Forums / Discussion / General

So he's not going to give the NPF anything and run the country himself despite his party having the least amount of seats of the three big parties?

I fail to understand French politics.

Cool text at the end.

That's an emoticon, I think it's better than emojis.

But not by much.

When you effort post a response to a good question but get no engagement

I'm biased, but this is my view:

Not only does Macron's party have the least amount of seats between the three, but he sabotaged his own party by calling for early legislative elections. His deputies were not made aware that they'd have to re-run and potentially lose their seats, they're all angry at him. In addition, a lot of the seats he won was from the alliance of everyone against the Far-right (a lot of parties dropped out to avoid splitting the vote), and it wasn't Macron that joined that, it was the PM Gabriel Attal (he impressed me a lot, for someone who people said was only given his post to pander).

In the end to the surprise of everyone it was the Nouveau Front Populaire which won (they got their act together very quickly, it was well-organized). What originally made finding a PM difficult was to try to get the various groups to agree with each other on a candidate, the problem and why it's making the news is that this time Macron rejected even approved candidates, so he can't blame "chaos on the left" anymore, he's the one causing the issue.

Macron has alienated a lot of people with his behaviour and his policies. Whether it's pride, stupidity or a bonkers 'plan' he's procrastinating in a crisis he created himself rather than name a new Prime Minister. So he either finally picks someone, remain a lame duck or even gets every single other branch of the government to agree with each other to get him out of power, instead of waiting for 2027.

@Gilan

Look, we could stay here for several days debating over the academical definition of a fallacy and the way it applies to Russian decision making (or for Ukraine and their allies, for that matter). At the end of the day we're not the ones making decisions. We can try to analyze the factors behind them and speculate on outcomes, but at the end of the day it's only that, speculation.

Although there is one thing I will repeat first, you're making a dichotomy between surrender and be spared or fight and be hurt. From the horror stories of the Ukrainian refugees, surrender and be hurt is at play here, with Russia. As you said that Russia cannot go back, than even more so it's opponents cannot back down.

You're taking for granted that surrendering population will be hurt. Let's say, just for argument's sake, that they do. Well, you still have to balance that out against the killing and maiming of hundreds every day, the economical costs of the lack of manpower in civilian industry due to all the people mobilized (of many of which will not return), the hits to the electrical grid causing blackouts and disrupting the civilian economy and threatening humanitarian crises in the winter, and also the ecological damage, a staggering amount of fossil fuels is being burned, forest and wildfires propagating, chemicals from explosives and munitions contaminating the land (plus the humanitarian dangers of mines and unexploded ordnance), the ecological damage of the destruction of dams like the Khakovka dam possibly repeating and many other factors here. And last but not least, the cost of repairing all the damage, not just economical, but in time and for the society, with more and more people losing homes and livelihoods. All of which will continue to worsen more and more the longer the war prolongs.

This is why my opening question was about the "geopolitical consequences of a successful Russian invasion [that would be] so disastrous[…]". Because as terrible as it could be, humanitarian and geopolitically, it still has to be balanced against these costs, which are all but guaranteed. The way I see it, Ukraine has a very dark future with two terrible choices ahead and they have to ideally pick whichever means the least damage.

What makes you say that? A big part of Ukraine's goals are it's own land and guarantees that this war doesn't occur again (because as I said, Russia invading twice is not an accident), and if that occurs a lot of support it receives lessens.

Precisely because Ukraine wants guarantees that an invasion does not occur again. Until there is a formal and internationally-recognized peace deal, the war cannot be considered over. Thus Ukraine and their allies have an interest in keeping up the pressure and making Russia signs the deal on their terms, or risk the war flares up again in the future.

The reason for the dichotomous view on how this war will end is victory for Ukraine & Allies is either Russia withdraws and goes through whatever political fallout is needed […]. Or it fights to the end and must do it or collapses, and than the situation becomes more chaotic.

Let me remind you, the scenarios presented by the media or some think-tanks where Russia collapses, either economically, militarily or politically have been based on, to put it mildly, unrealistically optimistic assessments of their resilience. Many have already changed their minds. For instance, this article by the Atlantic Council, where it assesses that Putin continuing the war is "the likeliest" and that "While the Russian economy has shown clear struggles, it hardly appears near collapse." Which leaves two scenarios, the voluntary withdrawal and the continuation of the war. I have mentioned several times why I consider the second by far more likely.

As the situation currently stands however, other scenarios in-between where Russia keeps on squatting on disputed land they annexed as grey zones as the war stretches into revanchisme if they hold each other's territory. Continued strikes on each other as borders fortify and calcify, and if Ukraine still manages to develop as the war becomes low-intensity (because in this scenario the EU is not going to make nice with Russia, and there will be no links as Russia did destroy them itself), than there will be a new war once everyone has re-armed.

This assumes a continuation of the static lines at the front and a continued stalemate that precludes any advancement from either side. Fact is, the Russians have steadily advanced in many sections across the front ever since the fall of Avdiivka early this year. When I made my assessment of the battlefield situation I mentioned Pokrovsk. If you want to read why it is important, I highly recommend reading this Twitter thread. Basically, the Russians are advancing through this area at an unprecedented rate. The manpower problem for Ukraine here is so severe that rather than using the same approach of slowly grinding down fortifications and bombing everything, the Russians are just bypassing them or going through them, leaving infrastructure with little damage, something even staunchly pro-Ukrainian journalists like Julian Röpcke are admitting.

Even if we were to assume that this is just a temporary effect due to the Kursk incursion and/or that Zelenskyy is deliberately holding back reserves, the war of attrition tactics means that after one side has secured enough material and manpower advantages can cause a cascading effect that could lead into a frontline collapse. You can read this article from RUSI that goes more in depth about attritional war. So a chance of the conflict going into a stalemate and turning into a low-intensity conflict is, in all likelihood, very low.

But let's say it does, maybe the Russian offensive stalls, maybe they do advance but the Dnieper becomes a hard barrier, so they have to just sit on captured territory and Ukraine is still unwilling to negotiate. Well, Ukraine still have to worry about economics and demographics as well as further long-range attacks on infrastructure and military targets. Russia just sent an attack with over a hundred missiles and drones a couple days ago. Those attacks are very unlikely to cease completely. High-end missiles like Kinzhals are expensive and produced in limited quantities, but drones like the Geran/Shahed are relatively cheap and when launched in numbers can overwhelm air defenses. The US and Europe can continue to inject cash into Ukraine to keep afloat, but this depends entirely on the will of their policymakers. Don't forget, they have to simultaneously keep an eye on the Middle East and Asia and manage the public support inside their own countries. The pressure for a peace deal, both external and internal, might begin to rise. At one point I brought up the statistics of Ukrainian people supporting talks with Russia almost doubling from 2023 to 2024. The longer it goes, the more this trend might continue.

If the UN vote is any indicator few will recognize any Russian annexed lands as most everyone has an incentive to not reward these kind of land-grabs. The 'agreement" option to me, just seems less like peace and more like a prelude to another war.

Compare the number of countries who denounced the invasion to the number of countries who either didn't attend the Ukrainian peace summit in Switzerland this year (in grey) or didn't sign the communiqué (in light blue).

Now, it could be because many countries decided that a peace summit without having the two warring parties on the table was a total waste of time, but it could also be read as an unwillingness by many countries to unconditionally go along with Ukrainian plans. Any peace plan has to come with international recognition, otherwise it's completely useless.

I noted it before already, but this war has demonstrated that even a country with a numeric inferiority, with weaker armed forces and with a smaller population can put up a fight against a much stronger foe, because many of the conventional war tactics and military thinking from the second half of the 20th century have proven to be obsolete or ineffective in light in advances of technology. An invasion is likely to turn into an extremely costly multi-year war turning the invader into a pariah in the international community. Russia only gets away with it because of their nukes. And it's not like they have a handful of nukes, they have the largest nuclear arsenal in number of warheads, with only the US being slightly behind, as well as the technology to deliver them. Also because of its sheer size of the country and its ability to weather the fallout of international sanctions and still keep going on, but even then, we've seen the toll it has taken on their military forces.

Now ask yourself, which country has a nuclear arsenal, a powerful military and the willingness to accept the consequences of launching an extremely costly invasion, including ceasing pretty much all the extremely profitable trading with the rest of world.

If anything, I think this demonstrates that launching an invasion in the current world state is a bad idea. The US only got away with things like Iraq because of the massive power disparity and the lack of any international consequences.

If you think a lot of the "West" is not trustworthy even in comparison (which is fair), why exactly do you think the "West" is going to let Russia lick it's wounds? By this very logic, wouldn't it become even more dire that Western response is included in the cost-benefit analysis?

Because they still have to balance out the risk of nuclear escalation. This is why I think any Russian attack on the Baltics or Finland is unlikely. Even if Russia has time to rearm and reassemble its army, a direct war between NATO and Russia is all but guaranteed to escalate into a nuclear war. Even a brief and localized nuclear exchange between Russia an Europe means millions of deaths. Say whatever you want about the morals of Putin, but the man is not stupid or irrational. He has to know what the risk is.

Ask Nazi Germany how it went to invade Ukraine while their opponents were provided with lend-lease. Russia is not the Soviet Union (I'd say it's closer ideologically to the Germans at that time).

The Soviet Union moved its industry past the Ural mountains beyond the reach of German bombers and continued churning up war materiel until the last day of the war. Lend-Lease was a huge factor, but the Russians never depended completely or primarily on foreign aid. Meanwhile Nazi Germany's industry kept producing materiel even in 1945 despite the direct bombing and all sorts of raw material shortages. My point is, you don't shut down a country's industry with a few missile strikes. You don't stop bombings when 90% of planes who do the bombings are outside range of such missiles. Case in point, Russia has launched thousands of missiles at Ukraine, destroyed much of its infrastructure, yet the smaller country is still fighting. But tell that to Zelenskyy, politicians with no military knowledge and all the armchair generals online who get outraged because the Pentagon keeps refusing to allow deep strikes on Russia.

I think the Gambler's analogy was very flawed. I don't think that strategy necessarily works. To reference WWII too again, that was Hitler's plan with the Battle of Bulge, that he could force the allies to get to the negotiation table. It caused a lot casualties, but also hardened attitudes and depleted what Nazi Germany had to bring to the table.

'Escalate to de-escalate' has mixed success, as you yourself said deaths especially civilians can give birth to hatred and societies militarize. Counter-intuitively, sometimes continuing a war only ensures that it would last even longer.

The difference here being that Nazi Germany in late 1945 was completely on the defensive, its lines were collapsing in every front. A hail Mary pass operation to stop the Allies was considered an acceptable risk. In this war neither side is that close to collapse and they won't in the foreseeable future.

No, but I have no illusions that it will eventually become mine. We hang together, or we hang separately.

It's a funny thing about arguments about how hopeless Ukraine's situation is, the harder it presses the clearer it becomes that Russia must be fought.

I think we're heading into a second Cold War, with a period of international instability reminiscent of the latter half of the 20th century, an uneasy peace kept in check by threats of nuclear retaliation. No rational person wants a continuation of the war that could easily escalate into WW3. It's a scary future ahead for sure, but I for one can only hope cooler heads will prevail and rational decisions will be made, for the sake of us all.

Really now? Just in my last post above I'm talking about cruise missiles, kamikaze drones and nuclear weapons and your example of a hellish invention that makes people's life worse and dystopian is frigging AI art?

Most people today have no idea what and how conflict actually looks like. They see highly selected images that are propagandic one way or another. And when they see the brutality of urban warfare, for example, and the harsh reality of war it is absolutely shocking because they have no context to compare it to.

It's not the fault of the scientists at large that shit that isn't good for society is what gets funding
that's the fault of the rich

I'm dropping this because evidently some people here like to keep tabs on what post – and since we are now talking about the moral play of Jews in the Israel-Hamas war vis-a-vie Noa Argamani dancing. And the constant debate on whether or not the IDF gives a shit about civilian lives, because god forbid we try to separate an Israeli survivor of intense trauma from the military operations for a moment:

But evidently the Office of Inspector General on USAID on the external factors of the failure of the JLOTS Maritime corridor – that artificial floating pier the US built to transit humanitarian aid.
Specifically this little nugget on page 14:

Evidently, the US compromised with the World Food Program about providing security to the pier itself. The World Food Program did not want to have the IDF be the security force citing that it would compromise it's security. However, in the end, not a single country, not one, not one that screamed loudly about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza's Palestinians stepped to the plate, leaving the IDF to actually provide the security for that pier. What the report doesn't say is that on June 15h two IDF soldiers died while on duty protecting the pier, when they ran over a large IED placed by terrorists nearby.
Will anyone give an ounce of credit there?

I am reminded there were allegations the pier was used in a rescue operation in June (that the United States has denied). The possible military operation involvement made humanitarian groups unsure about using the pier.

Most people today have no idea what and how conflict actually looks like. They see highly selected images that are propagandic one way or another. And when they see the brutality of urban warfare, for example, and the harsh reality of war it is absolutely shocking because they have no context to compare it to.

Exactly. But even through highly cherrypicked depictions of combat footage and news reports you can still catch a glimpse of the brutality of war, which is why I people should think about its consequences thoroughly rather than mindlessly cheering on it.

@Gilan:

One thing I forgot to mention. From recent interviews, Zelenskyy is still signaling that he is going for a negotiated settlement. This quote from ABC News, for instance:

"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told a news conference on Tuesday that he hoped to convene a peace summit with Russia this year, but Kyiv had to be in a powerful position first."

You can decide for yourself if the talk about "forcing" Russia to end the war is the actual goal or if it's just political posturing for propaganda purposes.

I know this is kind of heresy to say especially if you are kind of left leaning but I am kind of starting to just hate and fear change, change in general.

Like why should I embrace change if things wont change to be "better" anyway?

I don't know, I'm just someone who likes to draw, not a philosopher.

Welcome to the boiled down core of conservatism.

A female National Arlington Cemetery official tried to stop Trump and his campaign staffers from taking photos and videos inside the section where recent US casualties were buried, but was 'abruptly pushed aside.' The official declined to press charges for fear of “retaliation” from the former president’s followers.

It's amazing to me that the WFP cares more about it's image of neutrality than whether or not it can provide humanitarian aid.

How can humanitarian aid be provided if there are doubts the methods to implement it may be covering military operations? There has been reports accusing Hamas of using humanitarian aid vehicles, so should we have the same expectation on the other side?

Bin Laden was discovered to be in Pakistan due to a vaccine drive, but the consequence of the raid that killed him negatively affected public health campaigns afterwards. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/06/1034631928/the-cias-hunt-for-bin-laden-has-had-lasting-repercussions-for-ngos-in-pakistan

I took the the time to re-read the USAID Gaza Response Officer of Inspector General report a bit more (I was hyper focused on just one paragraph previously).
It is actually relatively short read, but holy hell is it damning.

Effectively, it is implied that the Biden administration wanted to do something flashy to show that they care about humanitarian aid going to Gaza, despite warnings that this would be an unmitigated failure, the Biden administration pushed hard for JLOTs to be built, and in the process it ended up being a massive failure.

Before the March 7th state of the union speech where Biden announced the pier project, the Bureau of Humanitarian Aid (BHA) had already explored the option of maritime corridor for aid, however, it concluded that the best method has so far been direct ground deliveries, which were more efficient. It showed that the technical difficulties and logistics of maritime corridor (the JLOTS) was frankly not worth the effort. The World Food Program (WFP) was consulted earlier on the option of using the JLOTS, however, after the March 7th POTUS State of the Union Speech where Biden made a large deal out of using JLOTS it shifted from option, to how to implement it. In addition the goal was also to make sure that there was clear separation between military and humanitarian effort when using JLOTS.

Realizing that the WFP would play a critical role with USAID and the DoD in distributing this aid, they met with the WFP to deal with WFP concerns. The WFP had 3 initial requests: 1) It has to be built in Northern Gaza, where it is far safer. 2) *They needed a UN member state to provide security (it couldn't be US or Israel) 3) transitioning the response to civilian operations after 90 days. It also highlighted that it wanted to ensure that ground-based humanitarian aid would remain the main method to delivery aid.

Ultimately, the Department of Defense, decided to move the pier to the middle to be closer to the civilians. During the 8 weeks of it's operations, the structure of the pier was frequently assaulted by the rough seas and high winds which it wasn't prepared to handle – assuming that such weather would come closer to fall not summer. In June, WFP paused its distribution of JLOTS-delivered aid based on security concerns and community misperceptions from disinformation that the pier had been used to assist the IDF in a military operation to free several hostages. Finally, even once the aid did reach the beach finding ways to distribute aid was difficult. In the 20 days that the pier was actually operational it provided food assistance to feed 420,000 people for 1 month. Far short of t he goal of feeding 500,000 people for 3 months. The over all cost of the operation was $230 Million. To put it into perspective, USAID allocated $350 million for aid.

In conclusion, rather than relying on the tried and true method which every humanitarian organization involved recommended and pushed hard for the Biden administration decided to announce a construction of a JLOTS system despite pushback from those organizations. It was an unmitigated disaster with logistical mistakes, unrealistic goals, and a poor assessment of feasibility. It seems to me that the goal was to make something big and flashy over actually something more meaningful.

Technically but the golden age of the past for me that I want to go back too is when the internet was at its most leftwing

Change is neither inherently positive or negative, work towards a positive change and remember to think a lot about it first

so, like, 4 years ago?

considering recent memes, who is out there still supporting the US Greens?

Yes pretty much yeah

more like 15 years ago

We were probably on the peak of human civilization 4 years ago, its probably downhill from here but at least I can slow down the downward slope significantly at least oh well

Oh…

They ARE using AI for something positive….

Oh….

Maybe I was wrong? High chance nothing will come out of this

So, you view the peak of human civilization to be COVID? Or before COVID – which was also the peak year of Trump's America?

hi how are the politics

I mean, when was the last time that the politics were good?

I meant more 2014-2015 and shit

That was ten years ago, gamer.

so you guys think the "look at me be normal" followed by gestures broadly strategy will continue to pan out?

I disagree, and if we're talking internet, the internet was at it's best before 2014

the internet was best between 1998-2006

Babe! Wake up! The Jews are behind global warming now!

Alright, it's Saturday.
@TheHolyEmpress

Look, we could stay here for several days debating over the academical definition of a fallacy and the way it applies to Russian decision making (or for Ukraine and their allies, for that matter). At the end of the day we're not the ones making decisions. We can try to analyze the factors behind them and speculate on outcomes, but at the end of the day it's only that, speculation.

Sure, but this being an online debate on a meme website and the stakes means that we can afford to go on about things like this, and it makes personal credibility even more important. Personally, the fallacy bit was because I wanted a common baseline or something along those lines. Something to build up from, but in the end it's what it is.

You're taking for granted that surrendering population will be hurt. Let's say, just for argument's sake, that they do.

Perhaps for the best, I don't particularly think any argument between us about the Russian treatment of the Ukrainians will go well.

Well, you still have to balance that out against the killing and maiming of hundreds every day, the economical costs of the lack of manpower in civilian industry due to all the people mobilized (of many of which will not return), the hits to the electrical grid causing blackouts and disrupting the civilian economy and threatening humanitarian crises in the winter, and also the ecological damage, a staggering amount of fossil fuels is being burned, forest and wildfires propagating, chemicals from explosives and munitions contaminating the land (plus the humanitarian dangers of mines and unexploded ordnance), the ecological damage of the destruction of dams like the Khakovka dam possibly repeating and many other factors here. And last but not least, the cost of repairing all the damage, not just economical, but in time and for the society, with more and more people losing homes and livelihoods. All of which will continue to worsen more and more the longer the war prolongs.

There seems to be two arguments here, first that Russia is vicious enough to make continued fighting hurt a lot of people and second, that they are also not a threat so they shouldn't be countered and fought off. You can't have your cake and eat it, we're now sticking to the Putin's Russia is vicious argument and have shifted the dichotomy to "surrender and suffer" & "fight and suffer harder".

1) It kills the "cost-analysis" argument about Russia: I never believed they were doing it for any material gains versus ideological reasons, partially because of this. So, the Russians threaten to (or already have actually) ruin the land and kill the people they're trying to occupy, and in the many examples you've listed it was deliberate. You know, if the Russians don't retreat they'd be the ones who have to pay for all of this?

Or they can leave a ruined wasteland on their immediate border, surely that will not have any consequences.

2) Soft power isn't a luxury, it's a shield. Whatever acts they do, is upon their hands and whatever that brings.
Personally, I'd say it's pretty stupid to try to push to the brink a nation with access to nuclear technology.

As an aside, if you want to talk about environment Russia's war has pretty much already helped derail efforts to reduce warming below 2,5 °C in many ways (although a little hint that unlike Canada, Russia won't benefit from climate change due to desertification, how it's system of rivers is structured, ecosystem shifts and possible political instability in it's South). I can expound later.

Let me remind you, the scenarios presented by the media or some think-tanks where Russia collapses, either economically, militarily or politically have been based on, to put it mildly, unrealistically optimistic assessments of their resilience.

I just find it's a reminder that you seem to have consumed more of that media and think-tanks than I have. I'm not basing myself on that, just on the sheer fact that every state has a limit. So, how long can Russia continue this war based on any of these metrics? More than that, how much of it's stressors can it handle, ever after the war, that has to be considered. Even in pure demographics, Russia is doing somehow even worse than some of it's competitors and it's trying to absorb a state whose demographics are also doing badly, and which they're making worse in many ways.

Like it or not, Russia isn't the kind of state which can afford have the losses of it's War in Afghanistan multiple times over. There's even an argument that I have to insist on, which is "and than what" for Russia. Put it in the argument of what's best for the average Russian.

Well, Ukraine still have to worry about economics and demographics as well as further long-range attacks on infrastructure and military targets. Russia just sent an attack with over a hundred missiles and drones a couple days ago. Those attacks are very unlikely to cease completely.

Russia has also been hit, and further inland than before. This is a two-way street even if it's different degrees, or does depend on Western Policymakers.

This assumes a continuation of the static lines at the front and a continued stalemate that precludes any advancement from either side.

No, it doesn't.

Why would reaching the Dnieper (even if that was feasible), change this issue of "Russia squatting on disputed land they annexed as grey zones as the war stretches into revanchisme if they hold each other's territory"? It can't do the quick "regime change" it was supposedly planning, it can't conquer everything. Even in your vaunted peace deal, this scenario is what would happen afterwards, because that's what happens after a war of annexation.

I never said the war could go on forever, just that a dirty peace is just an armistice.

The US and Europe can continue to inject cash into Ukraine to keep afloat, but this depends entirely on the will of their policymakers. Don't forget, they have to simultaneously keep an eye on the Middle East and Asia and manage the public support inside their own countries.

Actually, in the case of Europe they won't, or don't and can't. You realize that a lot of the money European nations used to put into NGOs and other programs have dried up for understandable reasons? It'll be focused on militarizing and rebuilding Ukraine (unless you think Russia can even try to occupy all of it) and any other necessary measures to deal with an outright hostile power on it's borders.

Maybe public support will change if aid goes to other states (even members states) or if that development will be more at home, but that overall strategic situation is unlikely to change, unless Russia changes.

I don't share your view on the Cold War, I think you overtly romanticize it, but I do enjoy the irony that this war has greatly strengthened the hand of the Americans. Congratulations.

Any peace plan has to come with international recognition, otherwise it's completely useless.

Your map more or less shows that what is known that few are actively aiding Ukraine, but my votes showed that few are willing to contenance an outright annexation, hence the difficulty in peace plans.

It's why at the very start of I was asking what was the point for Russia, it doesn't have enough leverage to force other countries to recognize it's annexation, so at most it will sit on unrecognized 'gray lands' which are terrible economically and humanely. That's the scenario that will happen either way, unless something fantastic happens.

But tell that to Zelenskyy, politicians with no military knowledge and all the armchair generals online who get outraged because the Pentagon keeps refusing to allow deep strikes on Russia.

. Say whatever you want about the morals of Putin, but the man is not stupid or irrational. He has to know what the risk is.

That's an interesting piece of bitterness. Politicians aren't generals (Zelenskyy was a comedian that he stayed in his state was what was impressive), even Putin wasn't with his miscalculations and societies with few exceptions are better off for that.

Also, no I won't play into your "rational dictator" script that was popular before the invasion (and even touted by some afterwards). His apparatchik and allies (included in other countries), his rhetoric and his actions shows otherwise.

If this conversation shows anything, it's that we have different assessments of cost-benefit and that probably is even starker with Putin's Russia. I wouldn't put it past the Russians to believe their own propaganda and think a little attempt of salami slicing like Georgia would be alright, and than "accidentally" trigger a war.

Because they still have to balance out the risk of nuclear escalation. This is why I think any Russian attack on the Baltics or Finland is unlikely.

There's also one point that I think was missed aside from what I said before.
You argument was a that a lof of the West cannot be trusted in this way, and that's fine. However, why do you think that means that they'll not toe this escalation, a lot of Russia's actions have and it relies on the West acting a certain way.

So, why do you discount Western assets in the overall equation?

(I mean, that changes depending on what you think of the Policymakers).

The Soviet Union moved its industry past the Ural mountains beyond the reach of German bombers and continued churning up war materiel until the last day of the war.

I use historical examples for ideology, but not for infrastructure for this reason. Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it's a defensive war if Russia left it wouldn't even need to go beyond the Ural mountains.

Also with current technology total autarky is not possible especially for what's necessary for modern equipment, Russia has had to rely on trade from their allies, 'destroying industrial capacity' is not like in WWII.

However more importantly it also can't trade land as close to 80% of it's population are in it's "European" part of the land (hence how railroads and trade was weighted before both have been trying to pivot from each other), and so is most of it's critical infrastructure, refineries, military installations and even population centers.

The difference here being that Nazi Germany in late 1945 was completely on the defensive, its lines were collapsing in every front. A hail Mary pass operation to stop the Allies was considered an acceptable risk. In this war neither side is that close to collapse and they won't in the foreseeable future.

It didn't make sense for Nazi Germany to do it either, it used up it's army it could have used to try to negotiate. Both sides in this war are already engaging in "escalate to de-escalate", it's already occurring. It also isn't working, the whole concept is flawed.

No one has ever won that kind of exchange, that is has ever been considered by policymakers is a disaster.

One thing I forgot to mention. From recent interviews, Zelenskyy is still signaling that he is going for a negotiated settlement.

I thought that the world would be better off if Russia withdrew, but I think the West should continue to provide support as long as the Ukrainians wanted it (and help rebuild afterwards). I think that overall it's a lot less cynical than what you imagined it to be.

I think we're heading into a second Cold War, with a period of international instability reminiscent of the latter half of the 20th century, an uneasy peace kept in check by threats of nuclear retaliation. No rational person wants a continuation of the war that could easily escalate into WW3. It's a scary future ahead for sure, but I for one can only hope cooler heads will prevail and rational decisions will be made, for the sake of us all.

We didn't have to head into a second Cold War. It wasn't peace either, just very localized war. That humanity made it through the first time was almost a miracle, there was too many flukes.

Rationality was not the word of the day during the Cold War, it's why it's called "MAD".

Notice she doesn't even mention the war in Ukraine, or every single other war that has been happening on this planet. Also, human activity in general has been doing this for a while the effect of GHG emissions on the climate aren't just from the past few months.

34k, even with bots Twitter (or 'X') for what is basically a Stromfront level take (Reverse Stormfront? Horseshoe theory being what it is they all end up the same). Is it safe to say at this point, that Elon Musk's "free speech guru" nonsense was bullshit?

… I'm sort of curious about knowing who's liking and reposting this, but I'm also afraid of it.

& @martinprince12345 & @Kenetic Kups @No!!

Careful, I think you're all just showing your age.

Disco Stu still thinks the peak of history was in the 70's.

I'm turning 40 next year. I'm old as fuck but this is a meme site and I've been in the internet meme scape since before Atlantis sank beneath the waves. I was there when ebaums world was the go-to for the lulz. I was there when flash animation became a thing – I seen things you people wouldn't believe: viking kittens on boats, when the first animated star wars rap…I've seen rotten.com in its hay day…all those memories like bits in the web.

Saw the start of flash animations and when it died.

I wonder, how many people know which movie you're referencing?

prime "6 million wasn't enough" behaviour

It's not the east or the west side
(no it's not)
It's not the north or the south side
(no it's not)
It's the dark side
(you are correct)

It's one of those ladies who is into being progressive until they show their True colors.

The generational conflict should be between gen z and millenials/gen x boomers still being so relevant and having such a gorilla grip hold over the cultural zeitgeist is beyond unnatural and unhealthy. Like they should be relevant they shouldnt vanish but like….time must move forward and millenials/gen x must become the old wise botter ones and shit not love forever in the shadow of boomers

I and gen X who are already 40 year olds and higher are supposed to be the old farts complaining about the "moral decay" of younger generations but somehow boomers keep overshadowing them and its like….its disrupting the natural cycle of time and that is bad

Why is Trump so GODDAMN OLD for example?