I'm hoping the cause of this is seen clearly as the unelectability of Trump candidates so that the Trump era can once and for all come to an end. — Hanover

You saying that makes me feel optimistic about the political right in the US.

Insanity has to come to end sometime.

Democrats holding the Senate is a huge win for them and a loss for Republicans.

I think finally the GOP can come back to it's senses. Trump is a losing card.

In fact, the Democrats can hope that the GOP takes Trump to be their candidate in the Presidential elections: nothing else would mobilize the Dems better and alienate many that otherwise would vote for a Republican candidate.

We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system.
Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent. — universeness

That doesn't even logically work when voting in any parliamentary system is based on a majority. It is totally rational to make coalitions. In order to get what is important for you to be pushed through, you have to make then packs with other who have their agenda. Hence the party system basically will emerge, even if they aren't called political parties.

Secondly, even on the local level the political divide is there among the people: some want to use tax money to be spent of issues while others don't and just want lower taxes. Some want more collective decision making and others individual freedoms. It doesn't go away on the local level, you know.

I think the US would need more political parties and coalition governments and then root out it's corruption. But if people aren't aware of the domination of the whole system by the two parties, then there isn't going to be change.

"The odd" is that you don't give up ground for free when at war. Period. — Tzeentch

The Russians surely didn't give ground for free. They avoided a possible encirclement of their forces. There's nothing odd at that. Remember that the fighting at Kherson has gone since the summer in earnest. So holding the defensive line for months isn't "giving up ground for free".

Those forces are simply crucial for it because the Russian ground forces, which never were so large to begin with, and Russia has taken serious losses. Ukraine has more men now on the field than Russia basically. Russia had tried to create a small professional army and wasn't thinking mobilizing a far larger force, hence all the confusion in Putin's mobilization, which had to be ended because there simply weren't the resources.
Ukraine on the other hand had used the last eight years to fight this kind of war.

Russians need that artillery firepower, which itself needs a huge logistical tail. If those supply lines are cut, there's no firepower once the rounds you have next to the gun or rocket launcher have been fired.

Besides, notice how cautiously Ukrainian forces closed into Kherson, you didn't see columns of Ukrainian tanks rumbling into the city. Those would be a lucrative target for Russian artillery.

:up: :100:

By my own judgement. The way the Russians left Kherson is odd, so I sought a reasonable explanation. — Tzeentch

What is odd?

The reasonable explanation is that Russia cannot simply supply a force of tens of thousands of troops over the precarious few bridges (that Ukraine can hit) over the Dniepr on the western side of the river in Kherson. Russia lacks the logistical ability to move far away from the railway lines was well known even before the war started. They lack simply the logistics. Hence Ukraine has targeted supply dumps with the accurate HIMARS rockets and basically fought a similar conventional war that NATO planned to fight the Soviet war machine.



When you look at the rail lines in Ukraine, one immediately notices the only way is through Crimea by the now infamous bridge that was attacked.

The next possible Ukrainian offensive would be to circumvent the Dniepr altogether and launch an attack from the Donetsk region to the sea and cut the land bridge to Crimea and take Mariupol or Melitopol. In manpower Ukraine has the advantage, yet in artillery and arms Russia enjoys still the advantage. However that it articles it might have sustained losses of nearly 100 000 are breathtaking and show the urgent need to send the newly mobilized forces immediately (and prematurely) to the front). Of course such an attack would need huge combined arms maneuvering, which might be too much for the Ukrainians to do.

Nothing stopped the Russians from reducing the force occupying Kherson, allowing it to be supplied while also imposing a cost on Ukraine for taking it. They chose not to, and that is not typical for two nations at war. — Tzeentch

Everything written or documented is against this.

There's only few bridges over the Dniepr and they are quite in reach of HIMARS rockets. You are simply wrong assuming Russian didn't have huge difficulties. In WW2 or even as late as in the Vietnam War a bridge as a target was very tricky. It isn't now with modern precision guided weapons.

And Ukraine has also by Russian sources used these precision guided weapons to destroy bridges:

(Daily Telegraph, 22nd August) Ukrainian forces have used Himars rocket systems to halt Russian repairs to a key supply bridge in occupied Kherson as they continue to press on the southern frontline.

Online footage shows a fiery explosion on Antonovsky bridge after at least 15 people were injured as a result of the broad daylight shelling on Monday, Russian news agency TASS said.

"At around 1pm on August 22, in order to disrupt the work to restore the roadway, Ukrainian troops attacked from the American Himars rocket systems at the site of repair work on the Antonovsky Bridge," a local official was quoted as saying.

The bridge has come under fire at least eight times since July 19.

It is the only road crossing that connects the city of Kherson with the wider region on the eastern side of the Dnieper river.

The argument that "Putin can't be trusted" as a basis to reject an otherwise good peace deal is simply an invalid argument. The trust in an international counter-party has little to do with reasons to enter an agreement or not. US and the Soviets never trusted each other, but entered into all sorts of agreements.

Indeed, the basic assumption of international relations is that countries don't just go ahead and trust each other, but the situation is more complicated than that. — boethius

The Soviet Union couldn't continue the arms race and actually did collapse partly because of it (even if Americans tend to overemphasize this). Soviet Union was spending twice the percentage of GDP than the US was and it was failing to keep up in the technological race. You are correct in that the two Superpowers never trusted each other, but agreements could be found simply when there wasn't any other sustainable option.

As I said:

Likely the deal has already been struck.

The United States pressured Ukraine to show willingness to negotiate a few weeks ago.

Then Russia gives up Kherson as a form of 'guarantee' that no offensives for Odessa or Transnistria will take place. — Tzeentch

Where do you get this idea? By what judgement you made this idea that Russia gave a "guarantee"?

The Ukrainians had made it impossible for Russia to supply over the Dniepr a huge force as it's dependence on rail lines made this totally obvious. Russia wasn't willing to sacrifice it's best troops. And of course Putin was no where to be found in the TV theatre where the commander in Ukraine and Shoigu discussed the withdrawal (which is typical Putin: he never gives the bad news).

It's interesting how many seem to be desperately hoping that Putin has many aces on his sleeves, that the Russian army isn't marching on to a defeat. As if the situation isn't so bleak to the Russian army. Yes, likely the West can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not supplying Ukraine and demanding a possibility for Putin to "save face".

Ironic that the Russian army has bloodthirsty neo-Nazis in their employ. Nothing new though I guess. — jorndoe

Nothing new, but dramatic changes can happen.

Alexandra Polinova from the now banned Memorial said the obvious: it is actually Russia that needs to decolonize.

There should be another narrative than the imperialist one when it comes to what Russia is. This narrative creates the reality were Russia sees necessary to intervene and dominate it's near abroad. First and foremost, the collapse of the Soviet Union, is seen as a mistake. An unfortunate accident. Russia is seen to be an multi-ethnic Empire and therefore it should obviously control what has been part of the Empire. And this makes everybody so nervous about Russia. It's not acting as a normal country. Yet the imperialist narrative dominates official Russia. It is fomented with the huge conspiracy that the West is against Russia, hence to defend itself, it has to attack.

Is change possible?

Russia does have the groundwork of a legal system, if truly used, to make it to be a justice state. But there should be a dramatic change, something equivalent of a revolution. Otherwise views that are in the West confined to the political fringe will stay dominant in Russia. Putin just bowing out won't change the political landscape, if someone then just inherits the security system.

Anyway, they seem noticeably keen on keeping Crimea Russian. Also a land corridor via Donbas in addition to Kerch. Not a lease on otherwise neutral ground or whatever, but secured Russian land, which any strong military would have gotten in the way of (and still might). — jorndoe

This is what is basically left now for Putin. No overthrow of the Ukrainian government and replacement with a pro-Russian regime, no larger Novorossiya.

Crimea may be the real question.

Not nuclear weapons as a first response. What I heard was that the US would sends troops along with other NATO member countries to fight inside Ukraine, if Russia proceeds with the expected escalation coming winter. If this happens (US troops go inside Ukraine), then we are really playing with lava, not fire.

Of course, anyone using the first nuke, must know what the consequences will be, not only for their country, but for the world. — Manuel

First and foremost, this is a sabre rattling response to Russia's sabre rattling, the potential use of nuclear weapons with conventional forces. And this response hasn't been official. It has been given to the media by other retired people, who have said that this kind of response has given to Russian counterparts behind closed doors, not openly.

This means that Joe Biden and the West haven't drawn a public red line like Obama did in Syria (and failed).

If Russian would use nukes, the claimed Western response would be to target Russian forces in occupied Ukraine and the Black Sea fleet. The response would be done by the Air Forces and cruise missiles. For ground forces to go into Ukraine is a huge, slow operation.

But let's think just how credible the Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons is. What do they really gain? Would China really support this? Besides, that Russia withdraws from Kherson shows that cool heads prevail and they can make rational battlefield decisions and aren't confined to what it politically looks like. After all, the military leadership announcing that they will withdraw from Kherson is a humiliating defeat for Putin.

With all the talk of negotiation (on both sides and other parties(like the US and telling Ukraine to say they're open to negotiation and mentioning "Ukraine fatigue") it seems a strong signal that both sides are hurting pretty bad, but I still fail to see any evidence Russian forces, government, economy is about to simply collapse and the front seems stable going into winter apart from Kherson. — boethius

At least the discussion of talks shows that there might be a deadlock in the battlefield.

I agree. The war can still continue.

Also crossing the Dniepr is a big difficult operation for Ukraine. And let's not forget that this is one of the poorest nations in Europe that has it's economy severely wrecked. But when the threat is existential, that there's no electricity or people have to go hungry to sleep isn't going to change the will of the Ukrainian people. It's more a question of Western resolve to aid Ukraine. The Russians can take a beating also, and still continue the war.

[

The nuclear ransom is exactly what's preventing NATO planes and troops in Ukraine. — boethius

Deterrence and ransom is different.

Putin implying that Ukraine cannot be assisted or otherwise he will use nukes is more of ransom/sabre rattling. The nuclear sabre rattling is an attempt to decrease the military aid to Ukraine.

Russia defending itself or it's aircraft from attack by in the end having nuclear weapons is deterrence.

Supposedly someone inside the Biden administration, not Blinken, had discussions with a high-ranking government official, discussing "red lines", allegedly Russia was told that a mass retaliation would incur a reply by NATO. — Manuel

I think it is reliable, but for the US and NATO to say they will respond to use of nuclear weapons is more an answer to deputy-chairman of the security council and former Russian president Medvedev saying that NATO wouldn't do anything if Russia used nukes in Ukraine.

"I have to remind you again - for those deaf ears who hear only themselves. Russia has the right to use nuclear weapons if necessary," Medvedev said, adding that it would do so "in predetermined cases" and in strict compliance with state policy.

When describing a possible strike on Ukraine, a Slavic neighbour which Putin describes as an artificial historical construct, Medvedev said NATO would not get involved in such a situation.

"I believe that NATO would not directly interfere in the conflict even in this scenario," Medvedev said. "The demagogues across the ocean and in Europe are not going to die in a nuclear apocalypse."

Which actually may be so, but to that kind of statement NATO/US has to rattle it's own sabres. And anyway, the first thing would be to make a simply underground nuclear test in Novaja Zemlya.

First of all, don't get angry.

Perhaps the title of the thread was a bit confusing.

Notice the site guidelines and follow them and Baden shouldn't be angry:

General Guidelines:

1) Language matters:

This is an English language forum on an academic topic. Posts should display an acceptable level of English with regard to grammar, punctuation and layout. This goes for both native and non-native speakers (although we're likely to be more sympathetic when judging the writing of the latter).

2) Tone matters:

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

3) Context matters:

The amount of leeway you get on the above depends to a degree on where you post and what the topic under discussion is. You're likely to have more freedom in casual and political discussions, for example, than in philosophical discussions.

Starting new discussions:

Don't start a new discussion unless you are:

a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.

b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.

c) Capable of writing a decent title that accurately and concisely describes the content of your OP.

d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active (and not a copypasta from elsewhere on the internet. Plagiarists will be banned).

For more help: see How to Write an OP.

Addenda:

1) No bumps allowed. If you want to attract replies, think of a better way.
2) While there are no specific limits to the number of discussions you can start, if we feel you are unfairly monopolising space on the front page, we reserve the right to delete your discussions regardless of content.

Now what? What would you have us do? Pretend that Putin can't hold us to ransom just because we don't like that fact? — Isaac

As pointed out, there isn't actually credible nuclear ransom. The US or NATO isn't fighting Russia. Russia isn't attacking the supply lines in Poland. Nuclear deterrence between NATO and the Russia does holds there's no NATO aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone in Ukraine, even if Ukraine desperately wanted there to be that. Places like Yugoslavia and Libya that did happen. In Ukraine it didn't: NATO isn't going to escalate as Russian deterrence works. And vice versa.

You can always hope that the conflict would stop and of course, that it doesn't escalate. That's a bit different to insist on stopping the war on any terms whatsoever.

Since Cherson may have served as a springboard for future Russian offensives, it seems to me Cherson may have been conceded to Ukraine as a form of 'guarantee' that Russia will not make a bid for Odessa / Transnistria. — Tzeentch

The simple fact is what was already known for a long time: Russia has problem to supply the troops in Kherson region because of the chokepoints of the bridges across the Dniepr. The commanding Russian general Suvorikin acknowledged this: that it simply wasn't possible to supply the troops. Russia wouldn't sacrifice it's best troops, the paratroopers of the VDV for nothing. Yes, now the threat of Russia taking Odessa and contacting the forces in Transnistria has indeed subsided.

Exactly! They are correct within their confined/discrete context, of which their are larger ones that encompass them and deliver us a better description of the interrelationships between contradictions and truths. In essence, the process of learning.
I'm definitely in agreement with/following your logic here. — Benj96

I think the real problem arrives when there obviously should be the same premises, like in natural sciences. Some chemical reaction (etc.) happens or it doesn't, and it's not a matter of either point of view or that the topic is different. Even if you have different schools in sciences, they are still talking about the same objective reality. It's not a subjective matter like what food tastes good or what art is beautiful. Hence it cannot be that I have my chemistry and physics and you have yours: we don't live in alternative realities.

I'm not sure what was the problem with that???

Why indeed was it removed?

Before this is removed, I just like to comment:

So if you want to remove more contradictions, one must consider a greater magnitude of premises and associate them with one another. The bigger the picture one sees, the more sense individual peoples opinions and beliefs have in that context, and thus the more one can empathise with any of them (as empathy is based on understanding not ignoring). — Benj96

Yes, basically when we have a new way of looking at issues (or questions/problems), that is the easiest way for us to change the premises. It doesn't have to mean that the earlier thinking was wrong, it just that we didn't think about the issue from the new perspective.

It's expert, after expert, after expert, all denying your imbecilic claim that we don't need to worry about nuclear escalation. — Isaac

Again a strawman.

It's not that we shouldn't worry about escalation. I've pointed way earlier the potential danger of the "Escalate to De-escalate" -doctrine and the fact that Russia far before this war in it's large military exercises ended them usually with using the nuclear option that would end (or freeze) the conflict.

And is Putin's regime threatened? Nope. He still sits in the Kremlin. Nobody is invading Russia.

It's just your peace at all cost immediately sends the wrong information: if you are losing, your way out is to use nuclear blackmail. Isaac approved.

Going just to ad hominems shows that you don't know much if anything.

But I guess when your line has been to attack the Ukrainians as being neonazis and repeat Putin's line including the West being the culprit and aggressor in the conflict, even to ridicule the whole reasoning for Ukrainians to defend themselves from an aggressor (because we are all people and national borders don't matter), it's quite understandable that you then promote the idea that West should abandon Ukraine because Putin makes nuclear threats. Especially when Russia was forced out of the only regional capital it had taken (but still occupies about 15% of Ukrainian territory), peace at any cost.

Just shows that it's actors both the far left and the far right that support Putin in the West.

The primary problem in my view in the US is the two-party system. I think that Trump was symptom of this as is the "perpetual leftist candidacy" of Bernie Sanders. The real success of the two party system is that they have created "primaries" to act as if being part of the actual elections and the way for democracy to work (and the way to influence political change through these to fixed parties) is through them. Of course there are also other institutional obstacles made for third parties thank to the power of the duopoly, yet the biggest obstacle is in the hearts and minds of Americans.

For example "primaries" in Finland are basically a convention of a party, that then usually is one news story of the day when a presidential candidate is selected or the new chairperson of the party is chosen, who then is the potential prime minister candidate. Nobody gives a damn how various contenders inside the party have regional support in the party organization.

The stranglehold that the Democratic-Republican duopoly is shown in these elections too. Third parties only desperately seek attention by having Presidential candidates. There absence in the House and Senate is telling.

And my country doesn't have a real right wing party. All countries have a specific history that has molded the political landscape to be what it is, hence there doesn't exist something like a perfect spread of political parties across the spectrum anywhere. The two parties simply have gained a stranglehold of US politics, which Americans accept as given.

It is your notion that considering the need to avoid escalation is "absurd" that the citations are aimed against. — Isaac

You should understand how nuclear deterrence works.

And just how lousy the weapon is, actually.

It's funny how no one anywhere but in the US would ever consider voting Republican. The US political system is a tragedy. — Benkei

Put people into the shoes of Americans, and many would vote for Republicans. All those Bolzonaro's, Viktor Orban's etc. show that too much left liberal push might create a counterpush (and vice versa, of course).

And it might be that Republicans aren't going to vote for Trump in the next Presidential elections, perhaps they'll vote for DeSantis.

Unfortunately nearly every article behind a paywall. One article by Mearsheimer, well, he was right in the 1990's about Ukraine giving up it's nuclear weapons. And the UN article?

Surely they (the UN) plea for the fighting to stop, yet notice:

The Assembly has also expressed strong support for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution of the conflict through political dialogue, negotiation, mediation and other peaceful means, “with respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and in accordance with the principles of the Charter.”

Hence Russia should withdraw from the occupied territories. Furthermore:

She said the General Assembly had been clear that so-called referendums and attempted annexations of southern and eastern regions in Ukraine by Russia, had “no validity under international law and do not form the basis for any alteration of the status of these regions of Ukraine.”

And this is the issue: Russia has to withdraw from the occupied territories. Period

Otherwise the "De-escelation through escalation" principle is successful.

I'd be in favour of literally any agreement which ended the fighting. The less territory in Russian control the better though, so if they'd go for your intact, sovereign Ukraine, then great. — Isaac

Less territory the better, but in fact any agreement to end the fighting. Anything goes, yeah right.

Russia seems to be withdrawing from Kherson. At least that seems then to be better for Isaac. :wink:

A Good informative comment.

Of course we have to remember that during the late Soviet times " ideological messaging from the top was amorphous, inconstant and uninspiring, for the most part". We and others called it the Lithurgy. Communicating with Soviets was basically listening to these lithurgies, which basically was the way for Russians to speak and show as Soviets that they were on the party line. What they talked in their own kitchen among friends was totally different. And this has continued to the Putin era.

What we cannot know exactly is just how popular this present lithurgy is. It's still like neocons of G.W. Bush administration: they had a huge impact on US policies, but quickly faded away and became unpopular among the masses (especially after Trump among the Republican voters too). The present "war-party" ideologues in Russia are actually also a rather small cabal.

Of course, this imperialist ultra-nationalism needs desperately some kind of victory in Ukraine. Ukrainians will fight and as long as the West will assist this poor country, Ukraine can push Russia into a humiliating defeat, which likely will make the imperialists a laughing stock and justified culprits for this war.

Their only hope is that the West fails to do this, to support Ukraine. This can happen because of the absurd appeasing manner of fearing "escalation". Now Putin is supported only by the far right and the far leftists (as seen here on this forum), yet this mental block of fearing escalation might be the real hope for Putin. If Ukraine is pushed into an armstice on the present lines (or even with Kherson liberated and the front-line going on the Dniepr-river), it still will be a victory for Putin. Retaking Crimea would be possible for Ukraine only next year at the earliest.

As one commentator put it: the West support for Ukraine is strengthened by Ukrainian victories and Russian attrocities.

Obviously as there are so rare. But when you take all of the mass shootings, then you can obviously see that something has changed. Naturally just what of them are political is under debate.

And then there's of course the definition problem:

Compared to what era? I think the 60's and 70's were still far more violent.

Doesn't all this - threatening politicians - remind you of recent Batman movies? — Agent Smith

What recent Batman movies remind me was of the incredible scare that Joker would provoke people to riot. Well, it provoked people to go and see a good (which is extremely rare at the present) superhero (or supervillain) movie. Now days good movies seem for some to be toxic.

The preferable attack is by the "lone gunman", as obviously with a plot acted by more than one invites all the tools to combat terrorism thanks to the War on Terror. The murders of Mike McClellan (R) and Clementa Pickney (D), the 2017 Baseball field shooting and the attack on Gabrielle Gifford just show there is a long line of political violence in the US and it's not one sided. But it's not rampant.

At best, the elections can go without any violence, which can very well happen.

Inflammatory rant has been in US politics for a long time. That's not the problem. To live in an alternative reality is the problem.

The scary thing is if violence erupts. It's the fringe group toting arms that live in a fantasy World where the "Second Civil War" has already started. Too many automatic weapons in the hands of idiots. And if idiots from opposing sides just meet in the wrong place in the wrong time all hell can break loose. It really takes just a couple. And then the whole media environment is ready to blow it into something larger. The question will be who started it? Who shot first?




Political violence is a very sinister threat to any democracy, once it comes to be normal.

"Legitimate security concerns" is not fashionable anymore? — neomac

:100: :grin:

↪ssu, Putin's Russia sure regressed. :/ Not all Russians (I'd say), but the autocrat circle is in control. — jorndoe

This is true and sad. Hopefully the end will be such humiliating that the kind of nonsense will finally be brushed off. Yet that might be too much to hope.

I remember reading memoirs of a Finn written in the early 1920's that had served in the Imperial government in St. Petersburgh until the fall. He said he had met even Rasputin, but one his most damning remarks weren't at the Bolsheviks, but especially the Black Hundreds, which according to him were absolute poison for any sane and rational reform to happen, but lulled the Czarist regime to think that the people support them.

Russia has a long history of similar views of Putin and Patrushev (or Dugin). We often forget that either the Mensheviks or the Bolsheviks weren't the only play around in Russia when it had it's Revolution and especially before the revolutions. For example, the Chornaya sotnya, the Black Hundreds, promoted an ultra-conservative right-wing idealism which supported the House of Romanov, was against any reforms to the autocracy of the Tzar and favoured ultra-nationalism and anti-semitism. Some of the sycophants of Putin's regime seem like them. And of course, in today's Russia the movement has been refounded. And btw. the movement participated in the early stages of the Russo-Ukrainian War on the side of pro-Russian separatists.




I think the Russian tragedy is in the Slavophile attitude of seeing everything "Western" as bad and dangerous to the "true Russian state and Russian heritage". That the West is there to destroy every good in Russia. It's all a huge conspiracy against Russia to destroy Russia and the Russians.

Perhaps the cause for this is that modernization, or Westernization, has been forced by a violent system starting with Peter the Great and other autocratic regimes. And when autocrats force with an iron fist modernization however bening in the end, the way it's introduced is the problem. Because I think just as Greece, Russia and Russian culture is part of the West.

A far more deadlier conflict came hopefully to an end with successful peace talks just now. Ukraine likely hasn't yet reached similar numbers of killed.

A conflict that the media had forgotten. The sides in the Ethiopian civil war came to an agreement.

However for those hypocrites who say they are for peace, but in fact de facto support Putin in this conflict (because they are against the West and don't care a fuck about anything else), it should be noticed just how and why a settlement was reached in the Ethiopian civil war. In short: The government won the war. But it could also face a continued insurgency, which would be even more disastrous for Tigray and the whole country. Hence both sides called it quits. At least for now.

A short but thorough examination how this was done, especially the peace terms are laid out:



Hence when talking about either an armstice or peace in Ukraine, one has to understand that the situation on the battlefield is the only reason both sides will make it. Just like in Ethiopia.

Neither observations have the slightest relevance too the inanity of your suggestion that the risk of nuclear war "isn't all that bad" because we got away with it last time. — Isaac

And the assumption that because Russia has nuclear weapons, it can invade other sovereign countries and we can't even give these countries aid to defend themselves is simply stupidity. Or insanity.

Communication between the nuclear superpowers has deteriorated a great deal. The diplomacy that existed a few decades ago no longer exists. If there were already several extremely close calls back then, it stands to reason that we're in an even more delicate situation now that communication is gone. — _db

I'm not so sure of that, actually. US officials have been in contact with their counterparts.

(BBC 21st October 2022) US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu spoke on Friday, the two countries confirmed.

Both sides said the situation in Ukraine was discussed.

It is the first time they have spoken since a call on 13 May.

After Friday's call, Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told the BBC that the US was "eager to keep lines of communication open".

"It has been since May since the two gentlemen spoke, so Secretary Austin took today as an opportunity to connect with Minister Shoigu," he said.

Russia's defence ministry said that "current questions of international security were discussed, including the situation in Ukraine".

We forget just how little interaction there actually was during the Cold War. There weren't many times, for example, that the US and Soviet leaders met.

For example, Carter and Brezhnev:

(May 16th, 1979 WP) Almost 2 1/2 years after taking office, President Carter finally met Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev today, and both immediately agreed that is was long overdue.

In reporting the exchange on the eve of their first formal summit session Saturday, U.S. officials said both Carter and Brezhnev indicated that their next meeting should take place much sooner.

Gorbachev was the first Soviet leader that Reagan met in his second term in 1985. He didn't meet Andropov or Chernenko. Then there had been eight years that the leaders of the two Superpowers had met.

A Republican controlled Congress won't eat alive Joe. Not literally and not even in a figure of speech.

We don't have to go further than 2015-2017 to have a situation with a democratic president and both houses being in control of the Republicans. And the other way it was with George W Bush in 2007-2009. So this isn't anything new, if it happens.

The simple fact is that not much then will be done and assuming it's not Trump that the GOP takes on to be their candidate, it's a real possibility that Biden will have a four year presidency. A present day Jimmy Carter.

Yet with Trump, he's something that will activate and energize enough hatred among Americans that he won't be elected (and Biden might have a second turn). Something that happened when the Democrats chose the wife of a previous democrat president to run for the position, when enough Republicans remembered all the scandals of that previous administration.

Well, thinking of "pathologically stealing or harming others" seems to have the idea in it that ethics can be universal and absolute. In many cases it is so.

Yet even rationality, that actions are logical depends the logical system. And the premises. After all, it's quite rational to defend yourself. And so, just where you put the line between justified defense, excessive defense or unethical defense, when a "pre-emptive attack" isn't justified. As the saying the saying goes, best defense can to be to attack.

Seems that James Webb telescope is in heavy use, new interesting images:

Scientists are looking at light from the universe’s first and oldest star clusters in a new deep field image sent by the James Webb Space Telescope.

Deep field images are captured when powerful telescopes like Webb and the Hubble Space Telescope point their lenses toward dark spots in space between visible stars and leave the lenses open long enough to capture images.

These latest images show galaxies from the farthest parts of the universe including one 9 billion light-years away, reports say. Each one of them holds millions of stars.

Is it possible to be a criminal, and also rational, in the strictest sense of the word? — Pantagruel

Laws defines criminals.

Speaking of a war existing between Ukraine and Russia is criminal in Russia.

So yes, you can be totally rational and a criminal. Besides, I don't think rational and ethical are synonymous.

In fact, hang it, why don't we just invade Russia? After all, what was the battle of Stalingrad really, but a lot of high jinx? — Isaac

For Ukraine to defend itself from an Russian attack is different from NATO attacking Russia.

But if you listen to Putin, it seems to be the same.

↪neomac ↪Isaac I think the discussion about legitimacy is irrelevant. Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression, answer: yes. At any cost? No. The only difference of opinion on this thread is when that yes becomes a no. Avoid nuclear war is obvious, the evaluation of what actions increase that risk is not. Then there are knock-on effects like causing an energy crisis that hurts the poorest all across Europe. Is it worth that? There are plenty of people divided on that. — Benkei

I think the escalation to WW3 is severely overstated. It seems as if people have long forgotten that similar wars where on one Super Power's enemy was eagerly supported by the other Super Power were more of the norm in the Cold War. In the Korean War the Soviet Air Force and the USAF fought each other over the skies of North Korea, and both sides just kept it as a secret.

Even if Kherson falls to Ukraine, it's not a desperate situation for Putin.

Besides,

I've noticed not much enthusiasm for the incoming elections here.

Might the Republicans get both houses? What do people think?

Well, the inflation finally came, even if it wasn't supposed to happen at all in an deflationary environment. And wasn't so transitory as suggested.

So things kind of things that people have anticipated for decades might actually happen.

But yeah, permabear scaremongering has it's audience always, at least for soothing pessimists that they are right.