You mean, you were smart once? — Olivier5

The game is played now, the score is tallied in 300 to 1000 years.

It's not really so much about being smart, although that certainly helps, it's about the right ideas for the right moment.

And I didn't make the rules, it just so happens foundational concepts get reviewed and added to seldomly. Why? is a good foundational question to ask.

Sure thing, as long as they don't pin it on me. — Olivier5

Look, I'm just "a guy" who found at around 12—after reading all the popular physics books I could find, the complete history of WWII and Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy—Isaiah Berlin's "The Power of Ideas" .... and thought to myself, "I can play this game, nothing they can do I can't do better." Just as the motivational posters instructed me to do, you know "reach for the stars" and "follow your dreams" or whatever.

And you and I are part of that 'very short list', you think? Or are you rather saying that we are part of some universal idea exchange fair? — Olivier5

Who knows these things.

In any event, it's a handful of Chinese sages centuries from now who get to decide.

Advising people is a business. Amateurs don't advise professionals. We are all amateurs here, are we not? — Olivier5

@Benkei is a lawyer, @Isaac is a shrink of some sort, and I'm a board director of corporations.

You can of course write down the words: 'I advise Biden to do X'. That you can do. But chances are your 'advice' ain't going to get to him. Because he receives a lot of advice, from other people than you. He pays dear money and far more attention to their advice than to yours and mine. As good as it may be... — Olivier5

You underestimate the infectiousness of ideas, the complexity of the world's social network, and humanity's response to new information.

Just because it's easier today ... doesn't somehow mean there's less impact of anonymous pamphleteers than there was in the enlightenment.

Look around you: everything you see, every tool used to build it, every plan to put it in motion and connect it with other things, every unfathomably long list of goals everything you see represents, and every political and ethical framework in which anything happens in society at all, was once an idea in one person's head.

Furthermore, if you trace all these ideas that you see to their real root, the "original" and not just a variation or implementation of some pre-existing vision, the real preconditions of human
thought and activity, what will you find? That all these truly foundational ideas originated in a handful of philosophers and mathematicians.

Why are we even talking about nuclear weapons? The damned mathematicians that brought us here, and not just the prerequisite theory for the Manhattan project: But all the way back to Babylon. A relatively short list of truly revolutionary mathematical minds.

If you dig below the surface, you'll find we live in the heads of a tiny group of people, their dreams and their madness.

I have not given advice to anyone. NATO, the EU, none of the actors you mentioned is reading TPFand they have not asked for our advice. — Olivier5

Ok ... so if I understand correctly you are in favour of certain actions but are not advising those actions you're in favour of be carried out?

To be clear, I have zero problem saying I am in favour of diplomatic resolution and I do indeed advise all parties to try to reach a diplomatic resolution as soon as possible and the foundations of an enduring peace.

I advise this here, I also advised this (well, avoid war in Eastern Europe in the first place) to my government in a letter I wrote the prime minister 2 years ago. Some hapless bureaucrat wrote back.

They didn't take my advice ... but who knows, maybe they will next time. Luckily, since I live in a democratic society (at least the aristocratic population of a larger "democracy" Athenians would actually recognise) where I can affect policy, I'm able, indeed, to advise politicians and bureaucrats directly and perhaps affect their thinking for the better. What's relevant in such political action are the policies of my country, indeed sometimes with respect to the policies of other countries, but what's less relevant is internal matters of other countries that have no real external policy response to change ... except maybe nuking them.

We could still discover new sides of him, but yes, there might be some truth there. However, nobody is eternal, and no regime is eternal either. — Olivier5

This is the usual route to democratisation. Someone concentrates all or a lot of power and, what goes along with that, is that no one in the second echelon has despotic ambitions.

And, Putin as a "dictator" is a caricature; Putin still needs to work within a political system with lots of actors and even democratic process. Certainly has concentrated power, but Putin's power within Russia is simply not comparable to Kim's power with North Korea or Xi's power within China.

Also of note, Putin only started really concentrating power, and doing things like changing the constitution, when the CIA took Medvedev (a moderate) as a sign of weakness and first, to Putin's surprise, declared Georgia and Ukraine would "join NATO one day" (still waiting on that), "interpreted" a "no fly zone" (which used to mean what it sounds like: you can't fly there, but can, like, walk as that's not flying) and then set their sights on Tartus.

Medvedev negotiated the new START treaty for example ... not an escalatory action.

Also of note, following the Georgian war and escalation of tensions with the US and West in general, Putin consolidated power and replaced the second echelon with non-moderates; nevertheless, he still appointed the moderates to important positions (at least nominally), such as Medvedev to the chairman of the security council ... which is more a re-balancing of policy priorities, that still includes moderate voices, than some sort of purge. Certainly not the typical actions of a "despot", such as Sadam Hussein who had his generals executed for retreating from a unwinnable suicidal battle.

I.e. concentrating and consolidating power was a response (whether we see it as a good decision or bad) to a real external threat, which the US isn't coy about calling Russia the enemy and the "near peer competitor" that they can't leave alone and so on.

Previous to the Libya, Syria, Crimea plays (in addition to all sorts of cloak and dagger spy shit we can only guess about) ... Russia, and Putin, was literally minding their own business. Ok, maybe things can be improved there but like ... seems the same everywhere and that there are a lot worse governments, that behead people in public and shit.

In any-case, democratisation usually happens after the death or retirement of a strong man, because he surrounded himself with competent or then incompetent bureaucratic types that don't have the ambition to replace him ... so don't bother when the opportunity arises, and so they then get together and decide elections is the way they all don't die in some sequence of violent coups. And, it was mostly about having sex with women, and being killed in a coup seems contrary to that purpose.

Of course, there are exceptions like North Korea, but this has been accomplished by essentially creating a functionally king ideology, idiosyncratic to Korean culture.

Now that IS interesting. The current leadership has been saying again and again recently, in various official statements, that a desintegration of Russia or a threat on its regime could trigger a nuclear holocaust. And now you seem to be arguing the exact same talking point. — Olivier5

It's not "arguing" a "talking point".

It's an undisputed fact that people who can launch nuclear weapons ... can launch nuclear weapons.

That "it could trigger a nuclear holocaust" is not up for debate.

One can only argue they're bluffing and advocate calling their bluff.

However, even if they are bluffing, they may not be in charge anyways for long during the events you hope for, and the people that do become in charge of the the nukes turn out not to be bluffing, even if the previous custodians were.

... indeed, maybe they would be "the previous custodians" precisely because they were bluffing, and, therefore, that "mistake" shouldn't be repeated.

If I understand correctly, the idea is NOT that they could use nukes in Ukraine if things go south there, as CNN wrongly (IMO) concluded. — Olivier5

Obviously they could.

However, it's extremely unlikely for things to "go south" in the current situation.

This scenario was more in the event of direct NATO air power intervention, which most analysts agreed would be met with a nuclear escalation of some sort (from limited strike or then EMP reaching all the way to Norway). Escalate to deescalate as @ssu mentioned is Russian policy.

What I am hearing in all these recent pronouncements, including in yours, is a different message which says: If this particular regime goes down, e g. by a revolution, then the whole world might go down with it through a nuclear holocaust. — Olivier5

Yes, because it's obviously possible, and even the likely bet, because chaotic revolution and regimes collapsing rarely actually results in a smooth peaceful transition to democracy, but instead triggers a series of more and more violent coups shaking out the most extreme, most violent, most ruthless and most couiest commander to the top.

Putin, who did not gain power by a coup but rather working the Russian political system as it exists, is, in such a scenario, the devil you know and should trust to not himself cause nuclear holocaust, as if he wanted to he would have done so already.

In a violent revolution it will not be Putin in charge. The Kremlin maybe signalling not a threat, just the likely outcome of themselves no longer being in charge, which is what regime change means! For fuck sakes. Crikey.

It's not "what would you do in the event of regime change?" it's "what would the most violent and ruthless commander you know do in the event you guys are no longer in charge to stop him?"

These are obviously scenarios that should weigh on any responsible person's mind.

I suspect the real reason is more prosaic. If it is not for him to give them advice, it might be that the opposite is the case: they give him 'advice'. — Olivier5

You want a violent revolution in Russia with blood pouring in the streets?

If this then, in itself triggers WWIII and nuclear exchange, or then hundreds of nuclear warheads go missing on the black market in a chaotic unraveling of the Russian state, finding their way into the hands of every radical group and despot that can get their hands on one, are you really owning those consequences? Is it really what you want?

Or then transforms into a civil war within Russia and, guess what, the commander willing to not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons prevails ... and continues with that philosophy to solve whatever other regional conflict emerges ... or is concurrently happening in Ukraine and just daring NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike in an irrational response to tactical nuclear weapons dropped on non-NATO countries? You rather that outcome? You ready to own that possibility?

Or does it just sound tough to say on the internet and you zero have affect on the situation anyways, zero choices that would actually demonstrate your moral toughness, and zero personal risk "advising" your Russian friends to "revolt"?

The only reason people are so cavalier, as one poster put it, with World War III is that either they simply don't consider that possible outcome at all and have no idea what the fuck they're talking about, or they know actual adults elsewhere will avoid things escalating to that point, based on the realist philosophies expounded here, and so there's no risk in saber rattling and demonstrating your war horny credentials on the internet meanwhile. To say later to internet friends that "you were there, ready to drop nukes on Russia to save Ukraine ... but the softies had their way."

It could be counterproductive for Putin to pressure Lukashenko to join the war even more. — ssu

Yes, we're in agreement. If anything, I think it would be more Lukashenko wanting "to jump in" and demonstrate what he can do, and Putin calming him down, seeing the wider context ... and Belarus in the fight not changing much anyways.

You are not afraid of giving them advice, and also to the Americans or the French, but you are afraid of advising the Russians. Strange that... :-) — Olivier5

This has simply not been a topic of discussion.

You have been morally condemning the Russians and advising the Ukrainians to fight the Russians, and advising NATO and EU to keep sending more arms.

You just claimed a few comments ago Russia is irrational ... so what's the point of advising an irrational party?

You literally post a letter a few comments ago, literally some 3000 comments into this discussion, that, as far as I'm aware, is the first content advising the Russians to do anything ... which is not even your writing and it directly contradicts your "opinions" repeated, but not supported, over dozens of comments.

I have zero fear advising the Russians ... I just don't see any here or around me to advise.

Bring me "The Russians" and you will see a fearless viceroy at work.

One possible way the conflict could become larger is if the fighting would have Belarus involved. — ssu

This seems unlikely for the simple fact that Belarus is not so stable internally and they add little firepower anyways compared to Russia (i.e. the risk of revolution within Belarus sparked by soldiers dying who aren't "volunteers" ... and then Russia needing to commit resources to deal with that, likely far exceeds the military benefits).

Ukraine can also far easier strike/invade Belarus than Russia, so there would be that purely military risk in an official declaration of war.

However, militaries are always searching for "experience" so likely these "volunteers" are a way to get best of both worlds for soldiers that are itching for the fight and their whole social circle concludes they got what was coming to them if they die, rather than the entire state needs to be over thrown.

There's also the fact of Belarus bordering Poland, so an official declaration of war could mean Ukraine invade Belarus on the Polish border, baiting NATO into the conflict and also severe escalation of tensions.

For the exact same list of reasons, but just the answer being the reverse, it makes more sense to bring Syria into it, which apparently has happened to some degree.

Well then, you can't really comment on Littell's letter, because it's not about what non-Russians can do. — Olivier5

I can comment, I just can't say if what he suggests to do is actually the best course of action.

Or then, if by "revolt" against authoritarianism could mean just anything effective, ok, I agree, but what's actually effective is the key question, and the general advice is the mere tautology that "Russians should do good things" ... as we all.

What I can say with more certainty is that "we in the West" haven't figured it out.

We have "democracy" ... but not over the entire political and economic system as a whole that our states effectively "rule", in our name and with our "consent": We have democracy over here and get our products and resources from tyrannies over there.

Seems more like geographically segregated aristocracy.

When you say 'we' you mean pro-Putin guys like you, or some other group? — Olivier5

We non-Russians.

Stick to what Russians themselves can do, as this is the subject of the letter. — Olivier5

I spend a lot more time thinking about what I can do, and I have spent very little time on what Russians should do.

However, history teaches us there is no straightforward path to peace and prosperity.

If radical revolutionaries were always correct in revolting ... I'm pretty sure history would teach us the revolution has already happened and everything is great now.

Hmm, indeed, maybe Russia's own history demonstrates the danger of that idea.

The reason I call myself an anarchist, and not a communist, is that I do not believe in the revolutionary moment tradition. Things seem to me far more complicated. Predictable, but complicated.

I also do not believe in capturing the state to "make people better". People are far too avid and corrupt for that.

How to make life better in Russia is not a simple question, I know little of the culture and what affect any given action may actually have, and what is actually productive and what is in fact counter productive and a mere quaint gesture for one's own emotional satisfaction (the cowards way out).

However, how to make life in Ukraine better is far easier question to answer: negotiate an end to the war.

And, negotiation is something I know far more about than how to provoke regime change in Russia via revolt in a way that results in more democracy and not something even worse.

If you want to talk about that letter, do address what is actually said in the letter, rather than other stuff that has nothing to see with it. — Olivier5

I've made it pretty clear that I don't like authoritatianism ... but, precisely due to the nature of authoritarianism that I don't like, we have very little influence over the Kremlin and Putin.

Not only do we have far more influence in more democratic countries, but, on top of that practical fact, I, personally, feel morally responsible to contribute to the policies of my own country and my country's own political organisations like the EU, than personally morally responsible for what Russians and Putin does.

If I thought life in Russia was great, I'd move there.

The West could let Ukraine into the EU tonight.

NATO could let Ukraine into NATO tonight.

These options have been ruled out, and so the choice is between diplomacy and ... maybe just letting Russia win through force if nothing short of boots on the ground and planes in the sky actually makes a difference to the outcome.

If diplomacy is the better choice, then diplomacy starts with understanding the counter-parties point of view and not just ignoring their grievances and calling them names and exaggerating their power and threat to us, while simultaneously exaggerating their mistakes and short comings.

As I've mentioned repeatedly in my exchange with @ssu, maybe the Russian lines and state will collapse tomorrow, and, if the Western media and everyone on the forum was just predicting Russia's inevitable victory, then I'd be here arguing that (even though I can't see it based on my own military experience) that "maybe" Ukraine has some military surprise and maybe things just fall apart militarily and domestically for the Russians.

We don't know. Therefore, different points of view are more useful, from my point of view, than the point of view that other points of view should be excluded because they maybe correct and pointing that out makes that view point even more likely than it already is.

We do not know the facts on the grounds, but if we want some diplomatic process then we need a sober analysis of what information we do have and what it may represent and how other people may see the same information, in particular the people we wish to negotiate with.

A month ago we were essentially promised the collapse of the Russian military, due to morale problems, and revolution in the streets of Moscow. So why negotiate with a state that will be gone tomorrow? Unless, you know, that was bullshit to egg Ukraine on into total war.

Negotiation requires risk evaluation. The Western media simply bad mouthing Russia for a month and continuously lambasting Russia for failure as they take territory ... is not, in my view, a good risk-analysis framework, and likewise essentially excluding all other points of views but just parading yes-men retired generals (who have no more facts than us!) is not a basis for critical scrutiny to assess the likelihood of what they predict.

Additionally, negotiation requires some rational model of the counter-parties decision making, otherwise it's impossible to make offers and counter offers that are likely to arrive at an agreement.

Modest reasons for optimism. Russian minister of offence has promised to decrease military activity as a gesture of good faith resulting from the discussions in Istanbul today. Let's hope they keep their word and peace talks are indeed constructive. — Benkei

Agreed.

This may also be a sign of calling out the West and Zelenskyy on the referendum idea.

If there is a referendum on Russia's demands ... and wins ... that does indeed settle the issue for basically ever.

Likewise, how does that jive with the "Russia is anti-democratic" narrative if they call for and "respect" a referendum result?

If they pull back from Kiev, and fronts stabilise, then they are now in the position of making their offer and just publicly demanding Zelenskyy hold a referendum as he said he would. Cue fireworks.

The destruction of Azov in Mariupol may also embolden anti-Azov sections of Ukrainian society.

It should also be noted that although Zelenskyy down plays Azov, it's not the case that they're best friends. There's a bunch of stories / rumours of Zelenskyy trying to reason with the Azov guys to stop the 8 year war in the East. So, not actually liking Azov is maybe some common ground between Zelenskyy's personal beliefs and the Russians, and if a lot of the Azov guys are dead, that may bring some stability to the situation as well.

But, I hope for any resolution of the destruction, however it is achieved.

Conditions do seem being put in place for a resolution, but of course it's never possible to know who is being genuine or if events (accidental or not) set escalation off again.

The letter is not mine. — Olivier5

I literally mention the author by name in my response.

However, if it's not views you agree with, then you should make that clear, that, for example, you disagree on Putin's ability to subjugate Russians all that much, as the Kremlin, military and intelligence organs of the Russian state are incompetent.

He is predicting much sufferings for Russians if they don't get rid of Mr Putin now. — Olivier5

Ok, so let's go along with this new assumption that your main concern, or at least a big concern, is the welfare of the Russian people.

Well, what can we do about it?

Won't filling Ukraine with hand held missiles just anger Putin more, and he'll then takeout that anger on Russian's contribute to more Russian suffering, not to mention the Russians blown up by said missiles?

In particular, if those hand held missiles can't beat Russia ... what reason would there be to send those weapons systems into Ukraine if it only causes Russian suffering with zero benefits to Ukrainians?

Since we've started making predictions, let us hear what Jonathan Littell predicts... It's harsh. — Olivier5

... Two years ago I wouldn't say is "starting" to do something now.

But I don't see what Jonathan Littell is actually predicting ... and you can't have it both ways, arguing that Russia has made an incompetent fool of themselves militarily and Ukraine is winning, and then the next moment argue Russia is an unstoppable juggernaught that's going to roll through all of NATO and Putin will rule us all and so we must act out of self preservation.

With a little 'if NATO made a no-fly zone, like Zalenskyy asks!, could easily dispatch with these low-moral, badly trained, terrible logistics, rubbish tank, Russians; no match for NATO!' sprinkled in here and there.

If Russian military is totally incompetent and the campaign is a disaster, I certainly have nothing to fear, personally, that Putin will "come looking for me", whether Putin eventually prevails against the Ukrainians or not.

You're a bit late to predicting this future. My wife has been warning us all of the same things for three decades. — Olivier5

Then why are you talking instead of your wife?

Someone who is able to say:

14. Service economies will collapse as credit dries up. Manufacturing will radically simplify, but countries with modest manufacturing capacity will be forced to protect their manufacturing due to over-capacity of larger manufacturing centers trying to shift production to "anything and everything that is still being bought somewhere"; the interdependence of manufacturing economies will make such policy shifts acrimonious and volatile.

15. Bottom line: isolationism as we saw in the great depression is now unavoidable, with all tools in the policy shed hemmed in and blunted by inflation.

16. World War would be great to just nationalize whole manufacturing bases and get people jobs in the business of killing people and use the nationalist furor to crush socialist agitation that's trying to help the poor, but nuclear weapons render this no longer "the go to" easy solution for capitalism's woes. It will still be tried, of course, using conflicts to get people focused on something else, but with unknown efficacy / survival of the human species. — boethius

Connected to a wider body of analysis.

Two years ago—before massive bailouts, bone throwing, and the predicted inflation when bailout money "returns"—before any of that even happened.

Does not have "opinions".

Such a person literally sees into the future.

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are. You are peddling the message that they know what they are doing. I just think they don't. — Olivier5

Sure, unsupported opinion noted

"How about becoming a neutral henhouse?" — Olivier5

The problem in your picture there, is that the bear can do and say what it wants in that scenario.

Nothing looks reasonable here, on the Russian side. It's all about war crimes, power trips, incompetence, and keeping a zombified political system alive. You are looking way too hard for rationality where it may not exist. — Olivier5

If you bother to go and understand anything about geopolitics before weighing in on a geo-political issue, then you may start to see there could be reasons for the actions of powerful institutions. Doesn't mean there aren't risks, but proving someone, much less an entire institution, is "irrational" is a large hurdle and can only be proven by disproving all rational models that could resolve apparent contradictions, not only in what someone or some institution says, but more importantly in their genuine belief (which they may not report accurately for our analytical convenience).

Only the West (basically US, EU, Australia and Canada) have imposed sanctions on Russia. Obviously China hasn't, but neither India.

The geopolitical outcome of this war is cleaving off the developing world from the western dominated system.

Only Westerners view this war as "the small, brave and intrepid Ukraine under their own steam, fighting off the haughty Russian Army".

Everyone else views this war as Russia against the West, against NATO.

A large part of the rest of the world perceives the West as the bully, and Russia is now making a stand against that bully.

It's a risk, but if Russia survives politically and economically, Putin remains in power and Russia reorients its economy and just sells its resources to China and India and other developing nations. What's going to happen?

Total collapse of the US as a super power.

US is not a military empire, it is a financial empire. US military roll in the American Empire is that it's strong enough to topple nearly any medium sized government at will. Libya talks of an African bank and gold backed African monetary policy: Libya is now a failed state.

However, this is a wack-a-mole endeavour. If Africans did just come together to shirk off neo-colonialism, then the US cannot actually go and conquer all of Africa.

So, what is Russia doing really?

It's demonstrating the US financial, covert and military threats can be beaten. It's proving to the non-Western world that there's a economic and political system that now exists that the US can't just topple over into a failed state at will.

For all governments of the world that do not perceive themselves as benefiting from the Western system, but paying tribute instead, Russia is currently demonstrating an alternative.

For example, what does China actually get with its trade with the US? It gets US treasury bills.

There is simply a logical limit to how many US treasury bills China could possibly want.

Maybe China has simply had its fill of T-bills and now wants something else, real wealth, in exchange for what it offers. Russia is making that world come true.

What people fail to take into consideration is that the ex-Soviet intelligence types may have learned something from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and see the US as having the same weaknesses: too much internal dissatisfaction, too much debt, too much propaganda, and old decrepit elites that can't adapt.

Can we really say Russia is more corrupt when it used it's wealth to build up hundreds of billions of Euro and USD and tons of gold in reserve (public wealth) ... while the West transfers trillions of USD and Euros to the investor class as no-strings-attached "payment" for crashing the financial system due to "regulatory capture". Reward for destroying the credibility and stability of financial system upon which the West's power rested ... and crony capitalism writ large, banking and mega-corporation bailouts, is the direct cause of the current inflation and Wests' weakness?

The US imposed "collectivist" lockdowns for the "common good" ... and then evicted people from their homes on an industrial scale. That's really less corrupt?

More importantly, Mr Putin himself followed your advice. Ain't you proud? — Olivier5

Is it more important?

It takes two to tango my friend.

They are in damage control mode right now, saying they didn't really cared for Kiev now that they have been repelled from there, and after having sacrificed thousands of lives to try and get there... :smirk: — Olivier5

Again, every single Western analyst, generals and academics alike, told us the Russians have not amassed a force large enough to occupy and passify all of Ukraine and that Urban combat will be a massive cost to the Russian military.

At the time, both I and @Isaac, pointed out that maybe Russia knows that and their strategy is therefore not to occupy all of Ukraine, but just blowup a significant part of their military and take a land bridge to Crimea.

Also, Russia knows about the fanatical neo-Nazis and that the CIA has been training and equipping fanatical forces just as in Syria, why would the playbook change (which, however many they are, for sure will fight an insurrection) ... so, again, maybe they therefore never intended to occupy the entire country.

If Russia simply never intended to engage in intense Urban combat to take Kiev, then just going right up to Kiev and stopping there is a good strategy: keeps focus and resources on the capital and also has immense psychological affect on leadership.

Now, would they have rather Ukraine just capitulate? Obviously. But considering they only committed less than half their forces in the initial invasion ... it's reasonable to conclude that they had a plan B of "warfare" if the less-than-half force didn't provoke complete capitulation after starting a full scale invasion.

That was already a failure to start with: no clear goals, so you have soldiers asked to sacrifice their lives for... well... everything and nothing. — Olivier5

We don't know what they think.

They may know what they think and have very clear goals.

To achieve their goals, using warfare, may include deception to keep us guessing about what they are trying to do (so that our actions are counter productive).

If the Kremlin actually wants a Schism in the West, and all Western actions have so far simply consolidated the Kremlin's power within Russia as well as the international system, then ... our policies are helping the Kremlin achieve its goals, not dissuading them nor punishing them.

Already there is inflation (thanks to the insane monetary policies), and this will make it worse. — ssu

... I seem to remember discussing inflation and it's impact on the global system a couple of years ago.

Literally 2 years ago, 17, 03, 2020:

Now that the important philosophical subject of how trades are executed on stock exchanges has been investigated, I propose we move onto the general topic of corona virus and the stock market.

My understanding of the situation is as follows:

1. Corona is causing massive disruptions to most sectors of the economy: collapse of air travel and tourism for an unknown time, closing of local restaurant and entertainment and every other "in person" businesses for an extended period, many old people dying which will put more homes on the market, disruptions to supply chains due to manufacturing shutdowns in China, and long term psychological based changes in behaviour, damage to health systems (mainly skills dying or being so traumatized that they quit during or afterwards), and all related supply industries.

2. The positions taken by central banks to paper-over the 2009 "great recession" have not been unwound.

3. There are no more tools available (nor the prospect of until now "unthought of" tools) that can encourage traders to believe the free market will be stabilized by collectivists schemes of one form or another.

4. Therefore, any market actions by regulators of central banks will simply encourage people in the know to use those actions to get out even faster (not anticipate those actions will actually work and therefore stay in).

5. Large businesses will be bailed out anyways, even if long term structural changes to the economy mean there are no viable paths back to profitability.

6. Large sectors of the US economy, such as the fracking industry, have essentially never turned a profit and are faced with an economic down turn and a Russia and Saudi price reduction to force them into bankruptcy. Bailing the fracking industry out cannot even be imagined to make sense; they may actually be left hanging due to problems elsewhere being simply too great for friends to look after each other. (but this is an analytic side-quest to maximize one's schadenfreude at the expense of fracking executives and investors, and yes, a little bit at the expense of fracking workers too; but of course, doesn't help the financial system to have a giant rotten lemon on their desks as no one drinks rotten lemonade, except the fed of course)

7. Therefore, the central banks and regulators, by monetizing one way or another, trillions in losses will cash-up the investor class and be left holding what is technically referred to as "a big bag of dog shit".

8. This cash reentering the market when things are stabilized will cause massive inflation of whatever good assets remain.

9. There are no policy tools left (I am of aware of anyways) that could counter-act this inflation (US is already in trillion dollar deficit, 1.5 trillion "plausible deniability bailout" is already started in first week of this crisis and there will be much more, interest rates are zero or negative, the deficit will go even higher, and the fed will stop reporting on their financial alchemy projects).

10. We can reasonably conclude that inflation therefore will not be controlled (i.e. controlled less than the current policy mechanisms as well as just changing the definition of "what people need" on the fly).

11. International trade will start to collapse back to "real assets" (do you have something tangible I want, do I have something tangible that you want), rather than the previous regime of debt based trade (well, debts haven't been a problem before, therefore I will continue to pretend they will never be a problem in the future).

12. Referring back to tangible assets will be a radical simplification of the current trade system (not clear if there will be markets for most of the crap currently produced).

13. Regulators will realize at this point that there is no way to reboot the system without even more inflation since they just gave most of the money to the wealthy ... and have been doing so for the last decade already (and trickle down theories obviously make no sense, so the money will sit there but ready to pounce on any assets that do start to go up in price if the governments do try to bailout the poor through small "throw them a bone" inadequate measures, as horrifying as that sounds they will be forced to face their deepest fears of needing to throw those bones).

14. Service economies will collapse as credit dries up. Manufacturing will radically simplify, but countries with modest manufacturing capacity will be forced to protect their manufacturing due to over-capacity of larger manufacturing centers trying to shift production to "anything and everything that is still being bought somewhere"; the interdependence of manufacturing economies will make such policy shifts acrimonious and volatile.

15. Bottom line: isolationism as we saw in the great depression is now unavoidable, with all tools in the policy shed hemmed in and blunted by inflation.

16. World War would be great to just nationalize whole manufacturing bases and get people jobs in the business of killing people and use the nationalist furor to crush socialist agitation that's trying to help the poor, but nuclear weapons render this no longer "the go to" easy solution for capitalism's woes. It will still be tried, of course, using conflicts to get people focused on something else, but with unknown efficacy / survival of the human species. — boethius

Policy makers in the West have gone off script a tad bit here and there, but more or less just followed my advice these past 2 years, and definitely had the end point clearly in focus (strategy is very much an eye on the prize kind of undertaking, as I've previously mentioned).

And they didn't even pay me for it!

That's just how generous of a person I am.

They did largely prop-up the fracking industry, but frackers downsized rig counts and imposed austerity on themselves. And we're all now happy they did prop up the frackers, to be able to sell far more expensive gas to Europe now that there's the predictable "brink of WWIII" and new cold war, to depress Europe's economy over the long term and remove them as a significant player on the world stage.

Already EU leaders are so weak with nearly all their previous influence removed, that Biden can just speak on their behalf; CIA doesn't even need to tell them what to say anymore.

What should be noted that the dismal performance in the start of this invasion is mainly due to the poor assumptions that Ukrainians wouldn't fight, which was an intelligence failure. — ssu

Although this could be accurate, again I feel the need to debate it.

Agreed, total capitulation is what Putin, Kremlin and the Russia military would prefer (who wouldn't).

However, if you look at events on the ground, they go uncontested from Crimea, basically the first day to take Kherson and first couple days to link up with their forces in the East. These were insanely quick manoeuvres, and achieved 2 critical strategic objectives of taking a position South-West of the Dnieper, thus requiring Ukrainians to commit a large amount of troops to guarding a long defensive line to avoid Ukraine being cut North-South ... instead of a small amount of troops if they just blew-up all the bridges or defended Kherson with urban combat resulting in a prolonged siege.

From a military perspective, these are super critical strategic objectives and achieved incredibly quickly.

You have to compare this to the "risk" situation where Ukraine blows up the bridges out of Crimea and pin down Russian forces there and then Ukrainians Eastern front is far easier to hold, Mariupol (symbol of Azov battalion, of which the destruction is a stated justification for the war, and capturing Azov guys with swastika tattoo may not play get attention in the West, but maybe a different story in Russia).

Certainly, the "best case scenario" didn't happen for the Russians, and losses have been heavy (maybe far heavier than they anticipated), but they have largely achieved what they said they set out to achieve.

It is reasonable to assume that they focused on what was most critical in planning, and likely had setup before hand capitulation of border guards, cities and so on.

Not only military objectives, but the immediate cutoff and siege of Mariupol is a critical political objective, as traps Azov brigade which simply has plenty of members with Nazi tattoos ... so capturing a bunch and prosecuting them (non-regular forces, so not not really POW's and have zero POW rights) is an immense political win. Already, there's an American journalist that has reported a woman found with a Swastika painted in blood on her stomach ... and these guys are fucking nuts, it's completely in their MO and parading captured Nazi's (from the Russian perspective) makes people's blood boil.

Now, if the Russians know they can't occupy all of Ukraine ... maybe they planned to take first day what they actually do want and can hold long term (land bridge to Crimea) ... and so maybe the other front were just to tie up Ukrainian troops in the event of large scale resistance as Russia now claims.

As for reports of "house arrest" of the intelligence chief in Russia and disappearance of department of defence ... this could easily be to play for the home audience. Obviously there have been mistakes and high costs (I'm definitely no minimising the costs, just pointing out military objectives have been achieved with those costs).

Even if they they though heavy Ukrainian resistance likely - indeed, even if they actually wanted a soft invasion, a few "failures", and bait Ukraine into total war, so reasonable offers are rejected and they can completely decimate the Ukrainian military infrastructure and economy ("help" from the West will stop the moment news cycle switches ... and it's mostly debt anyways) - Putin maybe simply upset about embarrassing losses and equipment failures and corruption coming to light (all of which is very real), and also needing to send a "signal" to the population that people "answer for mistakes".

We don't know what's actually true in the fog of war and what are viewed by the Russian military as acceptable losses to achieve objectives, what is a tactical retreat or then a rout, or what are in fact ATGM decoys or even purposefully staging losses to bait enemy counter offensives to keep them far in the East or whatever (i.e. what), and what is just straight up embarrassing failure (which is going to happen in a large scale conventional war; plenty of allied commanders had embarrassing failures in WWII).

To take one example, there's a photo of a Russian tank with egg cartons spilling from the most recent reactive tank armor. Now, such a photo could be staged for propaganda footage ... or maybe just one of the failure modes of the armor and exactly what an engineer who worked on the system would expect to see, as there's a layer of cardboard like wrapping. We don't know. However, Russian military and Putin would know, and let's assume it is just straight-up corruption of filling reactive armor with egg cartons to pocket the cash or hit quotas. Even if the war is going well: soldiers, commanders and Putin are going to be pissed about that and want people to answer for it.

Point being, we don't even really know what the facts even are -- FSB director being under house arrest could be FSB directors idea as just a good propaganda technique to signal the Russian population that "something is being done" to hold people to account for "accidentally" starting a total war with Ukraine which was the FSB directors idea to do in the first place -- and, even if we did know the facts, we don't know what narrative they fit. "Discipline" for mistakes, even if everything is going to plan overall, is still completely normal in a huge institution (only the US promotes people for disastrously starting a war on made-up pretences), and mistakes of all kinds are to be expected in a massively chaotic total war situation.

To evaluate "if things are going well or badly" or costs have been "too high", we need to know what the statistics on the ground are, actually be able to compare Russian losses to Ukrainian losses, and we'd actually need to know what Russian leadership is trying to achieve exactly (which we don't).

Drink up, the sun's going to explode one day. — frank

We are in total agreement on this one.

Good to know there's more common ground than differences. I'll be toasting to that.

A picture's worth a thousand words.

... obviously I'll be also writing many thousands anyways, but for now I need to go do a little partying; forget about people actively trying to bring about World War III, if only a little while.

I wouldn't say that would be reason to assume they are collapsing. — ssu

My original phrasing is simply that this is the last remaining objective on Russia's list of objectives, and it's certainly seems achievable.

Yet Finland existed, wasn't occupied. What else is there for Ukraine? Likely there won't be Ukrainian tanks on the Red Square either, so they can't "win" in the traditional sense. — ssu

Exactly why Finland accepted defeat and negotiated a peace with significant territorial concessions, including Finland losing its biggest fresh water body (Lake Ladoga, even if only counting by half!), and Finland's access to the Arctic Ocean ... and also a agricultural and cultural heartland from which comes a large part of Finland's nation defining epic book:

The Kalevala (Finnish: Kalevala, IPA: [ˈkɑleʋɑlɑ]) is a 19th-century work of epic poetry compiled by Elias Lönnrot from Karelian and Finnish oral folklore and mythology — Kalevala, Wikipedia

Finnish Karelia was a historical province of Finland — Karelia, Wikipedia

Key word "was".

I would not say the wars with the Soviet Union was winning anything, but a great loss.

These were major concessions for the sake of peace because:

A. The cost of war is very real.
B. There was no way to "win" against the Soviet Union.

Something was done, even if what the West did was to produce an extremely corrupt system which was totally unsustainable. — ssu

... Yes, indeed, I see what you're saying, and I do indeed think it's wise to predict the same process in Ukraine.

Kim Dotcom ...

Now there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time.

A long time.

That is illogical. — ssu

Why would it be "illogical" to assume someone's states objectives aren't their real objectives?

Now, of course everyone always rather things go even better than achieving their goals, the rosy outcome as you say, but there is a difference between objectives and what one would prefer to happen.

OK, on what do you base this assumption on? — ssu

There's a lot fog of war and certainly anything is "possible", but while everything else has being going on in Ukraine, Russia has been bombarding and bombing the Dombas front for a month now.

There's a material and man-power degradation of these lines that is reasonable to assume is pretty severe.

There's also a psychological affect on these front line Ukrainian soldiers.

And then there is the fact that the Dombas line is 17 hour continuous drive from resupply in Poland but only 1 and half hour drive from Russia.

Of the news that comes from this area, it seems Russia has broken through in key places already.

Well, just like it worked with Finland both in the Winter War and the Continuation War. War of attrition does work. — ssu

The Winter war ended because of the Nazi's invading the Soviet Union.

Finland accepted defeat to end the continuation war. Finland did not "win" against Russia.

War of attrition for the purposes of a negotiated resolution on better terms, accepting defeat and giving up 20% of territory, "works".

But Ukraine keeps taking off the table even the possibility of any negotiated settlement because of "the views" as far as I can tell.

What better outcome can Ukraine fight for, compared to accepting Crimea is now Russian (something everyone agrees won't change), that Ukraine will not join NATO (something NATO told Zelensky would never happen before the war ... yet Zelensky chose to fight to join NATO anyways), and accepting the Dombas as independent states (again, no one argues these regions aren't massively pro-Russian nor that there's any way to militarily take them back)?

I don't think anybody considers it a win. Not even the future contractors that will build (again) Ukrainian cities after this war. — ssu

Then we agree it's not a win, and also yet to be seen the Wests generosity when it comes to rebuilding rather than destroying things. I didn't see all that much actual building anything in Afghanistan these last 20 years ... definitely felt more like a destructive process than an act of love, as was advertised until literally a few months ago.

Of course, Afghani's aren't white, so that's certainly a big factor in comparing their current state and Ukraine's future state after the West "is done playing with their toys".

Jingoistic imperialism usually fades away after wars that have been failures. Don't forget that Putin views independent Ukraine as an "artificial construct". If those kind of delusional attitudes can be changed, that would be a good start. — ssu

One can disagree, but it's not delusional. The West's own scholars call borders imposed by the great powers "artificial" and just cause internal division and civil wars, without benefiting any of the internal ethnicities, all the time ... just as we've seen play out in Ukraine.

I understand that one has to be sceptical about Western media, however one shouldn't forget that:
a) Ukraine is a huge country, b) It has large armed forces, c) it has shown the will to fight and d) it is supported by a huge alliance and finally e) Russia isn't Soviet Union and hasn't the former's resources. — ssu

Again, the effectiveness of asymmetric handheld systems against Russian armor (without which NATO pouring into Urkaine, would have been totally routed already) ... does not mean Ukraine can somehow rout the Russians without armor.

That Russia has plentiful armor and fuel and logistics isn't somehow a disadvantage, even if Ukrainians can inflict losses on Russian advances.

The core utility of tracked armor is mobility and just being able to get to the front in the first place.

All the above facts make it totally possible that the outcome is a standstill with neither side reaching it's rosiest objectives. To assume that Russia will inevitably win and reach it's objectives is a long shot. — ssu

Sure, Urkainian total capitulation would have been the most rosiest outcome, but there is no evidence Russia's core objectives aren't exactly what it's stated, and will be accomplished with the collapse of the Dombas front (which seems to me in the process of collapsing).

Neither side is yet, after a month, is really willing to cease operations and declare that their objectives have been met. Of course both sides will declare victory...but when and at what cost. Thinking that either side will abruptly now collapse isn't realistic. — ssu

How does Ukraine just declare victory if its territory is being occupied and it's set for itself the objective of zero territorial concessions?

True, Russia can just declare victory at each step, as the only goals its ever stated have already been achieved and so all further objectives are just bonus.

If Ukrainians cannot, regardless of the amount of ATGM's and Manpads poured into Ukraine, actually push the Russians back to their borders ... how does a war of attrition (in a "stalemate") work in Ukraines favour?

I think that NATO and US are far more timid than they were in the proxy wars during the Cold War. The Polish MiG-29 debacle clearly shows that. In truth if the fighters would have been painted to Ukrainian colours and flown by Ukrainian pilots to Ukraine wouldn't have resulted in WW3. — ssu

Proxy wars during the cold war were not on Russia's border, only Afghanistan was even on the USSR's border ... and, only hand held missiles were supplied, same as we see now.

Vietnam saw US pilots up against Russian pilots, but this was far from either of their borders.

And note that Zelensky would be all too happy about a "no-fly-zone" made up with Ukrainian manned Soviet legacy system (that would have been imported from NATO countries). — ssu

This is simply impossible to achieve from any practical perspective.

I think this war will go on far longer than anybody anticipated and be more bloody and ruinous for both sides than anybody thought. — ssu

There's really no reason to assume the Kremlin did not think of the current possibility more-or-less.

The initial "failed" invasion (that occupied some 15-20% of the country in a day) was achieved with less than half the amassed force (some estimate a third) ... of which the only logical interpretation was that the rest of the force was in reserve for plan B.

Even Western media just end their "Russia is bogged down" narrative with "grumble-grumble Russia has made gains in the South" ... well, maybe it was the South that had the strategic objectives and sophisticated planning went into that operation, other fronts the objective of just advancing until resistance and then tying up Ukrainian forces (as there is no long-term plan of occupying territory in the North, just pressure the capital).

At least Ukraine has the nice prospect of refurbishing all that old infrastructure after the "urban renovation" from the Russian Army and Air Force with Western aid. — ssu

I do not think any Ukrainian views this as a "win" ... and I fear Western generosity may run into all those "realists" after all, when it comes to pouring in tangible love rather than arms.

For Russia this might be an ordeal like the Russo-Japanese war, which didn't go so well afterwards in the domestic scene for the Czar. — ssu

It's possible ... but, again, if this is the likely "cost" to the Russians, how does that help any Ukrainian?

If this is the basic logic, NATO is just cutting off Ukrainian's nose to spite Ukrainians face.

Sure, fun times for NATO, they're definitely excited about it.

addresses the USSR:

No, no, no, Whitehouse is just taking a page out of the Kremlins playbook, and gonna beat Putin at his own game:

The firehose of falsehood, or firehosing, is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin. — Firehose of falsehood

That's why you hear the Whitehouse contradicting itself, and Western media declaring victory everyday, they're just winning the information war, just as literally the director of the CIA unironically explained to us on live television that Ukraine is winning the information war ... and also everything Russia says is false.

And people have good reason to take what the director of the CIA says at face value, for the unofficial motto (i.e. something not admitted to but a covert action) of the CIA is "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free," and people just want to be free after all, so obviously CIA only tells them the God honest truth in all circumstances.

23 days ago:

As Putin himself said "all outcomes are acceptable"?

Western media takes it as a foregone conclusion that this was a "miscalculation" by Putin ... because it's played so poorly in the Western press and Western nations have flocked to offer moral support and a bit of hardware and economic sanctions.

However, the Kremlin has been preparing itself for this exact threat by the West since 2014, building redundancies for all critical systems and scaling up economic ties with China.

Of course, Oligarchs are punished via their Western assets ... but the Kremlin may not actually care about that, — boethius

Also 23 days ago:

Oh, and the most ludicrous, that "declaring" renewables are now a priority is sticking it to the Russians somehow. "In 50 to 100 years will be independent on Russian natural resources. Haha! take that Russia!". I work in the renewable energy sector ... and this idea is so insanely idiotic, it severely discredits every politician that repeats it. — boethius

22 days ago:

The large size of Ukraine makes total occupation difficult / impossible, but, the large size of Ukraine makes a lot of land grabbing easy. For the same reason Russia can't easily occupy all of Ukraine, Ukraine cannot easily defend all of Ukraine. — boethius

20 days ago:

The problem with the "boohoo commodity price increase global economic disaster; the war is such a terrible disaster" is that if you provide no incentive for Russia to participate in the global economy ... but are going to buy their commodities anyways, and China isn't going to leave a fellow tyrant hanging, then this isn't a "bad result" for the Kremlin. Certainly immoral to cause such a disaster, but if the world plays hardball with Putin ... what's the argument that Putin should play softball back.

And indeed, once the war is over and Western leaders are dealing with even worse inflation, people may not accept the argument "their suffering is necessary for Ukrainians to have prolonged a war for a true apex of virtue signaling on social media; literal victory through defeat" for long. — boethius

Literally yesterday:

That’s why — (applause) — that’s why I came to Europe again this week with a clear and determined message for NATO, for the G7, for the European Union, for all freedom-loving nations: We must commit now to be in this fight for the long haul. We must remain unified today and tomorrow and the day after and for the years and decades to come. (Applause.)

It will not be easy. There will be costs. But it’s a price we have to pay. Because the darkness that drives autocracy is ultimately no match for the flame of liberty that lights the souls of free people everywhere. — Remarks by President Biden on the United Efforts of the Free World to Support the People of Ukraine

We will fight to the last Ukrainian!! — (applause) — There will be costs — (applause) — mostly to Ukrainians and all poor people around the world affected by food and fuel price increases!!! — (applause) — But it's a price I'm willing to let Ukrainians and poor people pay!!! — (applause) — For the long haul!!! — (applause) —

Every Ukrainian soul literally lit on fire — (applause) — by Russian artillery and air strikes and hyperbaric munitions I literally masterbate over when the US drops them on brown people — (applause) — lights the way to freedom!!!!! — (applause) —

— (applause) — Just like those torch lit marches by neo-Nazi's — (applause) — lit the way to freedom!!! in 2014!!! — (applause) — (applause) — (applause)

19 days ago:

For the overall outcome on the war of all these measures, I personally don't see Russia losing.

Their strategy is pretty simple:

1. Keep pressure on all fronts.
2. Advance each day on weakest fronts
3. Avoid urban combat unless necessary
4. Cutoff all supply lines and wait things out
5. Build out their logistics methodically — boethius

The situation now is they've occupied key highways, and can degrade Ukrainian logistics on the remaining roots by air and missile strikes. As mentioned previously, the Dombas front is 1000 km away from the Polish border and may be effectively cutoff from supplies already.

In the meantime, Russia has consolidated its fronts (why they have transformed into straight lines on maps) and worked out its logistics in Ukraine (something that simply takes time, linking / building rail and even tactical pipelines), and absolutely recking Azov battalion in Mariupole ("de-nazification").

And Chechnya is literally part of Russia. Saying using your own citizens who are literally soldiers as soldiers is some form of weakness ... is just stupid. Russia is a culturally diverse place, so it's as unusual as seeing Latin-Americans and African-American's in the US army. OMG they're using their own citizens with arguably the most experience in urban combat to fight Azov in urban combat!

Luckily Ukrainians under siege know how to win on social media instead, and so dipped their bullets in lard and posted that to twitter, so I'm sure the Chechnians now have servere moral problems, as we've been hearing about in Russian forces for a month, and will lose any day now.

20 days ago:

"""
LONDON, March 7 (Reuters) - Russia has told Ukraine it is ready to halt military operations "in a moment" if Kyiv meets a list of conditions, the Kremlin spokesman said on Monday.

Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
— Reuters
"""

There's zero reason to assume this offer isn't genuine.

Unless Ukraine has some way to "win", then Russia will simply implement these conditions by force. — boethius

I don't disagree if you're talking about non-military things. For sure, war and sanctions isn't good for normal Russians.

But the competition is between states. Normal Americans and normal Chinese people don't benefit from the war either, but, certainly, neither normal Ukrainians.

Agreed, that China and US states (i.e the elites that run them) win in this war and EU loses. The insanity of committing to buy LNG gas from the US and build all that infrastructure ... even though the war will be long over, and normalising trade relations would be an immense diplomatic tool to actually end the war and bring peace (... never hear the EU saying that ... that peace would have benefits to everyone), and it's just using the war as an excuse to do the US's bidding.

However, even so, China's benefit is in anyways Russias benefit, as they are besties now.

US pivots towards China (this isn't viewed as a big warm hug by the Chinese), Russia comes to China and says the logical thing: "the US views you as their enemy, they talk about it all the time, they have no shame saying so, now they bring their ships and their planes and their submarines and their missiles to your shores, which are moves of war and not of peace--even though we Russians know you Chinese are a peaceful people and have never invaded us nor taken anything that wasn't rightfully yours--but war has come to you, even if neither of us want it we must accept that as a fact, and what I suggest, is that we are in fact in this together, and that this 'pivot' to threaten you, the US talks about, that it is simply the reasonable move in response, if we look on a map, to open a second front with the US, and force them to commit troops to defend in the West too: I can do this, bring American soldiers back to Europe, now that they leave the Middle East in fiery ruins, and, if you feel the same way, that we are in this together, then I will do this for you. For we Russians know the treachery of the Americans and have learned to deal with it, and we will take this heat in the West so you may have peace in the East."

Now, the US, indeed does benefit with harming their real competition (the EU) ... but can they say the same thing as the Russian state can: that they are also helping their allies in so doing?

And for those accusing me of being a Russian propagandist, simply seeing someone's point of view and what persuasive arguments they can make and reasonable strategic decisions they can make to advance their stated goals or defend themselves against a party that has no hesitation nor qualification in calling them the enemy, doesn't mean I agree with such arguments. If I was Putin, I'd go to Xi and say: "Have you heard of decentralised grass roots anarchism, pretty rich tradition, don't want to brag but Nordic style participatory creative education was actually an anarchist idea and first developed in anarchist schools, it's pretty cool actually, kids a lot happier and even more productive economically! who knew ... and, umm, and I have here a few brochures here I'm going to leave with you, ok just putting them under this gold paper weight, just take a look when you have a moment and think about it, my number's on the bottom there if you have any questions, and ... we're actually having a little anarcho-get-together in a few weeks at the Kremlin / new local community soup kitchen, feel welcome to come check it out, have a few drinks, maybe bring North Korea along--honestly, I feel they could actually really use a hot soup right now, and, you know, we're there for them."

Stakes are much higher here but it seems fine to us to risk escalation because of the underdog narrative or whatever. — Baden

To be fair, Rocky's epic duel with Ivan Drago is both a cinematic master piece and "feels" how reality actually works by divine scriptwriter intervention.

Ivan Draggo had overwhelming advantage. Russia has overwhelming advantage.

Rocky had heart. Ukraine has heart.

Ivan Draggo lost anyways. Russia will therefore lose anyways.

It's honestly difficult to argue with.

Same reason everyone was rooting for the Taliban all these years, and now super happy they "defended their country" and defeated the more powerful military and have returned to power to defend their nation and culture, such as barring girls over 11 from going to school.

No. It's not their only option. How about starting with a) oil & gas embargo, b) migration crisis, c) naval blockade, d) whatever else. Having a panic attack like some about nukes in truth is the last option. — ssu

I mean only military option ... of which less Russian soldiers on the border would be relevant.

Though I agree chance of conventional war is low in Finland, Poland, Baltics ... it's unclear to me that increasing the chance of nuclear war in exchange, even slightly, is a positive outcome.