Eventually, if inflation gets bad enough and the fed is seen as protecting bankers more than Main Street, a political party will run on a platform of revoking the fed's independence. — RogueAI

I'm actually not so sure about that, unfortunately.

Americans can easily be divided by party lines and made to hate each other. I think that's the basic way to control the disappointed voters and keep them supporting the system by voting the two parties. It doesn't matter that they voters do actually share common things. Americans didn't like the way the financial institutions were handled with silk gloves in the last financial crisis (socialism for the rich), but the animosity between the right and the left prevailed. Doesn't matter that actually the "Occupy Wall Street" and the Tea-party people shared common issues, they hate each other enough not to notice them.

And secondly, there's a time lap when inflation rears it's head and when the money was printed. If it was Trump sending cash to Americans, it's only during Biden's administration that the effects can be seen. Inflation also goes up and down and isn't a fixed continuous issue.



Hence you can always say once the inflation decreases that the "inflation" has been now contained, or that it was temporary, or transitory, as we were lead to believe.

And then you have to remember that there are those for whom high inflation works: those that have invested debt into something that keeps its value. They are just happy about inflation taking care of their debt.

Sure, that's exactly what was happening in the housing market, and perhaps still is. — creativesoul

With rising interest rates, it's going to end (if it's still going on).

There are greedy sellers... that's not a fiction. — creativesoul

I can agree with that. But the aren't only greedy sellers.

You don't need to fit these radars into an aircraft, fighters already have radars that can track, they have to be closer than these massive ground based radars but they can be at high altitude and looking down to track low flying targets trying to evade said massive ground based radars. — boethius

Modern fighter jets shoot other jets and can shoot down cruise missiles. But shooting down artillery rockets is a different thing.

Completely agree. — boethius

And that example just underlines how difficult it is to use both aircraft and GBAD at the same time. The problem of IFF (identification Friend or Foe) is a difficult one. Even today.

That's somewhat an oversimplification, as Iraq is flat and the US had overwhelming superior forces and "next generation" technology (in particular night vision) engaging in the open field. The war in Yemen is not so similar. — boethius

In many cases you can have the money to buy expensive weapons, but not things like an educated well trained force for their optimal use. And there are many differences, hence we should avoid oversimplifications.

However, for the air war over Ukraine, Russians have proven proficient and their systems effective and presumably have shot down a significant amount of Ukrainian aircraft. — boethius

Except that everybody assumed that the Ukrainian Air Force and GBAD would be crushed at start of the war and Russia would gain air superiority. Which didn't happen. Likely they are adapting to the situation, yet it hasn't been the greatest success story.

The performance has been mediocre. I think the best thing is that they have understood their limitations and do hold back in using their air force, which hasn't suffered like losses like Russian armored forces. Russians do have the ability to improve their performance, even if the authoritarian culture makes it difficult.

no sellers knew how much money the buyers had, then there would be no increase in consumer cost. — creativesoul

I think you didn't read my answer to the end.

OK, let's say there would be a really stupid Ferrari dealer that didn't know (because he's Italian) that Americans just got 100 million every one. And let's say the manufacturer wouldn't know this somehow either. Well, likely then he would sell all his cars very quickly. And then the next one's will form a huge waiting line, because of the sudden incredible demand for Ferraris.

But think about the last guys coming to the store when he would have only one to go (for simplicity we assume he's selling also used Ferraris). Likely someone wanting a Ferrari would try to give him more than the asking price. Because why not? If you spend 50 000 or heck 80 000 more to the asking price on a Ferrari when he has 100 million. It's still peanuts.

And that's the basic problem with your idea. You assume this mythical greedy "seller" is the problem. No, the problem is also when there too many buyers for one item. The buyers are then in competition with each other. And this isn't something hypothetical: you can have items, goods, real estate going for higher than the asking price without no intention of the seller to have an auction. And yes, if people are selling something at 100$ and someone will give 150$, they will take that 150$.

This is simple supply and demand.

Except that's not a counterargument. That big retailers exploit their financial control over suppliers to hobble smaller competitors is a different phenomenon.

As I've said, prices can go up and down for many reasons that aren't related to inflation. And you can allways find new reasons to argue just why prices are up.

Yet do you think that still it's a post-covid demand. Will it be that next year?

Or the Ukraine war?

Yes, a war can cause prices to rise because of shortages. But once the war is over (or other supply chains are formed), the prices stabilize. And the best example of this we had in the spike in energy prices just last winter here in Europe. Now, suddenly, the price spike because of Russian energy going away from the market has been dealt with.

Do you really think that the addition of the money alone is the cause of inflation? — creativesoul

No.

Prices can go up (or down) for other reasons than money printing. And that's unfortunately the problem here. People have different definitions. The real problem is when I look at my childrens school books is that when explaining inflation, central banks and government spending aren't discussed at all. The "at all" is the main problem here. It would be better if there would be a sidenote that inflation can happen because of government printing money to finance it's expenditure. And that at worst this can lead to a collapse in the faith of the value, which creates a hyperinflation.

Let's do...

Add to the hypothetical one caveat... it's all done in secret. Sellers have no idea. — creativesoul

That doesn't make sense. Every American gets the 100 million. Some Americans are those "sellers" you refer to. Who are these mystical "sellers" you refer to?

Or you think people when they get 100 million wouldn't use that money?

Ferrari sold a bit over 3000 cars into America last year and produced 13000 cars in total in 2022. Now, when there are now 340 million people in the US with over 100 million dollars, you think there wouldn't be let's say 20 000 of them (a meager 0,0059%) who would like buy a Ferrari? Only that amount of new customers (up 20 000 from 3 000), would not only lead simply to "supply shortages", but the price going up.

Similarly with real estate. If there are many people wanting to buy a real estate, then they are in competition with each other. Hence somebody can pay more than the asking price. Thus in the end there would be hundreds millions of multimillionaires trying desperately get something with their money.

Not perhaps like in, Zimbabwe, but still:

Printing money to provide stimulus in 2009 did not result in inflation(that's not the only counterexample either). Printing money in 2020 to provide stimulus purportedly did. — creativesoul

Purportedly? At least that's better.

If the banks sit on the money nothing happens... except that the speculative bubble is held up and isn't let burst. Basically the monetary policy stops the correction that the market would do on it's own. What happened was called asset inflation.

If you give it to people, inflation will happen sooner or later. Just as the example of giving 100 million dollars to everybody shows.

However, sending targeting information from one system to another is not difficult and exists in plenty of forms already.

I do not think sharing the information would be the limiting factor, but rather the range of radar to track targets from look down which will be closely guarded secret. — boethius

Well, the problem is that for example the S-400 needs a search radar and a separate target acquisition/engagement radar. Similarly the Patriot system needs also. And yes, they benefit from getting an alert from an AWACS or other advance warning systems. But there's a simple technical problem, which you can see from the following pictures:

This is the target acquisition radar of a Patriot system:


These are the two types of engagement radars that the S-400 Triumph system has:


You do notice that there has to be done some engineering work to get these fit into an aircraft? Or to create such multi-function radars that act both in the search and the targeting mode.

Yes, but how much is the critical question.

In the situation we are discussing. Low flying aircraft, such as to avoid Russian ground based AA missiles, cannot reach much above Mach 1. So this is only reducing the effective range of the missile by 20% and that's assuming the F16 is already flying in the opposite direction.

The fact range of anti-air missile (of anytime) is reduced by your speed running away is an advantage to the Russians in this situation of trying to fly high, look-down and track and maybe send tracking information to said GBAD systems or then maybe just shoot at themselves. — boethius

(Just a technical note, use acronym SAM, surface to air missile, as with missiles AA stands for air-to-air missiles)

Those high flying Russian fighters have to stay out of the reach of the Ukrainian GBAD also. And obviously those future F-16s, when they come, will be used very cautiously. Yet in any case, the outcome relies on a large variety of factors than just the specs of the weapon systems. The way the weapon systems are used, the way the forces operate are far more important than the technical aspects of a weapon system. The difference come only when you face of far earlier generation weapon systems to newer ones, not with same generation weapons.

Just to give on example:why did we see footage of Bayraktar-drones destroying Russian SAM launchers early in the war and not anymore? The reason is that at start of the war there were so many limitations to SAM use as the Russian aircraft indeed flew over Ukrainian territory, that Bayraktars could have a field day. Then when Russian aircraft weren't flying anymore in Ukrainian territory (or at least, not so much), then the decision to fire on an aircraft was made easy. After all, we ought to remember the unfortunate use of a BUK-M1 shooting down that Malesian plane earlier.

The men and the military itself does matter also. Best example is just how few Abrams tanks were destroyed when operated by the US Army in Iraq and how many similar tanks have been destroyed by the Houthis fighting Saudi-Arabian troops in Yemen.

Ah... so ad homs supplant argument, valid objection, or adequate explanation.

For whatever it's worth, your assumptions about me are as wrong as your attribution of cause concerning inflation. — creativesoul

How about a mind experiment?

Assume every US citizen, child or adult, would be given 100 million dollars by the government. You really think that prices wouldn't go up? You think Ferraris and luxury homes would be selling then for the same price as before?

Don't forget the retirees on fixed income. — jgill

They can vote for a populist or whatever, but unfortunately retirees aren't going to be on the barricades either. Older people will just suffer and take it. And I feel really bad when seeing retired people working as the cashier in a supermarket.

Do you think the fed will be content with 5% inflation? That's a little high for most folks. — RogueAI

Yet you aren't on the barricades, are you? Is anybody else?

And with a 5% inflation, just look how quickly your money will lose value. Let's say that for the next five years you would have 5% inflation (which could be masqueraded by statistical gimmicks to look like 3% or 2%). Afterwards it won't take so much time to get where the money is half of it used to be. But who cares what things were priced a decade ago.

Only if it would be 5% per month people would panic and it would be an uproar. The idea is just to boil the frog so low that it doesn't jump out, you know.

For example, a monopoly may start lowering their prices simply due to the existence of an alternative even if that alternative isn't very good or can't possibly scale ... yet. This happens all the time in hardware in order to protect market share, hopefully drive the upstart out of business, and hardware monopolies are accused of this all the time. — boethius

I remember reading somewhere that this "predatory pricing", as it's called, was used by the Byzantine empire to hold on to their monopoly in the silk trade (after silk worms had been smuggled from China). So the idea isn't a new one.

US foreign policy can be viewed as protecting their monopoly on the global trading system. — boethius

They don't actually protect so much the system. More like the US takes the system as granted, as something natural and reap the harvest of the dollar being the global currency by spending as recklessly as they can. No, who protect the system are all other Western countries that are OK with current system as holds on.

Hence one has to look at this from a different point of view: Western countries accept the dollar system as it is stable enough. Basically it's similar like with NATO. It's not that the US forces countries to be in the organization, it's that European countries are totally happy to be in NATO. It's their security policy decision, not the US.

The role of the dollar was an result first of the US being the only creditor nation after WW2 ...when other Western countries and Japan had been bombed into rubble. The second act came when the US had spent wildly on the Vietnam war and the great society and Western countries, like West Germany, started to question the link that US dollar had to gold and it's reserves. Nixon promptly ended the last ties of the dollar to gold. The rescuing angel for the dollar (and the US) came in form of the Saudi-Arabia and the petro-dollar. The oil trade being traded in US dollars saved the dollar system.

But indeed things are changing, even without war in Ukraine. The thing is that now China understands clearly that it could face similar sanctions as Russia, that is obvious. Hence it is necessary for China to prepare for this kind of possibility.

It is the end of globalization as we know it. Still, it is just a possible outcome, not something that will definitely happen.

This change isn't some catastrophe and the US will still be there and much, if not most, of the globe will still be subscribed to Pax Americana, but it is a profound change for all those current subscribers that aren't "loyal fans". Maybe the US will need to offer a advert-free version for example. — boethius

I agree and this is important. Even if the dollar based system would collapse, it isn't the end of the World or of the US. It's still the largest economy and when faced with tough decision, it can make them when it has to. Just like the pandemic we went through wasn't, even if you would describe to people before what measures were taken, they wouldn't believe it. Reality isn't a Hollywood catastrophe film epic.

The US simply can go back to it's continent to eat that apple pie, and the huge vacuum will create a whirlwind of local conflicts where regional powers compete for dominance. One could say that this is already happening in the Middle East, like places like Libya. There the opposing sides are backed by countries that all ought to be allies of the US (plus Russia, of course).

What someone would be willing to pay(what the product is worth) is irrelevant to the point. Completely. — creativesoul

I assume you've never had the time or interest to learn economics. Or business.

All sorts of money printed. No inflation to speak of. What more does one need to prove that printing money does not cause inflation, than a time when it was printed and no inflation resulted? — creativesoul

When you do get it, you don't.

And that the issue here: for governments to print money / take more debt in their currency works and will work. The inability to understand that the consequences made today will have an effect only years later will confuse people. They can easily blame somebody else and people will eagerly accept this.

Of course. The key here being that radars can be replaced. To destroy these modern systems it would take a lot more. — Tzeentch

Well, you can say that also for Russia's main battle tanks, artillery, warships too! Just replace the destroyed ones and train new crews! The problem is replacing them. You simply don't have much to do with just the launchers. Well, you can lob the missiles at Kiev, which they have done.

You're comparing two different eras.

The Syrian air defenses weren't able to engage the anti-radiation missiles fired by the Israelis, because ground-based anti-missile defense wasn't really a thing back then. All their anti-air systems (coming from the '60s, mind you) were built to engage air planes.

Russian air defense can engage incoming missiles, and the AGM-88, even the G variant, falls well within its maximum target velocity.

This is of course a crucial difference. — Tzeentch

Uhh, actually no.

It's not so simple, actually. The real issue is fire discipline and the ability for the radar operator to know when to shut his radar off. The survival of a SAM unit isn't in it's ability to shoot down missiles, it's simply to understand when to not use the radar, when not to engage when to engage. Move and conceal your SAM's and use them only when the situation favors you. How well are all elements of your air defence commanded and how well do they fight together really matters. Trying to engage at everything, and you will be likely just shooting at decoys, spending your missiles and showing your exact location.

Air defence isn't in real life as it is in computer games. Every aspect of it has to work together, units have to be ready, communication has to work etc. In actual life it's far more difficult.

I've myself tried to track with an optical sight of a French Crotale NG SAM on a F-18 Hornet flying really close. It was totally impossible to catch the fighter jet. You could track it optically and fire if a) you knew exactly where it was coming from and b) it wasn't aware of you and wouldn't be aggressively turning. Hence that you can fire the VT-1 missile without using radar or active infrared (hence no alarms will go on in the aircraft) is positive, but doesn't make it superior. Just like air combat, you simply cannot make straightforward conclusions about how things will go because of some technical aspects. Hence the idea that optimally a missile system can defeat missiles also make them some kind of wonder weapons.

Paul Volcker, where are you? The current feds are too timid, IMO. — jgill

As I've mentioned (somewhere else), a friend that works in the local central bank (part of ECB) said years ago that the Fed is between a rock and a hard place. It simply cannot move anymore in similar fashion, as the inflation mouse is already feasting on people's cash.

Yeah, and we started from the lowest interest rates ever recorded in human history. So it's not difficult where there will likely go for the remainder of this decade. I assume they hope they can keep inflation at 5% for the rest of the decade. Negative real interest rates is the helper here.

An increase in consumer cost of good and services is inflation. The amount of money printed does not increase cost. Supply shortage does not increase cost. High demand does not increase cost. — creativesoul

Uh, but the price will rise because of the higher demand. It's the fundamentals of demand and supply. I mean, if a hundred people would desperately want something that costs 10$ and there's only one item left, you think that nobody of them would buy it for 11$ or even 20$?

The desire to increase profit margin is the only cause of inflation. — creativesoul

Ah! Similar ideas were floated even in Antiquity: it's the greedy baker that hikes the prices of bread! Shame on him. (Never mind things like was the state minting more coins with less silver in them to pay for everything starting from the military.)

Some of us think inflation happens when you print too much money, or simply create from nothing new debt to pay back the old debt. If you would keep it in the banks, it basically wouldn't create inflation, but for example give money to people because there's a pandemic or something... Now add a war to the picture and other stuff, you will have inflation. But people will a) politicize this and b) believe what politicians say to them who the culprit is.

Wage increases are post hoc corrections for inflation. When the same goods and services cost far more than they used to, people cannot afford them any longer when and if they have the same earnings. To blame wage increases for inflation is to blame the bandaid for the bleeding cut. — creativesoul

At least you are correct in that the last people usually left holding the bad are workers, who see their living cost rise and then demand more pay. And naturally the state itself portrays them as the culprit for inlfation, when the real culprit have been themselves. The ones who profit from inflation are those who get the new money first. And those are the ones that can print more money. Not the workers.

The idea that an air force is a "more effective" method of air defense is untrue, as I explained. It functions as part of an air defense network, and it won't function on its own. — Tzeentch

I think we are just talking of different things. Obviously you need both, but once you have the air force capable of winning air superiority, then you don't need so much GBAD. If you don't have any aircraft, it's far more easier for the enemy to tackle your GBAD.

No. My argument was that modern Russian AA like S-300 and S-400 can shoot the AGM-88 down. — Tzeentch

Actually, your argument was this:

Also suggesting a somewhat inaccurate idea of how SEAD works.

AGM-88s are no magic bullets. In fact, they're pretty old.

Modern anti-air systems like S-300, S-400, Pantsir, etc. can shoot these missiles down, and it would take absolutely massive volleys to get through a layered defense like what the Russians use. (Not to mention anti-radiation missiles only destroy radar transmitters. To actually destroy an AA installation it would take a lot more). — Tzeentch

Ok, first an S-300 or S-400 system is quite useless without it's radars working. Optical tracking (with other SAM systems) is still difficult, especially if you aren't aware of the attacker.

Secondly, it's obvious that other weapons are also used in SEAD. Old iron bombs were used in Vietnam, so even that can work (if one is very careful).

Thirdly, there far more to the battle between GBAD and aircraft than just one or two weapon systems. It's far more of a cat and mouse game. That an anti-radiation missile can be intercepted doesn't refute anything that I've said. And yes, I think that in this subject I do know what I'm actually talking about.

Hence that a missile can be shot down doesn't make it so that only massive volleys will get through this layered defense. You should read about these kind of operations. A great example is Israeli attack on Syria GBAD in the Bekaa Valley during "Peace for Galilee" operation named Operation Mole Cricket 19. The Syrian systems weren't so old in the early 1980's.

However, you could also have the situation where high flying Russian fighters can track low-flying F16, though out of range, so an S-300 or S-400 could then engage with guidance from the Russian fighters. — boethius

Yeah, well, and AWACS or a fighter cannot yet act as an fire control radar to a GBAD missile. Not yet, at least. And it doesn't go like "fire in that direction and maybe the missile will find it's target".

Keep in mind also that high flying supersonic fighters decrease the range of AA systems because they can outrun incoming missiles. I.e. the range of a 100 km missile travelling at mach 5 is reduced to 50km if fired at a target running away at mach 2.5, and this doesn't take into account altitude, counter measures or additional manoeuvres that will all favour the aircraft. — boethius

Or in other words, the effective engagement range of a SAM is far shorter than it's max range.

The point is not that other countries can repeat what Russia has done from scratch, the point is that by completely removing Russia from the Western financial system Russia has both a need to create an alternative system as well as zero incentive (whether from fear or enticement) to cooperate in Western sanction regimes against US foes. — boethius

And my point is just why other countries would have zero incentive to trade with the West?

Many countries would be happy if the world trade would be done other currency than dollars. But that simply is something that goes back to older times.

If we take the usual suspects of the sanctions world -- Iran, North Korean, Cuba, Venezuela -- they are simply not large enough countries to create some alternative economic system, and most countries and most companies would not see a cost-benefit to running foul of the US by violating US sanctions. — boethius

Exactly, this was my point and here we agree.

Russia did not opt out of the Western financial system by itself, whether because there was no desire to or perhaps there was desire but it would have been political unfeasible to just nope out of the Western economic system. Why didn't Russia do it before? — boethius

First of all, it did prepare for this event to happen when it attacked Ukraine. It only assumed that the response would be similar to what the West had done earlier: impose some sanctions, have a brief cold period and then when the administration changes, it's time again to reset the relationship. Don't you remember this:

Yes, it's exactly that the Chinese hub is the answer.

How the situation has changed with Russia essentially joining this group is that Russia is not only significantly larger (a larger population than all these countries combined) but has the resources, has the leverage, to make an equal if not greater cost-benefit proposal to their trading partners. Russia can effectively say to many countries that: you continue to trade or you're not going to eat. As you note, that's a powerful argument to displease the US in favour of Russian foreign policy.

Does China need to sell us stuff? Or do we need to by Chinese stuff? — boethius

The answer based on economics would be yes, China needs to sell stuff and yes, we do need Chinese stuff.

But that actually doesn't matter so much.

The reality is that all the importance we give to huge corporations and the ultra-rich and their globalization, when it comes to security matters and war, they are brushed aside. Chinese leadership can possibly decide "Fuck it, we can feed our people, we have enough to make this, let's finish those rebels in Taiwan". And it takes just one aircraft carrier to be sunk for the Americans to wreck globalization, put Chinese nationals into concentration camps and demand that China should be nuked. Remember just what one big successful terrorist attack made them to do.

I think we are quite close to an age that people lived in the 1900's and early 1910's. Many argued that war would be impossible because there was so much globalization.

It's simply not a logic that scales well in the capitalist system. It takes considerable effort to maintain sanctions on small countries, it's simply not possible to go around ordering people to stop trading with a big enough country such as Russia. At some point it's just too costly and countries tell even the "mighty US" to take a hike. — boethius

Yet don't underestimate just how large was the effect of the February 24th 2022 attack on Europe. This isn't an embargo made on moral grounds, like was done against South Africa. Especially the Eastern and Northern countries of Europe don't give a rats ass about the profits they are missing because of the sanctions. Finally Russia started a war too large just to ignore.

No really, earlier the Soviet Union was the largest export market for Finland and Finland was the second largest exporter of goods to the Soviet Union after West Germany. And obviously Finland tried to make the relationship to work. No there's basically nothing. So be it. NOBODY in Finland is crying about the lost markets. There is only a discussion that the risks of those investments made to Russia, now lost, should have better understood.

So no, boethius, at some point it isn't "just too costly", when security and the possibly the survival of the country is at stake. Security policy always trumps trade policy.

Note that you stated fighters are "a more effective alternative" - something which is simply untrue for the reasons I gave. — Tzeentch

No, it is true. Just look at history: if you have a capable air force that can gain air superiority, then most of the kills will be done in air-to-air combat. Air superiority is the single most important factor in
deciding the outcome of a modern conventional war. And when either side cannot gain air superiority, well, you have a war that likely will go on for a long time. Hence for the Ukrainian air force as it is smaller than the Russian air force, it's first objective is simply just to exist.

Of course fighters can play a role in air defense, in the context of a modern army which also features various forms of ground-based / mobile air defense. — Tzeentch

Exactly. And not having any combat aircraft is a huge disadvantage: even having a small contingent of aircraft that are sheltered and not used are basically a fleet-in-being. As long as they exist, it limits the actions of the other side.

First of all, GBAD cannot gain air superiority above enemy territory. Hence aircraft are crucial in winning an air war. An effective GBAD will result in what basically has happened in Ukraine: the other side simply won't fly in the area where there is the effective GBAD. That's what GBAD can do. But it won't destroy the enemy air force if the enemy doesn't fly. In this war both sides have opted just to use artillery, fire missiles at each other from their own airspace protected by their own GBAD.

Because, as I said, it's extremely inefficient. And modern militaries have ground-based systems to ensure such a task doesn't fall squarely on aviation most of the time. — Tzeentch

But you simply can have early warning system and get the jets into the air to intercept them. Even if your air force cannot intercept all enemy air strikes, it's objective is usually to inflict enough losses to the enemy and to sustain itself as an effective force. Air war quickly becomes a war of attrition. With a loss rate of 5% you will quickly run out of serviceable aircraft.

It seems you don't really understand the practical problems of using air planes in a defensive role in the conditions the Ukrainians would be flying under. — Tzeentch

Lol. My country's own air force has dealt with this from it's birth and has never assumed to gain air superiority. For some reason, you never saw them flying high during the Cold War, but dashing on treetop level when flying from one place to another.

Flying at low altitudes is essentially a given due to the threat of Russian anti-air systems. This means flying at decreased speeds (due to higher drag) and thus increased reaction times. It also means lower fuel efficiency. — Tzeentch

And? Even if the S-400 has a great range, again basic physics comes to play as you remarked to Boethius. The Earth is round and also Ukraine a big country. Hence you can do the math just how this effects target acquisition of radars and their ability to track low flying aircraft.



And about the increased reaction times: GBAD is basically stationary when fighting while an aircraft as an weapons platform is far more quicker, even if it's flying at lower speeds.

All of this translates into increased reaction times, low time on station. lighter weapon loadouts, etc. — Tzeentch

Well, an air force that isn't enjoying air superiority obviously doesn't fly as it would have it. The aircraft then "loitering on station" would be an extremely rare event. Usually the tactic is quick hit-and-run tactics and trying to survive to the next day. Good historical example is the North Vietnamese Air Force during the Vietnam war. It used far different tactics than the US and ventured only in the end of the war into South Vietnamese airspace. Then the USAF and USN weren't around anymore.

First, find out which version the Ukrainians have received. Then, look up what specifications these upgrades altered. Finally, figure out how that relates to my argument, namely that Russian AA can shoot down AGM-88s. — Tzeentch

Your argument was that the weapon system was old. Well, the Patriot missile was/is a weapon system that started it's life during the 1950's. So something being old, or that older versions are given from the stocks isn't a credible refutation that the system doesn't work or isn't important.

Yes, missiles can be shot down, but that's simply not a counterargument. When my country had the BUK-M1 system, they shot during training in Russia a SCUD missile down. The system is capable of that (and Russia has claimed shooting down missiles with the system), but in order to do that, it obviously has to have the information of an incoming missile and be prepared with it's radar on to get the quick firing solution needed. Hence even if both sides do have the capability to destroy incoming missiles, it doesn't mean that they can do it 100%.

I have made no argument that any weapon system or missile is undefeatable or a war winning tool.

Fighters are not efficient at air defense at all. — Tzeentch

Fighters are an integral and important part of air defense. Naturally you need GBAD starting from securing the airfields of the fighters, but the fact remains that you can fight against enemy aircraft with your own aircraft.

Consider the amount of resources it would take to keep fighters in the air 24/7 in sufficient numbers to cover all important areas in Ukraine. — Tzeentch

You think fighters are (or would be) kept 24/7 in air? How about having them up when you have enemy aircraft up in the air. It's quite rare to have fighter aircraft on CAP 24/7. And in this war, anything with that intensity simply hasn't been seen.

Again there's an obvious limitation to how many sorties aircraft can fly. IAF has had sortie rates of 3 to 4 per day during some of it's wars, yet that's the exception. Modern aircraft need maintenance, the missions have to be planned, etc.

AGM-88s are no magic bullets. In fact, they're pretty old. — Tzeentch

Are they now? AGM-88E came into service in the 2010s. AGM-88G is coming to service only now.

Again, considering the resources the Ukrainians have, it is rather unlikely their aim is to degrade the Russian air defenses in any serious way. — Tzeentch

Which they actually did at the start of the war. :snicker:

Again, considering the resources the Ukrainians have, it is rather unlikely their aim is to degrade the Russian air defenses in any serious way. — Tzeentch

They have to dent it just where they want to attack. But seems like you have a lot of confidence on Russian armed forces.

What SEAD might be able to accomplish for the Ukrainians is to provide temporary defensive cover to accomodate air strikes. — Tzeentch

Yes, that's more like it. Ukraine cannot win air superiority. But it doesn't have to. It only has to get it temporarily for a brief time: when it's forces are on the move and it's own GBAD isn't in place yet.

Again, I think this incel problem is indicative of a wider trend among all the young (not just males) - increased isolation and social atomization, increased anxiety, depression, etc.

The 'digital age' is doing a number on kids and young adults, by completely socially (and mentally) disregulating them.

Perfectly normal people are unable to find a mate, and are looking for answers why. Predictably, some become very resentful. — Tzeentch

I agree.

Although just how many incels there really are is an important question. Is this really an important question or not? Or just put up there as an "important" question.

For example in my country every fifth adult lives alone. About one third of adults are single. Half of them want to be in a relationship. So with those statistics, I guess my country ought to be swarming with incels... assuming this many of the single men are indeed incels.

It's actually important to understand that when we talk about defence spending, procurement and maintainance make only a smaller part of the spending in any armed forces.



In many Western military the salaries take even a larger amount of the defense budget. For example Germany has a similar size of defense budget as France, but it doesn't have a nuclear deterrent or an aircraft carrier and similar capability for operations in other continents. Hence when you deploy a large force of your troops to an operation on the other side of the planet, the costs are simply huge.

It's precisely because of the Russian resources that sanctions haven't worked to isolate Russia. — boethius

Because the World needs Russian resources. And Russia is now China's gas station. Crucial for Russia, rather important for China.

And it is not a case that "oh well, Russia survived sanctions, you win some you lose some" because in cutting off Russia from the Western financial system they have zero incentive to maintain any trade frictions with the other bad boys at the back of the class, and so Russia surviving sanctions basically means everyone can now survive sanctions. — boethius

Nope.

The vast majority of countries don't have such natural resources that Russia has. Many countries are quite vulnerable to sanctions. Starting with those countries that cannot feed their populations with their own domestic agricultural production.

You can only punish trade partners, whether buyers or suppliers, if they have no where else to go. If they do have somewhere else to go ... then they just say "fuck you, I'll go deal with these other people".

This is a profound geopolitical change. — boethius

But notice the "if they do have somewhere else to go". And actually that has been Putin's Russia's biggest problem: It's economy is little and has stagnated. It hasn't been a real alternative as opting to be with Russia and excluding the West is a disastrous choice to make. Hence CIS didn't fly, also because of economic reasons.

In this graph try finding Russia, you will find, but it isn't easy:



Someone could counter with the argument that there's China. Obviously the Chinese hub is the answer? Well, how much of that Chinese GDP comes from trade with the West? A lot. The fact is, even if Brazil, China, India and South Africa among others would favor a multipolar economy system, they do not want to exclude themselves from trading with the West.

The US did not invest significant amounts of complex weapons systems and massive amounts of ammunition in Afghanistan as has been required in Ukraine. — boethius

Except that it did and will cost a huge amount, over two trillion dollars, just in Afghanistan. Fighting a war with your own forces is far more expensive than to give aid and weapons to a country that takes care of the fighting part.



And then there was the Iraq war too and the fight against ISIS in Syria too.



The assistance to Ukraine has been now a perhaps a puny 100 billion when we are talking:


Just to understand how much the US troops fighting a war costs, is that 1 reinforced company, yes company, fighting in Afghanistan for a year was the equivalent of the annual defense budget of Estonia. So even if the above graphs take into account future costs, still nothing is as expensive as the US deploying forces to fight a war on another continent.

F-16s can't fill the role of ground-based anti-air systems, so I would probably look for a different explanation. — Tzeentch

?

Just think what you are saying, @Tzeentch.

Since WW1, it has been obvious that ground based air defence GBAD has a more effective alternative, namely fighter defence, other aircraft. And this is why GBAD has usually played the second fiddle in wars. The machine guns fitted to biplanes then were as potent or actually statistically more potent to shoot down enemy aircraft than artillery pieces on the ground. Nothing has changed since then as this is a matter of simple physics. A missile shot from an aircraft has already speed, doesn't need to climb as high and obviously the pilot with his speedy weapons platform can change places far more quicker than a land based one to get the optimum firing solution.

Then there are the obvious reasons just why the F-16 would be preferable to Ukraine. It's widely used. It has no problem against the Soviet fighters. It isn't as costly and complex as the F-35 and nobody will give their F-35s for Ukraine. And then there is the fact that IF Ukraine wants to be on the offensive, it has to do something to the Russian ground based air defence (GBAD), as you point out below:

Especially since Russia sports one of the most sophisticated AA networks in the world, and the F-16s would have to contend with that. — Tzeentch

It already has contended with that: actually both sides don't venture with their aircraft far to the others side.

The F-16 is actually the answer to that. :smile:

One of the F-16's most important mission is SEAD. There are specific Wild Weasel Squadrons with F-16s, hence the F.16 is the best option for Ukraine as it's searching for a stop-gap fighter, not a weapon system that will have it's service delivery to Ukraine in the 2030's or something.

The Wild Weasel mission is now assigned to the F-16 Fighting Falcon, using the Block 50 and Block 52, with production beginning in 1991. The single-seat Block 50/52 F-16C is specifically tasked with this mission and aircraft modified for this mission are designated F-16CJ/DJ.

Hence if Ukraine wants cut off the land bridge to Crimea or some other do outstanding stuff, it is extemely difficult and perhaps impossible without denting the Russian GBAD. The are only few MiG-29s now capable of firing HARM missiles with the Ukraine Air Force.

It's the nuclear option for neoliberal capitalists as it limits their capability to make profits. — Benkei

Or for this round of globalization that started in the 1990's...

If the US's geopolitical position is significantly eroded by this war then both costs and risks of participating in US intervention increase while benefits decrease. — boethius

I don't think the war in Ukraine really erodes the position of the US. The fact is that the World cannot just go out with Russian oil and raw materials, and that's the main reason many countries aren't so keen to jump in the US bandwagon: the US won't guarantee them the resources.

What has eroded and will erode the US is position is the absolutely disastrous failure in Afghanistan and the equally catastrophic "War on Terror". Yeah, Americans might have forgotten the WoT, but the countries in the Middle East (and North Africa) have not.

That is the true failure, which has shown clearly to every non-Western ally of the US how untrustworthy and basically treacherous actually the US can be.

The US is in the Middle East in a similar situation UK found itself in the Middle East after WW2, entangled in a quagmire and trying to get out with having only marginal influence on the actors anymore and just hoping to get some weapon contracts. And the regional actors understanding that it isn't similar anymore than before.

It's totally possible for the biggest US Arab ally, Saudi-Arabia, to find itself being a part of the "Axis of evil" or something similar. And here Pakistan shows what kind of passive-aggressive "ally" the US can be ...and how the US can be thwarted and openly challenged. Pakistan aided the Taleban and assisted in the final push to overthrow the formerly US-backed regime. And what did the US do? Nothing, it only wants to desperately to forget it's longest war.

The fact that Israel has kept close ties to Russia during the Syrian civil war and that China arranged the warming of the relations between Saudi-Arabia and Iran simply shows how out of touch the US is now in the Middle East. Very different from the time of the Gulf War when older Bush could form a massive coalition with all the important regional players together (Saudi-Arabia, GCC, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Morocco etc.) when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

And then there's China and the problem of Taiwan. What the US lacks here is obvious: there isn't anything like NATO in the area, only bilateral agreements with countries that again have not much in common. If China would let's say launch a "special naval operation" towards Taiwan and start inspecting ingoing shipping to Taiwan for weapons, what countries would follow the US? The AUKUS?

In fact, the creation of AUKUS and that doesn't involve Japan, South Korea, the Phillippines and France tells actually a lot.

The US might find itself in a Cuban crisis where it takes the role of Soviet Union to run the blockade without not much help from other countries that want to de-escalate the issue.

Now compared to the above, the Ukraine war, with a motivated Ukraine willing to fight the war and having NATO to work with is quite easy and simple. Hungary and Turkey are simply a result of having so many countries in the pact.

There's one thing I should point out here about Europe: West European countries that belong to NATO have really based their security around the defense pact and it serves them from their own terms. One shouldn't forget this. The US can be (and has been) frustrated that countries in it's alliance won't go the way it wants them to go (and help in invading some country they want to invade), but one shouldn't underestimate how successful the pact has been. And this is the part which people shouldn't get confused about: NATO countries don't follow slavishly the US in every US incursion, but the countries not going along in certain policies doesn't undermine the defense pact itself.

It's like the EU. Remember American commentators have said for decades that the EU will collapse, because the integration doesn't work. Well, the EU surely won't become an European United States, but the fate of UK has really shut the mouths of EU sceptics in member countries and has shown just how important the integration is. The EU won't collapse as member states breaking off from the union has truly damaging effects.

NATO is similar. What people often forget is how important actually Article 1 is, which I've stated here again and again. Just compare NATO with the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) that actually did go to war to liberate Kuwait, but later the countries have been close to going to war with each other and Saudi-Arabia has deployed forces to quell demonstrations in one member country (something what basically the Warsaw Pact actually did). The idea that NATO would be used to put down an uprising in a member country seems quite remote.

And then there are the examples of the failed American treaty organizations, SEATO and CENTO. Their failure simply comes from the fact that these countries didn't have much in common. The security threats of Pakistan and the Phillippines are quite different. There was minimal military integration among the former member states. And then you had the revolutions in Iraq and Iran, which made former allies to become part of the "Axis of evil" in American eyes. In short, the member states didn't view SEATO and CENTO membership as important and were just fine with bilateral agreements with the US.

Hence NATO members can have their disagreements, yet for a country like Hungary to resign from the organization would be as detrimental as the country opting out from the EU. In fact the only country that can wreck NATO is the US itself, if the US under Trump or someone decides to opt out of the treaty. This would simply instantly force to create the defense pact within EU, where Ireland and Austria wouldn't create a problem.

And if the US would severe the Atlantic link, it simply would cease to be a Superpower in the way it is now. Suddenly the US would be listened to in Europe as much as it's allies in the Middle East listen to it.

Will relations between Europe/US and Russia ever be normalized while Putin is in control? — frank

No.

I cannot see it happening.

Other countries respond to mass shootings in a way that the USA never does - because of the dogma about the right of gun ownership being equated with freedom. — Wayfarer

Not only that.

Also because Americans think they have to have a gun to protect their home from criminals. Not for hunting (although there are people still living in the countryside) and for a shooting hobby. Hence there can be a lot of Americans that own a firearm, but never use it and aren't actually so familiar in it's use.

(Reuters, 24th May 2023) Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner mercenary group, warned that Russia could face a revolution similar to those of 1917 and lose the conflict in Ukraine unless the elite got serious about fighting the war. - If ordinary Russians continued getting their children back in zinc coffins while the children of the elite "shook their arses" in the sun, he said, Russia would face turmoil along the lines of the 1917 revolutions that ushered in a civil war.

"This divide can end as in 1917 with a revolution," he said.

"First the soldiers will stand up, and after that - their loved ones will rise up," he said. "There are already tens of thousands of them - relatives of those killed. And there will probably be hundreds of thousands - we cannot avoid that."

Quite a populist remark referring to the elites, but it's noticeable that he's talking about a possibility of similar events as in 1917.

I would add to Mearsheimer's second point that it's somewhat clear why the war turned into a war of attrition during this stage. Russia is not looking to take large chunks of territory while the occupied areas are still being pacified, and thus with more or less stationary fronts — Tzeentch

Because of pacification of the held areas, Russia isn't advancing?

How about the simple fact that neither side has the capability for large-scale maneuver warfare as they simply lack the reserves of fully equipped brigades/divisions, to "take large chunks of territory" and hence the only action seen has been in a very limited areas, like in Bakhmut?

How did that Russian winter offensive go? Ah, they got Bakhmut! Well, that's actually not much. It will take time for Russia to transform into a wartime economy, yet likely it will do that. But it doesn't happen instantly. The longer this conflict goes on, the better for Russia.

And what is likely that neither Ukraine will make huge gains as earlier, likely their summer offensive will be quite local operations. The assistance Ukraine has gotten isn't anywhere close what would be needed for create large scale maneuvers and to cut the land bridge to Crimea. If that would happen, then I guess the Ukraine armed forces would have transformed quite a lot. Furthermore, the Dnipro river is quite an obstacle, especially in the time of accurate weapons that can destroy laid bridges.

There are many similarities with this the Iran-Iraq war. The offensives were far in between in that war and it became bogged down too.

attrition is the way the Russians can still erode the Ukrainian fighting strength, which they seem to have been successful at. — Tzeentch

What the Russians have eroded is the air defence missiles of Ukraine by attacking with cruise missiles and rockets Ukrainian cities. And as those Ukrainian air defence systems have been mainly from Cold War stocks and the factories for additional missiles lie in Russia, Ukraine is urging for fighters and seems that the US obviously has noticed this problem and will start to give those fighters.

Probably the same reason flat earthers ramped up out of no where. — Benj96

Flat earthers are actually the best example of this click bait culture, which dominates the internet.

An argument that can be shown to be false simply by going on to the seashore on a clear day and watch large ships sink into the horizon (and not become tiny specs) because of the Earth's curvature makes the topic easy to talk about. And that's the whole point. As internet groups go, those that are talked about rule. The "notoriety" of the Flat earthers are harmless, not so with other issues.

It's like Ali G interviewing the surgeon general and saying not all people will die... and the doctor believing he really is so clueless. Trolling is fun.



This phenomenon can be seen even here in PF. Just look at how much discussion threads and how long they have been about antinatalism. Antinatalism hits all the similar points. An absurd, easy to comment issue, which creates debate and hopefully heated opinions. Ten months ago @Baden decided to merge the antinatalism stuff together, but just look at how many threads on the bizarre topic there are.

An eloquent comment, yet I would think that the generalization of the "non-western countries" goes a bit too far off as these are individual states making there decisions specifically from their own unique situation. Their relationship to the "West" differs a lot. In fact, even "The West" doesn't seem so unified when you look at the countries themselves. You can see obvious differences between Poland, Hungary, the UK or Italy when it comes to war in Ukraine. And these countries are part of NATO.

The entire middle east (excluding Israel) is in rapprochement with Iran! - These are historic events. — yebiga

Here the important issue is Saudi-Arabia and Iran restoring diplomatic ties, thanks to China. But how harmonious these relations still are is questionable, it's more about reducing the possibility of a regional conflict.

So the interesting thought here, which I think someone else has expressed in this discussion already, is that what is lacking is shame. — Jamal

Shame is something that the society has put on to people by condemnation... which in the modern case is then viewed as oppression and hence the "positive" victimhood. I'll try to explain what I mean by this.

The emphasis on the "involuntary" aspect of not having sexual relations with women, especially being less attractive than other males physically, is something that underlines this modern positive victimhood. Fighting against the oppression of social norms is seen as being positive, especially when it's something you cannot change (like your appearance). Also what you mentioned as identity politics plays a part here as identity isn't confined to the traditional ones anymore.

Above all, when that condemnation is seen to come from certain groups, liberals, feminists and perhaps in this case the "picky" women themselves, that is something positive and encouraging. It's like when Hillary Clinton referred to the Trump supporters as deplorables, it was the best thing ever to happen to Trumpsters and for Trump. Besides, Trump's rise itself started in earnest with his remarks on Mexicans being rapists, which spurred general condemnation and hence intense media focus. Condemnations creates focus.

Similarly in this case, would there even be this thread if this internet group hadn't evoked condemnation and disapproval? Asexuality would not stir up similar debate. This is how internet and the algorithms of the social media work. We could be talk about a larger and more prevalent issue of loneliness, but that likely wouldn't be so interesting.

It’s also a form of identity politics, which is another interesting dimension. — Jamal

Yes it is.

And as victimhood and being different is so fashionable today, the idea of being an incel isn't so bad, at least in the horrible self-help groups of internet echo chambers.

It is important what the reasons are — Jamal

Well, why not then start with the obvious: the internet. The ability there to find your own echo chamber. How public discourse has change because of social media where there is no moderation.

One should look first at the general reasons and look what is similar to other hate groups which don't have anything to do with sexuality.

If you write...

but to suggest that those who disagree with your perspective like Russia or Putin — Manuel

...then I thought you were referring to Russia and Putin.

The OP need not comprehensively describe or define incels. — Jamal

Yet usually we try to answer the questions in the OP, right?

And as @Vera Mont said, this is an phenomenon brought by the internet. So it's much more about internet culture and the ability, thanks to the net, of otherwise quite separate individuals having the ability to get together... (like, uh, people who are interested in philosophy).

It doesn’t follow from the fact that “incel” is a word formed from “involuntary celibate” that when we use “incel” we are merely referring to people who are involuntarily celibate tout court. — Jamal

Just like if someone uses the term eco-terrorist, the terrorism doesn't actually have anything to do with ecology or environtalism. The real issue is the "activism" that accepts and uses violence to further it's cause and gain media attention. What the cause is doesn't so make a difference. The violence part is similar and if the cause would be, let's say anti-abortion activists burning down an abortion clinic, it doesn't change things.

Similarly, if someone is a misogynist and uses violence, it isn't important what the reasons are for him to act in this manner. It is the action, using violence etc, which is the main issue and ought to be condemned.

I think your comments regarding Christianity (which some would say includes Catholicism and Protestantism) are mistaken, remarkably so, in fact. — Ciceronianus

Well, I guess people don't read what the Bible says about the role of women. And about women in general.

It's still a useful source (the Bible, that is) about Christianity. :smile:

If there would be logic to this, wouldn't the "post-post philosophy" simply be the old philosophy again, in some developed form?

And we are no longer a planet awash in newsprint, but a world of imagery and image-text hybrids of sorts not covered in the Tractatus. We seem to be more concerned right now about whether we’re living in a virtual reality than whether we’re living in a text. That all sorts of new questions have arisen, however, demands new reflection, but also makes possible new histories. As Hegel observed, you can’t really tell the story of something until it starts winding down.

This feels a bit shallow. Or the familiar cry of "Our time now is so unique, that old things don't cover it".

But then again I'm not a professional philosopher.

And isn't that more about the internet?

Note how the OP was written:

Involuntary celibate is a self appointed term to describe men that are celibate against their will because they deem themselves not attractive enough to the opposite sex. They believe this is objective, fixed and unchangeable.

Is this an emerging mental condition? What is fuelling the upsurgence in men that self identify as incels?

Do you think that perhaps the way dating apps are designed has some influence? Are we becoming too objectifying as a society? Is the incel "movement" dangerous? To whom and why?

So many questions on this bizarre subject. — Benj96

Thus the issue you refer to would be the incel "movement". Not about the other questions above.