11, is neutral centrist or slightly liberal.

    Channel 9 which is Russian language is pro-Ukraine and managed by Ukrainians for the last years.

    Channel 14 is like the Israeli version of Fox News and “patriotic”. I don’t know if it’s true, but the Channel 14 is accused by Ukrainians of being pro-Russia.

    I would say the difference from the US, is the main channel is a government channel which tries to be neutral. This is more like in a West European country. While in America, there isn’t really a government television channel for both sides.

    Russian emigres create

    As result of the war, Israel will be receiving some proportion of the opportunist non-patriotic people, which is the character of the postsoviet society nowadays.

    There was an article last week in Moscow Times.

    Having Fled War, Russian Emigres in Israel Find Themselves Drafted to IDF

    Alice, a 17-year-old photographer, fled Russia for Israel shortly after the start of the war in Ukraine. Months later, she was summoned to serve in the Israeli army.

    “I left Russia because of the war, and I cannot imagine myself serving in any army, in any country,” Alice told The Moscow Times in a phone interview.

    “I don’t want to have anything to do with killing people at all. Even if I don’t do it myself, I don’t want to wear the same uniform as people who, for whatever reason, kill others.”

    She is one of hundreds of Russian emigres who, after fleeing their country’s wartime crackdown or mobilization, now find themselves facing military service in Israel — and the moral dilemmas that come with it.

    Though aware of Israel’s conscription policy prior to her arrival there, Alice, who had Russian police knocking on her door, was more focused on getting out of Russia as soon as possible.

    According to New Profile, an Israeli movement that opposes militarism and advises conscientious objectors, more than 100 recent Russian migrants have reached out in recent months for guidance on how to avoid conscription to the IDF.

    There are several ways to dodge the draft in Israel, including marriage, medical reasons, or conscientious objection.

    However, for new emigres like Alice, who do not speak Hebrew and lack connections in the army that can help them navigate the Israeli bureaucracy, the chances of being recognized as a pacifist and declared a conscientious objector are minimal. This led her to explore other avenues.

    After receiving three military summons and facing the risk of arrest by the military police, Alice and her boyfriend, Matvey, who also fled Russia for Israel, decided to get married.

    But because the state only acknowledges religious weddings, Alice and Matvey, as secular Israelis, had to travel abroad for a civil marriage. Their union’s official recognition is still pending. After several months of grappling with the military bureaucracy, Alice finally secured a discharge on medical grounds.

    Matvey, 19, took part in numerous protests in Russia and was reluctant to serve in the IDF.

    “I don’t agree with many actions of the Israeli army, so to speak, and I don’t want to kill people. There is also, of course, the issue of Israel’s occupation [of Palestine],” he told The Moscow Times. “But we understand that the main goal of the Israeli army, is to defend Israel. I still try to limit as much as possible participation in all sorts of illegal actions that exist in the Israeli army. And, well, to not be a part of it.”

    The policies of the current Israeli government, the most right-wing in the country’s history, only make the decision to serve harder. Its policies include the persistent expansion of settlements in the West Bank and harsh tactics against Palestinian civilians living in the occupied territories. So far in 2023, the Israeli military killed nearly 180 Palestinians, including 28 children.

    “I do not support all of the aspects of the Israeli army; especially given the current situation, I do not want to serve in the Israeli army,” Alice said.
    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/08/31/having-fled-war-russian-emigres-in-israel-find-themselves-drafted-to-idf-a82316

    • Thanks: Emil Nikola Richard
    • Replies: @A123
    @Dmitry

    This article does not hold together well and needs to be met with a string of questions.


    As result of the war, Israel will be receiving some proportion of the opportunist non-patriotic people, which is the character of the postsoviet society nowadays.

    There was an article last week in Moscow Times.

    According to New Profile, an Israeli movement that opposes militarism and advises conscientious objectors, more than 100 recent Russian migrants have reached out in recent months for guidance on how to avoid conscription to the IDF.
     

     
    How reliable is New Profile as a source? Would their agenda be advanced by inflating the number?

    “I left Russia because of the war, and I cannot imagine myself serving in any army, in any country,” Alice told The Moscow Times in a phone interview.
     
    Why would a Russian leave Russia because of the SMO? Did she actually leave for very different reasons?

    However, for new emigres like Alice, who do not speak Hebrew
     
    Why pick Israel with no local language skills (∆)? Could it be limited cash and now she is stuck?

    because the state only acknowledges religious weddings, Alice and Matvey, as secular Israelis, had to travel abroad for a civil marriage.
     
    If she and her husband have sufficient resources for international travel, why are they returning to Israel? Why not go to somewhere that provides them better opportunities and less bureaucratic hassle?

    While the story itself may pass a fact check; Is it actually a highly atypical case that does not reflect the reality of migrating to Israel?
    _______

    The author is exceedingly young with a heavy academic background from the UK: (1)

    Milan Czerny is a Human Exploitation Researcher at Active Fence who focuses notably on issues relating to Russia and Ukraine. His writing has appeared in a wide range of publications, including Riddle Russia, Le Monde, NATO Strategic Communications Centre, and Haaretz. He holds a bachelors degree in War Studies from King’s College London and a master’s degree in Russian and East European Studies from the University of Oxford. He speaks English, French, Russian, and Hebrew.
     
    Being published in Haaretz strongly implies willingness to write articles that appeal to the far left Labour/Gesher party. Another source had his graduation date from Kings College as 2020.

    His main employer, the organization Active Fence, appears to be focused on "stopping web disinformation". Make of that what you will.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.fpri.org/contributor/milan-czerny/

    (∆) As a side question -- How does the IDF handle individuals entering compulsory service with insufficient language skills? The straightforward option would be an intensive Hebrew language immersion pre-camp for two to three months before starting official service. However, I am unsure if that is the actual practice.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    , @QCIC
    @Dmitry

    A major problem with American mainstream media is that it is targeted at a very low level of thinking. I suspect it is geared to what once might have been considered 8th grade reading level (14 year olds) or lower. Do you think Israeli and Russian media operate on a similar mental level as the USA?

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

  754. @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver

    Oh, I know! In his two books, Hitler said that even Germany's 1914 borders were inadequate for Germany.

    I still think that the Anglo-French should have done a Soviet alliance against Nazi Germany in 1939 and been willing to pay any price for it, including sacrificing the independence of Finland and the Baltic countries. They should have also pressured Poland much harder to make concessions to Nazi Germany (in regards to Danzig, an extraterritorial road through the Polish Corridor, the status of the German minority in Poland, and perhaps even a plebiscite in the Polish Corridor itself, excluding Gdynia, of course) rather than giving Poland an *unconditional* guarantee (let alone so without any Soviet participation in this guarantee!) in early 1939. The Anglo-Franco-Soviets should have been ambiguous as to whether a limited Nazi incursion into Danzig and even Poland would have meant war but should have made it clear that a full Nazi invasion of Poland would have indeed meant war. Had Poland made concessions to Nazi Germany before the start of the war, and Nazi Germany would have invaded anyway, then Germans would have been more likely to view the war as a predatory imperialist war, which would have made an anti-Nazi coup attempt in Germany easier relative to real life and would have also made a subsequent post-successful coup status quo ante bellum peace settlement actually realistic rather than brutally fighting WWII to an extremely bloody finish right up to the Allied conquest of Berlin.

    Replies: @Coconuts

    I still think that the Anglo-French should have done a Soviet alliance against Nazi Germany in 1939 and been willing to pay any price for it, including sacrificing the independence of Finland and the Baltic countries.

    This is all in hindsight though, if the real military power of the French and Soviet armies vs the German had been known in 1939 they probably would have been much more likely to make such an alliance.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Coconuts

    Yep, the Fall of France and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were not foreseeable ahead of time. So, in real life in 1939, there was not the same Western willingness to throw the USSR's neighbors under the Soviet bus during this time as there would have been in this hypothetical scenario.

    Of course, without the benefit of hindsight, it also wasn't obvious that Hitler would have expanded into Poland beyond Danzig and the Polish Corridor. Yes, he talked about Germany's 1914 borders being inadequate in Mein Kampf and about the need for Germany to secure Lebensraum from Russia, but one could have wondered whether Hitler the Politician would have been a bit--just a bit--more responsible than Hitler the Demagogue. One could have also argued without the benefit of hindsight that Nazi rule in Eastern Europe would not be so bad, especially relative to Soviet rule, since the Nazis weren't murdering millions of people yet before World War II while the Soviets were.

  755. @Dmitry
    @Coconuts


    liberalism; the individualism, contractualism, lower taxation, freedom of speech etc. Most European countries seem to lean more to the social- democratic
     
    Yes they are probably the most liberal country in the world in terms of free speech and it's a value which is deep and cannot be explained as a business value or as only a business value at least. . .

    I would also observe excluding free speech, most or many of the areas America is liberal are seeming like they are result of the prioritization of business.


    d innovator in fields like porn,
     
    This is another successful business though, so it has a capitalist halo in the society even a large part of Republicans would admire some things about it from the business view. Historicallym responsible for developing the online payment systems. As Calvin Coolidge said, “The business of America is business.”

    Although probably more accurate, less witty “The business of America is business, especially business relating to technology/engineering and its downstream results in environment/food/culture etc".


    progressive social causes and identity politics (feminism, gay liberation, trans etc.
     
    This is not from America originally, local adaption or importation from countries like France. America's "intellectual culture" is mainly a cargo-cult for the European writers in those kind of areas. It's like a relation of Rome with Greece, ideas goes from Europe to America, although the new technology is more from America to Europe.

    may be impossible in practice, because too many other genes would be lost in such large numbers of people failing to reproduce. First there would be all the people who can’t conceive after 40 who would fail to reproduce, then a chunk of the next generation who might have the usual issues coming from older pregnancies,
     
    It's a famous experiment in animals.

    For example, with fruit flies. If you allow them to reproduce at the beginning of their reproductive stage (I guess in human version, it would be like having children at 16) or only at the end of their reproductive stage (for humans, maybe over 40).

    In the line where they only allow the delayed reproduction, the animals developed longer life expectancy and delayed senescence, as the genes which allow the animals to be healthy at the end of reproductive life are selected.

    From the view of ethics, can you try eugenical experiments with humans? No, even some unethical country like North Korea doesn't.

    But what's happening spontaneously in industrialized countries with middle class population? There is increasing age of reproduction. Although some of the expensive technology like IVF would reduce the selective pressure that was in the animal model.

    Replies: @Coconuts

    I would also observe excluding free speech, most or many of the areas America is liberal are seeming like they are result of the prioritization of business.

    It does seem like liberalism has always been indebted to business and commerce, from its early beginnings. There was some analysis which would try to explain it as being originally the ideology of the Protestant commercial middle class, where business relationships are made the model for political ones.  

    There is another argument that to liberalise some area of life is to introduce market relations into it, especially when this happens within a liberal political/economic system.
     

    Although probably more accurate, less witty “The business of America is business, especially business relating to technology/engineering and its downstream results in environment/food/culture etc”.

    There are books like ‘Why Liberalism Failed’, where the discussion becomes about how the decline of Protestantism had contributed to producing this more purely commercial and technological version of liberalism. 

    This is not from America originally, local adaption or importation from countries like France. America’s “intellectual culture” is mainly a cargo-cult for the European writers in those kind of areas.

    But looking back, French republicanism and liberalism was stimulated by British ideas themselves, the same ideas were also part of the inspiration behind the US Republic.

    Given that it is not as surprising that the Americans have been able to take French ideas and innovate with them to make them more politically accessible and applicable within a business orientated world, so French academics now talk about ‘le French theory’, and ‘les Studies’ (black, queer, gender etc.) meaning the rewritten Anglo versions, and complain about ‘les Studies’ moving into French academia and culture.

    [MORE]

    But what’s happening spontaneously in industrialized countries with middle class population? There is increasing age of reproduction. Although some of the expensive technology like IVF would reduce the selective pressure that was in the animal model.

    It seems IFV use is reasonably widespread beyond a certain age, at least from anecdotal experience.

    Afaik the children have older parents have higher rates of various diseases that make it harder for them to reproduce themselves, so if they had to wait till they were over 40 as well, I guess a steep inverted age pyramid would develop due to the strength of the selection pressures.

    Something similar may happen with the current middle classes, even with the smaller pressures of not waiting so long. Probably we have to observe what happens between them and the other classes and groups.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Coconuts


    free speech...liberalism has always been indebted to business and commerce, from its early beginnings...the ideology of the Protestant commercial middle class, where business relationships are made the model for political ones.
     
    True. It means that free speech and other liberties are effectively only market free speech - anything that hurts commerce is allowed only on the margins. It was always a fatal flaw of liberalism, the pretending that privately owned media is free is a fiction. The issue is that markets always consolidate over time. We have also seen business standards drop and less concern for appearances.

    Free speech is what liberalism is built on. If the freedom of expression is abandoned all we get is a rather ugly chase for profits, consumption and status. Not noticeably better than many other systems in the past.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  756. @QCIC
    @A123

    The Russian leadership seems to be fighting a very patient war. At some point the military, the general population or other circumstances may force Russia to increase the tempo of the combat. I don't think they need nuclear weapons to do this. In my amateur opinion, nuclear weapons use would either be for some emergency or to make a point as an attempt to forestall Western escalation. This could easily backfire and would only happen in extreme circumstances.

    If Russia does step up the tempo they may attack targets which involve serious civilian casualties or irreparable infrastructure damage which so far they have been working to avoid. This always raises the horrible question for the likes of AP and his misguided ilk: How many Ukrainian civilian casualties are you willing to accept in this stupid war you blundered into?

    What would it take for some good souls in the Ukrainian military to wake up tomorrow and go arrest all their leadership who is prolonging this war? If their love of the national ideal and commitment to their military honor would not yet allow them to make this hard decision, then how many civilians need to die to change their minds?

    I wonder if there are now a lot of suicides by Ukrainian soldiers who know this needs to be done but simply do not have the will to do it? Having recognized this fact, their lives are no longer worth living. Live by the sword, die by (one's own) sword.

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson, @sudden death

    If Russia does step up the tempo they may attack targets which involve serious civilian casualties or irreparable infrastructure damage which so far they have been working to avoid.

    If Ukraine does step up the tempo today and will send just several tens of targeted drones into RF oil refineries instead of Moscow downtown, domestic RF diesel/gasoline production will collapse very quickly, so this is more likely reason for Kremlins stopping the mass attacks on UA infrastructure, like electrical grid, than some abstract patience;)

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @sudden death

    It is possible the wiser heads in Ukraine are NOT attacking major Russian civilian infrastructure for the reason you mention. They know the risks. When Ukraine blows up a major Russian civilian target it could well lead to a mandate for the Russian military to take care of business in Kiev.

    I assume Russia is working to increase security for civilian infrastructure. This is part of the Russian military buildup triggered by the West in Ukraine. They may be waiting to reach a certain point of protection before launching shock and awe campaigns on Ukraine.

    A news item the other day suggested some shortages of Russian refined petroleum products. Maybe they are stockpiling reserves in the middle of the country in case of Ukrainian attacks as you mentioned.

  757. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    Doesn’t the example of Russia today disprove that?
     
    If we manage to do to Putin what we did to Saddam and Milosevic, yes, that would disprove my proposition. But only in part because that would imply a radical change in how international relations are conducted, not that up to now they have not been conducted the way I describe.

    Of course the "nobody will make you pay for it" was not meant to be interpreted in a literal sense. Even the US has had to pay quite dearly for its recent adventures in exotic lands but not to the extent of having its leaders punished at an international court or anything close to that.

    Thanks for the grammar lesson, much appreciated, as always. But, no I don't think I was translating from Spanish. I'm pretty sure I've heard that expression often enough. Are you sure it's not idiomatic? Look here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20and%20again

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Thanks for that link – it seems you’re right! I’m embarrassed, but I’m even more astonished that I’ve managed to stay ignorant of this usage for so long. (To save face I’ll mention that, technically, I did pause and ponder before I replied, because something about it sounded as though it might be a correct usage, but I then decided no, it’s definitely not. Mustn’t be so common down my way, heh. I also hadn’t considered its use as a synonym for “now and again.” You learn something new every day.)

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    it seems you’re right! I’m embarrassed
     
    Please do not let this unusual embarrassment prevent you from continuing to correct and embarrass me any time I make a mistake. For me it's like having a free teacher. I don't believe I made the "insist in" mistake you accused me of earlier either. Certainly not in this thread. But the "in, on, at" conundrum is something I still struggle with. Those three bitches are perhaps the most difficult part of the English language to learn to master instinctively if you didn't grow up speaking the language.

    Besides, the fact that the expression "once and again" didn't sound good to you is useful information in itself. I was thinking about it and I think you're right that "time and again" is a better choice. Writing properly in any language is not just a matter of using technically correct terms and expressions. It's also about not sounding odd and using them the way natives do.
  758. @Coconuts
    @Dmitry


    I would also observe excluding free speech, most or many of the areas America is liberal are seeming like they are result of the prioritization of business.
     
    It does seem like liberalism has always been indebted to business and commerce, from its early beginnings. There was some analysis which would try to explain it as being originally the ideology of the Protestant commercial middle class, where business relationships are made the model for political ones.  

    There is another argument that to liberalise some area of life is to introduce market relations into it, especially when this happens within a liberal political/economic system.
     

    Although probably more accurate, less witty “The business of America is business, especially business relating to technology/engineering and its downstream results in environment/food/culture etc”.
     
    There are books like 'Why Liberalism Failed', where the discussion becomes about how the decline of Protestantism had contributed to producing this more purely commercial and technological version of liberalism. 

    This is not from America originally, local adaption or importation from countries like France. America’s “intellectual culture” is mainly a cargo-cult for the European writers in those kind of areas.
     
    But looking back, French republicanism and liberalism was stimulated by British ideas themselves, the same ideas were also part of the inspiration behind the US Republic.

    Given that it is not as surprising that the Americans have been able to take French ideas and innovate with them to make them more politically accessible and applicable within a business orientated world, so French academics now talk about 'le French theory', and 'les Studies' (black, queer, gender etc.) meaning the rewritten Anglo versions, and complain about 'les Studies' moving into French academia and culture.


    But what’s happening spontaneously in industrialized countries with middle class population? There is increasing age of reproduction. Although some of the expensive technology like IVF would reduce the selective pressure that was in the animal model.
     
    It seems IFV use is reasonably widespread beyond a certain age, at least from anecdotal experience.

    Afaik the children have older parents have higher rates of various diseases that make it harder for them to reproduce themselves, so if they had to wait till they were over 40 as well, I guess a steep inverted age pyramid would develop due to the strength of the selection pressures.

    Something similar may happen with the current middle classes, even with the smaller pressures of not waiting so long. Probably we have to observe what happens between them and the other classes and groups.

    Replies: @Beckow

    free speech…liberalism has always been indebted to business and commerce, from its early beginnings…the ideology of the Protestant commercial middle class, where business relationships are made the model for political ones.

    True. It means that free speech and other liberties are effectively only market free speech – anything that hurts commerce is allowed only on the margins. It was always a fatal flaw of liberalism, the pretending that privately owned media is free is a fiction. The issue is that markets always consolidate over time. We have also seen business standards drop and less concern for appearances.

    Free speech is what liberalism is built on. If the freedom of expression is abandoned all we get is a rather ugly chase for profits, consumption and status. Not noticeably better than many other systems in the past.

    • Agree: Coconuts
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Beckow

    The part of liberalism based in free speech and the liberalism for the free market are not unconnected.

    Free speech, free media are necessary for safer investment in business.

    For example, today, you probably shouldn't invest in a country where there is not transparent information about the companies, there is not free speech of journalists to report about problems of the company.

    There is one of the differences between "emerging market" investments and the investment in "developed markets".

    This is why information transparency is an important safety feature for your investment. Even if it's not perfect information, the investor will lose less money in a problematic company than if a later reporting about a company is hidden for political reasons.

    With this, would you invest in a country which doesn't have a lot of free speech? It's more risky to invest in emerging markets without the developed liberalism partly for this reason.

    This was one of the historical reasons for the development of free speech values mainly as the bourgeoisie are becoming ruling class in the late 18th century.


    @Mr. XYZ


    A legacy of Communist rule retarding Eastern European economic development in the 1939-1989 time period.

     

    So, if true that "communism" is the cause of the divergence which needs so many hundreds of billions of dollars of aid, the causes of economic development can be related to things like political history, leadership and ideology, like it says in the old history books.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  759. @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikhail


    Max Hastings is right that a 1916 WW I start would’ve likely given a different and much better result for Russia.
     
    Do you have a link as to where exactly he specifically says that?

    Anyway, I'm actually very unsure about that since a WWI that breaks out in 1916 or later might mean no Schlieffen Plan. This, combined with Russia's growing military power, could have caused Britain and thus the US to remain neutral in this alt-WWI. Without British and US participation in this war, Germany would have been in a considerably better position, even after accounting for the increase in Russian military strength. The one unknown factor would be just how much Austria-Hungary would wobble in 1917; had Franz Ferdinand lived, he would have almost certainly tried to impose universal suffrage in Hungary, which would have likely triggered a Hungarian secession attempt which Austria and Germany would have needed to subsequently crush. Might Serbia have used the resulting crisis as an opening to spark a revolt in Bosnia and then to argue that its own troops need to move into there in order to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, with Franco-Russian blessings?

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Hastings’ comment on Russia in a hypothetical 1916 WW I start time is hyperlinked in this piece:

    https://strategic-culture.su/news/2017/03/22/reexamining-russias-past/

  760. Battle of the Nations
    Russia Spain
    Serbia United States

    The fans 99% hated it but the tennis gods have willed a Serbia Russia battle for the championship. May the best nation win!

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Impressive by Medvedev, the NY crowd must have hated that. Too late in the night for me to catch any of it.

    I see the US tennis scene is increasingly black, apt really.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

  761. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    I think Ukrainian people have the right to do a lot of things. They should consider the consequences of their actions. If they entrust their leaders to start a war with Russia they may regret the outcome. The course followed by the Ukrainian government consorting with the West predictably started a war. Types like you want to justify things on this or that grounds, but it is still stupid. It was a mistake. I think the leaders were stupid, corrupt and coopted and the Ukrainian citizens will pay the price. Something similar is happening in the USA. Personal autonomy does not give one the ability to avoid consequences.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @John Johnson

    I think the leaders were stupid, corrupt and coopted and the Ukrainian citizens will pay the price. Something similar is happening in the USA. Personal autonomy does not give one the ability to avoid consequences.

    If a future Russia were to become pro-Western then in that scenario would it be acceptable for Ukraine to follow the same path?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    The point is that becoming a military threat to Russia was a mistake. This was not in the interest of most Ukrainian citizens and seems completely unnecessary.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson

  762. @AP
    @WS


    hey will not allow the state to slide in the chaos again Not for patriotic reasons, but very personal reasons noticed above, wellbeing of their families.
     
    Their families would be incinerated if they nuked the USA.

    Replies: @WS

    Their families would be incinerated if they nuked the USA.

    Probably, but if imaginary Stanislav Petrov could foresee that his beloved daughter going to ballet school would end as a prostitute in NY brothel, he might pushed that button anyway……..

  763. @Dmitry
    @QCIC


    Israel is different and more realistic because the many Russian emigres
     
    The main channel there is Channel 11, is neutral centrist or slightly liberal.

    Channel 9 which is Russian language is pro-Ukraine and managed by Ukrainians for the last years.

    Channel 14 is like the Israeli version of Fox News and "patriotic". I don't know if it's true, but the Channel 14 is accused by Ukrainians of being pro-Russia.

    I would say the difference from the US, is the main channel is a government channel which tries to be neutral. This is more like in a West European country. While in America, there isn't really a government television channel for both sides.


    Russian emigres create
     
    As result of the war, Israel will be receiving some proportion of the opportunist non-patriotic people, which is the character of the postsoviet society nowadays.

    There was an article last week in Moscow Times.

    Having Fled War, Russian Emigres in Israel Find Themselves Drafted to IDF

    Alice, a 17-year-old photographer, fled Russia for Israel shortly after the start of the war in Ukraine. Months later, she was summoned to serve in the Israeli army.

    “I left Russia because of the war, and I cannot imagine myself serving in any army, in any country,” Alice told The Moscow Times in a phone interview.

    “I don't want to have anything to do with killing people at all. Even if I don’t do it myself, I don’t want to wear the same uniform as people who, for whatever reason, kill others.”

    She is one of hundreds of Russian emigres who, after fleeing their country’s wartime crackdown or mobilization, now find themselves facing military service in Israel — and the moral dilemmas that come with it.

    Though aware of Israel's conscription policy prior to her arrival there, Alice, who had Russian police knocking on her door, was more focused on getting out of Russia as soon as possible.

    According to New Profile, an Israeli movement that opposes militarism and advises conscientious objectors, more than 100 recent Russian migrants have reached out in recent months for guidance on how to avoid conscription to the IDF.

    There are several ways to dodge the draft in Israel, including marriage, medical reasons, or conscientious objection.

    However, for new emigres like Alice, who do not speak Hebrew and lack connections in the army that can help them navigate the Israeli bureaucracy, the chances of being recognized as a pacifist and declared a conscientious objector are minimal. This led her to explore other avenues.

    After receiving three military summons and facing the risk of arrest by the military police, Alice and her boyfriend, Matvey, who also fled Russia for Israel, decided to get married.

    But because the state only acknowledges religious weddings, Alice and Matvey, as secular Israelis, had to travel abroad for a civil marriage. Their union's official recognition is still pending. After several months of grappling with the military bureaucracy, Alice finally secured a discharge on medical grounds.

    Matvey, 19, took part in numerous protests in Russia and was reluctant to serve in the IDF.

    “I don’t agree with many actions of the Israeli army, so to speak, and I don’t want to kill people. There is also, of course, the issue of Israel’s occupation [of Palestine],” he told The Moscow Times. “But we understand that the main goal of the Israeli army, is to defend Israel. I still try to limit as much as possible participation in all sorts of illegal actions that exist in the Israeli army. And, well, to not be a part of it.”

    The policies of the current Israeli government, the most right-wing in the country's history, only make the decision to serve harder. Its policies include the persistent expansion of settlements in the West Bank and harsh tactics against Palestinian civilians living in the occupied territories. So far in 2023, the Israeli military killed nearly 180 Palestinians, including 28 children.

    “I do not support all of the aspects of the Israeli army; especially given the current situation, I do not want to serve in the Israeli army,” Alice said.
    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/08/31/having-fled-war-russian-emigres-in-israel-find-themselves-drafted-to-idf-a82316

     

    Replies: @A123, @QCIC

    This article does not hold together well and needs to be met with a string of questions.

    As result of the war, Israel will be receiving some proportion of the opportunist non-patriotic people, which is the character of the postsoviet society nowadays.

    There was an article last week in Moscow Times.

    According to New Profile, an Israeli movement that opposes militarism and advises conscientious objectors, more than 100 recent Russian migrants have reached out in recent months for guidance on how to avoid conscription to the IDF.

    How reliable is New Profile as a source? Would their agenda be advanced by inflating the number?

    “I left Russia because of the war, and I cannot imagine myself serving in any army, in any country,” Alice told The Moscow Times in a phone interview.

    Why would a Russian leave Russia because of the SMO? Did she actually leave for very different reasons?

    However, for new emigres like Alice, who do not speak Hebrew

    Why pick Israel with no local language skills (∆)? Could it be limited cash and now she is stuck?

    because the state only acknowledges religious weddings, Alice and Matvey, as secular Israelis, had to travel abroad for a civil marriage.

    If she and her husband have sufficient resources for international travel, why are they returning to Israel? Why not go to somewhere that provides them better opportunities and less bureaucratic hassle?

    While the story itself may pass a fact check; Is it actually a highly atypical case that does not reflect the reality of migrating to Israel?
    _______

    The author is exceedingly young with a heavy academic background from the UK: (1)

    Milan Czerny is a Human Exploitation Researcher at Active Fence who focuses notably on issues relating to Russia and Ukraine. His writing has appeared in a wide range of publications, including Riddle Russia, Le Monde, NATO Strategic Communications Centre, and Haaretz. He holds a bachelors degree in War Studies from King’s College London and a master’s degree in Russian and East European Studies from the University of Oxford. He speaks English, French, Russian, and Hebrew.

    Being published in Haaretz strongly implies willingness to write articles that appeal to the far left Labour/Gesher party. Another source had his graduation date from Kings College as 2020.

    His main employer, the organization Active Fence, appears to be focused on “stopping web disinformation”. Make of that what you will.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.fpri.org/contributor/milan-czerny/

    (∆) As a side question — How does the IDF handle individuals entering compulsory service with insufficient language skills? The straightforward option would be an intensive Hebrew language immersion pre-camp for two to three months before starting official service. However, I am unsure if that is the actual practice.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @A123


    Why would a Russian leave Russia because of the SMO
     
    I don't have some survey, but I can say probably most people in Russia below about age 40 years want to emigrate from Russia, like any people who were not born in the developed countries. Not everyone had enough good karma points to be re-incarnated in Norway or Benelux.

    The invasion of Ukraine has been panic for many people because they see the train doors are closing. For years, disorganized people in Russia are dreaming "maybe I will emigrate in a few years".

    But now there won't be the possibly to "emigrate in a few years". It's too late already for most of the people. So, there was a crazy panic to escape in 2022. This was already before the mobilization panic in autumn 2022.

    A lot of people have been going to emigrate to third world countries like Georgia, Armenia or Uzbekistan.


    pick Israel with no local language skills (∆)? Could it be limited cash
     
    Because Israel is the only "developed country" (well, depending if you think Israel is a developed country or not) with an open border for this part of the population of Russia i.e. many Russians with Jewish roots which allow immigration to Israel.

    It's the only open border to the first world. For Russians, it's not so easy to emigrate to a developed country, unless you have a company to sponsor the visa. This is relatively a small proportion of the population who have the correct career to go to developed countries for their career. Only a small proportion of people are organized about this.


    ufficient resources for international travel, why are they returning to Israel

     

    Tens of millions of Russians have sufficient resources for international travel, it's not expensive nowadays. But not many people have opportunity or resources to emigrate to live in a developed country.

    Why not go to somewhere that provides them better opportunities and less bureaucratic hassle?

     

    Israel is the only option for now for the people in the article. But they are not only an example of "unpatriotic" postsoviet people i.e. not motivated immigrants for Israel. They are also pacifists who seem they are a bit anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, which is indication of Westernization.

    Is it actually a highly atypical case that does not reflect the reality of migrating to Israel?

     

    In the situation of immigration from Russia to Israel and the social media groups, this was always of the popular views of the immigrants, how to escape the military conscription in Israel.

    A lot of them are still conscripted, but generally the advice in Russia is to wait until you are older than 21/22 before immigrating to Israel, so to avoid the conscription.


    IDF handle individuals entering compulsory service with insufficient language skills? The straightforward option would be an intensive Hebrew language immersion pre-camp for two to three months before starting official service. However, I am unsure if that is the actual practice.

     

    From what I can find, there is a village in the Galilee where conscripts who cannot speak Hebrew have to learn Hebrew for 5 months.

    One of the reasons Israel is interesting is also because it is a socialist heritage where they do many things in a socialist way, sometimes even a little Stalinist. Just, it's the military, so the socialism can exist with the recent years increasing capitalism for civilian life.

    Female immigrant conscripts have to mandatory study in feminist Zionist bootcamps where they learn women's empowerment, feminism and Zionism.

    There is a village in Raanana where some of the small number of the secular American Jews who Israel can attract to immigrate, live for a year before they enter the army.

    They have courses for disabled soldiers, for educating deliquent soldiers for literacy, for teaching immigrants about Israeli history or religion.

    The "peoples' army" is kind of socialist state within the state. The most popular radio in Israel, is army radio which the soldiers are operating, which is politically very liberal and criticizes the civilian government.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @QCIC

  764. @Mikhail
    @Mr. XYZ


    Does Ukraine have a right to become pro-Western?
     
    As you should know, post-Soviet Russia hasn't had the intention of being anti-Western. It sought NATO membership under Yeltsin and Putin. They were rebuffed on account of the US Military Industrial Complex needing a convenient bogeyman to justify expenditures along with the Russia hating types among some central and east Europeans as well as some others.

    As for the above highlighted question, there're two internationally signed treaties saying that no nation should join another at the expense of the security of another country.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/01022022-biden-administrations-flawed-stance-on-russia-oped/

    Excerpt -


    The increased Russian troop buildup in European Russia is in line with the existential threat NATO poses to that country. In addition to having been militarily active in some non-NATO countries, NATO exhibits an anti-Russian bias.

    Prior to the aforementioned Russian military buildup, the Russian government stated its opposition to NATO expanding near Russia for a period running over twenty years. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has referenced the 1999 Istanbul and 2010 Astana declarations, stipulating that an expanded military bloc shouldn’t threaten another country.

    When noting this particular, Lavrov said his US counterpart Antony Blinken gave a shrugged shoulders reply.
     

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson

    As you should know, post-Soviet Russia hasn’t had the intention of being anti-Western. It sought NATO membership under Yeltsin and Putin. They were rebuffed on account of the US Military Industrial Complex needing a convenient bogeyman to justify expenditures along with the Russia hating types among some central and east Europeans as well as some others.

    Russia never applied to NATO. Yeltsin and Putin merely talked about the possibility.

    Yeltsin could have been serious at one point but it was more likely a political ploy for Putin. In any case they both opposed NATO expansion past Germany. Why would they be serious about wanting to join NATO while not wanting it to expand?

    There would also be a huge problem for Russia joining which would be interoperability. That was always a problem for Ukraine. They basically have too much Soviet hardware. Joining would require massive investments in either Western arms or the production of compatible armaments.

    Russia also wouldn’t qualify for the same reason as Ukraine which is that they have a disputed border (Kuril Islands). The EU, US and China all recognize the islands as part of Japan.

    Ukraine didn’t qualify because of Donbas and Crimea. In fact Putin could have kept Ukraine out indefinitely by keeping Donbas in the grey area. I pointed this out numerous times before the war started and yet Putin’s forum defense forces amusingly thought it was some new revelation when NATO recently reiterated that they don’t qualify.

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    Yeltsin and Putin openly inquired about joining NATO and were rebuffed for the reasons given.

    In the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, Japan relinquished its claims to the Kurils.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=san+francisco+1951+treaty+kuril+islands&sca_esv=564010828&source=hp&ei=z5n8ZOXtK_er5NoPh-2LiAc&iflsig=AD69kcEAAAAAZPyn32GT0yM_BB-CdH7308WoQZZTMSci&ved=0ahUKEwilkeeP9p2BAxX3FVkFHYf2AnEQ4dUDCAs&oq=san+francisco+1951+treaty+kuril+islands&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IidzYW4gZnJhbmNpc2NvIDE5NTEgdHJlYXR5IGt1cmlsIGlzbGFuZHMyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBEi-kQFQAFjbiAFwAHgAkAEAmAHCAaABrRmqAQQzNi40uAEMyAEA-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&sclient=gws-wiz

    Articles 2 and 25 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951) (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.

    Regarding China's take:

    https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3215910/xi-told-putin-china-no-longer-supports-japans-claim-russian-held-islands-source-says-shift-maos

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson

  765. @LatW
    @silviosilver


    It’s the same in Serbo-Croatian too (“na terenu”).
     
    That's cool, btw, that sounds like a Latinism ("terra", similar to "terrain").

    Too bad about Latvia v Germany. A valiant effort that came up short.
     
    I know, heart wrenching. :) But they deserve praise for trying hard. So damn close.. I think Lithuania could've beat Germany, so it would've been better if they had played Germany but Latvia had played Serbia (even if Latvia would've lost to Serbia, that way at least Lithuania could've won over Germany but I know that's not how it works). Now they're gonna be exhausted for Italy (they should rotate).

    Btw, there are 3 blacks on the German team and a player named Wagner. :)


    Can Serbia do it? Probably not vs USA, but should be able to get past Canada.
     
    Serbia is a traditionally strong team, among the best... if we won the US, Serbia should definitely be able to as well. :) Hahahaha!

    this week’s grammar nazi hour
     
    Oh, feel free to correct, I can't promise I'll be a good student, but I'll try.

    Replies: @WS

    But they deserve praise for trying hard. So damn close.. I think Lithuania could’ve beat Germany, so it would’ve been better if they had played Germany but Latvia had played Serbia (even if Latvia would’ve lost to Serbia, that way at least Lithuania could’ve won over Germany but I know that’s not how it works). Now they’re gonna be exhausted for Italy (they should rotate).

    News from Manila tell me that Latvians hate Lithuanians even more than Russians;))

    • Replies: @LatW
    @WS


    News from Manila tell me that Latvians hate Lithuanians even more than Russians;))
     
    Hahaha! I'm totally shocked as I never expected the Latvian team to win over Lithuania. And with such a difference, too. I expected it to be much more even and for Lithuania to win. They will get over it eventually and we still love each other. :)

    Replies: @silviosilver

  766. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    I think Ukrainian people have the right to do a lot of things. They should consider the consequences of their actions. If they entrust their leaders to start a war with Russia they may regret the outcome. The course followed by the Ukrainian government consorting with the West predictably started a war. Types like you want to justify things on this or that grounds, but it is still stupid. It was a mistake. I think the leaders were stupid, corrupt and coopted and the Ukrainian citizens will pay the price. Something similar is happening in the USA. Personal autonomy does not give one the ability to avoid consequences.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @John Johnson

    I think Ukrainian people have the right to do a lot of things. They should consider the consequences of their actions. If they entrust their leaders to start a war with Russia they may regret the outcome.

    Armenia has traditionally allied with Russia but recently announced joint military training with the United States.:
    https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-harsh-protest-armenia-unfriendly-actions/32584592.html

    Would a Russian special military invasion along with the elimination of their democracy and sovereignty be justified at this point?

    Would you support such an invasion and would the people of Armenia be to blame?

    Do you believe that Putin’s geopolitical moves in the last few years have strengthened relations between Russian and the remaining non-NATO countries of the former eastern bloc?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    Pressure from the West is designed to force Russia to back down and leave herself vulnerable to destruction by a combination of economic, cultural and military depredations. Naturally this pressure creates a no-win situation for Russia where any attempt at self-defense has a major downside such as the ones you often mention. This is the whole point of the "pressure campaign" as I sometimes call it. This no-win situation is not a side-effect, it is the main goal. If the pressure has to be applied entirely militarily it is too dangerous for the West.

    From what little I have read Pashinyan is a key part of the Western project in Armenia. If he has his way I assume the country will be eventually ripped to shreds by Turkey and Azerbaijan. Russia gets along with all three countries, but I think Armenia would do best staying close to Russia. They are kind of like Finland, no one really cares, but they are foolish to align against Russia. In the long run I believe they are safer as a buffer country for Russia than as a forward base of the West poised against Russia. Take your pick.

  767. @AP
    @Mr. XYZ

    He read that in whatever place he goes to fill his head with the other nonsense he believes.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Both of these topics have been discussed at Unz. I don’t have an opinion on the prevalence of either issue and I was fishing for information. This question is part of the “War is Hell” subtext.

    There have been multiple discussions of Ukrainian prostitutes and whether Donetsk, Kiev, Lvov, Warsaw or some other city had more of these destitute women. This problem predates the SMO and Maidan. I think this discussion was often a rant shared between AP/Hack and Gerard.

    The topic of organ harvesting comes up on the fringes and has been mentioned at Unz. I think this is usually hinted to be an Israeli activity except in China where it is reportedly done by the CPC.

  768. The Star Trek episode we all missed.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @songbird
    @A123

    I had heard that LotR was very popular with hippies, but had a hard time believing it until now.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

  769. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    I think the leaders were stupid, corrupt and coopted and the Ukrainian citizens will pay the price. Something similar is happening in the USA. Personal autonomy does not give one the ability to avoid consequences.

    If a future Russia were to become pro-Western then in that scenario would it be acceptable for Ukraine to follow the same path?

    Replies: @QCIC

    The point is that becoming a military threat to Russia was a mistake. This was not in the interest of most Ukrainian citizens and seems completely unnecessary.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @QCIC

    Ukraine was primarily a military threat to Russia in Russians' own imaginations. And if NATO wanted to threaten Russia with nuclear missiles (they don't, not after Cuba 1962), they can already place them in the Baltic countries. No need for Ukraine for this purpose.

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    The point is that becoming a military threat to Russia was a mistake. This was not in the interest of most Ukrainian citizens and seems completely unnecessary.

    How did they become a military threat when Russia is a nuclear power with a conventional military about 5x larger? How exactly was the security of Russia threatened?

    Was the Russian invasion of Georgia also due to a military threat?

    Replies: @QCIC

  770. @Dmitry
    @QCIC


    Israel is different and more realistic because the many Russian emigres
     
    The main channel there is Channel 11, is neutral centrist or slightly liberal.

    Channel 9 which is Russian language is pro-Ukraine and managed by Ukrainians for the last years.

    Channel 14 is like the Israeli version of Fox News and "patriotic". I don't know if it's true, but the Channel 14 is accused by Ukrainians of being pro-Russia.

    I would say the difference from the US, is the main channel is a government channel which tries to be neutral. This is more like in a West European country. While in America, there isn't really a government television channel for both sides.


    Russian emigres create
     
    As result of the war, Israel will be receiving some proportion of the opportunist non-patriotic people, which is the character of the postsoviet society nowadays.

    There was an article last week in Moscow Times.

    Having Fled War, Russian Emigres in Israel Find Themselves Drafted to IDF

    Alice, a 17-year-old photographer, fled Russia for Israel shortly after the start of the war in Ukraine. Months later, she was summoned to serve in the Israeli army.

    “I left Russia because of the war, and I cannot imagine myself serving in any army, in any country,” Alice told The Moscow Times in a phone interview.

    “I don't want to have anything to do with killing people at all. Even if I don’t do it myself, I don’t want to wear the same uniform as people who, for whatever reason, kill others.”

    She is one of hundreds of Russian emigres who, after fleeing their country’s wartime crackdown or mobilization, now find themselves facing military service in Israel — and the moral dilemmas that come with it.

    Though aware of Israel's conscription policy prior to her arrival there, Alice, who had Russian police knocking on her door, was more focused on getting out of Russia as soon as possible.

    According to New Profile, an Israeli movement that opposes militarism and advises conscientious objectors, more than 100 recent Russian migrants have reached out in recent months for guidance on how to avoid conscription to the IDF.

    There are several ways to dodge the draft in Israel, including marriage, medical reasons, or conscientious objection.

    However, for new emigres like Alice, who do not speak Hebrew and lack connections in the army that can help them navigate the Israeli bureaucracy, the chances of being recognized as a pacifist and declared a conscientious objector are minimal. This led her to explore other avenues.

    After receiving three military summons and facing the risk of arrest by the military police, Alice and her boyfriend, Matvey, who also fled Russia for Israel, decided to get married.

    But because the state only acknowledges religious weddings, Alice and Matvey, as secular Israelis, had to travel abroad for a civil marriage. Their union's official recognition is still pending. After several months of grappling with the military bureaucracy, Alice finally secured a discharge on medical grounds.

    Matvey, 19, took part in numerous protests in Russia and was reluctant to serve in the IDF.

    “I don’t agree with many actions of the Israeli army, so to speak, and I don’t want to kill people. There is also, of course, the issue of Israel’s occupation [of Palestine],” he told The Moscow Times. “But we understand that the main goal of the Israeli army, is to defend Israel. I still try to limit as much as possible participation in all sorts of illegal actions that exist in the Israeli army. And, well, to not be a part of it.”

    The policies of the current Israeli government, the most right-wing in the country's history, only make the decision to serve harder. Its policies include the persistent expansion of settlements in the West Bank and harsh tactics against Palestinian civilians living in the occupied territories. So far in 2023, the Israeli military killed nearly 180 Palestinians, including 28 children.

    “I do not support all of the aspects of the Israeli army; especially given the current situation, I do not want to serve in the Israeli army,” Alice said.
    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/08/31/having-fled-war-russian-emigres-in-israel-find-themselves-drafted-to-idf-a82316

     

    Replies: @A123, @QCIC

    A major problem with American mainstream media is that it is targeted at a very low level of thinking. I suspect it is geared to what once might have been considered 8th grade reading level (14 year olds) or lower. Do you think Israeli and Russian media operate on a similar mental level as the USA?

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @QCIC

    You do know that one third of the negroes in the American television audience read at the 4th and 5th grade levels, right?

    Replies: @QCIC

  771. @A123
    The Star Trek episode we all missed.

    https://youtu.be/upjJFEpf-pc

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @songbird

    I had heard that LotR was very popular with hippies, but had a hard time believing it until now.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird

    It was the cultural pre cursor to Harry Potter. Tolkein thought he was producing literature, not schlock. Sad.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtNiV1jDI1k&ab_channel=Novum

  772. @sudden death
    @QCIC


    If Russia does step up the tempo they may attack targets which involve serious civilian casualties or irreparable infrastructure damage which so far they have been working to avoid.
     
    If Ukraine does step up the tempo today and will send just several tens of targeted drones into RF oil refineries instead of Moscow downtown, domestic RF diesel/gasoline production will collapse very quickly, so this is more likely reason for Kremlins stopping the mass attacks on UA infrastructure, like electrical grid, than some abstract patience;)

    Replies: @QCIC

    It is possible the wiser heads in Ukraine are NOT attacking major Russian civilian infrastructure for the reason you mention. They know the risks. When Ukraine blows up a major Russian civilian target it could well lead to a mandate for the Russian military to take care of business in Kiev.

    I assume Russia is working to increase security for civilian infrastructure. This is part of the Russian military buildup triggered by the West in Ukraine. They may be waiting to reach a certain point of protection before launching shock and awe campaigns on Ukraine.

    A news item the other day suggested some shortages of Russian refined petroleum products. Maybe they are stockpiling reserves in the middle of the country in case of Ukrainian attacks as you mentioned.

  773. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    As you should know, post-Soviet Russia hasn’t had the intention of being anti-Western. It sought NATO membership under Yeltsin and Putin. They were rebuffed on account of the US Military Industrial Complex needing a convenient bogeyman to justify expenditures along with the Russia hating types among some central and east Europeans as well as some others.

    Russia never applied to NATO. Yeltsin and Putin merely talked about the possibility.

    Yeltsin could have been serious at one point but it was more likely a political ploy for Putin. In any case they both opposed NATO expansion past Germany. Why would they be serious about wanting to join NATO while not wanting it to expand?

    There would also be a huge problem for Russia joining which would be interoperability. That was always a problem for Ukraine. They basically have too much Soviet hardware. Joining would require massive investments in either Western arms or the production of compatible armaments.

    Russia also wouldn't qualify for the same reason as Ukraine which is that they have a disputed border (Kuril Islands). The EU, US and China all recognize the islands as part of Japan.

    Ukraine didn't qualify because of Donbas and Crimea. In fact Putin could have kept Ukraine out indefinitely by keeping Donbas in the grey area. I pointed this out numerous times before the war started and yet Putin's forum defense forces amusingly thought it was some new revelation when NATO recently reiterated that they don't qualify.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Yeltsin and Putin openly inquired about joining NATO and were rebuffed for the reasons given.

    In the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, Japan relinquished its claims to the Kurils.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=san+francisco+1951+treaty+kuril+islands&sca_esv=564010828&source=hp&ei=z5n8ZOXtK_er5NoPh-2LiAc&iflsig=AD69kcEAAAAAZPyn32GT0yM_BB-CdH7308WoQZZTMSci&ved=0ahUKEwilkeeP9p2BAxX3FVkFHYf2AnEQ4dUDCAs&oq=san+francisco+1951+treaty+kuril+islands&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IidzYW4gZnJhbmNpc2NvIDE5NTEgdHJlYXR5IGt1cmlsIGlzbGFuZHMyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBEi-kQFQAFjbiAFwAHgAkAEAmAHCAaABrRmqAQQzNi40uAEMyAEA-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&sclient=gws-wiz

    Articles 2 and 25 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951) (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.

    Regarding China’s take:

    https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3215910/xi-told-putin-china-no-longer-supports-japans-claim-russian-held-islands-source-says-shift-maos

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikhail

    Re: The Kuril Islands: Didn't Putin say back in 2006 that the 1956 Soviet proposal to return the two smaller Kuril Islands to Japan in exchange for Japan giving up its claim to the two bigger Kuril Islands was still on the table? If so, then Japan should have taken it and still should if it will ever be on the table again.

    , @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Yeltsin and Putin openly inquired about joining NATO and were rebuffed for the reasons given.

    Those were your reasons given. I don't see a source.

    A president talking about possibilities is not a formal rejection nor is it a policy. Trump talked about the possibility of leaving NATO. That doesn't have political meaning outside of his mouth moving.

    In the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, Japan relinquished its claims to the Kurils.

    The United States was the Allied negotiator of that treaty and believes the islands belong to Japan.

    Regarding China’s take:

    That's a change from this year which is well after the talk of Russia joining. I was explaining why Russia did not qualify.

    But more importantly it still doesn't change the fact that Russia has a disputed border with a neighbor and NATO nations would not support the applicant for this reason. You can't apply with a disputed border. You do acknowledge this requirement of NATO, right? This is why Ukraine never qualified and it should also be noted that they lacked the votes of France and Germany even if they had somehow resolved Donbas and Crimea. The better move to keep Ukraine out of NATO was to do nothing. The status quo prior to the 2022 invasion favored Russia in regard to Ukraine and NATO. It was also expected that Turkey would be a spoiler vote if needed (NATO vote has to be unanimous). Turkey has traditionally sided with Russia while playing both sides. In fact Turkey has been the black sheep for that reason. That however has changed with Putin's invasion and Turkey has moved closer to Western nations.

    Putin really has made a complete mess of the situation. Finland and Sweden have ended their neutrality that now even Armenia is looking to separate themselves from Russia. Moldova is extremely distrustful of Russia and Belarus is only held together by a dictator who knows the war was a stupid idea. The people of Belarus would vote for closer ties to the West if given the chance. Putin has created graveyards of Russians while pushing away the remaining non-NATO former eastern bloc countries. Neighboring Kazakhstan was given an influx of White collar workers that do not want to be part of Putin's war. In fact numerous Russian tech companies are moving there permanently.

    Some of the worst geopolitical moves in Russian history.

    That'll do dwarf, that'll do.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Sean

  774. @AP
    @QCIC


    The risk of some escalation goes up enormously because the West has created a war situation in Ukraine
     
    It's gone from zero to zero.

    What do you think the crews of US submarines are thinking about Russia?
     
    Not much different than they thought 3 years ago.

    Western propaganda is churning out Russian hate at a record pace.
     
    Correction: Russian actions are churning out Russia hate at a record pace. In Ukraine where they see Russian actions with their own eyes, and in the world.

    The Russian response to Ukraine seems like an intervention to prevent a domino effect of the West encroaching and and arming hostile border states directly on the Russian border.
     
    Russia is now getting a US forces based in Finland, near the Russian border:

    https://tass.com/world/1671309

    Russia doesn't seem to mind. So that wasn't an issue, after all.

    Your camp apparently thinks this is a good idea
     
    Preventing Russian aggression by joining NATO is an excellent idea.

    It is no secret that the West wanted bases in Sevastopol.
     
    Would these have been a threat to Russia? Finland is a lot closer, you know.

    Remind when anyone has ever directly invaded the home territory of a nuclear power. Even a small one like North Korea.

    Tell me more about organ harvesting lol.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Blood lust has clouded your thinking. You should put in an order for a new brain.

    You mistakenly believe the risk of nuclear war with Russia is low and are therefore fervently supporting Western moves against Russia. The reality is that Ukraine will be predictably destroyed and the risk of nuclear war will have been greatly increased solely by actions of the West using Ukraine as a pawn.

    Yeah, that was a great plan.

    • Replies: @A123
    @QCIC


    @AP
     
    Blood lust has clouded your thinking. You should put in an order for a new brain. You mistakenly believe the risk of nuclear war with Russia is low

     
    Ukie Maximalist 'thinking' is badly detached from reality. It is a lose-lose phenomenon.

    -A- Remain ineffective, run out of foreign funding, capitulate without being nuked
    -B- Somehow become effective, cross a nuclear red line near Crimea, Boom!

    There is no upside to fight for. Every Ukrainian death is pointless. Yet, elite EU leaders keep pushing the combat forward.

    Hopefully events will remain on Track A. When the money runs out, Zelensky will return to his European puppet masters. His successor can than negotiate a fair deal that prevents future Kiev aggression.

    There are many Ukrainians who will go home after the threat of being conscripted into Zelensky's senseless meat grinder wanes: (1)

    The pro-peace Alternative for Germany claims the figures show that ordinary Ukrainians want a ceasefire as soon as possible

     

    Despite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration banning men aged between 18 and 60 from leaving the country, a total of 203,640 male Ukrainian citizens facing conscription have arrived in Germany since February last year.

    The German federal government stated that 176,474 Ukrainian conscripts were still residing in Germany at the end of June this year.

    “The numbers show clearly: Ukrainians want peace,” said Bystron in response, reiterating the AfD’s call for “immediate peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia under OSCE mediation.”

    He claimed that hundreds of thousands of “Ukrainians of military age have fled to Germany to escape senseless death” and that “according to media reports, another 650,000 are in the EU, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.”

    The AfD parliamentary group submitted a peace initiative motion to the Bundestag in January this year, calling on the federal government to advocate the deployment of an international peace delegation led by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine.
     
    America is slipping the strings placed on Not-The-President by the European Empire. Let us hope this process accelerates.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://rmx.news/germany/over-200000-ukrainian-men-at-risk-of-conscription-have-fled-to-germany-since-start-of-war/
  775. @QCIC
    @Dmitry

    A major problem with American mainstream media is that it is targeted at a very low level of thinking. I suspect it is geared to what once might have been considered 8th grade reading level (14 year olds) or lower. Do you think Israeli and Russian media operate on a similar mental level as the USA?

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    You do know that one third of the negroes in the American television audience read at the 4th and 5th grade levels, right?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    What about the lower two thirds?

    I originally planned to write 6th grade instead of 8th.

  776. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    I think Ukrainian people have the right to do a lot of things. They should consider the consequences of their actions. If they entrust their leaders to start a war with Russia they may regret the outcome.

    Armenia has traditionally allied with Russia but recently announced joint military training with the United States.:
    https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-harsh-protest-armenia-unfriendly-actions/32584592.html

    Would a Russian special military invasion along with the elimination of their democracy and sovereignty be justified at this point?

    Would you support such an invasion and would the people of Armenia be to blame?

    Do you believe that Putin's geopolitical moves in the last few years have strengthened relations between Russian and the remaining non-NATO countries of the former eastern bloc?

    Replies: @QCIC

    Pressure from the West is designed to force Russia to back down and leave herself vulnerable to destruction by a combination of economic, cultural and military depredations. Naturally this pressure creates a no-win situation for Russia where any attempt at self-defense has a major downside such as the ones you often mention. This is the whole point of the “pressure campaign” as I sometimes call it. This no-win situation is not a side-effect, it is the main goal. If the pressure has to be applied entirely militarily it is too dangerous for the West.

    From what little I have read Pashinyan is a key part of the Western project in Armenia. If he has his way I assume the country will be eventually ripped to shreds by Turkey and Azerbaijan. Russia gets along with all three countries, but I think Armenia would do best staying close to Russia. They are kind of like Finland, no one really cares, but they are foolish to align against Russia. In the long run I believe they are safer as a buffer country for Russia than as a forward base of the West poised against Russia. Take your pick.

  777. Will try to give this one a listen –

  778. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @QCIC

    You do know that one third of the negroes in the American television audience read at the 4th and 5th grade levels, right?

    Replies: @QCIC

    What about the lower two thirds?

    I originally planned to write 6th grade instead of 8th.

  779. @silviosilver
    @Mikel

    Thanks for that link - it seems you're right! I'm embarrassed, but I'm even more astonished that I've managed to stay ignorant of this usage for so long. (To save face I'll mention that, technically, I did pause and ponder before I replied, because something about it sounded as though it might be a correct usage, but I then decided no, it's definitely not. Mustn't be so common down my way, heh. I also hadn't considered its use as a synonym for "now and again." You learn something new every day.)

    Replies: @Mikel

    it seems you’re right! I’m embarrassed

    Please do not let this unusual embarrassment prevent you from continuing to correct and embarrass me any time I make a mistake. For me it’s like having a free teacher. I don’t believe I made the “insist in” mistake you accused me of earlier either. Certainly not in this thread. But the “in, on, at” conundrum is something I still struggle with. Those three bitches are perhaps the most difficult part of the English language to learn to master instinctively if you didn’t grow up speaking the language.

    Besides, the fact that the expression “once and again” didn’t sound good to you is useful information in itself. I was thinking about it and I think you’re right that “time and again” is a better choice. Writing properly in any language is not just a matter of using technically correct terms and expressions. It’s also about not sounding odd and using them the way natives do.

  780. @QCIC
    @AP

    Blood lust has clouded your thinking. You should put in an order for a new brain.

    You mistakenly believe the risk of nuclear war with Russia is low and are therefore fervently supporting Western moves against Russia. The reality is that Ukraine will be predictably destroyed and the risk of nuclear war will have been greatly increased solely by actions of the West using Ukraine as a pawn.

    Yeah, that was a great plan.

    Replies: @A123


     
    Blood lust has clouded your thinking. You should put in an order for a new brain. You mistakenly believe the risk of nuclear war with Russia is low

    Ukie Maximalist ‘thinking’ is badly detached from reality. It is a lose-lose phenomenon.

    -A- Remain ineffective, run out of foreign funding, capitulate without being nuked
    -B- Somehow become effective, cross a nuclear red line near Crimea, Boom!

    There is no upside to fight for. Every Ukrainian death is pointless. Yet, elite EU leaders keep pushing the combat forward.

    Hopefully events will remain on Track A. When the money runs out, Zelensky will return to his European puppet masters. His successor can than negotiate a fair deal that prevents future Kiev aggression.

    There are many Ukrainians who will go home after the threat of being conscripted into Zelensky’s senseless meat grinder wanes: (1)

    The pro-peace Alternative for Germany claims the figures show that ordinary Ukrainians want a ceasefire as soon as possible

    Despite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration banning men aged between 18 and 60 from leaving the country, a total of 203,640 male Ukrainian citizens facing conscription have arrived in Germany since February last year.

    The German federal government stated that 176,474 Ukrainian conscripts were still residing in Germany at the end of June this year.

    “The numbers show clearly: Ukrainians want peace,” said Bystron in response, reiterating the AfD’s call for “immediate peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia under OSCE mediation.”

    He claimed that hundreds of thousands of “Ukrainians of military age have fled to Germany to escape senseless death” and that “according to media reports, another 650,000 are in the EU, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.”

    The AfD parliamentary group submitted a peace initiative motion to the Bundestag in January this year, calling on the federal government to advocate the deployment of an international peace delegation led by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine.

    America is slipping the strings placed on Not-The-President by the European Empire. Let us hope this process accelerates.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://rmx.news/germany/over-200000-ukrainian-men-at-risk-of-conscription-have-fled-to-germany-since-start-of-war/

  781. @Coconuts
    @Mr. XYZ


    I still think that the Anglo-French should have done a Soviet alliance against Nazi Germany in 1939 and been willing to pay any price for it, including sacrificing the independence of Finland and the Baltic countries.
     
    This is all in hindsight though, if the real military power of the French and Soviet armies vs the German had been known in 1939 they probably would have been much more likely to make such an alliance.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Yep, the Fall of France and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were not foreseeable ahead of time. So, in real life in 1939, there was not the same Western willingness to throw the USSR’s neighbors under the Soviet bus during this time as there would have been in this hypothetical scenario.

    Of course, without the benefit of hindsight, it also wasn’t obvious that Hitler would have expanded into Poland beyond Danzig and the Polish Corridor. Yes, he talked about Germany’s 1914 borders being inadequate in Mein Kampf and about the need for Germany to secure Lebensraum from Russia, but one could have wondered whether Hitler the Politician would have been a bit–just a bit–more responsible than Hitler the Demagogue. One could have also argued without the benefit of hindsight that Nazi rule in Eastern Europe would not be so bad, especially relative to Soviet rule, since the Nazis weren’t murdering millions of people yet before World War II while the Soviets were.

  782. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    The point is that becoming a military threat to Russia was a mistake. This was not in the interest of most Ukrainian citizens and seems completely unnecessary.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson

    Ukraine was primarily a military threat to Russia in Russians’ own imaginations. And if NATO wanted to threaten Russia with nuclear missiles (they don’t, not after Cuba 1962), they can already place them in the Baltic countries. No need for Ukraine for this purpose.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mr. XYZ

    This is related to the INF Treaty which the US dropped out of for specious reasons.

    In general I don't think the Balts are stupid enough to allow NATO to place nuclear-armed missiles into their countries. On the other hand, considering LatW maybe I need to reconsider that notion.

    I don't know what agreement NATO and Russia have concerning missile subs in the Baltic Sea.

    Replies: @Beckow, @LatW

  783. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    Yeltsin and Putin openly inquired about joining NATO and were rebuffed for the reasons given.

    In the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, Japan relinquished its claims to the Kurils.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=san+francisco+1951+treaty+kuril+islands&sca_esv=564010828&source=hp&ei=z5n8ZOXtK_er5NoPh-2LiAc&iflsig=AD69kcEAAAAAZPyn32GT0yM_BB-CdH7308WoQZZTMSci&ved=0ahUKEwilkeeP9p2BAxX3FVkFHYf2AnEQ4dUDCAs&oq=san+francisco+1951+treaty+kuril+islands&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IidzYW4gZnJhbmNpc2NvIDE5NTEgdHJlYXR5IGt1cmlsIGlzbGFuZHMyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBEi-kQFQAFjbiAFwAHgAkAEAmAHCAaABrRmqAQQzNi40uAEMyAEA-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&sclient=gws-wiz

    Articles 2 and 25 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951) (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.

    Regarding China's take:

    https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3215910/xi-told-putin-china-no-longer-supports-japans-claim-russian-held-islands-source-says-shift-maos

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson

    Re: The Kuril Islands: Didn’t Putin say back in 2006 that the 1956 Soviet proposal to return the two smaller Kuril Islands to Japan in exchange for Japan giving up its claim to the two bigger Kuril Islands was still on the table? If so, then Japan should have taken it and still should if it will ever be on the table again.

  784. @songbird
    @A123

    I had heard that LotR was very popular with hippies, but had a hard time believing it until now.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    It was the cultural pre cursor to Harry Potter. Tolkein thought he was producing literature, not schlock. Sad.

    • Agree: songbird
  785. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    The point is that becoming a military threat to Russia was a mistake. This was not in the interest of most Ukrainian citizens and seems completely unnecessary.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson

    The point is that becoming a military threat to Russia was a mistake. This was not in the interest of most Ukrainian citizens and seems completely unnecessary.

    How did they become a military threat when Russia is a nuclear power with a conventional military about 5x larger? How exactly was the security of Russia threatened?

    Was the Russian invasion of Georgia also due to a military threat?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    The Western policy to control Russia includes partial encirclement by NATO. If you don't think that is a threat there is little to discuss. Ukraine was a pivotal piece in this process.

    I don't know much about events in Georgia. What do you think happened there?

  786. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    Yeltsin and Putin openly inquired about joining NATO and were rebuffed for the reasons given.

    In the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, Japan relinquished its claims to the Kurils.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=san+francisco+1951+treaty+kuril+islands&sca_esv=564010828&source=hp&ei=z5n8ZOXtK_er5NoPh-2LiAc&iflsig=AD69kcEAAAAAZPyn32GT0yM_BB-CdH7308WoQZZTMSci&ved=0ahUKEwilkeeP9p2BAxX3FVkFHYf2AnEQ4dUDCAs&oq=san+francisco+1951+treaty+kuril+islands&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IidzYW4gZnJhbmNpc2NvIDE5NTEgdHJlYXR5IGt1cmlsIGlzbGFuZHMyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBEi-kQFQAFjbiAFwAHgAkAEAmAHCAaABrRmqAQQzNi40uAEMyAEA-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&sclient=gws-wiz

    Articles 2 and 25 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951) (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.

    Regarding China's take:

    https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3215910/xi-told-putin-china-no-longer-supports-japans-claim-russian-held-islands-source-says-shift-maos

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @John Johnson

    Yeltsin and Putin openly inquired about joining NATO and were rebuffed for the reasons given.

    Those were your reasons given. I don’t see a source.

    A president talking about possibilities is not a formal rejection nor is it a policy. Trump talked about the possibility of leaving NATO. That doesn’t have political meaning outside of his mouth moving.

    In the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, Japan relinquished its claims to the Kurils.

    The United States was the Allied negotiator of that treaty and believes the islands belong to Japan.

    Regarding China’s take:

    That’s a change from this year which is well after the talk of Russia joining. I was explaining why Russia did not qualify.

    But more importantly it still doesn’t change the fact that Russia has a disputed border with a neighbor and NATO nations would not support the applicant for this reason. You can’t apply with a disputed border. You do acknowledge this requirement of NATO, right? This is why Ukraine never qualified and it should also be noted that they lacked the votes of France and Germany even if they had somehow resolved Donbas and Crimea. The better move to keep Ukraine out of NATO was to do nothing. The status quo prior to the 2022 invasion favored Russia in regard to Ukraine and NATO. It was also expected that Turkey would be a spoiler vote if needed (NATO vote has to be unanimous). Turkey has traditionally sided with Russia while playing both sides. In fact Turkey has been the black sheep for that reason. That however has changed with Putin’s invasion and Turkey has moved closer to Western nations.

    Putin really has made a complete mess of the situation. Finland and Sweden have ended their neutrality that now even Armenia is looking to separate themselves from Russia. Moldova is extremely distrustful of Russia and Belarus is only held together by a dictator who knows the war was a stupid idea. The people of Belarus would vote for closer ties to the West if given the chance. Putin has created graveyards of Russians while pushing away the remaining non-NATO former eastern bloc countries. Neighboring Kazakhstan was given an influx of White collar workers that do not want to be part of Putin’s war. In fact numerous Russian tech companies are moving there permanently.

    Some of the worst geopolitical moves in Russian history.

    That’ll do dwarf, that’ll do.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    And just what are your sources?

    Said 1951 agreement on Kurils is clear as noted in that set of comments of mine. Soviet territory in the RSFSR. Furthermore, Yalta specified they'd go to the USSR.

    Yeltsin and Putin on Russia in NATO

    https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

    Related -

    https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/16/opinion/l-nato-still-divides-780898.html

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Sean
    @John Johnson


    But more importantly it still doesn’t change the fact that Russia has a disputed border with a neighbor and NATO nations would not support the applicant for this reason. You can’t apply with a disputed border. You do acknowledge this requirement of NATO, right? This is why Ukraine never qualified and it should also be noted that they lacked the votes of France and Germany even if they had somehow resolved Donbas and Crimea. The better move to keep Ukraine out of NATO was to do nothing.
     
    In what time frame? Pre 2014 there was no territorial dispute to keep Ukraine out of Nato. So the better move for Russia in 2022 of doing nothing was dependent on Russia having already seized a large amount of Ukrainian territory several years before and engaging in bloody fighting to keep the seized territory.

    Some of the worst geopolitical moves in Russian history
     
    Provoked* by the absolute worst ones in Ukrainian history. And ordinary Ukrainians are now being channeled into kill zones in an attempt to breakthrough the Surovikin line, which is more of a maze of apparently inviting avenues overlooked by artillery on the ridges.

    (* No, the invasion was not 'unprovoked'; certainly not in the sense that it came as a surprise, because Russia warned repeatedly since 2008 what it would be provoked into doing unless Ukraine altered course, and in 2014 Putin showed he was not kidding.)

  787. AP says:
    @Dmitry
    @AP


    Trump administration in office wouldn’t have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition
     
    The response of Trump would have been weaker for Russia in comparison with Biden where the response has been more strong than probably anyone has expected, especially in Moscow.

    planned to withdraw, but I doubt that his administration
     
    Trump planned the withdraw and signed the peace agreement in 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/58271943

    36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in
     
    There is confusing language. Except a small minority, these people are not Ukrainians and Poles. Only a small proportion of this number are people from Ukraine or Poland.

    They are mostly native Americans which have ancestry from Poland or Ukraine in a different century like most Americans. Americans who are arrivals of the late 19th century and later created a concept of ethnic pride and express this with some events like "Columbus day" or "St Patrick's day". If the external objectives of the country the American peoples' ancestors had immigrated before in previous centuries will change voting is not so clear as their enjoyment of the Shamrock flag.

    In 2012, most Polish Americans voted for Obama against Romney. In 2016, mostly voted for Trump against Clinton (Trump was pro-Russia/Clinton anti-Russia). In 2020, they voted for Biden against Trump.

    In every year after 1980 a majority have voted for the president which wins the election, so this looks like a mainstream voting group without so much nationally nonrepresentative views.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-American_vote#Presidential_voting_results

    Replies: @AP

    Trump administration in office wouldn’t have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition

    The response of Trump would have been weaker for Russia in comparison with Biden where the response has been more strong than probably anyone has expected, especially in Moscow.

    Doubtful, with Pompeo in charge.

    I think, however, that Trump would have deterred an attack. Biden seemed to be predictably weak like Obama, which encouraged Putin to act. Biden’s later behavior was surprising. Your analogy to the mousetrap was a correct one. If Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.

    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.

    36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in

    There is confusing language. Except a small minority, these people are not Ukrainians and Poles. Only a small proportion of this number are people from Ukraine or Poland.

    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine. They are more pro-Ukraine than American Jews are pro-Israel. Being born in the USA doesn’t change that. Likewise for many Poles.

    Pole are more assimilated than Ukrainians, but there are many more of them. If only 10% of Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe that (plus Ukrainian votes) will be enough to sway the election in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If Trump chooses Vivek, Green or some other pro-Russian as his running mate he will lose those states.

    They are mostly native Americans which have ancestry from Poland or Ukraine in a different century like most Americans. Americans who are arrivals of the late 19th century and later created a concept of ethnic pride and express this with some events like “Columbus day” or “St Patrick’s day”.

    If Ireland were invaded what do you think would happen to the Irish-American vote if a candidate supported the invader?

    In 2012, most Polish Americans voted for Obama against Romney. In 2016, mostly voted for Trump against Clinton (Trump was pro-Russia/Clinton anti-Russia).

    Most Ukrainian nationalists voted for Trump and against Clinton because they correctly viewed the collusion story as a hoax (probably spread by Russia itself) and because the Obama administration had been anti-Ukrainian. Clinton anti-Russia was a story for ignorant people; Eastern Europeans knew better.

    Here is a Ukrainian nationalist writing about Clinton, in 2016:

    https://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/whos-truly-beholden-to-the-kremlin/

    Let’s cut through the hysteria and examine the facts.

    Long before Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump exchanged compliments, Bill Clinton received a phone call from Mr. Putin in 2010 thanking him personally for delivering a speech for $500,000, paid by a Russian investment bank that was promoting shares in a company that controlled 20 percent of America’s supply of uranium, a critical component in nuclear weapons.

    The State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, signed off on the deal just two months after her husband’s speech, enabling the Russian state nuclear agency to not only acquire 20 percent of America’s uranium but also own the land in which the deposits are located.

    She was also secretary of state when $145 million in donations reached the Clinton Foundation from the shareholders of the company that sold America’s uranium.

    Yet that wasn’t the only money the Clintons raised from the Russians that resulted in the exchange for sensitive materials.

    Out of 28 American, European and Russian companies that participated in the transfer of classified technology to the Skolkovo technology park outside of Moscow, 17 were Clinton Foundation donors or paid for speeches by Mr. Clinton.

    By 2014, when Russia was invading Ukraine, the FBI issued “an extraordinary warning” to several technology companies involved with Skolkovo. The true motives of the Russians is to gain access to classified, sensitive and emerging technology from the companies, an FBI agent warned.

    John Podesta, the chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, sat on the executive board, alongside key Russian officials, of an energy company that received the FBI’s warning. That didn’t stop him from accepting $35 million from a Putin-connected government fund.

    E-mails released by Wikileaks showed that Mr. Podesta continued to be involved in the company in 2015, even after the Russian invasion and after claiming to be divested. Furthermore, Mr. Podesta is reported to have received $5.25 million for his think tank, Center for American Progress, through a secretive chain of entities that could lead to Russian oligarchs, among them Ruben Vardanyan, who sat on the energy company board, according to the Government Accountability Institute.

    Hillary Clinton supporters erupted in outrage when Mr. Trump hired Paul Manafort to help run his campaign. (Is it not a positive signal that Mr. Trump dumped him after such criticism?) But their silence was deafening when it was revealed in late August that Mr. Manafort hired the Podesta Group to lobby on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych’s allies in the Party of Regions.

    The Podesta Group lobbied until 2014 to downplay the need for a congressional resolution to pressure Mr. Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, the Associated Press reported. Moreover, it failed to file the proper paperwork, making the lobbying illegal.

    Clinton supporters also drummed up hysteria about Mr. Trump being too busy to meet with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

    Yet that pales in comparison to the very same Mr. Podesta – having already taken millions as part of sensitive technology transfers – reacting with disinterest (as revealed by Wikileaks) to Victor Pinchuk’s pleas to get Mr. Clinton and a group of Western leaders to voice support for Ukraine as the Russian military aggression peaked in the winter of 2015.

    Now the FBI has confirmed this week that its investigations of Mr. Trump, launched in the summer, have uncovered no ties to the Kremlin. Nothing. Nichoho. Zero.

    Voters should consider that the Clintons and Mr. Podesta have far more questionable ties to the Kremlin, possibly criminal, than Mr. Trump and his entourage.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.
     
    Would Ukraine have actually agreed to this, though? I could only see Ukraine agreeing to this if offered NATO membership in exchange for this, which I doubt that the NATO-skeptical Trump would have.

    I think, however, that Trump would have deterred an attack. Biden seemed to be predictably weak like Obama, which encouraged Putin to act. Biden’s later behavior was surprising. Your analogy to the mousetrap was a correct one. If Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.
     
    I've heard an argument that Trump only began arming Ukraine in order to avoid giving the impression that he is a Russian puppet. This would have been less relevant in his second term once he would have no longer had to worry about his own political future, unless of course some of his family members would have also wanted to seek the US Presidency later on.

    Replies: @A123

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Long before Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump exchanged compliments, Bill Clinton received a phone call from Mr. Putin in 2010 thanking him personally for delivering a speech for $500,000, paid by a Russian investment bank that was promoting shares in a company that controlled 20 percent of America’s supply of uranium, a critical component in nuclear weapons.
     
    TBF, being Russia-friendly was more prestigious before 2014. Did Bush's missile defense plan and 2008 Bucharest Declaration in regards to Ukraine's and Georgia's future being in NATO without actually giving either of these two countries a NATO MAP really produce good outcomes?
    , @Dmitry
    @AP


    Doubtful, with Pompeo in charge
     
    Pompeo is neoconservative personally, but he wasn't boss and didn't stop Trump in stopping aid to Ukraine in 2019.

    You can read Wikipedia.

    "when John Bolton and others fought the "effort to hijack" the U.S. relationship with Ukraine, Pompeo failed to respond directly to complaints, leaving Taylor to conclude that lack of timely, congressionally approved military aid would leave Ukrainians dying at the hands of Russian-led forces.[125]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo#Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump

    Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.

    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid
     

    Biden has given on paper the supposed $44 billion to Ukraine, although a lot of it is valueless financially old equipment so it's not really so much. In either way, although the real number is less, he has given many billions of dollars, which has created unpopularity for many Americans who don't want so much money to go to Ukraine.

    Trump's main argument was not to send money to foreign countries and this is his promise for his voters, so it's unlikely he would have give such high level of aid like Biden as it would have undermined his political character and contradicted the reason many people voted for him.


    Pole are more assimilated than Ukrainians, but
     
    The nationality language you use is confusing. You are not mostly writing about Poles or Ukrainians.

    You are writing about mostly white Americans with distant ancestry in Poland so in some families it can be there could be no-one in the family who can still remember living in Poland. Only the first generation immigrant is still part of the old country in the way we expect when you name someone by the nationality. After the first generation immigrant, it is "heritage" or "roots".

    I know your language is consistent, although you sometimes seem to be confusing also yourself with this language, like you were saying "Greeks should emigrate from Mariupol to allow Slavs to kill each other". Those people you write as "Greeks" are not Greeks. They are Ukrainians. It is Ukrainians not Greeks, who will be another Ukrainian refugee in Greece, not really different than other refugees there.


    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine.

     

    I'm not disagreeing, they will be influenced especially if they are first generation immigrants. In Hollywood, the actress Mila Kunis from South-West Ukraine was raising $37 million because of the war. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a42110483/mile-kunis-37-million-for-ukraine/

    But the number of Americans who were born in Ukraine is only 400,000, which probably includes some proportion of people with "diverse" views like AnoninTN in TN.

    Mainly they are in Pennsylvania and New York. It's probably only relevant for Pennsylvania. In other states, the numbers are not large to be a significant demographic to change an election or they are in states which are voting Democrat everytime.


    Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe
     
    In 1980, they voted for Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan, while Reagan was more anti-Soviet compared to Jimmy Carter. It's possible to be a mixed result because Poland was a communist country in the Warsaw Pact.

    But in 2016 voted for Trump in when Hillary Clinton was viewed as anti-Russia while Trump was viewed as pro-Russian by a large part of Americans in the election campaign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-American_vote#Presidential_voting_results


    American Jews are pro-Israel.

     

    Jewish is a religion so it should be more motivating. But Reform Jews voted for Obama in 2012. This is when Israel is bipartisan against the Iran deal. They voted for Biden 2020 against Trump who was the most pro-Israel president and beloved of Israelis.

    In Israel, they call Trump their "American uncle". But for the main branches of the Jewish religion in America, he has not been popular. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-voting-record-in-u-s-presidential-elections

    A counter-example, could be American Evangelical Christians or Modern Orthodox Jews which still prioritize Israel's preference in the elections. The mechanism is likely because the Evangelical and Orthodox religious leaders promoted Trump in their religious services or literature.

    There are also Cuban Americans which are ideologically selected, mainly first generation immigrants. The majority remember their life with the communist party of Cuba.

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/resize/source_images/CP-Cuba2017-F1-updated-700x432.png


    If Ireland were invaded what do you think would happen to the Irish-American vote if a candidate supported the invader?

     

    Some people say the "Irish American" vote mostly doesn't exist since the 20th century, after all these are the mainstream white Americans like "Polish Americans".

    Even though Irish Americans are 40 million Americans, Biden wasn't worried about undermining the economic model of Republic of Ireland with the corporate minimum tax plan.

    Replies: @AP

  788. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Trump administration in office wouldn’t have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition

    The response of Trump would have been weaker for Russia in comparison with Biden where the response has been more strong than probably anyone has expected, especially in Moscow.
     
    Doubtful, with Pompeo in charge.

    I think, however, that Trump would have deterred an attack. Biden seemed to be predictably weak like Obama, which encouraged Putin to act. Biden's later behavior was surprising. Your analogy to the mousetrap was a correct one. If Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.

    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.

    36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in

    There is confusing language. Except a small minority, these people are not Ukrainians and Poles. Only a small proportion of this number are people from Ukraine or Poland.
     
    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine. They are more pro-Ukraine than American Jews are pro-Israel. Being born in the USA doesn't change that. Likewise for many Poles.

    Pole are more assimilated than Ukrainians, but there are many more of them. If only 10% of Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe that (plus Ukrainian votes) will be enough to sway the election in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If Trump chooses Vivek, Green or some other pro-Russian as his running mate he will lose those states.

    They are mostly native Americans which have ancestry from Poland or Ukraine in a different century like most Americans. Americans who are arrivals of the late 19th century and later created a concept of ethnic pride and express this with some events like “Columbus day” or “St Patrick’s day”.
     
    If Ireland were invaded what do you think would happen to the Irish-American vote if a candidate supported the invader?

    In 2012, most Polish Americans voted for Obama against Romney. In 2016, mostly voted for Trump against Clinton (Trump was pro-Russia/Clinton anti-Russia).
     
    Most Ukrainian nationalists voted for Trump and against Clinton because they correctly viewed the collusion story as a hoax (probably spread by Russia itself) and because the Obama administration had been anti-Ukrainian. Clinton anti-Russia was a story for ignorant people; Eastern Europeans knew better.

    Here is a Ukrainian nationalist writing about Clinton, in 2016:

    https://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/whos-truly-beholden-to-the-kremlin/

    Let’s cut through the hysteria and examine the facts.

    Long before Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump exchanged compliments, Bill Clinton received a phone call from Mr. Putin in 2010 thanking him personally for delivering a speech for $500,000, paid by a Russian investment bank that was promoting shares in a company that controlled 20 percent of America’s supply of uranium, a critical component in nuclear weapons.

    The State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, signed off on the deal just two months after her husband’s speech, enabling the Russian state nuclear agency to not only acquire 20 percent of America’s uranium but also own the land in which the deposits are located.

    She was also secretary of state when $145 million in donations reached the Clinton Foundation from the shareholders of the company that sold America’s uranium.

    Yet that wasn’t the only money the Clintons raised from the Russians that resulted in the exchange for sensitive materials.

    Out of 28 American, European and Russian companies that participated in the transfer of classified technology to the Skolkovo technology park outside of Moscow, 17 were Clinton Foundation donors or paid for speeches by Mr. Clinton.

    By 2014, when Russia was invading Ukraine, the FBI issued “an extraordinary warning” to several technology companies involved with Skolkovo. The true motives of the Russians is to gain access to classified, sensitive and emerging technology from the companies, an FBI agent warned.

    John Podesta, the chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, sat on the executive board, alongside key Russian officials, of an energy company that received the FBI’s warning. That didn’t stop him from accepting $35 million from a Putin-connected government fund.

    E-mails released by Wikileaks showed that Mr. Podesta continued to be involved in the company in 2015, even after the Russian invasion and after claiming to be divested. Furthermore, Mr. Podesta is reported to have received $5.25 million for his think tank, Center for American Progress, through a secretive chain of entities that could lead to Russian oligarchs, among them Ruben Vardanyan, who sat on the energy company board, according to the Government Accountability Institute.

    Hillary Clinton supporters erupted in outrage when Mr. Trump hired Paul Manafort to help run his campaign. (Is it not a positive signal that Mr. Trump dumped him after such criticism?) But their silence was deafening when it was revealed in late August that Mr. Manafort hired the Podesta Group to lobby on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych’s allies in the Party of Regions.

    The Podesta Group lobbied until 2014 to downplay the need for a congressional resolution to pressure Mr. Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, the Associated Press reported. Moreover, it failed to file the proper paperwork, making the lobbying illegal.

    Clinton supporters also drummed up hysteria about Mr. Trump being too busy to meet with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

    Yet that pales in comparison to the very same Mr. Podesta – having already taken millions as part of sensitive technology transfers – reacting with disinterest (as revealed by Wikileaks) to Victor Pinchuk’s pleas to get Mr. Clinton and a group of Western leaders to voice support for Ukraine as the Russian military aggression peaked in the winter of 2015.

    Now the FBI has confirmed this week that its investigations of Mr. Trump, launched in the summer, have uncovered no ties to the Kremlin. Nothing. Nichoho. Zero.

    Voters should consider that the Clintons and Mr. Podesta have far more questionable ties to the Kremlin, possibly criminal, than Mr. Trump and his entourage.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.

    Would Ukraine have actually agreed to this, though? I could only see Ukraine agreeing to this if offered NATO membership in exchange for this, which I doubt that the NATO-skeptical Trump would have.

    I think, however, that Trump would have deterred an attack. Biden seemed to be predictably weak like Obama, which encouraged Putin to act. Biden’s later behavior was surprising. Your analogy to the mousetrap was a correct one. If Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.

    I’ve heard an argument that Trump only began arming Ukraine in order to avoid giving the impression that he is a Russian puppet. This would have been less relevant in his second term once he would have no longer had to worry about his own political future, unless of course some of his family members would have also wanted to seek the US Presidency later on.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Mr. XYZ



    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.
     
    I’ve heard an argument that Trump only began arming Ukraine in order to avoid giving the impression that he is a Russian puppet
     
    You are on the correct track. Trump's 1st term was impeded by the "Russia, Russia, Russia" myth and associated investigation by Special Counsel Muller. While Trump wanted to repair relations, he had to prioritize internal considerations.

    Despite these issues, how much did Pompeo actually obtain for Ukraine?

    In four years there was 1-and-only-1 package over $100MM. The timing was coincident with a Putin reelection win. It clearly only went through because of domestic concerns. There were a few much smaller packages <$50MM each. It is not clear these ever hit the President's desk as free standing items. They were trivial spends attached to other issues.

    This would have been less relevant in his second term once he would have no longer had to worry about his own political future, unless of course some of his family members would have also wanted to seek the US Presidency later on.
     
    The end of the "Russia, Russia, Russia" fiction will allow Trump's 2nd term to begin the long overdue detente with Moscow. To restore America's honor & prestige -- Not-The-President Biden's corrupt folly in Ukraine will be entirely (or at least largely) cut off.

    Barron will not be eligible for the Presidency until 2044. It seems unlikely that any actions would be made ~20 years in advance of such a run.

    PEACE 😇

     
    https://rlv.zcache.com/barron_trump_for_president_button-ra4de3a1fcc5d4e00ab6a975f66d19be3_k94rf_630.jpg

    Replies: @QCIC

  789. Watch this Russian helicopter drop from the sky after being hit by a Swveeedish RBS-70

  790. @AP
    @Mikel


    Unfortunately it’s not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.

    If that’s the case, then I share my character flaws with several generations of Western leaders.
     
    The ones who didn't shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    And before you mention Czechoslovakia, that was crushed before anything could be done, plus the Czechoslovak government didn't ask for Western assistance.

    They also thought that the risk of nuclear war was real and tried to avoid it by letting the USSR do what they wouldn’t have tolerated from any other country.
     
    The fact that the USSR's conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.

    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic
     
    So now you are equating regime change in Iraq with protecting a European country from a Russian invasion?

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    And you know perfectly well why I oppose US interventionism. We discussed it very recently, when you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami.
     
    What? When did I do that?

    It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.
     
    I'm opposed to forever wars and was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. But I am also opposed to the invasion of Ukraine.

    If the Republicans choose a pro-Russian ticket they will lose Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and therefore, most likely, the White House. In 2016, Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes and Pennsylvania by 45,000. There are 36,000 Ukrainians and 850,000 Poles in Michigan, and 122,000 Ukrainians and 824,000 Poles in Pennsylvania. Similar ratios in Wisconsin (fewer Ukrainians, but more Poles). Pick a pro-Russian candidate and enjoy 4 more years of Biden. Choose to screw Ukraine and screw yourself.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel

    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    Interestingly enough, Philippe Lemoine views this as being significantly less provocative to the Soviets than having the West arm Ukrainians right now, and also significantly less costly, since the Afghan aid for an insurgency rather than for a conventional war.

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea.

    You forgot to mention Taiwan here, which the US prevented China from conquering in 1950 by sending a part of the US fleet to protect Taiwan from Mao after North Korea invaded South Korea with Chinese blessing and the US became very paranoid about future potential Communist expansion in that part of the world.

    Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Very true. Though one can say that the societal moral rot in Ukraine, outside of the west, as a result of Communism was deeper than in countries like Poland due to Communism lasting longer and being more brutal in Ukraine. Ukraine really only shed its Sovok past over the last ten years. Ten years ago, about half of Ukrainians were still Sovoks.

  791. @LatW
    @LatW

    Granted, it might be that during the X hour, it may not even be Putin making the ultimate decisions, if the "SMO" fails, the security services could eventually remove him or could make the decisions for him.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @Mr. XYZ

    Similar to what happened to Khrushchev back in 1964?

  792. @AP
    @Mikel


    Unfortunately it’s not your reasoning abilities but perhaps something characterological.

    If that’s the case, then I share my character flaws with several generations of Western leaders.
     
    The ones who didn't shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    And before you mention Czechoslovakia, that was crushed before anything could be done, plus the Czechoslovak government didn't ask for Western assistance.

    They also thought that the risk of nuclear war was real and tried to avoid it by letting the USSR do what they wouldn’t have tolerated from any other country.
     
    The fact that the USSR's conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.

    The cost-benefit ratio of continuing to be the policeman of the world is decidedly negative. That policy has already been practiced long enough and the results have been quite catastrophic
     
    So now you are equating regime change in Iraq with protecting a European country from a Russian invasion?

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    And you know perfectly well why I oppose US interventionism. We discussed it very recently, when you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami.
     
    What? When did I do that?

    It was even evident at the primary debate. It would be much better if no scammers and nitwits were involved in the movement but I guess this is what the current level of political discourse allows for. The forever wars side is no better.
     
    I'm opposed to forever wars and was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. But I am also opposed to the invasion of Ukraine.

    If the Republicans choose a pro-Russian ticket they will lose Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and therefore, most likely, the White House. In 2016, Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes and Pennsylvania by 45,000. There are 36,000 Ukrainians and 850,000 Poles in Michigan, and 122,000 Ukrainians and 824,000 Poles in Pennsylvania. Similar ratios in Wisconsin (fewer Ukrainians, but more Poles). Pick a pro-Russian candidate and enjoy 4 more years of Biden. Choose to screw Ukraine and screw yourself.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel

    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    Yes. Even those ones shared my belief that nuclear war was perfectly possible. They continued their predecessors’ habit of having the “red telephone” ready 24×7 to make sure that nuclear war didn’t start by accident and carried the nuclear briefcase with the launch codes anywhere the President went to be ready for the eventuality that it did start anyway. Those were also the ones who embarked in the very costly “Star Wars” initiative to intercept the nukes that you say nobody had the intention of launching.

    I could go on and on but those few examples make it spectacularly clear that everybody that matters then and now shared by beliefs and totally disregarded yours.

    Even though obviously nobody wants it, nuclear war is a real possibility. At any given time, there’s hundreds of nuclear missiles on each side ready to be launched within minutes and turn the US and Russia into radioactive wastelands. This means that nuclear war is not only possible through accident (as is obviously the case with any other technology invented by man) but also through misunderstandings and miscalculations that make it impossible for the other side to lose face.

    The fact that the USSR’s conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.

    Repeating the same assertion over and over has its value in a religious context but it doesn’t really help your case in a rational debate.

    Even if common sense wasn’t enough, there are reams of contemporary written evidence in the form of declarations, official military doctrines and constant discussions in the media, in Congress, etc showing that nuclear war with the USSR was the biggest fear during Cold War I.

    At the end of WW2 it was of course rational for the Western allies to fear a USSR fully mobilized for total war and perhaps more importantly, people were very tired and nobody wanted a new world war, not even Churchill. That’s how EE was lost. But the real freeze in hostilities began in 1949. At the beginning it was just the horrendous realization that now Hiroshima could happen to the US but the danger grew very fast to much worse levels, including, for the first time in human history, the possibility of planetary destruction. Of course, this was the overarching consideration behind all foreign policy decisions during the previous Cold War.

    At a conventional level, the Warsaw Pact did have very large numbers of everything but everyone could see the technological gap in the Middle east and in Asia. All of this was not such a long time ago. I remember it perfectly well and nobody in Europe cared much about Soviet tanks. Everybody’s fear was definitely the nukes.

    What? When did I do that?

    When you accused me of being pro-Russian.

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Well, yes, I guess so. But the authorities in Kiev keep trying to prove the contrary, as the abuse Elon is receiving from them right now shows. He was under no obligation to keep the internet going in Ukraine. It wasn’t his business. I’m sure he did it out of empathy under the emotion of the moment in those initial days of the invasion but with certain beneficiaries no good deed goes unpunished. Perhaps not even Saddam or the Mullah Omar would have been so ungrateful.

    Non-interventionism is pointless anyway if you start making exceptions before you even begin. Whether interventionism “worked well” in the places you mentioned or not, I want the US to stop intervening and giving defense guarantees also in Asia and in Europe. Even in the Basque Country, if it ever came to that.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikel


    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    Yes. Even those ones shared my belief that nuclear war was perfectly possible. They continued their predecessors’ habit of having the “red telephone” ready 24×7 to make sure that nuclear war didn’t start by accident and carried the nuclear briefcase with the launch codes anywhere the President went to be ready for the eventuality that it did start anyway.
     
    I never claimed it was impossible, due to some mistake or other. Such safe-guards are good for that.

    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn't trigger the nuclear holocaust, and that the people in charge weren't afraid to engage in actions that you would be afraid to do. Americans weren't afraid to send lots of weapons to Afghanistan to kill soviet soldiers. Soviets weren't afraid to send pilots into Vietnam to kill Americans.

    But you are afraid to help Ukraine because you think it will create a nuclear holocaust.

    You are not like them, not at all.

    I could go on and on but those few examples make it spectacularly clear that everybody that matters then and now shared by beliefs and totally disregarded yours.
     
    Those examples in no way show that these people feared confronting the Soviet (or the Soviets, us) in ways that would kill the opposing side's troops.

    Even though obviously nobody wants it, nuclear war is a real possibility. At any given time, there’s hundreds of nuclear missiles on each side ready to be launched within minutes and turn the US and Russia into radioactive wastelands. This means that nuclear war is not only possible through accident (as is obviously the case with any other technology invented by man) but also through misunderstandings and miscalculations that make it impossible for the other side to lose face.
     
    Putin and a bunch of other adult, non-fanatic people are going to incinerate their own families and themselves in order not to "lose face?"

    You are not very rational, sorry.

    The fact that the USSR’s conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.

    Repeating the same assertion over and over
     
    Yes, like repeating that 1 + 1 = 2.

    USSR's conventional force was much more of a deterrent preventing the liberation of Czechoslovakia or Poland than was the nuclear threat. Soviets would not have nuked the USA and thereby ended their own civilization if Americans had liberated Prague. Nor would Americans have done themselves in if the Soviet had marched into Bonn.

    This is why each side had 100,000s of troops stationed in Europe. Doing so would have been totally unnecessary if the nuclear threat was seen as you claim it was seen. How many hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on securing Europe with massive conventional armies, if nukes were the main issue?

    During the 1980s, NATO had 35,000 tanks and the Warsaw Pact had 59,000 tanks in Europe. Each side had millions of soldiers. None of that would have been necessary if your fantasy was true, that intercontinental nukes were the most important factor in preventing one side or the other from fighting in Europe. It is precisely because it was well understood that Americans wouldn't nuke Moscow over Bonn and Moscow wouldn't nuke New York over Prague, that there were 10,000s of tanks and millions of troops stationed in Europe.

    What? When did I do that? [referred to Amazonian Indian tribes - AP]

    When you accused me of being pro-Russian.
     
    I don't remember doing that and couldn't find such comments in my posting history. Perhaps you are mistaken?

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Well, yes, I guess so. But the authorities in Kiev keep trying to prove the contrary, as the abuse Elon is receiving from them right now shows. He was under no obligation to keep the internet going in Ukraine. It wasn’t his business. I’m sure he did it out of empathy under the emotion of the moment in those initial days of the invasion but with certain beneficiaries no good deed goes unpunished.
     
    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    If similar circumstances occurred for the Americans, would they be different? If the US depended on starlink, it was about to take out some hostile missile launchers, but Musk said he didn't want to be involved and prevented it - and as a consequence bombs were launched into American cities and American died. They would probably arrest him on some pretext.

    The blood he has on his hands by stopping that operation is of course balanced by the many lives he has saved by his earlier actions. But it is natural and normal to be angry at his later actions. That you are unable to understand, speaks more poorly of you, than of the angry Ukrainians.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @sudden death, @Mikel

    , @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    Those were also the ones who embarked in the very costly “Star Wars” initiative to intercept the nukes that you say nobody had the intention of launching.
     
    What does it mean to have an "intention" of launching nukes? Does it mean a readiness to use them under a given set of carefully considered circumstances? Or does it mean something more like a decision having been reached that they're going to be used, and it only remains to wait for the right opportunity to launch them? The former description lends itself to defensive, second-strike intentions, the latter to offensive, first-strike intentions. Imo, clearly the former intention existed, while evidence for the latter intention is quite scarce (and has mostly to do with assessing the other side's intentions).
  793. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Yeltsin and Putin openly inquired about joining NATO and were rebuffed for the reasons given.

    Those were your reasons given. I don't see a source.

    A president talking about possibilities is not a formal rejection nor is it a policy. Trump talked about the possibility of leaving NATO. That doesn't have political meaning outside of his mouth moving.

    In the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, Japan relinquished its claims to the Kurils.

    The United States was the Allied negotiator of that treaty and believes the islands belong to Japan.

    Regarding China’s take:

    That's a change from this year which is well after the talk of Russia joining. I was explaining why Russia did not qualify.

    But more importantly it still doesn't change the fact that Russia has a disputed border with a neighbor and NATO nations would not support the applicant for this reason. You can't apply with a disputed border. You do acknowledge this requirement of NATO, right? This is why Ukraine never qualified and it should also be noted that they lacked the votes of France and Germany even if they had somehow resolved Donbas and Crimea. The better move to keep Ukraine out of NATO was to do nothing. The status quo prior to the 2022 invasion favored Russia in regard to Ukraine and NATO. It was also expected that Turkey would be a spoiler vote if needed (NATO vote has to be unanimous). Turkey has traditionally sided with Russia while playing both sides. In fact Turkey has been the black sheep for that reason. That however has changed with Putin's invasion and Turkey has moved closer to Western nations.

    Putin really has made a complete mess of the situation. Finland and Sweden have ended their neutrality that now even Armenia is looking to separate themselves from Russia. Moldova is extremely distrustful of Russia and Belarus is only held together by a dictator who knows the war was a stupid idea. The people of Belarus would vote for closer ties to the West if given the chance. Putin has created graveyards of Russians while pushing away the remaining non-NATO former eastern bloc countries. Neighboring Kazakhstan was given an influx of White collar workers that do not want to be part of Putin's war. In fact numerous Russian tech companies are moving there permanently.

    Some of the worst geopolitical moves in Russian history.

    That'll do dwarf, that'll do.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Sean

    And just what are your sources?

    Said 1951 agreement on Kurils is clear as noted in that set of comments of mine. Soviet territory in the RSFSR. Furthermore, Yalta specified they’d go to the USSR.

    Yeltsin and Putin on Russia in NATO

    https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

    Related –

    https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/16/opinion/l-nato-still-divides-780898.html

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    And just what are your sources?

    Said 1951 agreement on Kurils is clear as noted in that set of comments of mine. Soviet territory in the RSFSR. Furthermore, Yalta specified they’d go to the USSR.

    There isn't a single agreement and that is why it is contended:
    The modern Kuril Islands dispute arose in the aftermath of World War II and results from the ambiguities in and disagreements about the meaning of the Yalta agreement (February 1945), the Potsdam Declaration (July 1945), and the Treaty of San Francisco (September 1951). The Yalta Agreement, signed by the US, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, stated:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute

    Regardless of your opinion the US and EU believe they belong to Japan. I'm not saying I agree or disagree but it is contended by Japan and NATO nations. That would disqualify Russia until it is resolved. You can't apply with a border in dispute which makes sense. They don't want a nation to join and then declare a contented border as their own with the expectation that NATO would back them. Any border contention has to be resolved before a vote can occur.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html

    Your source is behind a paywall.

    There was never an application to NATO by Russia nor was the process ever started. It was just talk.

    I am fully aware that Yeltsin spoke of joining NATO. Trump spoke of leaving NATO. Neither amounts to government action. Joining/leaving NATO is a public process and not a backroom deal.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  794. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    The point is that becoming a military threat to Russia was a mistake. This was not in the interest of most Ukrainian citizens and seems completely unnecessary.

    How did they become a military threat when Russia is a nuclear power with a conventional military about 5x larger? How exactly was the security of Russia threatened?

    Was the Russian invasion of Georgia also due to a military threat?

    Replies: @QCIC

    The Western policy to control Russia includes partial encirclement by NATO. If you don’t think that is a threat there is little to discuss. Ukraine was a pivotal piece in this process.

    I don’t know much about events in Georgia. What do you think happened there?

  795. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.
     
    Would Ukraine have actually agreed to this, though? I could only see Ukraine agreeing to this if offered NATO membership in exchange for this, which I doubt that the NATO-skeptical Trump would have.

    I think, however, that Trump would have deterred an attack. Biden seemed to be predictably weak like Obama, which encouraged Putin to act. Biden’s later behavior was surprising. Your analogy to the mousetrap was a correct one. If Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.
     
    I've heard an argument that Trump only began arming Ukraine in order to avoid giving the impression that he is a Russian puppet. This would have been less relevant in his second term once he would have no longer had to worry about his own political future, unless of course some of his family members would have also wanted to seek the US Presidency later on.

    Replies: @A123

    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.

    I’ve heard an argument that Trump only began arming Ukraine in order to avoid giving the impression that he is a Russian puppet

    You are on the correct track. Trump’s 1st term was impeded by the “Russia, Russia, Russia” myth and associated investigation by Special Counsel Muller. While Trump wanted to repair relations, he had to prioritize internal considerations.

    Despite these issues, how much did Pompeo actually obtain for Ukraine?

    In four years there was 1-and-only-1 package over $100MM. The timing was coincident with a Putin reelection win. It clearly only went through because of domestic concerns. There were a few much smaller packages <$50MM each. It is not clear these ever hit the President's desk as free standing items. They were trivial spends attached to other issues.

    This would have been less relevant in his second term once he would have no longer had to worry about his own political future, unless of course some of his family members would have also wanted to seek the US Presidency later on.

    The end of the “Russia, Russia, Russia” fiction will allow Trump’s 2nd term to begin the long overdue detente with Moscow. To restore America’s honor & prestige — Not-The-President Biden’s corrupt folly in Ukraine will be entirely (or at least largely) cut off.

    Barron will not be eligible for the Presidency until 2044. It seems unlikely that any actions would be made ~20 years in advance of such a run.

    PEACE 😇

     

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @A123

    What are the rules concerning Presidential eligibility of clones?

  796. @Mr. XYZ
    @QCIC

    Ukraine was primarily a military threat to Russia in Russians' own imaginations. And if NATO wanted to threaten Russia with nuclear missiles (they don't, not after Cuba 1962), they can already place them in the Baltic countries. No need for Ukraine for this purpose.

    Replies: @QCIC

    This is related to the INF Treaty which the US dropped out of for specious reasons.

    In general I don’t think the Balts are stupid enough to allow NATO to place nuclear-armed missiles into their countries. On the other hand, considering LatW maybe I need to reconsider that notion.

    I don’t know what agreement NATO and Russia have concerning missile subs in the Baltic Sea.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @QCIC


    ...This is related to the INF Treaty which the US dropped out
     
    US also left the ABM treaty that prevented 'defensive' missiles and then placed missiles in Poland and Romania claiming that they are a "defense against attack by North Korea or Iran". That is the level of open lying Washington has been doing - no wonder Russia simply refuses to take their word.

    The collection of XYZ, AP's, Johnsons, LatW, Mr. Hacks argues that Russia had no reason to fear Nato because they have nukes. At the same they argue that Russia would never use nukes because of "their grandkids" - see AP above. In a crisis the proximity and the variance of threats are critically important, but they pretend not to understand it. They are making it up as they wish - it is not a serious thought-out argument.

    They are inconsistent because they have an agenda that they try to hide: Nato in Ukraine and millions of Russians expelled, killed or forcibly assimilated. Sweet people - no wonder they have to lie and pretend to be stupid.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    , @LatW
    @QCIC


    In general I don’t think the Balts are stupid enough to allow NATO to place nuclear-armed missiles into their countries. On the other hand, considering LatW maybe I need to reconsider that notion.
     
    Do not speak for me. I am strictly against that (as would be most of the political parties actually). But I fully support further militarization otherwise. The Baltics can be defended without nukes being placed there.

    But he is right that it was not NATO's intention to threaten Russia. NATO was ok with the status quo prior to the 2022 invasion. Meaning, they were probably not too happy with Crimea having been annexed, but they were not going to do much about it, much less about the Donbas situation. In fact, it seems to have been true that Obama told Ukraine not to resist the annexation of Crimea (pretty scandalous, a large nuclear country is telling a smaller non-nuclear one to not resist it being carved up).

    Replies: @Wokechoke

  797. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Yeltsin and Putin openly inquired about joining NATO and were rebuffed for the reasons given.

    Those were your reasons given. I don't see a source.

    A president talking about possibilities is not a formal rejection nor is it a policy. Trump talked about the possibility of leaving NATO. That doesn't have political meaning outside of his mouth moving.

    In the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, Japan relinquished its claims to the Kurils.

    The United States was the Allied negotiator of that treaty and believes the islands belong to Japan.

    Regarding China’s take:

    That's a change from this year which is well after the talk of Russia joining. I was explaining why Russia did not qualify.

    But more importantly it still doesn't change the fact that Russia has a disputed border with a neighbor and NATO nations would not support the applicant for this reason. You can't apply with a disputed border. You do acknowledge this requirement of NATO, right? This is why Ukraine never qualified and it should also be noted that they lacked the votes of France and Germany even if they had somehow resolved Donbas and Crimea. The better move to keep Ukraine out of NATO was to do nothing. The status quo prior to the 2022 invasion favored Russia in regard to Ukraine and NATO. It was also expected that Turkey would be a spoiler vote if needed (NATO vote has to be unanimous). Turkey has traditionally sided with Russia while playing both sides. In fact Turkey has been the black sheep for that reason. That however has changed with Putin's invasion and Turkey has moved closer to Western nations.

    Putin really has made a complete mess of the situation. Finland and Sweden have ended their neutrality that now even Armenia is looking to separate themselves from Russia. Moldova is extremely distrustful of Russia and Belarus is only held together by a dictator who knows the war was a stupid idea. The people of Belarus would vote for closer ties to the West if given the chance. Putin has created graveyards of Russians while pushing away the remaining non-NATO former eastern bloc countries. Neighboring Kazakhstan was given an influx of White collar workers that do not want to be part of Putin's war. In fact numerous Russian tech companies are moving there permanently.

    Some of the worst geopolitical moves in Russian history.

    That'll do dwarf, that'll do.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Sean

    But more importantly it still doesn’t change the fact that Russia has a disputed border with a neighbor and NATO nations would not support the applicant for this reason. You can’t apply with a disputed border. You do acknowledge this requirement of NATO, right? This is why Ukraine never qualified and it should also be noted that they lacked the votes of France and Germany even if they had somehow resolved Donbas and Crimea. The better move to keep Ukraine out of NATO was to do nothing.

    In what time frame? Pre 2014 there was no territorial dispute to keep Ukraine out of Nato. So the better move for Russia in 2022 of doing nothing was dependent on Russia having already seized a large amount of Ukrainian territory several years before and engaging in bloody fighting to keep the seized territory.

    Some of the worst geopolitical moves in Russian history

    Provoked* by the absolute worst ones in Ukrainian history. And ordinary Ukrainians are now being channeled into kill zones in an attempt to breakthrough the Surovikin line, which is more of a maze of apparently inviting avenues overlooked by artillery on the ridges.

    (* No, the invasion was not ‘unprovoked’; certainly not in the sense that it came as a surprise, because Russia warned repeatedly since 2008 what it would be provoked into doing unless Ukraine altered course, and in 2014 Putin showed he was not kidding.)

  798. @QCIC
    @Mr. XYZ

    This is related to the INF Treaty which the US dropped out of for specious reasons.

    In general I don't think the Balts are stupid enough to allow NATO to place nuclear-armed missiles into their countries. On the other hand, considering LatW maybe I need to reconsider that notion.

    I don't know what agreement NATO and Russia have concerning missile subs in the Baltic Sea.

    Replies: @Beckow, @LatW

    …This is related to the INF Treaty which the US dropped out

    US also left the ABM treaty that prevented ‘defensive’ missiles and then placed missiles in Poland and Romania claiming that they are a “defense against attack by North Korea or Iran”. That is the level of open lying Washington has been doing – no wonder Russia simply refuses to take their word.

    The collection of XYZ, AP’s, Johnsons, LatW, Mr. Hacks argues that Russia had no reason to fear Nato because they have nukes. At the same they argue that Russia would never use nukes because of “their grandkids” – see AP above. In a crisis the proximity and the variance of threats are critically important, but they pretend not to understand it. They are making it up as they wish – it is not a serious thought-out argument.

    They are inconsistent because they have an agenda that they try to hide: Nato in Ukraine and millions of Russians expelled, killed or forcibly assimilated. Sweet people – no wonder they have to lie and pretend to be stupid.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Beckow


    The collection of XYZ, AP’s, Johnsons, LatW, Mr. Hacks argues that Russia had no reason to fear Nato because they have nukes. At the same they argue that Russia would never use nukes because of “their grandkids” – see AP above. In a crisis the proximity and the variance of threats are critically important, but they pretend not to understand it. They are making it up as they wish – it is not a serious thought-out argument.
     
    Well, I do think that Russia should be concerned if NATO will ever place nuclear missiles near Russia's doorstep, but thankfully NATO appears to be uninterested in doing that. NATO is still trying to mostly adhere to its 1997 agreement with Russia to limit its deployments in Eastern Europe.

    Likewise, I would be sad if Cuba or Mexico signed an anti-US alliance with China, but so long as there would be no nuclear missiles there and at worst a very small number of Chinese troops, this wouldn't be a reason for panic for a rational person. The US has historically been very privileged in not having hostile states other than Cuba near its borders for a very long time. That's not to say that I would actually *want* Cuba or Mexico to ally with China; very far from it! But it would not be the end of the world.

    If countries had an automatic right not to have potentially hostile alliances on their doorsteps, then Nazi Germany's invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland would have been perfectly justified, albeit not the subsequent Nazi brutality in those places.

    Replies: @Beckow

  799. @A123
    @Mr. XYZ



    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.
     
    I’ve heard an argument that Trump only began arming Ukraine in order to avoid giving the impression that he is a Russian puppet
     
    You are on the correct track. Trump's 1st term was impeded by the "Russia, Russia, Russia" myth and associated investigation by Special Counsel Muller. While Trump wanted to repair relations, he had to prioritize internal considerations.

    Despite these issues, how much did Pompeo actually obtain for Ukraine?

    In four years there was 1-and-only-1 package over $100MM. The timing was coincident with a Putin reelection win. It clearly only went through because of domestic concerns. There were a few much smaller packages <$50MM each. It is not clear these ever hit the President's desk as free standing items. They were trivial spends attached to other issues.

    This would have been less relevant in his second term once he would have no longer had to worry about his own political future, unless of course some of his family members would have also wanted to seek the US Presidency later on.
     
    The end of the "Russia, Russia, Russia" fiction will allow Trump's 2nd term to begin the long overdue detente with Moscow. To restore America's honor & prestige -- Not-The-President Biden's corrupt folly in Ukraine will be entirely (or at least largely) cut off.

    Barron will not be eligible for the Presidency until 2044. It seems unlikely that any actions would be made ~20 years in advance of such a run.

    PEACE 😇

     
    https://rlv.zcache.com/barron_trump_for_president_button-ra4de3a1fcc5d4e00ab6a975f66d19be3_k94rf_630.jpg

    Replies: @QCIC

    What are the rules concerning Presidential eligibility of clones?

  800. @Mikel
    @AP


    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

     
    Yes. Even those ones shared my belief that nuclear war was perfectly possible. They continued their predecessors' habit of having the "red telephone" ready 24x7 to make sure that nuclear war didn't start by accident and carried the nuclear briefcase with the launch codes anywhere the President went to be ready for the eventuality that it did start anyway. Those were also the ones who embarked in the very costly "Star Wars" initiative to intercept the nukes that you say nobody had the intention of launching.

    I could go on and on but those few examples make it spectacularly clear that everybody that matters then and now shared by beliefs and totally disregarded yours.

    Even though obviously nobody wants it, nuclear war is a real possibility. At any given time, there's hundreds of nuclear missiles on each side ready to be launched within minutes and turn the US and Russia into radioactive wastelands. This means that nuclear war is not only possible through accident (as is obviously the case with any other technology invented by man) but also through misunderstandings and miscalculations that make it impossible for the other side to lose face.

    The fact that the USSR’s conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.
     

    Repeating the same assertion over and over has its value in a religious context but it doesn't really help your case in a rational debate.

    Even if common sense wasn't enough, there are reams of contemporary written evidence in the form of declarations, official military doctrines and constant discussions in the media, in Congress, etc showing that nuclear war with the USSR was the biggest fear during Cold War I.

    At the end of WW2 it was of course rational for the Western allies to fear a USSR fully mobilized for total war and perhaps more importantly, people were very tired and nobody wanted a new world war, not even Churchill. That's how EE was lost. But the real freeze in hostilities began in 1949. At the beginning it was just the horrendous realization that now Hiroshima could happen to the US but the danger grew very fast to much worse levels, including, for the first time in human history, the possibility of planetary destruction. Of course, this was the overarching consideration behind all foreign policy decisions during the previous Cold War.

    At a conventional level, the Warsaw Pact did have very large numbers of everything but everyone could see the technological gap in the Middle east and in Asia. All of this was not such a long time ago. I remember it perfectly well and nobody in Europe cared much about Soviet tanks. Everybody's fear was definitely the nukes.


    What? When did I do that?
     
    When you accused me of being pro-Russian.

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.
     
    Well, yes, I guess so. But the authorities in Kiev keep trying to prove the contrary, as the abuse Elon is receiving from them right now shows. He was under no obligation to keep the internet going in Ukraine. It wasn't his business. I'm sure he did it out of empathy under the emotion of the moment in those initial days of the invasion but with certain beneficiaries no good deed goes unpunished. Perhaps not even Saddam or the Mullah Omar would have been so ungrateful.

    Non-interventionism is pointless anyway if you start making exceptions before you even begin. Whether interventionism "worked well" in the places you mentioned or not, I want the US to stop intervening and giving defense guarantees also in Asia and in Europe. Even in the Basque Country, if it ever came to that.

    Replies: @AP, @silviosilver

    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    Yes. Even those ones shared my belief that nuclear war was perfectly possible. They continued their predecessors’ habit of having the “red telephone” ready 24×7 to make sure that nuclear war didn’t start by accident and carried the nuclear briefcase with the launch codes anywhere the President went to be ready for the eventuality that it did start anyway.

    I never claimed it was impossible, due to some mistake or other. Such safe-guards are good for that.

    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn’t trigger the nuclear holocaust, and that the people in charge weren’t afraid to engage in actions that you would be afraid to do. Americans weren’t afraid to send lots of weapons to Afghanistan to kill soviet soldiers. Soviets weren’t afraid to send pilots into Vietnam to kill Americans.

    But you are afraid to help Ukraine because you think it will create a nuclear holocaust.

    You are not like them, not at all.

    I could go on and on but those few examples make it spectacularly clear that everybody that matters then and now shared by beliefs and totally disregarded yours.

    Those examples in no way show that these people feared confronting the Soviet (or the Soviets, us) in ways that would kill the opposing side’s troops.

    Even though obviously nobody wants it, nuclear war is a real possibility. At any given time, there’s hundreds of nuclear missiles on each side ready to be launched within minutes and turn the US and Russia into radioactive wastelands. This means that nuclear war is not only possible through accident (as is obviously the case with any other technology invented by man) but also through misunderstandings and miscalculations that make it impossible for the other side to lose face.

    Putin and a bunch of other adult, non-fanatic people are going to incinerate their own families and themselves in order not to “lose face?”

    You are not very rational, sorry.

    The fact that the USSR’s conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.

    Repeating the same assertion over and over

    Yes, like repeating that 1 + 1 = 2.

    USSR’s conventional force was much more of a deterrent preventing the liberation of Czechoslovakia or Poland than was the nuclear threat. Soviets would not have nuked the USA and thereby ended their own civilization if Americans had liberated Prague. Nor would Americans have done themselves in if the Soviet had marched into Bonn.

    This is why each side had 100,000s of troops stationed in Europe. Doing so would have been totally unnecessary if the nuclear threat was seen as you claim it was seen. How many hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on securing Europe with massive conventional armies, if nukes were the main issue?

    During the 1980s, NATO had 35,000 tanks and the Warsaw Pact had 59,000 tanks in Europe. Each side had millions of soldiers. None of that would have been necessary if your fantasy was true, that intercontinental nukes were the most important factor in preventing one side or the other from fighting in Europe. It is precisely because it was well understood that Americans wouldn’t nuke Moscow over Bonn and Moscow wouldn’t nuke New York over Prague, that there were 10,000s of tanks and millions of troops stationed in Europe.

    What? When did I do that? [referred to Amazonian Indian tribes – AP]

    When you accused me of being pro-Russian.

    I don’t remember doing that and couldn’t find such comments in my posting history. Perhaps you are mistaken?

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Well, yes, I guess so. But the authorities in Kiev keep trying to prove the contrary, as the abuse Elon is receiving from them right now shows. He was under no obligation to keep the internet going in Ukraine. It wasn’t his business. I’m sure he did it out of empathy under the emotion of the moment in those initial days of the invasion but with certain beneficiaries no good deed goes unpunished.

    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    If similar circumstances occurred for the Americans, would they be different? If the US depended on starlink, it was about to take out some hostile missile launchers, but Musk said he didn’t want to be involved and prevented it – and as a consequence bombs were launched into American cities and American died. They would probably arrest him on some pretext.

    The blood he has on his hands by stopping that operation is of course balanced by the many lives he has saved by his earlier actions. But it is natural and normal to be angry at his later actions. That you are unable to understand, speaks more poorly of you, than of the angry Ukrainians.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    The blood he has on his hands by stopping that operation is of course balanced by the many lives he has saved by his earlier actions. But it is natural and normal to be angry at his later actions. That you are unable to understand, speaks more poorly of you, than of the angry Ukrainians.

     

    How many more Ukrainian civilians would have been killed if Putin would have used nuclear weapons against Ukrainian cities? This would have very possibly triggered a conventional NATO military response against Russia, but Putin might have still been sufficiently pissed off by the loss of his fleet to do this. He wouldn't have been risking nuclear war against NATO by doing this, at least not initially. Ukraine itself does not have its own nukes. It's not like nuking Riga or Warsaw or Helsinki, all of which are indeed in NATO and would thus probably trigger a nuclear response from NATO if they were nuked (albeit with NATO probably doing something like this: Launching a nuke or two against Russia and then immediately saying that it's willing to halt the hostilities if Russia is actually willing to do the same).
    , @sudden death
    @AP


    Americans weren’t afraid to send lots of weapons to Afghanistan to kill soviet soldiers. Soviets weren’t afraid to send pilots into Vietnam to kill Americans. But you are afraid to help Ukraine because you think it will create a nuclear holocaust.You are not like them, not at all.
     
    Should be reminded in this specific instance you're arguing here with relatively recent southern euro leftie immigrant to USA, who didn't even have US citizenship 3 years ago at least, while people like AP have been born and living in US all the life.

    It's not some bad crime to be a legal first generation immigrant ofc, but sometimes Mikel likes to post with such tone as if he was some new George Washington incarnation with three centuries of American experience on the ground under his belt, lol

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @Mikel
    @AP


    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn’t trigger the nuclear holocaust
     
    Yes. And you added that losing California to the Russians and then all of the US West up to Denver wouldn't trigger a nuclear exchange either. That must be one of nuttiest things written on this blog in a very long time. Not just because of the extraordinary claim but also because of the ridiculous pretense of knowing how exactly an escalation to nuclear war could or could not happen.

    It should be possible to argue in defense of the US providing military aid to your old country without making McGregor and QCIC look sane by comparison.

    Note also that, unlike you, I do not claim to have any certainty of what exactly would happen under any particular scenario. All I know is that, given human history, it's ridiculous to take it for granted that scenarios that have never been tested before and that people have been openly discussing since Feb 22 will not escalate to a new holocaust. Nobody can possibly know that and, as long as there is some freedom of thought left in the US, each person is entitled to make their own assessments and defend the foreign policy that best corresponds to them.

    More to the point, if I think that there is something like a 1% chance of the current policy leading to my family both in the US and in Europe being incinerated, why the f-ck should I support it?

    I don’t remember doing that
     
    But you did, quite recently. I'm not surprised though. You have just also accused some Republican presidential candidates of being "pro-Russian". You must be calling people "pro-Russian" all the time so you just forget. I wouldn't be surprised if you consider all the Republican front-runners, and hence some 50% of your compatriots, pro-Russian.

    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?
     
    In the same way that the Yemenis could claim that he "prevented" them from launching attacks against the Saudis that are killing their civilians by not providing them with his services. There must be lots of combatants around the world whose fighting capabilities would be greatly enhanced with on-demand satellite internet coverage over enemy territory but it's only the ungrateful Ukrainians who feel entitled to get that coverage whenever they order it and to turn foreigner Elon Musk into a part of their military staff.

    I find that accusing a well meaning private citizen who wants to help your people without running the risk of provoking WW3 of having blood in his hands is disgusting. What you are doing is disgusting. I'm not surprised that even the former UK minister of defense, one of the persons on this planet who has done the most to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, accused the Ukrainians of being ungrateful before resigning.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @AP

  801. Would be funny, if they confiscated Sunak’s passport.

  802. @Beckow
    @QCIC


    ...This is related to the INF Treaty which the US dropped out
     
    US also left the ABM treaty that prevented 'defensive' missiles and then placed missiles in Poland and Romania claiming that they are a "defense against attack by North Korea or Iran". That is the level of open lying Washington has been doing - no wonder Russia simply refuses to take their word.

    The collection of XYZ, AP's, Johnsons, LatW, Mr. Hacks argues that Russia had no reason to fear Nato because they have nukes. At the same they argue that Russia would never use nukes because of "their grandkids" - see AP above. In a crisis the proximity and the variance of threats are critically important, but they pretend not to understand it. They are making it up as they wish - it is not a serious thought-out argument.

    They are inconsistent because they have an agenda that they try to hide: Nato in Ukraine and millions of Russians expelled, killed or forcibly assimilated. Sweet people - no wonder they have to lie and pretend to be stupid.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    The collection of XYZ, AP’s, Johnsons, LatW, Mr. Hacks argues that Russia had no reason to fear Nato because they have nukes. At the same they argue that Russia would never use nukes because of “their grandkids” – see AP above. In a crisis the proximity and the variance of threats are critically important, but they pretend not to understand it. They are making it up as they wish – it is not a serious thought-out argument.

    Well, I do think that Russia should be concerned if NATO will ever place nuclear missiles near Russia’s doorstep, but thankfully NATO appears to be uninterested in doing that. NATO is still trying to mostly adhere to its 1997 agreement with Russia to limit its deployments in Eastern Europe.

    Likewise, I would be sad if Cuba or Mexico signed an anti-US alliance with China, but so long as there would be no nuclear missiles there and at worst a very small number of Chinese troops, this wouldn’t be a reason for panic for a rational person. The US has historically been very privileged in not having hostile states other than Cuba near its borders for a very long time. That’s not to say that I would actually *want* Cuba or Mexico to ally with China; very far from it! But it would not be the end of the world.

    If countries had an automatic right not to have potentially hostile alliances on their doorsteps, then Nazi Germany’s invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland would have been perfectly justified, albeit not the subsequent Nazi brutality in those places.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Mr. XYZ


    ...I do think that Russia should be concerned if NATO will ever place nuclear missiles near Russia’s doorstep, but thankfully NATO appears to be uninterested in doing that....

    ...so long as there would be no nuclear missiles there...this wouldn’t be a reason for panic for a rational person.
     

    One way to look at it is that people in charge of security in Russia, US, China, etc...are not rational people - their job is to be ultra cautious and skeptical. But the real issue is that these things happen gradually:
    - step one - bring Ukraine into Nato, no weapons, no threats
    - step two - use the next crisis or increase in tensions to say that "now we must put some missiles in Ukraine!" (temporary)
    - step three - to protect the missiles Nato will need permanent bases in Ukraine
    - ongoing steps - the bases provoke the Russians even more - more tension, thus more arms, bases, missiles are needed in Ukraine...

    And so on and on - gradually, that's the way it has always happened. Ukies with their lack of finess and thuggish behavior messed it up already in Step 1.

    Nazis made a lot of valid points: about hostile neighboring countries, unfairness after WW1, etc...But their attempt to solve it by brute force backfired. Just like the Ukies'. They both ended up with a bad hand to play being weaker than the enemy.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  803. @AP
    @Mikel


    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    Yes. Even those ones shared my belief that nuclear war was perfectly possible. They continued their predecessors’ habit of having the “red telephone” ready 24×7 to make sure that nuclear war didn’t start by accident and carried the nuclear briefcase with the launch codes anywhere the President went to be ready for the eventuality that it did start anyway.
     
    I never claimed it was impossible, due to some mistake or other. Such safe-guards are good for that.

    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn't trigger the nuclear holocaust, and that the people in charge weren't afraid to engage in actions that you would be afraid to do. Americans weren't afraid to send lots of weapons to Afghanistan to kill soviet soldiers. Soviets weren't afraid to send pilots into Vietnam to kill Americans.

    But you are afraid to help Ukraine because you think it will create a nuclear holocaust.

    You are not like them, not at all.

    I could go on and on but those few examples make it spectacularly clear that everybody that matters then and now shared by beliefs and totally disregarded yours.
     
    Those examples in no way show that these people feared confronting the Soviet (or the Soviets, us) in ways that would kill the opposing side's troops.

    Even though obviously nobody wants it, nuclear war is a real possibility. At any given time, there’s hundreds of nuclear missiles on each side ready to be launched within minutes and turn the US and Russia into radioactive wastelands. This means that nuclear war is not only possible through accident (as is obviously the case with any other technology invented by man) but also through misunderstandings and miscalculations that make it impossible for the other side to lose face.
     
    Putin and a bunch of other adult, non-fanatic people are going to incinerate their own families and themselves in order not to "lose face?"

    You are not very rational, sorry.

    The fact that the USSR’s conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.

    Repeating the same assertion over and over
     
    Yes, like repeating that 1 + 1 = 2.

    USSR's conventional force was much more of a deterrent preventing the liberation of Czechoslovakia or Poland than was the nuclear threat. Soviets would not have nuked the USA and thereby ended their own civilization if Americans had liberated Prague. Nor would Americans have done themselves in if the Soviet had marched into Bonn.

    This is why each side had 100,000s of troops stationed in Europe. Doing so would have been totally unnecessary if the nuclear threat was seen as you claim it was seen. How many hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on securing Europe with massive conventional armies, if nukes were the main issue?

    During the 1980s, NATO had 35,000 tanks and the Warsaw Pact had 59,000 tanks in Europe. Each side had millions of soldiers. None of that would have been necessary if your fantasy was true, that intercontinental nukes were the most important factor in preventing one side or the other from fighting in Europe. It is precisely because it was well understood that Americans wouldn't nuke Moscow over Bonn and Moscow wouldn't nuke New York over Prague, that there were 10,000s of tanks and millions of troops stationed in Europe.

    What? When did I do that? [referred to Amazonian Indian tribes - AP]

    When you accused me of being pro-Russian.
     
    I don't remember doing that and couldn't find such comments in my posting history. Perhaps you are mistaken?

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Well, yes, I guess so. But the authorities in Kiev keep trying to prove the contrary, as the abuse Elon is receiving from them right now shows. He was under no obligation to keep the internet going in Ukraine. It wasn’t his business. I’m sure he did it out of empathy under the emotion of the moment in those initial days of the invasion but with certain beneficiaries no good deed goes unpunished.
     
    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    If similar circumstances occurred for the Americans, would they be different? If the US depended on starlink, it was about to take out some hostile missile launchers, but Musk said he didn't want to be involved and prevented it - and as a consequence bombs were launched into American cities and American died. They would probably arrest him on some pretext.

    The blood he has on his hands by stopping that operation is of course balanced by the many lives he has saved by his earlier actions. But it is natural and normal to be angry at his later actions. That you are unable to understand, speaks more poorly of you, than of the angry Ukrainians.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @sudden death, @Mikel

    The blood he has on his hands by stopping that operation is of course balanced by the many lives he has saved by his earlier actions. But it is natural and normal to be angry at his later actions. That you are unable to understand, speaks more poorly of you, than of the angry Ukrainians.

    How many more Ukrainian civilians would have been killed if Putin would have used nuclear weapons against Ukrainian cities? This would have very possibly triggered a conventional NATO military response against Russia, but Putin might have still been sufficiently pissed off by the loss of his fleet to do this. He wouldn’t have been risking nuclear war against NATO by doing this, at least not initially. Ukraine itself does not have its own nukes. It’s not like nuking Riga or Warsaw or Helsinki, all of which are indeed in NATO and would thus probably trigger a nuclear response from NATO if they were nuked (albeit with NATO probably doing something like this: Launching a nuke or two against Russia and then immediately saying that it’s willing to halt the hostilities if Russia is actually willing to do the same).

  804. Simultaneously impressive and mind-boggling:
    (The Flintstones motorcycle of the Congo made with a machete.)

    [MORE]

  805. @AP
    @Mikel


    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    Yes. Even those ones shared my belief that nuclear war was perfectly possible. They continued their predecessors’ habit of having the “red telephone” ready 24×7 to make sure that nuclear war didn’t start by accident and carried the nuclear briefcase with the launch codes anywhere the President went to be ready for the eventuality that it did start anyway.
     
    I never claimed it was impossible, due to some mistake or other. Such safe-guards are good for that.

    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn't trigger the nuclear holocaust, and that the people in charge weren't afraid to engage in actions that you would be afraid to do. Americans weren't afraid to send lots of weapons to Afghanistan to kill soviet soldiers. Soviets weren't afraid to send pilots into Vietnam to kill Americans.

    But you are afraid to help Ukraine because you think it will create a nuclear holocaust.

    You are not like them, not at all.

    I could go on and on but those few examples make it spectacularly clear that everybody that matters then and now shared by beliefs and totally disregarded yours.
     
    Those examples in no way show that these people feared confronting the Soviet (or the Soviets, us) in ways that would kill the opposing side's troops.

    Even though obviously nobody wants it, nuclear war is a real possibility. At any given time, there’s hundreds of nuclear missiles on each side ready to be launched within minutes and turn the US and Russia into radioactive wastelands. This means that nuclear war is not only possible through accident (as is obviously the case with any other technology invented by man) but also through misunderstandings and miscalculations that make it impossible for the other side to lose face.
     
    Putin and a bunch of other adult, non-fanatic people are going to incinerate their own families and themselves in order not to "lose face?"

    You are not very rational, sorry.

    The fact that the USSR’s conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.

    Repeating the same assertion over and over
     
    Yes, like repeating that 1 + 1 = 2.

    USSR's conventional force was much more of a deterrent preventing the liberation of Czechoslovakia or Poland than was the nuclear threat. Soviets would not have nuked the USA and thereby ended their own civilization if Americans had liberated Prague. Nor would Americans have done themselves in if the Soviet had marched into Bonn.

    This is why each side had 100,000s of troops stationed in Europe. Doing so would have been totally unnecessary if the nuclear threat was seen as you claim it was seen. How many hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on securing Europe with massive conventional armies, if nukes were the main issue?

    During the 1980s, NATO had 35,000 tanks and the Warsaw Pact had 59,000 tanks in Europe. Each side had millions of soldiers. None of that would have been necessary if your fantasy was true, that intercontinental nukes were the most important factor in preventing one side or the other from fighting in Europe. It is precisely because it was well understood that Americans wouldn't nuke Moscow over Bonn and Moscow wouldn't nuke New York over Prague, that there were 10,000s of tanks and millions of troops stationed in Europe.

    What? When did I do that? [referred to Amazonian Indian tribes - AP]

    When you accused me of being pro-Russian.
     
    I don't remember doing that and couldn't find such comments in my posting history. Perhaps you are mistaken?

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Well, yes, I guess so. But the authorities in Kiev keep trying to prove the contrary, as the abuse Elon is receiving from them right now shows. He was under no obligation to keep the internet going in Ukraine. It wasn’t his business. I’m sure he did it out of empathy under the emotion of the moment in those initial days of the invasion but with certain beneficiaries no good deed goes unpunished.
     
    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    If similar circumstances occurred for the Americans, would they be different? If the US depended on starlink, it was about to take out some hostile missile launchers, but Musk said he didn't want to be involved and prevented it - and as a consequence bombs were launched into American cities and American died. They would probably arrest him on some pretext.

    The blood he has on his hands by stopping that operation is of course balanced by the many lives he has saved by his earlier actions. But it is natural and normal to be angry at his later actions. That you are unable to understand, speaks more poorly of you, than of the angry Ukrainians.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @sudden death, @Mikel

    Americans weren’t afraid to send lots of weapons to Afghanistan to kill soviet soldiers. Soviets weren’t afraid to send pilots into Vietnam to kill Americans. But you are afraid to help Ukraine because you think it will create a nuclear holocaust.You are not like them, not at all.

    Should be reminded in this specific instance you’re arguing here with relatively recent southern euro leftie immigrant to USA, who didn’t even have US citizenship 3 years ago at least, while people like AP have been born and living in US all the life.

    It’s not some bad crime to be a legal first generation immigrant ofc, but sometimes Mikel likes to post with such tone as if he was some new George Washington incarnation with three centuries of American experience on the ground under his belt, lol

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @sudden death


    southern euro leftie immigrant to USA
     
    Those details about my identity that you are highlighting don't have anything to do with the issues we've been debating here lately, that in fact concern everyone on the planet. But unlike you, I promised to defend the US if I am ever called to do so and I am not planning to ever disobey the laws of this country, even those I disagree with. I am very unlikely to be called to combat anyway. Contrary to what a Sovok born in the USSR may imagine, one of the privileges you get along with that responsibility, regardless of where you were born, is the right to defend whatever policy you fancy. Especially when there are millions of US-born Americans that think exactly like you.

    In any case, you shouldn't forget your own pedigree when you start mentioning people's origins. I think that most everybody in Europe would like to move on and forget details about the past that were caused by unfortunate historical circumstances. But you run the risk of being reminded of who flooded us with economic migrants and prostitutes.
  806. @Mr. XYZ
    @Beckow


    The collection of XYZ, AP’s, Johnsons, LatW, Mr. Hacks argues that Russia had no reason to fear Nato because they have nukes. At the same they argue that Russia would never use nukes because of “their grandkids” – see AP above. In a crisis the proximity and the variance of threats are critically important, but they pretend not to understand it. They are making it up as they wish – it is not a serious thought-out argument.
     
    Well, I do think that Russia should be concerned if NATO will ever place nuclear missiles near Russia's doorstep, but thankfully NATO appears to be uninterested in doing that. NATO is still trying to mostly adhere to its 1997 agreement with Russia to limit its deployments in Eastern Europe.

    Likewise, I would be sad if Cuba or Mexico signed an anti-US alliance with China, but so long as there would be no nuclear missiles there and at worst a very small number of Chinese troops, this wouldn't be a reason for panic for a rational person. The US has historically been very privileged in not having hostile states other than Cuba near its borders for a very long time. That's not to say that I would actually *want* Cuba or Mexico to ally with China; very far from it! But it would not be the end of the world.

    If countries had an automatic right not to have potentially hostile alliances on their doorsteps, then Nazi Germany's invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland would have been perfectly justified, albeit not the subsequent Nazi brutality in those places.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …I do think that Russia should be concerned if NATO will ever place nuclear missiles near Russia’s doorstep, but thankfully NATO appears to be uninterested in doing that….

    …so long as there would be no nuclear missiles there…this wouldn’t be a reason for panic for a rational person.

    One way to look at it is that people in charge of security in Russia, US, China, etc…are not rational people – their job is to be ultra cautious and skeptical. But the real issue is that these things happen gradually:
    – step one – bring Ukraine into Nato, no weapons, no threats
    – step two – use the next crisis or increase in tensions to say that “now we must put some missiles in Ukraine!” (temporary)
    – step three – to protect the missiles Nato will need permanent bases in Ukraine
    – ongoing steps – the bases provoke the Russians even more – more tension, thus more arms, bases, missiles are needed in Ukraine…

    And so on and on – gradually, that’s the way it has always happened. Ukies with their lack of finess and thuggish behavior messed it up already in Step 1.

    Nazis made a lot of valid points: about hostile neighboring countries, unfairness after WW1, etc…But their attempt to solve it by brute force backfired. Just like the Ukies’. They both ended up with a bad hand to play being weaker than the enemy.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Beckow


    Nazis made a lot of valid points: about hostile neighboring countries, unfairness after WW1, etc…But their attempt to solve it by brute force backfired. Just like the Ukies’. They both ended up with a bad hand to play being weaker than the enemy.
     
    TBF, Russian methods are closer to Nazi methods, but without the physical genocide, than Ukrainian methods are. The only Nazi-like thing that Ukrainians could have potentially done in the absence of the war was their own version of Operation Storm against the Donbass, which would have been really stupid, which I myself would have opposed (and think would have warranted a Russian military response), and for which no definitive Ukrainian plans had been made yet as of early 2022.

    More to the point, if I think that there is something like a 1% chance of the current policy leading to my family both in the US and in Europe being incinerated, why the f-ck should I support it?
     
    I do agree with you that any reasonably high risk of nuclear war is dangerous. Even 10%. Perhaps even 5%. But I don't think that the risk of nuclear war should be set to zero since by that logic NATO wouldn't be able to protect its members against an even crazier Russian leader 'coz it wouldn't want to risk nuclear war in exchange for Finland or the Baltic countries.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Mikhail

  807. @AP
    @Mikel


    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

    Yes. Even those ones shared my belief that nuclear war was perfectly possible. They continued their predecessors’ habit of having the “red telephone” ready 24×7 to make sure that nuclear war didn’t start by accident and carried the nuclear briefcase with the launch codes anywhere the President went to be ready for the eventuality that it did start anyway.
     
    I never claimed it was impossible, due to some mistake or other. Such safe-guards are good for that.

    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn't trigger the nuclear holocaust, and that the people in charge weren't afraid to engage in actions that you would be afraid to do. Americans weren't afraid to send lots of weapons to Afghanistan to kill soviet soldiers. Soviets weren't afraid to send pilots into Vietnam to kill Americans.

    But you are afraid to help Ukraine because you think it will create a nuclear holocaust.

    You are not like them, not at all.

    I could go on and on but those few examples make it spectacularly clear that everybody that matters then and now shared by beliefs and totally disregarded yours.
     
    Those examples in no way show that these people feared confronting the Soviet (or the Soviets, us) in ways that would kill the opposing side's troops.

    Even though obviously nobody wants it, nuclear war is a real possibility. At any given time, there’s hundreds of nuclear missiles on each side ready to be launched within minutes and turn the US and Russia into radioactive wastelands. This means that nuclear war is not only possible through accident (as is obviously the case with any other technology invented by man) but also through misunderstandings and miscalculations that make it impossible for the other side to lose face.
     
    Putin and a bunch of other adult, non-fanatic people are going to incinerate their own families and themselves in order not to "lose face?"

    You are not very rational, sorry.

    The fact that the USSR’s conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.

    Repeating the same assertion over and over
     
    Yes, like repeating that 1 + 1 = 2.

    USSR's conventional force was much more of a deterrent preventing the liberation of Czechoslovakia or Poland than was the nuclear threat. Soviets would not have nuked the USA and thereby ended their own civilization if Americans had liberated Prague. Nor would Americans have done themselves in if the Soviet had marched into Bonn.

    This is why each side had 100,000s of troops stationed in Europe. Doing so would have been totally unnecessary if the nuclear threat was seen as you claim it was seen. How many hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on securing Europe with massive conventional armies, if nukes were the main issue?

    During the 1980s, NATO had 35,000 tanks and the Warsaw Pact had 59,000 tanks in Europe. Each side had millions of soldiers. None of that would have been necessary if your fantasy was true, that intercontinental nukes were the most important factor in preventing one side or the other from fighting in Europe. It is precisely because it was well understood that Americans wouldn't nuke Moscow over Bonn and Moscow wouldn't nuke New York over Prague, that there were 10,000s of tanks and millions of troops stationed in Europe.

    What? When did I do that? [referred to Amazonian Indian tribes - AP]

    When you accused me of being pro-Russian.
     
    I don't remember doing that and couldn't find such comments in my posting history. Perhaps you are mistaken?

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Well, yes, I guess so. But the authorities in Kiev keep trying to prove the contrary, as the abuse Elon is receiving from them right now shows. He was under no obligation to keep the internet going in Ukraine. It wasn’t his business. I’m sure he did it out of empathy under the emotion of the moment in those initial days of the invasion but with certain beneficiaries no good deed goes unpunished.
     
    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    If similar circumstances occurred for the Americans, would they be different? If the US depended on starlink, it was about to take out some hostile missile launchers, but Musk said he didn't want to be involved and prevented it - and as a consequence bombs were launched into American cities and American died. They would probably arrest him on some pretext.

    The blood he has on his hands by stopping that operation is of course balanced by the many lives he has saved by his earlier actions. But it is natural and normal to be angry at his later actions. That you are unable to understand, speaks more poorly of you, than of the angry Ukrainians.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @sudden death, @Mikel

    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn’t trigger the nuclear holocaust

    Yes. And you added that losing California to the Russians and then all of the US West up to Denver wouldn’t trigger a nuclear exchange either. That must be one of nuttiest things written on this blog in a very long time. Not just because of the extraordinary claim but also because of the ridiculous pretense of knowing how exactly an escalation to nuclear war could or could not happen.

    It should be possible to argue in defense of the US providing military aid to your old country without making McGregor and QCIC look sane by comparison.

    Note also that, unlike you, I do not claim to have any certainty of what exactly would happen under any particular scenario. All I know is that, given human history, it’s ridiculous to take it for granted that scenarios that have never been tested before and that people have been openly discussing since Feb 22 will not escalate to a new holocaust. Nobody can possibly know that and, as long as there is some freedom of thought left in the US, each person is entitled to make their own assessments and defend the foreign policy that best corresponds to them.

    More to the point, if I think that there is something like a 1% chance of the current policy leading to my family both in the US and in Europe being incinerated, why the f-ck should I support it?

    I don’t remember doing that

    But you did, quite recently. I’m not surprised though. You have just also accused some Republican presidential candidates of being “pro-Russian”. You must be calling people “pro-Russian” all the time so you just forget. I wouldn’t be surprised if you consider all the Republican front-runners, and hence some 50% of your compatriots, pro-Russian.

    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    In the same way that the Yemenis could claim that he “prevented” them from launching attacks against the Saudis that are killing their civilians by not providing them with his services. There must be lots of combatants around the world whose fighting capabilities would be greatly enhanced with on-demand satellite internet coverage over enemy territory but it’s only the ungrateful Ukrainians who feel entitled to get that coverage whenever they order it and to turn foreigner Elon Musk into a part of their military staff.

    I find that accusing a well meaning private citizen who wants to help your people without running the risk of provoking WW3 of having blood in his hands is disgusting. What you are doing is disgusting. I’m not surprised that even the former UK minister of defense, one of the persons on this planet who has done the most to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, accused the Ukrainians of being ungrateful before resigning.

    • Agree: Mr. XYZ, Beckow, A123
    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @Mikel

    The Ukies are astonishingly ungrateful. They will be plucking airliners out the sky again very soon. Just out of spite.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @AP
    @Mikel


    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn’t trigger the nuclear holocaust

    Yes. And you added that losing California to the Russians and then all of the US West up to Denver wouldn’t trigger a nuclear exchange either.
     

    I said that it probably would not, though I would not take that chance. You are 100% sure that American politicians would sacrifice themselves and their families for the sake of California or Utah?

    In my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe? Surely if military planners and politicians thought that trying to take Prague, or Bonn, would trigger a nuclear holocaust there was no need pack Europe with those massive conventional armies. But it was precisely because everyone who mattered understood that Moscow would not trigger MAD over Prague or Warsaw or Berlin, nor would the USA over Bonn, that each side maintained massive conventional armies in Europe. Because the nuclear weapons would not be used if Prague or Bonn were attacked - conventional armies were necessary to prevent that.

    Of course you conveniently ignored that.

    The purpose of the massive nuclear arsenals was to prevent one or the other side from making a Hiroshima in the other's home territory. And the danger of the nuclear arsenals was that one side might mistakenly think that the other was launching all of it's nukes, triggering a world-ending counter-response.


    It should be possible to argue in defense of the US providing military aid to your old country without making McGregor and QCIC look sane by comparison
     
    Saying that America wouldn't nuke the world or itself over Hawaii, and probably not even over California, is insane compared to MacGregor's claims, in your mind. Okay.

    "you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami."

    I don’t remember doing that

    But you did, quite recently
     

    Really? I looked and didn't find it:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=Yanomami&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=AP

    https://www.unz.com/?s=amazon&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=AP

    An example of you misattributing something?


    Note also that, unlike you, I do not claim to have any certainty of what exactly would happen under any particular scenario.
     
    A convenient excuse to take a pro-Russian position without defending the Russians.

    Evaluating risk requires evaluating the decision-makers and the circumstances involved. What is the nature of the people making the decision, and under what circumstances would they make the decision? And one should err on the side of caution. Would 70 year old grandfathers with histories of enjoying luxuries and of generally cautious actions nuke themselves and their families over Crimea? Certainly not. What about, say, Vladivostok and the entire far East? Probably not, but I would err on the side of caution and not take that chance.


    You have just also accused some Republican presidential candidates of being “pro-Russian”.
     
    If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it (while conveniently favoring policies that help Russia).

    So far Trump's position is unclear, though many of his followers such as Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian. Of course, many of Trump's followers also condemn the vaccine whose rapid development he himself is justifiably proud of.

    Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian. Hailey, Pence, Christie, DeSantis are not.


    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    In the same way that the Yemenis could claim that he “prevented” them from launching attacks against the Saudis that are killing their civilians by not providing them with his services.
     

    Did the Yemenis already have systems in place ready to take out the Saudi missiles, thus protecting their children, that were dependent on Musk only for him to, at the critical second, stop it?

    There must be lots of combatants around the world whose fighting capabilities would be greatly enhanced with on-demand satellite internet coverage
     
    Which ones are currently being invaded and are in a position to use Starlink to specifically take out long-range missile launchers?

    If Yemenis had a Starlink-integrated drone system that was on the verge of destroying Saudi missile launchers aimed at Yemeni cities and were about to complete a mission that would destroy those missile-launchers, and Musk stopped it at the last moment = Yemenis would have every right to be outraged.


    I find that accusing a well meaning private citizen who wants to help your people without running the risk of provoking WW3 of having blood in his hands is disgusting.
     
    As I said this says everything we need to know about you, and nothing about the Ukrainians.

    Ship missile-launchers specifically used to take out civilian areas were on the verge of being destroyed until Musk blocked it. As a result, these ships went on to launch hundreds of missiles, killing civilians including children. The blood of every child who was killed by missiles launched from these ships that only operate because of Musk's action is on his hands. That's simply a fact. At the same time, he also saved lots of soldier's lives by providing his system for their use for free. That is also a fact. So his legacy is mixed. One can both condemn him for one thing and praise him for another.

    But is is human and normal to be angry at him about the fact that missiles that kill civilians exist because of his action. That you find this to be "disgusting" (rather than Musk's refusal) reveals a real rottenness within you.

    But of course - you think that Russia would have nuked the world and itself because some it its missile launching ships would have been destroyed in Crimea. Is it rational - or a convenient excuse?

    It is interesting - you talk about the principle that people shouldn't put civilians at risk over a defense of their homeland, but here when a concrete direct action would have prevented civilian deaths - you are on the side of enabling those civilian killings to continue. And consider those who complain about making those killings possible "disgusting."


    I’m not surprised that even the former UK minister of defense, one of the persons on this planet who has done the most to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, accused the Ukrainians of being ungrateful before resigning.
     
    That's not quite how he put it:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/12/uk-defence-secretary-ben-wallace-suggests-ukraine-could-say-thank-you

    "Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, said that “whether we like it or not, people want to see a bit of gratitude”, when asked about Zelenskiy’s frustration at not being presented with a formal invitation to join Nato, and he advised Ukraine that it might help if it took a different approach."

    He then clarified:

    "There has been a lot of interest in my comments about how best to support Ukraine, and some misreporting.

    For the record, as someone who has been at the forefront of galvanising support for Ukraine, I was discussing the challenges that can occur as we work towards the shared aim of helping Ukraine procure what they need to triumph against this illegal invasion.

    I talked about the need for Ukraine to sometimes recognise that in many countries and in some Parliaments, there is not the strong support that there is in the UK.

    This was not a comment about governments, but more about citizens and MPs across the international community.

    We are lucky the UK population and all Parties in our Parliament support our efforts to equip Ukraine.

    Our approval ratings for support to Ukraine are some of the highest in Europe – over 70%.
    What my comments sought to reflect is that it is important to remember not to talk to ourselves, but to make efforts to reach out to the other citizens who still need persuading. The comments on “Amazon” were made last year and were made to highlight that Britain's relationship with Ukraine is not “transactional” but more a “partnership.”

    I will personally continue to support Ukraine all the way, for as long as it takes, but national Parliaments often have competing needs and Ukraine and the UK need to continue to encourage that strong support by the use of facts and friendship."

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

  808. @Mikel
    @AP


    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn’t trigger the nuclear holocaust
     
    Yes. And you added that losing California to the Russians and then all of the US West up to Denver wouldn't trigger a nuclear exchange either. That must be one of nuttiest things written on this blog in a very long time. Not just because of the extraordinary claim but also because of the ridiculous pretense of knowing how exactly an escalation to nuclear war could or could not happen.

    It should be possible to argue in defense of the US providing military aid to your old country without making McGregor and QCIC look sane by comparison.

    Note also that, unlike you, I do not claim to have any certainty of what exactly would happen under any particular scenario. All I know is that, given human history, it's ridiculous to take it for granted that scenarios that have never been tested before and that people have been openly discussing since Feb 22 will not escalate to a new holocaust. Nobody can possibly know that and, as long as there is some freedom of thought left in the US, each person is entitled to make their own assessments and defend the foreign policy that best corresponds to them.

    More to the point, if I think that there is something like a 1% chance of the current policy leading to my family both in the US and in Europe being incinerated, why the f-ck should I support it?

    I don’t remember doing that
     
    But you did, quite recently. I'm not surprised though. You have just also accused some Republican presidential candidates of being "pro-Russian". You must be calling people "pro-Russian" all the time so you just forget. I wouldn't be surprised if you consider all the Republican front-runners, and hence some 50% of your compatriots, pro-Russian.

    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?
     
    In the same way that the Yemenis could claim that he "prevented" them from launching attacks against the Saudis that are killing their civilians by not providing them with his services. There must be lots of combatants around the world whose fighting capabilities would be greatly enhanced with on-demand satellite internet coverage over enemy territory but it's only the ungrateful Ukrainians who feel entitled to get that coverage whenever they order it and to turn foreigner Elon Musk into a part of their military staff.

    I find that accusing a well meaning private citizen who wants to help your people without running the risk of provoking WW3 of having blood in his hands is disgusting. What you are doing is disgusting. I'm not surprised that even the former UK minister of defense, one of the persons on this planet who has done the most to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, accused the Ukrainians of being ungrateful before resigning.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @AP

    The Ukies are astonishingly ungrateful. They will be plucking airliners out the sky again very soon. Just out of spite.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Wokechoke

    The Ukies are astonishingly ungrateful. They will be plucking airliners out the sky again very soon. Just out of spite.

    What do you mean again?

    The DPR leader Igor Girkin already took responsibility:
    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/05/20/mh17-suspect-admits-moral-responsibility-for-downing-jet-a70328

    Here is an updated picture of him:
    https://www.tag24.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Igor-Girkin-arrestato-estremismo-800x560.jpg


    He blogged about how Putin is clueless at war and it earned him a spot inside a giant Russian display case.

    Gosh and you would think that blogging about the dictator's incompetence while living in his totalitarian state is a good idea.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

  809. @Beckow
    @Mr. XYZ


    ...I do think that Russia should be concerned if NATO will ever place nuclear missiles near Russia’s doorstep, but thankfully NATO appears to be uninterested in doing that....

    ...so long as there would be no nuclear missiles there...this wouldn’t be a reason for panic for a rational person.
     

    One way to look at it is that people in charge of security in Russia, US, China, etc...are not rational people - their job is to be ultra cautious and skeptical. But the real issue is that these things happen gradually:
    - step one - bring Ukraine into Nato, no weapons, no threats
    - step two - use the next crisis or increase in tensions to say that "now we must put some missiles in Ukraine!" (temporary)
    - step three - to protect the missiles Nato will need permanent bases in Ukraine
    - ongoing steps - the bases provoke the Russians even more - more tension, thus more arms, bases, missiles are needed in Ukraine...

    And so on and on - gradually, that's the way it has always happened. Ukies with their lack of finess and thuggish behavior messed it up already in Step 1.

    Nazis made a lot of valid points: about hostile neighboring countries, unfairness after WW1, etc...But their attempt to solve it by brute force backfired. Just like the Ukies'. They both ended up with a bad hand to play being weaker than the enemy.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Nazis made a lot of valid points: about hostile neighboring countries, unfairness after WW1, etc…But their attempt to solve it by brute force backfired. Just like the Ukies’. They both ended up with a bad hand to play being weaker than the enemy.

    TBF, Russian methods are closer to Nazi methods, but without the physical genocide, than Ukrainian methods are. The only Nazi-like thing that Ukrainians could have potentially done in the absence of the war was their own version of Operation Storm against the Donbass, which would have been really stupid, which I myself would have opposed (and think would have warranted a Russian military response), and for which no definitive Ukrainian plans had been made yet as of early 2022.

    More to the point, if I think that there is something like a 1% chance of the current policy leading to my family both in the US and in Europe being incinerated, why the f-ck should I support it?

    I do agree with you that any reasonably high risk of nuclear war is dangerous. Even 10%. Perhaps even 5%. But I don’t think that the risk of nuclear war should be set to zero since by that logic NATO wouldn’t be able to protect its members against an even crazier Russian leader ‘coz it wouldn’t want to risk nuclear war in exchange for Finland or the Baltic countries.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Mr. XYZ


    ...Nazi methods, but without the physical genocide
     
    The German methods were the physical genocide. If you remove that, Germans were the usual nasty warmongers similar to British or Russians. They all fought dirty when the stakes were high. When you fight dirty you have to win and the Germans lost - that is the core thing about WW2: Germany's catastrophic loss, an unusual event for a big nation. The analogies to that are faulty or premature.

    Ukies' tragedy is that they want to live somewhere else, to be who they are not. The rebellion against geography never works or the reinvention based on a narrow interpretation of history. Whatever one thinks about Bandera&co. and Mazepa, they represented only a small part of what Ukraine is. At the extreme of Crimea-Donbas these myths were alien and opposed by the more local history myths - you can't build a country on divisions that deep. Or you can if one side is physically suppressed or eliminated.

    The Western Ukies Maidan mental manias were a call to war - and the war came. The idea that the other side - the Russians in Ukraine and Russia itself - would just sit back and take it is was idiocy. Try something like this in any other country and you will get violence, maybe even a war.


    I don’t think that the risk of nuclear war should be set to zero since by that logic NATO wouldn’t be able to protect its members...
     
    It is has always been non-zero. It is binary and non-zero events happen all the time. The slide towards some use of nukes is in the air. The danger is when one side faces total defeat. That looks unlikely with Russia and you pointing fingers at them is the usual tribal one-sidedness.

    The Ukie defeat is much more likely, even probable. It may end with an angry stalemate or even a gradual collapse and shrinkage of Ukraine. But as it happens the losing side would have the motivation and the opportunity to escalate it to hell. They presumably don't have the tools - but they could improvise (dirty nukes) or their angry sponsors could slip them some.

    That's what we are facing. People should sober up and look at it rationally: what is worth destroying a country or life on earth for? Is being in Nato that crucial? Or banning the Russian language in Ukraine? Get real - those are trifles. That's why the Ukie side works so hard to scare everyone with a booboo Russia that plans to march all the way to Bretagne and enslave everyone for generations. Now who with a triple-digit IQ would believe that? It doesn't even make sense as a scary tale - it is paranoia on stereoids.

    , @Mikhail
    @Mr. XYZ


    TBF, Russian methods are closer to Nazi methods, but without the physical genocide, than Ukrainian methods are.
     
    If so, makes US methods since 1950 even more closer to the Nazis.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  810. @sudden death
    @AP


    Americans weren’t afraid to send lots of weapons to Afghanistan to kill soviet soldiers. Soviets weren’t afraid to send pilots into Vietnam to kill Americans. But you are afraid to help Ukraine because you think it will create a nuclear holocaust.You are not like them, not at all.
     
    Should be reminded in this specific instance you're arguing here with relatively recent southern euro leftie immigrant to USA, who didn't even have US citizenship 3 years ago at least, while people like AP have been born and living in US all the life.

    It's not some bad crime to be a legal first generation immigrant ofc, but sometimes Mikel likes to post with such tone as if he was some new George Washington incarnation with three centuries of American experience on the ground under his belt, lol

    Replies: @Mikel

    southern euro leftie immigrant to USA

    Those details about my identity that you are highlighting don’t have anything to do with the issues we’ve been debating here lately, that in fact concern everyone on the planet. But unlike you, I promised to defend the US if I am ever called to do so and I am not planning to ever disobey the laws of this country, even those I disagree with. I am very unlikely to be called to combat anyway. Contrary to what a Sovok born in the USSR may imagine, one of the privileges you get along with that responsibility, regardless of where you were born, is the right to defend whatever policy you fancy. Especially when there are millions of US-born Americans that think exactly like you.

    In any case, you shouldn’t forget your own pedigree when you start mentioning people’s origins. I think that most everybody in Europe would like to move on and forget details about the past that were caused by unfortunate historical circumstances. But you run the risk of being reminded of who flooded us with economic migrants and prostitutes.

  811. @Dmitry
    @AP


    end of Russia, they will not be used in Ukraine, including Crimea.
     
    If Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, this will not cause a nuclear response from the West. It would perhaps not cause a direct military response.

    For example, if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army. West could response by increasing sanctions which are still not so strong yet, or they could give more weapons to Ukraine. They might avoid any kind of military response.

    But the West slow cook the frog in a way so soon the tactical nuclear weapon against the Ukrainian army probably wouldn't rescue the situation for the Russian army, which will be in a worse situation with each subsequent year.

    If Ukraine is reconquering Crimea in 2026 or 2027, the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army could probably only delay the situation, as Ukraine already in 2026 if Biden continues will have much more advanced Western planes like F-16 and long-range weapons which would isolate Crimea anyway.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    If Ukraine is reconquering Crimea in 2026 or 2027, the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army could probably only delay the situation, as Ukraine already in 2026 if Biden continues will have much more advanced Western planes like F-16 and long-range weapons which would isolate Crimea anyway.

    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics, even if it will successfully reconquer Crimea and Donbass. After the extremely massive French losses of WWI, France only barely broke even with its post-WWI reconquest of Alsace-Lorraine.

    If Ukraine will lose too many of its young and/or middle-aged men, then Ukrainian women are going to need to rely on Polish and other Eastern European sperm donors in order to have families of their own for the sake of the future of their Ukrainian motherland!

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mr. XYZ

    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics, even if it will successfully reconquer Crimea and Donbass.

    I think in any case they'll need to bring in some men.

    Shouldn't be a problem if the country flows with NATO contracts after the war.

    I expect that quite a few Belarusian and Russian men will jump the border for a chance at life without a dictator and in a Slavic country where the women outnumber the men.

    Then there will also be a lot of European/American men that are looking for an adventure.

    It should also be noted that most casualties in modern war are non-fatal. Populations can recover as long as the wounded men and women are not being bombed.

    If Ukraine will lose too many of its young and/or middle-aged men, then Ukrainian women are going to need to rely on Polish and other Eastern European sperm donors in order to have families of their own for the sake of the future of their Ukrainian motherland!

    From what I have read the DPR/LPR militias have very high fatality rates. The Russians would send them into the trenches and without any medics. Early in the war they weren't even being given enough ak-47s. There was a picture of one with a mosin-nagant.

    There is the potential for the ultimate irony which would be a repopulated Donbas with non-Russian genes. Donetsk becomes a multi-national city like Danzig of the past. There would also be some mulatto kids running around from American Blacks working contracts. Maybe Anglin or Fuentes could adopt a couple of them to help out.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Mr. XYZ, @Wokechoke

    , @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ


    definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics
     
    There will not be any kind of situation to "save its demographics". The population will fall, not only in Ukraine, but all the neighbor countries.

    All these countries like Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria have falling populations. Ukraine, Belarus and Russia of course have falling populations.

    In the case of Ukraine, if it joins the EU, the falling population could mean the country is more easy to manage, as you can see stable development in many of the other EU countries like Hungary, Poland or Romania, Bulgaria.

    The falling population, doesn't imply the future of Ukraine is negative, although it could be negative for some parts of the economy. Many of these EU countries are developing with the falling population. For example, Eastern Poland is one of the most falling populations in Europe. Bulgaria is the most falling population country in the world.

    By the way, Ukraine will of course have a positive future in the EU relative to the years not in the EU. It's a negative for the self-interest of EU citizens to accept this country, this is also true for EU citizens to accept many of the postcommunist countries EU has already accepted.


    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will
     
    The 2024 election could change the situation, but if Biden wins, then Ukraine will be in stronger position each future year. This implies it can be rational to plan to fight less this year and more in future years. For example, in 2025, they would have a stronger position than this year, so it could be sensible for Ukraine to preserve their soldiers relatively this year until their equipment improves.
  812. @Mr. XYZ
    @Beckow


    Nazis made a lot of valid points: about hostile neighboring countries, unfairness after WW1, etc…But their attempt to solve it by brute force backfired. Just like the Ukies’. They both ended up with a bad hand to play being weaker than the enemy.
     
    TBF, Russian methods are closer to Nazi methods, but without the physical genocide, than Ukrainian methods are. The only Nazi-like thing that Ukrainians could have potentially done in the absence of the war was their own version of Operation Storm against the Donbass, which would have been really stupid, which I myself would have opposed (and think would have warranted a Russian military response), and for which no definitive Ukrainian plans had been made yet as of early 2022.

    More to the point, if I think that there is something like a 1% chance of the current policy leading to my family both in the US and in Europe being incinerated, why the f-ck should I support it?
     
    I do agree with you that any reasonably high risk of nuclear war is dangerous. Even 10%. Perhaps even 5%. But I don't think that the risk of nuclear war should be set to zero since by that logic NATO wouldn't be able to protect its members against an even crazier Russian leader 'coz it wouldn't want to risk nuclear war in exchange for Finland or the Baltic countries.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Mikhail

    …Nazi methods, but without the physical genocide

    The German methods were the physical genocide. If you remove that, Germans were the usual nasty warmongers similar to British or Russians. They all fought dirty when the stakes were high. When you fight dirty you have to win and the Germans lost – that is the core thing about WW2: Germany’s catastrophic loss, an unusual event for a big nation. The analogies to that are faulty or premature.

    Ukies’ tragedy is that they want to live somewhere else, to be who they are not. The rebellion against geography never works or the reinvention based on a narrow interpretation of history. Whatever one thinks about Bandera&co. and Mazepa, they represented only a small part of what Ukraine is. At the extreme of Crimea-Donbas these myths were alien and opposed by the more local history myths – you can’t build a country on divisions that deep. Or you can if one side is physically suppressed or eliminated.

    The Western Ukies Maidan mental manias were a call to war – and the war came. The idea that the other side – the Russians in Ukraine and Russia itself – would just sit back and take it is was idiocy. Try something like this in any other country and you will get violence, maybe even a war.

    I don’t think that the risk of nuclear war should be set to zero since by that logic NATO wouldn’t be able to protect its members…

    It is has always been non-zero. It is binary and non-zero events happen all the time. The slide towards some use of nukes is in the air. The danger is when one side faces total defeat. That looks unlikely with Russia and you pointing fingers at them is the usual tribal one-sidedness.

    The Ukie defeat is much more likely, even probable. It may end with an angry stalemate or even a gradual collapse and shrinkage of Ukraine. But as it happens the losing side would have the motivation and the opportunity to escalate it to hell. They presumably don’t have the tools – but they could improvise (dirty nukes) or their angry sponsors could slip them some.

    That’s what we are facing. People should sober up and look at it rationally: what is worth destroying a country or life on earth for? Is being in Nato that crucial? Or banning the Russian language in Ukraine? Get real – those are trifles. That’s why the Ukie side works so hard to scare everyone with a booboo Russia that plans to march all the way to Bretagne and enslave everyone for generations. Now who with a triple-digit IQ would believe that? It doesn’t even make sense as a scary tale – it is paranoia on stereoids.

  813. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    And just what are your sources?

    Said 1951 agreement on Kurils is clear as noted in that set of comments of mine. Soviet territory in the RSFSR. Furthermore, Yalta specified they'd go to the USSR.

    Yeltsin and Putin on Russia in NATO

    https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

    Related -

    https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/16/opinion/l-nato-still-divides-780898.html

    Replies: @John Johnson

    And just what are your sources?

    Said 1951 agreement on Kurils is clear as noted in that set of comments of mine. Soviet territory in the RSFSR. Furthermore, Yalta specified they’d go to the USSR.

    There isn’t a single agreement and that is why it is contended:
    The modern Kuril Islands dispute arose in the aftermath of World War II and results from the ambiguities in and disagreements about the meaning of the Yalta agreement (February 1945), the Potsdam Declaration (July 1945), and the Treaty of San Francisco (September 1951). The Yalta Agreement, signed by the US, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, stated:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute

    Regardless of your opinion the US and EU believe they belong to Japan. I’m not saying I agree or disagree but it is contended by Japan and NATO nations. That would disqualify Russia until it is resolved. You can’t apply with a border in dispute which makes sense. They don’t want a nation to join and then declare a contented border as their own with the expectation that NATO would back them. Any border contention has to be resolved before a vote can occur.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html

    Your source is behind a paywall.

    There was never an application to NATO by Russia nor was the process ever started. It was just talk.

    I am fully aware that Yeltsin spoke of joining NATO. Trump spoke of leaving NATO. Neither amounts to government action. Joining/leaving NATO is a public process and not a backroom deal.

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    Your revisionism of what was stated in 1951 and earlier at Yalta on the Kurils is clear cut, which explains why you've provided zilch to the contrary.

    Russia under Yeltsin and Putin inquired about joining NATO and didn't get positive feedback from the latter for the reasons I earlier stated.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  814. @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry


    If Ukraine is reconquering Crimea in 2026 or 2027, the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army could probably only delay the situation, as Ukraine already in 2026 if Biden continues will have much more advanced Western planes like F-16 and long-range weapons which would isolate Crimea anyway.
     
    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics, even if it will successfully reconquer Crimea and Donbass. After the extremely massive French losses of WWI, France only barely broke even with its post-WWI reconquest of Alsace-Lorraine.

    If Ukraine will lose too many of its young and/or middle-aged men, then Ukrainian women are going to need to rely on Polish and other Eastern European sperm donors in order to have families of their own for the sake of the future of their Ukrainian motherland!

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Dmitry

    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics, even if it will successfully reconquer Crimea and Donbass.

    I think in any case they’ll need to bring in some men.

    Shouldn’t be a problem if the country flows with NATO contracts after the war.

    I expect that quite a few Belarusian and Russian men will jump the border for a chance at life without a dictator and in a Slavic country where the women outnumber the men.

    Then there will also be a lot of European/American men that are looking for an adventure.

    It should also be noted that most casualties in modern war are non-fatal. Populations can recover as long as the wounded men and women are not being bombed.

    If Ukraine will lose too many of its young and/or middle-aged men, then Ukrainian women are going to need to rely on Polish and other Eastern European sperm donors in order to have families of their own for the sake of the future of their Ukrainian motherland!

    From what I have read the DPR/LPR militias have very high fatality rates. The Russians would send them into the trenches and without any medics. Early in the war they weren’t even being given enough ak-47s. There was a picture of one with a mosin-nagant.

    There is the potential for the ultimate irony which would be a repopulated Donbas with non-Russian genes. Donetsk becomes a multi-national city like Danzig of the past. There would also be some mulatto kids running around from American Blacks working contracts. Maybe Anglin or Fuentes could adopt a couple of them to help out.

    • LOL: Mikhail, Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @John Johnson


    I expect that quite a few Belarusian and Russian men will jump the border for a chance at life without a dictator and in a Slavic country where the women outnumber the men.
     
    Since 2q014 and probably beforehand, the former Ukrainian SSR to Russia traffic has been greater than vice versa. The Kiev regime has a non-democratically inclined figurehead leader serving neocon, neolib and svido interests. Fighting a parasitic proxy war against Russia to the last Ukrainian (Lindsey Graham) isn't in Ukrainian interests. Masking this reality with gibberish can only go for so long.

    From what I have read the DPR/LPR militias have very high fatality rates. The Russians would send them into the trenches and without any medics. Early in the war they weren’t even being given enough ak-47s. There was a picture of one with a mosin-nagant.
     
    A svido projection take.

    There is the potential for the ultimate irony which would be a repopulated Donbas with non-Russian genes. Donetsk becomes a multi-national city like Danzig of the past. There would also be some mulatto kids running around from American Blacks working contracts. Maybe Anglin or Fuentes could adopt a couple of them to help out.
     
    Quit far fetched.

    Replies: @LatW, @Mikhail

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson

    Excellent vision! That said, though, one minor nitpick: Danzig actually wasn't that multicultural: It was overwhelmingly German before WWII and overwhelmingly Polish after WWII. The Polish Corridor (West Prussia) as a whole was pretty multicultural, though, especially in the pre-WWI time period:

    https://external-preview.redd.it/G4N7cTRQ-D4Hr6Eh9sbudLP-an6Qx4dY7utUMDMcyqQ.png?auto=webp&s=663ace9c33c64562ca2b10e5a8ad48adf278734b

    , @Wokechoke
    @John Johnson

    Behold the Jew!

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

  815. @Wokechoke
    @Mikel

    The Ukies are astonishingly ungrateful. They will be plucking airliners out the sky again very soon. Just out of spite.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    The Ukies are astonishingly ungrateful. They will be plucking airliners out the sky again very soon. Just out of spite.

    What do you mean again?

    The DPR leader Igor Girkin already took responsibility:
    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/05/20/mh17-suspect-admits-moral-responsibility-for-downing-jet-a70328

    Here is an updated picture of him:

    He blogged about how Putin is clueless at war and it earned him a spot inside a giant Russian display case.

    Gosh and you would think that blogging about the dictator’s incompetence while living in his totalitarian state is a good idea.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @John Johnson

    https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/09/10/donald-trump-will-never-support-putin-says-volodymyr-zelensky


    He's threatening violence in Berlin and Paris here. If Ukies try to bomb England I hope they miss and get Cardiff though.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  816. @WS
    @LatW


    But they deserve praise for trying hard. So damn close.. I think Lithuania could’ve beat Germany, so it would’ve been better if they had played Germany but Latvia had played Serbia (even if Latvia would’ve lost to Serbia, that way at least Lithuania could’ve won over Germany but I know that’s not how it works). Now they’re gonna be exhausted for Italy (they should rotate).

     

    News from Manila tell me that Latvians hate Lithuanians even more than Russians;))

    Replies: @LatW

    News from Manila tell me that Latvians hate Lithuanians even more than Russians;))

    Hahaha! I’m totally shocked as I never expected the Latvian team to win over Lithuania. And with such a difference, too. I expected it to be much more even and for Lithuania to win. They will get over it eventually and we still love each other. 🙂

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @LatW


    I’m totally shocked as I never expected the Latvian team to win over Lithuania. And with such a difference, too.
     
    According to the Basque school of international relations, it was dangerous and reckless for Latvia to humiliate Lithuania in a basketball tournament. The face-saving measures Lithuanian officials will now have to employ will quickly spiral out of control and lead to armed clashes. Prepare yourself, war is imminent. :)

    And Germany, wow, nice work. I don't really care who wins now that Team Wakanda is out of the running. (Of course, it would be nice if Serbia pulls it off.)

    Replies: @WS, @sudden death, @Mikel

  817. @Mr. XYZ
    @Beckow


    Nazis made a lot of valid points: about hostile neighboring countries, unfairness after WW1, etc…But their attempt to solve it by brute force backfired. Just like the Ukies’. They both ended up with a bad hand to play being weaker than the enemy.
     
    TBF, Russian methods are closer to Nazi methods, but without the physical genocide, than Ukrainian methods are. The only Nazi-like thing that Ukrainians could have potentially done in the absence of the war was their own version of Operation Storm against the Donbass, which would have been really stupid, which I myself would have opposed (and think would have warranted a Russian military response), and for which no definitive Ukrainian plans had been made yet as of early 2022.

    More to the point, if I think that there is something like a 1% chance of the current policy leading to my family both in the US and in Europe being incinerated, why the f-ck should I support it?
     
    I do agree with you that any reasonably high risk of nuclear war is dangerous. Even 10%. Perhaps even 5%. But I don't think that the risk of nuclear war should be set to zero since by that logic NATO wouldn't be able to protect its members against an even crazier Russian leader 'coz it wouldn't want to risk nuclear war in exchange for Finland or the Baltic countries.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Mikhail

    TBF, Russian methods are closer to Nazi methods, but without the physical genocide, than Ukrainian methods are.

    If so, makes US methods since 1950 even more closer to the Nazis.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikhail

    The US hasn't been conquering territory for the purposes of annexing it, either de facto or de jure, for a very long time.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  818. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    And just what are your sources?

    Said 1951 agreement on Kurils is clear as noted in that set of comments of mine. Soviet territory in the RSFSR. Furthermore, Yalta specified they’d go to the USSR.

    There isn't a single agreement and that is why it is contended:
    The modern Kuril Islands dispute arose in the aftermath of World War II and results from the ambiguities in and disagreements about the meaning of the Yalta agreement (February 1945), the Potsdam Declaration (July 1945), and the Treaty of San Francisco (September 1951). The Yalta Agreement, signed by the US, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, stated:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute

    Regardless of your opinion the US and EU believe they belong to Japan. I'm not saying I agree or disagree but it is contended by Japan and NATO nations. That would disqualify Russia until it is resolved. You can't apply with a border in dispute which makes sense. They don't want a nation to join and then declare a contented border as their own with the expectation that NATO would back them. Any border contention has to be resolved before a vote can occur.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html

    Your source is behind a paywall.

    There was never an application to NATO by Russia nor was the process ever started. It was just talk.

    I am fully aware that Yeltsin spoke of joining NATO. Trump spoke of leaving NATO. Neither amounts to government action. Joining/leaving NATO is a public process and not a backroom deal.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Your revisionism of what was stated in 1951 and earlier at Yalta on the Kurils is clear cut, which explains why you’ve provided zilch to the contrary.

    Russia under Yeltsin and Putin inquired about joining NATO and didn’t get positive feedback from the latter for the reasons I earlier stated.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Your revisionism of what was stated in 1951 and earlier at Yalta on the Kurils is clear cut, which explains why you’ve provided zilch to the contrary.

    My revisionism? It doesn't matter what I think about the Kurils. What matters is that the EU/US do not believe that they belong to Russia which makes them disputed. I provided a link that explains why it isn't as simple as the 1951 treaty. Here it is from a Russian source:

    However, following Japan’s signing a security treaty with the United States in 1960, the former Soviet Union revoked its liabilities concerning the transfer of the islands. The Soviet government said back then that the islands would be handed over to Japan only when all foreign forces were withdrawn from its soil.
    https://tass.com/world/1041010

    Russia under Yeltsin and Putin inquired about joining NATO and didn’t get positive feedback from the latter for the reasons I earlier stated.

    You went from saying that Russia couldn't join due to the US industrial complex needing a bogeyman and now you are saying they didn't get positive feedback as if they didn't get a smiley face sticker in kindergarten.

    Here is an actual source on the matter:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

    The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

    Putin didn't want to bother with applying like everyone else. Well there you have it.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  819. @John Johnson
    @Mr. XYZ

    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics, even if it will successfully reconquer Crimea and Donbass.

    I think in any case they'll need to bring in some men.

    Shouldn't be a problem if the country flows with NATO contracts after the war.

    I expect that quite a few Belarusian and Russian men will jump the border for a chance at life without a dictator and in a Slavic country where the women outnumber the men.

    Then there will also be a lot of European/American men that are looking for an adventure.

    It should also be noted that most casualties in modern war are non-fatal. Populations can recover as long as the wounded men and women are not being bombed.

    If Ukraine will lose too many of its young and/or middle-aged men, then Ukrainian women are going to need to rely on Polish and other Eastern European sperm donors in order to have families of their own for the sake of the future of their Ukrainian motherland!

    From what I have read the DPR/LPR militias have very high fatality rates. The Russians would send them into the trenches and without any medics. Early in the war they weren't even being given enough ak-47s. There was a picture of one with a mosin-nagant.

    There is the potential for the ultimate irony which would be a repopulated Donbas with non-Russian genes. Donetsk becomes a multi-national city like Danzig of the past. There would also be some mulatto kids running around from American Blacks working contracts. Maybe Anglin or Fuentes could adopt a couple of them to help out.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Mr. XYZ, @Wokechoke

    I expect that quite a few Belarusian and Russian men will jump the border for a chance at life without a dictator and in a Slavic country where the women outnumber the men.

    Since 2q014 and probably beforehand, the former Ukrainian SSR to Russia traffic has been greater than vice versa. The Kiev regime has a non-democratically inclined figurehead leader serving neocon, neolib and svido interests. Fighting a parasitic proxy war against Russia to the last Ukrainian (Lindsey Graham) isn’t in Ukrainian interests. Masking this reality with gibberish can only go for so long.

    From what I have read the DPR/LPR militias have very high fatality rates. The Russians would send them into the trenches and without any medics. Early in the war they weren’t even being given enough ak-47s. There was a picture of one with a mosin-nagant.

    A svido projection take.

    There is the potential for the ultimate irony which would be a repopulated Donbas with non-Russian genes. Donetsk becomes a multi-national city like Danzig of the past. There would also be some mulatto kids running around from American Blacks working contracts. Maybe Anglin or Fuentes could adopt a couple of them to help out.

    Quit far fetched.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Since 2q014 and probably beforehand, the former Ukrainian SSR to Russia traffic has been greater than vice versa.
     
    Right, but for those Russian (and Belarusian) nationals who are against Putin's policies and who are also not liberal, Ukraine is a very attractive place and they were already flocking there before 2022. It's a Slavic country that is more comfortable for them than the West since most of these guys (and even some women) don't speak English and want to live in an Eastern Slavic culture that they are more accustomed to.

    The Russians who are fleeing draft and who are more liberal typically go to Georgia, Kazakhstan, Germany maybe.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    , @Mikhail
    @Mikhail

    As in quite far fetched. Will try to see this -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHIDG37nNeM

  820. @John Johnson
    @Mr. XYZ

    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics, even if it will successfully reconquer Crimea and Donbass.

    I think in any case they'll need to bring in some men.

    Shouldn't be a problem if the country flows with NATO contracts after the war.

    I expect that quite a few Belarusian and Russian men will jump the border for a chance at life without a dictator and in a Slavic country where the women outnumber the men.

    Then there will also be a lot of European/American men that are looking for an adventure.

    It should also be noted that most casualties in modern war are non-fatal. Populations can recover as long as the wounded men and women are not being bombed.

    If Ukraine will lose too many of its young and/or middle-aged men, then Ukrainian women are going to need to rely on Polish and other Eastern European sperm donors in order to have families of their own for the sake of the future of their Ukrainian motherland!

    From what I have read the DPR/LPR militias have very high fatality rates. The Russians would send them into the trenches and without any medics. Early in the war they weren't even being given enough ak-47s. There was a picture of one with a mosin-nagant.

    There is the potential for the ultimate irony which would be a repopulated Donbas with non-Russian genes. Donetsk becomes a multi-national city like Danzig of the past. There would also be some mulatto kids running around from American Blacks working contracts. Maybe Anglin or Fuentes could adopt a couple of them to help out.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Mr. XYZ, @Wokechoke

    Excellent vision! That said, though, one minor nitpick: Danzig actually wasn’t that multicultural: It was overwhelmingly German before WWII and overwhelmingly Polish after WWII. The Polish Corridor (West Prussia) as a whole was pretty multicultural, though, especially in the pre-WWI time period:

  821. @Mikhail
    @Mr. XYZ


    TBF, Russian methods are closer to Nazi methods, but without the physical genocide, than Ukrainian methods are.
     
    If so, makes US methods since 1950 even more closer to the Nazis.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    The US hasn’t been conquering territory for the purposes of annexing it, either de facto or de jure, for a very long time.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Mr. XYZ

    The US severed territory of another state. It also engages in large scale wars outside of their near abroad.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  822. @Dmitry
    @Mikel


    known from the start that he was going to become a pariah
     
    No, they didn't. They didn't expect so much of a negative reaction from the West.* It was expected it would be like Azerbaijan in 2020 or Crimea in 2014, where the West would see it as fait accompli and only follow mild sanctions.** For example, the Russian central bank stored $300 billion in NATO countries until after the invasion.

    Part of the reason of the unexpected strong reaction in the West, which I explained at the time, is because Western intelligence publicized the invasion four months before.

    Around October or November 2022, everyone who watches mainstream media in the world and CNN knew Russia was going to invade Ukraine, this is months before even most of the Russian army knew they were going to invade Ukraine all the American television was posting the plan to invade Ukraine. Russia has prepared no casus belli and Moscow has to lie to even friendly allies like Macron before the invasion.

    Another issue is there has been years of anti-Western propaganda supported by Moscow, so Russia was becoming labeled as "anti-Western", while Azerbaijan was more intelligent and viewed as ambiguous.

    -

    *In 2015, they believed the military operation in Syria would improve relations with the West as a result of leverage, this was also how it was promoted in the television at the time. The prediction of how the West will respond is not very developed.

    **Sanctions after 2014 were very weak. The cause of the problem in the Russian economy was lower prices of oil.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ

    No, they didn’t. They didn’t expect so much of a negative reaction from the West.* It was expected it would be like Azerbaijan in 2020 or Crimea in 2014, where the West would see it as fait accompli and only follow mild sanctions

    .

    Then the situation may be worse than I thought because that would mean that the Kremlin is run by complete idiots. The possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine made Western leaders appear more united than ever. They all clearly announced that they would support Ukraine and impose unprecedented sanctions on Russia. Did the kremlins think that they were just joking?

    In fact, I think that Russia lucked out. People all over the West were fuming with the media telling them non stop that this was the most outrageous crime and the most unjustified invasion ever. For a time the sanest person in the room seemed to be…. Biden! He must have been under tremendous pressure to do much more but he remained as stubborn as in Afghanistan and perhaps not only Russia but all of us here lucked out.

  823. @John Johnson
    @Mr. XYZ

    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics, even if it will successfully reconquer Crimea and Donbass.

    I think in any case they'll need to bring in some men.

    Shouldn't be a problem if the country flows with NATO contracts after the war.

    I expect that quite a few Belarusian and Russian men will jump the border for a chance at life without a dictator and in a Slavic country where the women outnumber the men.

    Then there will also be a lot of European/American men that are looking for an adventure.

    It should also be noted that most casualties in modern war are non-fatal. Populations can recover as long as the wounded men and women are not being bombed.

    If Ukraine will lose too many of its young and/or middle-aged men, then Ukrainian women are going to need to rely on Polish and other Eastern European sperm donors in order to have families of their own for the sake of the future of their Ukrainian motherland!

    From what I have read the DPR/LPR militias have very high fatality rates. The Russians would send them into the trenches and without any medics. Early in the war they weren't even being given enough ak-47s. There was a picture of one with a mosin-nagant.

    There is the potential for the ultimate irony which would be a repopulated Donbas with non-Russian genes. Donetsk becomes a multi-national city like Danzig of the past. There would also be some mulatto kids running around from American Blacks working contracts. Maybe Anglin or Fuentes could adopt a couple of them to help out.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Mr. XYZ, @Wokechoke

    Behold the Jew!

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Wokechoke

    Having Ukraine import Israeli Jews would be interesting but I doubt that there would be very many takers lol. Ukrainian Jews are still emigrating to Israel even right now, albeit in very small numbers after the 2022 spike.

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @AP
    @Wokechoke

    You?

  824. @QCIC
    @Mr. XYZ

    This is related to the INF Treaty which the US dropped out of for specious reasons.

    In general I don't think the Balts are stupid enough to allow NATO to place nuclear-armed missiles into their countries. On the other hand, considering LatW maybe I need to reconsider that notion.

    I don't know what agreement NATO and Russia have concerning missile subs in the Baltic Sea.

    Replies: @Beckow, @LatW

    In general I don’t think the Balts are stupid enough to allow NATO to place nuclear-armed missiles into their countries. On the other hand, considering LatW maybe I need to reconsider that notion.

    Do not speak for me. I am strictly against that (as would be most of the political parties actually). But I fully support further militarization otherwise. The Baltics can be defended without nukes being placed there.

    But he is right that it was not NATO’s intention to threaten Russia. NATO was ok with the status quo prior to the 2022 invasion. Meaning, they were probably not too happy with Crimea having been annexed, but they were not going to do much about it, much less about the Donbas situation. In fact, it seems to have been true that Obama told Ukraine not to resist the annexation of Crimea (pretty scandalous, a large nuclear country is telling a smaller non-nuclear one to not resist it being carved up).

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @LatW

    Nice try on that.

    Obama built up Ukraine's military after the Crimean Annexation and sponsored the event that precipitated it, Maidan. Maidan was most certainly Obama's child. he had a hand in the Orange Revolution that preceded it.

    Arguably though Obama did make his first US splash with international relations by going to Ukraine to posture about how he's taking loose nukes and anthrax out of circulation. Who knows what the nigger was being groomed for and by whom. Obama was Kneegrodeep in the first Orange Revolution too...here's what 2005 was really like.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/08/30/us-to-aid-ukraine-in-countering-bioweapons/72059ed1-90ca-4381-ac6f-10f4e205f09e/

    The United States and Ukraine agreed yesterday to work jointly to prevent the spread of biological weapons, signing a pact that clears the way for Ukraine's government to receive U.S. aid to improve security at facilities where dangerous microbes are kept.

    The agreement, the result of more than a year of negotiations, was announced by Sens. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) during a visit to the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. The senators credited Ukraine's reformist leaders, ushered into power by last fall's Orange Revolution, with breaking bureaucratic resistance to the pact.

    One lab to receive funding is the I.I. Mechnikov Antiplague Scientific and Research Institute, in the Black Sea port city of Odessa. The institute was part of a Cold War network of "antiplague" stations that supplied highly lethal pathogens to Soviet bioweapons factories.


    You Balts are selective in your memories. Self serving in your recollections. Obama was on the Senate committee that first established military aid to Ukraine in 2005.

  825. @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikhail

    The US hasn't been conquering territory for the purposes of annexing it, either de facto or de jure, for a very long time.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    The US severed territory of another state. It also engages in large scale wars outside of their near abroad.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikhail

    The Mexican-American War was 175 years ago. Russia itself was conquering Central Asia at roughly the same time. As for large-scale wars outside of its Near Abroad, Yes, the US does that. But so does Russia; ex.: Syria. And in any case, the US's record in these wars is hardly unequivocally bad.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  826. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson


    I expect that quite a few Belarusian and Russian men will jump the border for a chance at life without a dictator and in a Slavic country where the women outnumber the men.
     
    Since 2q014 and probably beforehand, the former Ukrainian SSR to Russia traffic has been greater than vice versa. The Kiev regime has a non-democratically inclined figurehead leader serving neocon, neolib and svido interests. Fighting a parasitic proxy war against Russia to the last Ukrainian (Lindsey Graham) isn't in Ukrainian interests. Masking this reality with gibberish can only go for so long.

    From what I have read the DPR/LPR militias have very high fatality rates. The Russians would send them into the trenches and without any medics. Early in the war they weren’t even being given enough ak-47s. There was a picture of one with a mosin-nagant.
     
    A svido projection take.

    There is the potential for the ultimate irony which would be a repopulated Donbas with non-Russian genes. Donetsk becomes a multi-national city like Danzig of the past. There would also be some mulatto kids running around from American Blacks working contracts. Maybe Anglin or Fuentes could adopt a couple of them to help out.
     
    Quit far fetched.

    Replies: @LatW, @Mikhail

    Since 2q014 and probably beforehand, the former Ukrainian SSR to Russia traffic has been greater than vice versa.

    Right, but for those Russian (and Belarusian) nationals who are against Putin’s policies and who are also not liberal, Ukraine is a very attractive place and they were already flocking there before 2022. It’s a Slavic country that is more comfortable for them than the West since most of these guys (and even some women) don’t speak English and want to live in an Eastern Slavic culture that they are more accustomed to.

    The Russians who are fleeing draft and who are more liberal typically go to Georgia, Kazakhstan, Germany maybe.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW

    What would be really epic would be having these Russian and Belarusian nationalists convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy. I like the fact that, in Ukraine, unlike in much of the rest of the world (excluding China), nationalism appeals more to the high-IQ than to the low-IQ. Of course, a certain type of nationalism (Azov) probably does appeal more to the low-IQ in Ukraine. Higher-IQ Ukrainians are simply more civilized nationalists.

    Replies: @LatW

  827. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson


    I expect that quite a few Belarusian and Russian men will jump the border for a chance at life without a dictator and in a Slavic country where the women outnumber the men.
     
    Since 2q014 and probably beforehand, the former Ukrainian SSR to Russia traffic has been greater than vice versa. The Kiev regime has a non-democratically inclined figurehead leader serving neocon, neolib and svido interests. Fighting a parasitic proxy war against Russia to the last Ukrainian (Lindsey Graham) isn't in Ukrainian interests. Masking this reality with gibberish can only go for so long.

    From what I have read the DPR/LPR militias have very high fatality rates. The Russians would send them into the trenches and without any medics. Early in the war they weren’t even being given enough ak-47s. There was a picture of one with a mosin-nagant.
     
    A svido projection take.

    There is the potential for the ultimate irony which would be a repopulated Donbas with non-Russian genes. Donetsk becomes a multi-national city like Danzig of the past. There would also be some mulatto kids running around from American Blacks working contracts. Maybe Anglin or Fuentes could adopt a couple of them to help out.
     
    Quit far fetched.

    Replies: @LatW, @Mikhail

    As in quite far fetched. Will try to see this –

  828. Big moment today in Serb sports with the FIBA and US Tennis Open finals.

  829. @Mikhail
    @Mr. XYZ

    The US severed territory of another state. It also engages in large scale wars outside of their near abroad.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    The Mexican-American War was 175 years ago. Russia itself was conquering Central Asia at roughly the same time. As for large-scale wars outside of its Near Abroad, Yes, the US does that. But so does Russia; ex.: Syria. And in any case, the US’s record in these wars is hardly unequivocally bad.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Mr. XYZ

    You left out Kosovo. Syria closer to Russia than the US. Syrian government asked Russia in. US in Syria illegally - seeing how that word is selectively used in Western mass media.

  830. @LatW
    @Mikhail


    Since 2q014 and probably beforehand, the former Ukrainian SSR to Russia traffic has been greater than vice versa.
     
    Right, but for those Russian (and Belarusian) nationals who are against Putin's policies and who are also not liberal, Ukraine is a very attractive place and they were already flocking there before 2022. It's a Slavic country that is more comfortable for them than the West since most of these guys (and even some women) don't speak English and want to live in an Eastern Slavic culture that they are more accustomed to.

    The Russians who are fleeing draft and who are more liberal typically go to Georgia, Kazakhstan, Germany maybe.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    What would be really epic would be having these Russian and Belarusian nationalists convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy. I like the fact that, in Ukraine, unlike in much of the rest of the world (excluding China), nationalism appeals more to the high-IQ than to the low-IQ. Of course, a certain type of nationalism (Azov) probably does appeal more to the low-IQ in Ukraine. Higher-IQ Ukrainians are simply more civilized nationalists.

    • LOL: Mikhail
    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mr. XYZ


    What would be really epic would be having these Russian and Belarusian nationalists convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy
     
    Most of them are just not too religious to begin with.

    I like the fact that, in Ukraine, unlike in much of the rest of the world (excluding China), nationalism appeals more to the high-IQ than to the low-IQ. Of course, a certain type of nationalism (Azov) probably does appeal more to the low-IQ in Ukraine. Higher-IQ Ukrainians are simply more civilized nationalists.
     
    You are right about the high IQ part in many nationalists in Ukraine, Azov, too, has smart types. Plus, most Ukrainian nationalists support Azov anyway.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  831. @Wokechoke
    @John Johnson

    Behold the Jew!

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    Having Ukraine import Israeli Jews would be interesting but I doubt that there would be very many takers lol. Ukrainian Jews are still emigrating to Israel even right now, albeit in very small numbers after the 2022 spike.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mr. XYZ

    Increasing the Jewish population seems like part of the overall plan for the Western project in Ukraine. It will be interesting to see what the Zionist masters do after this Ukrainian project fails. They will probably send in swarms of voracious carpet baggers into the new Russian republic formerly known as Ukraine. Maybe the scattered remnants of the NeoNazis will be able to keep these carpetbaggers in check.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Wokechoke

  832. @Mikel
    @AP


    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn’t trigger the nuclear holocaust
     
    Yes. And you added that losing California to the Russians and then all of the US West up to Denver wouldn't trigger a nuclear exchange either. That must be one of nuttiest things written on this blog in a very long time. Not just because of the extraordinary claim but also because of the ridiculous pretense of knowing how exactly an escalation to nuclear war could or could not happen.

    It should be possible to argue in defense of the US providing military aid to your old country without making McGregor and QCIC look sane by comparison.

    Note also that, unlike you, I do not claim to have any certainty of what exactly would happen under any particular scenario. All I know is that, given human history, it's ridiculous to take it for granted that scenarios that have never been tested before and that people have been openly discussing since Feb 22 will not escalate to a new holocaust. Nobody can possibly know that and, as long as there is some freedom of thought left in the US, each person is entitled to make their own assessments and defend the foreign policy that best corresponds to them.

    More to the point, if I think that there is something like a 1% chance of the current policy leading to my family both in the US and in Europe being incinerated, why the f-ck should I support it?

    I don’t remember doing that
     
    But you did, quite recently. I'm not surprised though. You have just also accused some Republican presidential candidates of being "pro-Russian". You must be calling people "pro-Russian" all the time so you just forget. I wouldn't be surprised if you consider all the Republican front-runners, and hence some 50% of your compatriots, pro-Russian.

    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?
     
    In the same way that the Yemenis could claim that he "prevented" them from launching attacks against the Saudis that are killing their civilians by not providing them with his services. There must be lots of combatants around the world whose fighting capabilities would be greatly enhanced with on-demand satellite internet coverage over enemy territory but it's only the ungrateful Ukrainians who feel entitled to get that coverage whenever they order it and to turn foreigner Elon Musk into a part of their military staff.

    I find that accusing a well meaning private citizen who wants to help your people without running the risk of provoking WW3 of having blood in his hands is disgusting. What you are doing is disgusting. I'm not surprised that even the former UK minister of defense, one of the persons on this planet who has done the most to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, accused the Ukrainians of being ungrateful before resigning.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @AP

    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn’t trigger the nuclear holocaust

    Yes. And you added that losing California to the Russians and then all of the US West up to Denver wouldn’t trigger a nuclear exchange either.

    I said that it probably would not, though I would not take that chance. You are 100% sure that American politicians would sacrifice themselves and their families for the sake of California or Utah?

    In my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe? Surely if military planners and politicians thought that trying to take Prague, or Bonn, would trigger a nuclear holocaust there was no need pack Europe with those massive conventional armies. But it was precisely because everyone who mattered understood that Moscow would not trigger MAD over Prague or Warsaw or Berlin, nor would the USA over Bonn, that each side maintained massive conventional armies in Europe. Because the nuclear weapons would not be used if Prague or Bonn were attacked – conventional armies were necessary to prevent that.

    Of course you conveniently ignored that.

    The purpose of the massive nuclear arsenals was to prevent one or the other side from making a Hiroshima in the other’s home territory. And the danger of the nuclear arsenals was that one side might mistakenly think that the other was launching all of it’s nukes, triggering a world-ending counter-response.

    It should be possible to argue in defense of the US providing military aid to your old country without making McGregor and QCIC look sane by comparison

    Saying that America wouldn’t nuke the world or itself over Hawaii, and probably not even over California, is insane compared to MacGregor’s claims, in your mind. Okay.

    “you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami.”

    I don’t remember doing that

    But you did, quite recently

    Really? I looked and didn’t find it:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=Yanomami&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=AP

    https://www.unz.com/?s=amazon&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=AP

    An example of you misattributing something?

    Note also that, unlike you, I do not claim to have any certainty of what exactly would happen under any particular scenario.

    A convenient excuse to take a pro-Russian position without defending the Russians.

    Evaluating risk requires evaluating the decision-makers and the circumstances involved. What is the nature of the people making the decision, and under what circumstances would they make the decision? And one should err on the side of caution. Would 70 year old grandfathers with histories of enjoying luxuries and of generally cautious actions nuke themselves and their families over Crimea? Certainly not. What about, say, Vladivostok and the entire far East? Probably not, but I would err on the side of caution and not take that chance.

    You have just also accused some Republican presidential candidates of being “pro-Russian”.

    If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it (while conveniently favoring policies that help Russia).

    So far Trump’s position is unclear, though many of his followers such as Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian. Of course, many of Trump’s followers also condemn the vaccine whose rapid development he himself is justifiably proud of.

    Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian. Hailey, Pence, Christie, DeSantis are not.

    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    In the same way that the Yemenis could claim that he “prevented” them from launching attacks against the Saudis that are killing their civilians by not providing them with his services.

    Did the Yemenis already have systems in place ready to take out the Saudi missiles, thus protecting their children, that were dependent on Musk only for him to, at the critical second, stop it?

    There must be lots of combatants around the world whose fighting capabilities would be greatly enhanced with on-demand satellite internet coverage

    Which ones are currently being invaded and are in a position to use Starlink to specifically take out long-range missile launchers?

    If Yemenis had a Starlink-integrated drone system that was on the verge of destroying Saudi missile launchers aimed at Yemeni cities and were about to complete a mission that would destroy those missile-launchers, and Musk stopped it at the last moment = Yemenis would have every right to be outraged.

    I find that accusing a well meaning private citizen who wants to help your people without running the risk of provoking WW3 of having blood in his hands is disgusting.

    As I said this says everything we need to know about you, and nothing about the Ukrainians.

    Ship missile-launchers specifically used to take out civilian areas were on the verge of being destroyed until Musk blocked it. As a result, these ships went on to launch hundreds of missiles, killing civilians including children. The blood of every child who was killed by missiles launched from these ships that only operate because of Musk’s action is on his hands. That’s simply a fact. At the same time, he also saved lots of soldier’s lives by providing his system for their use for free. That is also a fact. So his legacy is mixed. One can both condemn him for one thing and praise him for another.

    But is is human and normal to be angry at him about the fact that missiles that kill civilians exist because of his action. That you find this to be “disgusting” (rather than Musk’s refusal) reveals a real rottenness within you.

    But of course – you think that Russia would have nuked the world and itself because some it its missile launching ships would have been destroyed in Crimea. Is it rational – or a convenient excuse?

    It is interesting – you talk about the principle that people shouldn’t put civilians at risk over a defense of their homeland, but here when a concrete direct action would have prevented civilian deaths – you are on the side of enabling those civilian killings to continue. And consider those who complain about making those killings possible “disgusting.”

    I’m not surprised that even the former UK minister of defense, one of the persons on this planet who has done the most to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, accused the Ukrainians of being ungrateful before resigning.

    That’s not quite how he put it:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/12/uk-defence-secretary-ben-wallace-suggests-ukraine-could-say-thank-you

    “Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, said that “whether we like it or not, people want to see a bit of gratitude”, when asked about Zelenskiy’s frustration at not being presented with a formal invitation to join Nato, and he advised Ukraine that it might help if it took a different approach.”

    He then clarified:

    [MORE]

    “There has been a lot of interest in my comments about how best to support Ukraine, and some misreporting.

    For the record, as someone who has been at the forefront of galvanising support for Ukraine, I was discussing the challenges that can occur as we work towards the shared aim of helping Ukraine procure what they need to triumph against this illegal invasion.

    I talked about the need for Ukraine to sometimes recognise that in many countries and in some Parliaments, there is not the strong support that there is in the UK.

    This was not a comment about governments, but more about citizens and MPs across the international community.

    We are lucky the UK population and all Parties in our Parliament support our efforts to equip Ukraine.

    Our approval ratings for support to Ukraine are some of the highest in Europe – over 70%.
    What my comments sought to reflect is that it is important to remember not to talk to ourselves, but to make efforts to reach out to the other citizens who still need persuading. The comments on “Amazon” were made last year and were made to highlight that Britain’s relationship with Ukraine is not “transactional” but more a “partnership.”

    I will personally continue to support Ukraine all the way, for as long as it takes, but national Parliaments often have competing needs and Ukraine and the UK need to continue to encourage that strong support by the use of facts and friendship.”

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @AP


    In my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe?
     
    Because, unlike you, they were all about as clueless as myself about how things could play out if hostilities broke? Because they actually hoped to prevent escalation to nuclear war by dissuading the Russians from thinking that they could prevail through conventional means? Lots of rational reasons come to mind without having to entertain the wacky idea that they all secretly knew that nuclear war would never be fought but somehow managed to keep that secret away from the plebes for generations. In fact, contrary to everything you're saying, using nuclear weapons if the Warsaw Pact overrun NATO conventional forces in Europe was official military doctrine.

    And, once again, I am not saying that all US Presidents and Pentagon leaders during the Cold War didn't have the secret intention of ignoring their own military doctrine, hard though I find to believe that. What I'm saying is that your claim of knowing that that was the case is totally bonkers.

    An example of you misattributing something?
     
    No. A surprising example of you being unable to find something that must have been staring at you in the eyes.

    I can't be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder. But I'll give you an excellent hint you have provided yourself with your own accusations in this very post: "If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it .../... Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian .../... Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian".

    Did the Yemenis already have systems in place ready to take out the Saudi missiles, thus protecting their children, that were dependent on Musk only for him to, at the critical second, stop it?
     
    I'm going to consider this a case of you continuing to get your information from shady sources like that Theiner Russophobe. For obvious reasons, Musk never enabled Starlink over Crimea. It is a lie that he "stopped" the coverage over Sevastopol because it wasn't enabled to begin with. He received a request from Ukraine to enable it for a surprise attack on the Russian fleet that could or could not have sunk any Russian ship with his explicit collaboration in the plot and he declined to participate.

    I'll ignore everything you've been saying on this issue, including some sloppy attacks on my personality, on the grounds that you seem to have fallen hook, sink and liner for the lies of the woke media, allied once again with Kiev. But I still find your accusation to Elon of having blood in his hands very distasteful. You didn't even bother to check what his own reply was. And Elon obviously has every right in the world to limit his help to Ukraine, or even suspend it altogether, based on what he personally thinks is best for humanity without being called disgusting names.

    Replies: @Matra, @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian. Hailey, Pence, Christie, DeSantis are not.
     
    Off-topic, but in regards to Ramaswamy, I wonder whether he would be in favor of having India give up Kashmir, or at least the Muslim-majority part of Kashmir, to Pakistan in order to break up the Pakistan-China alliance. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? If the West should throw Ukraine under the bus in order to break up the Russo-Chinese alliance in his opinion, why shouldn't the same logic apply in regards to India giving up Kashmir in order to break up the Pakistani-Chinese alliance?
    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    But of course – you think that Russia would have nuked the world and itself because some it its missile launching ships would have been destroyed in Crimea. Is it rational – or a convenient excuse?
     
    Not the world and itself; just some Ukrainian cities, especially those that are filled to the core with alleged Banderists.
  833. @Wokechoke
    @John Johnson

    Behold the Jew!

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    You?

  834. @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikhail

    The Mexican-American War was 175 years ago. Russia itself was conquering Central Asia at roughly the same time. As for large-scale wars outside of its Near Abroad, Yes, the US does that. But so does Russia; ex.: Syria. And in any case, the US's record in these wars is hardly unequivocally bad.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    You left out Kosovo. Syria closer to Russia than the US. Syrian government asked Russia in. US in Syria illegally – seeing how that word is selectively used in Western mass media.

  835. @Emil Nikola Richard
    Battle of the Nations
    Russia Spain
    Serbia United States

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clQZXs6nRaY&ab_channel=USOpenTennisChampionships

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQRZ9wUISek&ab_channel=USOpenTennisChampionships

    The fans 99% hated it but the tennis gods have willed a Serbia Russia battle for the championship. May the best nation win!

    Replies: @LondonBob

    Impressive by Medvedev, the NY crowd must have hated that. Too late in the night for me to catch any of it.

    I see the US tennis scene is increasingly black, apt really.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @LondonBob

    How would the South Africa race department categorize Ben Shelton? In January his skin tone is close to the old Crayola flesh color which nobody remembers seeing.

    Google image search remembers.

    https://i.huffpost.com/gen/2981672/thumbs/o-FLESH-V-PEACH-570.jpg

    Replies: @Matra

  836. I see Luttwack wants to forcibly conscript every Ukrainian who has fled abroad.

  837. @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW

    What would be really epic would be having these Russian and Belarusian nationalists convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy. I like the fact that, in Ukraine, unlike in much of the rest of the world (excluding China), nationalism appeals more to the high-IQ than to the low-IQ. Of course, a certain type of nationalism (Azov) probably does appeal more to the low-IQ in Ukraine. Higher-IQ Ukrainians are simply more civilized nationalists.

    Replies: @LatW

    What would be really epic would be having these Russian and Belarusian nationalists convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy

    Most of them are just not too religious to begin with.

    I like the fact that, in Ukraine, unlike in much of the rest of the world (excluding China), nationalism appeals more to the high-IQ than to the low-IQ. Of course, a certain type of nationalism (Azov) probably does appeal more to the low-IQ in Ukraine. Higher-IQ Ukrainians are simply more civilized nationalists.

    You are right about the high IQ part in many nationalists in Ukraine, Azov, too, has smart types. Plus, most Ukrainian nationalists support Azov anyway.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW


    Most of them are just not too religious to begin with.

     

    They can convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy for the cultural and social space that it provides, not necessarily because they're devout. That's why some people convert to Reform Judaism, after all.

    You are right about the high IQ part in many nationalists in Ukraine,
     
    Yeah, there's a woman who runs Clarissa's Blog. She's a Ukrainian-Canadian-American. She's originally from Kharkiv but bitterly hates Russia and the Soviet Union. She's also extremely smart (IQ-wise, at least) considering that she previously went to Yale or to some other Ivy League university in the US and previously managed to get into Canada as a merit-based immigrant. She's also half-Jewish on her father's side, albeit with her father (who is now apparently deceased) being an ethnically Jewish convert to Christianity.

    This shows that even in the traditionally pro-Russian parts of Ukraine, smarter people might be less pro-Russian, even before 2014, at least based on anecdotal experience.

    Azov, too, has smart types. Plus, most Ukrainian nationalists support Azov anyway.

     

    They support Azov but prefer the Ukrainian military, no? Or is Azov now officially a part of the Ukrainian military?

    Replies: @LatW

  838. @LatW
    @WS


    News from Manila tell me that Latvians hate Lithuanians even more than Russians;))
     
    Hahaha! I'm totally shocked as I never expected the Latvian team to win over Lithuania. And with such a difference, too. I expected it to be much more even and for Lithuania to win. They will get over it eventually and we still love each other. :)

    Replies: @silviosilver

    I’m totally shocked as I never expected the Latvian team to win over Lithuania. And with such a difference, too.

    According to the Basque school of international relations, it was dangerous and reckless for Latvia to humiliate Lithuania in a basketball tournament. The face-saving measures Lithuanian officials will now have to employ will quickly spiral out of control and lead to armed clashes. Prepare yourself, war is imminent. 🙂

    And Germany, wow, nice work. I don’t really care who wins now that Team Wakanda is out of the running. (Of course, it would be nice if Serbia pulls it off.)

    • LOL: LatW
    • Replies: @WS
    @silviosilver


    And Germany, wow, nice work. I don’t really care who wins now that Team Wakanda is out of the running
     
    .
    End of the world is really close: Germans are basketball world champions !?!
    , @sudden death
    @silviosilver

    After tournament is done, it can be said it was no any coincidence that Latvia, which was just one missed 3 pointer away from beating future champ Germany, spanked Lithuania as Serbs did too. Those two teams are just playing better and more modern faster basketball on both sides of the court at the moment, that's all. Latvia also probably had higher motivation, having lost badly this summer against us in friendly game, while Lithuania missed its three rotational players most of the last game, but it could be excuses only if the close game was lost.

    Speaking historically, Latvia has no any worse basketball tradition than Lithuania - their national team became European champions too in pre-WWII years, after the war their main club RIGA ASK was multiple USSR and Euroleague champion in the end of 50's. After gaining the independence again they were getting also competitive as a national team, kicking out 2000 Olympics bronze winner and 2003 European champion Lithuania from 2001 European championship in between. In such context, Latvia becoming strong again in international arena with this new generation is cyclical event instead of a one time fluke.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    , @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    According to the Basque school of international relations, it was dangerous and reckless for Latvia to humiliate Lithuania in a basketball tournament.
     
    I've seen you do much better than that. I appreciate sarcasm as much as anyone but you've really tried too hard there to piece together two subjects that don't fit at all.

    In any case, that would rather be an anti-Basque school of international relations. Where I grew up the message all around me was that we were part of a large international struggle for national and social liberation and that we had to dismantle all the state structures of the enemy. It's hard to believe it these days but ETA's strategy was to provoke the reactionary elements in the Spanish military with targeted killings that they hoped would cause a return to a dictatorship in Spain. They considered the Spanish democracy to be totally fake because it denied us the democratic right to self-determination but it was credible enough for many Basques to have abandoned support for armed struggle so they preferred the return to a fight against a naked oppressor. They were actually pretty close to getting their goal.

    But well, based on facts rather than ideas, there's no denying the Serbian school of international relations was even more extreme. I've seen some documentaries and you had some very nasty stuff going on there.

    I think you're betting on the wrong horse here though. One of the problems of these new Europeans spawned from the Sovok Union (not to be confused with the less mercurial EEs to their West) is that time seems to have frozen in the 40s for them. Anyone left of Attila is a "leftie" in their view.

    The other problem, that we've just been discussing wrt their big Southern cousin, is ingratitude. Right now they have Spanish and Italian pilots in their skies, protecting them from that phantasmagorical threat from the Russkies, who can barely defend the airspace over Moscow. And the Spaniards used to have a mechanized battalion stationed somewhere in the Baltics for the same solidary purposes. But there's very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don't belong to the same family. Their natural position in Europe is of course close to the Germanics. Remember that equally incongruent remark of "you are not an Anglo" from the other Balt resident here? Looks like they cannot help themselves. Good luck getting a better treatment from them as a Southeast Euro than the Southwestern ones lol.

    PS- For the record, I don't really hold any animosity towards Balts whatsoever. My ex mother in law, that I am in very good terms with, was born in Vilnius. And another branch of my political family, that is even closer to me, are genetically ~60% Baltic, in all likelihood Lithuanian. Good people all of them. But let's be real and not get too carried away. This Frankenstein patchwork called the EU has more holes in it than a coffee strainer.

    Replies: @sudden death, @silviosilver, @LatW

  839. @Mikel
    @AP


    The ones who didn’t shy away from lavishly providing arms to Afghans who were killing Soviet troops with them?

     
    Yes. Even those ones shared my belief that nuclear war was perfectly possible. They continued their predecessors' habit of having the "red telephone" ready 24x7 to make sure that nuclear war didn't start by accident and carried the nuclear briefcase with the launch codes anywhere the President went to be ready for the eventuality that it did start anyway. Those were also the ones who embarked in the very costly "Star Wars" initiative to intercept the nukes that you say nobody had the intention of launching.

    I could go on and on but those few examples make it spectacularly clear that everybody that matters then and now shared by beliefs and totally disregarded yours.

    Even though obviously nobody wants it, nuclear war is a real possibility. At any given time, there's hundreds of nuclear missiles on each side ready to be launched within minutes and turn the US and Russia into radioactive wastelands. This means that nuclear war is not only possible through accident (as is obviously the case with any other technology invented by man) but also through misunderstandings and miscalculations that make it impossible for the other side to lose face.

    The fact that the USSR’s conventional forces were a match was far more relevant than the nuclear threat.
     

    Repeating the same assertion over and over has its value in a religious context but it doesn't really help your case in a rational debate.

    Even if common sense wasn't enough, there are reams of contemporary written evidence in the form of declarations, official military doctrines and constant discussions in the media, in Congress, etc showing that nuclear war with the USSR was the biggest fear during Cold War I.

    At the end of WW2 it was of course rational for the Western allies to fear a USSR fully mobilized for total war and perhaps more importantly, people were very tired and nobody wanted a new world war, not even Churchill. That's how EE was lost. But the real freeze in hostilities began in 1949. At the beginning it was just the horrendous realization that now Hiroshima could happen to the US but the danger grew very fast to much worse levels, including, for the first time in human history, the possibility of planetary destruction. Of course, this was the overarching consideration behind all foreign policy decisions during the previous Cold War.

    At a conventional level, the Warsaw Pact did have very large numbers of everything but everyone could see the technological gap in the Middle east and in Asia. All of this was not such a long time ago. I remember it perfectly well and nobody in Europe cared much about Soviet tanks. Everybody's fear was definitely the nukes.


    What? When did I do that?
     
    When you accused me of being pro-Russian.

    American intervention worked out well in Europe, Japan and Korea. Ukraine is more like these places, than like Afghanistan or Iraq.
     
    Well, yes, I guess so. But the authorities in Kiev keep trying to prove the contrary, as the abuse Elon is receiving from them right now shows. He was under no obligation to keep the internet going in Ukraine. It wasn't his business. I'm sure he did it out of empathy under the emotion of the moment in those initial days of the invasion but with certain beneficiaries no good deed goes unpunished. Perhaps not even Saddam or the Mullah Omar would have been so ungrateful.

    Non-interventionism is pointless anyway if you start making exceptions before you even begin. Whether interventionism "worked well" in the places you mentioned or not, I want the US to stop intervening and giving defense guarantees also in Asia and in Europe. Even in the Basque Country, if it ever came to that.

    Replies: @AP, @silviosilver

    Those were also the ones who embarked in the very costly “Star Wars” initiative to intercept the nukes that you say nobody had the intention of launching.

    What does it mean to have an “intention” of launching nukes? Does it mean a readiness to use them under a given set of carefully considered circumstances? Or does it mean something more like a decision having been reached that they’re going to be used, and it only remains to wait for the right opportunity to launch them? The former description lends itself to defensive, second-strike intentions, the latter to offensive, first-strike intentions. Imo, clearly the former intention existed, while evidence for the latter intention is quite scarce (and has mostly to do with assessing the other side’s intentions).

  840. https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/8621267.html
    Russian comment on meatgrinder.
    “I am a woman!”
    “Above all you are a fighter for the AFU (Armed Forces of Ukraine).”

  841. Is Not-The-President Biden conceding these states to Trump? (1)

    He’s gonna build a border wall.

     

     

    NEW: LA Times’ @Haleaziz with a scoop, reporting that the Biden administration is considering forcing some migrant families who cross the border illegally to remain in Texas, limiting their ability to travel within the US, as bipartisan criticism grows. https://latimes.com/politics/story/2023-09-07/biden-migrant-families-border

    While entertaining as a first step to a “national divorce”, the idea is going nowhere. Yes. The American judicial system is tragic. However, internal pass laws will not fly even with left leaning judges.

    There is one way they could do it. Rapidly process migrants within a few weeks at set locations, thus rendering travel away from the southern border impractical. A fast initial screening would deport 80-90% of the illegal crossers.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://instapundit.com/604821/

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @A123

    Those states are likely already over 50% Hispanic so he may be ceding them to Mexico.

    Replies: @A123

  842. @LondonBob
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Impressive by Medvedev, the NY crowd must have hated that. Too late in the night for me to catch any of it.

    I see the US tennis scene is increasingly black, apt really.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    How would the South Africa race department categorize Ben Shelton? In January his skin tone is close to the old Crayola flesh color which nobody remembers seeing.

    Google image search remembers.

    • Replies: @Matra
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    I think 'Coloureds' in SA have undergone a kind of ethnogenesis. Speaking Afrikaans is, apparently, a vital part of their ethnic identity so if mixed race but not speaking Afrikaans maybe Shelton would be a separate category from Coloured. (On this subject I just noticed the South African rugby team is the blackest I've ever seen it).

    Replies: @LondonBob

  843. @LatW
    @QCIC


    In general I don’t think the Balts are stupid enough to allow NATO to place nuclear-armed missiles into their countries. On the other hand, considering LatW maybe I need to reconsider that notion.
     
    Do not speak for me. I am strictly against that (as would be most of the political parties actually). But I fully support further militarization otherwise. The Baltics can be defended without nukes being placed there.

    But he is right that it was not NATO's intention to threaten Russia. NATO was ok with the status quo prior to the 2022 invasion. Meaning, they were probably not too happy with Crimea having been annexed, but they were not going to do much about it, much less about the Donbas situation. In fact, it seems to have been true that Obama told Ukraine not to resist the annexation of Crimea (pretty scandalous, a large nuclear country is telling a smaller non-nuclear one to not resist it being carved up).

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    Nice try on that.

    Obama built up Ukraine’s military after the Crimean Annexation and sponsored the event that precipitated it, Maidan. Maidan was most certainly Obama’s child. he had a hand in the Orange Revolution that preceded it.

    Arguably though Obama did make his first US splash with international relations by going to Ukraine to posture about how he’s taking loose nukes and anthrax out of circulation. Who knows what the nigger was being groomed for and by whom. Obama was Kneegrodeep in the first Orange Revolution too…here’s what 2005 was really like.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/08/30/us-to-aid-ukraine-in-countering-bioweapons/72059ed1-90ca-4381-ac6f-10f4e205f09e/

    The United States and Ukraine agreed yesterday to work jointly to prevent the spread of biological weapons, signing a pact that clears the way for Ukraine’s government to receive U.S. aid to improve security at facilities where dangerous microbes are kept.

    The agreement, the result of more than a year of negotiations, was announced by Sens. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) during a visit to the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. The senators credited Ukraine’s reformist leaders, ushered into power by last fall’s Orange Revolution, with breaking bureaucratic resistance to the pact.

    One lab to receive funding is the I.I. Mechnikov Antiplague Scientific and Research Institute, in the Black Sea port city of Odessa. The institute was part of a Cold War network of “antiplague” stations that supplied highly lethal pathogens to Soviet bioweapons factories.

    You Balts are selective in your memories. Self serving in your recollections. Obama was on the Senate committee that first established military aid to Ukraine in 2005.

  844. If they ever reboot Star Wars, they should make the Empire the good guys.

    Some of the earlier films could be written off as propaganda. (Who would actually make a weapon to destroy a planet or a star?)

    And it could be noted how the Rebels never take prisoners but just murder countless troopers and how they are serving the interests of weird aliens.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @songbird


    Who would actually make a weapon to destroy a planet or a star?
     
    Heck, even Canadians do it!

    See 0:45


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcF0VSi4qxc
    , @A123
    @songbird

    Star Wars is Dead -- RIP

    I genuinely liked the animated Rebels series. Ahsoka is the dullest thing I have ever attempted to watch. Is it deliberately bad? These actors can act... The writing & directing give them nothing to work with. I gave up after episode 2.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qxdlQeo6C2o

    The story is well nigh impenetrable to fans. Normies must be totally lost. Rumor has it that any Season 2 has already been preemptively "not renewed".

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @John Johnson, @songbird

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird


    Who would actually make a weapon to destroy a planet or a star?
     
    How do you think the asteroid belt got there? Do planets blow themselves up?

    Replies: @songbird

  845. @Mr. XYZ
    @Wokechoke

    Having Ukraine import Israeli Jews would be interesting but I doubt that there would be very many takers lol. Ukrainian Jews are still emigrating to Israel even right now, albeit in very small numbers after the 2022 spike.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Increasing the Jewish population seems like part of the overall plan for the Western project in Ukraine. It will be interesting to see what the Zionist masters do after this Ukrainian project fails. They will probably send in swarms of voracious carpet baggers into the new Russian republic formerly known as Ukraine. Maybe the scattered remnants of the NeoNazis will be able to keep these carpetbaggers in check.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    Increasing the Jewish population seems like part of the overall plan for the Western project in Ukraine.

    How so exactly?

    Israel can't get enough Jews to leave Los Angeles. Why would Jews fly en masse to a cold weather country where they have to learn a new language?

    It will be interesting to see what the Zionist masters do after this Ukrainian project fails.

    What exactly was preventing Jews from moving to Ukraine in 2020?

    Replies: @QCIC

    , @Wokechoke
    @QCIC

    Will send?

    Replies: @QCIC

  846. @songbird
    If they ever reboot Star Wars, they should make the Empire the good guys.

    Some of the earlier films could be written off as propaganda. (Who would actually make a weapon to destroy a planet or a star?)

    And it could be noted how the Rebels never take prisoners but just murder countless troopers and how they are serving the interests of weird aliens.

    Replies: @QCIC, @A123, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Who would actually make a weapon to destroy a planet or a star?

    Heck, even Canadians do it!

    See 0:45

    [MORE]

    • LOL: songbird
  847. @A123
    Is Not-The-President Biden conceding these states to Trump? (1)


    He's gonna build a border wall.

     
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5dSDBiaoAA2yma.jpg
     


    NEW: LA Times' @Haleaziz with a scoop, reporting that the Biden administration is considering forcing some migrant families who cross the border illegally to remain in Texas, limiting their ability to travel within the US, as bipartisan criticism grows. https://latimes.com/politics/story/2023-09-07/biden-migrant-families-border
     

     
    While entertaining as a first step to a "national divorce", the idea is going nowhere. Yes. The American judicial system is tragic. However, internal pass laws will not fly even with left leaning judges.

    There is one way they could do it. Rapidly process migrants within a few weeks at set locations, thus rendering travel away from the southern border impractical. A fast initial screening would deport 80-90% of the illegal crossers.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://instapundit.com/604821/

    Replies: @QCIC

    Those states are likely already over 50% Hispanic so he may be ceding them to Mexico.

    • Replies: @A123
    @QCIC

    But... Libtards love New Mexico: (1)


    Accepting COVID Dictates Has Consequences – New Mexico Democrat Governor Now Uses Same “Public Health Emergency” To Ban Firearms

     

    This, THIS RIGHT THE F**K HERE, is exactly what you, me, and everyone with a logical brain was talking about back in 2020 and 2021 when the various state governors were using “Public Health Emergency” declarations to rule by unilateral fiat and remove constitutional and legislatively enacted rights.

    THIS STORY, happening right now in Alburquerque, is a direct and specific outcome of NOT PUSHING BACK in ’20/’21 and allowing governors to take control without legislative approvals. The governor has just declared gun possession unlawful, under the auspices of a Public Health Emergency.”
    ...
    Do not be naive enough to think this is not being coordinated with the people in control of the White House. There is ZERO chance this is an independent decision by the New Mexico governor, ZERO CHANCE.

     
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/gun-free-zone.png

     

    There is no chance that the DNC wants to give up this sort of crazy.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/09/08/accepting-covid-dictates-has-consequences-new-mexico-democrat-governor-now-uses-same-public-health-emergency-to-ban-firearms/
  848. @songbird
    If they ever reboot Star Wars, they should make the Empire the good guys.

    Some of the earlier films could be written off as propaganda. (Who would actually make a weapon to destroy a planet or a star?)

    And it could be noted how the Rebels never take prisoners but just murder countless troopers and how they are serving the interests of weird aliens.

    Replies: @QCIC, @A123, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Star Wars is Dead — RIP

    I genuinely liked the animated Rebels series. Ahsoka is the dullest thing I have ever attempted to watch. Is it deliberately bad? These actors can act… The writing & directing give them nothing to work with. I gave up after episode 2.

    The story is well nigh impenetrable to fans. Normies must be totally lost. Rumor has it that any Season 2 has already been preemptively “not renewed”.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @A123

    The story is well nigh impenetrable to fans. Normies must be totally lost. Rumor has it that any Season 2 has already been preemptively “not renewed”.

    That's really too bad that a show for children isn't to your liking.

    Replies: @A123

    , @songbird
    @A123

    I watched the Mando episode with Ahsoka. That was the one where they introduced the idea that there was a metal that could stand up to lightsabers. I did not feel the desire to see more of the character.

    I'm honestly puzzled why anyone thought it was a good idea to try to build a show around her.

    To a certain extent, it feels like women have taken over Hollywood. But in a way, it is kind of mysterious. I look at a lot of these projects, like Terminator: Dark Fate (never saw, but heard about - woman has a nuclear reactor where here womb should be and it is antinatalist) and it seems like they are often still written by men (if defectors from any sort of masculinity).

    But I suppose the politics of films is often much more complicated than just the writer in the credits. Like for example: O'Bannon's name is attached to Alien. He obviously had some influence on it, but it seems like a lot of his screenplay was thrown out, to the point where he felt betrayed.

    Replies: @A123

  849. @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    Your revisionism of what was stated in 1951 and earlier at Yalta on the Kurils is clear cut, which explains why you've provided zilch to the contrary.

    Russia under Yeltsin and Putin inquired about joining NATO and didn't get positive feedback from the latter for the reasons I earlier stated.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Your revisionism of what was stated in 1951 and earlier at Yalta on the Kurils is clear cut, which explains why you’ve provided zilch to the contrary.

    My revisionism? It doesn’t matter what I think about the Kurils. What matters is that the EU/US do not believe that they belong to Russia which makes them disputed. I provided a link that explains why it isn’t as simple as the 1951 treaty. Here it is from a Russian source:

    However, following Japan’s signing a security treaty with the United States in 1960, the former Soviet Union revoked its liabilities concerning the transfer of the islands. The Soviet government said back then that the islands would be handed over to Japan only when all foreign forces were withdrawn from its soil.
    https://tass.com/world/1041010

    Russia under Yeltsin and Putin inquired about joining NATO and didn’t get positive feedback from the latter for the reasons I earlier stated.

    You went from saying that Russia couldn’t join due to the US industrial complex needing a bogeyman and now you are saying they didn’t get positive feedback as if they didn’t get a smiley face sticker in kindergarten.

    Here is an actual source on the matter:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

    The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

    Putin didn’t want to bother with applying like everyone else. Well there you have it.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @John Johnson

    San Fran 1951 and the earlier Yalta agreement are quite clear that the Kurils are Soviet and now post-Soviet Russian. You're casually okaying a revisionist stance in contradiction to that.

    Of course, Russia is opposed to a NATO expansion that sees that anti-Russian leaning bloc expand with Russia left out. On the other hand, having Russia in NATO is much more reasonable. It's moronic to see a threat grow near you and be casual about it.

    As for respecting borders, look at UNSC Resolution 1244 and see how the leading NATO countries violate Serb territory.

    Well there you have it.

  850. @A123
    @songbird

    Star Wars is Dead -- RIP

    I genuinely liked the animated Rebels series. Ahsoka is the dullest thing I have ever attempted to watch. Is it deliberately bad? These actors can act... The writing & directing give them nothing to work with. I gave up after episode 2.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qxdlQeo6C2o

    The story is well nigh impenetrable to fans. Normies must be totally lost. Rumor has it that any Season 2 has already been preemptively "not renewed".

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @John Johnson, @songbird

    The story is well nigh impenetrable to fans. Normies must be totally lost. Rumor has it that any Season 2 has already been preemptively “not renewed”.

    That’s really too bad that a show for children isn’t to your liking.

    • Replies: @A123
    @John Johnson

    The scary part is that Ashoka was supposed to be for adults.

    What they have delivered is for nobody.

    The animated kids show was vastly better written than this drek.

    PEACE 😇

  851. @QCIC
    @A123

    Those states are likely already over 50% Hispanic so he may be ceding them to Mexico.

    Replies: @A123

    But… Libtards love New Mexico: (1)

    Accepting COVID Dictates Has Consequences – New Mexico Democrat Governor Now Uses Same “Public Health Emergency” To Ban Firearms

    This, THIS RIGHT THE F**K HERE, is exactly what you, me, and everyone with a logical brain was talking about back in 2020 and 2021 when the various state governors were using “Public Health Emergency” declarations to rule by unilateral fiat and remove constitutional and legislatively enacted rights.

    THIS STORY, happening right now in Alburquerque, is a direct and specific outcome of NOT PUSHING BACK in ’20/’21 and allowing governors to take control without legislative approvals. The governor has just declared gun possession unlawful, under the auspices of a Public Health Emergency.”

    Do not be naive enough to think this is not being coordinated with the people in control of the White House. There is ZERO chance this is an independent decision by the New Mexico governor, ZERO CHANCE.

     

    There is no chance that the DNC wants to give up this sort of crazy.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/09/08/accepting-covid-dictates-has-consequences-new-mexico-democrat-governor-now-uses-same-public-health-emergency-to-ban-firearms/

  852. @QCIC
    @Mr. XYZ

    Increasing the Jewish population seems like part of the overall plan for the Western project in Ukraine. It will be interesting to see what the Zionist masters do after this Ukrainian project fails. They will probably send in swarms of voracious carpet baggers into the new Russian republic formerly known as Ukraine. Maybe the scattered remnants of the NeoNazis will be able to keep these carpetbaggers in check.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Wokechoke

    Increasing the Jewish population seems like part of the overall plan for the Western project in Ukraine.

    How so exactly?

    Israel can’t get enough Jews to leave Los Angeles. Why would Jews fly en masse to a cold weather country where they have to learn a new language?

    It will be interesting to see what the Zionist masters do after this Ukrainian project fails.

    What exactly was preventing Jews from moving to Ukraine in 2020?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    The Western project in Ukraine seems like it is mostly intended to kill Slavs. What to do other than replace them with Jewish people from around the world? They might start with the ones who don't like Israel along with the ones that Israel doesn't want such as Eritreans. These people would be set up in Ukraine (The New Pale) to have disproportionate political and economic power. The biggest challenge is they need more young Jewish women to make this scheme work. If and when the dollar starts to collapse Ukraine might become more attractive to a lot of people.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  853. @John Johnson
    @A123

    The story is well nigh impenetrable to fans. Normies must be totally lost. Rumor has it that any Season 2 has already been preemptively “not renewed”.

    That's really too bad that a show for children isn't to your liking.

    Replies: @A123

    The scary part is that Ashoka was supposed to be for adults.

    What they have delivered is for nobody.

    The animated kids show was vastly better written than this drek.

    PEACE 😇

  854. @silviosilver
    @LatW


    I’m totally shocked as I never expected the Latvian team to win over Lithuania. And with such a difference, too.
     
    According to the Basque school of international relations, it was dangerous and reckless for Latvia to humiliate Lithuania in a basketball tournament. The face-saving measures Lithuanian officials will now have to employ will quickly spiral out of control and lead to armed clashes. Prepare yourself, war is imminent. :)

    And Germany, wow, nice work. I don't really care who wins now that Team Wakanda is out of the running. (Of course, it would be nice if Serbia pulls it off.)

    Replies: @WS, @sudden death, @Mikel

    And Germany, wow, nice work. I don’t really care who wins now that Team Wakanda is out of the running

    .
    End of the world is really close: Germans are basketball world champions !?!

  855. @songbird
    If they ever reboot Star Wars, they should make the Empire the good guys.

    Some of the earlier films could be written off as propaganda. (Who would actually make a weapon to destroy a planet or a star?)

    And it could be noted how the Rebels never take prisoners but just murder countless troopers and how they are serving the interests of weird aliens.

    Replies: @QCIC, @A123, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Who would actually make a weapon to destroy a planet or a star?

    How do you think the asteroid belt got there? Do planets blow themselves up?

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Think that was part of the plot of 'Stranger in a Strange Land.' (not a fan, though I do like some of Heinlein)

    Meanwhile, I recall reading some story from the '30s, where moons or planets are eggs that hatch big creatures that, I believe, destroy other planets.

    Haumea is calculated to be egg-shaped. A pity, I assume that New Horizons is not on the right trajectory to visit it

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea

  856. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    Increasing the Jewish population seems like part of the overall plan for the Western project in Ukraine.

    How so exactly?

    Israel can't get enough Jews to leave Los Angeles. Why would Jews fly en masse to a cold weather country where they have to learn a new language?

    It will be interesting to see what the Zionist masters do after this Ukrainian project fails.

    What exactly was preventing Jews from moving to Ukraine in 2020?

    Replies: @QCIC

    The Western project in Ukraine seems like it is mostly intended to kill Slavs. What to do other than replace them with Jewish people from around the world? They might start with the ones who don’t like Israel along with the ones that Israel doesn’t want such as Eritreans. These people would be set up in Ukraine (The New Pale) to have disproportionate political and economic power. The biggest challenge is they need more young Jewish women to make this scheme work. If and when the dollar starts to collapse Ukraine might become more attractive to a lot of people.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    The Western project in Ukraine seems like it is mostly intended to kill Slavs. What to do other than replace them with Jewish people from around the world?

    It is Putin that chose to invade and was killing thousands of Slavs on day one.

    But you are suggesting that he was duped by a Jewish conspiracy?

    They might start with the ones who don’t like Israel along with the ones that Israel doesn’t want such as Eritreans. These people would be set up in Ukraine (The New Pale) to have disproportionate political and economic power.

    What is your evidence of this plan to send Jews to Ukraine and create a new pale?

    The biggest challenge is they need more young Jewish women to make this scheme work.

    Do explain. Are you suggesting that Ukrainian Jewish women are going to import Eritrean husbands to create a new pale?

    Ukraine has less than 70k Jews.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ukraine

    Assuming normal population distribution that would mean that child bearing age Jewish women in Ukraine number less than 15,000 and no more than half would be single. Why don't you explain how 7,500 Jewish women are going to create a new pale.

    Replies: @QCIC

  857. @John Johnson
    @Mikhail

    Your revisionism of what was stated in 1951 and earlier at Yalta on the Kurils is clear cut, which explains why you’ve provided zilch to the contrary.

    My revisionism? It doesn't matter what I think about the Kurils. What matters is that the EU/US do not believe that they belong to Russia which makes them disputed. I provided a link that explains why it isn't as simple as the 1951 treaty. Here it is from a Russian source:

    However, following Japan’s signing a security treaty with the United States in 1960, the former Soviet Union revoked its liabilities concerning the transfer of the islands. The Soviet government said back then that the islands would be handed over to Japan only when all foreign forces were withdrawn from its soil.
    https://tass.com/world/1041010

    Russia under Yeltsin and Putin inquired about joining NATO and didn’t get positive feedback from the latter for the reasons I earlier stated.

    You went from saying that Russia couldn't join due to the US industrial complex needing a bogeyman and now you are saying they didn't get positive feedback as if they didn't get a smiley face sticker in kindergarten.

    Here is an actual source on the matter:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

    The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

    Putin didn't want to bother with applying like everyone else. Well there you have it.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    San Fran 1951 and the earlier Yalta agreement are quite clear that the Kurils are Soviet and now post-Soviet Russian. You’re casually okaying a revisionist stance in contradiction to that.

    Of course, Russia is opposed to a NATO expansion that sees that anti-Russian leaning bloc expand with Russia left out. On the other hand, having Russia in NATO is much more reasonable. It’s moronic to see a threat grow near you and be casual about it.

    As for respecting borders, look at UNSC Resolution 1244 and see how the leading NATO countries violate Serb territory.

    Well there you have it.

  858. NYT Sept. 8, 2023

    None of the charges that Mr. Trump now faces in two indictments stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election accuse him of encouraging or instigating the physical attack on the Capitol.

    Sorry! What?

  859. @silviosilver
    @LatW


    I’m totally shocked as I never expected the Latvian team to win over Lithuania. And with such a difference, too.
     
    According to the Basque school of international relations, it was dangerous and reckless for Latvia to humiliate Lithuania in a basketball tournament. The face-saving measures Lithuanian officials will now have to employ will quickly spiral out of control and lead to armed clashes. Prepare yourself, war is imminent. :)

    And Germany, wow, nice work. I don't really care who wins now that Team Wakanda is out of the running. (Of course, it would be nice if Serbia pulls it off.)

    Replies: @WS, @sudden death, @Mikel

    After tournament is done, it can be said it was no any coincidence that Latvia, which was just one missed 3 pointer away from beating future champ Germany, spanked Lithuania as Serbs did too. Those two teams are just playing better and more modern faster basketball on both sides of the court at the moment, that’s all. Latvia also probably had higher motivation, having lost badly this summer against us in friendly game, while Lithuania missed its three rotational players most of the last game, but it could be excuses only if the close game was lost.

    Speaking historically, Latvia has no any worse basketball tradition than Lithuania – their national team became European champions too in pre-WWII years, after the war their main club RIGA ASK was multiple USSR and Euroleague champion in the end of 50’s. After gaining the independence again they were getting also competitive as a national team, kicking out 2000 Olympics bronze winner and 2003 European champion Lithuania from 2001 European championship in between. In such context, Latvia becoming strong again in international arena with this new generation is cyclical event instead of a one time fluke.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @sudden death

    Lithuania didn't have Sabonis. Overall, it's fair to say that Lithuania has been better than Latvia in hoops, with the situation reversed in ice hockey.

  860. The Modi-Lavrov photo sum up well what happened.

    Putin, Lavrov G20 win. Pirate Scholz stole G20 show. UN SWIFT offer to trick Russia. Dr. BoJo. U/1

    On military matters –

    https://www.rt.com/russia/582673-second-challenger-tank-destroyed-ukraine/

  861. @sudden death
    @silviosilver

    After tournament is done, it can be said it was no any coincidence that Latvia, which was just one missed 3 pointer away from beating future champ Germany, spanked Lithuania as Serbs did too. Those two teams are just playing better and more modern faster basketball on both sides of the court at the moment, that's all. Latvia also probably had higher motivation, having lost badly this summer against us in friendly game, while Lithuania missed its three rotational players most of the last game, but it could be excuses only if the close game was lost.

    Speaking historically, Latvia has no any worse basketball tradition than Lithuania - their national team became European champions too in pre-WWII years, after the war their main club RIGA ASK was multiple USSR and Euroleague champion in the end of 50's. After gaining the independence again they were getting also competitive as a national team, kicking out 2000 Olympics bronze winner and 2003 European champion Lithuania from 2001 European championship in between. In such context, Latvia becoming strong again in international arena with this new generation is cyclical event instead of a one time fluke.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Lithuania didn’t have Sabonis. Overall, it’s fair to say that Lithuania has been better than Latvia in hoops, with the situation reversed in ice hockey.

  862. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    The Western project in Ukraine seems like it is mostly intended to kill Slavs. What to do other than replace them with Jewish people from around the world? They might start with the ones who don't like Israel along with the ones that Israel doesn't want such as Eritreans. These people would be set up in Ukraine (The New Pale) to have disproportionate political and economic power. The biggest challenge is they need more young Jewish women to make this scheme work. If and when the dollar starts to collapse Ukraine might become more attractive to a lot of people.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    The Western project in Ukraine seems like it is mostly intended to kill Slavs. What to do other than replace them with Jewish people from around the world?

    It is Putin that chose to invade and was killing thousands of Slavs on day one.

    But you are suggesting that he was duped by a Jewish conspiracy?

    They might start with the ones who don’t like Israel along with the ones that Israel doesn’t want such as Eritreans. These people would be set up in Ukraine (The New Pale) to have disproportionate political and economic power.

    What is your evidence of this plan to send Jews to Ukraine and create a new pale?

    The biggest challenge is they need more young Jewish women to make this scheme work.

    Do explain. Are you suggesting that Ukrainian Jewish women are going to import Eritrean husbands to create a new pale?

    Ukraine has less than 70k Jews.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ukraine

    Assuming normal population distribution that would mean that child bearing age Jewish women in Ukraine number less than 15,000 and no more than half would be single. Why don’t you explain how 7,500 Jewish women are going to create a new pale.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    As far as the combat is concerned, I don't think people will be able to make sense of the Ukraine situation if they believe it started in 2022, 2015 or even 2014.

    The point about Jewish replacement is intended as a conversation starter or even a question. The link between Kolomoisky and Azov and Right Sector NeoNazi people still intrigues me so I am looking for any Jewish meaning in the West's Ukrainian project. I keep hoping that someone here will have useful information which might be available in foreign media that I cannot read.

    I doubt many Israelis or Jewish people take Eritreans very seriously, so their role will be limited to that of pawn just like the Ukrainian Christians.

    I meant that a significant number of Jewish women would need to move to Ukraine. I don't know what campaign would need be needed to entice them to relocate there but that is not my department. It might be a gradual long-term project.

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson

  863. @AP
    @Mikel


    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn’t trigger the nuclear holocaust

    Yes. And you added that losing California to the Russians and then all of the US West up to Denver wouldn’t trigger a nuclear exchange either.
     

    I said that it probably would not, though I would not take that chance. You are 100% sure that American politicians would sacrifice themselves and their families for the sake of California or Utah?

    In my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe? Surely if military planners and politicians thought that trying to take Prague, or Bonn, would trigger a nuclear holocaust there was no need pack Europe with those massive conventional armies. But it was precisely because everyone who mattered understood that Moscow would not trigger MAD over Prague or Warsaw or Berlin, nor would the USA over Bonn, that each side maintained massive conventional armies in Europe. Because the nuclear weapons would not be used if Prague or Bonn were attacked - conventional armies were necessary to prevent that.

    Of course you conveniently ignored that.

    The purpose of the massive nuclear arsenals was to prevent one or the other side from making a Hiroshima in the other's home territory. And the danger of the nuclear arsenals was that one side might mistakenly think that the other was launching all of it's nukes, triggering a world-ending counter-response.


    It should be possible to argue in defense of the US providing military aid to your old country without making McGregor and QCIC look sane by comparison
     
    Saying that America wouldn't nuke the world or itself over Hawaii, and probably not even over California, is insane compared to MacGregor's claims, in your mind. Okay.

    "you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami."

    I don’t remember doing that

    But you did, quite recently
     

    Really? I looked and didn't find it:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=Yanomami&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=AP

    https://www.unz.com/?s=amazon&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=AP

    An example of you misattributing something?


    Note also that, unlike you, I do not claim to have any certainty of what exactly would happen under any particular scenario.
     
    A convenient excuse to take a pro-Russian position without defending the Russians.

    Evaluating risk requires evaluating the decision-makers and the circumstances involved. What is the nature of the people making the decision, and under what circumstances would they make the decision? And one should err on the side of caution. Would 70 year old grandfathers with histories of enjoying luxuries and of generally cautious actions nuke themselves and their families over Crimea? Certainly not. What about, say, Vladivostok and the entire far East? Probably not, but I would err on the side of caution and not take that chance.


    You have just also accused some Republican presidential candidates of being “pro-Russian”.
     
    If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it (while conveniently favoring policies that help Russia).

    So far Trump's position is unclear, though many of his followers such as Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian. Of course, many of Trump's followers also condemn the vaccine whose rapid development he himself is justifiably proud of.

    Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian. Hailey, Pence, Christie, DeSantis are not.


    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    In the same way that the Yemenis could claim that he “prevented” them from launching attacks against the Saudis that are killing their civilians by not providing them with his services.
     

    Did the Yemenis already have systems in place ready to take out the Saudi missiles, thus protecting their children, that were dependent on Musk only for him to, at the critical second, stop it?

    There must be lots of combatants around the world whose fighting capabilities would be greatly enhanced with on-demand satellite internet coverage
     
    Which ones are currently being invaded and are in a position to use Starlink to specifically take out long-range missile launchers?

    If Yemenis had a Starlink-integrated drone system that was on the verge of destroying Saudi missile launchers aimed at Yemeni cities and were about to complete a mission that would destroy those missile-launchers, and Musk stopped it at the last moment = Yemenis would have every right to be outraged.


    I find that accusing a well meaning private citizen who wants to help your people without running the risk of provoking WW3 of having blood in his hands is disgusting.
     
    As I said this says everything we need to know about you, and nothing about the Ukrainians.

    Ship missile-launchers specifically used to take out civilian areas were on the verge of being destroyed until Musk blocked it. As a result, these ships went on to launch hundreds of missiles, killing civilians including children. The blood of every child who was killed by missiles launched from these ships that only operate because of Musk's action is on his hands. That's simply a fact. At the same time, he also saved lots of soldier's lives by providing his system for their use for free. That is also a fact. So his legacy is mixed. One can both condemn him for one thing and praise him for another.

    But is is human and normal to be angry at him about the fact that missiles that kill civilians exist because of his action. That you find this to be "disgusting" (rather than Musk's refusal) reveals a real rottenness within you.

    But of course - you think that Russia would have nuked the world and itself because some it its missile launching ships would have been destroyed in Crimea. Is it rational - or a convenient excuse?

    It is interesting - you talk about the principle that people shouldn't put civilians at risk over a defense of their homeland, but here when a concrete direct action would have prevented civilian deaths - you are on the side of enabling those civilian killings to continue. And consider those who complain about making those killings possible "disgusting."


    I’m not surprised that even the former UK minister of defense, one of the persons on this planet who has done the most to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, accused the Ukrainians of being ungrateful before resigning.
     
    That's not quite how he put it:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/12/uk-defence-secretary-ben-wallace-suggests-ukraine-could-say-thank-you

    "Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, said that “whether we like it or not, people want to see a bit of gratitude”, when asked about Zelenskiy’s frustration at not being presented with a formal invitation to join Nato, and he advised Ukraine that it might help if it took a different approach."

    He then clarified:

    "There has been a lot of interest in my comments about how best to support Ukraine, and some misreporting.

    For the record, as someone who has been at the forefront of galvanising support for Ukraine, I was discussing the challenges that can occur as we work towards the shared aim of helping Ukraine procure what they need to triumph against this illegal invasion.

    I talked about the need for Ukraine to sometimes recognise that in many countries and in some Parliaments, there is not the strong support that there is in the UK.

    This was not a comment about governments, but more about citizens and MPs across the international community.

    We are lucky the UK population and all Parties in our Parliament support our efforts to equip Ukraine.

    Our approval ratings for support to Ukraine are some of the highest in Europe – over 70%.
    What my comments sought to reflect is that it is important to remember not to talk to ourselves, but to make efforts to reach out to the other citizens who still need persuading. The comments on “Amazon” were made last year and were made to highlight that Britain's relationship with Ukraine is not “transactional” but more a “partnership.”

    I will personally continue to support Ukraine all the way, for as long as it takes, but national Parliaments often have competing needs and Ukraine and the UK need to continue to encourage that strong support by the use of facts and friendship."

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

    In my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe?

    Because, unlike you, they were all about as clueless as myself about how things could play out if hostilities broke? Because they actually hoped to prevent escalation to nuclear war by dissuading the Russians from thinking that they could prevail through conventional means? Lots of rational reasons come to mind without having to entertain the wacky idea that they all secretly knew that nuclear war would never be fought but somehow managed to keep that secret away from the plebes for generations. In fact, contrary to everything you’re saying, using nuclear weapons if the Warsaw Pact overrun NATO conventional forces in Europe was official military doctrine.

    And, once again, I am not saying that all US Presidents and Pentagon leaders during the Cold War didn’t have the secret intention of ignoring their own military doctrine, hard though I find to believe that. What I’m saying is that your claim of knowing that that was the case is totally bonkers.

    An example of you misattributing something?

    No. A surprising example of you being unable to find something that must have been staring at you in the eyes.

    I can’t be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder. But I’ll give you an excellent hint you have provided yourself with your own accusations in this very post: “If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it …/… Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian …/… Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian”.

    Did the Yemenis already have systems in place ready to take out the Saudi missiles, thus protecting their children, that were dependent on Musk only for him to, at the critical second, stop it?

    I’m going to consider this a case of you continuing to get your information from shady sources like that Theiner Russophobe. For obvious reasons, Musk never enabled Starlink over Crimea. It is a lie that he “stopped” the coverage over Sevastopol because it wasn’t enabled to begin with. He received a request from Ukraine to enable it for a surprise attack on the Russian fleet that could or could not have sunk any Russian ship with his explicit collaboration in the plot and he declined to participate.

    I’ll ignore everything you’ve been saying on this issue, including some sloppy attacks on my personality, on the grounds that you seem to have fallen hook, sink and liner for the lies of the woke media, allied once again with Kiev. But I still find your accusation to Elon of having blood in his hands very distasteful. You didn’t even bother to check what his own reply was. And Elon obviously has every right in the world to limit his help to Ukraine, or even suspend it altogether, based on what he personally thinks is best for humanity without being called disgusting names.

    • Agree: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Matra
    @Mikel

    I hope Elon knows what he's doing. Offending the Military Industrial Complex, Ukraine, and Jewish (ADL) lobbies (a lot of overlap there) in the same week is a good way to get destroyed in the US.

    Replies: @A123

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikel

    FWIW, I don't view that part of AP's post too objectionable:


    I can’t be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder. But I’ll give you an excellent hint you have provided yourself with your own accusations in this very post: “If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it …/… Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian …/… Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian”.

     

    I just think that if Russia would have used nuclear weapons on Ukrainian cities that are filled to the core with alleged Banderists, then this would have been considerably worse for Ukraine than having regular Russian missiles be lobbed at its cities, no? Maybe this risk wouldn't have happened, but one can't be 100% sure and would prefer not to risk it. Such a move does not have to trigger global nuclear war because the West will not respond to this with nukes. Even if the West will militarily respond conventionally, a lot of Ukrainian civilians are still going to be dead if their cities already got nuked.

    Had it not been for Vasily Arkhipov, a whole lot of people could have lost their lives back in 1962 as a result of JFK's brinkmanship (naval blockade) over Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. By AP's own logic, the other two members of the crew on Arkhipov's submarine should not have been anywhere near as eager or willing to launch nuclear weapons as they actually were.

    Hell, Hitler warned in early 1939 that European Jewry will be annihilated if another World War will break out, and that's ultimately what happened, with him and/or other Nazis subsequently referring to this prophecy of his to justify the Holocaust:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_prophecy

    AP is saying that Hitler was a childless freak, and that's accurate, but at the same time, JFK was not.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @AP
    @Mikel


    n my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe?

    Because, unlike you, they were all about as clueless as myself about how things could play out if hostilities broke?
     
    I agree with them, and you disagree with everyone else.

    Because they actually hoped to prevent escalation to nuclear war by dissuading the Russians from thinking that they could prevail through conventional means?
     
    But if the response to an attempt to capture cities by conventional means meant use of world-ending nukes as you claim, then massive armies were unnecessary. Surely, if they thought as you did, they would not have dared to capture Prague with 10 tanks given that doing so, according to you, would have meant the end of the world.

    In fact, contrary to everything you’re saying, using nuclear weapons if the Warsaw Pact overrun NATO conventional forces in Europe was official military doctrine.
     
    Tactical nukes, not world-ending nuke strike that would have killed your family in Utah (if you had been living there).

    Remember, your excuse for doing nothing as Ukrainians are slaughtered is your claim that helping the Ukrainians will result in the world getting nuked.

    Tactical nukes are a different story.

    Until 1967 NATO had a no first use doctrine, but as the Soviet's conventional advantage grew, NATO decided that they would use tactical nukes on the battlefield if their conventional forces were defeated.

    Using tactical nukes on the battlefield to prevent the Soviets from taking Bonn is not the same thing as sacrificing all of the USA for the sake of Bonn by using nuclear ICBMs to strike Moscow and the rest of the USSR.

    USA would not sacrifice itself over Bonn.

    An example of you misattributing something?

    No. A surprising example of you being unable to find something that must have been staring at you in the eyes.

    I can’t be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder.
     
    I did - I posted my search results.

    You made a claim, prove it. Or take it back.

    I can't disprove a fiction, other than to show that the search results did not show what you claim I said.

    For obvious reasons, Musk never enabled Starlink over Crimea. It is a lie that he “stopped” the coverage over Sevastopol because it wasn’t enabled to begin with. He received a request from Ukraine to enable it for a surprise attack on the Russian fleet that could or could not have sunk any Russian ship with his explicit collaboration in the plot and he declined to participate.
     
    That was his claim after the backlash. Maybe the reporter was wrong the first time. Or maybe Musk hadn't expected the backlash so he made a better story.

    According to Rushton:

    "I reached out to a source close to the Ukrainian drone programme about these claims.

    They confirmed Starlink had been previously enabled in the area in question - which is why Ukraine had used USVs that relied on Starlink for navigation - and that Musk had "turned it off".

    This is, by the way, exactly what Walter Isaacson originally wrote - both in his biography of Elon Musk, and in an op-ed for the Washington Post, promoting said book:

    https://i.imgur.com/xcbGi1S.png

    So we see above, Russia lied that it would use nukes if Crimea were attacked, and got what it wanted. (the lie works, so why not use often?)

    Now logically, would the plan even have been put in place if the Starlink system had not been enabled?

    But I still find your accusation to Elon of having blood in his hands very distasteful.
     
    The fact that Elon has blood on his hands is indeed distasteful.

    He took a course of action that saved Russian missile ships, that had been bombing Ukrainian cities, and that subsequently launched more missiles and killed civilians. That blood is therefore very much on his hands.

    And you are more outraged by people being angry at Musk's action that resulted in dead civilians (you called their reaction "disgusting"), than at Musk. Indeed, you probably approved of allowing those missile ships to continue to exist and to kill Ukrainian civilians. Because of the convenient fiction that taking them out would have resulted in America getting nuked.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

  864. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @songbird


    Who would actually make a weapon to destroy a planet or a star?
     
    How do you think the asteroid belt got there? Do planets blow themselves up?

    Replies: @songbird

    Think that was part of the plot of ‘Stranger in a Strange Land.’ (not a fan, though I do like some of Heinlein)

    Meanwhile, I recall reading some story from the ’30s, where moons or planets are eggs that hatch big creatures that, I believe, destroy other planets.

    Haumea is calculated to be egg-shaped. A pity, I assume that New Horizons is not on the right trajectory to visit it

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea

  865. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @LondonBob

    How would the South Africa race department categorize Ben Shelton? In January his skin tone is close to the old Crayola flesh color which nobody remembers seeing.

    Google image search remembers.

    https://i.huffpost.com/gen/2981672/thumbs/o-FLESH-V-PEACH-570.jpg

    Replies: @Matra

    I think ‘Coloureds’ in SA have undergone a kind of ethnogenesis. Speaking Afrikaans is, apparently, a vital part of their ethnic identity so if mixed race but not speaking Afrikaans maybe Shelton would be a separate category from Coloured. (On this subject I just noticed the South African rugby team is the blackest I’ve ever seen it).

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Matra

    Cape Coloureds.

    Rugby is getting very black, very much a sport that suits their physique and nature. Cricket is a rare sport that has seen black participation decline, not just the US sports eroding interest in the Caribbean, but also amongst the blacks in white cricketing nations.

  866. @A123
    @songbird

    Star Wars is Dead -- RIP

    I genuinely liked the animated Rebels series. Ahsoka is the dullest thing I have ever attempted to watch. Is it deliberately bad? These actors can act... The writing & directing give them nothing to work with. I gave up after episode 2.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qxdlQeo6C2o

    The story is well nigh impenetrable to fans. Normies must be totally lost. Rumor has it that any Season 2 has already been preemptively "not renewed".

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @John Johnson, @songbird

    I watched the Mando episode with Ahsoka. That was the one where they introduced the idea that there was a metal that could stand up to lightsabers. I did not feel the desire to see more of the character.

    I’m honestly puzzled why anyone thought it was a good idea to try to build a show around her.

    To a certain extent, it feels like women have taken over Hollywood. But in a way, it is kind of mysterious. I look at a lot of these projects, like Terminator: Dark Fate (never saw, but heard about – woman has a nuclear reactor where here womb should be and it is antinatalist) and it seems like they are often still written by men (if defectors from any sort of masculinity).

    But I suppose the politics of films is often much more complicated than just the writer in the credits. Like for example: O’Bannon’s name is attached to Alien. He obviously had some influence on it, but it seems like a lot of his screenplay was thrown out, to the point where he felt betrayed.

    • Replies: @A123
    @songbird


    I’m honestly puzzled why anyone thought it was a good idea to try to build a show around her.
     
    Ashoka's appearance in Mando was a cameo for nostalgia. She had a strong character arc through Clone Wars and appeared in Rebels. They had a great deal to work with, but they screwed it up.

    To a certain extent, it feels like women have taken over Hollywood.
    ...
    it seems like they are often still written by men (if defectors from any sort of masculinity).

     

    Hollywood is being run into the ground by SJW progressives. Alpha women and their pathetic simps. Part of the issue is older men with experience have been sidelined. Efforts are so poorly planned and executed, they would likely be failures even if they were not pushing woke ideology.

    Ashoka is Filoni's project and he has been around for awhile. This led to hope that the production would work despite corporate interference. Alas, being show running 1/2 hour animated series does not translate to full hour live action.

    PEACE 😇
  867. @Mikel
    @AP


    In my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe?
     
    Because, unlike you, they were all about as clueless as myself about how things could play out if hostilities broke? Because they actually hoped to prevent escalation to nuclear war by dissuading the Russians from thinking that they could prevail through conventional means? Lots of rational reasons come to mind without having to entertain the wacky idea that they all secretly knew that nuclear war would never be fought but somehow managed to keep that secret away from the plebes for generations. In fact, contrary to everything you're saying, using nuclear weapons if the Warsaw Pact overrun NATO conventional forces in Europe was official military doctrine.

    And, once again, I am not saying that all US Presidents and Pentagon leaders during the Cold War didn't have the secret intention of ignoring their own military doctrine, hard though I find to believe that. What I'm saying is that your claim of knowing that that was the case is totally bonkers.

    An example of you misattributing something?
     
    No. A surprising example of you being unable to find something that must have been staring at you in the eyes.

    I can't be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder. But I'll give you an excellent hint you have provided yourself with your own accusations in this very post: "If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it .../... Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian .../... Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian".

    Did the Yemenis already have systems in place ready to take out the Saudi missiles, thus protecting their children, that were dependent on Musk only for him to, at the critical second, stop it?
     
    I'm going to consider this a case of you continuing to get your information from shady sources like that Theiner Russophobe. For obvious reasons, Musk never enabled Starlink over Crimea. It is a lie that he "stopped" the coverage over Sevastopol because it wasn't enabled to begin with. He received a request from Ukraine to enable it for a surprise attack on the Russian fleet that could or could not have sunk any Russian ship with his explicit collaboration in the plot and he declined to participate.

    I'll ignore everything you've been saying on this issue, including some sloppy attacks on my personality, on the grounds that you seem to have fallen hook, sink and liner for the lies of the woke media, allied once again with Kiev. But I still find your accusation to Elon of having blood in his hands very distasteful. You didn't even bother to check what his own reply was. And Elon obviously has every right in the world to limit his help to Ukraine, or even suspend it altogether, based on what he personally thinks is best for humanity without being called disgusting names.

    Replies: @Matra, @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    I hope Elon knows what he’s doing. Offending the Military Industrial Complex, Ukraine, and Jewish (ADL) lobbies (a lot of overlap there) in the same week is a good way to get destroyed in the US.

    • Agree: Mikel
    • Replies: @A123
    @Matra


    I hope Elon knows what he’s doing. Offending the Military Industrial Complex, Ukraine, and Jewish (ADL) lobbies (a lot of overlap there)
     
    Let me fix that for you...

    I hope Elon knows what he’s doing. Offending the NeoConDemocrat, Military Industrial Complex, Ukraine, Anti-Semite, ADL, and neo-Nazi lobbies (a lot of overlap there).

    Real practitioners of Judaism, especially Orthodox Jews, loathe the Leftoid secularists who have hijacked the ADL: (1)

    The ADL Is Not Jewish and No Longer Speaks for Jews

    Under Jonathan Greenblatt, they’ve lost focus, attacking conservatives instead of fighting anti-Semitism.

     

    Greenblatt, a hardened “progressive,” had just served as special assistant to the president in the Obama White House. He is an Obama acolyte through and through. From the day that he arrived, he converted the ADL into a markedly left-focused organization. Under Greenblatt, ADL has focused almost exclusively on combating right-wing hate and also attacking conservative non-haters among Republicans, Fox News anchors, and the like — while giving virtually free passes to the Left.

    For example, ADL presented data on anti-Semitism during the Trump presidency that defied reality. In one egregious case, they reported a 57 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents during Trump’s first year when other data showed a decrease. Notably, in blaming Trump’s emergence, they included in their tally some 150 bomb threats made to American Jewish institutions by a mentally disturbed Israeli Jewish teen who ultimately was convicted by a Tel Aviv court of phoning in thousands of such threats from overseas.

    The demise of ADL as a Jewish organization and its conversion into a mouthpiece for Obama acolytes has been mourned for the past five years.

    • Seth Mandel has written about it in Commentary.
    • Liel Leibovitz, another leading American Jewish commentator, wrote about it in the Wall Street Journal.
    • Investigative journalist Daniel Greenfield exposed further details in David Horowitz’s FrontPage Mag.
    • Likewise Andrew Harrod in Jihad Watch and the Orthodox Jewish online source Matzav.
    • Most recently, Jonathan Tobin has written about ADL’s pronouncedly left bias and “overhyped statistics” in several articles in JNS, a national Jewish news service.

     

    Christians & Jews stand together in their desire to Ban the ADL.

    Can we also Ban the DNC?

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) From 2021 — https://spectator.org/adl-jonathan-greenblatt-left/
  868. @silviosilver
    @LatW


    I’m totally shocked as I never expected the Latvian team to win over Lithuania. And with such a difference, too.
     
    According to the Basque school of international relations, it was dangerous and reckless for Latvia to humiliate Lithuania in a basketball tournament. The face-saving measures Lithuanian officials will now have to employ will quickly spiral out of control and lead to armed clashes. Prepare yourself, war is imminent. :)

    And Germany, wow, nice work. I don't really care who wins now that Team Wakanda is out of the running. (Of course, it would be nice if Serbia pulls it off.)

    Replies: @WS, @sudden death, @Mikel

    According to the Basque school of international relations, it was dangerous and reckless for Latvia to humiliate Lithuania in a basketball tournament.

    I’ve seen you do much better than that. I appreciate sarcasm as much as anyone but you’ve really tried too hard there to piece together two subjects that don’t fit at all.

    In any case, that would rather be an anti-Basque school of international relations. Where I grew up the message all around me was that we were part of a large international struggle for national and social liberation and that we had to dismantle all the state structures of the enemy. It’s hard to believe it these days but ETA’s strategy was to provoke the reactionary elements in the Spanish military with targeted killings that they hoped would cause a return to a dictatorship in Spain. They considered the Spanish democracy to be totally fake because it denied us the democratic right to self-determination but it was credible enough for many Basques to have abandoned support for armed struggle so they preferred the return to a fight against a naked oppressor. They were actually pretty close to getting their goal.

    But well, based on facts rather than ideas, there’s no denying the Serbian school of international relations was even more extreme. I’ve seen some documentaries and you had some very nasty stuff going on there.

    I think you’re betting on the wrong horse here though. One of the problems of these new Europeans spawned from the Sovok Union (not to be confused with the less mercurial EEs to their West) is that time seems to have frozen in the 40s for them. Anyone left of Attila is a “leftie” in their view.

    The other problem, that we’ve just been discussing wrt their big Southern cousin, is ingratitude. Right now they have Spanish and Italian pilots in their skies, protecting them from that phantasmagorical threat from the Russkies, who can barely defend the airspace over Moscow. And the Spaniards used to have a mechanized battalion stationed somewhere in the Baltics for the same solidary purposes. But there’s very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don’t belong to the same family. Their natural position in Europe is of course close to the Germanics. Remember that equally incongruent remark of “you are not an Anglo” from the other Balt resident here? Looks like they cannot help themselves. Good luck getting a better treatment from them as a Southeast Euro than the Southwestern ones lol.

    PS- For the record, I don’t really hold any animosity towards Balts whatsoever. My ex mother in law, that I am in very good terms with, was born in Vilnius. And another branch of my political family, that is even closer to me, are genetically ~60% Baltic, in all likelihood Lithuanian. Good people all of them. But let’s be real and not get too carried away. This Frankenstein patchwork called the EU has more holes in it than a coffee strainer.

    • Replies: @sudden death
    @Mikel

    btw, southern euro itself isn't automatically equal to leftie - there are relatively nice looking and behaving euro southern righties as well, like Meloni in Italy or Greek ruling party these days too;)

    , @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    But there’s very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don’t belong to the same family. Their natural position in Europe is of course close to the Germanics. Remember that equally incongruent remark of “you are not an Anglo” from the other Balt resident here? Looks like they cannot help themselves. Good luck getting a better treatment from them as a Southeast Euro than the Southwestern ones lol.
     
    I take it this is what you are referring to by me "backing the wrong horse"?

    What do you mean by "treatment" - their attitudes? I don't really care about that. I don't see that their attitudes are so bad anyway. So they feel closer to their own people and those culturally closer to them? That's not exactly shocking. And there will always be people who take that attitude step further and actively disdain those who are more distant. I am not really so different in this regard, although I try to fight the tendency to disdain, since it doesn't bring any actual benefits and is very off-putting to most people.

    But let’s be real and not get too carried away. This Frankenstein patchwork called the EU has more holes in it than a coffee strainer.
     
    What exactly - be precise - are you accusing me of getting carried away with?

    The EU is imperfect, but all in all I find it preferable to the arrangement that preceded it. Whatever its other failings, it serves as useful check on petty nationalist fuckwitry, prevents it from getting out of hand. In fact, that to me is reason enough to prefer racially and culturally feasible supranational or multinational structures to muh sacred nation horseshit. Eg I preferred Yugoslavia over Serbia, if I were Basque, I would prefer Spain over Euskadi - a bit of autonomy and "cultural rights" is fine, but strict independence isn't really necessary and isn't necessarily an improvement. (But I understand it's not always easy. When there is extreme historical animosity, it's hard to pull it off, and sometimes a parting of ways may be the best solution.)

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel

    , @LatW
    @Mikel


    Right now they have Spanish and Italian pilots in their skies, protecting them from that phantasmagorical threat from the Russkies, who can barely defend the airspace over Moscow.
     
    It was not known before 2023 that the Russians cannot protect their own air space over Moscow (even though Budanov probably did know and I have also stated multiple times that the RusFed territory is too large to protect with their current means - but overall this was a surprise).

    Besides, there are something like 10 different nationalities doing the patrolling over the Baltic skies and these are actually meant to protect only civilian traffic, and most likely would not suffice during a military conflict (although they might at least partially). The relations are very friendly with other European soldiers.

    There is a lot of commerce in that region (always has been since times immemorial), plenty of Western investments there, it would be idiotic to not protect that area. It is not a gift, but a necessity for everyone. This matters a lot for Germany and Scandinavia.

    Above all, you personally are not entitled to any gratitude whatsoever, since you've clearly been an opponent of NATO enlargement and you have made several excuses for Russian aggression.

    Recently there was also a very touching video with Ukrainian and Spanish troops who provided some training, it was very friendly and touching as they were saying their farewells to the Ukrainians leaving for the front.

    You're the one whose constantly looking for strife, not us.


    But there’s very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don’t belong to the same family.
     
    I haven't seen examples of this, tbh. Lithuanians are Catholic so they like Italy.

    That you were called "a southern leftie" is actually very accurate (I recall you even mentioning attending some leftist rallies back in the day, probably early antifa movements) - there is such a type and it's a political not an ethnic thing. This type doesn't jive very well with the Anglo worldview. I'm not judging (there are reasons for that), but these are just facts.

    And another branch of my political family, that is even closer to me, are genetically ~60% Baltic, in all likelihood Lithuanian.
     
    This is quite sad and truly shows your hypocrisy - you were a leftie, yet once the wall fell, you ran and found yourself an Eastern Euro wife (basically for those times, took the easy route), and now you bitch about Balts. Wow, you're the one whose ungrateful.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC, @Mikel

  869. @songbird
    @A123

    I watched the Mando episode with Ahsoka. That was the one where they introduced the idea that there was a metal that could stand up to lightsabers. I did not feel the desire to see more of the character.

    I'm honestly puzzled why anyone thought it was a good idea to try to build a show around her.

    To a certain extent, it feels like women have taken over Hollywood. But in a way, it is kind of mysterious. I look at a lot of these projects, like Terminator: Dark Fate (never saw, but heard about - woman has a nuclear reactor where here womb should be and it is antinatalist) and it seems like they are often still written by men (if defectors from any sort of masculinity).

    But I suppose the politics of films is often much more complicated than just the writer in the credits. Like for example: O'Bannon's name is attached to Alien. He obviously had some influence on it, but it seems like a lot of his screenplay was thrown out, to the point where he felt betrayed.

    Replies: @A123

    I’m honestly puzzled why anyone thought it was a good idea to try to build a show around her.

    Ashoka’s appearance in Mando was a cameo for nostalgia. She had a strong character arc through Clone Wars and appeared in Rebels. They had a great deal to work with, but they screwed it up.

    To a certain extent, it feels like women have taken over Hollywood.

    it seems like they are often still written by men (if defectors from any sort of masculinity).

    Hollywood is being run into the ground by SJW progressives. Alpha women and their pathetic simps. Part of the issue is older men with experience have been sidelined. Efforts are so poorly planned and executed, they would likely be failures even if they were not pushing woke ideology.

    Ashoka is Filoni’s project and he has been around for awhile. This led to hope that the production would work despite corporate interference. Alas, being show running 1/2 hour animated series does not translate to full hour live action.

    PEACE 😇

  870. @Matra
    @Mikel

    I hope Elon knows what he's doing. Offending the Military Industrial Complex, Ukraine, and Jewish (ADL) lobbies (a lot of overlap there) in the same week is a good way to get destroyed in the US.

    Replies: @A123

    I hope Elon knows what he’s doing. Offending the Military Industrial Complex, Ukraine, and Jewish (ADL) lobbies (a lot of overlap there)

    Let me fix that for you…

    I hope Elon knows what he’s doing. Offending the NeoConDemocrat, Military Industrial Complex, Ukraine, Anti-Semite, ADL, and neo-Nazi lobbies (a lot of overlap there).

    Real practitioners of Judaism, especially Orthodox Jews, loathe the Leftoid secularists who have hijacked the ADL: (1)

    The ADL Is Not Jewish and No Longer Speaks for Jews

    Under Jonathan Greenblatt, they’ve lost focus, attacking conservatives instead of fighting anti-Semitism.

    Greenblatt, a hardened “progressive,” had just served as special assistant to the president in the Obama White House. He is an Obama acolyte through and through. From the day that he arrived, he converted the ADL into a markedly left-focused organization. Under Greenblatt, ADL has focused almost exclusively on combating right-wing hate and also attacking conservative non-haters among Republicans, Fox News anchors, and the like — while giving virtually free passes to the Left.

    For example, ADL presented data on anti-Semitism during the Trump presidency that defied reality. In one egregious case, they reported a 57 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents during Trump’s first year when other data showed a decrease. Notably, in blaming Trump’s emergence, they included in their tally some 150 bomb threats made to American Jewish institutions by a mentally disturbed Israeli Jewish teen who ultimately was convicted by a Tel Aviv court of phoning in thousands of such threats from overseas.

    The demise of ADL as a Jewish organization and its conversion into a mouthpiece for Obama acolytes has been mourned for the past five years.

    • Seth Mandel has written about it in Commentary.
    • Liel Leibovitz, another leading American Jewish commentator, wrote about it in the Wall Street Journal.
    • Investigative journalist Daniel Greenfield exposed further details in David Horowitz’s FrontPage Mag.
    • Likewise Andrew Harrod in Jihad Watch and the Orthodox Jewish online source Matzav.
    • Most recently, Jonathan Tobin has written about ADL’s pronouncedly left bias and “overhyped statistics” in several articles in JNS, a national Jewish news service.

    Christians & Jews stand together in their desire to Ban the ADL.

    Can we also Ban the DNC?

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) From 2021 — https://spectator.org/adl-jonathan-greenblatt-left/

  871. @Matra
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    I think 'Coloureds' in SA have undergone a kind of ethnogenesis. Speaking Afrikaans is, apparently, a vital part of their ethnic identity so if mixed race but not speaking Afrikaans maybe Shelton would be a separate category from Coloured. (On this subject I just noticed the South African rugby team is the blackest I've ever seen it).

    Replies: @LondonBob

    Cape Coloureds.

    Rugby is getting very black, very much a sport that suits their physique and nature. Cricket is a rare sport that has seen black participation decline, not just the US sports eroding interest in the Caribbean, but also amongst the blacks in white cricketing nations.

  872. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    The Western project in Ukraine seems like it is mostly intended to kill Slavs. What to do other than replace them with Jewish people from around the world?

    It is Putin that chose to invade and was killing thousands of Slavs on day one.

    But you are suggesting that he was duped by a Jewish conspiracy?

    They might start with the ones who don’t like Israel along with the ones that Israel doesn’t want such as Eritreans. These people would be set up in Ukraine (The New Pale) to have disproportionate political and economic power.

    What is your evidence of this plan to send Jews to Ukraine and create a new pale?

    The biggest challenge is they need more young Jewish women to make this scheme work.

    Do explain. Are you suggesting that Ukrainian Jewish women are going to import Eritrean husbands to create a new pale?

    Ukraine has less than 70k Jews.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ukraine

    Assuming normal population distribution that would mean that child bearing age Jewish women in Ukraine number less than 15,000 and no more than half would be single. Why don't you explain how 7,500 Jewish women are going to create a new pale.

    Replies: @QCIC

    As far as the combat is concerned, I don’t think people will be able to make sense of the Ukraine situation if they believe it started in 2022, 2015 or even 2014.

    The point about Jewish replacement is intended as a conversation starter or even a question. The link between Kolomoisky and Azov and Right Sector NeoNazi people still intrigues me so I am looking for any Jewish meaning in the West’s Ukrainian project. I keep hoping that someone here will have useful information which might be available in foreign media that I cannot read.

    I doubt many Israelis or Jewish people take Eritreans very seriously, so their role will be limited to that of pawn just like the Ukrainian Christians.

    I meant that a significant number of Jewish women would need to move to Ukraine. I don’t know what campaign would need be needed to entice them to relocate there but that is not my department. It might be a gradual long-term project.

    • Replies: @A123
    @QCIC


    Kolomoisky and Azov and Right Sector NeoNazi people still intrigues me so I am looking for any Jewish meaning in the West’s Ukrainian project
     
    You have been at this for awhile and come up empty. I respectfully suggest that you may wish to consider the most straightforward explanation why you are looking, but not finding. There is no "Jewish meaning" to be found in this unpleasant cast of disreputable characters:

    • Azov neo-Nazis are anti-Semitic
    • Zelensky is anti-Semitic
    • Kolomoisky is a criminal/oligarch

    Unlike Zelensky, Kolomoisky has not been caught being openly anti-Semitic. However, there are rumours that he feeds business rivals to his sharks. Literally. He owns sharks, like a Bond villain. (1)

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11704703/Bond-villain-oligarch-kept-SHARKS-office-links-Zelensky-home-raided.html

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW

    , @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    I meant that a significant number of Jewish women would need to move to Ukraine. I don’t know what campaign would need be needed to entice them to relocate there but that is not my department. It might be a gradual long-term project.

    Who is going to pay Jewish women to move to Ukraine? What would be the point?

  873. @AP
    @Mikel


    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn’t trigger the nuclear holocaust

    Yes. And you added that losing California to the Russians and then all of the US West up to Denver wouldn’t trigger a nuclear exchange either.
     

    I said that it probably would not, though I would not take that chance. You are 100% sure that American politicians would sacrifice themselves and their families for the sake of California or Utah?

    In my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe? Surely if military planners and politicians thought that trying to take Prague, or Bonn, would trigger a nuclear holocaust there was no need pack Europe with those massive conventional armies. But it was precisely because everyone who mattered understood that Moscow would not trigger MAD over Prague or Warsaw or Berlin, nor would the USA over Bonn, that each side maintained massive conventional armies in Europe. Because the nuclear weapons would not be used if Prague or Bonn were attacked - conventional armies were necessary to prevent that.

    Of course you conveniently ignored that.

    The purpose of the massive nuclear arsenals was to prevent one or the other side from making a Hiroshima in the other's home territory. And the danger of the nuclear arsenals was that one side might mistakenly think that the other was launching all of it's nukes, triggering a world-ending counter-response.


    It should be possible to argue in defense of the US providing military aid to your old country without making McGregor and QCIC look sane by comparison
     
    Saying that America wouldn't nuke the world or itself over Hawaii, and probably not even over California, is insane compared to MacGregor's claims, in your mind. Okay.

    "you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami."

    I don’t remember doing that

    But you did, quite recently
     

    Really? I looked and didn't find it:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=Yanomami&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=AP

    https://www.unz.com/?s=amazon&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=AP

    An example of you misattributing something?


    Note also that, unlike you, I do not claim to have any certainty of what exactly would happen under any particular scenario.
     
    A convenient excuse to take a pro-Russian position without defending the Russians.

    Evaluating risk requires evaluating the decision-makers and the circumstances involved. What is the nature of the people making the decision, and under what circumstances would they make the decision? And one should err on the side of caution. Would 70 year old grandfathers with histories of enjoying luxuries and of generally cautious actions nuke themselves and their families over Crimea? Certainly not. What about, say, Vladivostok and the entire far East? Probably not, but I would err on the side of caution and not take that chance.


    You have just also accused some Republican presidential candidates of being “pro-Russian”.
     
    If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it (while conveniently favoring policies that help Russia).

    So far Trump's position is unclear, though many of his followers such as Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian. Of course, many of Trump's followers also condemn the vaccine whose rapid development he himself is justifiably proud of.

    Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian. Hailey, Pence, Christie, DeSantis are not.


    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    In the same way that the Yemenis could claim that he “prevented” them from launching attacks against the Saudis that are killing their civilians by not providing them with his services.
     

    Did the Yemenis already have systems in place ready to take out the Saudi missiles, thus protecting their children, that were dependent on Musk only for him to, at the critical second, stop it?

    There must be lots of combatants around the world whose fighting capabilities would be greatly enhanced with on-demand satellite internet coverage
     
    Which ones are currently being invaded and are in a position to use Starlink to specifically take out long-range missile launchers?

    If Yemenis had a Starlink-integrated drone system that was on the verge of destroying Saudi missile launchers aimed at Yemeni cities and were about to complete a mission that would destroy those missile-launchers, and Musk stopped it at the last moment = Yemenis would have every right to be outraged.


    I find that accusing a well meaning private citizen who wants to help your people without running the risk of provoking WW3 of having blood in his hands is disgusting.
     
    As I said this says everything we need to know about you, and nothing about the Ukrainians.

    Ship missile-launchers specifically used to take out civilian areas were on the verge of being destroyed until Musk blocked it. As a result, these ships went on to launch hundreds of missiles, killing civilians including children. The blood of every child who was killed by missiles launched from these ships that only operate because of Musk's action is on his hands. That's simply a fact. At the same time, he also saved lots of soldier's lives by providing his system for their use for free. That is also a fact. So his legacy is mixed. One can both condemn him for one thing and praise him for another.

    But is is human and normal to be angry at him about the fact that missiles that kill civilians exist because of his action. That you find this to be "disgusting" (rather than Musk's refusal) reveals a real rottenness within you.

    But of course - you think that Russia would have nuked the world and itself because some it its missile launching ships would have been destroyed in Crimea. Is it rational - or a convenient excuse?

    It is interesting - you talk about the principle that people shouldn't put civilians at risk over a defense of their homeland, but here when a concrete direct action would have prevented civilian deaths - you are on the side of enabling those civilian killings to continue. And consider those who complain about making those killings possible "disgusting."


    I’m not surprised that even the former UK minister of defense, one of the persons on this planet who has done the most to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, accused the Ukrainians of being ungrateful before resigning.
     
    That's not quite how he put it:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/12/uk-defence-secretary-ben-wallace-suggests-ukraine-could-say-thank-you

    "Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, said that “whether we like it or not, people want to see a bit of gratitude”, when asked about Zelenskiy’s frustration at not being presented with a formal invitation to join Nato, and he advised Ukraine that it might help if it took a different approach."

    He then clarified:

    "There has been a lot of interest in my comments about how best to support Ukraine, and some misreporting.

    For the record, as someone who has been at the forefront of galvanising support for Ukraine, I was discussing the challenges that can occur as we work towards the shared aim of helping Ukraine procure what they need to triumph against this illegal invasion.

    I talked about the need for Ukraine to sometimes recognise that in many countries and in some Parliaments, there is not the strong support that there is in the UK.

    This was not a comment about governments, but more about citizens and MPs across the international community.

    We are lucky the UK population and all Parties in our Parliament support our efforts to equip Ukraine.

    Our approval ratings for support to Ukraine are some of the highest in Europe – over 70%.
    What my comments sought to reflect is that it is important to remember not to talk to ourselves, but to make efforts to reach out to the other citizens who still need persuading. The comments on “Amazon” were made last year and were made to highlight that Britain's relationship with Ukraine is not “transactional” but more a “partnership.”

    I will personally continue to support Ukraine all the way, for as long as it takes, but national Parliaments often have competing needs and Ukraine and the UK need to continue to encourage that strong support by the use of facts and friendship."

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

    Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian. Hailey, Pence, Christie, DeSantis are not.

    Off-topic, but in regards to Ramaswamy, I wonder whether he would be in favor of having India give up Kashmir, or at least the Muslim-majority part of Kashmir, to Pakistan in order to break up the Pakistan-China alliance. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, no? If the West should throw Ukraine under the bus in order to break up the Russo-Chinese alliance in his opinion, why shouldn’t the same logic apply in regards to India giving up Kashmir in order to break up the Pakistani-Chinese alliance?

    • Agree: sudden death
  874. @Dmitry
    @Mikel


    known from the start that he was going to become a pariah
     
    No, they didn't. They didn't expect so much of a negative reaction from the West.* It was expected it would be like Azerbaijan in 2020 or Crimea in 2014, where the West would see it as fait accompli and only follow mild sanctions.** For example, the Russian central bank stored $300 billion in NATO countries until after the invasion.

    Part of the reason of the unexpected strong reaction in the West, which I explained at the time, is because Western intelligence publicized the invasion four months before.

    Around October or November 2022, everyone who watches mainstream media in the world and CNN knew Russia was going to invade Ukraine, this is months before even most of the Russian army knew they were going to invade Ukraine all the American television was posting the plan to invade Ukraine. Russia has prepared no casus belli and Moscow has to lie to even friendly allies like Macron before the invasion.

    Another issue is there has been years of anti-Western propaganda supported by Moscow, so Russia was becoming labeled as "anti-Western", while Azerbaijan was more intelligent and viewed as ambiguous.

    -

    *In 2015, they believed the military operation in Syria would improve relations with the West as a result of leverage, this was also how it was promoted in the television at the time. The prediction of how the West will respond is not very developed.

    **Sanctions after 2014 were very weak. The cause of the problem in the Russian economy was lower prices of oil.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ

    *In 2015, they believed the military operation in Syria would improve relations with the West as a result of leverage, this was also how it was promoted in the television at the time. The prediction of how the West will respond is not very developed.

    Russia’s intervention in Syria was arguably a good thing since I fear that what could replace Assad (in spite of Assad himself being a huge ass) could be even worse than Assad himself would be. But the West would not sacrifice Ukraine for the sake of achieving Russian concessions in Syria. Ukraine is much more important for the West than Syria is. Syria doesn’t have Ukraine’s levels of human capital, after all.

  875. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Trump administration in office wouldn’t have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition

    The response of Trump would have been weaker for Russia in comparison with Biden where the response has been more strong than probably anyone has expected, especially in Moscow.
     
    Doubtful, with Pompeo in charge.

    I think, however, that Trump would have deterred an attack. Biden seemed to be predictably weak like Obama, which encouraged Putin to act. Biden's later behavior was surprising. Your analogy to the mousetrap was a correct one. If Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.

    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.

    36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in

    There is confusing language. Except a small minority, these people are not Ukrainians and Poles. Only a small proportion of this number are people from Ukraine or Poland.
     
    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine. They are more pro-Ukraine than American Jews are pro-Israel. Being born in the USA doesn't change that. Likewise for many Poles.

    Pole are more assimilated than Ukrainians, but there are many more of them. If only 10% of Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe that (plus Ukrainian votes) will be enough to sway the election in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If Trump chooses Vivek, Green or some other pro-Russian as his running mate he will lose those states.

    They are mostly native Americans which have ancestry from Poland or Ukraine in a different century like most Americans. Americans who are arrivals of the late 19th century and later created a concept of ethnic pride and express this with some events like “Columbus day” or “St Patrick’s day”.
     
    If Ireland were invaded what do you think would happen to the Irish-American vote if a candidate supported the invader?

    In 2012, most Polish Americans voted for Obama against Romney. In 2016, mostly voted for Trump against Clinton (Trump was pro-Russia/Clinton anti-Russia).
     
    Most Ukrainian nationalists voted for Trump and against Clinton because they correctly viewed the collusion story as a hoax (probably spread by Russia itself) and because the Obama administration had been anti-Ukrainian. Clinton anti-Russia was a story for ignorant people; Eastern Europeans knew better.

    Here is a Ukrainian nationalist writing about Clinton, in 2016:

    https://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/whos-truly-beholden-to-the-kremlin/

    Let’s cut through the hysteria and examine the facts.

    Long before Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump exchanged compliments, Bill Clinton received a phone call from Mr. Putin in 2010 thanking him personally for delivering a speech for $500,000, paid by a Russian investment bank that was promoting shares in a company that controlled 20 percent of America’s supply of uranium, a critical component in nuclear weapons.

    The State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, signed off on the deal just two months after her husband’s speech, enabling the Russian state nuclear agency to not only acquire 20 percent of America’s uranium but also own the land in which the deposits are located.

    She was also secretary of state when $145 million in donations reached the Clinton Foundation from the shareholders of the company that sold America’s uranium.

    Yet that wasn’t the only money the Clintons raised from the Russians that resulted in the exchange for sensitive materials.

    Out of 28 American, European and Russian companies that participated in the transfer of classified technology to the Skolkovo technology park outside of Moscow, 17 were Clinton Foundation donors or paid for speeches by Mr. Clinton.

    By 2014, when Russia was invading Ukraine, the FBI issued “an extraordinary warning” to several technology companies involved with Skolkovo. The true motives of the Russians is to gain access to classified, sensitive and emerging technology from the companies, an FBI agent warned.

    John Podesta, the chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, sat on the executive board, alongside key Russian officials, of an energy company that received the FBI’s warning. That didn’t stop him from accepting $35 million from a Putin-connected government fund.

    E-mails released by Wikileaks showed that Mr. Podesta continued to be involved in the company in 2015, even after the Russian invasion and after claiming to be divested. Furthermore, Mr. Podesta is reported to have received $5.25 million for his think tank, Center for American Progress, through a secretive chain of entities that could lead to Russian oligarchs, among them Ruben Vardanyan, who sat on the energy company board, according to the Government Accountability Institute.

    Hillary Clinton supporters erupted in outrage when Mr. Trump hired Paul Manafort to help run his campaign. (Is it not a positive signal that Mr. Trump dumped him after such criticism?) But their silence was deafening when it was revealed in late August that Mr. Manafort hired the Podesta Group to lobby on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych’s allies in the Party of Regions.

    The Podesta Group lobbied until 2014 to downplay the need for a congressional resolution to pressure Mr. Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, the Associated Press reported. Moreover, it failed to file the proper paperwork, making the lobbying illegal.

    Clinton supporters also drummed up hysteria about Mr. Trump being too busy to meet with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

    Yet that pales in comparison to the very same Mr. Podesta – having already taken millions as part of sensitive technology transfers – reacting with disinterest (as revealed by Wikileaks) to Victor Pinchuk’s pleas to get Mr. Clinton and a group of Western leaders to voice support for Ukraine as the Russian military aggression peaked in the winter of 2015.

    Now the FBI has confirmed this week that its investigations of Mr. Trump, launched in the summer, have uncovered no ties to the Kremlin. Nothing. Nichoho. Zero.

    Voters should consider that the Clintons and Mr. Podesta have far more questionable ties to the Kremlin, possibly criminal, than Mr. Trump and his entourage.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

    Long before Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump exchanged compliments, Bill Clinton received a phone call from Mr. Putin in 2010 thanking him personally for delivering a speech for $500,000, paid by a Russian investment bank that was promoting shares in a company that controlled 20 percent of America’s supply of uranium, a critical component in nuclear weapons.

    TBF, being Russia-friendly was more prestigious before 2014. Did Bush’s missile defense plan and 2008 Bucharest Declaration in regards to Ukraine’s and Georgia’s future being in NATO without actually giving either of these two countries a NATO MAP really produce good outcomes?

  876. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    According to the Basque school of international relations, it was dangerous and reckless for Latvia to humiliate Lithuania in a basketball tournament.
     
    I've seen you do much better than that. I appreciate sarcasm as much as anyone but you've really tried too hard there to piece together two subjects that don't fit at all.

    In any case, that would rather be an anti-Basque school of international relations. Where I grew up the message all around me was that we were part of a large international struggle for national and social liberation and that we had to dismantle all the state structures of the enemy. It's hard to believe it these days but ETA's strategy was to provoke the reactionary elements in the Spanish military with targeted killings that they hoped would cause a return to a dictatorship in Spain. They considered the Spanish democracy to be totally fake because it denied us the democratic right to self-determination but it was credible enough for many Basques to have abandoned support for armed struggle so they preferred the return to a fight against a naked oppressor. They were actually pretty close to getting their goal.

    But well, based on facts rather than ideas, there's no denying the Serbian school of international relations was even more extreme. I've seen some documentaries and you had some very nasty stuff going on there.

    I think you're betting on the wrong horse here though. One of the problems of these new Europeans spawned from the Sovok Union (not to be confused with the less mercurial EEs to their West) is that time seems to have frozen in the 40s for them. Anyone left of Attila is a "leftie" in their view.

    The other problem, that we've just been discussing wrt their big Southern cousin, is ingratitude. Right now they have Spanish and Italian pilots in their skies, protecting them from that phantasmagorical threat from the Russkies, who can barely defend the airspace over Moscow. And the Spaniards used to have a mechanized battalion stationed somewhere in the Baltics for the same solidary purposes. But there's very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don't belong to the same family. Their natural position in Europe is of course close to the Germanics. Remember that equally incongruent remark of "you are not an Anglo" from the other Balt resident here? Looks like they cannot help themselves. Good luck getting a better treatment from them as a Southeast Euro than the Southwestern ones lol.

    PS- For the record, I don't really hold any animosity towards Balts whatsoever. My ex mother in law, that I am in very good terms with, was born in Vilnius. And another branch of my political family, that is even closer to me, are genetically ~60% Baltic, in all likelihood Lithuanian. Good people all of them. But let's be real and not get too carried away. This Frankenstein patchwork called the EU has more holes in it than a coffee strainer.

    Replies: @sudden death, @silviosilver, @LatW

    btw, southern euro itself isn’t automatically equal to leftie – there are relatively nice looking and behaving euro southern righties as well, like Meloni in Italy or Greek ruling party these days too;)

  877. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    As far as the combat is concerned, I don't think people will be able to make sense of the Ukraine situation if they believe it started in 2022, 2015 or even 2014.

    The point about Jewish replacement is intended as a conversation starter or even a question. The link between Kolomoisky and Azov and Right Sector NeoNazi people still intrigues me so I am looking for any Jewish meaning in the West's Ukrainian project. I keep hoping that someone here will have useful information which might be available in foreign media that I cannot read.

    I doubt many Israelis or Jewish people take Eritreans very seriously, so their role will be limited to that of pawn just like the Ukrainian Christians.

    I meant that a significant number of Jewish women would need to move to Ukraine. I don't know what campaign would need be needed to entice them to relocate there but that is not my department. It might be a gradual long-term project.

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson

    Kolomoisky and Azov and Right Sector NeoNazi people still intrigues me so I am looking for any Jewish meaning in the West’s Ukrainian project

    You have been at this for awhile and come up empty. I respectfully suggest that you may wish to consider the most straightforward explanation why you are looking, but not finding. There is no “Jewish meaning” to be found in this unpleasant cast of disreputable characters:

    • Azov neo-Nazis are anti-Semitic
    • Zelensky is anti-Semitic
    • Kolomoisky is a criminal/oligarch

    Unlike Zelensky, Kolomoisky has not been caught being openly anti-Semitic. However, there are rumours that he feeds business rivals to his sharks. Literally. He owns sharks, like a Bond villain. (1)

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11704703/Bond-villain-oligarch-kept-SHARKS-office-links-Zelensky-home-raided.html

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @A123

    Sometimes I like a good mystery.

    Understanding the machinations of the oligarchs may give more insight into the conflict than all the Hodges-Macgregor debates one could wish for.

    From what I have seen Kolomoisky is highly philosemitic. Though sharks are not Kosher...

    You may be on to something. We are now on the lookout for members of the Azov brigade who are observant Jews!

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    , @LatW
    @A123


    Azov neo-Nazis are anti-Semitic
     
    They are way less anti-Semitic than the Russian Zs many of whom are just rabid anti-Semites in the best tradition of the Black hundreds whom they admire and want to emulate. Anti-Semitism has recently increased among Zs since they're looking for the guilty one who could be blamed for this fiasco.

    The Azov are more Euro style ethnonats who are fighting for their homeland.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  878. @AP
    @Mikel


    I said that losing Crimea (or Hawaii) wouldn’t trigger the nuclear holocaust

    Yes. And you added that losing California to the Russians and then all of the US West up to Denver wouldn’t trigger a nuclear exchange either.
     

    I said that it probably would not, though I would not take that chance. You are 100% sure that American politicians would sacrifice themselves and their families for the sake of California or Utah?

    In my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe? Surely if military planners and politicians thought that trying to take Prague, or Bonn, would trigger a nuclear holocaust there was no need pack Europe with those massive conventional armies. But it was precisely because everyone who mattered understood that Moscow would not trigger MAD over Prague or Warsaw or Berlin, nor would the USA over Bonn, that each side maintained massive conventional armies in Europe. Because the nuclear weapons would not be used if Prague or Bonn were attacked - conventional armies were necessary to prevent that.

    Of course you conveniently ignored that.

    The purpose of the massive nuclear arsenals was to prevent one or the other side from making a Hiroshima in the other's home territory. And the danger of the nuclear arsenals was that one side might mistakenly think that the other was launching all of it's nukes, triggering a world-ending counter-response.


    It should be possible to argue in defense of the US providing military aid to your old country without making McGregor and QCIC look sane by comparison
     
    Saying that America wouldn't nuke the world or itself over Hawaii, and probably not even over California, is insane compared to MacGregor's claims, in your mind. Okay.

    "you came up with that bizarre idea that if I oppose the US getting involved in some Amazonian jungle tribal warfare, that makes me a supporter of the Yanomami."

    I don’t remember doing that

    But you did, quite recently
     

    Really? I looked and didn't find it:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=Yanomami&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=AP

    https://www.unz.com/?s=amazon&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=AP

    An example of you misattributing something?


    Note also that, unlike you, I do not claim to have any certainty of what exactly would happen under any particular scenario.
     
    A convenient excuse to take a pro-Russian position without defending the Russians.

    Evaluating risk requires evaluating the decision-makers and the circumstances involved. What is the nature of the people making the decision, and under what circumstances would they make the decision? And one should err on the side of caution. Would 70 year old grandfathers with histories of enjoying luxuries and of generally cautious actions nuke themselves and their families over Crimea? Certainly not. What about, say, Vladivostok and the entire far East? Probably not, but I would err on the side of caution and not take that chance.


    You have just also accused some Republican presidential candidates of being “pro-Russian”.
     
    If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it (while conveniently favoring policies that help Russia).

    So far Trump's position is unclear, though many of his followers such as Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian. Of course, many of Trump's followers also condemn the vaccine whose rapid development he himself is justifiably proud of.

    Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian. Hailey, Pence, Christie, DeSantis are not.


    He prevented the Ukrainians from taking out missile ships that kill Ukrainian civilians. How many civilians were later killed as a result of what he did?

    In the same way that the Yemenis could claim that he “prevented” them from launching attacks against the Saudis that are killing their civilians by not providing them with his services.
     

    Did the Yemenis already have systems in place ready to take out the Saudi missiles, thus protecting their children, that were dependent on Musk only for him to, at the critical second, stop it?

    There must be lots of combatants around the world whose fighting capabilities would be greatly enhanced with on-demand satellite internet coverage
     
    Which ones are currently being invaded and are in a position to use Starlink to specifically take out long-range missile launchers?

    If Yemenis had a Starlink-integrated drone system that was on the verge of destroying Saudi missile launchers aimed at Yemeni cities and were about to complete a mission that would destroy those missile-launchers, and Musk stopped it at the last moment = Yemenis would have every right to be outraged.


    I find that accusing a well meaning private citizen who wants to help your people without running the risk of provoking WW3 of having blood in his hands is disgusting.
     
    As I said this says everything we need to know about you, and nothing about the Ukrainians.

    Ship missile-launchers specifically used to take out civilian areas were on the verge of being destroyed until Musk blocked it. As a result, these ships went on to launch hundreds of missiles, killing civilians including children. The blood of every child who was killed by missiles launched from these ships that only operate because of Musk's action is on his hands. That's simply a fact. At the same time, he also saved lots of soldier's lives by providing his system for their use for free. That is also a fact. So his legacy is mixed. One can both condemn him for one thing and praise him for another.

    But is is human and normal to be angry at him about the fact that missiles that kill civilians exist because of his action. That you find this to be "disgusting" (rather than Musk's refusal) reveals a real rottenness within you.

    But of course - you think that Russia would have nuked the world and itself because some it its missile launching ships would have been destroyed in Crimea. Is it rational - or a convenient excuse?

    It is interesting - you talk about the principle that people shouldn't put civilians at risk over a defense of their homeland, but here when a concrete direct action would have prevented civilian deaths - you are on the side of enabling those civilian killings to continue. And consider those who complain about making those killings possible "disgusting."


    I’m not surprised that even the former UK minister of defense, one of the persons on this planet who has done the most to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, accused the Ukrainians of being ungrateful before resigning.
     
    That's not quite how he put it:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/12/uk-defence-secretary-ben-wallace-suggests-ukraine-could-say-thank-you

    "Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, said that “whether we like it or not, people want to see a bit of gratitude”, when asked about Zelenskiy’s frustration at not being presented with a formal invitation to join Nato, and he advised Ukraine that it might help if it took a different approach."

    He then clarified:

    "There has been a lot of interest in my comments about how best to support Ukraine, and some misreporting.

    For the record, as someone who has been at the forefront of galvanising support for Ukraine, I was discussing the challenges that can occur as we work towards the shared aim of helping Ukraine procure what they need to triumph against this illegal invasion.

    I talked about the need for Ukraine to sometimes recognise that in many countries and in some Parliaments, there is not the strong support that there is in the UK.

    This was not a comment about governments, but more about citizens and MPs across the international community.

    We are lucky the UK population and all Parties in our Parliament support our efforts to equip Ukraine.

    Our approval ratings for support to Ukraine are some of the highest in Europe – over 70%.
    What my comments sought to reflect is that it is important to remember not to talk to ourselves, but to make efforts to reach out to the other citizens who still need persuading. The comments on “Amazon” were made last year and were made to highlight that Britain's relationship with Ukraine is not “transactional” but more a “partnership.”

    I will personally continue to support Ukraine all the way, for as long as it takes, but national Parliaments often have competing needs and Ukraine and the UK need to continue to encourage that strong support by the use of facts and friendship."

    Replies: @Mikel, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

    But of course – you think that Russia would have nuked the world and itself because some it its missile launching ships would have been destroyed in Crimea. Is it rational – or a convenient excuse?

    Not the world and itself; just some Ukrainian cities, especially those that are filled to the core with alleged Banderists.

  879. @Mikel
    @AP


    In my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe?
     
    Because, unlike you, they were all about as clueless as myself about how things could play out if hostilities broke? Because they actually hoped to prevent escalation to nuclear war by dissuading the Russians from thinking that they could prevail through conventional means? Lots of rational reasons come to mind without having to entertain the wacky idea that they all secretly knew that nuclear war would never be fought but somehow managed to keep that secret away from the plebes for generations. In fact, contrary to everything you're saying, using nuclear weapons if the Warsaw Pact overrun NATO conventional forces in Europe was official military doctrine.

    And, once again, I am not saying that all US Presidents and Pentagon leaders during the Cold War didn't have the secret intention of ignoring their own military doctrine, hard though I find to believe that. What I'm saying is that your claim of knowing that that was the case is totally bonkers.

    An example of you misattributing something?
     
    No. A surprising example of you being unable to find something that must have been staring at you in the eyes.

    I can't be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder. But I'll give you an excellent hint you have provided yourself with your own accusations in this very post: "If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it .../... Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian .../... Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian".

    Did the Yemenis already have systems in place ready to take out the Saudi missiles, thus protecting their children, that were dependent on Musk only for him to, at the critical second, stop it?
     
    I'm going to consider this a case of you continuing to get your information from shady sources like that Theiner Russophobe. For obvious reasons, Musk never enabled Starlink over Crimea. It is a lie that he "stopped" the coverage over Sevastopol because it wasn't enabled to begin with. He received a request from Ukraine to enable it for a surprise attack on the Russian fleet that could or could not have sunk any Russian ship with his explicit collaboration in the plot and he declined to participate.

    I'll ignore everything you've been saying on this issue, including some sloppy attacks on my personality, on the grounds that you seem to have fallen hook, sink and liner for the lies of the woke media, allied once again with Kiev. But I still find your accusation to Elon of having blood in his hands very distasteful. You didn't even bother to check what his own reply was. And Elon obviously has every right in the world to limit his help to Ukraine, or even suspend it altogether, based on what he personally thinks is best for humanity without being called disgusting names.

    Replies: @Matra, @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    FWIW, I don’t view that part of AP’s post too objectionable:

    I can’t be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder. But I’ll give you an excellent hint you have provided yourself with your own accusations in this very post: “If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it …/… Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian …/… Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian”.

    I just think that if Russia would have used nuclear weapons on Ukrainian cities that are filled to the core with alleged Banderists, then this would have been considerably worse for Ukraine than having regular Russian missiles be lobbed at its cities, no? Maybe this risk wouldn’t have happened, but one can’t be 100% sure and would prefer not to risk it. Such a move does not have to trigger global nuclear war because the West will not respond to this with nukes. Even if the West will militarily respond conventionally, a lot of Ukrainian civilians are still going to be dead if their cities already got nuked.

    Had it not been for Vasily Arkhipov, a whole lot of people could have lost their lives back in 1962 as a result of JFK’s brinkmanship (naval blockade) over Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. By AP’s own logic, the other two members of the crew on Arkhipov’s submarine should not have been anywhere near as eager or willing to launch nuclear weapons as they actually were.

    Hell, Hitler warned in early 1939 that European Jewry will be annihilated if another World War will break out, and that’s ultimately what happened, with him and/or other Nazis subsequently referring to this prophecy of his to justify the Holocaust:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_prophecy

    AP is saying that Hitler was a childless freak, and that’s accurate, but at the same time, JFK was not.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mr. XYZ

    Hell, Hitler warned in early 1939 that European Jewry will be annihilated if another World War will break out, and that’s ultimately what happened, with him and/or other Nazis subsequently referring to this prophecy of his to justify the Holocaust:

    He supposedly told a friend in the early 1930s that he planned on killing the Jews if he took power. He also wrote that the loss of WW1 would have been acceptable if German Jews had been killed.

    I actually don't believe that the final solution was a decision he made after 1939.

    I think that was the plan from the beginning but he only expedited the goal after realizing the possibility of losing or being killed. As part of Ost Front they were going to send both Jews and Slavs to Siberia. Basically report to the world that they were relocating them while knowing that most would be killed by exposure or starvation.

    Hitler was truly obsessed with the Jews. Greece had a very small Jewish population and yet he insisted on rounding them up.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

  880. @A123
    @QCIC


    Kolomoisky and Azov and Right Sector NeoNazi people still intrigues me so I am looking for any Jewish meaning in the West’s Ukrainian project
     
    You have been at this for awhile and come up empty. I respectfully suggest that you may wish to consider the most straightforward explanation why you are looking, but not finding. There is no "Jewish meaning" to be found in this unpleasant cast of disreputable characters:

    • Azov neo-Nazis are anti-Semitic
    • Zelensky is anti-Semitic
    • Kolomoisky is a criminal/oligarch

    Unlike Zelensky, Kolomoisky has not been caught being openly anti-Semitic. However, there are rumours that he feeds business rivals to his sharks. Literally. He owns sharks, like a Bond villain. (1)

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11704703/Bond-villain-oligarch-kept-SHARKS-office-links-Zelensky-home-raided.html

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW

    Sometimes I like a good mystery.

    Understanding the machinations of the oligarchs may give more insight into the conflict than all the Hodges-Macgregor debates one could wish for.

    From what I have seen Kolomoisky is highly philosemitic. Though sharks are not Kosher…

    You may be on to something. We are now on the lookout for members of the Azov brigade who are observant Jews!

    • LOL: A123
    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @QCIC


    From what I have seen Kolomoisky is highly philosemitic.
     
    He paid for a Jewish community center or something in Dniepro which is the biggest most expensive in the world.

    Didn't the Nazis clear all the Jews out of Dniepro? The Soviets must have done serious ethnic repopulation or something.
  881. @QCIC
    @A123

    Sometimes I like a good mystery.

    Understanding the machinations of the oligarchs may give more insight into the conflict than all the Hodges-Macgregor debates one could wish for.

    From what I have seen Kolomoisky is highly philosemitic. Though sharks are not Kosher...

    You may be on to something. We are now on the lookout for members of the Azov brigade who are observant Jews!

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    From what I have seen Kolomoisky is highly philosemitic.

    He paid for a Jewish community center or something in Dniepro which is the biggest most expensive in the world.

    Didn’t the Nazis clear all the Jews out of Dniepro? The Soviets must have done serious ethnic repopulation or something.

  882. @Mikel
    @AP


    In my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe?
     
    Because, unlike you, they were all about as clueless as myself about how things could play out if hostilities broke? Because they actually hoped to prevent escalation to nuclear war by dissuading the Russians from thinking that they could prevail through conventional means? Lots of rational reasons come to mind without having to entertain the wacky idea that they all secretly knew that nuclear war would never be fought but somehow managed to keep that secret away from the plebes for generations. In fact, contrary to everything you're saying, using nuclear weapons if the Warsaw Pact overrun NATO conventional forces in Europe was official military doctrine.

    And, once again, I am not saying that all US Presidents and Pentagon leaders during the Cold War didn't have the secret intention of ignoring their own military doctrine, hard though I find to believe that. What I'm saying is that your claim of knowing that that was the case is totally bonkers.

    An example of you misattributing something?
     
    No. A surprising example of you being unable to find something that must have been staring at you in the eyes.

    I can't be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder. But I'll give you an excellent hint you have provided yourself with your own accusations in this very post: "If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it .../... Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian .../... Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian".

    Did the Yemenis already have systems in place ready to take out the Saudi missiles, thus protecting their children, that were dependent on Musk only for him to, at the critical second, stop it?
     
    I'm going to consider this a case of you continuing to get your information from shady sources like that Theiner Russophobe. For obvious reasons, Musk never enabled Starlink over Crimea. It is a lie that he "stopped" the coverage over Sevastopol because it wasn't enabled to begin with. He received a request from Ukraine to enable it for a surprise attack on the Russian fleet that could or could not have sunk any Russian ship with his explicit collaboration in the plot and he declined to participate.

    I'll ignore everything you've been saying on this issue, including some sloppy attacks on my personality, on the grounds that you seem to have fallen hook, sink and liner for the lies of the woke media, allied once again with Kiev. But I still find your accusation to Elon of having blood in his hands very distasteful. You didn't even bother to check what his own reply was. And Elon obviously has every right in the world to limit his help to Ukraine, or even suspend it altogether, based on what he personally thinks is best for humanity without being called disgusting names.

    Replies: @Matra, @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    n my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe?

    Because, unlike you, they were all about as clueless as myself about how things could play out if hostilities broke?

    I agree with them, and you disagree with everyone else.

    Because they actually hoped to prevent escalation to nuclear war by dissuading the Russians from thinking that they could prevail through conventional means?

    But if the response to an attempt to capture cities by conventional means meant use of world-ending nukes as you claim, then massive armies were unnecessary. Surely, if they thought as you did, they would not have dared to capture Prague with 10 tanks given that doing so, according to you, would have meant the end of the world.

    In fact, contrary to everything you’re saying, using nuclear weapons if the Warsaw Pact overrun NATO conventional forces in Europe was official military doctrine.

    Tactical nukes, not world-ending nuke strike that would have killed your family in Utah (if you had been living there).

    Remember, your excuse for doing nothing as Ukrainians are slaughtered is your claim that helping the Ukrainians will result in the world getting nuked.

    Tactical nukes are a different story.

    Until 1967 NATO had a no first use doctrine, but as the Soviet’s conventional advantage grew, NATO decided that they would use tactical nukes on the battlefield if their conventional forces were defeated.

    Using tactical nukes on the battlefield to prevent the Soviets from taking Bonn is not the same thing as sacrificing all of the USA for the sake of Bonn by using nuclear ICBMs to strike Moscow and the rest of the USSR.

    USA would not sacrifice itself over Bonn.

    An example of you misattributing something?

    No. A surprising example of you being unable to find something that must have been staring at you in the eyes.

    I can’t be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder.

    I did – I posted my search results.

    You made a claim, prove it. Or take it back.

    I can’t disprove a fiction, other than to show that the search results did not show what you claim I said.

    For obvious reasons, Musk never enabled Starlink over Crimea. It is a lie that he “stopped” the coverage over Sevastopol because it wasn’t enabled to begin with. He received a request from Ukraine to enable it for a surprise attack on the Russian fleet that could or could not have sunk any Russian ship with his explicit collaboration in the plot and he declined to participate.

    That was his claim after the backlash. Maybe the reporter was wrong the first time. Or maybe Musk hadn’t expected the backlash so he made a better story.

    According to Rushton:

    “I reached out to a source close to the Ukrainian drone programme about these claims.

    They confirmed Starlink had been previously enabled in the area in question – which is why Ukraine had used USVs that relied on Starlink for navigation – and that Musk had “turned it off”.

    This is, by the way, exactly what Walter Isaacson originally wrote – both in his biography of Elon Musk, and in an op-ed for the Washington Post, promoting said book:

    So we see above, Russia lied that it would use nukes if Crimea were attacked, and got what it wanted. (the lie works, so why not use often?)

    Now logically, would the plan even have been put in place if the Starlink system had not been enabled?

    But I still find your accusation to Elon of having blood in his hands very distasteful.

    The fact that Elon has blood on his hands is indeed distasteful.

    He took a course of action that saved Russian missile ships, that had been bombing Ukrainian cities, and that subsequently launched more missiles and killed civilians. That blood is therefore very much on his hands.

    And you are more outraged by people being angry at Musk’s action that resulted in dead civilians (you called their reaction “disgusting”), than at Musk. Indeed, you probably approved of allowing those missile ships to continue to exist and to kill Ukrainian civilians. Because of the convenient fiction that taking them out would have resulted in America getting nuked.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Because of the convenient fiction that taking them out would have resulted in America getting nuked.
     
    What if one doesn't believe that but believes that Ukrainian cities could have gotten nuked by Russia as retaliation for this? I doubt that there are very many people whom Russia cares about in, say, Lviv or Ternopil or Ivano-Frankivsk, which Russia views as thoroughly Banderist-infested. (Nuking Kiev, as the center of Russian history and culture, would be harder to justify, even if Russia doesn't care for the people there. Though I suppose that Russia could conclude that even Kiev deserves a good nuking if it itself can't have it. Though nukings elsewhere in Ukraine further to the west would have been more likely if they would have occurred at all, which I can't guarantee.)

    Replies: @AP

    , @QCIC
    @AP

    It is not lying to point out that the risk of everyone losing is significant.

    By the way, at this point some of us are most worried about some irrational Ukrainian zealot (you know the type) setting off a false flag nuke somewhere just to see Rome burn.

  883. @QCIC
    @Mr. XYZ

    Increasing the Jewish population seems like part of the overall plan for the Western project in Ukraine. It will be interesting to see what the Zionist masters do after this Ukrainian project fails. They will probably send in swarms of voracious carpet baggers into the new Russian republic formerly known as Ukraine. Maybe the scattered remnants of the NeoNazis will be able to keep these carpetbaggers in check.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Wokechoke

    Will send?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Wokechoke

    You ain't seen nothing yet! "Don't worry, we are here to help."

    I wonder whatever happened to the Russian bureaucrat who last year referred to Chabad as a bunch of satanists or however he worded it?

  884. @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver

    I would highly advise you to read the article that I linked to above. Yes, Nazi and Ottoman delusions were primarily responsible for the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. However, they were delusions that pertained to their regime security: Nazi Germany was convinced that International Jewry (which didn't exist except in the Nazis' heads, but perceptions matter much more than reality) was trying to destroy the Nazi German regime and the Ottomans were convinced that the Armenians were a dangerous pro-Russian fifth column who could potentially help the Russians conquer eastern Anatolia and even perhaps ethnically cleanse eastern Anatolia of its Muslims after conquering it.

    The proper strategy from a foreign policy realist perspective in such scenarios would have probably been for the West to give the Nazis a carte blanche to expand eastwards just so long as they will never commit any mass murder or forced sterilization or anything like that and for Russia to give territorial concessions and possibly debt relief to the Ottoman Empire in 1914 in exchange for keeping the Ottoman Empire neutral in WWI and thus making the Ottomans less paranoid about their own Armenian population.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    I would highly advise you to read the article that I linked to above.

    I did. Unsurprisingly, there was absolutely nothing in there that would help relate Jewish/Armenian genocide to security dilemma logic.

    Yes, Nazi and Ottoman delusions were primarily responsible for the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. However, they were delusions that pertained to their regime security:

    That has nothing to do with security dilemma logic. The core of the security dilemma is the misperception (including perfectly rational misperception, not mere “delusion”) that defensive measures country A is taking to enhance country A’s security are an offensive dagger aimed at the heart of country B, which then feels compelled to respond in kind by enhancing its own security, which country A then misperceives as offensive…. etc.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver


    That has nothing to do with security dilemma logic. The core of the security dilemma is the misperception (including perfectly rational misperception, not mere “delusion”) that defensive measures country A is taking to enhance country A’s security are an offensive dagger aimed at the heart of country B, which then feels compelled to respond in kind by enhancing its own security, which country A then misperceives as offensive…. etc.
     
    Well, the Anglo-French moves to defend Poland were certainly viewed by the Anglo-French as being defensive in nature, though Nazi Germany interpreted these moves, quite accurately, as an existential threat to the Nazi German regime since in all likelihood the Anglo-French would stop at nothing short of full-on regime change in Nazi Germany.

    For that matter, the Franco-Soviet Pact of 1935, France's alliances with Czechoslovakia and Poland, Czechoslovakia's alliance with the USSR, and Britain's alliance with Poland were all viewed as defensive by those countries but as offensive and as threatening encirclement by Nazi Germany.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  885. @songbird
    I don't believe that Prigozhin faked his own death, but just to use it as a springboard... I wonder how difficult it would be to seed human remains with your own DNA, such that the bog standard forensics tests would identify the corpse as you.

    I'm thinking it might possible with a skeleton, but difficult with a cadaver.

    Replies: @(((They))) Live, @Wokechoke

    That’s one dead Jew.

  886. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    According to the Basque school of international relations, it was dangerous and reckless for Latvia to humiliate Lithuania in a basketball tournament.
     
    I've seen you do much better than that. I appreciate sarcasm as much as anyone but you've really tried too hard there to piece together two subjects that don't fit at all.

    In any case, that would rather be an anti-Basque school of international relations. Where I grew up the message all around me was that we were part of a large international struggle for national and social liberation and that we had to dismantle all the state structures of the enemy. It's hard to believe it these days but ETA's strategy was to provoke the reactionary elements in the Spanish military with targeted killings that they hoped would cause a return to a dictatorship in Spain. They considered the Spanish democracy to be totally fake because it denied us the democratic right to self-determination but it was credible enough for many Basques to have abandoned support for armed struggle so they preferred the return to a fight against a naked oppressor. They were actually pretty close to getting their goal.

    But well, based on facts rather than ideas, there's no denying the Serbian school of international relations was even more extreme. I've seen some documentaries and you had some very nasty stuff going on there.

    I think you're betting on the wrong horse here though. One of the problems of these new Europeans spawned from the Sovok Union (not to be confused with the less mercurial EEs to their West) is that time seems to have frozen in the 40s for them. Anyone left of Attila is a "leftie" in their view.

    The other problem, that we've just been discussing wrt their big Southern cousin, is ingratitude. Right now they have Spanish and Italian pilots in their skies, protecting them from that phantasmagorical threat from the Russkies, who can barely defend the airspace over Moscow. And the Spaniards used to have a mechanized battalion stationed somewhere in the Baltics for the same solidary purposes. But there's very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don't belong to the same family. Their natural position in Europe is of course close to the Germanics. Remember that equally incongruent remark of "you are not an Anglo" from the other Balt resident here? Looks like they cannot help themselves. Good luck getting a better treatment from them as a Southeast Euro than the Southwestern ones lol.

    PS- For the record, I don't really hold any animosity towards Balts whatsoever. My ex mother in law, that I am in very good terms with, was born in Vilnius. And another branch of my political family, that is even closer to me, are genetically ~60% Baltic, in all likelihood Lithuanian. Good people all of them. But let's be real and not get too carried away. This Frankenstein patchwork called the EU has more holes in it than a coffee strainer.

    Replies: @sudden death, @silviosilver, @LatW

    But there’s very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don’t belong to the same family. Their natural position in Europe is of course close to the Germanics. Remember that equally incongruent remark of “you are not an Anglo” from the other Balt resident here? Looks like they cannot help themselves. Good luck getting a better treatment from them as a Southeast Euro than the Southwestern ones lol.

    I take it this is what you are referring to by me “backing the wrong horse”?

    What do you mean by “treatment” – their attitudes? I don’t really care about that. I don’t see that their attitudes are so bad anyway. So they feel closer to their own people and those culturally closer to them? That’s not exactly shocking. And there will always be people who take that attitude step further and actively disdain those who are more distant. I am not really so different in this regard, although I try to fight the tendency to disdain, since it doesn’t bring any actual benefits and is very off-putting to most people.

    But let’s be real and not get too carried away. This Frankenstein patchwork called the EU has more holes in it than a coffee strainer.

    What exactly – be precise – are you accusing me of getting carried away with?

    The EU is imperfect, but all in all I find it preferable to the arrangement that preceded it. Whatever its other failings, it serves as useful check on petty nationalist fuckwitry, prevents it from getting out of hand. In fact, that to me is reason enough to prefer racially and culturally feasible supranational or multinational structures to muh sacred nation horseshit. Eg I preferred Yugoslavia over Serbia, if I were Basque, I would prefer Spain over Euskadi – a bit of autonomy and “cultural rights” is fine, but strict independence isn’t really necessary and isn’t necessarily an improvement. (But I understand it’s not always easy. When there is extreme historical animosity, it’s hard to pull it off, and sometimes a parting of ways may be the best solution.)

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver


    The EU is imperfect, but all in all I find it preferable to the arrangement that preceded it. Whatever its other failings, it serves as useful check on petty nationalist fuckwitry, prevents it from getting out of hand. In fact, that to me is reason enough to prefer racially and culturally feasible supranational or multinational structures to muh sacred nation horseshit. Eg I preferred Yugoslavia over Serbia, if I were Basque, I would prefer Spain over Euskadi – a bit of autonomy and “cultural rights” is fine, but strict independence isn’t really necessary and isn’t necessarily an improvement. (But I understand it’s not always easy. When there is extreme historical animosity, it’s hard to pull it off, and sometimes a parting of ways may be the best solution.)
     
    Would you argue that Israel should join the EU in order to get Israeli Jewish nationalism and chauvinism under control?

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    What do you mean by “treatment” – their attitudes? I don’t really care about that.
     
    OK, fair enough. In fact, as long as it's not too blunt, there are advantages to having people speak their minds openly and not keeping it to themselves.

    But, having said that, we should now run the test of having the Lithuanian Sovok spend several months tying whatever you say to your "Southern Euro leftie" origins, while every time you express your opinions on Australian politics, one Balt or another suggests that you watch your tongue because you're not an Anglo. Wouldn't it be charming to enjoy their openness, lol

    Whatever its other failings, it serves as useful check on petty nationalist fuckwitry, prevents it from getting out of hand.

     

    Agreed. But there is no way I will ever agree twith this:

    if I were Basque, I would prefer Spain over Euskadi
     
    All analogies are imperfect, OK, but that's like saying that Kosovar Serbians would be better off belonging to a larger entity like Kosovo than to a small independent homeland. It's not just the big cultural difference, that the Spanish fuckers tried to erase by emulating the French and erasing the only surviving pre-Indoeuropean language isolate in Europe. It's also that they've been dragging us down for a century and a half. The Industrial Revolution passed by them like sand through their fingers, preoccupied as they were with maintaining their crumbling and backward empire. The only places where it caught on was The Basque Country and Catalonia. And all they could do is send us masses of impoverished immigrants who acted like the perfect agents to drive our language and customs out from the cities to the rural areas.

    Though to be frank, I don't care much about these matters anymore. The cause is long lost anyway. In addition to the Spaniards, now my people are being overrun by all sorts of exotic foreigners. The other day my aunt told me that in her small apartment block she has a Moroccan family as neighbors (OK,well, understandable, they're just across the Gibraltar Straits that they share with Spain and besides she said they're nice) and a Pakistani family, who are very problematic, she lamented. Now, problematic or not, how on earth has a group of Pakistanis ended up settling in a small industrial town of the small Basque Country that even tourists shun for its bad weather?

    Replies: @LatW

  887. With the NY metro and the challenging state of public swim facilities (among other things) throughout the US in mind:

    https://www.rt.com/russia/582701-moscow-metro-futuristic-station/

    On Christiane Amanpour’s overly slanted show, neocon shills like Mona Charen tell the audience how bad Russia is (supposedly) doing c/o Western sanctions. Meantime, US infrastructure is crumbling all over as local governments say there’s no money, while billions go to the corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced Kiev regime, which has blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Mikhail

    Someone in the comments pointed out the metro workers are wearing Ukrainian colors. LOL.

    Amanpour creeps me out.

  888. @AP
    @Mikel


    n my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe?

    Because, unlike you, they were all about as clueless as myself about how things could play out if hostilities broke?
     
    I agree with them, and you disagree with everyone else.

    Because they actually hoped to prevent escalation to nuclear war by dissuading the Russians from thinking that they could prevail through conventional means?
     
    But if the response to an attempt to capture cities by conventional means meant use of world-ending nukes as you claim, then massive armies were unnecessary. Surely, if they thought as you did, they would not have dared to capture Prague with 10 tanks given that doing so, according to you, would have meant the end of the world.

    In fact, contrary to everything you’re saying, using nuclear weapons if the Warsaw Pact overrun NATO conventional forces in Europe was official military doctrine.
     
    Tactical nukes, not world-ending nuke strike that would have killed your family in Utah (if you had been living there).

    Remember, your excuse for doing nothing as Ukrainians are slaughtered is your claim that helping the Ukrainians will result in the world getting nuked.

    Tactical nukes are a different story.

    Until 1967 NATO had a no first use doctrine, but as the Soviet's conventional advantage grew, NATO decided that they would use tactical nukes on the battlefield if their conventional forces were defeated.

    Using tactical nukes on the battlefield to prevent the Soviets from taking Bonn is not the same thing as sacrificing all of the USA for the sake of Bonn by using nuclear ICBMs to strike Moscow and the rest of the USSR.

    USA would not sacrifice itself over Bonn.

    An example of you misattributing something?

    No. A surprising example of you being unable to find something that must have been staring at you in the eyes.

    I can’t be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder.
     
    I did - I posted my search results.

    You made a claim, prove it. Or take it back.

    I can't disprove a fiction, other than to show that the search results did not show what you claim I said.

    For obvious reasons, Musk never enabled Starlink over Crimea. It is a lie that he “stopped” the coverage over Sevastopol because it wasn’t enabled to begin with. He received a request from Ukraine to enable it for a surprise attack on the Russian fleet that could or could not have sunk any Russian ship with his explicit collaboration in the plot and he declined to participate.
     
    That was his claim after the backlash. Maybe the reporter was wrong the first time. Or maybe Musk hadn't expected the backlash so he made a better story.

    According to Rushton:

    "I reached out to a source close to the Ukrainian drone programme about these claims.

    They confirmed Starlink had been previously enabled in the area in question - which is why Ukraine had used USVs that relied on Starlink for navigation - and that Musk had "turned it off".

    This is, by the way, exactly what Walter Isaacson originally wrote - both in his biography of Elon Musk, and in an op-ed for the Washington Post, promoting said book:

    https://i.imgur.com/xcbGi1S.png

    So we see above, Russia lied that it would use nukes if Crimea were attacked, and got what it wanted. (the lie works, so why not use often?)

    Now logically, would the plan even have been put in place if the Starlink system had not been enabled?

    But I still find your accusation to Elon of having blood in his hands very distasteful.
     
    The fact that Elon has blood on his hands is indeed distasteful.

    He took a course of action that saved Russian missile ships, that had been bombing Ukrainian cities, and that subsequently launched more missiles and killed civilians. That blood is therefore very much on his hands.

    And you are more outraged by people being angry at Musk's action that resulted in dead civilians (you called their reaction "disgusting"), than at Musk. Indeed, you probably approved of allowing those missile ships to continue to exist and to kill Ukrainian civilians. Because of the convenient fiction that taking them out would have resulted in America getting nuked.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

    Because of the convenient fiction that taking them out would have resulted in America getting nuked.

    What if one doesn’t believe that but believes that Ukrainian cities could have gotten nuked by Russia as retaliation for this? I doubt that there are very many people whom Russia cares about in, say, Lviv or Ternopil or Ivano-Frankivsk, which Russia views as thoroughly Banderist-infested. (Nuking Kiev, as the center of Russian history and culture, would be harder to justify, even if Russia doesn’t care for the people there. Though I suppose that Russia could conclude that even Kiev deserves a good nuking if it itself can’t have it. Though nukings elsewhere in Ukraine further to the west would have been more likely if they would have occurred at all, which I can’t guarantee.)

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mr. XYZ


    What if one doesn’t believe that but believes that Ukrainian cities could have gotten nuked by Russia as retaliation for this? I doubt that there are very many people whom Russia cares about in, say, Lviv or Ternopil or Ivano-Frankivsk,
     
    1. Killing 100,000s in a nuke attack is beyond what even Russia's elites are capable of doing. And fallout from Lviv would go over NATO Poland. Nuking parts of a NATO member would be a lot worse than an errant drone right across the border. It would trigger massive conventional escalation from NATO.

    2. It is likely by now after 1.5 years of war (if not before the war) that Ukraine would also have the means of exploding a small nuclear bomb, say in Moscow. It has plenty of nuclear material and scientists, why wouldn't it? And if 100,000s of Ukrainians were killed, why wouldn't it be used? Such things, if they exist, would not be publicly discussed, but someone would know and tis might prevent such a strike.
  889. @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    But there’s very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don’t belong to the same family. Their natural position in Europe is of course close to the Germanics. Remember that equally incongruent remark of “you are not an Anglo” from the other Balt resident here? Looks like they cannot help themselves. Good luck getting a better treatment from them as a Southeast Euro than the Southwestern ones lol.
     
    I take it this is what you are referring to by me "backing the wrong horse"?

    What do you mean by "treatment" - their attitudes? I don't really care about that. I don't see that their attitudes are so bad anyway. So they feel closer to their own people and those culturally closer to them? That's not exactly shocking. And there will always be people who take that attitude step further and actively disdain those who are more distant. I am not really so different in this regard, although I try to fight the tendency to disdain, since it doesn't bring any actual benefits and is very off-putting to most people.

    But let’s be real and not get too carried away. This Frankenstein patchwork called the EU has more holes in it than a coffee strainer.
     
    What exactly - be precise - are you accusing me of getting carried away with?

    The EU is imperfect, but all in all I find it preferable to the arrangement that preceded it. Whatever its other failings, it serves as useful check on petty nationalist fuckwitry, prevents it from getting out of hand. In fact, that to me is reason enough to prefer racially and culturally feasible supranational or multinational structures to muh sacred nation horseshit. Eg I preferred Yugoslavia over Serbia, if I were Basque, I would prefer Spain over Euskadi - a bit of autonomy and "cultural rights" is fine, but strict independence isn't really necessary and isn't necessarily an improvement. (But I understand it's not always easy. When there is extreme historical animosity, it's hard to pull it off, and sometimes a parting of ways may be the best solution.)

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel

    The EU is imperfect, but all in all I find it preferable to the arrangement that preceded it. Whatever its other failings, it serves as useful check on petty nationalist fuckwitry, prevents it from getting out of hand. In fact, that to me is reason enough to prefer racially and culturally feasible supranational or multinational structures to muh sacred nation horseshit. Eg I preferred Yugoslavia over Serbia, if I were Basque, I would prefer Spain over Euskadi – a bit of autonomy and “cultural rights” is fine, but strict independence isn’t really necessary and isn’t necessarily an improvement. (But I understand it’s not always easy. When there is extreme historical animosity, it’s hard to pull it off, and sometimes a parting of ways may be the best solution.)

    Would you argue that Israel should join the EU in order to get Israeli Jewish nationalism and chauvinism under control?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ

    I personally wouldn't. Not worth the inevitable headaches. And I'd rather limit than expand involvement with the arabo-muzz shithead world. But you could semi sorta kinda make a case for it.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  890. @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ


    I would highly advise you to read the article that I linked to above.
     
    I did. Unsurprisingly, there was absolutely nothing in there that would help relate Jewish/Armenian genocide to security dilemma logic.

    Yes, Nazi and Ottoman delusions were primarily responsible for the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. However, they were delusions that pertained to their regime security:
     
    That has nothing to do with security dilemma logic. The core of the security dilemma is the misperception (including perfectly rational misperception, not mere "delusion") that defensive measures country A is taking to enhance country A's security are an offensive dagger aimed at the heart of country B, which then feels compelled to respond in kind by enhancing its own security, which country A then misperceives as offensive.... etc.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    That has nothing to do with security dilemma logic. The core of the security dilemma is the misperception (including perfectly rational misperception, not mere “delusion”) that defensive measures country A is taking to enhance country A’s security are an offensive dagger aimed at the heart of country B, which then feels compelled to respond in kind by enhancing its own security, which country A then misperceives as offensive…. etc.

    Well, the Anglo-French moves to defend Poland were certainly viewed by the Anglo-French as being defensive in nature, though Nazi Germany interpreted these moves, quite accurately, as an existential threat to the Nazi German regime since in all likelihood the Anglo-French would stop at nothing short of full-on regime change in Nazi Germany.

    For that matter, the Franco-Soviet Pact of 1935, France’s alliances with Czechoslovakia and Poland, Czechoslovakia’s alliance with the USSR, and Britain’s alliance with Poland were all viewed as defensive by those countries but as offensive and as threatening encirclement by Nazi Germany.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ

    In other words, the security dilemma is a real phenomenon in international relations. No shit, Sherlock.

    None of what you just said - none of anything you have so far said - establishes any kind of relation between security dilemma logic and 20th century genocides.

    Just drop it please.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mr. XYZ

  891. Reminded of what the Hungarian foreign minister said about his country never feeling pressured by Russia when interacting with that country.

  892. @Wokechoke
    @QCIC

    Will send?

    Replies: @QCIC

    You ain’t seen nothing yet! “Don’t worry, we are here to help.”

    I wonder whatever happened to the Russian bureaucrat who last year referred to Chabad as a bunch of satanists or however he worded it?

  893. @AP
    @Mikel


    n my last post, I made the point that if nukes were the primary threat, why would each side place 100,000s troops, 10,000s of tanks, etc. all over Europe?

    Because, unlike you, they were all about as clueless as myself about how things could play out if hostilities broke?
     
    I agree with them, and you disagree with everyone else.

    Because they actually hoped to prevent escalation to nuclear war by dissuading the Russians from thinking that they could prevail through conventional means?
     
    But if the response to an attempt to capture cities by conventional means meant use of world-ending nukes as you claim, then massive armies were unnecessary. Surely, if they thought as you did, they would not have dared to capture Prague with 10 tanks given that doing so, according to you, would have meant the end of the world.

    In fact, contrary to everything you’re saying, using nuclear weapons if the Warsaw Pact overrun NATO conventional forces in Europe was official military doctrine.
     
    Tactical nukes, not world-ending nuke strike that would have killed your family in Utah (if you had been living there).

    Remember, your excuse for doing nothing as Ukrainians are slaughtered is your claim that helping the Ukrainians will result in the world getting nuked.

    Tactical nukes are a different story.

    Until 1967 NATO had a no first use doctrine, but as the Soviet's conventional advantage grew, NATO decided that they would use tactical nukes on the battlefield if their conventional forces were defeated.

    Using tactical nukes on the battlefield to prevent the Soviets from taking Bonn is not the same thing as sacrificing all of the USA for the sake of Bonn by using nuclear ICBMs to strike Moscow and the rest of the USSR.

    USA would not sacrifice itself over Bonn.

    An example of you misattributing something?

    No. A surprising example of you being unable to find something that must have been staring at you in the eyes.

    I can’t be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder.
     
    I did - I posted my search results.

    You made a claim, prove it. Or take it back.

    I can't disprove a fiction, other than to show that the search results did not show what you claim I said.

    For obvious reasons, Musk never enabled Starlink over Crimea. It is a lie that he “stopped” the coverage over Sevastopol because it wasn’t enabled to begin with. He received a request from Ukraine to enable it for a surprise attack on the Russian fleet that could or could not have sunk any Russian ship with his explicit collaboration in the plot and he declined to participate.
     
    That was his claim after the backlash. Maybe the reporter was wrong the first time. Or maybe Musk hadn't expected the backlash so he made a better story.

    According to Rushton:

    "I reached out to a source close to the Ukrainian drone programme about these claims.

    They confirmed Starlink had been previously enabled in the area in question - which is why Ukraine had used USVs that relied on Starlink for navigation - and that Musk had "turned it off".

    This is, by the way, exactly what Walter Isaacson originally wrote - both in his biography of Elon Musk, and in an op-ed for the Washington Post, promoting said book:

    https://i.imgur.com/xcbGi1S.png

    So we see above, Russia lied that it would use nukes if Crimea were attacked, and got what it wanted. (the lie works, so why not use often?)

    Now logically, would the plan even have been put in place if the Starlink system had not been enabled?

    But I still find your accusation to Elon of having blood in his hands very distasteful.
     
    The fact that Elon has blood on his hands is indeed distasteful.

    He took a course of action that saved Russian missile ships, that had been bombing Ukrainian cities, and that subsequently launched more missiles and killed civilians. That blood is therefore very much on his hands.

    And you are more outraged by people being angry at Musk's action that resulted in dead civilians (you called their reaction "disgusting"), than at Musk. Indeed, you probably approved of allowing those missile ships to continue to exist and to kill Ukrainian civilians. Because of the convenient fiction that taking them out would have resulted in America getting nuked.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

    It is not lying to point out that the risk of everyone losing is significant.

    By the way, at this point some of us are most worried about some irrational Ukrainian zealot (you know the type) setting off a false flag nuke somewhere just to see Rome burn.

  894. @Mikhail
    With the NY metro and the challenging state of public swim facilities (among other things) throughout the US in mind:

    https://www.rt.com/russia/582701-moscow-metro-futuristic-station/

    On Christiane Amanpour's overly slanted show, neocon shills like Mona Charen tell the audience how bad Russia is (supposedly) doing c/o Western sanctions. Meantime, US infrastructure is crumbling all over as local governments say there's no money, while billions go to the corrupt, lying, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced Kiev regime, which has blood on its hands before and after 2/24/22.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Someone in the comments pointed out the metro workers are wearing Ukrainian colors. LOL.

    Amanpour creeps me out.

    • Agree: Mikhail
  895. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    According to the Basque school of international relations, it was dangerous and reckless for Latvia to humiliate Lithuania in a basketball tournament.
     
    I've seen you do much better than that. I appreciate sarcasm as much as anyone but you've really tried too hard there to piece together two subjects that don't fit at all.

    In any case, that would rather be an anti-Basque school of international relations. Where I grew up the message all around me was that we were part of a large international struggle for national and social liberation and that we had to dismantle all the state structures of the enemy. It's hard to believe it these days but ETA's strategy was to provoke the reactionary elements in the Spanish military with targeted killings that they hoped would cause a return to a dictatorship in Spain. They considered the Spanish democracy to be totally fake because it denied us the democratic right to self-determination but it was credible enough for many Basques to have abandoned support for armed struggle so they preferred the return to a fight against a naked oppressor. They were actually pretty close to getting their goal.

    But well, based on facts rather than ideas, there's no denying the Serbian school of international relations was even more extreme. I've seen some documentaries and you had some very nasty stuff going on there.

    I think you're betting on the wrong horse here though. One of the problems of these new Europeans spawned from the Sovok Union (not to be confused with the less mercurial EEs to their West) is that time seems to have frozen in the 40s for them. Anyone left of Attila is a "leftie" in their view.

    The other problem, that we've just been discussing wrt their big Southern cousin, is ingratitude. Right now they have Spanish and Italian pilots in their skies, protecting them from that phantasmagorical threat from the Russkies, who can barely defend the airspace over Moscow. And the Spaniards used to have a mechanized battalion stationed somewhere in the Baltics for the same solidary purposes. But there's very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don't belong to the same family. Their natural position in Europe is of course close to the Germanics. Remember that equally incongruent remark of "you are not an Anglo" from the other Balt resident here? Looks like they cannot help themselves. Good luck getting a better treatment from them as a Southeast Euro than the Southwestern ones lol.

    PS- For the record, I don't really hold any animosity towards Balts whatsoever. My ex mother in law, that I am in very good terms with, was born in Vilnius. And another branch of my political family, that is even closer to me, are genetically ~60% Baltic, in all likelihood Lithuanian. Good people all of them. But let's be real and not get too carried away. This Frankenstein patchwork called the EU has more holes in it than a coffee strainer.

    Replies: @sudden death, @silviosilver, @LatW

    Right now they have Spanish and Italian pilots in their skies, protecting them from that phantasmagorical threat from the Russkies, who can barely defend the airspace over Moscow.

    It was not known before 2023 that the Russians cannot protect their own air space over Moscow (even though Budanov probably did know and I have also stated multiple times that the RusFed territory is too large to protect with their current means – but overall this was a surprise).

    Besides, there are something like 10 different nationalities doing the patrolling over the Baltic skies and these are actually meant to protect only civilian traffic, and most likely would not suffice during a military conflict (although they might at least partially). The relations are very friendly with other European soldiers.

    There is a lot of commerce in that region (always has been since times immemorial), plenty of Western investments there, it would be idiotic to not protect that area. It is not a gift, but a necessity for everyone. This matters a lot for Germany and Scandinavia.

    Above all, you personally are not entitled to any gratitude whatsoever, since you’ve clearly been an opponent of NATO enlargement and you have made several excuses for Russian aggression.

    Recently there was also a very touching video with Ukrainian and Spanish troops who provided some training, it was very friendly and touching as they were saying their farewells to the Ukrainians leaving for the front.

    You’re the one whose constantly looking for strife, not us.

    But there’s very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don’t belong to the same family.

    I haven’t seen examples of this, tbh. Lithuanians are Catholic so they like Italy.

    That you were called “a southern leftie” is actually very accurate (I recall you even mentioning attending some leftist rallies back in the day, probably early antifa movements) – there is such a type and it’s a political not an ethnic thing. This type doesn’t jive very well with the Anglo worldview. I’m not judging (there are reasons for that), but these are just facts.

    And another branch of my political family, that is even closer to me, are genetically ~60% Baltic, in all likelihood Lithuanian.

    This is quite sad and truly shows your hypocrisy – you were a leftie, yet once the wall fell, you ran and found yourself an Eastern Euro wife (basically for those times, took the easy route), and now you bitch about Balts. Wow, you’re the one whose ungrateful.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW

    What ethnicity is his wife?

    , @QCIC
    @LatW

    Your comment on drones basically makes the point why Russia does not want NATO on its border and is willing to risk a major war to prevent it.

    People that were paying attention knew for decades that it is difficult to protect a city against drones when they can be launched from hostile territory a few hundred miles away, not to mention by fifth columnists within the country.

    Note that Russian diplomats challenged the USA for violating the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) for flying long-range armed drones such as the Predator. Now everyone can see why.

    Russia knows how to defend against drones just like other advanced militaries. It takes a combination of automatic cannon, smaller missiles, electronic warfare, lasers and special forces on the ground. Unless civilians are very cautious, aggressively taking out drones in populated areas can cause a lot of casualties. A better answer is to have a buffer zone.

    , @Mikel
    @LatW


    It is not a gift, but a necessity for everyone.
     
    Sure. How could the industrial fabric of Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia survive if, due to those Russian planes that no longer dare enter Ukrainian airspace, the maritime traffic on the Eastern Baltic were to be interrupted? Thank God we have our benevolent Spanish overlords sacrificing themselves for us on the Baltic Sea.


    I recall you even mentioning attending some leftist rallies back in the day, probably early antifa movements
     
    Your recollection couldn't be more inaccurate. I never did anything of the like. Quite the contrary, I opposed my Commie countrymen when it mattered, in the 80s. Apart from lots of abuse and plenty of social isolation in my hometown, I once got a rock thrown to my face. It didn't amount to much, no permanent scars. But it could have been much worse. Some people nearby, protesting also the execution of an innocent man by our separatist Commies had to be hospitalized after receiving the impact of a Molotov cocktail. They all survived but they must still be wearing the burn scars of the confrontation.

    What did you or S_D do to confront the Commies?


    Recently there was also a very touching video with Ukrainian and Spanish troops who provided some training
     
    Was it enough training though? There is always so much more Westerners should have done for the Ukrainians.

    Replies: @LatW

  896. The G-20 is THE Most Important Event of the Year (Not), Why Putin & Xi Jinping Skipped It, Bidenomics Goes Global (Not), Latest Miniscule US Military Package to Kiev
    https://marksleboda.substack.com/p/the-g-20-is-the-most-important-event?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

  897. I’m not sure Elon Musk can be considered a fully “private citizen” – SpaceX gets a lot of government contracts. Also, it wasn’t just the sea drone attack that was affected by the lack of Starlink – the Ukrainians are saying that some areas closer to the occupied Russian areas are experiencing lack of Starlink or a sketchy connection. This is upsetting, although I’m still not ready to give up on Musk, since he did provide vital help in the beginning.

    • Agree: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @LatW

    Witness these Swines from the East demand that actual westerners subsidize their squabble with the Bear.

  898. @A123
    @QCIC


    Kolomoisky and Azov and Right Sector NeoNazi people still intrigues me so I am looking for any Jewish meaning in the West’s Ukrainian project
     
    You have been at this for awhile and come up empty. I respectfully suggest that you may wish to consider the most straightforward explanation why you are looking, but not finding. There is no "Jewish meaning" to be found in this unpleasant cast of disreputable characters:

    • Azov neo-Nazis are anti-Semitic
    • Zelensky is anti-Semitic
    • Kolomoisky is a criminal/oligarch

    Unlike Zelensky, Kolomoisky has not been caught being openly anti-Semitic. However, there are rumours that he feeds business rivals to his sharks. Literally. He owns sharks, like a Bond villain. (1)

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11704703/Bond-villain-oligarch-kept-SHARKS-office-links-Zelensky-home-raided.html

    Replies: @QCIC, @LatW

    Azov neo-Nazis are anti-Semitic

    They are way less anti-Semitic than the Russian Zs many of whom are just rabid anti-Semites in the best tradition of the Black hundreds whom they admire and want to emulate. Anti-Semitism has recently increased among Zs since they’re looking for the guilty one who could be blamed for this fiasco.

    The Azov are more Euro style ethnonats who are fighting for their homeland.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW


    The Azov are more Euro style ethnonats who are fighting for their homeland.
     
    I do wish that Ukraine would more actively seek out Ukrainian Orthodox converts, though, including among non-whites. A willingness to convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy should indicate, at least to some degree/extent, a willingness to integrate into the general Ukrainian culture, even if one is non-white. And Ukraine is unfortunately still pretty poor as of right now so few people other than perhaps Sub-Saharan Africans (whom Ukraine probably wouldn't want in huge numbers anyway) would actually be willing to convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy for the money.

    Latin Americans fit in well in the US due to them having a common religion and cultural heritage with white Americans, albeit with Latin Americans in the US also on average being about half a standard deviation or so duller than white Americans.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  899. @LatW
    @Mr. XYZ


    What would be really epic would be having these Russian and Belarusian nationalists convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy
     
    Most of them are just not too religious to begin with.

    I like the fact that, in Ukraine, unlike in much of the rest of the world (excluding China), nationalism appeals more to the high-IQ than to the low-IQ. Of course, a certain type of nationalism (Azov) probably does appeal more to the low-IQ in Ukraine. Higher-IQ Ukrainians are simply more civilized nationalists.
     
    You are right about the high IQ part in many nationalists in Ukraine, Azov, too, has smart types. Plus, most Ukrainian nationalists support Azov anyway.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Most of them are just not too religious to begin with.

    They can convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy for the cultural and social space that it provides, not necessarily because they’re devout. That’s why some people convert to Reform Judaism, after all.

    You are right about the high IQ part in many nationalists in Ukraine,

    Yeah, there’s a woman who runs Clarissa’s Blog. She’s a Ukrainian-Canadian-American. She’s originally from Kharkiv but bitterly hates Russia and the Soviet Union. She’s also extremely smart (IQ-wise, at least) considering that she previously went to Yale or to some other Ivy League university in the US and previously managed to get into Canada as a merit-based immigrant. She’s also half-Jewish on her father’s side, albeit with her father (who is now apparently deceased) being an ethnically Jewish convert to Christianity.

    This shows that even in the traditionally pro-Russian parts of Ukraine, smarter people might be less pro-Russian, even before 2014, at least based on anecdotal experience.

    Azov, too, has smart types. Plus, most Ukrainian nationalists support Azov anyway.

    They support Azov but prefer the Ukrainian military, no? Or is Azov now officially a part of the Ukrainian military?

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mr. XYZ


    They can convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy for the cultural and social space that it provides, not necessarily because they’re devout.
     
    Religion is a private matter, it should be a personal choice, however, you're right that it does provide a social space as well. I have nothing against Ukrainian Orthodoxy, these newcomers would fit in with it organically, that's totally ok. I prefer the secular ones, though, and some of them already have Ukrainian wives.

    This shows that even in the traditionally pro-Russian parts of Ukraine, smarter people might be less pro-Russian, even before 2014, at least based on anecdotal experience.
     
    Not sure this is the case, but many smart ones are pro-European.

    And I had mostly Gentiles in mind (there are quite a few smart ones, including among the younger generation), but there are some Jews on the Ukrainian side who are also very smart. Have you ever heard of Vitaly Portnikov? He's a liberal though.


    Or is Azov now officially a part of the Ukrainian military?
     
    They are part of the National Guard, and there is also a unit within the regular troops. The 3rd Assault brigade which is extremely tough.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Assault_Brigade_(Ukraine)

    Do not worry, they are not "neo-Nazis" as in supremacists of some sort, those tattoos are only for inspiration, because they have to be "bad and strong".

  900. @LatW
    @A123


    Azov neo-Nazis are anti-Semitic
     
    They are way less anti-Semitic than the Russian Zs many of whom are just rabid anti-Semites in the best tradition of the Black hundreds whom they admire and want to emulate. Anti-Semitism has recently increased among Zs since they're looking for the guilty one who could be blamed for this fiasco.

    The Azov are more Euro style ethnonats who are fighting for their homeland.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    The Azov are more Euro style ethnonats who are fighting for their homeland.

    I do wish that Ukraine would more actively seek out Ukrainian Orthodox converts, though, including among non-whites. A willingness to convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy should indicate, at least to some degree/extent, a willingness to integrate into the general Ukrainian culture, even if one is non-white. And Ukraine is unfortunately still pretty poor as of right now so few people other than perhaps Sub-Saharan Africans (whom Ukraine probably wouldn’t want in huge numbers anyway) would actually be willing to convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy for the money.

    Latin Americans fit in well in the US due to them having a common religion and cultural heritage with white Americans, albeit with Latin Americans in the US also on average being about half a standard deviation or so duller than white Americans.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Mr. XYZ

    I do wish that Ukraine would more actively seek out Ukrainian Orthodox converts, though, including among non-whites. A willingness to convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy should indicate, at least to some degree/extent, a willingness to integrate into the general Ukrainian culture, even if one is non-white.

    There is a bit of a bar which is the language. It isn't an easy conversion from a Germanic or Romance language.

    But I could definitely see Ukraine becoming a mecca for nearby Slavs that don't want to live under a dictator or simply want something new.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  901. @LatW
    @Mikel


    Right now they have Spanish and Italian pilots in their skies, protecting them from that phantasmagorical threat from the Russkies, who can barely defend the airspace over Moscow.
     
    It was not known before 2023 that the Russians cannot protect their own air space over Moscow (even though Budanov probably did know and I have also stated multiple times that the RusFed territory is too large to protect with their current means - but overall this was a surprise).

    Besides, there are something like 10 different nationalities doing the patrolling over the Baltic skies and these are actually meant to protect only civilian traffic, and most likely would not suffice during a military conflict (although they might at least partially). The relations are very friendly with other European soldiers.

    There is a lot of commerce in that region (always has been since times immemorial), plenty of Western investments there, it would be idiotic to not protect that area. It is not a gift, but a necessity for everyone. This matters a lot for Germany and Scandinavia.

    Above all, you personally are not entitled to any gratitude whatsoever, since you've clearly been an opponent of NATO enlargement and you have made several excuses for Russian aggression.

    Recently there was also a very touching video with Ukrainian and Spanish troops who provided some training, it was very friendly and touching as they were saying their farewells to the Ukrainians leaving for the front.

    You're the one whose constantly looking for strife, not us.


    But there’s very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don’t belong to the same family.
     
    I haven't seen examples of this, tbh. Lithuanians are Catholic so they like Italy.

    That you were called "a southern leftie" is actually very accurate (I recall you even mentioning attending some leftist rallies back in the day, probably early antifa movements) - there is such a type and it's a political not an ethnic thing. This type doesn't jive very well with the Anglo worldview. I'm not judging (there are reasons for that), but these are just facts.

    And another branch of my political family, that is even closer to me, are genetically ~60% Baltic, in all likelihood Lithuanian.
     
    This is quite sad and truly shows your hypocrisy - you were a leftie, yet once the wall fell, you ran and found yourself an Eastern Euro wife (basically for those times, took the easy route), and now you bitch about Balts. Wow, you're the one whose ungrateful.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC, @Mikel

    What ethnicity is his wife?

  902. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    As far as the combat is concerned, I don't think people will be able to make sense of the Ukraine situation if they believe it started in 2022, 2015 or even 2014.

    The point about Jewish replacement is intended as a conversation starter or even a question. The link between Kolomoisky and Azov and Right Sector NeoNazi people still intrigues me so I am looking for any Jewish meaning in the West's Ukrainian project. I keep hoping that someone here will have useful information which might be available in foreign media that I cannot read.

    I doubt many Israelis or Jewish people take Eritreans very seriously, so their role will be limited to that of pawn just like the Ukrainian Christians.

    I meant that a significant number of Jewish women would need to move to Ukraine. I don't know what campaign would need be needed to entice them to relocate there but that is not my department. It might be a gradual long-term project.

    Replies: @A123, @John Johnson

    I meant that a significant number of Jewish women would need to move to Ukraine. I don’t know what campaign would need be needed to entice them to relocate there but that is not my department. It might be a gradual long-term project.

    Who is going to pay Jewish women to move to Ukraine? What would be the point?

  903. @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW


    The Azov are more Euro style ethnonats who are fighting for their homeland.
     
    I do wish that Ukraine would more actively seek out Ukrainian Orthodox converts, though, including among non-whites. A willingness to convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy should indicate, at least to some degree/extent, a willingness to integrate into the general Ukrainian culture, even if one is non-white. And Ukraine is unfortunately still pretty poor as of right now so few people other than perhaps Sub-Saharan Africans (whom Ukraine probably wouldn't want in huge numbers anyway) would actually be willing to convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy for the money.

    Latin Americans fit in well in the US due to them having a common religion and cultural heritage with white Americans, albeit with Latin Americans in the US also on average being about half a standard deviation or so duller than white Americans.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    I do wish that Ukraine would more actively seek out Ukrainian Orthodox converts, though, including among non-whites. A willingness to convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy should indicate, at least to some degree/extent, a willingness to integrate into the general Ukrainian culture, even if one is non-white.

    There is a bit of a bar which is the language. It isn’t an easy conversion from a Germanic or Romance language.

    But I could definitely see Ukraine becoming a mecca for nearby Slavs that don’t want to live under a dictator or simply want something new.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson

    Yes, but the Slavic population reserves in Russia and Belarus aren't too huge. And even those people there who are of at least partial Ukrainian descent are very assimilated in Russia and Belarus, so it would unfortunately be very difficult for Ukraine to win them over.

    Seeking Ukrainian Orthodox converts in, say, India or Latin America might be an interesting approach. I know that Mormons actively seek converts in Latin America, for instance, with some success.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Philip Owen

  904. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Trump administration in office wouldn’t have changed the former perception but would have altered the latter condition

    The response of Trump would have been weaker for Russia in comparison with Biden where the response has been more strong than probably anyone has expected, especially in Moscow.
     
    Doubtful, with Pompeo in charge.

    I think, however, that Trump would have deterred an attack. Biden seemed to be predictably weak like Obama, which encouraged Putin to act. Biden's later behavior was surprising. Your analogy to the mousetrap was a correct one. If Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.

    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid to Ukraine in order to forge a peace deal.

    36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan, and 820,000 Poles in

    There is confusing language. Except a small minority, these people are not Ukrainians and Poles. Only a small proportion of this number are people from Ukraine or Poland.
     
    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine. They are more pro-Ukraine than American Jews are pro-Israel. Being born in the USA doesn't change that. Likewise for many Poles.

    Pole are more assimilated than Ukrainians, but there are many more of them. If only 10% of Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe that (plus Ukrainian votes) will be enough to sway the election in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If Trump chooses Vivek, Green or some other pro-Russian as his running mate he will lose those states.

    They are mostly native Americans which have ancestry from Poland or Ukraine in a different century like most Americans. Americans who are arrivals of the late 19th century and later created a concept of ethnic pride and express this with some events like “Columbus day” or “St Patrick’s day”.
     
    If Ireland were invaded what do you think would happen to the Irish-American vote if a candidate supported the invader?

    In 2012, most Polish Americans voted for Obama against Romney. In 2016, mostly voted for Trump against Clinton (Trump was pro-Russia/Clinton anti-Russia).
     
    Most Ukrainian nationalists voted for Trump and against Clinton because they correctly viewed the collusion story as a hoax (probably spread by Russia itself) and because the Obama administration had been anti-Ukrainian. Clinton anti-Russia was a story for ignorant people; Eastern Europeans knew better.

    Here is a Ukrainian nationalist writing about Clinton, in 2016:

    https://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/whos-truly-beholden-to-the-kremlin/

    Let’s cut through the hysteria and examine the facts.

    Long before Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump exchanged compliments, Bill Clinton received a phone call from Mr. Putin in 2010 thanking him personally for delivering a speech for $500,000, paid by a Russian investment bank that was promoting shares in a company that controlled 20 percent of America’s supply of uranium, a critical component in nuclear weapons.

    The State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, signed off on the deal just two months after her husband’s speech, enabling the Russian state nuclear agency to not only acquire 20 percent of America’s uranium but also own the land in which the deposits are located.

    She was also secretary of state when $145 million in donations reached the Clinton Foundation from the shareholders of the company that sold America’s uranium.

    Yet that wasn’t the only money the Clintons raised from the Russians that resulted in the exchange for sensitive materials.

    Out of 28 American, European and Russian companies that participated in the transfer of classified technology to the Skolkovo technology park outside of Moscow, 17 were Clinton Foundation donors or paid for speeches by Mr. Clinton.

    By 2014, when Russia was invading Ukraine, the FBI issued “an extraordinary warning” to several technology companies involved with Skolkovo. The true motives of the Russians is to gain access to classified, sensitive and emerging technology from the companies, an FBI agent warned.

    John Podesta, the chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, sat on the executive board, alongside key Russian officials, of an energy company that received the FBI’s warning. That didn’t stop him from accepting $35 million from a Putin-connected government fund.

    E-mails released by Wikileaks showed that Mr. Podesta continued to be involved in the company in 2015, even after the Russian invasion and after claiming to be divested. Furthermore, Mr. Podesta is reported to have received $5.25 million for his think tank, Center for American Progress, through a secretive chain of entities that could lead to Russian oligarchs, among them Ruben Vardanyan, who sat on the energy company board, according to the Government Accountability Institute.

    Hillary Clinton supporters erupted in outrage when Mr. Trump hired Paul Manafort to help run his campaign. (Is it not a positive signal that Mr. Trump dumped him after such criticism?) But their silence was deafening when it was revealed in late August that Mr. Manafort hired the Podesta Group to lobby on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych’s allies in the Party of Regions.

    The Podesta Group lobbied until 2014 to downplay the need for a congressional resolution to pressure Mr. Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, the Associated Press reported. Moreover, it failed to file the proper paperwork, making the lobbying illegal.

    Clinton supporters also drummed up hysteria about Mr. Trump being too busy to meet with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

    Yet that pales in comparison to the very same Mr. Podesta – having already taken millions as part of sensitive technology transfers – reacting with disinterest (as revealed by Wikileaks) to Victor Pinchuk’s pleas to get Mr. Clinton and a group of Western leaders to voice support for Ukraine as the Russian military aggression peaked in the winter of 2015.

    Now the FBI has confirmed this week that its investigations of Mr. Trump, launched in the summer, have uncovered no ties to the Kremlin. Nothing. Nichoho. Zero.

    Voters should consider that the Clintons and Mr. Podesta have far more questionable ties to the Kremlin, possibly criminal, than Mr. Trump and his entourage.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ, @Dmitry

    Doubtful, with Pompeo in charge

    Pompeo is neoconservative personally, but he wasn’t boss and didn’t stop Trump in stopping aid to Ukraine in 2019.

    You can read Wikipedia.

    “when John Bolton and others fought the “effort to hijack” the U.S. relationship with Ukraine, Pompeo failed to respond directly to complaints, leaving Taylor to conclude that lack of timely, congressionally approved military aid would leave Ukrainians dying at the hands of Russian-led forces.[125]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo#Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump

    Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.

    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid

    Biden has given on paper the supposed $44 billion to Ukraine, although a lot of it is valueless financially old equipment so it’s not really so much. In either way, although the real number is less, he has given many billions of dollars, which has created unpopularity for many Americans who don’t want so much money to go to Ukraine.

    Trump’s main argument was not to send money to foreign countries and this is his promise for his voters, so it’s unlikely he would have give such high level of aid like Biden as it would have undermined his political character and contradicted the reason many people voted for him.

    Pole are more assimilated than Ukrainians, but

    The nationality language you use is confusing. You are not mostly writing about Poles or Ukrainians.

    You are writing about mostly white Americans with distant ancestry in Poland so in some families it can be there could be no-one in the family who can still remember living in Poland. Only the first generation immigrant is still part of the old country in the way we expect when you name someone by the nationality. After the first generation immigrant, it is “heritage” or “roots”.

    I know your language is consistent, although you sometimes seem to be confusing also yourself with this language, like you were saying “Greeks should emigrate from Mariupol to allow Slavs to kill each other”. Those people you write as “Greeks” are not Greeks. They are Ukrainians. It is Ukrainians not Greeks, who will be another Ukrainian refugee in Greece, not really different than other refugees there.

    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine.

    I’m not disagreeing, they will be influenced especially if they are first generation immigrants. In Hollywood, the actress Mila Kunis from South-West Ukraine was raising $37 million because of the war. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a42110483/mile-kunis-37-million-for-ukraine/

    But the number of Americans who were born in Ukraine is only 400,000, which probably includes some proportion of people with “diverse” views like AnoninTN in TN.

    Mainly they are in Pennsylvania and New York. It’s probably only relevant for Pennsylvania. In other states, the numbers are not large to be a significant demographic to change an election or they are in states which are voting Democrat everytime.

    Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe

    In 1980, they voted for Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan, while Reagan was more anti-Soviet compared to Jimmy Carter. It’s possible to be a mixed result because Poland was a communist country in the Warsaw Pact.

    But in 2016 voted for Trump in when Hillary Clinton was viewed as anti-Russia while Trump was viewed as pro-Russian by a large part of Americans in the election campaign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-American_vote#Presidential_voting_results

    American Jews are pro-Israel.

    Jewish is a religion so it should be more motivating. But Reform Jews voted for Obama in 2012. This is when Israel is bipartisan against the Iran deal. They voted for Biden 2020 against Trump who was the most pro-Israel president and beloved of Israelis.

    In Israel, they call Trump their “American uncle”. But for the main branches of the Jewish religion in America, he has not been popular. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-voting-record-in-u-s-presidential-elections

    A counter-example, could be American Evangelical Christians or Modern Orthodox Jews which still prioritize Israel’s preference in the elections. The mechanism is likely because the Evangelical and Orthodox religious leaders promoted Trump in their religious services or literature.

    There are also Cuban Americans which are ideologically selected, mainly first generation immigrants. The majority remember their life with the communist party of Cuba.

    If Ireland were invaded what do you think would happen to the Irish-American vote if a candidate supported the invader?

    Some people say the “Irish American” vote mostly doesn’t exist since the 20th century, after all these are the mainstream white Americans like “Polish Americans”.

    Even though Irish Americans are 40 million Americans, Biden wasn’t worried about undermining the economic model of Republic of Ireland with the corporate minimum tax plan.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Dmitry


    Pompeo is neoconservative personally, but he wasn’t boss and didn’t stop Trump in stopping aid to Ukraine in 2019.
     
    Which is more than Obama had done.

    And when Biden first took office, he reversed many of Trump's anti-Russian policies such as Nordstream sanctions, and energy policies that reduced commodity prices.


    Trump’s main argument was not to send money to foreign countries and this is his promise for his voters, so it’s unlikely he would have give such high level of aid like Biden
     
    Biden exaggerates how much he gives.

    Trump could make the same policies but describe them as giving cheap old equipment to Ukraine, eliminating the cost of storing them or of destroying them. He could similarly describe the provision of ammunition to Ukraine as making jobs for American workers in the weapon industry, thus making America militarily stronger. His followers will go alone with him, because they don't really care much about policy, they love Trump whatever he does.

    Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe

    In 1980, they voted for Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan, while Reagan was more anti-Soviet compared to Jimmy Carter.
     
    Brzezinsky was Carter's foreign policy man.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

    Brzezinski's personal views have been described as "progressive", "international",[7] political liberal, and "strong anti-communist".[4] He was an advocate for anti-Soviet containment, for human rights organizations, and for "cultivating a strong West".[7] He has been praised for his ability to see "the big picture". Critics described him as hawkish or a "foreign policy hardliner" on some issues, such as Poland–Russia relations.

    You are writing about mostly white Americans with distant ancestry in Poland so in some families it can be there could be no-one in the family who can still remember living in Poland
     
    Correct. But there are enough Polish-Americans that even taking into account the fact that many are hardly aware of their Polish ethnicity, leaves plenty who are aware of being Poles.

    Michigan has 850,00 Polish-Americans. If only 10% are "patriotic" Poles (I suspect it is more, at least 25%) - that's 85,000 people.

    Michigan also has 36,000 Ukrainians.

    Trump only won Michigan by 11,000 votes. If he becomes pro-Russian he will not win that state.

    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine.

    I’m not disagreeing, they will be influenced especially if they are first generation immigrants
     
    No, at least 2 generations. My parents weren't born in Ukraine either, but North America and Western Europe. I speak Ukrainian fluently. As do many of our third generation. So do my children (who were sent to Ukrainian Saturday school and Ukrainian summer camps along with thousands of others). 4th generation. This is not rare.

    Polish friends I know have US-born kids who speak Polish and are proud of being Poles. Unlike the situation of the 19th century, people have the means to return to Poland to visit. So identity is not limited to those who were born there.

    Mainly they [Ukrainian-Americans] are in Pennsylvania and New York. It’s probably only relevant for Pennsylvania. In other states, the numbers are not large to be a significant demographic to change an election or they are in states which are voting Democrat everytime.
     
    Ukrainian-Americans are only relevant in Pennsylvania and Michigan, politically.

    Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes. There are 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan.

    If the Republicans run a pro-Russian candidate they will lose those states.

    Replies: @A123, @QCIC

  905. @Mr. XYZ
    @LatW


    Most of them are just not too religious to begin with.

     

    They can convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy for the cultural and social space that it provides, not necessarily because they're devout. That's why some people convert to Reform Judaism, after all.

    You are right about the high IQ part in many nationalists in Ukraine,
     
    Yeah, there's a woman who runs Clarissa's Blog. She's a Ukrainian-Canadian-American. She's originally from Kharkiv but bitterly hates Russia and the Soviet Union. She's also extremely smart (IQ-wise, at least) considering that she previously went to Yale or to some other Ivy League university in the US and previously managed to get into Canada as a merit-based immigrant. She's also half-Jewish on her father's side, albeit with her father (who is now apparently deceased) being an ethnically Jewish convert to Christianity.

    This shows that even in the traditionally pro-Russian parts of Ukraine, smarter people might be less pro-Russian, even before 2014, at least based on anecdotal experience.

    Azov, too, has smart types. Plus, most Ukrainian nationalists support Azov anyway.

     

    They support Azov but prefer the Ukrainian military, no? Or is Azov now officially a part of the Ukrainian military?

    Replies: @LatW

    They can convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy for the cultural and social space that it provides, not necessarily because they’re devout.

    Religion is a private matter, it should be a personal choice, however, you’re right that it does provide a social space as well. I have nothing against Ukrainian Orthodoxy, these newcomers would fit in with it organically, that’s totally ok. I prefer the secular ones, though, and some of them already have Ukrainian wives.

    This shows that even in the traditionally pro-Russian parts of Ukraine, smarter people might be less pro-Russian, even before 2014, at least based on anecdotal experience.

    Not sure this is the case, but many smart ones are pro-European.

    And I had mostly Gentiles in mind (there are quite a few smart ones, including among the younger generation), but there are some Jews on the Ukrainian side who are also very smart. Have you ever heard of Vitaly Portnikov? He’s a liberal though.

    Or is Azov now officially a part of the Ukrainian military?

    They are part of the National Guard, and there is also a unit within the regular troops. The 3rd Assault brigade which is extremely tough.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Assault_Brigade_(Ukraine)

    [MORE]

    Do not worry, they are not “neo-Nazis” as in supremacists of some sort, those tattoos are only for inspiration, because they have to be “bad and strong”.

  906. @Mr. XYZ
    @Mikel

    FWIW, I don't view that part of AP's post too objectionable:


    I can’t be bothered to do the work for you, though. Look harder. But I’ll give you an excellent hint you have provided yourself with your own accusations in this very post: “If someone takes a position that favors Russia, they are pro-Russian. Even if they do not defend Russia, indeed even if they condemn it …/… Green, Gaetz, etc. are pro-Russian …/… Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly pro-Russian”.

     

    I just think that if Russia would have used nuclear weapons on Ukrainian cities that are filled to the core with alleged Banderists, then this would have been considerably worse for Ukraine than having regular Russian missiles be lobbed at its cities, no? Maybe this risk wouldn't have happened, but one can't be 100% sure and would prefer not to risk it. Such a move does not have to trigger global nuclear war because the West will not respond to this with nukes. Even if the West will militarily respond conventionally, a lot of Ukrainian civilians are still going to be dead if their cities already got nuked.

    Had it not been for Vasily Arkhipov, a whole lot of people could have lost their lives back in 1962 as a result of JFK's brinkmanship (naval blockade) over Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. By AP's own logic, the other two members of the crew on Arkhipov's submarine should not have been anywhere near as eager or willing to launch nuclear weapons as they actually were.

    Hell, Hitler warned in early 1939 that European Jewry will be annihilated if another World War will break out, and that's ultimately what happened, with him and/or other Nazis subsequently referring to this prophecy of his to justify the Holocaust:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_prophecy

    AP is saying that Hitler was a childless freak, and that's accurate, but at the same time, JFK was not.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Hell, Hitler warned in early 1939 that European Jewry will be annihilated if another World War will break out, and that’s ultimately what happened, with him and/or other Nazis subsequently referring to this prophecy of his to justify the Holocaust:

    He supposedly told a friend in the early 1930s that he planned on killing the Jews if he took power. He also wrote that the loss of WW1 would have been acceptable if German Jews had been killed.

    I actually don’t believe that the final solution was a decision he made after 1939.

    I think that was the plan from the beginning but he only expedited the goal after realizing the possibility of losing or being killed. As part of Ost Front they were going to send both Jews and Slavs to Siberia. Basically report to the world that they were relocating them while knowing that most would be killed by exposure or starvation.

    Hitler was truly obsessed with the Jews. Greece had a very small Jewish population and yet he insisted on rounding them up.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @John Johnson

    Just goes to show that the allies were actually obsessed with rescuing Jews. And little else.

    I recently rewatched a film titled Charlotte Grey.

    It’s about a Scottish lass who is very seriously concerned about what Germany did to France by invading it. That’s the set up.


    She’s recruited by SoE after a dinner party in London where she passes herself off as French.

    She goes to France, officially to act as a courier in Vichy. Her secondary agenda is to improbably locate her down pilot RAF boyfriend.

    Somehow in Vichy she encounters two Jewish orphans. Later she discovers that she’s being hosted by a French resistance fighter with 1/8 Jewish ancestry. He’s the prime mover in local resistance as the Germans begin to deploy into previously unoccupied Vichy.

    In the hands of an antisemitic screen writer (you could easily re edit too) that only slightly tweaks the tale it’s a story about a lunatic busybody Scot who gets various French ethnics killed in their home village while she blows up trains and starts a sequence of reprisals at the hands of the German occupation forces. What motivates her ultimately? Her obsession with protecting these two Jewish boys.
    The French were just beside the point.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGrZhlkfA2w

    Replies: @John Johnson

  907. @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry


    If Ukraine is reconquering Crimea in 2026 or 2027, the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army could probably only delay the situation, as Ukraine already in 2026 if Biden continues will have much more advanced Western planes like F-16 and long-range weapons which would isolate Crimea anyway.
     
    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics, even if it will successfully reconquer Crimea and Donbass. After the extremely massive French losses of WWI, France only barely broke even with its post-WWI reconquest of Alsace-Lorraine.

    If Ukraine will lose too many of its young and/or middle-aged men, then Ukrainian women are going to need to rely on Polish and other Eastern European sperm donors in order to have families of their own for the sake of the future of their Ukrainian motherland!

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Dmitry

    definitively need a post-war baby boom in order to save its demographics

    There will not be any kind of situation to “save its demographics”. The population will fall, not only in Ukraine, but all the neighbor countries.

    All these countries like Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria have falling populations. Ukraine, Belarus and Russia of course have falling populations.

    In the case of Ukraine, if it joins the EU, the falling population could mean the country is more easy to manage, as you can see stable development in many of the other EU countries like Hungary, Poland or Romania, Bulgaria.

    The falling population, doesn’t imply the future of Ukraine is negative, although it could be negative for some parts of the economy. Many of these EU countries are developing with the falling population. For example, Eastern Poland is one of the most falling populations in Europe. Bulgaria is the most falling population country in the world.

    By the way, Ukraine will of course have a positive future in the EU relative to the years not in the EU. It’s a negative for the self-interest of EU citizens to accept this country, this is also true for EU citizens to accept many of the postcommunist countries EU has already accepted.

    If the war will last until 2026 or 2027, then Ukraine will

    The 2024 election could change the situation, but if Biden wins, then Ukraine will be in stronger position each future year. This implies it can be rational to plan to fight less this year and more in future years. For example, in 2025, they would have a stronger position than this year, so it could be sensible for Ukraine to preserve their soldiers relatively this year until their equipment improves.

  908. @LatW
    @Mikel


    Right now they have Spanish and Italian pilots in their skies, protecting them from that phantasmagorical threat from the Russkies, who can barely defend the airspace over Moscow.
     
    It was not known before 2023 that the Russians cannot protect their own air space over Moscow (even though Budanov probably did know and I have also stated multiple times that the RusFed territory is too large to protect with their current means - but overall this was a surprise).

    Besides, there are something like 10 different nationalities doing the patrolling over the Baltic skies and these are actually meant to protect only civilian traffic, and most likely would not suffice during a military conflict (although they might at least partially). The relations are very friendly with other European soldiers.

    There is a lot of commerce in that region (always has been since times immemorial), plenty of Western investments there, it would be idiotic to not protect that area. It is not a gift, but a necessity for everyone. This matters a lot for Germany and Scandinavia.

    Above all, you personally are not entitled to any gratitude whatsoever, since you've clearly been an opponent of NATO enlargement and you have made several excuses for Russian aggression.

    Recently there was also a very touching video with Ukrainian and Spanish troops who provided some training, it was very friendly and touching as they were saying their farewells to the Ukrainians leaving for the front.

    You're the one whose constantly looking for strife, not us.


    But there’s very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don’t belong to the same family.
     
    I haven't seen examples of this, tbh. Lithuanians are Catholic so they like Italy.

    That you were called "a southern leftie" is actually very accurate (I recall you even mentioning attending some leftist rallies back in the day, probably early antifa movements) - there is such a type and it's a political not an ethnic thing. This type doesn't jive very well with the Anglo worldview. I'm not judging (there are reasons for that), but these are just facts.

    And another branch of my political family, that is even closer to me, are genetically ~60% Baltic, in all likelihood Lithuanian.
     
    This is quite sad and truly shows your hypocrisy - you were a leftie, yet once the wall fell, you ran and found yourself an Eastern Euro wife (basically for those times, took the easy route), and now you bitch about Balts. Wow, you're the one whose ungrateful.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC, @Mikel

    Your comment on drones basically makes the point why Russia does not want NATO on its border and is willing to risk a major war to prevent it.

    People that were paying attention knew for decades that it is difficult to protect a city against drones when they can be launched from hostile territory a few hundred miles away, not to mention by fifth columnists within the country.

    Note that Russian diplomats challenged the USA for violating the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) for flying long-range armed drones such as the Predator. Now everyone can see why.

    Russia knows how to defend against drones just like other advanced militaries. It takes a combination of automatic cannon, smaller missiles, electronic warfare, lasers and special forces on the ground. Unless civilians are very cautious, aggressively taking out drones in populated areas can cause a lot of casualties. A better answer is to have a buffer zone.

  909. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Because of the convenient fiction that taking them out would have resulted in America getting nuked.
     
    What if one doesn't believe that but believes that Ukrainian cities could have gotten nuked by Russia as retaliation for this? I doubt that there are very many people whom Russia cares about in, say, Lviv or Ternopil or Ivano-Frankivsk, which Russia views as thoroughly Banderist-infested. (Nuking Kiev, as the center of Russian history and culture, would be harder to justify, even if Russia doesn't care for the people there. Though I suppose that Russia could conclude that even Kiev deserves a good nuking if it itself can't have it. Though nukings elsewhere in Ukraine further to the west would have been more likely if they would have occurred at all, which I can't guarantee.)

    Replies: @AP

    What if one doesn’t believe that but believes that Ukrainian cities could have gotten nuked by Russia as retaliation for this? I doubt that there are very many people whom Russia cares about in, say, Lviv or Ternopil or Ivano-Frankivsk,

    1. Killing 100,000s in a nuke attack is beyond what even Russia’s elites are capable of doing. And fallout from Lviv would go over NATO Poland. Nuking parts of a NATO member would be a lot worse than an errant drone right across the border. It would trigger massive conventional escalation from NATO.

    2. It is likely by now after 1.5 years of war (if not before the war) that Ukraine would also have the means of exploding a small nuclear bomb, say in Moscow. It has plenty of nuclear material and scientists, why wouldn’t it? And if 100,000s of Ukrainians were killed, why wouldn’t it be used? Such things, if they exist, would not be publicly discussed, but someone would know and tis might prevent such a strike.

    • Thanks: Mr. XYZ
  910. @John Johnson
    @Mr. XYZ

    I do wish that Ukraine would more actively seek out Ukrainian Orthodox converts, though, including among non-whites. A willingness to convert to Ukrainian Orthodoxy should indicate, at least to some degree/extent, a willingness to integrate into the general Ukrainian culture, even if one is non-white.

    There is a bit of a bar which is the language. It isn't an easy conversion from a Germanic or Romance language.

    But I could definitely see Ukraine becoming a mecca for nearby Slavs that don't want to live under a dictator or simply want something new.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Yes, but the Slavic population reserves in Russia and Belarus aren’t too huge. And even those people there who are of at least partial Ukrainian descent are very assimilated in Russia and Belarus, so it would unfortunately be very difficult for Ukraine to win them over.

    Seeking Ukrainian Orthodox converts in, say, India or Latin America might be an interesting approach. I know that Mormons actively seek converts in Latin America, for instance, with some success.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Mr. XYZ

    You are starting to scrape the demographic bottom. Conversions? Offering lonely Ukie women to Third World studs and elderly losers from Brussels? Praying for a baby boom?

    Let's understand the plan: first the Ukies bravely provoke the catastrophe because they want to be Western and stick a finger in the Russian eye (go Nato!). Then to replace the losses of men that were totally unnecessary they will change the demographic of the rump-Ukieland and shop their underserved ladies to anyone showing interest. And pray.

    Is this is the conservative, traditional Ukraine that we have been told so much about? That was going to save the decadent West? It more closely resembles the self-destruction practised by the Afro men - but they tend to keep their ladies to themselves.

    One is tempted to ask: why?

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    , @Philip Owen
    @Mr. XYZ

    I have many many people one or two generations away from Ukraine who still identify as Ukrainian, not Russian. This was before the war. At least one of these (2nd gen) left to join the Ukrainian army. Then there are the red, yellow, blue and green wedges to consider as well as areas that have always been Ukrainian since before the Russian settlers came down the Don. There are still such villages.

  911. @Dmitry
    @AP


    Doubtful, with Pompeo in charge
     
    Pompeo is neoconservative personally, but he wasn't boss and didn't stop Trump in stopping aid to Ukraine in 2019.

    You can read Wikipedia.

    "when John Bolton and others fought the "effort to hijack" the U.S. relationship with Ukraine, Pompeo failed to respond directly to complaints, leaving Taylor to conclude that lack of timely, congressionally approved military aid would leave Ukrainians dying at the hands of Russian-led forces.[125]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo#Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump

    Trump were president, there would have been less cheese.

    Trump might have combined recognition of Crimea with threats of more military aid
     

    Biden has given on paper the supposed $44 billion to Ukraine, although a lot of it is valueless financially old equipment so it's not really so much. In either way, although the real number is less, he has given many billions of dollars, which has created unpopularity for many Americans who don't want so much money to go to Ukraine.

    Trump's main argument was not to send money to foreign countries and this is his promise for his voters, so it's unlikely he would have give such high level of aid like Biden as it would have undermined his political character and contradicted the reason many people voted for him.


    Pole are more assimilated than Ukrainians, but
     
    The nationality language you use is confusing. You are not mostly writing about Poles or Ukrainians.

    You are writing about mostly white Americans with distant ancestry in Poland so in some families it can be there could be no-one in the family who can still remember living in Poland. Only the first generation immigrant is still part of the old country in the way we expect when you name someone by the nationality. After the first generation immigrant, it is "heritage" or "roots".

    I know your language is consistent, although you sometimes seem to be confusing also yourself with this language, like you were saying "Greeks should emigrate from Mariupol to allow Slavs to kill each other". Those people you write as "Greeks" are not Greeks. They are Ukrainians. It is Ukrainians not Greeks, who will be another Ukrainian refugee in Greece, not really different than other refugees there.


    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine.

     

    I'm not disagreeing, they will be influenced especially if they are first generation immigrants. In Hollywood, the actress Mila Kunis from South-West Ukraine was raising $37 million because of the war. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a42110483/mile-kunis-37-million-for-ukraine/

    But the number of Americans who were born in Ukraine is only 400,000, which probably includes some proportion of people with "diverse" views like AnoninTN in TN.

    Mainly they are in Pennsylvania and New York. It's probably only relevant for Pennsylvania. In other states, the numbers are not large to be a significant demographic to change an election or they are in states which are voting Democrat everytime.


    Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe
     
    In 1980, they voted for Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan, while Reagan was more anti-Soviet compared to Jimmy Carter. It's possible to be a mixed result because Poland was a communist country in the Warsaw Pact.

    But in 2016 voted for Trump in when Hillary Clinton was viewed as anti-Russia while Trump was viewed as pro-Russian by a large part of Americans in the election campaign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-American_vote#Presidential_voting_results


    American Jews are pro-Israel.

     

    Jewish is a religion so it should be more motivating. But Reform Jews voted for Obama in 2012. This is when Israel is bipartisan against the Iran deal. They voted for Biden 2020 against Trump who was the most pro-Israel president and beloved of Israelis.

    In Israel, they call Trump their "American uncle". But for the main branches of the Jewish religion in America, he has not been popular. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-voting-record-in-u-s-presidential-elections

    A counter-example, could be American Evangelical Christians or Modern Orthodox Jews which still prioritize Israel's preference in the elections. The mechanism is likely because the Evangelical and Orthodox religious leaders promoted Trump in their religious services or literature.

    There are also Cuban Americans which are ideologically selected, mainly first generation immigrants. The majority remember their life with the communist party of Cuba.

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/resize/source_images/CP-Cuba2017-F1-updated-700x432.png


    If Ireland were invaded what do you think would happen to the Irish-American vote if a candidate supported the invader?

     

    Some people say the "Irish American" vote mostly doesn't exist since the 20th century, after all these are the mainstream white Americans like "Polish Americans".

    Even though Irish Americans are 40 million Americans, Biden wasn't worried about undermining the economic model of Republic of Ireland with the corporate minimum tax plan.

    Replies: @AP

    Pompeo is neoconservative personally, but he wasn’t boss and didn’t stop Trump in stopping aid to Ukraine in 2019.

    Which is more than Obama had done.

    And when Biden first took office, he reversed many of Trump’s anti-Russian policies such as Nordstream sanctions, and energy policies that reduced commodity prices.

    Trump’s main argument was not to send money to foreign countries and this is his promise for his voters, so it’s unlikely he would have give such high level of aid like Biden

    Biden exaggerates how much he gives.

    Trump could make the same policies but describe them as giving cheap old equipment to Ukraine, eliminating the cost of storing them or of destroying them. He could similarly describe the provision of ammunition to Ukraine as making jobs for American workers in the weapon industry, thus making America militarily stronger. His followers will go alone with him, because they don’t really care much about policy, they love Trump whatever he does.

    Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe

    In 1980, they voted for Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan, while Reagan was more anti-Soviet compared to Jimmy Carter.

    Brzezinsky was Carter’s foreign policy man.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

    Brzezinski’s personal views have been described as “progressive”, “international”,[7] political liberal, and “strong anti-communist”.[4] He was an advocate for anti-Soviet containment, for human rights organizations, and for “cultivating a strong West”.[7] He has been praised for his ability to see “the big picture”. Critics described him as hawkish or a “foreign policy hardliner” on some issues, such as Poland–Russia relations.

    You are writing about mostly white Americans with distant ancestry in Poland so in some families it can be there could be no-one in the family who can still remember living in Poland

    Correct. But there are enough Polish-Americans that even taking into account the fact that many are hardly aware of their Polish ethnicity, leaves plenty who are aware of being Poles.

    Michigan has 850,00 Polish-Americans. If only 10% are “patriotic” Poles (I suspect it is more, at least 25%) – that’s 85,000 people.

    Michigan also has 36,000 Ukrainians.

    Trump only won Michigan by 11,000 votes. If he becomes pro-Russian he will not win that state.

    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine.

    I’m not disagreeing, they will be influenced especially if they are first generation immigrants

    No, at least 2 generations. My parents weren’t born in Ukraine either, but North America and Western Europe. I speak Ukrainian fluently. As do many of our third generation. So do my children (who were sent to Ukrainian Saturday school and Ukrainian summer camps along with thousands of others). 4th generation. This is not rare.

    Polish friends I know have US-born kids who speak Polish and are proud of being Poles. Unlike the situation of the 19th century, people have the means to return to Poland to visit. So identity is not limited to those who were born there.

    Mainly they [Ukrainian-Americans] are in Pennsylvania and New York. It’s probably only relevant for Pennsylvania. In other states, the numbers are not large to be a significant demographic to change an election or they are in states which are voting Democrat everytime.

    Ukrainian-Americans are only relevant in Pennsylvania and Michigan, politically.

    Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes. There are 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan.

    If the Republicans run a pro-Russian candidate they will lose those states.

    • Replies: @A123
    @AP


    Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes. There are 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan. If the Republicans run a pro-Russian candidate they will lose those states.
     
    There are much larger trends in the U.S. that swamp the effects you are talking about: (1)

    I have written quite a bit about the Democrats’ emerging problem with nonwhite voters (for example, here, here and here), manifest in steadily declining margins among this demographic. Well, now it’s official.

    Or at least strongly confirmed. The release of a characteristically thorough analysis by Nate Cohn in The New York Times provides abundant and persuasive evidence that this trend is real and shows no signs of going away. As Cohn notes, Biden leads Trump by a mere 53-28 percent margin among these voters in a merge of 2022-23 Times/Siena College polls. This is not only a sharp fall-off from Biden’s support in the 2020 election, but also from Biden’s and previous Democratic candidates’ support in analogous pre-election polls.

     
    https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6d587864-d5c1-4556-a46d-b1c90d594f56_3748x1347.png
     

    All this has left Democrats scratching their heads, given the nature of their opponent. Cohn points out some of the paradoxes that now confront Democrats:

    Democrats have lost ground among nonwhite voters in almost every election over the last decade, even as racially charged fights over everything from a border wall to kneeling during the national anthem might have been expected to produce the exact opposite result. Weak support for Mr. Biden could easily manifest itself as low turnout—as it did in 2022—even if many young and less engaged voters ultimately do not vote for Mr. Trump.

    Many of Mr. Biden’s vulnerabilities—like his age and inflation—could exacerbate the trend, as nonwhite voters tend to be younger and less affluent than white voters…Issues like abortion and threats to democracy may also do less to guard against additional losses among Black and Hispanic voters, who tend to be more conservative than white Biden voters. They may also do less to satisfy voters living paycheck to paycheck: Mr. Biden is underperforming most among nonwhite voters making less than $100,000 per year, at least temporarily erasing the century-old tendency for Democrats to fare better among lower-income than higher-income nonwhite voters.
     

     
    MAGA is pulling disaffected labor voters into the GOP. This is helped by spending at home rather than on 'forever wars' abroad. There every reason to believe that the NeoConDemocrat Ukie pro-war position is the political loser.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/its-official-the-democrats-have-a

    Replies: @AP

    , @QCIC
    @AP

    So much for the melting pot.

    Replies: @AP

  912. @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver


    That has nothing to do with security dilemma logic. The core of the security dilemma is the misperception (including perfectly rational misperception, not mere “delusion”) that defensive measures country A is taking to enhance country A’s security are an offensive dagger aimed at the heart of country B, which then feels compelled to respond in kind by enhancing its own security, which country A then misperceives as offensive…. etc.
     
    Well, the Anglo-French moves to defend Poland were certainly viewed by the Anglo-French as being defensive in nature, though Nazi Germany interpreted these moves, quite accurately, as an existential threat to the Nazi German regime since in all likelihood the Anglo-French would stop at nothing short of full-on regime change in Nazi Germany.

    For that matter, the Franco-Soviet Pact of 1935, France's alliances with Czechoslovakia and Poland, Czechoslovakia's alliance with the USSR, and Britain's alliance with Poland were all viewed as defensive by those countries but as offensive and as threatening encirclement by Nazi Germany.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    In other words, the security dilemma is a real phenomenon in international relations. No shit, Sherlock.

    None of what you just said – none of anything you have so far said – establishes any kind of relation between security dilemma logic and 20th century genocides.

    Just drop it please.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @silviosilver

    You need to read better books.

    https://www.schilbantiquarian.com/product/1670-francis-bacon-sylva-sylvarum-new-atlantis-natural-history-philosophy-rare/

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver

    Maybe not. Maybe I should have made my point here differently. My overall point here, though, was that putting the Nazis and Ottomans into a corner which they had no realistic way out of ensured that they would going to take their perceived enemies down together with them.

  913. @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver


    The EU is imperfect, but all in all I find it preferable to the arrangement that preceded it. Whatever its other failings, it serves as useful check on petty nationalist fuckwitry, prevents it from getting out of hand. In fact, that to me is reason enough to prefer racially and culturally feasible supranational or multinational structures to muh sacred nation horseshit. Eg I preferred Yugoslavia over Serbia, if I were Basque, I would prefer Spain over Euskadi – a bit of autonomy and “cultural rights” is fine, but strict independence isn’t really necessary and isn’t necessarily an improvement. (But I understand it’s not always easy. When there is extreme historical animosity, it’s hard to pull it off, and sometimes a parting of ways may be the best solution.)
     
    Would you argue that Israel should join the EU in order to get Israeli Jewish nationalism and chauvinism under control?

    Replies: @silviosilver

    I personally wouldn’t. Not worth the inevitable headaches. And I’d rather limit than expand involvement with the arabo-muzz shithead world. But you could semi sorta kinda make a case for it.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver

    Why would Israel join the EU create inevitable headaches? Because the EU would demand that Israel allow more non-Jewish immigration, at least from within the EU?

    Replies: @Dmitry

  914. @silviosilver
    @Mikel


    But there’s very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don’t belong to the same family. Their natural position in Europe is of course close to the Germanics. Remember that equally incongruent remark of “you are not an Anglo” from the other Balt resident here? Looks like they cannot help themselves. Good luck getting a better treatment from them as a Southeast Euro than the Southwestern ones lol.
     
    I take it this is what you are referring to by me "backing the wrong horse"?

    What do you mean by "treatment" - their attitudes? I don't really care about that. I don't see that their attitudes are so bad anyway. So they feel closer to their own people and those culturally closer to them? That's not exactly shocking. And there will always be people who take that attitude step further and actively disdain those who are more distant. I am not really so different in this regard, although I try to fight the tendency to disdain, since it doesn't bring any actual benefits and is very off-putting to most people.

    But let’s be real and not get too carried away. This Frankenstein patchwork called the EU has more holes in it than a coffee strainer.
     
    What exactly - be precise - are you accusing me of getting carried away with?

    The EU is imperfect, but all in all I find it preferable to the arrangement that preceded it. Whatever its other failings, it serves as useful check on petty nationalist fuckwitry, prevents it from getting out of hand. In fact, that to me is reason enough to prefer racially and culturally feasible supranational or multinational structures to muh sacred nation horseshit. Eg I preferred Yugoslavia over Serbia, if I were Basque, I would prefer Spain over Euskadi - a bit of autonomy and "cultural rights" is fine, but strict independence isn't really necessary and isn't necessarily an improvement. (But I understand it's not always easy. When there is extreme historical animosity, it's hard to pull it off, and sometimes a parting of ways may be the best solution.)

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @Mikel

    What do you mean by “treatment” – their attitudes? I don’t really care about that.

    OK, fair enough. In fact, as long as it’s not too blunt, there are advantages to having people speak their minds openly and not keeping it to themselves.

    But, having said that, we should now run the test of having the Lithuanian Sovok spend several months tying whatever you say to your “Southern Euro leftie” origins, while every time you express your opinions on Australian politics, one Balt or another suggests that you watch your tongue because you’re not an Anglo. Wouldn’t it be charming to enjoy their openness, lol

    Whatever its other failings, it serves as useful check on petty nationalist fuckwitry, prevents it from getting out of hand.

    Agreed. But there is no way I will ever agree twith this:

    if I were Basque, I would prefer Spain over Euskadi

    All analogies are imperfect, OK, but that’s like saying that Kosovar Serbians would be better off belonging to a larger entity like Kosovo than to a small independent homeland. It’s not just the big cultural difference, that the Spanish fuckers tried to erase by emulating the French and erasing the only surviving pre-Indoeuropean language isolate in Europe. It’s also that they’ve been dragging us down for a century and a half. The Industrial Revolution passed by them like sand through their fingers, preoccupied as they were with maintaining their crumbling and backward empire. The only places where it caught on was The Basque Country and Catalonia. And all they could do is send us masses of impoverished immigrants who acted like the perfect agents to drive our language and customs out from the cities to the rural areas.

    Though to be frank, I don’t care much about these matters anymore. The cause is long lost anyway. In addition to the Spaniards, now my people are being overrun by all sorts of exotic foreigners. The other day my aunt told me that in her small apartment block she has a Moroccan family as neighbors (OK,well, understandable, they’re just across the Gibraltar Straits that they share with Spain and besides she said they’re nice) and a Pakistani family, who are very problematic, she lamented. Now, problematic or not, how on earth has a group of Pakistanis ended up settling in a small industrial town of the small Basque Country that even tourists shun for its bad weather?

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikel

    What is this nonsense you're writing here?


    having the Lithuanian Sovok
     
    He's not Sovok at all, nothing he has written is in any way Sovok. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, Sovok hasn't really been a thing for some 30 years now.

    tying whatever you say to your “Southern Euro leftie” origins
     
    Completely off. Silviosilver is the opposite of a "southern euro leftie", he is nowhere near that on the political spectrum (unlike yourself).

    one Balt or another suggests that you watch your tongue because you’re not an Anglo
     
    I only said that because heritage Americans should be given more say than FOBs.

    Replies: @Mikel

  915. @A123
    @Dmitry

    This article does not hold together well and needs to be met with a string of questions.


    As result of the war, Israel will be receiving some proportion of the opportunist non-patriotic people, which is the character of the postsoviet society nowadays.

    There was an article last week in Moscow Times.

    According to New Profile, an Israeli movement that opposes militarism and advises conscientious objectors, more than 100 recent Russian migrants have reached out in recent months for guidance on how to avoid conscription to the IDF.
     

     
    How reliable is New Profile as a source? Would their agenda be advanced by inflating the number?

    “I left Russia because of the war, and I cannot imagine myself serving in any army, in any country,” Alice told The Moscow Times in a phone interview.
     
    Why would a Russian leave Russia because of the SMO? Did she actually leave for very different reasons?

    However, for new emigres like Alice, who do not speak Hebrew
     
    Why pick Israel with no local language skills (∆)? Could it be limited cash and now she is stuck?

    because the state only acknowledges religious weddings, Alice and Matvey, as secular Israelis, had to travel abroad for a civil marriage.
     
    If she and her husband have sufficient resources for international travel, why are they returning to Israel? Why not go to somewhere that provides them better opportunities and less bureaucratic hassle?

    While the story itself may pass a fact check; Is it actually a highly atypical case that does not reflect the reality of migrating to Israel?
    _______

    The author is exceedingly young with a heavy academic background from the UK: (1)

    Milan Czerny is a Human Exploitation Researcher at Active Fence who focuses notably on issues relating to Russia and Ukraine. His writing has appeared in a wide range of publications, including Riddle Russia, Le Monde, NATO Strategic Communications Centre, and Haaretz. He holds a bachelors degree in War Studies from King’s College London and a master’s degree in Russian and East European Studies from the University of Oxford. He speaks English, French, Russian, and Hebrew.
     
    Being published in Haaretz strongly implies willingness to write articles that appeal to the far left Labour/Gesher party. Another source had his graduation date from Kings College as 2020.

    His main employer, the organization Active Fence, appears to be focused on "stopping web disinformation". Make of that what you will.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.fpri.org/contributor/milan-czerny/

    (∆) As a side question -- How does the IDF handle individuals entering compulsory service with insufficient language skills? The straightforward option would be an intensive Hebrew language immersion pre-camp for two to three months before starting official service. However, I am unsure if that is the actual practice.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Why would a Russian leave Russia because of the SMO

    I don’t have some survey, but I can say probably most people in Russia below about age 40 years want to emigrate from Russia, like any people who were not born in the developed countries. Not everyone had enough good karma points to be re-incarnated in Norway or Benelux.

    The invasion of Ukraine has been panic for many people because they see the train doors are closing. For years, disorganized people in Russia are dreaming “maybe I will emigrate in a few years”.

    But now there won’t be the possibly to “emigrate in a few years”. It’s too late already for most of the people. So, there was a crazy panic to escape in 2022. This was already before the mobilization panic in autumn 2022.

    A lot of people have been going to emigrate to third world countries like Georgia, Armenia or Uzbekistan.

    pick Israel with no local language skills (∆)? Could it be limited cash

    Because Israel is the only “developed country” (well, depending if you think Israel is a developed country or not) with an open border for this part of the population of Russia i.e. many Russians with Jewish roots which allow immigration to Israel.

    It’s the only open border to the first world. For Russians, it’s not so easy to emigrate to a developed country, unless you have a company to sponsor the visa. This is relatively a small proportion of the population who have the correct career to go to developed countries for their career. Only a small proportion of people are organized about this.

    ufficient resources for international travel, why are they returning to Israel

    Tens of millions of Russians have sufficient resources for international travel, it’s not expensive nowadays. But not many people have opportunity or resources to emigrate to live in a developed country.

    Why not go to somewhere that provides them better opportunities and less bureaucratic hassle?

    Israel is the only option for now for the people in the article. But they are not only an example of “unpatriotic” postsoviet people i.e. not motivated immigrants for Israel. They are also pacifists who seem they are a bit anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, which is indication of Westernization.

    Is it actually a highly atypical case that does not reflect the reality of migrating to Israel?

    In the situation of immigration from Russia to Israel and the social media groups, this was always of the popular views of the immigrants, how to escape the military conscription in Israel.

    A lot of them are still conscripted, but generally the advice in Russia is to wait until you are older than 21/22 before immigrating to Israel, so to avoid the conscription.

    IDF handle individuals entering compulsory service with insufficient language skills? The straightforward option would be an intensive Hebrew language immersion pre-camp for two to three months before starting official service. However, I am unsure if that is the actual practice.

    From what I can find, there is a village in the Galilee where conscripts who cannot speak Hebrew have to learn Hebrew for 5 months.

    One of the reasons Israel is interesting is also because it is a socialist heritage where they do many things in a socialist way, sometimes even a little Stalinist. Just, it’s the military, so the socialism can exist with the recent years increasing capitalism for civilian life.

    Female immigrant conscripts have to mandatory study in feminist Zionist bootcamps where they learn women’s empowerment, feminism and Zionism.

    There is a village in Raanana where some of the small number of the secular American Jews who Israel can attract to immigrate, live for a year before they enter the army.

    They have courses for disabled soldiers, for educating deliquent soldiers for literacy, for teaching immigrants about Israeli history or religion.

    The “peoples’ army” is kind of socialist state within the state. The most popular radio in Israel, is army radio which the soldiers are operating, which is politically very liberal and criticizes the civilian government.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Dmitry


    A lot of people have been going to emigrate to third world countries like Georgia, Armenia or Uzbekistan.
     
    Who is emigrating to Uzbekistan?

    Yves Smith emigrated to Thailand. We need a cartoon of her freaking out with cockroaches.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    , @QCIC
    @Dmitry

    Most people typically do not move long distances because of their family connections, not to mention the hassles of adopting a new language and customs.

    How does your comment "most Russians below age 40 want to move" relate to these points? Is it simply the people you interact with and the particular media information you are exposed to which creates such an impression?

    Most of the people in the Russian big cities seem to be happy and I think people in the smaller towns are loathe to move. People in the medium size cities probably want to move to the big cities.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  916. @Mikel
    @silviosilver


    What do you mean by “treatment” – their attitudes? I don’t really care about that.
     
    OK, fair enough. In fact, as long as it's not too blunt, there are advantages to having people speak their minds openly and not keeping it to themselves.

    But, having said that, we should now run the test of having the Lithuanian Sovok spend several months tying whatever you say to your "Southern Euro leftie" origins, while every time you express your opinions on Australian politics, one Balt or another suggests that you watch your tongue because you're not an Anglo. Wouldn't it be charming to enjoy their openness, lol

    Whatever its other failings, it serves as useful check on petty nationalist fuckwitry, prevents it from getting out of hand.

     

    Agreed. But there is no way I will ever agree twith this:

    if I were Basque, I would prefer Spain over Euskadi
     
    All analogies are imperfect, OK, but that's like saying that Kosovar Serbians would be better off belonging to a larger entity like Kosovo than to a small independent homeland. It's not just the big cultural difference, that the Spanish fuckers tried to erase by emulating the French and erasing the only surviving pre-Indoeuropean language isolate in Europe. It's also that they've been dragging us down for a century and a half. The Industrial Revolution passed by them like sand through their fingers, preoccupied as they were with maintaining their crumbling and backward empire. The only places where it caught on was The Basque Country and Catalonia. And all they could do is send us masses of impoverished immigrants who acted like the perfect agents to drive our language and customs out from the cities to the rural areas.

    Though to be frank, I don't care much about these matters anymore. The cause is long lost anyway. In addition to the Spaniards, now my people are being overrun by all sorts of exotic foreigners. The other day my aunt told me that in her small apartment block she has a Moroccan family as neighbors (OK,well, understandable, they're just across the Gibraltar Straits that they share with Spain and besides she said they're nice) and a Pakistani family, who are very problematic, she lamented. Now, problematic or not, how on earth has a group of Pakistanis ended up settling in a small industrial town of the small Basque Country that even tourists shun for its bad weather?

    Replies: @LatW

    What is this nonsense you’re writing here?

    having the Lithuanian Sovok

    He’s not Sovok at all, nothing he has written is in any way Sovok. Plus, in case you haven’t noticed, Sovok hasn’t really been a thing for some 30 years now.

    tying whatever you say to your “Southern Euro leftie” origins

    Completely off. Silviosilver is the opposite of a “southern euro leftie”, he is nowhere near that on the political spectrum (unlike yourself).

    one Balt or another suggests that you watch your tongue because you’re not an Anglo

    I only said that because heritage Americans should be given more say than FOBs.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @LatW


    He’s not Sovok at all, nothing he has written is in any way Sovok. Plus, in case you haven’t noticed, Sovok hasn’t really been a thing for some 30 years now.
     
    Are you suggesting that I forget that he was born in the Sovok Union and thus everything he says must be regarded through that prism?

    That's almost as bad a as suggesting that a Basque-American or a Serbian-Australian are entitled to express their thoughts with the same liberty as Anglos!


    he is nowhere near that on the political spectrum (unlike yourself).
     
    Like I said, you guys are totally behind the times. Being anti-interventionist now is almost exclusively a right-wing position in the US. Other than that, I'm totally at a loss what I may have ever said that could be interpreted as leftist. Cultural differences aside, there's no way anyone could conclude that I'm a leftist for expressing my disgust at Cirillo, my defense of the Mormons or my indignation at having teachers at schools indoctrinating our children on gender ideology.

    Perhaps my suggestion that male teenagers having affairs with their hottie teachers are not always and in all cases innocent victims of abuse?

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death, @AP

  917. @LatW
    @Mikel


    Right now they have Spanish and Italian pilots in their skies, protecting them from that phantasmagorical threat from the Russkies, who can barely defend the airspace over Moscow.
     
    It was not known before 2023 that the Russians cannot protect their own air space over Moscow (even though Budanov probably did know and I have also stated multiple times that the RusFed territory is too large to protect with their current means - but overall this was a surprise).

    Besides, there are something like 10 different nationalities doing the patrolling over the Baltic skies and these are actually meant to protect only civilian traffic, and most likely would not suffice during a military conflict (although they might at least partially). The relations are very friendly with other European soldiers.

    There is a lot of commerce in that region (always has been since times immemorial), plenty of Western investments there, it would be idiotic to not protect that area. It is not a gift, but a necessity for everyone. This matters a lot for Germany and Scandinavia.

    Above all, you personally are not entitled to any gratitude whatsoever, since you've clearly been an opponent of NATO enlargement and you have made several excuses for Russian aggression.

    Recently there was also a very touching video with Ukrainian and Spanish troops who provided some training, it was very friendly and touching as they were saying their farewells to the Ukrainians leaving for the front.

    You're the one whose constantly looking for strife, not us.


    But there’s very little doubt that, as soon as they get their act together and start leaving poverty behind, they will get haughty and make it clear to the Southern Euros that they don’t belong to the same family.
     
    I haven't seen examples of this, tbh. Lithuanians are Catholic so they like Italy.

    That you were called "a southern leftie" is actually very accurate (I recall you even mentioning attending some leftist rallies back in the day, probably early antifa movements) - there is such a type and it's a political not an ethnic thing. This type doesn't jive very well with the Anglo worldview. I'm not judging (there are reasons for that), but these are just facts.

    And another branch of my political family, that is even closer to me, are genetically ~60% Baltic, in all likelihood Lithuanian.
     
    This is quite sad and truly shows your hypocrisy - you were a leftie, yet once the wall fell, you ran and found yourself an Eastern Euro wife (basically for those times, took the easy route), and now you bitch about Balts. Wow, you're the one whose ungrateful.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC, @Mikel

    It is not a gift, but a necessity for everyone.

    Sure. How could the industrial fabric of Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia survive if, due to those Russian planes that no longer dare enter Ukrainian airspace, the maritime traffic on the Eastern Baltic were to be interrupted? Thank God we have our benevolent Spanish overlords sacrificing themselves for us on the Baltic Sea.

    I recall you even mentioning attending some leftist rallies back in the day, probably early antifa movements

    Your recollection couldn’t be more inaccurate. I never did anything of the like. Quite the contrary, I opposed my Commie countrymen when it mattered, in the 80s. Apart from lots of abuse and plenty of social isolation in my hometown, I once got a rock thrown to my face. It didn’t amount to much, no permanent scars. But it could have been much worse. Some people nearby, protesting also the execution of an innocent man by our separatist Commies had to be hospitalized after receiving the impact of a Molotov cocktail. They all survived but they must still be wearing the burn scars of the confrontation.

    What did you or S_D do to confront the Commies?

    Recently there was also a very touching video with Ukrainian and Spanish troops who provided some training

    Was it enough training though? There is always so much more Westerners should have done for the Ukrainians.

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikel


    What did you or S_D do to confront the Commies?
     
    You were never oppressed by the Communists the way we were, so a completely ridiculous comparison. And I was a child, btw.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Emil Nikola Richard

  918. @Mikel
    @LatW


    It is not a gift, but a necessity for everyone.
     
    Sure. How could the industrial fabric of Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia survive if, due to those Russian planes that no longer dare enter Ukrainian airspace, the maritime traffic on the Eastern Baltic were to be interrupted? Thank God we have our benevolent Spanish overlords sacrificing themselves for us on the Baltic Sea.


    I recall you even mentioning attending some leftist rallies back in the day, probably early antifa movements
     
    Your recollection couldn't be more inaccurate. I never did anything of the like. Quite the contrary, I opposed my Commie countrymen when it mattered, in the 80s. Apart from lots of abuse and plenty of social isolation in my hometown, I once got a rock thrown to my face. It didn't amount to much, no permanent scars. But it could have been much worse. Some people nearby, protesting also the execution of an innocent man by our separatist Commies had to be hospitalized after receiving the impact of a Molotov cocktail. They all survived but they must still be wearing the burn scars of the confrontation.

    What did you or S_D do to confront the Commies?


    Recently there was also a very touching video with Ukrainian and Spanish troops who provided some training
     
    Was it enough training though? There is always so much more Westerners should have done for the Ukrainians.

    Replies: @LatW

    What did you or S_D do to confront the Commies?

    You were never oppressed by the Communists the way we were, so a completely ridiculous comparison. And I was a child, btw.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @LatW


    You were never oppressed by the Communists the way we were, so a completely ridiculous comparison.
     
    Thankfully, I have never experienced a full-blown war like the one in Ukraine but I know what an oppressive dictatorship is (I was born under one). My people were systematically tortured when they were arrested for anything the Spaniards considered to be promotion of separatism. And I know what a low-level armed conflict is too. I grew up amidst bombings and shootings every week somewhere near me. People I knew personally were killed by both sides. If you were a child in the 80s are you sure you have ever experienced anything like that?

    I'm not putting any medals on my own chest by the way. All of that was totally involuntary and hundreds of thousands of teenagers of my generation lived exactly through the same experiences. I'm just setting the record straight about who can and cannot lecture me on oppression and violence. It wasn't just Communist Russians doing all the oppression in the world.

    Replies: @AP

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @LatW

    > You were never oppressed by the Communists the way we were, so a completely ridiculous comparison.

    You haven't seen nothing yet.

    https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/636/794/0f8.jpg

    Replies: @LatW

  919. @LatW
    @Mikel

    What is this nonsense you're writing here?


    having the Lithuanian Sovok
     
    He's not Sovok at all, nothing he has written is in any way Sovok. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, Sovok hasn't really been a thing for some 30 years now.

    tying whatever you say to your “Southern Euro leftie” origins
     
    Completely off. Silviosilver is the opposite of a "southern euro leftie", he is nowhere near that on the political spectrum (unlike yourself).

    one Balt or another suggests that you watch your tongue because you’re not an Anglo
     
    I only said that because heritage Americans should be given more say than FOBs.

    Replies: @Mikel

    He’s not Sovok at all, nothing he has written is in any way Sovok. Plus, in case you haven’t noticed, Sovok hasn’t really been a thing for some 30 years now.

    Are you suggesting that I forget that he was born in the Sovok Union and thus everything he says must be regarded through that prism?

    That’s almost as bad a as suggesting that a Basque-American or a Serbian-Australian are entitled to express their thoughts with the same liberty as Anglos!

    he is nowhere near that on the political spectrum (unlike yourself).

    Like I said, you guys are totally behind the times. Being anti-interventionist now is almost exclusively a right-wing position in the US. Other than that, I’m totally at a loss what I may have ever said that could be interpreted as leftist. Cultural differences aside, there’s no way anyone could conclude that I’m a leftist for expressing my disgust at Cirillo, my defense of the Mormons or my indignation at having teachers at schools indoctrinating our children on gender ideology.

    Perhaps my suggestion that male teenagers having affairs with their hottie teachers are not always and in all cases innocent victims of abuse?

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Mikel


    Are you suggesting that I forget that he was born in the Sovok Union and thus everything he says must be regarded through that prism?
     
    Yes, because most Lithuanians weren't Sovoks even during those times.
    , @sudden death
    @Mikel

    You did have quite typical euro leftie hippie peacenik level delusions about the great wonders of neutrality in nuclear age as if it was some kind of insurance of not being the target of potential nuclear attack, while in reality neutral non-NATO Austria was targeted and would have been nuclear bombed in case of war as well.

    Also just a guess, but ethnic background might explain a bit the mighty attraction to RF as geopolitical continuation of USSR, because back in the day, when they were not too busy with killing other leftists in Spain, they also sort of waged the war against rightist frankists whom oppresed any Basque strive to independence.

    , @AP
    @Mikel


    Being anti-interventionist now is almost exclusively a right-wing position in the US
     
    No, the far Left also holds this position. There’s just less of it than there is populism - which isn’t exactly “right.” The most traditional, classic 1980s Republican (Mike Pence) is actively opposed to the Russian invasion.
  920. @LatW
    @Mikel


    What did you or S_D do to confront the Commies?
     
    You were never oppressed by the Communists the way we were, so a completely ridiculous comparison. And I was a child, btw.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Emil Nikola Richard

    You were never oppressed by the Communists the way we were, so a completely ridiculous comparison.

    Thankfully, I have never experienced a full-blown war like the one in Ukraine but I know what an oppressive dictatorship is (I was born under one). My people were systematically tortured when they were arrested for anything the Spaniards considered to be promotion of separatism. And I know what a low-level armed conflict is too. I grew up amidst bombings and shootings every week somewhere near me. People I knew personally were killed by both sides. If you were a child in the 80s are you sure you have ever experienced anything like that?

    I’m not putting any medals on my own chest by the way. All of that was totally involuntary and hundreds of thousands of teenagers of my generation lived exactly through the same experiences. I’m just setting the record straight about who can and cannot lecture me on oppression and violence. It wasn’t just Communist Russians doing all the oppression in the world.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mikel

    Some Russian dissident (forgot who) that defected and later spent some time in Franco’s Spain expressed how free and non-repressive Spain under Franco was, compared to Brezhnev’s USSR.

  921. @Mikel
    @LatW


    He’s not Sovok at all, nothing he has written is in any way Sovok. Plus, in case you haven’t noticed, Sovok hasn’t really been a thing for some 30 years now.
     
    Are you suggesting that I forget that he was born in the Sovok Union and thus everything he says must be regarded through that prism?

    That's almost as bad a as suggesting that a Basque-American or a Serbian-Australian are entitled to express their thoughts with the same liberty as Anglos!


    he is nowhere near that on the political spectrum (unlike yourself).
     
    Like I said, you guys are totally behind the times. Being anti-interventionist now is almost exclusively a right-wing position in the US. Other than that, I'm totally at a loss what I may have ever said that could be interpreted as leftist. Cultural differences aside, there's no way anyone could conclude that I'm a leftist for expressing my disgust at Cirillo, my defense of the Mormons or my indignation at having teachers at schools indoctrinating our children on gender ideology.

    Perhaps my suggestion that male teenagers having affairs with their hottie teachers are not always and in all cases innocent victims of abuse?

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death, @AP

    Are you suggesting that I forget that he was born in the Sovok Union and thus everything he says must be regarded through that prism?

    Yes, because most Lithuanians weren’t Sovoks even during those times.

  922. @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson

    Yes, but the Slavic population reserves in Russia and Belarus aren't too huge. And even those people there who are of at least partial Ukrainian descent are very assimilated in Russia and Belarus, so it would unfortunately be very difficult for Ukraine to win them over.

    Seeking Ukrainian Orthodox converts in, say, India or Latin America might be an interesting approach. I know that Mormons actively seek converts in Latin America, for instance, with some success.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Philip Owen

    You are starting to scrape the demographic bottom. Conversions? Offering lonely Ukie women to Third World studs and elderly losers from Brussels? Praying for a baby boom?

    Let’s understand the plan: first the Ukies bravely provoke the catastrophe because they want to be Western and stick a finger in the Russian eye (go Nato!). Then to replace the losses of men that were totally unnecessary they will change the demographic of the rump-Ukieland and shop their underserved ladies to anyone showing interest. And pray.

    Is this is the conservative, traditional Ukraine that we have been told so much about? That was going to save the decadent West? It more closely resembles the self-destruction practised by the Afro men – but they tend to keep their ladies to themselves.

    One is tempted to ask: why?

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @Beckow

    Ukraine is a whorehouse, and The Jew King is the pimp.

  923. @Mikel
    @LatW


    He’s not Sovok at all, nothing he has written is in any way Sovok. Plus, in case you haven’t noticed, Sovok hasn’t really been a thing for some 30 years now.
     
    Are you suggesting that I forget that he was born in the Sovok Union and thus everything he says must be regarded through that prism?

    That's almost as bad a as suggesting that a Basque-American or a Serbian-Australian are entitled to express their thoughts with the same liberty as Anglos!


    he is nowhere near that on the political spectrum (unlike yourself).
     
    Like I said, you guys are totally behind the times. Being anti-interventionist now is almost exclusively a right-wing position in the US. Other than that, I'm totally at a loss what I may have ever said that could be interpreted as leftist. Cultural differences aside, there's no way anyone could conclude that I'm a leftist for expressing my disgust at Cirillo, my defense of the Mormons or my indignation at having teachers at schools indoctrinating our children on gender ideology.

    Perhaps my suggestion that male teenagers having affairs with their hottie teachers are not always and in all cases innocent victims of abuse?

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death, @AP

    You did have quite typical euro leftie hippie peacenik level delusions about the great wonders of neutrality in nuclear age as if it was some kind of insurance of not being the target of potential nuclear attack, while in reality neutral non-NATO Austria was targeted and would have been nuclear bombed in case of war as well.

    Also just a guess, but ethnic background might explain a bit the mighty attraction to RF as geopolitical continuation of USSR, because back in the day, when they were not too busy with killing other leftists in Spain, they also sort of waged the war against rightist frankists whom oppresed any Basque strive to independence.

  924. https://t.me/CyberspecNews/41814

    Bojo throws a Roman Salute in Galicia. Behold the Jew!

  925. @John Johnson
    @Mr. XYZ

    Hell, Hitler warned in early 1939 that European Jewry will be annihilated if another World War will break out, and that’s ultimately what happened, with him and/or other Nazis subsequently referring to this prophecy of his to justify the Holocaust:

    He supposedly told a friend in the early 1930s that he planned on killing the Jews if he took power. He also wrote that the loss of WW1 would have been acceptable if German Jews had been killed.

    I actually don't believe that the final solution was a decision he made after 1939.

    I think that was the plan from the beginning but he only expedited the goal after realizing the possibility of losing or being killed. As part of Ost Front they were going to send both Jews and Slavs to Siberia. Basically report to the world that they were relocating them while knowing that most would be killed by exposure or starvation.

    Hitler was truly obsessed with the Jews. Greece had a very small Jewish population and yet he insisted on rounding them up.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    Just goes to show that the allies were actually obsessed with rescuing Jews. And little else.

    I recently rewatched a film titled Charlotte Grey.

    It’s about a Scottish lass who is very seriously concerned about what Germany did to France by invading it. That’s the set up.

    She’s recruited by SoE after a dinner party in London where she passes herself off as French.

    She goes to France, officially to act as a courier in Vichy. Her secondary agenda is to improbably locate her down pilot RAF boyfriend.

    Somehow in Vichy she encounters two Jewish orphans. Later she discovers that she’s being hosted by a French resistance fighter with 1/8 Jewish ancestry. He’s the prime mover in local resistance as the Germans begin to deploy into previously unoccupied Vichy.

    In the hands of an antisemitic screen writer (you could easily re edit too) that only slightly tweaks the tale it’s a story about a lunatic busybody Scot who gets various French ethnics killed in their home village while she blows up trains and starts a sequence of reprisals at the hands of the German occupation forces. What motivates her ultimately? Her obsession with protecting these two Jewish boys.
    The French were just beside the point.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Wokechoke

    French Resistance may make for great movies but they really didn't do much until the Allies had landed. The Poles put up far more of a fight.

    Far more French women were shacking up with Nazis but I suppose that doesn't make for good Hollywood fare.

    The Gestapo was also very successful at infiltrating resistance groups through the use of French informants.

  926. @Beckow
    @Mr. XYZ

    You are starting to scrape the demographic bottom. Conversions? Offering lonely Ukie women to Third World studs and elderly losers from Brussels? Praying for a baby boom?

    Let's understand the plan: first the Ukies bravely provoke the catastrophe because they want to be Western and stick a finger in the Russian eye (go Nato!). Then to replace the losses of men that were totally unnecessary they will change the demographic of the rump-Ukieland and shop their underserved ladies to anyone showing interest. And pray.

    Is this is the conservative, traditional Ukraine that we have been told so much about? That was going to save the decadent West? It more closely resembles the self-destruction practised by the Afro men - but they tend to keep their ladies to themselves.

    One is tempted to ask: why?

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    Ukraine is a whorehouse, and The Jew King is the pimp.

  927. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Pompeo is neoconservative personally, but he wasn’t boss and didn’t stop Trump in stopping aid to Ukraine in 2019.
     
    Which is more than Obama had done.

    And when Biden first took office, he reversed many of Trump's anti-Russian policies such as Nordstream sanctions, and energy policies that reduced commodity prices.


    Trump’s main argument was not to send money to foreign countries and this is his promise for his voters, so it’s unlikely he would have give such high level of aid like Biden
     
    Biden exaggerates how much he gives.

    Trump could make the same policies but describe them as giving cheap old equipment to Ukraine, eliminating the cost of storing them or of destroying them. He could similarly describe the provision of ammunition to Ukraine as making jobs for American workers in the weapon industry, thus making America militarily stronger. His followers will go alone with him, because they don't really care much about policy, they love Trump whatever he does.

    Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe

    In 1980, they voted for Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan, while Reagan was more anti-Soviet compared to Jimmy Carter.
     
    Brzezinsky was Carter's foreign policy man.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

    Brzezinski's personal views have been described as "progressive", "international",[7] political liberal, and "strong anti-communist".[4] He was an advocate for anti-Soviet containment, for human rights organizations, and for "cultivating a strong West".[7] He has been praised for his ability to see "the big picture". Critics described him as hawkish or a "foreign policy hardliner" on some issues, such as Poland–Russia relations.

    You are writing about mostly white Americans with distant ancestry in Poland so in some families it can be there could be no-one in the family who can still remember living in Poland
     
    Correct. But there are enough Polish-Americans that even taking into account the fact that many are hardly aware of their Polish ethnicity, leaves plenty who are aware of being Poles.

    Michigan has 850,00 Polish-Americans. If only 10% are "patriotic" Poles (I suspect it is more, at least 25%) - that's 85,000 people.

    Michigan also has 36,000 Ukrainians.

    Trump only won Michigan by 11,000 votes. If he becomes pro-Russian he will not win that state.

    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine.

    I’m not disagreeing, they will be influenced especially if they are first generation immigrants
     
    No, at least 2 generations. My parents weren't born in Ukraine either, but North America and Western Europe. I speak Ukrainian fluently. As do many of our third generation. So do my children (who were sent to Ukrainian Saturday school and Ukrainian summer camps along with thousands of others). 4th generation. This is not rare.

    Polish friends I know have US-born kids who speak Polish and are proud of being Poles. Unlike the situation of the 19th century, people have the means to return to Poland to visit. So identity is not limited to those who were born there.

    Mainly they [Ukrainian-Americans] are in Pennsylvania and New York. It’s probably only relevant for Pennsylvania. In other states, the numbers are not large to be a significant demographic to change an election or they are in states which are voting Democrat everytime.
     
    Ukrainian-Americans are only relevant in Pennsylvania and Michigan, politically.

    Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes. There are 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan.

    If the Republicans run a pro-Russian candidate they will lose those states.

    Replies: @A123, @QCIC

    Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes. There are 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan. If the Republicans run a pro-Russian candidate they will lose those states.

    There are much larger trends in the U.S. that swamp the effects you are talking about: (1)

    I have written quite a bit about the Democrats’ emerging problem with nonwhite voters (for example, here, here and here), manifest in steadily declining margins among this demographic. Well, now it’s official.

    Or at least strongly confirmed. The release of a characteristically thorough analysis by Nate Cohn in The New York Times provides abundant and persuasive evidence that this trend is real and shows no signs of going away. As Cohn notes, Biden leads Trump by a mere 53-28 percent margin among these voters in a merge of 2022-23 Times/Siena College polls. This is not only a sharp fall-off from Biden’s support in the 2020 election, but also from Biden’s and previous Democratic candidates’ support in analogous pre-election polls.

     

     

    All this has left Democrats scratching their heads, given the nature of their opponent. Cohn points out some of the paradoxes that now confront Democrats:

    Democrats have lost ground among nonwhite voters in almost every election over the last decade, even as racially charged fights over everything from a border wall to kneeling during the national anthem might have been expected to produce the exact opposite result. Weak support for Mr. Biden could easily manifest itself as low turnout—as it did in 2022—even if many young and less engaged voters ultimately do not vote for Mr. Trump.

    Many of Mr. Biden’s vulnerabilities—like his age and inflation—could exacerbate the trend, as nonwhite voters tend to be younger and less affluent than white voters…Issues like abortion and threats to democracy may also do less to guard against additional losses among Black and Hispanic voters, who tend to be more conservative than white Biden voters. They may also do less to satisfy voters living paycheck to paycheck: Mr. Biden is underperforming most among nonwhite voters making less than $100,000 per year, at least temporarily erasing the century-old tendency for Democrats to fare better among lower-income than higher-income nonwhite voters.

    MAGA is pulling disaffected labor voters into the GOP. This is helped by spending at home rather than on ‘forever wars’ abroad. There every reason to believe that the NeoConDemocrat Ukie pro-war position is the political loser.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/its-official-the-democrats-have-a

    • Replies: @AP
    @A123

    Trump did better among non-white voters in 2020 than in 2016.

    How did that turn out?

    Boosting the Hispanic vote won’t flip California, and Texas and Florida are already solidly Red.

    Pro-Russian isolationism might be popular in the Deep South and in Scotch-Irish Appalachia but not in Ukrainian and Polish coal mining communities in PA.

    The swing states that will determine the election, are where the winner is decided by low 10,000s of votes. These are the ones that the Republicans will lose if they run a pro-Russian candidate:

    Pennsylvania: 120,000 Ukrainians, 820,000 Poles, 78,000 Lithuanians.

    Michigan: 36,000 Ukrainians, 850,000 Poles

    Wisconsin: 497,000 Poles, 10,000 Ukrainians

    Virginia: 127,000 Poles, 20,000 Ukrainians. This is not many, but Virginia hosts a lot of military industry types.

    They could still win the swing states of Georgia and Arizona with a pro-Russian candidate, but it won’t be enough.

    So run a pro-Russian candidate and kiss the presidency goodbye in 2024.

    I will do my part to help the Republicans by voting for a pro-Ukrainian one in the primary. You will go ahead and help the Democrats, I’m sure.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Sean

  928. @Mikel
    @LatW


    He’s not Sovok at all, nothing he has written is in any way Sovok. Plus, in case you haven’t noticed, Sovok hasn’t really been a thing for some 30 years now.
     
    Are you suggesting that I forget that he was born in the Sovok Union and thus everything he says must be regarded through that prism?

    That's almost as bad a as suggesting that a Basque-American or a Serbian-Australian are entitled to express their thoughts with the same liberty as Anglos!


    he is nowhere near that on the political spectrum (unlike yourself).
     
    Like I said, you guys are totally behind the times. Being anti-interventionist now is almost exclusively a right-wing position in the US. Other than that, I'm totally at a loss what I may have ever said that could be interpreted as leftist. Cultural differences aside, there's no way anyone could conclude that I'm a leftist for expressing my disgust at Cirillo, my defense of the Mormons or my indignation at having teachers at schools indoctrinating our children on gender ideology.

    Perhaps my suggestion that male teenagers having affairs with their hottie teachers are not always and in all cases innocent victims of abuse?

    Replies: @LatW, @sudden death, @AP

    Being anti-interventionist now is almost exclusively a right-wing position in the US

    No, the far Left also holds this position. There’s just less of it than there is populism – which isn’t exactly “right.” The most traditional, classic 1980s Republican (Mike Pence) is actively opposed to the Russian invasion.

  929. @Mikel
    @LatW


    You were never oppressed by the Communists the way we were, so a completely ridiculous comparison.
     
    Thankfully, I have never experienced a full-blown war like the one in Ukraine but I know what an oppressive dictatorship is (I was born under one). My people were systematically tortured when they were arrested for anything the Spaniards considered to be promotion of separatism. And I know what a low-level armed conflict is too. I grew up amidst bombings and shootings every week somewhere near me. People I knew personally were killed by both sides. If you were a child in the 80s are you sure you have ever experienced anything like that?

    I'm not putting any medals on my own chest by the way. All of that was totally involuntary and hundreds of thousands of teenagers of my generation lived exactly through the same experiences. I'm just setting the record straight about who can and cannot lecture me on oppression and violence. It wasn't just Communist Russians doing all the oppression in the world.

    Replies: @AP

    Some Russian dissident (forgot who) that defected and later spent some time in Franco’s Spain expressed how free and non-repressive Spain under Franco was, compared to Brezhnev’s USSR.

  930. @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ

    In other words, the security dilemma is a real phenomenon in international relations. No shit, Sherlock.

    None of what you just said - none of anything you have so far said - establishes any kind of relation between security dilemma logic and 20th century genocides.

    Just drop it please.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mr. XYZ

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    I see your psychiatrist, ever the optimist, decided to lower your dosage.

  931. @Dmitry
    @A123


    Why would a Russian leave Russia because of the SMO
     
    I don't have some survey, but I can say probably most people in Russia below about age 40 years want to emigrate from Russia, like any people who were not born in the developed countries. Not everyone had enough good karma points to be re-incarnated in Norway or Benelux.

    The invasion of Ukraine has been panic for many people because they see the train doors are closing. For years, disorganized people in Russia are dreaming "maybe I will emigrate in a few years".

    But now there won't be the possibly to "emigrate in a few years". It's too late already for most of the people. So, there was a crazy panic to escape in 2022. This was already before the mobilization panic in autumn 2022.

    A lot of people have been going to emigrate to third world countries like Georgia, Armenia or Uzbekistan.


    pick Israel with no local language skills (∆)? Could it be limited cash
     
    Because Israel is the only "developed country" (well, depending if you think Israel is a developed country or not) with an open border for this part of the population of Russia i.e. many Russians with Jewish roots which allow immigration to Israel.

    It's the only open border to the first world. For Russians, it's not so easy to emigrate to a developed country, unless you have a company to sponsor the visa. This is relatively a small proportion of the population who have the correct career to go to developed countries for their career. Only a small proportion of people are organized about this.


    ufficient resources for international travel, why are they returning to Israel

     

    Tens of millions of Russians have sufficient resources for international travel, it's not expensive nowadays. But not many people have opportunity or resources to emigrate to live in a developed country.

    Why not go to somewhere that provides them better opportunities and less bureaucratic hassle?

     

    Israel is the only option for now for the people in the article. But they are not only an example of "unpatriotic" postsoviet people i.e. not motivated immigrants for Israel. They are also pacifists who seem they are a bit anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, which is indication of Westernization.

    Is it actually a highly atypical case that does not reflect the reality of migrating to Israel?

     

    In the situation of immigration from Russia to Israel and the social media groups, this was always of the popular views of the immigrants, how to escape the military conscription in Israel.

    A lot of them are still conscripted, but generally the advice in Russia is to wait until you are older than 21/22 before immigrating to Israel, so to avoid the conscription.


    IDF handle individuals entering compulsory service with insufficient language skills? The straightforward option would be an intensive Hebrew language immersion pre-camp for two to three months before starting official service. However, I am unsure if that is the actual practice.

     

    From what I can find, there is a village in the Galilee where conscripts who cannot speak Hebrew have to learn Hebrew for 5 months.

    One of the reasons Israel is interesting is also because it is a socialist heritage where they do many things in a socialist way, sometimes even a little Stalinist. Just, it's the military, so the socialism can exist with the recent years increasing capitalism for civilian life.

    Female immigrant conscripts have to mandatory study in feminist Zionist bootcamps where they learn women's empowerment, feminism and Zionism.

    There is a village in Raanana where some of the small number of the secular American Jews who Israel can attract to immigrate, live for a year before they enter the army.

    They have courses for disabled soldiers, for educating deliquent soldiers for literacy, for teaching immigrants about Israeli history or religion.

    The "peoples' army" is kind of socialist state within the state. The most popular radio in Israel, is army radio which the soldiers are operating, which is politically very liberal and criticizes the civilian government.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @QCIC

    A lot of people have been going to emigrate to third world countries like Georgia, Armenia or Uzbekistan.

    Who is emigrating to Uzbekistan?

    Yves Smith emigrated to Thailand. We need a cartoon of her freaking out with cockroaches.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Uzbekistan has an open border with Russia, so hundreds of thousands Russians have emigrated to Uzbekistan since early 2022.

    Price of rent in Uzbekistan increased because of the Russian immigrants, so there is now a housing crisis for local people.

    Generally, the Uzbeks are supposed to be more friendly and hospitable to immigrants. In Georgia, there is more of the anti-immigrant culture developing, although it's flooding Georgia with money.

  932. @LatW
    @Mikel


    What did you or S_D do to confront the Commies?
     
    You were never oppressed by the Communists the way we were, so a completely ridiculous comparison. And I was a child, btw.

    Replies: @Mikel, @Emil Nikola Richard

    > You were never oppressed by the Communists the way we were, so a completely ridiculous comparison.

    You haven’t seen nothing yet.

    • Agree: QCIC
    • LOL: Mikel
    • Replies: @LatW
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Come on, she's not all that. She's not really as dangerous as she likes to believe.


    Who is emigrating to Uzbekistan?
     
    Probably those Russian draft dodgers who cannot make it to Georgia or Kazakhstan.

    Replies: @QCIC

  933. @Dmitry
    @A123


    Why would a Russian leave Russia because of the SMO
     
    I don't have some survey, but I can say probably most people in Russia below about age 40 years want to emigrate from Russia, like any people who were not born in the developed countries. Not everyone had enough good karma points to be re-incarnated in Norway or Benelux.

    The invasion of Ukraine has been panic for many people because they see the train doors are closing. For years, disorganized people in Russia are dreaming "maybe I will emigrate in a few years".

    But now there won't be the possibly to "emigrate in a few years". It's too late already for most of the people. So, there was a crazy panic to escape in 2022. This was already before the mobilization panic in autumn 2022.

    A lot of people have been going to emigrate to third world countries like Georgia, Armenia or Uzbekistan.


    pick Israel with no local language skills (∆)? Could it be limited cash
     
    Because Israel is the only "developed country" (well, depending if you think Israel is a developed country or not) with an open border for this part of the population of Russia i.e. many Russians with Jewish roots which allow immigration to Israel.

    It's the only open border to the first world. For Russians, it's not so easy to emigrate to a developed country, unless you have a company to sponsor the visa. This is relatively a small proportion of the population who have the correct career to go to developed countries for their career. Only a small proportion of people are organized about this.


    ufficient resources for international travel, why are they returning to Israel

     

    Tens of millions of Russians have sufficient resources for international travel, it's not expensive nowadays. But not many people have opportunity or resources to emigrate to live in a developed country.

    Why not go to somewhere that provides them better opportunities and less bureaucratic hassle?

     

    Israel is the only option for now for the people in the article. But they are not only an example of "unpatriotic" postsoviet people i.e. not motivated immigrants for Israel. They are also pacifists who seem they are a bit anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, which is indication of Westernization.

    Is it actually a highly atypical case that does not reflect the reality of migrating to Israel?

     

    In the situation of immigration from Russia to Israel and the social media groups, this was always of the popular views of the immigrants, how to escape the military conscription in Israel.

    A lot of them are still conscripted, but generally the advice in Russia is to wait until you are older than 21/22 before immigrating to Israel, so to avoid the conscription.


    IDF handle individuals entering compulsory service with insufficient language skills? The straightforward option would be an intensive Hebrew language immersion pre-camp for two to three months before starting official service. However, I am unsure if that is the actual practice.

     

    From what I can find, there is a village in the Galilee where conscripts who cannot speak Hebrew have to learn Hebrew for 5 months.

    One of the reasons Israel is interesting is also because it is a socialist heritage where they do many things in a socialist way, sometimes even a little Stalinist. Just, it's the military, so the socialism can exist with the recent years increasing capitalism for civilian life.

    Female immigrant conscripts have to mandatory study in feminist Zionist bootcamps where they learn women's empowerment, feminism and Zionism.

    There is a village in Raanana where some of the small number of the secular American Jews who Israel can attract to immigrate, live for a year before they enter the army.

    They have courses for disabled soldiers, for educating deliquent soldiers for literacy, for teaching immigrants about Israeli history or religion.

    The "peoples' army" is kind of socialist state within the state. The most popular radio in Israel, is army radio which the soldiers are operating, which is politically very liberal and criticizes the civilian government.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @QCIC

    Most people typically do not move long distances because of their family connections, not to mention the hassles of adopting a new language and customs.

    How does your comment “most Russians below age 40 want to move” relate to these points? Is it simply the people you interact with and the particular media information you are exposed to which creates such an impression?

    Most of the people in the Russian big cities seem to be happy and I think people in the smaller towns are loathe to move. People in the medium size cities probably want to move to the big cities.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @QCIC

    Everyone I still know from years in university, is dreaming of emigration to developed countries. Those are people with the local concept of "good jobs", who follow their teachers' advice, now basically a kind of slave engineer.

    You can say, those are middle class people, who are exploited labor, not the exploiters. But upper class people I know already emigrated 10 years ago or more.

    Generally, postsoviet upper class people are at least 10 years more advanced than middle class people in terms of knowledge, planning etc, it's not like it's better for upper class people than in the alternatives.


    big cities seem to be happy and I think people in the smaller towns are loathe to move. People in the medium size cities probably want to move to the big cities.
     
    Young people in smaller cities are moving to big cities, at least half of the cities in the country are becoming semi-abandoned not just demographically, also in terms of investment to maintain the Soviet level in terms of infrastructure. But only a couple big cities have investment to match the population. In my opinion, it is not a healthy life to throw the country into anthills outside a couple of overinvested cities.
    Megacities are making sense from the view of the politicians/security services perhaps. Of course, decisions in the postsoviet space are selected usually from the view of the politicians/security services. So, I guess they would like to manage a country where more of the population are in few megacities where there is more government capacity and surveillance.

    Replies: @QCIC

  934. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Pompeo is neoconservative personally, but he wasn’t boss and didn’t stop Trump in stopping aid to Ukraine in 2019.
     
    Which is more than Obama had done.

    And when Biden first took office, he reversed many of Trump's anti-Russian policies such as Nordstream sanctions, and energy policies that reduced commodity prices.


    Trump’s main argument was not to send money to foreign countries and this is his promise for his voters, so it’s unlikely he would have give such high level of aid like Biden
     
    Biden exaggerates how much he gives.

    Trump could make the same policies but describe them as giving cheap old equipment to Ukraine, eliminating the cost of storing them or of destroying them. He could similarly describe the provision of ammunition to Ukraine as making jobs for American workers in the weapon industry, thus making America militarily stronger. His followers will go alone with him, because they don't really care much about policy, they love Trump whatever he does.

    Polish-Americans care about Eastern Europe

    In 1980, they voted for Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan, while Reagan was more anti-Soviet compared to Jimmy Carter.
     
    Brzezinsky was Carter's foreign policy man.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

    Brzezinski's personal views have been described as "progressive", "international",[7] political liberal, and "strong anti-communist".[4] He was an advocate for anti-Soviet containment, for human rights organizations, and for "cultivating a strong West".[7] He has been praised for his ability to see "the big picture". Critics described him as hawkish or a "foreign policy hardliner" on some issues, such as Poland–Russia relations.

    You are writing about mostly white Americans with distant ancestry in Poland so in some families it can be there could be no-one in the family who can still remember living in Poland
     
    Correct. But there are enough Polish-Americans that even taking into account the fact that many are hardly aware of their Polish ethnicity, leaves plenty who are aware of being Poles.

    Michigan has 850,00 Polish-Americans. If only 10% are "patriotic" Poles (I suspect it is more, at least 25%) - that's 85,000 people.

    Michigan also has 36,000 Ukrainians.

    Trump only won Michigan by 11,000 votes. If he becomes pro-Russian he will not win that state.

    Ukrainians often speak Ukrainian and their vote is influenced by treatment of Ukraine.

    I’m not disagreeing, they will be influenced especially if they are first generation immigrants
     
    No, at least 2 generations. My parents weren't born in Ukraine either, but North America and Western Europe. I speak Ukrainian fluently. As do many of our third generation. So do my children (who were sent to Ukrainian Saturday school and Ukrainian summer camps along with thousands of others). 4th generation. This is not rare.

    Polish friends I know have US-born kids who speak Polish and are proud of being Poles. Unlike the situation of the 19th century, people have the means to return to Poland to visit. So identity is not limited to those who were born there.

    Mainly they [Ukrainian-Americans] are in Pennsylvania and New York. It’s probably only relevant for Pennsylvania. In other states, the numbers are not large to be a significant demographic to change an election or they are in states which are voting Democrat everytime.
     
    Ukrainian-Americans are only relevant in Pennsylvania and Michigan, politically.

    Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes. There are 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan.

    If the Republicans run a pro-Russian candidate they will lose those states.

    Replies: @A123, @QCIC

    So much for the melting pot.

    • Replies: @AP
    @QCIC

    Supporting Ukraine and opposing Russia is not mutually exclusive with American interests.

    Replies: @Sean

  935. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @silviosilver

    You need to read better books.

    https://www.schilbantiquarian.com/product/1670-francis-bacon-sylva-sylvarum-new-atlantis-natural-history-philosophy-rare/

    Replies: @silviosilver

    I see your psychiatrist, ever the optimist, decided to lower your dosage.

  936. @Sher Singh
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/777363024196796426/1146560281233858691/IMG_7909.png

    Replies: @songbird, @Emil Nikola Richard

    Nobody thinks about being small more than a big dude.

  937. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @LatW

    > You were never oppressed by the Communists the way we were, so a completely ridiculous comparison.

    You haven't seen nothing yet.

    https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/636/794/0f8.jpg

    Replies: @LatW

    Come on, she’s not all that. She’s not really as dangerous as she likes to believe.

    Who is emigrating to Uzbekistan?

    Probably those Russian draft dodgers who cannot make it to Georgia or Kazakhstan.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @LatW

    She is the poster child for the power lusters. Poor kid.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

  938. @A123
    @AP


    Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes. There are 36,000 Ukrainians in Michigan. If the Republicans run a pro-Russian candidate they will lose those states.
     
    There are much larger trends in the U.S. that swamp the effects you are talking about: (1)

    I have written quite a bit about the Democrats’ emerging problem with nonwhite voters (for example, here, here and here), manifest in steadily declining margins among this demographic. Well, now it’s official.

    Or at least strongly confirmed. The release of a characteristically thorough analysis by Nate Cohn in The New York Times provides abundant and persuasive evidence that this trend is real and shows no signs of going away. As Cohn notes, Biden leads Trump by a mere 53-28 percent margin among these voters in a merge of 2022-23 Times/Siena College polls. This is not only a sharp fall-off from Biden’s support in the 2020 election, but also from Biden’s and previous Democratic candidates’ support in analogous pre-election polls.

     
    https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6d587864-d5c1-4556-a46d-b1c90d594f56_3748x1347.png
     

    All this has left Democrats scratching their heads, given the nature of their opponent. Cohn points out some of the paradoxes that now confront Democrats:

    Democrats have lost ground among nonwhite voters in almost every election over the last decade, even as racially charged fights over everything from a border wall to kneeling during the national anthem might have been expected to produce the exact opposite result. Weak support for Mr. Biden could easily manifest itself as low turnout—as it did in 2022—even if many young and less engaged voters ultimately do not vote for Mr. Trump.

    Many of Mr. Biden’s vulnerabilities—like his age and inflation—could exacerbate the trend, as nonwhite voters tend to be younger and less affluent than white voters…Issues like abortion and threats to democracy may also do less to guard against additional losses among Black and Hispanic voters, who tend to be more conservative than white Biden voters. They may also do less to satisfy voters living paycheck to paycheck: Mr. Biden is underperforming most among nonwhite voters making less than $100,000 per year, at least temporarily erasing the century-old tendency for Democrats to fare better among lower-income than higher-income nonwhite voters.
     

     
    MAGA is pulling disaffected labor voters into the GOP. This is helped by spending at home rather than on 'forever wars' abroad. There every reason to believe that the NeoConDemocrat Ukie pro-war position is the political loser.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/its-official-the-democrats-have-a

    Replies: @AP

    Trump did better among non-white voters in 2020 than in 2016.

    How did that turn out?

    Boosting the Hispanic vote won’t flip California, and Texas and Florida are already solidly Red.

    Pro-Russian isolationism might be popular in the Deep South and in Scotch-Irish Appalachia but not in Ukrainian and Polish coal mining communities in PA.

    The swing states that will determine the election, are where the winner is decided by low 10,000s of votes. These are the ones that the Republicans will lose if they run a pro-Russian candidate:

    Pennsylvania: 120,000 Ukrainians, 820,000 Poles, 78,000 Lithuanians.

    Michigan: 36,000 Ukrainians, 850,000 Poles

    Wisconsin: 497,000 Poles, 10,000 Ukrainians

    Virginia: 127,000 Poles, 20,000 Ukrainians. This is not many, but Virginia hosts a lot of military industry types.

    They could still win the swing states of Georgia and Arizona with a pro-Russian candidate, but it won’t be enough.

    So run a pro-Russian candidate and kiss the presidency goodbye in 2024.

    I will do my part to help the Republicans by voting for a pro-Ukrainian one in the primary. You will go ahead and help the Democrats, I’m sure.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @AP

    Speaking of destructive Ukrainians, I wonder if the next Trump administration will have Vindman brought up on treason charges?

    Trump will probably run on a platform of generalized Peace through Strength along with Common Sense and National Self-Interest (assuming Jared has been jettisoned).

    Many of the voters you list will probably like the sound of this, though not all.

    +++

    JTJ: Jettison the Jared!
    MTGA: Make Trump Great Again!
    DYVC: Did your vote count? Once or twice :)

    , @Sean
    @AP

    Which is why Russia needs to use a nuclear weapon and give America some reality therapy about how far away Ukraine is from the US and how far Moscow will go.

    Replies: @QCIC

  939. @LatW
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Come on, she's not all that. She's not really as dangerous as she likes to believe.


    Who is emigrating to Uzbekistan?
     
    Probably those Russian draft dodgers who cannot make it to Georgia or Kazakhstan.

    Replies: @QCIC

    She is the poster child for the power lusters. Poor kid.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @QCIC

    She is now 20.

    Poster puss. Assuming she is your type. : )

    Replies: @LatW

  940. @AP
    @A123

    Trump did better among non-white voters in 2020 than in 2016.

    How did that turn out?

    Boosting the Hispanic vote won’t flip California, and Texas and Florida are already solidly Red.

    Pro-Russian isolationism might be popular in the Deep South and in Scotch-Irish Appalachia but not in Ukrainian and Polish coal mining communities in PA.

    The swing states that will determine the election, are where the winner is decided by low 10,000s of votes. These are the ones that the Republicans will lose if they run a pro-Russian candidate:

    Pennsylvania: 120,000 Ukrainians, 820,000 Poles, 78,000 Lithuanians.

    Michigan: 36,000 Ukrainians, 850,000 Poles

    Wisconsin: 497,000 Poles, 10,000 Ukrainians

    Virginia: 127,000 Poles, 20,000 Ukrainians. This is not many, but Virginia hosts a lot of military industry types.

    They could still win the swing states of Georgia and Arizona with a pro-Russian candidate, but it won’t be enough.

    So run a pro-Russian candidate and kiss the presidency goodbye in 2024.

    I will do my part to help the Republicans by voting for a pro-Ukrainian one in the primary. You will go ahead and help the Democrats, I’m sure.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Sean

    Speaking of destructive Ukrainians, I wonder if the next Trump administration will have Vindman brought up on treason charges?

    Trump will probably run on a platform of generalized Peace through Strength along with Common Sense and National Self-Interest (assuming Jared has been jettisoned).

    Many of the voters you list will probably like the sound of this, though not all.

    +++

    JTJ: Jettison the Jared!
    MTGA: Make Trump Great Again!
    DYVC: Did your vote count? Once or twice 🙂

  941. @QCIC
    @LatW

    She is the poster child for the power lusters. Poor kid.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    She is now 20.

    Poster puss. Assuming she is your type. : )

    • Replies: @LatW
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    So Eastern Euro nationalists can say "no" to her, but you guys can't? Just muster up some strength, she is not almighty.

    The bug powder can go to exports, there are cultures out there who are accustomed to eating bugs. It's a win win for everybody.

  942. @QCIC
    @AP

    So much for the melting pot.

    Replies: @AP

    Supporting Ukraine and opposing Russia is not mutually exclusive with American interests.

    • Agree: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Sean
    @AP

    Ukrainians in key states are going to make the interests of America and American Presidential candidates' own political career mutually exclusive.

    Replies: @AP

  943. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @QCIC

    She is now 20.

    Poster puss. Assuming she is your type. : )

    Replies: @LatW

    So Eastern Euro nationalists can say “no” to her, but you guys can’t? Just muster up some strength, she is not almighty.

    The bug powder can go to exports, there are cultures out there who are accustomed to eating bugs. It’s a win win for everybody.

    • LOL: QCIC
  944. @AP
    @A123

    Trump did better among non-white voters in 2020 than in 2016.

    How did that turn out?

    Boosting the Hispanic vote won’t flip California, and Texas and Florida are already solidly Red.

    Pro-Russian isolationism might be popular in the Deep South and in Scotch-Irish Appalachia but not in Ukrainian and Polish coal mining communities in PA.

    The swing states that will determine the election, are where the winner is decided by low 10,000s of votes. These are the ones that the Republicans will lose if they run a pro-Russian candidate:

    Pennsylvania: 120,000 Ukrainians, 820,000 Poles, 78,000 Lithuanians.

    Michigan: 36,000 Ukrainians, 850,000 Poles

    Wisconsin: 497,000 Poles, 10,000 Ukrainians

    Virginia: 127,000 Poles, 20,000 Ukrainians. This is not many, but Virginia hosts a lot of military industry types.

    They could still win the swing states of Georgia and Arizona with a pro-Russian candidate, but it won’t be enough.

    So run a pro-Russian candidate and kiss the presidency goodbye in 2024.

    I will do my part to help the Republicans by voting for a pro-Ukrainian one in the primary. You will go ahead and help the Democrats, I’m sure.

    Replies: @QCIC, @Sean

    Which is why Russia needs to use a nuclear weapon and give America some reality therapy about how far away Ukraine is from the US and how far Moscow will go.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Sean

    Russia does not seem to be in a hurry. They appear to be very gradually filling various holes in their conventional military. I am referring to hardware, but manpower and training are being upgraded as well.

    In the past 15 years Russia has been demonstrating reasonably advanced conventional weapons but perhaps only buying a few units of each one. I am referring to precision rounds, smaller missiles, DIRCMs, tanks, drones, MiG-35, etc. I think most of the budget was spent on big ticket items (strategic weapons) and general operations. Presumably the SMO has made money available and created political leverage to buy more of the other equipment now. I don't know if this creates a hole in the budget somewhere else or maybe the Kremlins just threatened some crooks who were skimming too much money. It is probably in the interests of the military to keep this process going as long as the SMO continues. Once it wraps up there may be new budget realities related to policing and rebuilding Ukraine.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

  945. @AP
    @QCIC

    Supporting Ukraine and opposing Russia is not mutually exclusive with American interests.

    Replies: @Sean

    Ukrainians in key states are going to make the interests of America and American Presidential candidates’ own political career mutually exclusive.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Sean

    Ukrainian and American interests align in Ukraine. Ukrainian-American (and Polish-Americans, and Lithuanian-Americans) are the tripwire that will keep a pro-Russian moron out of office.


    Which is why Russia needs to use a nuclear weapon and give America some reality therapy about how far away Ukraine is from the US and how far Moscow will go
     
    The mask slipped, good for us to see that you want this.

    Using nukes will make Russia even more disliked. Ukrainian-Americans may be unnecessary to keep a pro-Russian out of office, in that case.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  946. @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson

    Yes, but the Slavic population reserves in Russia and Belarus aren't too huge. And even those people there who are of at least partial Ukrainian descent are very assimilated in Russia and Belarus, so it would unfortunately be very difficult for Ukraine to win them over.

    Seeking Ukrainian Orthodox converts in, say, India or Latin America might be an interesting approach. I know that Mormons actively seek converts in Latin America, for instance, with some success.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Philip Owen

    I have many many people one or two generations away from Ukraine who still identify as Ukrainian, not Russian. This was before the war. At least one of these (2nd gen) left to join the Ukrainian army. Then there are the red, yellow, blue and green wedges to consider as well as areas that have always been Ukrainian since before the Russian settlers came down the Don. There are still such villages.

  947. @Sean
    @AP

    Which is why Russia needs to use a nuclear weapon and give America some reality therapy about how far away Ukraine is from the US and how far Moscow will go.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Russia does not seem to be in a hurry. They appear to be very gradually filling various holes in their conventional military. I am referring to hardware, but manpower and training are being upgraded as well.

    In the past 15 years Russia has been demonstrating reasonably advanced conventional weapons but perhaps only buying a few units of each one. I am referring to precision rounds, smaller missiles, DIRCMs, tanks, drones, MiG-35, etc. I think most of the budget was spent on big ticket items (strategic weapons) and general operations. Presumably the SMO has made money available and created political leverage to buy more of the other equipment now. I don’t know if this creates a hole in the budget somewhere else or maybe the Kremlins just threatened some crooks who were skimming too much money. It is probably in the interests of the military to keep this process going as long as the SMO continues. Once it wraps up there may be new budget realities related to policing and rebuilding Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @QCIC

    If the inefficiency, graft and theft was as bad as Johnson accuses the Russians of being it probably isn't anywhere near as bad now anyway. There's much that can be corrected among a cadre of peacetime officers who actually have to fight in earnest, with two campaign seasons, facing off against NATO gear directly.

  948. @LatW
    I'm not sure Elon Musk can be considered a fully "private citizen" - SpaceX gets a lot of government contracts. Also, it wasn't just the sea drone attack that was affected by the lack of Starlink - the Ukrainians are saying that some areas closer to the occupied Russian areas are experiencing lack of Starlink or a sketchy connection. This is upsetting, although I'm still not ready to give up on Musk, since he did provide vital help in the beginning.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    Witness these Swines from the East demand that actual westerners subsidize their squabble with the Bear.

  949. @QCIC
    @Sean

    Russia does not seem to be in a hurry. They appear to be very gradually filling various holes in their conventional military. I am referring to hardware, but manpower and training are being upgraded as well.

    In the past 15 years Russia has been demonstrating reasonably advanced conventional weapons but perhaps only buying a few units of each one. I am referring to precision rounds, smaller missiles, DIRCMs, tanks, drones, MiG-35, etc. I think most of the budget was spent on big ticket items (strategic weapons) and general operations. Presumably the SMO has made money available and created political leverage to buy more of the other equipment now. I don't know if this creates a hole in the budget somewhere else or maybe the Kremlins just threatened some crooks who were skimming too much money. It is probably in the interests of the military to keep this process going as long as the SMO continues. Once it wraps up there may be new budget realities related to policing and rebuilding Ukraine.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    If the inefficiency, graft and theft was as bad as Johnson accuses the Russians of being it probably isn’t anywhere near as bad now anyway. There’s much that can be corrected among a cadre of peacetime officers who actually have to fight in earnest, with two campaign seasons, facing off against NATO gear directly.

  950. @John Johnson
    @Wokechoke

    The Ukies are astonishingly ungrateful. They will be plucking airliners out the sky again very soon. Just out of spite.

    What do you mean again?

    The DPR leader Igor Girkin already took responsibility:
    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/05/20/mh17-suspect-admits-moral-responsibility-for-downing-jet-a70328

    Here is an updated picture of him:
    https://www.tag24.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Igor-Girkin-arrestato-estremismo-800x560.jpg


    He blogged about how Putin is clueless at war and it earned him a spot inside a giant Russian display case.

    Gosh and you would think that blogging about the dictator's incompetence while living in his totalitarian state is a good idea.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/09/10/donald-trump-will-never-support-putin-says-volodymyr-zelensky

    He’s threatening violence in Berlin and Paris here. If Ukies try to bomb England I hope they miss and get Cardiff though.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Wokechoke

    Your link is behind a paywall.

    He’s threatening violence in Berlin and Paris here. If Ukies try to bomb England I hope they miss and get Cardiff though.

    Yea I'm sure Ukraine will be sending bombers over Britain.

    About as likely as Trump becoming president.

    Boy does Putin attract some high quality followers

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7t4tNniC94

    Replies: @Wokechoke

  951. @QCIC
    @Dmitry

    Most people typically do not move long distances because of their family connections, not to mention the hassles of adopting a new language and customs.

    How does your comment "most Russians below age 40 want to move" relate to these points? Is it simply the people you interact with and the particular media information you are exposed to which creates such an impression?

    Most of the people in the Russian big cities seem to be happy and I think people in the smaller towns are loathe to move. People in the medium size cities probably want to move to the big cities.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Everyone I still know from years in university, is dreaming of emigration to developed countries. Those are people with the local concept of “good jobs”, who follow their teachers’ advice, now basically a kind of slave engineer.

    You can say, those are middle class people, who are exploited labor, not the exploiters. But upper class people I know already emigrated 10 years ago or more.

    Generally, postsoviet upper class people are at least 10 years more advanced than middle class people in terms of knowledge, planning etc, it’s not like it’s better for upper class people than in the alternatives.

    big cities seem to be happy and I think people in the smaller towns are loathe to move. People in the medium size cities probably want to move to the big cities.

    Young people in smaller cities are moving to big cities, at least half of the cities in the country are becoming semi-abandoned not just demographically, also in terms of investment to maintain the Soviet level in terms of infrastructure. But only a couple big cities have investment to match the population. In my opinion, it is not a healthy life to throw the country into anthills outside a couple of overinvested cities.
    Megacities are making sense from the view of the politicians/security services perhaps. Of course, decisions in the postsoviet space are selected usually from the view of the politicians/security services. So, I guess they would like to manage a country where more of the population are in few megacities where there is more government capacity and surveillance.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Dmitry

    In the USA most big cities keep growing as well. The countryside has not emptied since the total population is increasing. Modern communications and shipping and driving make it more acceptable for some people to remain in less urban areas. On the other hand, as farming becomes more mechanized there are fewer people in many rural areas.

    Many people will always be lured to the bright lights of the city to find a mate, make their success, taste the cosmopolitan world, get away from provincial mores, etc.

    I wonder if the hard winter climate in much of Russia naturally favors the creation of large cities?

    It sounds like you are saying the Russians do not so much want to move, rather they want to get paid more. This is a subtle difference in that they want to stay, but are willing to move if required.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  952. @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ

    In other words, the security dilemma is a real phenomenon in international relations. No shit, Sherlock.

    None of what you just said - none of anything you have so far said - establishes any kind of relation between security dilemma logic and 20th century genocides.

    Just drop it please.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard, @Mr. XYZ

    Maybe not. Maybe I should have made my point here differently. My overall point here, though, was that putting the Nazis and Ottomans into a corner which they had no realistic way out of ensured that they would going to take their perceived enemies down together with them.

  953. @silviosilver
    @Mr. XYZ

    I personally wouldn't. Not worth the inevitable headaches. And I'd rather limit than expand involvement with the arabo-muzz shithead world. But you could semi sorta kinda make a case for it.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Why would Israel join the EU create inevitable headaches? Because the EU would demand that Israel allow more non-Jewish immigration, at least from within the EU?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    Israel is wealthier than the average EU countries, so they would be net contributor, instead of receiver.

    This means the taxpayers in Israel would lose a large part of their money in the EU budget and it would be a net cost, while the Israeli taxpayers would fund building roads in Poland or Romania.

    The poor countries in the EU receive hundreds of billions of dollars from the wealthy countries, so it's good to join the EU if you are a poor country like Ukraine.

    It's bad for the taxpayers in EU contributor countries to accept countries like Ukraine, as the average quality of the EU countries has been falling since the 1990s when the EU accepts the postcommunist countries.

    Originally, the EU was for elite economies. After years, it developed as the world's largest economic redistribution system,. German taxpayers pay for building roads in Poland or Romania, while the infrastructure in Germany needs investment.

    https://i.imgur.com/KlXE84t.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  954. @Emil Nikola Richard
    @Dmitry


    A lot of people have been going to emigrate to third world countries like Georgia, Armenia or Uzbekistan.
     
    Who is emigrating to Uzbekistan?

    Yves Smith emigrated to Thailand. We need a cartoon of her freaking out with cockroaches.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Uzbekistan has an open border with Russia, so hundreds of thousands Russians have emigrated to Uzbekistan since early 2022.

    Price of rent in Uzbekistan increased because of the Russian immigrants, so there is now a housing crisis for local people.

    Generally, the Uzbeks are supposed to be more friendly and hospitable to immigrants. In Georgia, there is more of the anti-immigrant culture developing, although it’s flooding Georgia with money.

  955. @Dmitry
    @QCIC

    Everyone I still know from years in university, is dreaming of emigration to developed countries. Those are people with the local concept of "good jobs", who follow their teachers' advice, now basically a kind of slave engineer.

    You can say, those are middle class people, who are exploited labor, not the exploiters. But upper class people I know already emigrated 10 years ago or more.

    Generally, postsoviet upper class people are at least 10 years more advanced than middle class people in terms of knowledge, planning etc, it's not like it's better for upper class people than in the alternatives.


    big cities seem to be happy and I think people in the smaller towns are loathe to move. People in the medium size cities probably want to move to the big cities.
     
    Young people in smaller cities are moving to big cities, at least half of the cities in the country are becoming semi-abandoned not just demographically, also in terms of investment to maintain the Soviet level in terms of infrastructure. But only a couple big cities have investment to match the population. In my opinion, it is not a healthy life to throw the country into anthills outside a couple of overinvested cities.
    Megacities are making sense from the view of the politicians/security services perhaps. Of course, decisions in the postsoviet space are selected usually from the view of the politicians/security services. So, I guess they would like to manage a country where more of the population are in few megacities where there is more government capacity and surveillance.

    Replies: @QCIC

    In the USA most big cities keep growing as well. The countryside has not emptied since the total population is increasing. Modern communications and shipping and driving make it more acceptable for some people to remain in less urban areas. On the other hand, as farming becomes more mechanized there are fewer people in many rural areas.

    Many people will always be lured to the bright lights of the city to find a mate, make their success, taste the cosmopolitan world, get away from provincial mores, etc.

    I wonder if the hard winter climate in much of Russia naturally favors the creation of large cities?

    It sounds like you are saying the Russians do not so much want to move, rather they want to get paid more. This is a subtle difference in that they want to stay, but are willing to move if required.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @QCIC

    Russia has many hundreds of cities today and historically Russia has been developed by moving villagers from the North and later South to settle new regions, with outsiders like Cossacks settling even further outside of the territory.

    I wouldn't say there is a climate reason for model of the large megacities now and viewing everywhere outside them as a "flyover country", as this is not the model before the 21st century. The previous development of the country was settlement of the land and building many new small cities.

    This century, they allow most of the cities to decay and centralize around a few megacities. It creates a boom for construction and disproportionate budget for a couple of cities.

    But in the previous century, there was investment to develop new cities, sometimes the new cities had even successful planning. For example, Novouralsk which now decays.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgGOO-NH24g


    people will always be lured to the bright lights of the city to find a mate, make their success, taste the cosmopolitan world, get away from provincial mores

     

    People will go to the economically booming zones with higher quality of life. I don't think megacities are attractive excluding that some of the megacities have a good economy and higher quality of life.

    To be in a city with more than around million people, can be often polluted, dehumanizing etc, although perhaps these problems could be reduced in a very civilized culture.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  956. @Mr. XYZ
    @silviosilver

    Why would Israel join the EU create inevitable headaches? Because the EU would demand that Israel allow more non-Jewish immigration, at least from within the EU?

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Israel is wealthier than the average EU countries, so they would be net contributor, instead of receiver.

    This means the taxpayers in Israel would lose a large part of their money in the EU budget and it would be a net cost, while the Israeli taxpayers would fund building roads in Poland or Romania.

    The poor countries in the EU receive hundreds of billions of dollars from the wealthy countries, so it’s good to join the EU if you are a poor country like Ukraine.

    It’s bad for the taxpayers in EU contributor countries to accept countries like Ukraine, as the average quality of the EU countries has been falling since the 1990s when the EU accepts the postcommunist countries.

    Originally, the EU was for elite economies. After years, it developed as the world’s largest economic redistribution system,. German taxpayers pay for building roads in Poland or Romania, while the infrastructure in Germany needs investment.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry

    Please keep in mind, though, that countries' long-term trajectories is dependent on their average IQ. So, in the long-term, Poland should become about as wealthy as Germany is because it is roughly as smart on average as Germany is. The fiscal transfers are often a short-term issue but will be less of a problem over several decades once Eastern Europe will become wealthier.


    It’s bad for the taxpayers in EU contributor countries to accept countries like Ukraine, as the average quality of the EU countries has been falling since the 1990s when the EU accepts the postcommunist countries.
     
    They'll get to accept a huge country with pretty good human capital reserves and thus the opportunity to make the EU larger and stronger in the long-run.

    https://pontifex.substack.com/p/contra-hanania-on-russiaukraine

    Replies: @Dmitry

  957. @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    Israel is wealthier than the average EU countries, so they would be net contributor, instead of receiver.

    This means the taxpayers in Israel would lose a large part of their money in the EU budget and it would be a net cost, while the Israeli taxpayers would fund building roads in Poland or Romania.

    The poor countries in the EU receive hundreds of billions of dollars from the wealthy countries, so it's good to join the EU if you are a poor country like Ukraine.

    It's bad for the taxpayers in EU contributor countries to accept countries like Ukraine, as the average quality of the EU countries has been falling since the 1990s when the EU accepts the postcommunist countries.

    Originally, the EU was for elite economies. After years, it developed as the world's largest economic redistribution system,. German taxpayers pay for building roads in Poland or Romania, while the infrastructure in Germany needs investment.

    https://i.imgur.com/KlXE84t.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Please keep in mind, though, that countries’ long-term trajectories is dependent on their average IQ. So, in the long-term, Poland should become about as wealthy as Germany is because it is roughly as smart on average as Germany is. The fiscal transfers are often a short-term issue but will be less of a problem over several decades once Eastern Europe will become wealthier.

    It’s bad for the taxpayers in EU contributor countries to accept countries like Ukraine, as the average quality of the EU countries has been falling since the 1990s when the EU accepts the postcommunist countries.

    They’ll get to accept a huge country with pretty good human capital reserves and thus the opportunity to make the EU larger and stronger in the long-run.

    https://pontifex.substack.com/p/contra-hanania-on-russiaukraine

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    It would be more scientific to use astrology to predict the future economy regions.

    It is a dream you can say to the German taxpayers, to explain why the infrastructure in Germany famously decays, while some of the state-capturing industrialists like Siemens are building shiny new trains in Romania and Poland.

    If I was an ordinary German taxpayer, I'm not sure this would be impressive. There is the situation after UK exited the EU. Without UK, Germany, France and Netherlands pay most everyone's receipts.

    https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18794.jpeg

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  958. Patrick Porter
    @PatPorter76
    ·
    Sep 10
    There is a means-ends imbalance in much western commentary over Ukraine. If one advocates a “maximalist” set of war aims – complete eviction of invader, reparations, regime change, etc – then advocate direct western intervention. If that is too drastic, revise the aims downward.

  959. @Sean
    @AP

    Ukrainians in key states are going to make the interests of America and American Presidential candidates' own political career mutually exclusive.

    Replies: @AP

    Ukrainian and American interests align in Ukraine. Ukrainian-American (and Polish-Americans, and Lithuanian-Americans) are the tripwire that will keep a pro-Russian moron out of office.

    Which is why Russia needs to use a nuclear weapon and give America some reality therapy about how far away Ukraine is from the US and how far Moscow will go

    The mask slipped, good for us to see that you want this.

    Using nukes will make Russia even more disliked. Ukrainian-Americans may be unnecessary to keep a pro-Russian out of office, in that case.

    • Agree: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    What are your thoughts on the argument espoused by foreign policy realists such as Philippe Lemoine that it's not in the West's interests to support a conventional Ukrainian war effort against Russia because it makes it much harder for the West to cooperate with Russia on other issues of huge importance, such as nuclear non-proliferation (the New START Treaty was recently abrogated by Russia in response to Western support for Ukraine, IIRC) and arms control? Philippe Lemoine fears that Russia will help Iran get a nuke, dismantle the nuclear non-proliferation and arms control regimes and refuse to revive them, and give advanced technology (weapons systems, et cetera) to US enemies if the US/West will refuse to stop arming Ukraine. He also argues that having the West stop arming Ukraine will ensure that Russia is "merely" mostly rather than completely in China's corner.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

  960. @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry

    Please keep in mind, though, that countries' long-term trajectories is dependent on their average IQ. So, in the long-term, Poland should become about as wealthy as Germany is because it is roughly as smart on average as Germany is. The fiscal transfers are often a short-term issue but will be less of a problem over several decades once Eastern Europe will become wealthier.


    It’s bad for the taxpayers in EU contributor countries to accept countries like Ukraine, as the average quality of the EU countries has been falling since the 1990s when the EU accepts the postcommunist countries.
     
    They'll get to accept a huge country with pretty good human capital reserves and thus the opportunity to make the EU larger and stronger in the long-run.

    https://pontifex.substack.com/p/contra-hanania-on-russiaukraine

    Replies: @Dmitry

    It would be more scientific to use astrology to predict the future economy regions.

    It is a dream you can say to the German taxpayers, to explain why the infrastructure in Germany famously decays, while some of the state-capturing industrialists like Siemens are building shiny new trains in Romania and Poland.

    If I was an ordinary German taxpayer, I’m not sure this would be impressive. There is the situation after UK exited the EU. Without UK, Germany, France and Netherlands pay most everyone’s receipts.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry


    It would be more scientific to use astrology to predict the future economy regions.

     

    Not at all. There's a lot of literature out there about how average IQ helps shape national economic prosperity, such as Garett Jones's 2015 book Hive Mind. There's also Heiner Rindermann's book Cognitive Capitalism as well as this article by Anatoly Karlin:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/stupid-people/

    In any case, these predictions are testable. Look at countries' average IQs right now, and see where exactly their economies eventually end up. Unless of course AI truly disrupts everything to a radically unprecedented extent.

    Romania is an economic overperformer relative to its average IQ, though, performing roughly comparable to Hungary, which is significantly smarter than Romania on average.

    It is a dream you can say to the German taxpayers, to explain why the infrastructure in Germany famously decays, while some of the state-capturing industrialists like Siemens are building shiny new trains in Romania and Poland.

    If I was an ordinary German taxpayer, I’m not sure this would be impressive. There is the situation after UK exited the EU. Without UK, Germany, France and Netherlands pay most everyone’s receipts.
     
    That's a part of the price for being a part of a world-power. Russians might have exhibited a similar attitude had Ukraine joined the Eurasian Economic Union and it, along with southern Central Asia (had they also joined the EEU), received huge amounts of Russian subsidies while Russia itself, especially Russia's peripheral regions, would have been neglected of investment.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  961. @AP
    @Sean

    Ukrainian and American interests align in Ukraine. Ukrainian-American (and Polish-Americans, and Lithuanian-Americans) are the tripwire that will keep a pro-Russian moron out of office.


    Which is why Russia needs to use a nuclear weapon and give America some reality therapy about how far away Ukraine is from the US and how far Moscow will go
     
    The mask slipped, good for us to see that you want this.

    Using nukes will make Russia even more disliked. Ukrainian-Americans may be unnecessary to keep a pro-Russian out of office, in that case.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    What are your thoughts on the argument espoused by foreign policy realists such as Philippe Lemoine that it’s not in the West’s interests to support a conventional Ukrainian war effort against Russia because it makes it much harder for the West to cooperate with Russia on other issues of huge importance, such as nuclear non-proliferation (the New START Treaty was recently abrogated by Russia in response to Western support for Ukraine, IIRC) and arms control? Philippe Lemoine fears that Russia will help Iran get a nuke, dismantle the nuclear non-proliferation and arms control regimes and refuse to revive them, and give advanced technology (weapons systems, et cetera) to US enemies if the US/West will refuse to stop arming Ukraine. He also argues that having the West stop arming Ukraine will ensure that Russia is “merely” mostly rather than completely in China’s corner.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Mr. XYZ

    FWIW, I suppose that this claim is akin to a Nazi arguing that Nazi Germany will bleed the West (along with itself) dry if the West refused to give the Nazis a free hand in regards to eastern expansion and that getting their own countries bled dry while the Soviet Union just sits by on the sidelines is not in Western interests.

    Hitler himself actually did make such an argument to the West in late 1939:

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/1939-10-06a.html


    I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to go to work together. To assist in assuring this cooperation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.

    To achieve this great end, the leading nations of this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will insure for them all a sense of security, of calm—in short, of peace.

    Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation; that is, without exact elucidation of every point of issue.

    It is equally impossible that such a conference, which is to determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannon are thundering or mobilized armies are bringing pressure to bear upon it.

    If, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, then it would be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to death and milliards of riches destroyed.

    Continuation of the present state of affairs in the West is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices.

    Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbruecken. German artillery will in turn lay Mulhouse in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe and Germany in her turn will shell Strasbourg.

    Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the German at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range guns will then be set up and from both sides will strike deeper and deeper and whatever cannot be reached by the long-distance guns will be destroyed from the air.

    And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists and very profitable for the airplane, arms and munitions manufacturers, but appalling for the victims.

    And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea.

    Today there are no longer any islands. And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields.

    One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards.

    Mr. Churchill and his companions may interpret these opinions of mine as weakness or cowardice if they like. I need not occupy myself with what they think; I make these statements simply because it goes without saying that I wish to spare my own people this suffering.

    If, however, the opinions of Messrs. Churchill and followers should prevail, this statement will have been my last.

    Then we shall fight. Neither force of arms nor lapse of time will conquer Germany. There never will be another November, 1918, in German history. It is infantile to hope for the disintegration of our people.

    Mr. Churchill may be convinced that Great Britain will win. I do not doubt for a single moment that Germany will be victorious.

    Destiny will decide who is right.

    One thing only is certain. In the course of world history, there have never been two victors, but very often only losers. This seems to me to have been the case in the last war.

    May those peoples and their leaders who are of the same mind now make their reply. And let those who consider war to be the better solution reject my outstretched hand.

    As Fuehrer of the German people and Chancellor of the Reich, I can thank God at this moment that he has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for what is our right, and beg Him that we and all other nations may find the right way, so that not only the German people but all Europe may once more be granted the blessing of peace.
     

    Replies: @Sean

    , @QCIC
    @Mr. XYZ

    Get your story straight.

    The misleading US rhetoric around Russia's position on New Start is impressive. Clearly Russia is concerned about the nuclear disarmament process and arms control in general since the USA dropped out of the ABM treaty, weaseled out of the INF Treaty and stopped Open Skies inspection flights, not to mention building missiles sites in Eastern Europe.

    Russia did not withdraw from the New Start treaty and stated they would continue to abide by the agreed limits. My hunch is they would like to restore both New Start inspections as well as Open Skies overflights, but not until after NATO stops meddling in Ukraine.

    This Western rhetoric on arms control is part of the on-going, pre-Ukraine pressure campaign against Russia with 24/7 MSM and government lying.

    I am not saying either Russia or Putin is good. I am asking why our government is run by evil trolls?

  962. @QCIC
    @Dmitry

    In the USA most big cities keep growing as well. The countryside has not emptied since the total population is increasing. Modern communications and shipping and driving make it more acceptable for some people to remain in less urban areas. On the other hand, as farming becomes more mechanized there are fewer people in many rural areas.

    Many people will always be lured to the bright lights of the city to find a mate, make their success, taste the cosmopolitan world, get away from provincial mores, etc.

    I wonder if the hard winter climate in much of Russia naturally favors the creation of large cities?

    It sounds like you are saying the Russians do not so much want to move, rather they want to get paid more. This is a subtle difference in that they want to stay, but are willing to move if required.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Russia has many hundreds of cities today and historically Russia has been developed by moving villagers from the North and later South to settle new regions, with outsiders like Cossacks settling even further outside of the territory.

    I wouldn’t say there is a climate reason for model of the large megacities now and viewing everywhere outside them as a “flyover country”, as this is not the model before the 21st century. The previous development of the country was settlement of the land and building many new small cities.

    This century, they allow most of the cities to decay and centralize around a few megacities. It creates a boom for construction and disproportionate budget for a couple of cities.

    But in the previous century, there was investment to develop new cities, sometimes the new cities had even successful planning. For example, Novouralsk which now decays.

    people will always be lured to the bright lights of the city to find a mate, make their success, taste the cosmopolitan world, get away from provincial mores

    People will go to the economically booming zones with higher quality of life. I don’t think megacities are attractive excluding that some of the megacities have a good economy and higher quality of life.

    To be in a city with more than around million people, can be often polluted, dehumanizing etc, although perhaps these problems could be reduced in a very civilized culture.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry

    Interestingly enough, back in 1915, Arnold J. Toynbee predicted that most of Russia would not become urbanized but would instead remain a predominantly rural country indefinitely:

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000336738&seq=366&q1=russia+peasants

    Replies: @Dmitry

  963. @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    It would be more scientific to use astrology to predict the future economy regions.

    It is a dream you can say to the German taxpayers, to explain why the infrastructure in Germany famously decays, while some of the state-capturing industrialists like Siemens are building shiny new trains in Romania and Poland.

    If I was an ordinary German taxpayer, I'm not sure this would be impressive. There is the situation after UK exited the EU. Without UK, Germany, France and Netherlands pay most everyone's receipts.

    https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18794.jpeg

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    It would be more scientific to use astrology to predict the future economy regions.

    Not at all. There’s a lot of literature out there about how average IQ helps shape national economic prosperity, such as Garett Jones’s 2015 book Hive Mind. There’s also Heiner Rindermann’s book Cognitive Capitalism as well as this article by Anatoly Karlin:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/stupid-people/

    In any case, these predictions are testable. Look at countries’ average IQs right now, and see where exactly their economies eventually end up. Unless of course AI truly disrupts everything to a radically unprecedented extent.

    Romania is an economic overperformer relative to its average IQ, though, performing roughly comparable to Hungary, which is significantly smarter than Romania on average.

    It is a dream you can say to the German taxpayers, to explain why the infrastructure in Germany famously decays, while some of the state-capturing industrialists like Siemens are building shiny new trains in Romania and Poland.

    If I was an ordinary German taxpayer, I’m not sure this would be impressive. There is the situation after UK exited the EU. Without UK, Germany, France and Netherlands pay most everyone’s receipts.

    That’s a part of the price for being a part of a world-power. Russians might have exhibited a similar attitude had Ukraine joined the Eurasian Economic Union and it, along with southern Central Asia (had they also joined the EEU), received huge amounts of Russian subsidies while Russia itself, especially Russia’s peripheral regions, would have been neglected of investment.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    I'm not going to waste time discussing the topic, especially if you troll by posting this "high quality" of resource for your ideas. But let's say this is true just to see the implications politically, then there is even more reason for German taxpayers not to waste their money building trains in foreign countries instead of in their home.

    After all, not just Romania, also countries like Belarus, would have the same powerful economic engine as Germany, so there is less reason for German taxpayers to fund these countries as these countries would naturally converge without this EU funding.

    Although it would still beg the question why there is divergence between the contributors and receivers now. If the astrology would predict the future, it would also explain the outcomes of European past. The situation of today are just the outcomes of yesterday, not less than the situation of tomorrow, are the outcomes of today. Therefore, the current inequality in the EU would be argument against future convergence funding, if the economic outcomes are related to something permanent instead of something temporary.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  964. @Dmitry
    @QCIC

    Russia has many hundreds of cities today and historically Russia has been developed by moving villagers from the North and later South to settle new regions, with outsiders like Cossacks settling even further outside of the territory.

    I wouldn't say there is a climate reason for model of the large megacities now and viewing everywhere outside them as a "flyover country", as this is not the model before the 21st century. The previous development of the country was settlement of the land and building many new small cities.

    This century, they allow most of the cities to decay and centralize around a few megacities. It creates a boom for construction and disproportionate budget for a couple of cities.

    But in the previous century, there was investment to develop new cities, sometimes the new cities had even successful planning. For example, Novouralsk which now decays.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgGOO-NH24g


    people will always be lured to the bright lights of the city to find a mate, make their success, taste the cosmopolitan world, get away from provincial mores

     

    People will go to the economically booming zones with higher quality of life. I don't think megacities are attractive excluding that some of the megacities have a good economy and higher quality of life.

    To be in a city with more than around million people, can be often polluted, dehumanizing etc, although perhaps these problems could be reduced in a very civilized culture.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Interestingly enough, back in 1915, Arnold J. Toynbee predicted that most of Russia would not become urbanized but would instead remain a predominantly rural country indefinitely:

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000336738&seq=366&q1=russia+peasants

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    America after the invention of automobiles in the 20th century, is an example of a country which doesn't often collect in megacities, but instead spreads in a continued suburb of individual houses at least in the economically active coasts.

    The implications are often seen as very negative for many of the cities public sphere in America. But Navalny thinks the American kind of house is a basis for liberty in comparison with Russia.


    -
    It's not completely the same discussion, but Navalny believes the individual house creates a greater responsibility as a class of property owners and encourages the local peoples' organization (https://www.inliberty.ru/article/dom-polidi/).

    Although Navalny's view is to remove regulation for construction, which is already very weak in Russia. He also wants people to build their own house and use a mortgage.

    In my opinion, Navalny's arguments are interesting, but it's more Russian utopianism than American dream. This is already how many people build in postsoviet countries and the result of the peoples' country houses are usually not so visually attractive, often lacking infrastructure.

    He also believes in the solution for the infrastructure in terms of "new technologies", I guess like Tesla powerwalls etc. It's an attractive libertarian ideal we discussed in the last thread.

    Replies: @QCIC

  965. @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry


    It would be more scientific to use astrology to predict the future economy regions.

     

    Not at all. There's a lot of literature out there about how average IQ helps shape national economic prosperity, such as Garett Jones's 2015 book Hive Mind. There's also Heiner Rindermann's book Cognitive Capitalism as well as this article by Anatoly Karlin:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/stupid-people/

    In any case, these predictions are testable. Look at countries' average IQs right now, and see where exactly their economies eventually end up. Unless of course AI truly disrupts everything to a radically unprecedented extent.

    Romania is an economic overperformer relative to its average IQ, though, performing roughly comparable to Hungary, which is significantly smarter than Romania on average.

    It is a dream you can say to the German taxpayers, to explain why the infrastructure in Germany famously decays, while some of the state-capturing industrialists like Siemens are building shiny new trains in Romania and Poland.

    If I was an ordinary German taxpayer, I’m not sure this would be impressive. There is the situation after UK exited the EU. Without UK, Germany, France and Netherlands pay most everyone’s receipts.
     
    That's a part of the price for being a part of a world-power. Russians might have exhibited a similar attitude had Ukraine joined the Eurasian Economic Union and it, along with southern Central Asia (had they also joined the EEU), received huge amounts of Russian subsidies while Russia itself, especially Russia's peripheral regions, would have been neglected of investment.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    I’m not going to waste time discussing the topic, especially if you troll by posting this “high quality” of resource for your ideas. But let’s say this is true just to see the implications politically, then there is even more reason for German taxpayers not to waste their money building trains in foreign countries instead of in their home.

    After all, not just Romania, also countries like Belarus, would have the same powerful economic engine as Germany, so there is less reason for German taxpayers to fund these countries as these countries would naturally converge without this EU funding.

    Although it would still beg the question why there is divergence between the contributors and receivers now. If the astrology would predict the future, it would also explain the outcomes of European past. The situation of today are just the outcomes of yesterday, not less than the situation of tomorrow, are the outcomes of today. Therefore, the current inequality in the EU would be argument against future convergence funding, if the economic outcomes are related to something permanent instead of something temporary.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry

    The economic aid is meant to make them converge faster than they otherwise would have. Less economic aid means a longer convergence process.

    And BTW, not all European countries have the same average IQ. Poland is comparable to Germany, but the countries further to the south, such as in southern Europe, are significantly duller on average:

    https://jakubmarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/pisa-2015-science.jpg

    https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/gtdx46/pisa_2018_mean_score_in_mathematics_literacy/

    Replies: @Dmitry

  966. @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    I'm not going to waste time discussing the topic, especially if you troll by posting this "high quality" of resource for your ideas. But let's say this is true just to see the implications politically, then there is even more reason for German taxpayers not to waste their money building trains in foreign countries instead of in their home.

    After all, not just Romania, also countries like Belarus, would have the same powerful economic engine as Germany, so there is less reason for German taxpayers to fund these countries as these countries would naturally converge without this EU funding.

    Although it would still beg the question why there is divergence between the contributors and receivers now. If the astrology would predict the future, it would also explain the outcomes of European past. The situation of today are just the outcomes of yesterday, not less than the situation of tomorrow, are the outcomes of today. Therefore, the current inequality in the EU would be argument against future convergence funding, if the economic outcomes are related to something permanent instead of something temporary.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    The economic aid is meant to make them converge faster than they otherwise would have. Less economic aid means a longer convergence process.

    And BTW, not all European countries have the same average IQ. Poland is comparable to Germany, but the countries further to the south, such as in southern Europe, are significantly duller on average:

    PISA 2018 mean score in mathematics literacy, Italian macro-regions compared to Europe
    byu/bulfcc ineurope

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    I was feeling like this is déjà vu as you are repeating things I remember I already explained to you last thread.

    After you read, you will hopefully understand the topic a bit more.
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-226/#comment-6116591


    converge faster than they otherwise would have. Less economic aid means a longer convergence process.
     
    If the explanation for the difference between economic development of the countries in the EU would be school tests, then why would they be so deconverged they need hundreds of billions of aid money from one part of the EU to another part of the EU.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  967. @Wokechoke
    @John Johnson

    Just goes to show that the allies were actually obsessed with rescuing Jews. And little else.

    I recently rewatched a film titled Charlotte Grey.

    It’s about a Scottish lass who is very seriously concerned about what Germany did to France by invading it. That’s the set up.


    She’s recruited by SoE after a dinner party in London where she passes herself off as French.

    She goes to France, officially to act as a courier in Vichy. Her secondary agenda is to improbably locate her down pilot RAF boyfriend.

    Somehow in Vichy she encounters two Jewish orphans. Later she discovers that she’s being hosted by a French resistance fighter with 1/8 Jewish ancestry. He’s the prime mover in local resistance as the Germans begin to deploy into previously unoccupied Vichy.

    In the hands of an antisemitic screen writer (you could easily re edit too) that only slightly tweaks the tale it’s a story about a lunatic busybody Scot who gets various French ethnics killed in their home village while she blows up trains and starts a sequence of reprisals at the hands of the German occupation forces. What motivates her ultimately? Her obsession with protecting these two Jewish boys.
    The French were just beside the point.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGrZhlkfA2w

    Replies: @John Johnson

    French Resistance may make for great movies but they really didn’t do much until the Allies had landed. The Poles put up far more of a fight.

    Far more French women were shacking up with Nazis but I suppose that doesn’t make for good Hollywood fare.

    The Gestapo was also very successful at infiltrating resistance groups through the use of French informants.

  968. @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry

    Interestingly enough, back in 1915, Arnold J. Toynbee predicted that most of Russia would not become urbanized but would instead remain a predominantly rural country indefinitely:

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000336738&seq=366&q1=russia+peasants

    Replies: @Dmitry

    America after the invention of automobiles in the 20th century, is an example of a country which doesn’t often collect in megacities, but instead spreads in a continued suburb of individual houses at least in the economically active coasts.

    The implications are often seen as very negative for many of the cities public sphere in America. But Navalny thinks the American kind of house is a basis for liberty in comparison with Russia.


    It’s not completely the same discussion, but Navalny believes the individual house creates a greater responsibility as a class of property owners and encourages the local peoples’ organization (https://www.inliberty.ru/article/dom-polidi/).

    Although Navalny’s view is to remove regulation for construction, which is already very weak in Russia. He also wants people to build their own house and use a mortgage.

    In my opinion, Navalny’s arguments are interesting, but it’s more Russian utopianism than American dream. This is already how many people build in postsoviet countries and the result of the peoples’ country houses are usually not so visually attractive, often lacking infrastructure.

    He also believes in the solution for the infrastructure in terms of “new technologies”, I guess like Tesla powerwalls etc. It’s an attractive libertarian ideal we discussed in the last thread.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Dmitry

    Is Novouralsk still a closed city?

  969. @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry

    The economic aid is meant to make them converge faster than they otherwise would have. Less economic aid means a longer convergence process.

    And BTW, not all European countries have the same average IQ. Poland is comparable to Germany, but the countries further to the south, such as in southern Europe, are significantly duller on average:

    https://jakubmarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/pisa-2015-science.jpg

    https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/gtdx46/pisa_2018_mean_score_in_mathematics_literacy/

    Replies: @Dmitry

    I was feeling like this is déjà vu as you are repeating things I remember I already explained to you last thread.

    After you read, you will hopefully understand the topic a bit more.
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-226/#comment-6116591

    converge faster than they otherwise would have. Less economic aid means a longer convergence process.

    If the explanation for the difference between economic development of the countries in the EU would be school tests, then why would they be so deconverged they need hundreds of billions of aid money from one part of the EU to another part of the EU.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry


    If the explanation for the difference between economic development of the countries in the EU would be school tests, then why would they be so deconverged they need hundreds of billions of aid money from one part of the EU to another part of the EU.
     
    A legacy of Communist rule retarding Eastern European economic development in the 1939-1989 time period.
  970. @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    I was feeling like this is déjà vu as you are repeating things I remember I already explained to you last thread.

    After you read, you will hopefully understand the topic a bit more.
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-226/#comment-6116591


    converge faster than they otherwise would have. Less economic aid means a longer convergence process.
     
    If the explanation for the difference between economic development of the countries in the EU would be school tests, then why would they be so deconverged they need hundreds of billions of aid money from one part of the EU to another part of the EU.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    If the explanation for the difference between economic development of the countries in the EU would be school tests, then why would they be so deconverged they need hundreds of billions of aid money from one part of the EU to another part of the EU.

    A legacy of Communist rule retarding Eastern European economic development in the 1939-1989 time period.

  971. @Beckow
    @Coconuts


    free speech...liberalism has always been indebted to business and commerce, from its early beginnings...the ideology of the Protestant commercial middle class, where business relationships are made the model for political ones.
     
    True. It means that free speech and other liberties are effectively only market free speech - anything that hurts commerce is allowed only on the margins. It was always a fatal flaw of liberalism, the pretending that privately owned media is free is a fiction. The issue is that markets always consolidate over time. We have also seen business standards drop and less concern for appearances.

    Free speech is what liberalism is built on. If the freedom of expression is abandoned all we get is a rather ugly chase for profits, consumption and status. Not noticeably better than many other systems in the past.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    The part of liberalism based in free speech and the liberalism for the free market are not unconnected.

    Free speech, free media are necessary for safer investment in business.

    For example, today, you probably shouldn’t invest in a country where there is not transparent information about the companies, there is not free speech of journalists to report about problems of the company.

    There is one of the differences between “emerging market” investments and the investment in “developed markets”.

    This is why information transparency is an important safety feature for your investment. Even if it’s not perfect information, the investor will lose less money in a problematic company than if a later reporting about a company is hidden for political reasons.

    With this, would you invest in a country which doesn’t have a lot of free speech? It’s more risky to invest in emerging markets without the developed liberalism partly for this reason.

    This was one of the historical reasons for the development of free speech values mainly as the bourgeoisie are becoming ruling class in the late 18th century.

    A legacy of Communist rule retarding Eastern European economic development in the 1939-1989 time period.

    So, if true that “communism” is the cause of the divergence which needs so many hundreds of billions of dollars of aid, the causes of economic development can be related to things like political history, leadership and ideology, like it says in the old history books.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Dmitry


    So, if true that “communism” is the cause of the divergence which needs so many hundreds of billions of dollars of aid, the causes of economic development can be related to things like political history, leadership and ideology, like it says in the old history books.
     
    Well, if one wants to be fair, Eastern Europe, other than Czechoslovakia, never voted Communists into power in democratic elections. And Communist rule in Eastern Europe, again excluding Czechoslovakia, was flat-out imposed by force. Though you are correct that if Russia would have had a more developed and well-functioning democracy by the time of World War I, then maybe Communism would have been less likely to take root there during World War I. Democracy in Russia was very fragile in 1917 and thus probably easier to subvert by the Bolsheviks than a more established democracy would have been.
  972. @Wokechoke
    @John Johnson

    https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/09/10/donald-trump-will-never-support-putin-says-volodymyr-zelensky


    He's threatening violence in Berlin and Paris here. If Ukies try to bomb England I hope they miss and get Cardiff though.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Your link is behind a paywall.

    He’s threatening violence in Berlin and Paris here. If Ukies try to bomb England I hope they miss and get Cardiff though.

    Yea I’m sure Ukraine will be sending bombers over Britain.

    About as likely as Trump becoming president.

    Boy does Putin attract some high quality followers

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @John Johnson

    It’s the economist. If you are such a poor that you can’t afford the subscription, that’s not my fault.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  973. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    What are your thoughts on the argument espoused by foreign policy realists such as Philippe Lemoine that it's not in the West's interests to support a conventional Ukrainian war effort against Russia because it makes it much harder for the West to cooperate with Russia on other issues of huge importance, such as nuclear non-proliferation (the New START Treaty was recently abrogated by Russia in response to Western support for Ukraine, IIRC) and arms control? Philippe Lemoine fears that Russia will help Iran get a nuke, dismantle the nuclear non-proliferation and arms control regimes and refuse to revive them, and give advanced technology (weapons systems, et cetera) to US enemies if the US/West will refuse to stop arming Ukraine. He also argues that having the West stop arming Ukraine will ensure that Russia is "merely" mostly rather than completely in China's corner.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

    FWIW, I suppose that this claim is akin to a Nazi arguing that Nazi Germany will bleed the West (along with itself) dry if the West refused to give the Nazis a free hand in regards to eastern expansion and that getting their own countries bled dry while the Soviet Union just sits by on the sidelines is not in Western interests.

    Hitler himself actually did make such an argument to the West in late 1939:

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/1939-10-06a.html

    [MORE]

    I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to go to work together. To assist in assuring this cooperation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.

    To achieve this great end, the leading nations of this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will insure for them all a sense of security, of calm—in short, of peace.

    Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation; that is, without exact elucidation of every point of issue.

    It is equally impossible that such a conference, which is to determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannon are thundering or mobilized armies are bringing pressure to bear upon it.

    If, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, then it would be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to death and milliards of riches destroyed.

    Continuation of the present state of affairs in the West is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices.

    Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbruecken. German artillery will in turn lay Mulhouse in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe and Germany in her turn will shell Strasbourg.

    Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the German at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range guns will then be set up and from both sides will strike deeper and deeper and whatever cannot be reached by the long-distance guns will be destroyed from the air.

    And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists and very profitable for the airplane, arms and munitions manufacturers, but appalling for the victims.

    And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea.

    Today there are no longer any islands. And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields.

    One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards.

    Mr. Churchill and his companions may interpret these opinions of mine as weakness or cowardice if they like. I need not occupy myself with what they think; I make these statements simply because it goes without saying that I wish to spare my own people this suffering.

    If, however, the opinions of Messrs. Churchill and followers should prevail, this statement will have been my last.

    Then we shall fight. Neither force of arms nor lapse of time will conquer Germany. There never will be another November, 1918, in German history. It is infantile to hope for the disintegration of our people.

    Mr. Churchill may be convinced that Great Britain will win. I do not doubt for a single moment that Germany will be victorious.

    Destiny will decide who is right.

    One thing only is certain. In the course of world history, there have never been two victors, but very often only losers. This seems to me to have been the case in the last war.

    May those peoples and their leaders who are of the same mind now make their reply. And let those who consider war to be the better solution reject my outstretched hand.

    As Fuehrer of the German people and Chancellor of the Reich, I can thank God at this moment that he has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for what is our right, and beg Him that we and all other nations may find the right way, so that not only the German people but all Europe may once more be granted the blessing of peace.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Mr. XYZ

    I would assume what is being said by the West is a pre-negotiation position and the West might be willing to compromise on recognized borders for Ukraine in a settlement but Russia will also have to give something really good to get that. Iran is irrelevant at on the global plane of strategy, but China is not because the ongoing strategy of America relies on China and Russia never getting so close that they are actually cooperating in a war against a common enemy.

    The US got into WW2 through being attacked by Japan because the US deliberately took an extremely hard line with Japan. In the months before Pearl Harbour American strategists were aghast at the prospect of Imperial Japan joining in the Nazi German assault on Soviet Russia, which would have led to the complete defeat of Russia.

    No one forced Biden to continue with Trump's policies against China, but the attempt to hamstring their semiconductor industry has alienated the Chinese, who are not fooled by Biden recently saying he wants cordial relations with China. I think Biden's remarks are a sign some Washington strategists are begining to become alarmed at the various re alignments its support of Ukraine 'for as long as it takes' are setting in motion.

    Anyway, unilaterally cutting off supplies to Ukraine is not on the table, all Trump said was if elected he will demand both sides stop fighting and tell Russia if it didn't it would face a Ukraine much better armed than it currently is. China would probably be pleased with such an outcome and the Russians would not.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @John Johnson

  974. @Dmitry
    @Mr. XYZ

    America after the invention of automobiles in the 20th century, is an example of a country which doesn't often collect in megacities, but instead spreads in a continued suburb of individual houses at least in the economically active coasts.

    The implications are often seen as very negative for many of the cities public sphere in America. But Navalny thinks the American kind of house is a basis for liberty in comparison with Russia.


    -
    It's not completely the same discussion, but Navalny believes the individual house creates a greater responsibility as a class of property owners and encourages the local peoples' organization (https://www.inliberty.ru/article/dom-polidi/).

    Although Navalny's view is to remove regulation for construction, which is already very weak in Russia. He also wants people to build their own house and use a mortgage.

    In my opinion, Navalny's arguments are interesting, but it's more Russian utopianism than American dream. This is already how many people build in postsoviet countries and the result of the peoples' country houses are usually not so visually attractive, often lacking infrastructure.

    He also believes in the solution for the infrastructure in terms of "new technologies", I guess like Tesla powerwalls etc. It's an attractive libertarian ideal we discussed in the last thread.

    Replies: @QCIC

    Is Novouralsk still a closed city?

  975. @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    What are your thoughts on the argument espoused by foreign policy realists such as Philippe Lemoine that it's not in the West's interests to support a conventional Ukrainian war effort against Russia because it makes it much harder for the West to cooperate with Russia on other issues of huge importance, such as nuclear non-proliferation (the New START Treaty was recently abrogated by Russia in response to Western support for Ukraine, IIRC) and arms control? Philippe Lemoine fears that Russia will help Iran get a nuke, dismantle the nuclear non-proliferation and arms control regimes and refuse to revive them, and give advanced technology (weapons systems, et cetera) to US enemies if the US/West will refuse to stop arming Ukraine. He also argues that having the West stop arming Ukraine will ensure that Russia is "merely" mostly rather than completely in China's corner.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @QCIC

    Get your story straight.

    The misleading US rhetoric around Russia’s position on New Start is impressive. Clearly Russia is concerned about the nuclear disarmament process and arms control in general since the USA dropped out of the ABM treaty, weaseled out of the INF Treaty and stopped Open Skies inspection flights, not to mention building missiles sites in Eastern Europe.

    Russia did not withdraw from the New Start treaty and stated they would continue to abide by the agreed limits. My hunch is they would like to restore both New Start inspections as well as Open Skies overflights, but not until after NATO stops meddling in Ukraine.

    This Western rhetoric on arms control is part of the on-going, pre-Ukraine pressure campaign against Russia with 24/7 MSM and government lying.

    I am not saying either Russia or Putin is good. I am asking why our government is run by evil trolls?

  976. @Mr. XYZ
    @Mr. XYZ

    FWIW, I suppose that this claim is akin to a Nazi arguing that Nazi Germany will bleed the West (along with itself) dry if the West refused to give the Nazis a free hand in regards to eastern expansion and that getting their own countries bled dry while the Soviet Union just sits by on the sidelines is not in Western interests.

    Hitler himself actually did make such an argument to the West in late 1939:

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/1939-10-06a.html


    I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to go to work together. To assist in assuring this cooperation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.

    To achieve this great end, the leading nations of this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will insure for them all a sense of security, of calm—in short, of peace.

    Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation; that is, without exact elucidation of every point of issue.

    It is equally impossible that such a conference, which is to determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannon are thundering or mobilized armies are bringing pressure to bear upon it.

    If, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, then it would be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to death and milliards of riches destroyed.

    Continuation of the present state of affairs in the West is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices.

    Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbruecken. German artillery will in turn lay Mulhouse in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe and Germany in her turn will shell Strasbourg.

    Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the German at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range guns will then be set up and from both sides will strike deeper and deeper and whatever cannot be reached by the long-distance guns will be destroyed from the air.

    And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists and very profitable for the airplane, arms and munitions manufacturers, but appalling for the victims.

    And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea.

    Today there are no longer any islands. And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields.

    One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards.

    Mr. Churchill and his companions may interpret these opinions of mine as weakness or cowardice if they like. I need not occupy myself with what they think; I make these statements simply because it goes without saying that I wish to spare my own people this suffering.

    If, however, the opinions of Messrs. Churchill and followers should prevail, this statement will have been my last.

    Then we shall fight. Neither force of arms nor lapse of time will conquer Germany. There never will be another November, 1918, in German history. It is infantile to hope for the disintegration of our people.

    Mr. Churchill may be convinced that Great Britain will win. I do not doubt for a single moment that Germany will be victorious.

    Destiny will decide who is right.

    One thing only is certain. In the course of world history, there have never been two victors, but very often only losers. This seems to me to have been the case in the last war.

    May those peoples and their leaders who are of the same mind now make their reply. And let those who consider war to be the better solution reject my outstretched hand.

    As Fuehrer of the German people and Chancellor of the Reich, I can thank God at this moment that he has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for what is our right, and beg Him that we and all other nations may find the right way, so that not only the German people but all Europe may once more be granted the blessing of peace.
     

    Replies: @Sean

    I would assume what is being said by the West is a pre-negotiation position and the West might be willing to compromise on recognized borders for Ukraine in a settlement but Russia will also have to give something really good to get that. Iran is irrelevant at on the global plane of strategy, but China is not because the ongoing strategy of America relies on China and Russia never getting so close that they are actually cooperating in a war against a common enemy.

    The US got into WW2 through being attacked by Japan because the US deliberately took an extremely hard line with Japan. In the months before Pearl Harbour American strategists were aghast at the prospect of Imperial Japan joining in the Nazi German assault on Soviet Russia, which would have led to the complete defeat of Russia.

    No one forced Biden to continue with Trump’s policies against China, but the attempt to hamstring their semiconductor industry has alienated the Chinese, who are not fooled by Biden recently saying he wants cordial relations with China. I think Biden’s remarks are a sign some Washington strategists are begining to become alarmed at the various re alignments its support of Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes’ are setting in motion.

    Anyway, unilaterally cutting off supplies to Ukraine is not on the table, all Trump said was if elected he will demand both sides stop fighting and tell Russia if it didn’t it would face a Ukraine much better armed than it currently is. China would probably be pleased with such an outcome and the Russians would not.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @Sean

    The only way Ukraine could be better armed is if they were handed 6,000,000 German British and French boys to Zerg rush Russian entrenchments. Trump is out of his depth here. There are no more supersecret weapon systems to give.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @John Johnson
    @Sean

    The US got into WW2 through being attacked by Japan because the US deliberately took an extremely hard line with Japan.

    Extremely hard line? The shipping embargo? Would you do business with an Imperial power that sanctions rape of the locals?

    Japan had the option of:
    1. Going home instead of trying to rule over people that hated them
    2. Scaling back their empire to Manchurian China/Korea
    3. Invading the USSR and splitting the oil with Germany

    Japan seriously considered 2 and 3 but it's the fault of the US that they chose the mind bogglingly crazy option of attacking an industrial power whose population did not want to get involved? In the hope that they choose to stay out of the war even though Germany made the same faulty assumption in WW1? Whose fault is that?

    Replies: @Sean

  977. @John Johnson
    @Wokechoke

    Your link is behind a paywall.

    He’s threatening violence in Berlin and Paris here. If Ukies try to bomb England I hope they miss and get Cardiff though.

    Yea I'm sure Ukraine will be sending bombers over Britain.

    About as likely as Trump becoming president.

    Boy does Putin attract some high quality followers

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7t4tNniC94

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    It’s the economist. If you are such a poor that you can’t afford the subscription, that’s not my fault.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Wokechoke

    It’s the economist. If you are such a poor that you can’t afford the subscription, that’s not my fault.

    So you're actually trying to chastise me for not supporting the MSM?

    Do you subscribe to the NYTIMES? I hit their paywalled articles all the time and could easily afford a subscription. Are you saying I should do it?

    Putin's propagandist talks about how he hates it when people call him dwarfette:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNJvMtnl6og

    What a genius. If there is a nickname that you really hate then what you should do is needlessly talk about it on the air.

    Oh and don't forget to add him to your Jew watch list. I guess you can take off Prigozhin.

    Replies: @QCIC

  978. @Sean
    @Mr. XYZ

    I would assume what is being said by the West is a pre-negotiation position and the West might be willing to compromise on recognized borders for Ukraine in a settlement but Russia will also have to give something really good to get that. Iran is irrelevant at on the global plane of strategy, but China is not because the ongoing strategy of America relies on China and Russia never getting so close that they are actually cooperating in a war against a common enemy.

    The US got into WW2 through being attacked by Japan because the US deliberately took an extremely hard line with Japan. In the months before Pearl Harbour American strategists were aghast at the prospect of Imperial Japan joining in the Nazi German assault on Soviet Russia, which would have led to the complete defeat of Russia.

    No one forced Biden to continue with Trump's policies against China, but the attempt to hamstring their semiconductor industry has alienated the Chinese, who are not fooled by Biden recently saying he wants cordial relations with China. I think Biden's remarks are a sign some Washington strategists are begining to become alarmed at the various re alignments its support of Ukraine 'for as long as it takes' are setting in motion.

    Anyway, unilaterally cutting off supplies to Ukraine is not on the table, all Trump said was if elected he will demand both sides stop fighting and tell Russia if it didn't it would face a Ukraine much better armed than it currently is. China would probably be pleased with such an outcome and the Russians would not.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @John Johnson

    The only way Ukraine could be better armed is if they were handed 6,000,000 German British and French boys to Zerg rush Russian entrenchments. Trump is out of his depth here. There are no more supersecret weapon systems to give.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Wokechoke

    The only way Ukraine could be better armed is if they were handed 6,000,000 German British and French boys to Zerg rush Russian entrenchments. Trump is out of his depth here. There are no more supersecret weapon systems to give.

    A dozen F-35s, the older B-2 stealth bombers, some AC-130s, long range HIMARs, latest USAF drones, DU ammo for everything, newest M1 tanks and strikers, and I'm sure there is something I don't know about.

    So Trump could indeed increase their firepower.

  979. @Wokechoke
    @John Johnson

    It’s the economist. If you are such a poor that you can’t afford the subscription, that’s not my fault.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    It’s the economist. If you are such a poor that you can’t afford the subscription, that’s not my fault.

    So you’re actually trying to chastise me for not supporting the MSM?

    Do you subscribe to the NYTIMES? I hit their paywalled articles all the time and could easily afford a subscription. Are you saying I should do it?

    Putin’s propagandist talks about how he hates it when people call him dwarfette:

    What a genius. If there is a nickname that you really hate then what you should do is needlessly talk about it on the air.

    Oh and don’t forget to add him to your Jew watch list. I guess you can take off Prigozhin.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    JJ,

    What exactly is your argument against the point that the West made a long series of warlike moves since 1993 against Russia which directly led to this Ukrainian conflict? Moreover, that this conflict was the intended result of those warlike moves by the West?

  980. @John Johnson
    @Wokechoke

    It’s the economist. If you are such a poor that you can’t afford the subscription, that’s not my fault.

    So you're actually trying to chastise me for not supporting the MSM?

    Do you subscribe to the NYTIMES? I hit their paywalled articles all the time and could easily afford a subscription. Are you saying I should do it?

    Putin's propagandist talks about how he hates it when people call him dwarfette:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNJvMtnl6og

    What a genius. If there is a nickname that you really hate then what you should do is needlessly talk about it on the air.

    Oh and don't forget to add him to your Jew watch list. I guess you can take off Prigozhin.

    Replies: @QCIC

    JJ,

    What exactly is your argument against the point that the West made a long series of warlike moves since 1993 against Russia which directly led to this Ukrainian conflict? Moreover, that this conflict was the intended result of those warlike moves by the West?

  981. What exactly is your argument against the point that the West made a long series of warlike moves since 1993 against Russia which directly led to this Ukrainian conflict?

    I don’t believe that the West caused this war through actions from the 90s.

    I believe this is age old Russian Imperialism led by an insecure Tsar. I agree with Prigozhin that it was started over egos and that Ukraine was never a threat to Russian security. Putin openly admires Peter the Great and stated that the great Tsars were conquerors. If it was truly about NATO then he would have sent an ultimatum first. When the war started Putin in fact cut diplomatic ties to Zelensky and put a bounty on his head. No demands were made and the tanks simply poured in. This was in fact where Zelensky made a huge mistake as the bridge to Belarus was not mined or ready to be shelled. The Ukraine military was not put on full alert as the CIA/MI6 suggested. Zelensky thought he could reach a deal with Putin before any military action occurred.

    I agree with the Russian commander who was actually on the ground fighting this war. He believed the war was based on lies and Ukraine was never a threat. Feel free to disagree.

    When the war is over the full invasion plans will be revealed which will include the full elimination of Ukraine. There was never a plan to simply change the government. He was going to fully assimilate Ukraine which would not only boost the population of Russia but also massively increase their GDP which had been stagnating the last 10 years.

    Putin is extremely arrogant and thought this would be an overnight takeover. Well that failed.

    “I could take Kiev in 2 weeks if I wanted to” Putin in 2014 interview:
    https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast-kiev-2-weeks/

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    Your response doesn't address my question. The West did make a long series of aggressive moves against Russia since 1993. There were few and perhaps no comparable moves by Russia against the West.

    Russia gave the West many warnings.

    You must have considered these points, so why make us guess?

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @John Johnson


    If it was truly about NATO then he would have sent an ultimatum first.
     
    He did:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_December_2021_ultimatum
    , @Sean
    @John Johnson


    Putin is extremely arrogant and thought this would be an overnight takeover. Well that failed.
     
    Be they ever so foolish the self confident often triumph at however great a cost--eventually. The US was not so hot at Pearl Harbor and Kassarine Pass.

    “I could take Kiev in 2 weeks if I wanted to” Putin in 2014 interview:
     
    He could have then but he waited until 2022 and Ukrainians had adapted in the intervening period. For the best part of a year the Russians have been the ones doing most of the adapting, and Ukraine sees that, which is why Zelensky was complaining in Vienna that Nato would not admit Ukraine. He knows what is coming.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  982. @Wokechoke
    @Sean

    The only way Ukraine could be better armed is if they were handed 6,000,000 German British and French boys to Zerg rush Russian entrenchments. Trump is out of his depth here. There are no more supersecret weapon systems to give.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    The only way Ukraine could be better armed is if they were handed 6,000,000 German British and French boys to Zerg rush Russian entrenchments. Trump is out of his depth here. There are no more supersecret weapon systems to give.

    A dozen F-35s, the older B-2 stealth bombers, some AC-130s, long range HIMARs, latest USAF drones, DU ammo for everything, newest M1 tanks and strikers, and I’m sure there is something I don’t know about.

    So Trump could indeed increase their firepower.

  983. @Sean
    @Mr. XYZ

    I would assume what is being said by the West is a pre-negotiation position and the West might be willing to compromise on recognized borders for Ukraine in a settlement but Russia will also have to give something really good to get that. Iran is irrelevant at on the global plane of strategy, but China is not because the ongoing strategy of America relies on China and Russia never getting so close that they are actually cooperating in a war against a common enemy.

    The US got into WW2 through being attacked by Japan because the US deliberately took an extremely hard line with Japan. In the months before Pearl Harbour American strategists were aghast at the prospect of Imperial Japan joining in the Nazi German assault on Soviet Russia, which would have led to the complete defeat of Russia.

    No one forced Biden to continue with Trump's policies against China, but the attempt to hamstring their semiconductor industry has alienated the Chinese, who are not fooled by Biden recently saying he wants cordial relations with China. I think Biden's remarks are a sign some Washington strategists are begining to become alarmed at the various re alignments its support of Ukraine 'for as long as it takes' are setting in motion.

    Anyway, unilaterally cutting off supplies to Ukraine is not on the table, all Trump said was if elected he will demand both sides stop fighting and tell Russia if it didn't it would face a Ukraine much better armed than it currently is. China would probably be pleased with such an outcome and the Russians would not.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @John Johnson

    The US got into WW2 through being attacked by Japan because the US deliberately took an extremely hard line with Japan.

    Extremely hard line? The shipping embargo? Would you do business with an Imperial power that sanctions rape of the locals?

    Japan had the option of:
    1. Going home instead of trying to rule over people that hated them
    2. Scaling back their empire to Manchurian China/Korea
    3. Invading the USSR and splitting the oil with Germany

    Japan seriously considered 2 and 3 but it’s the fault of the US that they chose the mind bogglingly crazy option of attacking an industrial power whose population did not want to get involved? In the hope that they choose to stay out of the war even though Germany made the same faulty assumption in WW1? Whose fault is that?

    • Replies: @Sean
    @John Johnson

    Wilhelmine Germany was not appeased by anyone, so even in the case of Germany it is 50/50 whether a hard line works. The US got into World War 2 through not appeasing Imperial Japan and ditto Wilhelmine Germany in WW1. You are correct that Imperial Japan (and Nazi Germany) were not deterred by America being a much larger and self sufficient economic and industrial power with proven ability to win a world war and wiliness to enter one to prevent the rise of regional hegemons.

    Moreover, it is faulty thinking to see in post Westphalian history reasons to expect present day Russia and China to be deterred by a principle of sovereignty in which countries are free to alter their international alignments to their neighbor's detriment and the neighbor can't levy war to prevent their position weakening because that would be too 'mind bogglingly crazy' and immoral of them. Such an ethereal fairy story concept is what led to the Thirty Years war, which ended when the main combatants realized they were getting nowhere and agreed to abide by limitations on their spheres of influence, and to the lesser states not having freedom to alter their alignments.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  984. @John Johnson
    What exactly is your argument against the point that the West made a long series of warlike moves since 1993 against Russia which directly led to this Ukrainian conflict?

    I don't believe that the West caused this war through actions from the 90s.

    I believe this is age old Russian Imperialism led by an insecure Tsar. I agree with Prigozhin that it was started over egos and that Ukraine was never a threat to Russian security. Putin openly admires Peter the Great and stated that the great Tsars were conquerors. If it was truly about NATO then he would have sent an ultimatum first. When the war started Putin in fact cut diplomatic ties to Zelensky and put a bounty on his head. No demands were made and the tanks simply poured in. This was in fact where Zelensky made a huge mistake as the bridge to Belarus was not mined or ready to be shelled. The Ukraine military was not put on full alert as the CIA/MI6 suggested. Zelensky thought he could reach a deal with Putin before any military action occurred.

    I agree with the Russian commander who was actually on the ground fighting this war. He believed the war was based on lies and Ukraine was never a threat. Feel free to disagree.

    When the war is over the full invasion plans will be revealed which will include the full elimination of Ukraine. There was never a plan to simply change the government. He was going to fully assimilate Ukraine which would not only boost the population of Russia but also massively increase their GDP which had been stagnating the last 10 years.

    Putin is extremely arrogant and thought this would be an overnight takeover. Well that failed.

    "I could take Kiev in 2 weeks if I wanted to" Putin in 2014 interview:
    https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast-kiev-2-weeks/

    Replies: @QCIC, @Mr. XYZ, @Sean

    Your response doesn’t address my question. The West did make a long series of aggressive moves against Russia since 1993. There were few and perhaps no comparable moves by Russia against the West.

    Russia gave the West many warnings.

    You must have considered these points, so why make us guess?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    Your response doesn’t address my question. The West did make a long series of aggressive moves against Russia since 1993. There were few and perhaps no comparable moves by Russia against the West.

    You asked a politically loaded question along the lines of How much does Trump's racism factor into his appeal?.

    I reject your assumption entirely. I do not believe that the West aggravated Russia into launching a bloody invasion. That is about as believable as Hitler being aggravated into launching a war against Poland even though they were drawing up Intelligenzaktion years before then.

    Russia has invaded a neighboring country every 30-50 years since 1263:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

    I view this as another case of an insecure Tsar trying to expand then empire because he doesn't believe in himself or his own people. That is the core problem and why Russia was called "the sick man" before Communism. They have lower technical development than Denmark despite having a much larger population. This ongoing insecurity weighs on the Tsar and leads him to compensate through expansion.

    I do not believe that a neutral US or EU since 1991 would have prevented Putin from acting aggressively. Putin has killed his own former allies over a mere sleight. Political competitors are murdered for legally challenging him.

    Belarus has been a close ally to Russia and they are scheduled for full absorption:
    https://www.dw.com/en/russia-plans-belarus-absorption-by-2030-media-reports/a-64771429

    Is Belarus the model state for relations with Russia? Do you deny that Putin plans on eliminating their autonomy? Is that what cozying up to the dictator gets you?

    Replies: @QCIC

  985. @John Johnson
    @Sean

    The US got into WW2 through being attacked by Japan because the US deliberately took an extremely hard line with Japan.

    Extremely hard line? The shipping embargo? Would you do business with an Imperial power that sanctions rape of the locals?

    Japan had the option of:
    1. Going home instead of trying to rule over people that hated them
    2. Scaling back their empire to Manchurian China/Korea
    3. Invading the USSR and splitting the oil with Germany

    Japan seriously considered 2 and 3 but it's the fault of the US that they chose the mind bogglingly crazy option of attacking an industrial power whose population did not want to get involved? In the hope that they choose to stay out of the war even though Germany made the same faulty assumption in WW1? Whose fault is that?

    Replies: @Sean

    Wilhelmine Germany was not appeased by anyone, so even in the case of Germany it is 50/50 whether a hard line works. The US got into World War 2 through not appeasing Imperial Japan and ditto Wilhelmine Germany in WW1. You are correct that Imperial Japan (and Nazi Germany) were not deterred by America being a much larger and self sufficient economic and industrial power with proven ability to win a world war and wiliness to enter one to prevent the rise of regional hegemons.

    Moreover, it is faulty thinking to see in post Westphalian history reasons to expect present day Russia and China to be deterred by a principle of sovereignty in which countries are free to alter their international alignments to their neighbor’s detriment and the neighbor can’t levy war to prevent their position weakening because that would be too ‘mind bogglingly crazy’ and immoral of them. Such an ethereal fairy story concept is what led to the Thirty Years war, which ended when the main combatants realized they were getting nowhere and agreed to abide by limitations on their spheres of influence, and to the lesser states not having freedom to alter their alignments.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Sean


    Moreover, it is faulty thinking to see in post Westphalian history reasons to expect present day Russia and China to be deterred by a principle of sovereignty in which countries are free to alter their international alignments to their neighbor’s detriment and the neighbor can’t levy war to prevent their position weakening because that would be too ‘mind bogglingly crazy’ and immoral of them. Such an ethereal fairy story concept is what led to the Thirty Years war, which ended when the main combatants realized they were getting nowhere and agreed to abide by limitations on their spheres of influence, and to the lesser states not having freedom to alter their alignments.
     
    Remind me again how Russia felt when Austria-Hungary insisted that Serbia should be in its own and not in Russia's sphere of influence back in 1914?

    Replies: @Sean

  986. @Dmitry
    @Beckow

    The part of liberalism based in free speech and the liberalism for the free market are not unconnected.

    Free speech, free media are necessary for safer investment in business.

    For example, today, you probably shouldn't invest in a country where there is not transparent information about the companies, there is not free speech of journalists to report about problems of the company.

    There is one of the differences between "emerging market" investments and the investment in "developed markets".

    This is why information transparency is an important safety feature for your investment. Even if it's not perfect information, the investor will lose less money in a problematic company than if a later reporting about a company is hidden for political reasons.

    With this, would you invest in a country which doesn't have a lot of free speech? It's more risky to invest in emerging markets without the developed liberalism partly for this reason.

    This was one of the historical reasons for the development of free speech values mainly as the bourgeoisie are becoming ruling class in the late 18th century.


    @Mr. XYZ


    A legacy of Communist rule retarding Eastern European economic development in the 1939-1989 time period.

     

    So, if true that "communism" is the cause of the divergence which needs so many hundreds of billions of dollars of aid, the causes of economic development can be related to things like political history, leadership and ideology, like it says in the old history books.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    So, if true that “communism” is the cause of the divergence which needs so many hundreds of billions of dollars of aid, the causes of economic development can be related to things like political history, leadership and ideology, like it says in the old history books.

    Well, if one wants to be fair, Eastern Europe, other than Czechoslovakia, never voted Communists into power in democratic elections. And Communist rule in Eastern Europe, again excluding Czechoslovakia, was flat-out imposed by force. Though you are correct that if Russia would have had a more developed and well-functioning democracy by the time of World War I, then maybe Communism would have been less likely to take root there during World War I. Democracy in Russia was very fragile in 1917 and thus probably easier to subvert by the Bolsheviks than a more established democracy would have been.

  987. @Sean
    @John Johnson

    Wilhelmine Germany was not appeased by anyone, so even in the case of Germany it is 50/50 whether a hard line works. The US got into World War 2 through not appeasing Imperial Japan and ditto Wilhelmine Germany in WW1. You are correct that Imperial Japan (and Nazi Germany) were not deterred by America being a much larger and self sufficient economic and industrial power with proven ability to win a world war and wiliness to enter one to prevent the rise of regional hegemons.

    Moreover, it is faulty thinking to see in post Westphalian history reasons to expect present day Russia and China to be deterred by a principle of sovereignty in which countries are free to alter their international alignments to their neighbor's detriment and the neighbor can't levy war to prevent their position weakening because that would be too 'mind bogglingly crazy' and immoral of them. Such an ethereal fairy story concept is what led to the Thirty Years war, which ended when the main combatants realized they were getting nowhere and agreed to abide by limitations on their spheres of influence, and to the lesser states not having freedom to alter their alignments.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Moreover, it is faulty thinking to see in post Westphalian history reasons to expect present day Russia and China to be deterred by a principle of sovereignty in which countries are free to alter their international alignments to their neighbor’s detriment and the neighbor can’t levy war to prevent their position weakening because that would be too ‘mind bogglingly crazy’ and immoral of them. Such an ethereal fairy story concept is what led to the Thirty Years war, which ended when the main combatants realized they were getting nowhere and agreed to abide by limitations on their spheres of influence, and to the lesser states not having freedom to alter their alignments.

    Remind me again how Russia felt when Austria-Hungary insisted that Serbia should be in its own and not in Russia’s sphere of influence back in 1914?

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Mr. XYZ

    Serbia deliberately started WW1.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  988. @John Johnson
    What exactly is your argument against the point that the West made a long series of warlike moves since 1993 against Russia which directly led to this Ukrainian conflict?

    I don't believe that the West caused this war through actions from the 90s.

    I believe this is age old Russian Imperialism led by an insecure Tsar. I agree with Prigozhin that it was started over egos and that Ukraine was never a threat to Russian security. Putin openly admires Peter the Great and stated that the great Tsars were conquerors. If it was truly about NATO then he would have sent an ultimatum first. When the war started Putin in fact cut diplomatic ties to Zelensky and put a bounty on his head. No demands were made and the tanks simply poured in. This was in fact where Zelensky made a huge mistake as the bridge to Belarus was not mined or ready to be shelled. The Ukraine military was not put on full alert as the CIA/MI6 suggested. Zelensky thought he could reach a deal with Putin before any military action occurred.

    I agree with the Russian commander who was actually on the ground fighting this war. He believed the war was based on lies and Ukraine was never a threat. Feel free to disagree.

    When the war is over the full invasion plans will be revealed which will include the full elimination of Ukraine. There was never a plan to simply change the government. He was going to fully assimilate Ukraine which would not only boost the population of Russia but also massively increase their GDP which had been stagnating the last 10 years.

    Putin is extremely arrogant and thought this would be an overnight takeover. Well that failed.

    "I could take Kiev in 2 weeks if I wanted to" Putin in 2014 interview:
    https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast-kiev-2-weeks/

    Replies: @QCIC, @Mr. XYZ, @Sean

    If it was truly about NATO then he would have sent an ultimatum first.

    He did:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_December_2021_ultimatum

  989. @Mr. XYZ
    @Sean


    Moreover, it is faulty thinking to see in post Westphalian history reasons to expect present day Russia and China to be deterred by a principle of sovereignty in which countries are free to alter their international alignments to their neighbor’s detriment and the neighbor can’t levy war to prevent their position weakening because that would be too ‘mind bogglingly crazy’ and immoral of them. Such an ethereal fairy story concept is what led to the Thirty Years war, which ended when the main combatants realized they were getting nowhere and agreed to abide by limitations on their spheres of influence, and to the lesser states not having freedom to alter their alignments.
     
    Remind me again how Russia felt when Austria-Hungary insisted that Serbia should be in its own and not in Russia's sphere of influence back in 1914?

    Replies: @Sean

    Serbia deliberately started WW1.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Sean

    That's very far from guaranteed. It has been argued that Serbia's intelligence service was just trying to scare Franz Ferdinand and A-H and wasn't even intending to kill him, with the success of this plot actually being unexpected (else, why recruit a bunch of untrained teenagers for this task?):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/12/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-start-world-war-i/

    https://blog.oup.com/2022/06/the-sarajevo-assassination-in-historical-context/

    Replies: @Sean

  990. @John Johnson
    What exactly is your argument against the point that the West made a long series of warlike moves since 1993 against Russia which directly led to this Ukrainian conflict?

    I don't believe that the West caused this war through actions from the 90s.

    I believe this is age old Russian Imperialism led by an insecure Tsar. I agree with Prigozhin that it was started over egos and that Ukraine was never a threat to Russian security. Putin openly admires Peter the Great and stated that the great Tsars were conquerors. If it was truly about NATO then he would have sent an ultimatum first. When the war started Putin in fact cut diplomatic ties to Zelensky and put a bounty on his head. No demands were made and the tanks simply poured in. This was in fact where Zelensky made a huge mistake as the bridge to Belarus was not mined or ready to be shelled. The Ukraine military was not put on full alert as the CIA/MI6 suggested. Zelensky thought he could reach a deal with Putin before any military action occurred.

    I agree with the Russian commander who was actually on the ground fighting this war. He believed the war was based on lies and Ukraine was never a threat. Feel free to disagree.

    When the war is over the full invasion plans will be revealed which will include the full elimination of Ukraine. There was never a plan to simply change the government. He was going to fully assimilate Ukraine which would not only boost the population of Russia but also massively increase their GDP which had been stagnating the last 10 years.

    Putin is extremely arrogant and thought this would be an overnight takeover. Well that failed.

    "I could take Kiev in 2 weeks if I wanted to" Putin in 2014 interview:
    https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast-kiev-2-weeks/

    Replies: @QCIC, @Mr. XYZ, @Sean

    Putin is extremely arrogant and thought this would be an overnight takeover. Well that failed.

    Be they ever so foolish the self confident often triumph at however great a cost–eventually. The US was not so hot at Pearl Harbor and Kassarine Pass.

    “I could take Kiev in 2 weeks if I wanted to” Putin in 2014 interview:

    He could have then but he waited until 2022 and Ukrainians had adapted in the intervening period. For the best part of a year the Russians have been the ones doing most of the adapting, and Ukraine sees that, which is why Zelensky was complaining in Vienna that Nato would not admit Ukraine. He knows what is coming.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Sean


    Putin is extremely arrogant and thought this would be an overnight takeover. Well that failed.
     
    Be they ever so foolish the self confident often triumph at however great a cost–eventually. The US was not so hot at Pearl Harbor and Kassarine Pass.

    Not so hot at Pearl Harbor? What did you expect? It was a surprise attack and purposely done when the main crews were off the boats.

    The Japanese actually screwed up by not targeting the repair docks. Once more pass at the docks and facilities would have bought them twice as much time. Since they sank the ships in shallow water they were able drag them in to be repaired.

    But the Americans definitely screwed up by not taking the possibility of an attack seriously. Can thank the commander in charge at the time.


    “I could take Kiev in 2 weeks if I wanted to” Putin in 2014 interview:
     
    He could have then but he waited until 2022 and Ukrainians had adapted in the intervening period.

    That would not have worked.

    Even in 2014 they would have had over 100k trained soldiers in Kiev. It would have been a long and bloody urban battle in the best case scenario. Putin then and in 2022 was assuming that the Ukrainian military would back down.

    Putin launching his 40 mile column would have failed in any scenario. Most of the time the Ukrainians would stop it by launching RPGs at supply trucks. So even without the javalins/nlaws it still would have failed. It never even got to the outskirts of Kiev.

    Putin didn't do his homework. Even in 2014 they had a larger military than most European countries.

  991. @Sean
    @Mr. XYZ

    Serbia deliberately started WW1.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    That’s very far from guaranteed. It has been argued that Serbia’s intelligence service was just trying to scare Franz Ferdinand and A-H and wasn’t even intending to kill him, with the success of this plot actually being unexpected (else, why recruit a bunch of untrained teenagers for this task?):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/12/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-start-world-war-i/

    https://blog.oup.com/2022/06/the-sarajevo-assassination-in-historical-context/

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Mr. XYZ


    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Majski_prevrat_1903-600x450.jpg


    Massacre of the Serbian royal family, 1903 (Wikicommons). The country became viewed as a rogue state in the hands of Greater Serbia extremists.
     

    The gun used to kill the Archduke and his wife was taken from the Serbian national armory by the Serbian Secret Service and supplied to the assassins, on the orders of Dragutin Dimitrijević who had orchestrated the murder of the Serbian king and his wife a decade previously. Dimitrijević was said to carry a piece of the queen's (ample judging by the illustration) breasts in his wallet as a memento.
  992. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    Your response doesn't address my question. The West did make a long series of aggressive moves against Russia since 1993. There were few and perhaps no comparable moves by Russia against the West.

    Russia gave the West many warnings.

    You must have considered these points, so why make us guess?

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Your response doesn’t address my question. The West did make a long series of aggressive moves against Russia since 1993. There were few and perhaps no comparable moves by Russia against the West.

    You asked a politically loaded question along the lines of How much does Trump’s racism factor into his appeal?.

    I reject your assumption entirely. I do not believe that the West aggravated Russia into launching a bloody invasion. That is about as believable as Hitler being aggravated into launching a war against Poland even though they were drawing up Intelligenzaktion years before then.

    Russia has invaded a neighboring country every 30-50 years since 1263:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

    I view this as another case of an insecure Tsar trying to expand then empire because he doesn’t believe in himself or his own people. That is the core problem and why Russia was called “the sick man” before Communism. They have lower technical development than Denmark despite having a much larger population. This ongoing insecurity weighs on the Tsar and leads him to compensate through expansion.

    I do not believe that a neutral US or EU since 1991 would have prevented Putin from acting aggressively. Putin has killed his own former allies over a mere sleight. Political competitors are murdered for legally challenging him.

    Belarus has been a close ally to Russia and they are scheduled for full absorption:
    https://www.dw.com/en/russia-plans-belarus-absorption-by-2030-media-reports/a-64771429

    Is Belarus the model state for relations with Russia? Do you deny that Putin plans on eliminating their autonomy? Is that what cozying up to the dictator gets you?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    I referred to some important facts which are militarily, geopolitically and diplomatically relevant to the NATO-Ukraine-Russia crisis. This is not a politically loaded question, it concerns the military and diplomatic position of the West with regard to Russia before 2014. The basic facts are not in question and many people are able to recognize these steps by the West as crucial foundations of the current crisis. One could argue about the degree of importance and the context which led to these acts and hopefully gain a better understanding of how we got here. Sadly, commenters at Unz cannot even acknowledge the facts.

    I think the Russian plans for Belarus are strongly influenced by Western actions to create another hostile country on the Russian border. Since this is clearly the plan of NATO then I think it is likely Belarus will be drawn into a close confederation with Russia. This may ultimately be true for Georgia and Armenia as well, depending on what Turkey does in the next few decades.

    If the West had worked to make a respectful, peer-to-peer peace with post-Soviet Russia things might have turned out differently.

    I think Putin is a globalist moderate, Russian-style. He has to coexist with globalist oligarchs, Kremlin hardliners (the famous knuckle draggers) and actual Russians, along with the elites who pull the strings of the entire world.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  993. @Sean
    @John Johnson


    Putin is extremely arrogant and thought this would be an overnight takeover. Well that failed.
     
    Be they ever so foolish the self confident often triumph at however great a cost--eventually. The US was not so hot at Pearl Harbor and Kassarine Pass.

    “I could take Kiev in 2 weeks if I wanted to” Putin in 2014 interview:
     
    He could have then but he waited until 2022 and Ukrainians had adapted in the intervening period. For the best part of a year the Russians have been the ones doing most of the adapting, and Ukraine sees that, which is why Zelensky was complaining in Vienna that Nato would not admit Ukraine. He knows what is coming.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Putin is extremely arrogant and thought this would be an overnight takeover. Well that failed.

    Be they ever so foolish the self confident often triumph at however great a cost–eventually. The US was not so hot at Pearl Harbor and Kassarine Pass.

    Not so hot at Pearl Harbor? What did you expect? It was a surprise attack and purposely done when the main crews were off the boats.

    The Japanese actually screwed up by not targeting the repair docks. Once more pass at the docks and facilities would have bought them twice as much time. Since they sank the ships in shallow water they were able drag them in to be repaired.

    But the Americans definitely screwed up by not taking the possibility of an attack seriously. Can thank the commander in charge at the time.

    “I could take Kiev in 2 weeks if I wanted to” Putin in 2014 interview:

    He could have then but he waited until 2022 and Ukrainians had adapted in the intervening period.

    That would not have worked.

    Even in 2014 they would have had over 100k trained soldiers in Kiev. It would have been a long and bloody urban battle in the best case scenario. Putin then and in 2022 was assuming that the Ukrainian military would back down.

    Putin launching his 40 mile column would have failed in any scenario. Most of the time the Ukrainians would stop it by launching RPGs at supply trucks. So even without the javalins/nlaws it still would have failed. It never even got to the outskirts of Kiev.

    Putin didn’t do his homework. Even in 2014 they had a larger military than most European countries.

  994. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    Your response doesn’t address my question. The West did make a long series of aggressive moves against Russia since 1993. There were few and perhaps no comparable moves by Russia against the West.

    You asked a politically loaded question along the lines of How much does Trump's racism factor into his appeal?.

    I reject your assumption entirely. I do not believe that the West aggravated Russia into launching a bloody invasion. That is about as believable as Hitler being aggravated into launching a war against Poland even though they were drawing up Intelligenzaktion years before then.

    Russia has invaded a neighboring country every 30-50 years since 1263:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

    I view this as another case of an insecure Tsar trying to expand then empire because he doesn't believe in himself or his own people. That is the core problem and why Russia was called "the sick man" before Communism. They have lower technical development than Denmark despite having a much larger population. This ongoing insecurity weighs on the Tsar and leads him to compensate through expansion.

    I do not believe that a neutral US or EU since 1991 would have prevented Putin from acting aggressively. Putin has killed his own former allies over a mere sleight. Political competitors are murdered for legally challenging him.

    Belarus has been a close ally to Russia and they are scheduled for full absorption:
    https://www.dw.com/en/russia-plans-belarus-absorption-by-2030-media-reports/a-64771429

    Is Belarus the model state for relations with Russia? Do you deny that Putin plans on eliminating their autonomy? Is that what cozying up to the dictator gets you?

    Replies: @QCIC

    I referred to some important facts which are militarily, geopolitically and diplomatically relevant to the NATO-Ukraine-Russia crisis. This is not a politically loaded question, it concerns the military and diplomatic position of the West with regard to Russia before 2014. The basic facts are not in question and many people are able to recognize these steps by the West as crucial foundations of the current crisis. One could argue about the degree of importance and the context which led to these acts and hopefully gain a better understanding of how we got here. Sadly, commenters at Unz cannot even acknowledge the facts.

    I think the Russian plans for Belarus are strongly influenced by Western actions to create another hostile country on the Russian border. Since this is clearly the plan of NATO then I think it is likely Belarus will be drawn into a close confederation with Russia. This may ultimately be true for Georgia and Armenia as well, depending on what Turkey does in the next few decades.

    If the West had worked to make a respectful, peer-to-peer peace with post-Soviet Russia things might have turned out differently.

    I think Putin is a globalist moderate, Russian-style. He has to coexist with globalist oligarchs, Kremlin hardliners (the famous knuckle draggers) and actual Russians, along with the elites who pull the strings of the entire world.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    I think the Russian plans for Belarus are strongly influenced by Western actions to create another hostile country on the Russian border. Since this is clearly the plan of NATO then I think it is likely Belarus will be drawn into a close confederation with Russia.

    Lukashenko has been in charge of Belarus since 1994.

    Do you think Putin will give Belarusians the chance to vote on if they want to be absorbed by Russia?

    You do acknowledge that a pro-Putin dictator is in charge of Belarus? And that Putin plans to eliminate their sovereignty by 2030?

    Is Belarus the model that Ukraine should have followed?

    Replies: @QCIC

  995. @Mr. XYZ
    @Sean

    That's very far from guaranteed. It has been argued that Serbia's intelligence service was just trying to scare Franz Ferdinand and A-H and wasn't even intending to kill him, with the success of this plot actually being unexpected (else, why recruit a bunch of untrained teenagers for this task?):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/12/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-start-world-war-i/

    https://blog.oup.com/2022/06/the-sarajevo-assassination-in-historical-context/

    Replies: @Sean

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Majski_prevrat_1903-600×450.jpg

    Massacre of the Serbian royal family, 1903 (Wikicommons). The country became viewed as a rogue state in the hands of Greater Serbia extremists.

    The gun used to kill the Archduke and his wife was taken from the Serbian national armory by the Serbian Secret Service and supplied to the assassins, on the orders of Dragutin Dimitrijević who had orchestrated the murder of the Serbian king and his wife a decade previously. Dimitrijević was said to carry a piece of the queen’s (ample judging by the illustration) breasts in his wallet as a memento.

  996. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    I referred to some important facts which are militarily, geopolitically and diplomatically relevant to the NATO-Ukraine-Russia crisis. This is not a politically loaded question, it concerns the military and diplomatic position of the West with regard to Russia before 2014. The basic facts are not in question and many people are able to recognize these steps by the West as crucial foundations of the current crisis. One could argue about the degree of importance and the context which led to these acts and hopefully gain a better understanding of how we got here. Sadly, commenters at Unz cannot even acknowledge the facts.

    I think the Russian plans for Belarus are strongly influenced by Western actions to create another hostile country on the Russian border. Since this is clearly the plan of NATO then I think it is likely Belarus will be drawn into a close confederation with Russia. This may ultimately be true for Georgia and Armenia as well, depending on what Turkey does in the next few decades.

    If the West had worked to make a respectful, peer-to-peer peace with post-Soviet Russia things might have turned out differently.

    I think Putin is a globalist moderate, Russian-style. He has to coexist with globalist oligarchs, Kremlin hardliners (the famous knuckle draggers) and actual Russians, along with the elites who pull the strings of the entire world.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    I think the Russian plans for Belarus are strongly influenced by Western actions to create another hostile country on the Russian border. Since this is clearly the plan of NATO then I think it is likely Belarus will be drawn into a close confederation with Russia.

    Lukashenko has been in charge of Belarus since 1994.

    Do you think Putin will give Belarusians the chance to vote on if they want to be absorbed by Russia?

    You do acknowledge that a pro-Putin dictator is in charge of Belarus? And that Putin plans to eliminate their sovereignty by 2030?

    Is Belarus the model that Ukraine should have followed?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    Big picture:

    The USA and NATO have been pressuring Russia militarily since the early 1990s. This pressure is intended to weaken and ultimately destroy the Russian government and social structure. The West has no business trying to crush a stable peaceful country with a thousand year history. It is fair to say that many governments in human history would have fought to the death against similar pressure.

    This Western pressure includes expansion of NATO to the Russian border which is a DIRECT THREAT since NATO is fundamentally an anti-Russia military alliance. This pressure also includes the USA dropping out of several nuclear arms control treaties. Dropping out of the ABM treaty was essentially a DIRECT THREAT to Russia due to the realities of nuclear warfare and MAD scenarios. The USA installing missile bases in Eastern Europe was a DIRECT THREAT against Russia as everyone knows. The West sponsoring regime change and coups in Russia's neighboring countries is a DIRECT THREAT as has been understood for thousands of years.

    I think many Belarusian people recognize the West is throwing away hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives like used toilet paper.

    You bloodthirsty morons make me sick.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  997. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    I think the Russian plans for Belarus are strongly influenced by Western actions to create another hostile country on the Russian border. Since this is clearly the plan of NATO then I think it is likely Belarus will be drawn into a close confederation with Russia.

    Lukashenko has been in charge of Belarus since 1994.

    Do you think Putin will give Belarusians the chance to vote on if they want to be absorbed by Russia?

    You do acknowledge that a pro-Putin dictator is in charge of Belarus? And that Putin plans to eliminate their sovereignty by 2030?

    Is Belarus the model that Ukraine should have followed?

    Replies: @QCIC

    Big picture:

    The USA and NATO have been pressuring Russia militarily since the early 1990s. This pressure is intended to weaken and ultimately destroy the Russian government and social structure. The West has no business trying to crush a stable peaceful country with a thousand year history. It is fair to say that many governments in human history would have fought to the death against similar pressure.

    This Western pressure includes expansion of NATO to the Russian border which is a DIRECT THREAT since NATO is fundamentally an anti-Russia military alliance. This pressure also includes the USA dropping out of several nuclear arms control treaties. Dropping out of the ABM treaty was essentially a DIRECT THREAT to Russia due to the realities of nuclear warfare and MAD scenarios. The USA installing missile bases in Eastern Europe was a DIRECT THREAT against Russia as everyone knows. The West sponsoring regime change and coups in Russia’s neighboring countries is a DIRECT THREAT as has been understood for thousands of years.

    I think many Belarusian people recognize the West is throwing away hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives like used toilet paper.

    You bloodthirsty morons make me sick.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    This Western pressure includes expansion of NATO to the Russian border which is a DIRECT THREAT since NATO is fundamentally an anti-Russia military alliance.

    How was NATO a direct threat that required an invasion when:

    1. Ukraine didn't qualify for NATO in Jan 2022 due to having a contested border
    2. Ukraine did not have the votes of France or Germany. Turkey said they would most likely back Russia.
    3. Ukraine had no plans to hold a NATO referendum
    4. The Baltics are in NATO, border Russia and are closer to Moscow than Ukraine

    What exactly is the direct threat that requires caps and a full scale invasion? Especially given that Ukraine did not have the votes nor did they qualify?

    The USA installing missile bases in Eastern Europe was a DIRECT THREAT against Russia as everyone knows.

    Which missile bases are you talking about? Are they in the Baltics?

    I think many Belarusian people recognize the West is throwing away hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives like used toilet paper.

    How would we know what the people value in a totalitarian state?

    You bloodthirsty morons make me sick.

    Was the invasion the best possible move? A smart move?

    Has NATO expanded or contracted since the invasion?

    Replies: @QCIC, @Sean

  998. From the files of:

    Russia always wins

    A really good documentary. Also note that they had Ukrainians in their military at the time.

  999. @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    Big picture:

    The USA and NATO have been pressuring Russia militarily since the early 1990s. This pressure is intended to weaken and ultimately destroy the Russian government and social structure. The West has no business trying to crush a stable peaceful country with a thousand year history. It is fair to say that many governments in human history would have fought to the death against similar pressure.

    This Western pressure includes expansion of NATO to the Russian border which is a DIRECT THREAT since NATO is fundamentally an anti-Russia military alliance. This pressure also includes the USA dropping out of several nuclear arms control treaties. Dropping out of the ABM treaty was essentially a DIRECT THREAT to Russia due to the realities of nuclear warfare and MAD scenarios. The USA installing missile bases in Eastern Europe was a DIRECT THREAT against Russia as everyone knows. The West sponsoring regime change and coups in Russia's neighboring countries is a DIRECT THREAT as has been understood for thousands of years.

    I think many Belarusian people recognize the West is throwing away hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives like used toilet paper.

    You bloodthirsty morons make me sick.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    This Western pressure includes expansion of NATO to the Russian border which is a DIRECT THREAT since NATO is fundamentally an anti-Russia military alliance.

    How was NATO a direct threat that required an invasion when:

    1. Ukraine didn’t qualify for NATO in Jan 2022 due to having a contested border
    2. Ukraine did not have the votes of France or Germany. Turkey said they would most likely back Russia.
    3. Ukraine had no plans to hold a NATO referendum
    4. The Baltics are in NATO, border Russia and are closer to Moscow than Ukraine

    What exactly is the direct threat that requires caps and a full scale invasion? Especially given that Ukraine did not have the votes nor did they qualify?

    The USA installing missile bases in Eastern Europe was a DIRECT THREAT against Russia as everyone knows.

    Which missile bases are you talking about? Are they in the Baltics?

    I think many Belarusian people recognize the West is throwing away hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives like used toilet paper.

    How would we know what the people value in a totalitarian state?

    You bloodthirsty morons make me sick.

    Was the invasion the best possible move? A smart move?

    Has NATO expanded or contracted since the invasion?

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @John Johnson

    NATO was training and arming the Ukrainian military for a long time. This signals their intentions more clearly than any rhetoric and paperwork from a bunch of dishonest politicians.

    The initial USA missile sites are in Romania and Poland. These set the precedent. USA Aegis destroyers and similar NATO ships work as part of this aggressive network and sail in the Black Sea and the Baltic.

    I think Russia decided to fight in Ukraine to prevent the next steps in the Western moves against her. They may have followed the Western mantra (paraphrased), "Better to fight NATO in Ukraine than in Russia." Since NATO has been supporting strikes in Russia they may have been too optimistic about how aggressive NATO really is.

    , @Sean
    @John Johnson


    Ukraine didn’t qualify for NATO in Jan 2022 due to having a contested border
     
    Only because in 2014 Putin undercover invaded.

    Was the invasion the best possible move?
     
    The 2014 one was genius.

    The Baltics are in NATO, border Russia and are closer to Moscow than Ukraine
     
    Russia was under no obligation whatsoever to stick to that precedent of passivity, whatever Kiev thought. And Russia specifically warned that it was not going to stand oround forever while Ukraine played for time and got advanced Western weapons

    Has NATO expanded or contracted since the invasion?
     
    Yes into parts of the West, but not into Ukraine , which the West does not care about all that much. Ukraine's chagrin at the post 2022 extension of lavish American funded Nato protection to nations on furlough such as Sweden and Finland can only be imagined.
  1000. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    This Western pressure includes expansion of NATO to the Russian border which is a DIRECT THREAT since NATO is fundamentally an anti-Russia military alliance.

    How was NATO a direct threat that required an invasion when:

    1. Ukraine didn't qualify for NATO in Jan 2022 due to having a contested border
    2. Ukraine did not have the votes of France or Germany. Turkey said they would most likely back Russia.
    3. Ukraine had no plans to hold a NATO referendum
    4. The Baltics are in NATO, border Russia and are closer to Moscow than Ukraine

    What exactly is the direct threat that requires caps and a full scale invasion? Especially given that Ukraine did not have the votes nor did they qualify?

    The USA installing missile bases in Eastern Europe was a DIRECT THREAT against Russia as everyone knows.

    Which missile bases are you talking about? Are they in the Baltics?

    I think many Belarusian people recognize the West is throwing away hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives like used toilet paper.

    How would we know what the people value in a totalitarian state?

    You bloodthirsty morons make me sick.

    Was the invasion the best possible move? A smart move?

    Has NATO expanded or contracted since the invasion?

    Replies: @QCIC, @Sean

    NATO was training and arming the Ukrainian military for a long time. This signals their intentions more clearly than any rhetoric and paperwork from a bunch of dishonest politicians.

    The initial USA missile sites are in Romania and Poland. These set the precedent. USA Aegis destroyers and similar NATO ships work as part of this aggressive network and sail in the Black Sea and the Baltic.

    I think Russia decided to fight in Ukraine to prevent the next steps in the Western moves against her. They may have followed the Western mantra (paraphrased), “Better to fight NATO in Ukraine than in Russia.” Since NATO has been supporting strikes in Russia they may have been too optimistic about how aggressive NATO really is.

  1001. @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    This Western pressure includes expansion of NATO to the Russian border which is a DIRECT THREAT since NATO is fundamentally an anti-Russia military alliance.

    How was NATO a direct threat that required an invasion when:

    1. Ukraine didn't qualify for NATO in Jan 2022 due to having a contested border
    2. Ukraine did not have the votes of France or Germany. Turkey said they would most likely back Russia.
    3. Ukraine had no plans to hold a NATO referendum
    4. The Baltics are in NATO, border Russia and are closer to Moscow than Ukraine

    What exactly is the direct threat that requires caps and a full scale invasion? Especially given that Ukraine did not have the votes nor did they qualify?

    The USA installing missile bases in Eastern Europe was a DIRECT THREAT against Russia as everyone knows.

    Which missile bases are you talking about? Are they in the Baltics?

    I think many Belarusian people recognize the West is throwing away hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives like used toilet paper.

    How would we know what the people value in a totalitarian state?

    You bloodthirsty morons make me sick.

    Was the invasion the best possible move? A smart move?

    Has NATO expanded or contracted since the invasion?

    Replies: @QCIC, @Sean

    Ukraine didn’t qualify for NATO in Jan 2022 due to having a contested border

    Only because in 2014 Putin undercover invaded.

    Was the invasion the best possible move?

    The 2014 one was genius.

    The Baltics are in NATO, border Russia and are closer to Moscow than Ukraine

    Russia was under no obligation whatsoever to stick to that precedent of passivity, whatever Kiev thought. And Russia specifically warned that it was not going to stand oround forever while Ukraine played for time and got advanced Western weapons

    Has NATO expanded or contracted since the invasion?

    Yes into parts of the West, but not into Ukraine , which the West does not care about all that much. Ukraine’s chagrin at the post 2022 extension of lavish American funded Nato protection to nations on furlough such as Sweden and Finland can only be imagined.

  1002. NATO was training and arming the Ukrainian military for a long time. This signals their intentions more clearly than any rhetoric and paperwork from a bunch of dishonest politicians.

    So you went from DIRECT THREAT to signals and training?

    You do acknowledge that Ukraine did not have the votes of France or Germany? And that the vote has to be unanimous?

    The initial USA missile sites are in Romania and Poland. These set the precedent.

    You said there was a direct threat by Ukraine being on the border with Russia. Why not just add these missile silos to the Baltics? They are already on the border with Russia and are closer to Moscow.

    I think Russia decided to fight in Ukraine to prevent the next steps in the Western moves against her. They may have followed the Western mantra (paraphrased), “Better to fight NATO in Ukraine than in Russia.”

    Why would that justify a full invasion if they don’t qualify for NATO?

    What would be wiser:

    1. Demand that Ukraine sign constitutional neutrality over NATO with threat of invasion
    2. Invade and then claim it was over NATO

    Finland has joined NATO as a result of the invasion. Was that a success for Russia?

    • Replies: @Sean
    @John Johnson


    Why would that justify a full invasion if they don’t qualify for NATO?
     
    The partial invasion of 2014 was obviously not a considered a total solution going forward as Ukraine was getting ever closer to the Washington alliance.

    Finland has joined NATO as a result of the invasion. Was that a success for Russia?
     
    If Russia had invaded Finland, it would have got ten times the value of indirect help Ukraine is currently getting, and possibly even some direct help. I think Russia correctly anticipated that Ukraine was not seen as part of the West, and so there was not going to be an all out effort to help it.

    Replies: @QCIC, @John Johnson

  1003. @John Johnson
    NATO was training and arming the Ukrainian military for a long time. This signals their intentions more clearly than any rhetoric and paperwork from a bunch of dishonest politicians.

    So you went from DIRECT THREAT to signals and training?

    You do acknowledge that Ukraine did not have the votes of France or Germany? And that the vote has to be unanimous?

    The initial USA missile sites are in Romania and Poland. These set the precedent.


    You said there was a direct threat by Ukraine being on the border with Russia. Why not just add these missile silos to the Baltics? They are already on the border with Russia and are closer to Moscow.

    I think Russia decided to fight in Ukraine to prevent the next steps in the Western moves against her. They may have followed the Western mantra (paraphrased), “Better to fight NATO in Ukraine than in Russia.”

    Why would that justify a full invasion if they don't qualify for NATO?

    What would be wiser:

    1. Demand that Ukraine sign constitutional neutrality over NATO with threat of invasion
    2. Invade and then claim it was over NATO

    Finland has joined NATO as a result of the invasion. Was that a success for Russia?

    Replies: @Sean

    Why would that justify a full invasion if they don’t qualify for NATO?

    The partial invasion of 2014 was obviously not a considered a total solution going forward as Ukraine was getting ever closer to the Washington alliance.

    Finland has joined NATO as a result of the invasion. Was that a success for Russia?

    If Russia had invaded Finland, it would have got ten times the value of indirect help Ukraine is currently getting, and possibly even some direct help. I think Russia correctly anticipated that Ukraine was not seen as part of the West, and so there was not going to be an all out effort to help it.

    • Replies: @QCIC
    @Sean

    More importantly Russia sees Crimea and parts of Ukraine as important historical parts of Russia. I don't think the Baltics or Finland ever had comparable status. So what happens in the Baltics and Finland is the give and take of Empire and if they are destroyed in a WW3 scenario it is just tough luck. But Ukraine (parts of it anyway) and Belarus have more significance to Russia which is why the West wants to co-opt them. Russian threats against Ukraine were slightly hollow because Ukrainians knew that Russia did not want to follow up. Some Ukrainians foolishly mistake Russia's reluctance to destroy things as a lack of capability.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @John Johnson
    @Sean


    Why would that justify a full invasion if they don’t qualify for NATO?

     

    The partial invasion of 2014 was obviously not a considered a total solution going forward as Ukraine was getting ever closer to the Washington alliance.

    Russia maintains they didn't invade DPR/LPR in 2014. Are you saying that Putin was lying?

    Putin decreed last year that DPR/LPR were independent states. Did he lie about that as well?

    How was Ukraine getting closer to joining NATO if DPR/LPR prevented them from qualifying?

    The rebellion of 2014 pushed them further from joining NATO. You can't join with a disputed border. Do you deny that?

    If you accept that they didn't qualify because of LPR/DPR then why would a full scale invasion be justified?


    Finland has joined NATO as a result of the invasion. Was that a success for Russia?
     
    If Russia had invaded Finland, it would have got ten times the value of indirect help Ukraine is currently getting, and possibly even some direct help.

    Why would Russia invade Finland if the war is about NATO? QCIC maintains that Ukraine was a direct threat even though they didn't qualify for NATO nor did they have the votes of France and Germany. He claimed they were a direct threat due to their proximity and missile silos that he can't explain.

    Finland abandoned their decades old neutrality after Putin invaded Ukraine. If we go back to Putin's original speech he claims the war is about preventing the expansion of NATO. Which leads to a simple question: Was the war a success in this regard?

    Replies: @Sean

  1004. @Sean
    @John Johnson


    Why would that justify a full invasion if they don’t qualify for NATO?
     
    The partial invasion of 2014 was obviously not a considered a total solution going forward as Ukraine was getting ever closer to the Washington alliance.

    Finland has joined NATO as a result of the invasion. Was that a success for Russia?
     
    If Russia had invaded Finland, it would have got ten times the value of indirect help Ukraine is currently getting, and possibly even some direct help. I think Russia correctly anticipated that Ukraine was not seen as part of the West, and so there was not going to be an all out effort to help it.

    Replies: @QCIC, @John Johnson

    More importantly Russia sees Crimea and parts of Ukraine as important historical parts of Russia. I don’t think the Baltics or Finland ever had comparable status. So what happens in the Baltics and Finland is the give and take of Empire and if they are destroyed in a WW3 scenario it is just tough luck. But Ukraine (parts of it anyway) and Belarus have more significance to Russia which is why the West wants to co-opt them. Russian threats against Ukraine were slightly hollow because Ukrainians knew that Russia did not want to follow up. Some Ukrainians foolishly mistake Russia’s reluctance to destroy things as a lack of capability.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @QCIC

    More importantly Russia sees Crimea and parts of Ukraine as important historical parts of Russia.

    In this thread you claimed the war was about NATO expansion.

    Now it is about regaining historical lands?

    Crimea was held longer by Turkey than both Ukraine and Russia.

    Why does it not belong to Turkey?

    But Ukraine (parts of it anyway) and Belarus have more significance to Russia which is why the West wants to co-opt them.

    What do you mean exactly? Co-opt what?

    Does Ukraine have a right to be pro-Western? Does Belarus have a right to be pro-Russian?

  1005. @Sean
    @John Johnson


    Why would that justify a full invasion if they don’t qualify for NATO?
     
    The partial invasion of 2014 was obviously not a considered a total solution going forward as Ukraine was getting ever closer to the Washington alliance.

    Finland has joined NATO as a result of the invasion. Was that a success for Russia?
     
    If Russia had invaded Finland, it would have got ten times the value of indirect help Ukraine is currently getting, and possibly even some direct help. I think Russia correctly anticipated that Ukraine was not seen as part of the West, and so there was not going to be an all out effort to help it.

    Replies: @QCIC, @John Johnson

    Why would that justify a full invasion if they don’t qualify for NATO?

    The partial invasion of 2014 was obviously not a considered a total solution going forward as Ukraine was getting ever closer to the Washington alliance.

    Russia maintains they didn’t invade DPR/LPR in 2014. Are you saying that Putin was lying?

    Putin decreed last year that DPR/LPR were independent states. Did he lie about that as well?

    How was Ukraine getting closer to joining NATO if DPR/LPR prevented them from qualifying?

    The rebellion of 2014 pushed them further from joining NATO. You can’t join with a disputed border. Do you deny that?

    If you accept that they didn’t qualify because of LPR/DPR then why would a full scale invasion be justified?

    Finland has joined NATO as a result of the invasion. Was that a success for Russia?

    If Russia had invaded Finland, it would have got ten times the value of indirect help Ukraine is currently getting, and possibly even some direct help.

    Why would Russia invade Finland if the war is about NATO? QCIC maintains that Ukraine was a direct threat even though they didn’t qualify for NATO nor did they have the votes of France and Germany. He claimed they were a direct threat due to their proximity and missile silos that he can’t explain.

    Finland abandoned their decades old neutrality after Putin invaded Ukraine. If we go back to Putin’s original speech he claims the war is about preventing the expansion of NATO. Which leads to a simple question: Was the war a success in this regard?

    • Replies: @Sean
    @John Johnson


    Russia maintains they didn’t invade DPR/LPR in 2014. Are you saying that Putin was lying?
     
    If he had been lying about everything the threats since 2008 to Ukraine unless it turned back would have been idle ones.

    Does Ukraine have a right to be pro-Western? Does Belarus have a right to be pro-Russian?
     
    A right is something one can have enforced.

    Finland abandoned their decades old neutrality after Putin invaded Ukraine. If we go back to Putin’s original speech he claims the war is about preventing the expansion of NATO. Which leads to a simple question: Was the war a success in this regard?
     
    Not in regard to Finland, long recognized as the crucial key to world domination since Halford Mackinder dubbed it the Heartland, eh?
  1006. @QCIC
    @Sean

    More importantly Russia sees Crimea and parts of Ukraine as important historical parts of Russia. I don't think the Baltics or Finland ever had comparable status. So what happens in the Baltics and Finland is the give and take of Empire and if they are destroyed in a WW3 scenario it is just tough luck. But Ukraine (parts of it anyway) and Belarus have more significance to Russia which is why the West wants to co-opt them. Russian threats against Ukraine were slightly hollow because Ukrainians knew that Russia did not want to follow up. Some Ukrainians foolishly mistake Russia's reluctance to destroy things as a lack of capability.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    More importantly Russia sees Crimea and parts of Ukraine as important historical parts of Russia.

    In this thread you claimed the war was about NATO expansion.

    Now it is about regaining historical lands?

    Crimea was held longer by Turkey than both Ukraine and Russia.

    Why does it not belong to Turkey?

    But Ukraine (parts of it anyway) and Belarus have more significance to Russia which is why the West wants to co-opt them.

    What do you mean exactly? Co-opt what?

    Does Ukraine have a right to be pro-Western? Does Belarus have a right to be pro-Russian?

  1007. Rural Russians are asked why Moscow Slavs are not being drafted

    Seems like everyone in Russia is aware of this phenomenon and doesn’t care. Pathetic.

  1008. @John Johnson
    @Sean


    Why would that justify a full invasion if they don’t qualify for NATO?

     

    The partial invasion of 2014 was obviously not a considered a total solution going forward as Ukraine was getting ever closer to the Washington alliance.

    Russia maintains they didn't invade DPR/LPR in 2014. Are you saying that Putin was lying?

    Putin decreed last year that DPR/LPR were independent states. Did he lie about that as well?

    How was Ukraine getting closer to joining NATO if DPR/LPR prevented them from qualifying?

    The rebellion of 2014 pushed them further from joining NATO. You can't join with a disputed border. Do you deny that?

    If you accept that they didn't qualify because of LPR/DPR then why would a full scale invasion be justified?


    Finland has joined NATO as a result of the invasion. Was that a success for Russia?
     
    If Russia had invaded Finland, it would have got ten times the value of indirect help Ukraine is currently getting, and possibly even some direct help.

    Why would Russia invade Finland if the war is about NATO? QCIC maintains that Ukraine was a direct threat even though they didn't qualify for NATO nor did they have the votes of France and Germany. He claimed they were a direct threat due to their proximity and missile silos that he can't explain.

    Finland abandoned their decades old neutrality after Putin invaded Ukraine. If we go back to Putin's original speech he claims the war is about preventing the expansion of NATO. Which leads to a simple question: Was the war a success in this regard?

    Replies: @Sean

    Russia maintains they didn’t invade DPR/LPR in 2014. Are you saying that Putin was lying?

    If he had been lying about everything the threats since 2008 to Ukraine unless it turned back would have been idle ones.

    Does Ukraine have a right to be pro-Western? Does Belarus have a right to be pro-Russian?

    A right is something one can have enforced.

    Finland abandoned their decades old neutrality after Putin invaded Ukraine. If we go back to Putin’s original speech he claims the war is about preventing the expansion of NATO. Which leads to a simple question: Was the war a success in this regard?

    Not in regard to Finland, long recognized as the crucial key to world domination since Halford Mackinder dubbed it the Heartland, eh?

  1009. If a majority of Ukrainians want to be closer to the West should their leaders follow their will?
    Russia maintains they didn’t invade DPR/LPR in 2014. Are you saying that Putin was lying?

    If he had been lying about everything the threats since 2008 to Ukraine unless it turned back would have been idle ones.

    Do you deny that Putin signed a decree that declared DPR/LPR as sovereign nations?
    https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/73938/

    Did he break his word? Or do LPR and DPR exist as independent nations? Where did their flags go? I only saw Russian flags in the most recent video of the former DPR.

    A right is something one can have enforced.

    What if a majority of Serbs want to be closer to Russia?

    Should the political leaders of Serbia follow the will of the people?

    Not in regard to Finland, long recognized as the crucial key to world domination since Halford Mackinder dubbed it the Heartland, eh?

    Putin’s defenders tell us that Ukraine was a threat due to their proximity. That claim was made in this thread.

    Putin himself stated that the war was about stopping NATO from expanding East even though Ukraine didn’t qualify and wasn’t in the process of applying. Zelensky in fact defeated the pro-NATO candidate and France after 2014 said that Ukraine would not have the votes to join. Can provide sources if you would like.

    Finland shares more border with Russia and is closer to Moscow.

    Why does Finland not count as an expansion of NATO?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Karlin Community Comments via RSS