Slava Ukraini :fire:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/20/us-house-approves-61bn-aid-ukraine

Fuck the GOP (Gimps Of Putin)!

Argentina asks to join NATO as President Milei seeks a more prominent role for his nation
^{— AP · Apr 18, 2024}

Unexpected? (Maybe it can help with the Falkland debacle?)

Aid to Kiev to make US richer, Ukraine more bankrupt — Kremlin spokesman
^{— TASS · Apr 20, 2024}

The decision to provide aid to Ukraine was anticipated and predictable. This will make the United States of America far richer but will ruin Ukraine further, making more Ukrainians killed because of the Kiev regime. — Peskov

:D Same old crap. → crayons ←

The Russian spy network in Europe:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-spies-infiltrated-romania-disguised-230100892.html
https://apnews.com/article/poland-espinonage-ukraine-russia-zelenskyy-plot-a7e3f5944ba165dd30b271840ffa9f95
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68843541

All hypothetical imperatives
^{— Peter Neumann · ZEIT ONLINE · Apr 23, 2024}

The Chancellor spoke in Berlin on the 300th birthday of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Olaf Scholz tried to counter the appropriation of Kant by Vladimir Putin.

Concerning Scholz's speech, I would highlight the following claim:
“We all want peace for our time. But peace at any price – that wouldn’t be any at all.”
(https://globalhappenings.com/politics/496848.html)
which is pretty much in line with what I repeatedly said:

people may not pursue peace, if that means WHATEVER peace. — neomac

, in line with

A peace may be so wretched as not to be ill exchanged for war. — Tacitus (56 — 120)

:up:

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-afds-krah-faces-probe-on-russia-china-payments/a-68912872
https://newrepublic.com/article/180630/russia-corruption-network-europe-buying-politicians-america

The KGB of Belarus announced the prevention of strikes by drones from Lithuania on Minsk
^{— TASS · Apr 25, 2024}
Belarus says it thwarted attack on capital by drones launched from Lithuania
^{— Emelia Sithole-Matarise · Reuters · Apr 25, 2024}

This I don't find plausible. Fairly serious allegation. Doesn't really make much sense. (If anything at all, wouldn't they make a move on Kaliningrad?)

Unexpected? (Maybe it can help with the Falkland debacle?) — jorndoe

:grin:

Yeah, the UK might remember the Argies from that one.

Of course he isn't talking about NATO membership, so the proposal isn't ludicrouse. There is already Columbia as one. Just for those who don't know what a "global partner" of NATO is, here's from NATO's own website:

NATO has a number of “partners across the globe” or “global partners”, which the Alliance cooperates with on an individual basis. NATO’s global partners include Afghanistan¹, Australia, Colombia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan. NATO’s engagement with global partners is taking on increasing importance in a complex security environment, where many of the challenges the Alliance faces are global and no longer bound by geography.

Which actually is hilarious that they still have a reference to Afghanistan (in 2024!) there with an asterisk 1, that then says the following:

The partnership with Afghanistan is currently suspended following North Atlantic Council decisions related to the security environment.

The "security environment" perhaps referring to the fact that Afghanistan is now an Emirate that made the US to withdraw and hence fought off also NATO. :snicker:

NATO Spending by Country 2024 (World Population Review)
Which Countries Meet NATO’s Spending Target? (Visual Capitalist)
Map shows how much Nato members spend on defence after UK’s £75,000,000,000 boost (Metro)

Some years ago, I think it was @BC asking why the heck Denmark needed a bunch of new upgraded F-16s anyway, something like that, a natural question at the time. Military expenditures (and conscription) had overall decreased over the years, but the (current) Kremlin's efforts changed that. The links above show what countries appear most concerned, by and large those in Russia's vicinity, or those seeking the opposite of being (re)enrolled under the Kremlin, or shedding the shackles of Russian dominance.


Russia vetoes a UN resolution calling for the prevention of a dangerous nuclear arms race in space
^{— Edith M Lederer · AP · Apr 24, 2024}

Hm

Lukashenka Says Dozens Of Russian Nukes Deployed in Belarus
^{— RFE/RL · Apr 25, 2024}

☢ ... I was still looking at the Belarusian allegations against Lithuania. Also:

Belarus reveals alleged plot to attack Minsk from EU
^{— RT · Apr 25, 2024}

Something's off here. But, either way, the allegations are serious enough to require substantiation.

^{I'm vaguely reminded of the weird Havana syndrome thing. Some investigators pointed at Russian operations, yet official statements from intelligence agencies explicitly said they couldn't support that hypothesis. The allegation is serious, requiring proportional/relevant substantiation, which wasn't available, hence no such allegation. :up:}

The Belarusian allegations require substantiation, and, if that doesn't materialize, then another explanation of the allegations. I've been unable to find anything anyway.

At the time it seemed reasonable to wonder why Denmark needed upgraded F-16s. Given an aggressive Russia, it makes more sense.

Some years ago it seemed like Ukraine could not withstand a sustained Russian attack. It's not clear whether--over the long run--they can, without a significant and reliable increase in military assistance. How likely that is... The EU and NATO are not unitary bodies, but are made up of individual countries with varying perspectives on all sorts of topics. How long the EU, NATO, and the US can maintain unity isn't entirely clear.

, without aid, Ukraine would eventually get rolled over by Russia.
Conversely, if supporters went by "give them what they want if they stay democratic (and reasonable)" (just an amendable example), then the invaders would likely eventually get pushed out.
Somewhere in between, who knows?
In (and between) democracies, decisions like that aren't particularly typical, decisions aren't dictated by one/few, there are many voices, which is an advantage for autocracies here.

I have not fact-checked this, but offer it as is:– sneer, dismiss, disprove, approve, or something else; personally, I cried, but I am a milk and water liberal pantywaist.

https://www.youtube.com/live/S2-Wu6JQzp4?si=-E7NVXRgeHW-6ryg

Best to listen to someone who’s been right for the last 30 years.

I guess this has been abandoned.

Geneva Conventions » Protocol I » Article 1 - General principles and scope of application:

• 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.
• 2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.
• 3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions.
• 4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Geneva Conventions » Protocol I » Article 52 - General protection of civilian objects:

• 1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
• 2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
• 3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

Geneva Conventions » Protocol I » Article 57 - Precautions in attack:

• 1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
• 2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
  
  • (a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
    
    • (i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
    • (ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
    • (iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
  • (b) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
  • (c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.
• 3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.
• 4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects.
• 5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

After all, prior violation can be used as an excuse, civilian targets can be declared military targets, the words can be made to override the intent, ...

Some years ago it seemed like Ukraine could not withstand a sustained Russian attack. It's not clear whether--over the long run--they can, without a significant and reliable increase in military assistance. How likely that is... The EU and NATO are not unitary bodies, but are made up of individual countries with varying perspectives on all sorts of topics. How long the EU, NATO, and the US can maintain unity isn't entirely clear. — BC

When it comes to the EU, one simply has to understand that the bickering is simply structural when you have so many sovereign states trying to form a consensus. In short, the EU always looks as if it would collapse. It still doesn't.

I wouldn't quite put it past Lukashenko and friends to stage a fake attack on Belarus by, say, Lithuania or Latvia. Possibly (or likely) coordinated by the Kremlin circle, in such a case.
If it was believed by many to be an attack initiated by Lithuania or Latvia (perhaps sufficiently well-staged with accompanying propaganda), and Belarus mounted a counterattack, then what would NATO's role be?

10-minute interview with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya ...
Everybody opposing the regime automatically declared extremist: Exiled Belarusian opposition leader
^{— Mercedes Stephenson · Global News · Apr 28, 2024}



Russia will sink Britain under nuclear tide with Satan 2 missiles if NATO intervenes in Ukraine, vows top Putin stooge
^{— Sayan Bose, Will Stewart · The Irish Sun · Apr 29, 2024}

If NATO countries send their troops into Ukraine in order to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, then the very moment about which Putin once said, ‘Why do we need the world, if there is no Russia in it?’ would come. Then everything [all types of missile] would be launched by us, in every direction - Sarmats, Yars, and Avangards. — Kiselyov

Without any such troop having set foot in Russia, or any such country having attacked Russia?

Mercenaries ...

Cuban mercenaries fighting for Russia eliminate their commander: report
^{— TV Poland World · Apr 28, 2024}

Earlier ...

Putin signs decree to ease getting Russian citizenship for foreigners in armed forces
^{— TASS · Sep 30, 2022}
Cuba arrests 17 for trafficking men to fight for Russia in Ukraine
^{— Al Jazeera · Sep 8, 2023}
Special Report: How Cubans were recruited to fight for Russia
^{— Dave Sherwood, Alexandre Meneghini, Mario Fuentes, Carlos Carrillo, Matt Spetalnick, Tom Balmforth, Filipp Lebedev, Felix Light, Pravin Char · Reuters · Oct 3, 2023}
Putin speeds up a citizenship path for foreigners who enlist in the Russian military
^{— Dasha Litvinova · AP · Jan 4, 2024}
Don't come, it's a trap: Cuban mercenary fighting in the Russian army issues chilling warning to fellow countrymen
^{— Germania Rodriguez Poleo · Daily Mail Online · Apr 23, 2024}

I suppose they're convenient cannon fodder (when they don't kill their peer invaders).



GPS jamming traced to Russia after flights over Europe suspended
^{— Jeremy Hsu · New Scientist · May 1, 2024}
Statement by the North Atlantic Council on recent Russian hybrid activities
^{— NATO · May 2, 2024}

These incidents are part of an intensifying campaign of activities which Russia continues to carry out across the Euro-Atlantic area, including on Alliance territory and through proxies. This includes sabotage, acts of violence, cyber and electronic interference, disinformation campaigns, and other hybrid operations. NATO Allies express their deep concern over Russia's hybrid actions, which constitute a threat to Allied security.

GPS jamming is a ‘side effect’ of Russian military activity, Finnish transport agency says
^{— Tommaso Lecca · POLITICO · May 3, 2024}
German foreign minister says Russia will face consequences for monthslong cyber espionage
^{— Frank Bajak, Karel Janicek, Stephen Graham, Samuel Petrequin, Foster Klug · AP · May 3, 2024}
Fancy Bear
^{— Wikipedia}

I doubt the Kremlin cares much about condemnation of those cyber activities (for the time being anyway). When state-backed, they tend to just go on about their business.

After this Palestine thing dies off (like Ukraine did, that thread is very dead) — Lionino

Not quite ;)

Thank you. I am sure my Ukrainian former girlfriend is smiling upon us. She is still alive but yeah.

UK Foreign Secretary gets together with Ukrainian most wanted man in public, for support. Meanwhile, Starbucks was renamed Stars. :D (← vague reminder of that alternate world type stuff again) Chinese officials are afraid to be seen with wanted man.

I have not fact-checked this, but offer it as is:– sneer, dismiss, disprove, approve, or something else; personally, I cried, but I am a milk and water liberal pantywaist. — unenlightened

There's not that many facts in the video you posted, mostly just discussing the impact of the war on the Russian economy and citizenry.

It's mostly hyperbole such as describing low unemployment of 3.5% as catastrophic. It's not some neo-classical "optimum" level of unemployment (to make the rich class richer) but it's far from a "catastrophe".

To labour point, the idea that low unemployment is "bad" is from the capitalist class perspective as they need to compete for workers if unemployment is too low and therefore pay them more, and in a Western economy the capitalist class would rather a crisis to bring wages lower than raise wages (so it tends to be a self fulfilling prophecy, if not engineered). The exception to this pattern is in a war (such as WWI and WWII) in which capitalist interests cannot dominate government policy and unemployment drops precipitously in order to fight the war, and yet this does not cause an economic crisis but rather an economic boom (such as the roaring 20s and then later WWII credited with ending the Great Depression). These counter examples of the faith in high unemployment should not only be pause for thought in itself (it's clearly not some sort of economic "law of nature") but Russia is too in a large war so we should prima facie group Russia into the category of low unemployment being an economic good thing such as WWII America. The theory that unemployment is bad of course isn't necessarily bad from the perspective of said workers being paid more. The neo-classical ultimate retort to that is that sure you can pay workers more but that causes inflation, so it doesn't matter, but for that process to happen workers still need more money and more buying power to go around bidding up the price of goods (a process in which they accumulate wealth for inflation to happen).

Point being, it's highly debatable whether low unemployment is some harbinger of economic doom. There's also so much possibility to outsource these days that the situation may simply be very different today anyways, even if this was an actual problem in the past in some conditions.

All of this being very pedantic economic forecasting into the future and little to do with the war at hand. To find fault in a wartime economy in it having too low unemployment

The v-blogger is against the war and finds it a tragic loss of life both on the Russian and Ukrainians side, which is a reasonable position to take, but it is extreme hyperbole to say Russians will disappear, if that's what you're crying about.

Of course, removing the hyperbole, the cost of the war on Russian society is significant, but to make any analytical headway in understanding the war, where is it likely to go and most importantly how it can be ended sooner rather than later, any weakness of Russia needs contrasting with how things are going in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian economy isn't "doing great" and the Ukrainian population pyramid was in collapse before the war started and that has simply been accelerated with a large part of the Ukrainian youth and women of child bearing age leaving Ukraine unlikely to ever return.

After this Palestine thing dies off (like Ukraine did, that thread is very dead)
— Lionino

Not quite ;) — jorndoe

The thread is quieter these days because the "consider reality" side of the debate are currently looking at the reality of Ukrainian lines disintegrating.

It's a bit superfluous to come here and argue that the Western policy in Ukraine of propping up a severely under-matched (in every category of war fighting) war of attrition will result (with very, very high probability) of the larger side breaking the smaller side's line.

As has been pointed out for nearly 2 years, a war of attrition is not a "stalemate" and eventually one side is exhausted and breaks.

Western media ironically quickly made the right analogy with WWI as soon as trench warfare emerged ... but then bizarrely concluded that therefore the war can go on for ever, as if that was the result of WWI.

The Russian strategy since the first phase of the war has been to attrit the Ukrainians, focusing first in attritting Ukrainian / the entire West in air defence—although Ukraine severely attritted themselves on the ground during this phase anyways in both foolish defence of lost positions as well as foolish offensives against well defended positions—now, air supremacy being achieved over the front, Russia can rapidly attrit the remainder of the Ukrainian ground force.

The Ukrainian military is essentially disintegrating in every respect.

Ukrainian reserves, large maneuver capability, air defence being essentially exhausted, Russia can now blitzkrieg deep into the Ukrainian rear forming long salients without fear of a counter offensive cutting off those salients.

Not only can Russia now start a phase of maneuver warfare in what we refer to as "the front" in South-Easter Ukraine (to conquer the entirety of the annexed territories), but Russia can also "big arrow maneuver" at any point on the actual front that includes the entire Ukrainian-Russian border and entire Ukrainian-Belarusian border.

Not only has Russia now:

1. Pacified the territories already conquered
2. Built up a force capable of pacifying far more territory

The two essential elements for more conquest, but the Israeli genocide has also completely changed the optics of what is doable in a war. Before the Israeli genocide, a child merely being injured in Ukraine would be front page news in the West; this standard of outrage will be hard to maintain when the West has participated in outright murdering and maiming tens of thousands of children in Gaza while starving them all.

Of course, optics in Western media isn't everything, but the Kremlin does have to take it into account, there being diplomatic costs of causing too much humanitarian harm, as we see in the case of Israel that they certainly can prosecute the genocide to their hearts content but there is clearly a diplomatic cost to doing so. Russia's policy has been to make similar territorial conquests (but also very different in that conquered people become Russian citizens and there's no apartheid state nor genocide or ethnic cleansing for that matter) while maintaining as good a diplomatic position as possible. The Israeli genocide significantly reduces the diplomatic costs to Russia causing more humanitarian suffering to achieve military objectives.

At the start of the war, US ex-military and ex-intelligence analysts talking heads were so confused and befuddled as to why the Russians didn't use shock-and-awe strategy of completely shutting down the entire civilian infrastructure that they concluded that Russia is either incompetent, incapable or both.

What we can now clearly see is that Russia could shock-and-awe but chose not to ... maybe precisely because the result of the US using shock-and-awe strategy, at the end of the day, is massive diplomatic costs in the long run. The consequence of US "gun-hoism" of basing military decisions simply on the primal desire to see more and larger explosions, resulted in US going from undisputed moral leader of the world at the end of the Cold War ... to ... being full partner in a genocide and the delusional hypocritical gaslighting of their diplomats laughably dismissed as the ravings of mad persons by most of the global diplomatic community.

All this to say, there's neither a Ukrainian military nor diplomatic pressure that can do much about further Russian territorial conquests.

Ukraine military capacity being depleted, there is now very little to negotiate with unfortunately.

At the same time, Russia does not have the capacity nor the desire to conquer all of Ukraine.

The likely outcome therefore is Russia will simply take all the territory it actually wants and create a buffer zone.

Not only can Russia now start a phase of maneuver warfare in what we refer to as "the front" in South-Easter Ukraine (to conquer the entirety of the annexed territories), but Russia can also "big arrow maneuver" at any point on the actual front that includes the entire Ukrainian-Russian border and entire Ukrainian-Belarusian border. — boethius

What we can now clearly see is that Russia could shock-and-awe but chose not to ... maybe precisely because the result of the US using shock-and-awe strategy, at the end of the day, is massive diplomatic costs in the long run. — boethius

:snicker:

The victorious Russian Army simply goes onward from triumph to triumph!

But seriously, Russia does have this year a window of opportunity, but the present aid package will likely get Ukraine well into next year. There's still a lot of unknowns after that. But we can be assured that @boethius will give the most positive view of the Russian situation as he has done for two years plus now...

(Flowery future for these two wonderful persons?)

The victorious Russian Army simply goes onward from triumph to triumph! — ssu

That's literally what's been happening, and the insistence on the delusion of the opposite is mostly what has prevented a diplomatic solution to the war (both before and after it started).

But seriously, Russia does have this year a window of opportunity, but the present aid package will likely get Ukraine well into next year. There's still a lot of unknowns after that. But we can be assured that boethius will give the most positive view of the Russian situation as he has done for two years plus now... — ssu

By positive you mean predictions that have come true.

I predicted small arms and shoulder launch missiles would not be sufficient to do any sort of offensive at the very start of the war when memes like "saint javelin" was a thing. Hear of the miracle of javelins recently?

I predicted the policy is to drip feed weapons systems to Ukraine so that there's no actual threat to Russia; just enough to prop them up, not enough to legitimately threaten Russian forces in Ukraine.

Where are those F16s again? Even Ukrainian generals are saying they are too late to make any difference.

I predicted a WWI war of attrition would result in the weaker side being attrited first, and now "attrition, attrition, attrition" is the mot du jour even in Western media.

I predicted sanctions would not collapse the Russian economy, which they didn't.

I predicted "low morale" would not result in soldiers fleeing from the battle field and topple the Russian government, which it didn't.

I predicted the incredibly hyped Ukrainian counter offensive would make essentially no gains (while some here not only predicted Ukraine would cut the land bridge to Crimea ... but that would be an easy "step 1").

None of these predictions are "the most positive view", just what is essentially common sense if you know even a cursory overview of the subject matter.

The most positive military view would be that Russia would conquer all of Ukraine in a few days or then certainly by now, which I predicted would not happen because Russia does not have the forces to occupy all of Ukraine anyways and Ukraine had the capacity to resist for some time.

Of course, Ukraine's ability to resist is easily predictable: Ukraine is huge and the population is large (just not nearly as large as Russias) and can be supplied with arms, training, intelligence by the West.

As easily predictable that Ukraine can resist a good while as it is that Ukraine cannot prevail in a war of attrition, as man power eventually depletes and Russia can outproduce the entire West in key munitions it seems anyways (the West's support does not actually translate into an advantage in any weapon systems category).

This analysis is just common sense and nearly every single point has started to be integrated in both Western and even Ukrainian discourse. Even the money laundering and arms laundering, which I've also talked a lot about (indeed, my prediction arms to Ukraine would be used in terrorism also came true), is mentioned in Western media as "the way things are" basically.

(Flowery future for these two wonderful persons?) — ssu

Russia is not prosecuting a genocide and has kept the large majority of world public opinion on its side.

Whereas Israel is prosecuting a genocide and is likely sowing the seeds of its future destruction.

6 million Jews will not be able to prevail against the combined disproval of a billion muslims without US backing as the top superpower. The moment that backing or that power goes away Israel can be destroyed by its neighbours. Of course nuclear weapons will be a deterrent but what I predict is an anti-israel force will emerge that is simply not deterred by nuclear weapons. Israel has no strategic depth and using nuclear weapons on its own territory is hardly a good solution and nuking Arab cities is also not a good solution facing an irregular force (who will likely want that to happen).

The animosity towards a Jewish state in Israel is a 1000 years sort of thing, and prosecuting this genocide is the exact opposite thing you'd want to do if you wanted your unwelcome state to survive in these conditions.

Things change and Israel has no capacity to survive by itself, as soon as sufficient external backing goes away Israel will be as much at the mercy of its Arab neighbours as Palestinians are at Israeli mercy today.

Russian policy, you may not like and I don't like it "as such" (just I also view the war as much more a consequence of Western policy), but it's not a genocide and it's also not stupid.

Russia is currently solidifying global diplomatic backing, leading the creation of a parallel global economy, while building and refining the greatest war fighting machine and arms production capital base (of the arms that actually matter in a contemporary high-intensity warfare) in existence today.

Russia can now credibly say to its partners and client states that it knows how to defeat Western weapons, training and intelligence.

This is the situation.

That's literally what's been happening, and the insistence on the delusion of the opposite is mostly what has prevented a diplomatic solution to the war (both before and after it started). — boethius

Oh @boethius, just like you two years ago wrote:

Russia is currently winning this war and no amount of social media is going to change that. — boethius

Well, two years have gone from that remark from you and uh..., oh well.

I think we know you and for whom you rally after all these years.

It's mostly hyperbole such as describing low unemployment of 3.5% as catastrophic. It's not some neo-classical "optimum" level of unemployment (to make the rich class richer) but it's far from a "catastrophe". — boethius

Well I'm not sure, but I understood that to be a translation snarl. If one put it in the negative - as 96.5% employment, it would be catastrophic, because the old, the infirm, the sick, the insane, and children would be working in huge numbers. And that would be the result of the "disappearance" of men of working age either abroad or into the army/casualty lists.