There's a good side and a bad side to everything. You keep interpreting me as pessimistic or full of self loathing. Neither is true. — frank

I'm not making any ad hominem remarks. But coming back to the topic of the thread, one has to understand that Anti-Americanism typically leads to a distorted view that supports the disinformation of a totalitarian state.

We don't have to pick sides, I think it's totally logical for example be against Israel's actions in Gaza and Russia's actions in Ukraine. Yet the Anti-American typically goes with the thinking of my enemy's enemy is my friend. In fact one commentator in this thread (perhaps unintentionally) told the reason why the strange bias: he didn't want the US to be looked at as a knight in shining armor. Whatever other faults we might have, those faults don't make supporting a country that is attacked unjustified. It's not the victims fault that the aggressor in this case disrespects the agreements it has made earlier and has imperialist motives to annex other states.

I don't think the inflation is transitory. It's endemic, structural, will happen in waves. But anyway, if the present global monetary system collapses, it isn't going to be an end. People will deny the event, confuse people what happened. Just like with the "transitory inflation".

Combating climate change is really up to China and India, the newcomers.

You think we aren't capable of adapting to a changing climate?

Do you think that a declining Global population will still mean perpetual growth?

People tend to take the alarmist attitude to alarm people, as if they wouldn't be alarmed if you say: "You know, this issue will suck in the future"

The US is just the tail end of the British Empire, which invented global trade for our world. — frank

That's a really neat way to look at it. Well, global trade had been around for a long time. Some might argue that it really went off when the Ottomans basically cut the ties of Europe to the Far East and the Silk Road didn't work as earlier. Thus the Portuguese and the Spanish went looking for maritime trade roots and found them (plus another continent in addition). The last transformation happened when countries like China and India changed the economic policies from the ruinous socialism to capitalism in their own way (as still the Chinese think their system is Marxism).

I see flames in the future, and maybe a split in our species between technology-loving and technology-hating. That's where my head is. But I hope the best for Europe. — frank

The luddites broke machines in the 19th Century, so even that isn't anything new. Yet the dramatic change of people who work on the fields in the countryside and now are in cities didn't happen with huge swarms of unemployed farmers and farm workers roaming the countryside.

There has been always flames somewhere. I'm not so sure it's really the time to say "Après moi, le déluge".

This leads to the question of is it the end of civilisation or is there potential for transformation? Is the idea of transformation mere romanticism or have people become too engulfed by nihilism? I am asking about the nature of values underlying politics. — Jack Cummins

As things will definately change, we simply have to cope with that change. This will force us to change our ideas and the models we use to think about civilization itself. The idea of cultural decadence and cultural collapse is very old. Oswald Sprengler wrote his Untergang des Abenlandes in 1918, a fitting year to think of the decline of Western culture and heritage. Pessimism and cynicism seem intelligent, optimism seems naive. Yet this has lead to a huge fallacy that is rampant in our society: the idea that our civilization is extremely fragile and could collapse easily.

We have had several collapses earlier: the Bronze Age collapse, the collapse of Antiquity to the "Dark Ages" of the Medieval Times. So if it has happened before, why wouldn't it happen now?

The error is that we look at our lifestyles and think how incapable we are to "survive" without buying food from the supermarket. But let's think about this. That my Iphone won't work or I cannot order stuff easily from another continent isn't life threatening to me.

Our present prosperity can falter, but not our society itself. We just witnessed a huge pandemic with millions of people dying from it. Did our society collapse? No. We discovered vaccines extremely quickly. Without modern medicine, pandemics would have wrecked havoc in our societies. But with modern medicine, they won't be something like the Black Death. People had then no idea what hit them. We were fairly quickly looking for vaccines against the lab leak virus. We have witnessed financial crisis and our international monetary system nearly collapsed (which was held secret). Did our society collapse? No. I think the a next financial crisis will happen, sooner or later. Will it destroy our society? Again no. Many people will loose money and some will prosper. Economic depressions are partly huge transfer of wealth from some to others.

Easiest way to think about just how enduring our civilization is with the idea of nuclear war. We are taught that it will end our Civilization and saying anything else is morally wrong, that it will increase the possibility of a nuclear war. Well, the overkill in nuclear weapons was reached in the late 1980's and we have now only a small portion of nukes left from that era. Many Russian nukes intended to destroy American cities went into fuelling the electricity of those cities. (A really uplifting story about humanity)

So today there actually aren't so many nuclear weapons to even kill all Russians and Americans. Perhaps just every fifth or every fourth. Like what happened in Poland during WW2, every fifth Polish died. This is because a) either side won't use all of their nukes and b) a lot of those nukes will go into counterforce targets, blasting missile silos in the Central Plains in the US and Siberia in Russia.

After Russia and the US have done this dramatic "urban renewal", then what about Argentina or New Zealand? Likely they won't get even much radiation. Will their civilization collapse like in the Bronze age? Yeah, ordering something from Amazon.com from the US or getting a old book from a Texan bookstore won't happen, but will they forget writing in New Zealand? Will life there really be like a Mad Max movie? Again no. There's likely far more books in New Zealand and Argentina than there were books in Antiquity, even if we long for the library of Alexandria.

Hence civilization will survive. What it can do is simply become very stale and stagnant. Because once something is developed to be as cost effective as possible and there's nothing to replace the useful item, then there's no need for an engineer to improve it. Books are still quite the same form as they were hundreds of years ago. Firearms have been quite the same for a hundred years only with optics and materials having changed. A pencil has been also around for ages:




Even culture can be so. It might be that a hundred years from now, in 2124, people still listen to Michael Jackson. After all, some are listening to Mozart still, so why not to the king of Pop? Will something change? Of course. It's likely that some people now living will see "Peak Humanity" and then the global population will decrease. This will change the economy quite a lot, yet as we can see from Japan, this doesn't mean an immediate collapse. There's simply will be a lot of old people. Different times likely will promote different thinking, and with that different thinking the next Renaissance and rebirth might happen. At least people surely have the desire to make the time they are living "the most important", even in the 2120's.

(World's oldest Office manager get's the Guinness World Record in 2021 at the age of 90, now she is 94 and still working.)

I wouldn't be sure about that.

Trump might not be a dependable partner, we'll see. There's still those Americans that actually believe in a healthy way in their country and it's role in the World. The self-hatred hasn't become endemic.

You might think the US is over, that's it's time is finished. But hold on, there's nobody replacing them. So the end might not be just around the corner. China and Russia are facing big problems themselves.

If we had a global government, that would be an issue that could be raised. — frank

In the case of Afghanistan, it was raised. You don't need a global government to do this.
That women were educated, could go to work was one of things that people were proud about in the Afghan Republic. And the women's demonstrations against the Taleban did happen, which tells what many Afghans think about Theocracy. Just like the youth in Iran.

(from years ago after the Western withdrawal from Afghanistan)

Redirect funds from social programs to defense? — frank

I'll repeat. What is so wrong with having an alliance? Several countries together are stronger than one alone. And the EU is actually giving in total more money to Ukraine than the US.

Besides, the Swedes did have nuclear weapons for a while. The problem was that only in the 1970's did they produce a fighter that was capable of carrying the free fall bomb. But what really stops Putin is a force that he simply cannot win.

Does anybody produce 'original' ideas? — Beverley

Yes. It can happen, even it's extremely rare and the person getting the "original" idea won't usually know that actually his or her idea is quite original.

My father had a wonderful saying about medical research: "Everything in medical research has been already been thought in old German medical journals, but as nobody reads them anymore, nobody knows about them."

Yes, but I thought Afghanistan was invaded on a quest to find Osama Bin Ladin. — frank

Indeed the American response was totally different as in the first Twin Tower bombings, but you did it. As the saying goes, once you break it, you own it. But I guess now the idea is to break it, then get bored and simply walk away.

Do you think that there was nothing good was in having a Republic of Afghanistan? Do you think that it's bad that girls and women would be educated? Have you ever talked with an Afghan on how they see the rule of Taleban? I have, had a long discussion. The Afghan hated the Taleban. He was an older guy, so remembered fondly the 1970's the times before the Saur revolution. But I guess that many Afghans would have preferred democracy (of some sort) and not a theocracy is irrelevant here.

I think that's because 1) it's not really in American interest to protect countries near Russia — frank

Really?
That doesn't sound well to a Finn, or a Swede. What is so bad with something like NATO? Not only is it a successful defense pact against Russian imperialism, but it has pacified countries inside Europe. It is far more stronger than Putin's autocratic Russia. What is so wrong with that? It's an international alliance that has as it's members states that have desired to be part of the alliance. What on Earth is wrong with that? Why do need now to bow to a bloody tyrant in Russia?

2) the US is in decline, with a giant debt that will never be paid and concerns over how it's going to keep paying social security. — frank

Why embrace decline? Is cultural pessimism so trendy?

If Americans themselves don't believe in their country, who will? How will that help you not believing in your country? Remember, if you hate your country and see as many Trumpist your own institutions as the enemy, then you will be talking the Russian disinformation lines and hence the Kremlin is so victorious.

What do you think Russia, China, and North Korea are going to do? — frank

Ask first, what will you do?

If you walk away, then you will just leave Russia and China here. North Korean troops are already fighting in Europe. Chinese vessels are already cutting internet cables in the Baltic Sea connecting my country to Central Europe. The Chinese are already helping their Russian allies with the hybrid attacks. It's a constant barrage of little sabotage that didn't happen earlier. Hence the cable cutting is no accident. You don't have freak accidents happening at this pace. And you can see the "Finlandization" here at the present: nobody is saying anything against China, even if it ships have been very active.

So please understand, that this anti-US alliance is already in Europe and already engaged in hybrid warfare against the US and it's allies. And if you let Russia have Ukraine, that will only embolden this alliance to go further. You do understand that Russian leadership views the US as an enemy, but will surely use every "useful idiot" they can find.

Self-criticism in Western thinking is good if you want to improve something, if you desire to better yourself. Yet in order to do that, you have to have a positive idea of yourself. Because self-criticism also leads to depression and apathy, where you don't see anything good in yourself. And here Russian disinformation is giving a toxic narrative for people to believe: that Western Culture is dying because of liberal democracy and somehow Russia is this last champion of Western ideals. That because of US actions there's war in Ukraine. Because US actions neo nazis rule Ukraine. And that the solution to the cancer of liberal democracy is strong leaders, like Vladimir Putin.

If anyone can be close to doing all that it is a workaholic like Trump. His deluded haters just won’t give him a chance. — NOS4A2

Have you ever looked at how the Trump works and how the Trump team has worked? Have really followed how his prior tariffs/trade wars went in reality?

It's basically quite similar as to what the last year of the Trump administration was like, when Trump wasn't looking for the best, but looking for the most loyal.

And btw just look at that story above. Note the part where "a senior Trump transition member told Rolling Stone" and "Three sources familiar with those conversations told Rolling Stone". Yep, that's a Trump administration alright. Leaks like a faucet and is quite incapable of doing anything about it as one leaker will be the Television staring POTUS himself. I mean, the administration hasn't even started, and similar way how the Trump admin worked already can be seen. :razz:

Well, at least you have total transparency with a Trump administration. Having read a lot about the Trump administration, listened to interviews and so on, it's exactly the same story that everybody is talking. Everybody tells the same story. And when you listen to Trump, you notice exactly that person.

But of course you can have your rosy tinted glasses on and simply accuse everybody else of TDS.

I do indeed think he’ll do fine. — NOS4A2

If he's selected, then we'll see after few years.

Did you notice that when you bugged out from Afghanistan, the ally of yours collapsed immediately after you directly negotiated with your Islamist enemies without them?

This Trump-Biden cop out made Putin to think you wouldn't react much if he attempted a takeover Ukraine (as his intel painted a very rose picture of easy this would be). Hence if you push for a similar "peace" that is very unfavorable for Ukraine, just like you did with North Vietnam and the Taleban (without caring much about South Vietnam or Afghanistan), then you embolden Russia, China and North Korea.

Hope you understand the logic.

Textbook case how the US gets into conflicts:

Donald Trump and his team are reportedly debating “how much” to invade Mexico once he takes office, a new report claims.

Trump and his transition team staff are discussing a “soft invasion” of the country, Rolling Stone reports. These conversations come after Trump promised to “wage war” on drug cartels in Mexico both during his first term and on the campaign trail.

“How much should we invade Mexico?” a senior Trump transition member told Rolling Stone. “That is the question.” This “soft invasion” would involve American special forces assassinating cartel leaders in Mexico, another source close to the president-elect told Rolling Stone.

Three sources familiar with those conversations told Rolling Stone that Trump said that the US has “tougher killers than they do” and is mulling a similar plot to that carried out when American forces killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019. The deployment would be covert, the outlet reported, and would not rely on the Mexican government’s consent.

Or rely on the consent of the US Congress, likely. I can imagine drones hitting houses that may perhaps have organized crime members or simply unlucky innocent Mexicans. And then put the Trump stooges in control of this, it surely will work brilliantly. :vomit:

Nothing new under the sun. Yet a case example how the US gets sucked into quagmires then later blamed on the "Deep State" and the military industrial complex.

What else would be a better idea than bombing Mexico and having special forces running around the country without the knowledge of the Mexican Government? Or right, having also a trade war with them at the same time!

Hopes this doesn't come to be a reality. That it is just one of those fantasies that an incoming administration eager to do everything thinks about doing before the hard reality sets in.

I'd be pretty surprised if he supports Ukraine in any way. Why would he? — frank

That's the worry. That he will do the same thing for Ukrainian that he did to the Republic of Afghanista, a surrender deal and hence assist the Russians as he did the Taleban.

People are worried about this, just like NATO's secretary general.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has told U.S. President-elect Donald Trump that Washington would face a "dire threat" from China, Iran, and North Korea if Ukraine is forced to accept an unfavorable peace deal, the Financial Times reported on Dec. 2.

But why should Trump listen to people like Rutte, when he has his friend Putin. Who btw shows his prowess as an intel guy in how he talks to Trump:

No wonder he couldn’t get everything done that he wanted to. It’s difficult to run a country with the ceaseless disruptions from all branches of government and the fourth estate. — NOS4A2

No @NOS4A2, just stop and think about this one for a while: It's impossible for ANY President to perform at the same time of 1) tackling all the crises that land on the desk of the POTUS daily, 2) of doing the obligatory functions of the executive, 3) leading foreign policy, 4) leading trade and economic policy (and the trade wars), 5) leading all other policies and 6) implement radical reforms. And then is the work of getting all the contributions to the next elections.

The system is far too much any single person can handle, and that's the key point! It cannot be handled by one single person. In other countries you have a division of a President and a Prime Minister where the President isn't a ceremonial position, like in France. If there's a political crisis, the prime minister goes and in comes a new one, while the President stays. Now Project 2025 wants Trump to have more power. Come on, it's not going to work. Trump isn't a team leader and he just picks up the strangest people to surround him, but as long as their totally loyal and will do everthing he says, he's happy. Until nothing gets done and things just implode.

So I forgive any and all failures. — NOS4A2

Will you also forgive him for all the failures he will do in the future too?

It was Patel’s work on the so-called Nunes memo that broke the scandal wide open, and was later confirmed by the Inspector General’s report and the Durham investigation. — NOS4A2

Yes, and that's the kind of lawyer Kash Patel is and that's why he is Trump's pick. Doing lawyer stuff as an aide for Nunez etc. Yet Kash hasn't lead anything larger than a small team of lawyers and tried to find the "mole" inside the White House. Oh but you think Kash Patel will do fine by leading an organization of 37 000 policemen? Oh, any lawyer can do that, right? After all that rhetoric of going against the real gangsters inside the FBI.

It turns out it was right all along; the FBI was reckless, incompetent, grossly negligent. They failed to uphold their one mission, to maintain a strict fidelity of the law, and it’s clear they just didn’t want anyone to find out the truth. — NOS4A2

Nope. Comey simply couldn't handle Trump. Comey assumed he could avoid the political infighting in Washington DC, but he didn't, he failed miserably in it and created a mess himself. Starting from giving that "October Surprise" to Trump with restarting the probe on Hillary Clinton. Yet as Trump is so strange when it comes to his absolute love of Putin, that it just confused them (and actually, everybody). Even goddam Kash Patel said admitted in an interview that the FBI has to investigations are normal in the intel field. But then the Dems wanted to go further with the Russia link, just as they did all the time cried about what happened on the January 6th.

No, Comey's stupidity comes from not understanding what kind of person Trump is. When Trump asked him for loyalty, he would simply have said to be loyal to the President of the US and then veer the discussion to something like Trump likes, like how kick-ass FBI agents the bureau has and Trump should come to see them, it would be a perfect photo op for the Prez. Nope, he was so worried about the legal ramifications about the President asking for loyalty that was in shock about it. Even if it happened later, Comey should have taken example from the Secret Service: when Trump wanted to go to Capitol Hill on January 6th, the Secret Service just drove him back to the White House where he then watched everything happen from the television.

Actually Mike Pompeo as CIA director could handle Trump far better. He simply refused the position of the Director if he would have had to anything with what Trump saw as the witch hunt against the President. Hence Pompeo could run CIA perfectly easy and so well, that Trump picked him to be the secretary of state. Yeah, it was simply that simple.

Again, your experienced directors have been proven incompetent, and numerous investigations and whistleblowers has proven the FBI in need of serious reform. — NOS4A2

Again you fail to answer what wrong Christopher Wray has done. Perhaps the reason is that Wray got the highest DOJ reward for public service in 2005, which obviously makes him part of the Deep State. Trump said Wray was "a man with impeccable credentials" when he picked Wray. The Wray's tenure I guess would basically last until 2027.

Your unmitigated fears are not based on much, ssu. — NOS4A2

That the Trump team won't deliver, but just create a mess is for me the most probable outcome just by comparing how things went during the last years of the previous Trump administration. Likely what they can be successful is simply moving the FBI out of Washington DC, which isn't something like "destroying the Deep State". If you think that is an "unmitigated fear", then you are funny in your blind faith in Trump.

But it's the typical way that Americans totally devote to one side or the other and in doing so, totally throw out any critical thinking they have and simply become supporters of their side. I saw this happening first when Obama got to be President: when Bush was around, those liberals and Democrats were Oh so against the excesses of the War on Terror, against the Patriot Act, against GITMO, yet once Obama came into power and things continued totally the same, they were totally silent. Patriot Act wasn't repealed, GITMO is still open, and the War on Terror actually continues in places like Iraq. Even today, even if it's said that the US troops would withdraw from Iraq in 2025. Upholding human rights or the values of the Constitution only when it's convenient simply shows that people really don't care about those values, they are just issues that are used as means to get to the goal of having power. Anybody with some understanding of philosophy would notice how hollow this is.

And now the Republicans are against the Deep State, against big Government and will be in a similar denial as they always have been when the GOP won't deliver them the smaller government they have promised now for many decades. And the likely outcome is that the Intelligence/Security complex will get far more mercurial, less controlled by Congressional oversight and more "Deep State" like during the Trump administration. The exact opposite what these people promoting it to be. Just like the idea of a smaller government last time.

The Trump administration came into office with the expressed intention of shrinking the size of the federal government and its workforce.

However, our latest analysis shows that the number of full-time, civilian federal employees increased throughout the former president’s term, and despite some exceptions, several trends in demographics, seniority, career focus, and agency size also held steady during this time.

Overall, the federal workforce increased by an average of 0.9% per year between December 2016, just before the start of the Trump administration, and December 2020, just before the president left office. This increase compares with a 0.3% average increase during the second term of the Obama administration.

You think anyone living in western society today (which I'm assuming this thread is about) is going to be remembered as a great person? — Tzeentch

Certainly. And as history shows it, we have no idea of them at the present. Only the future will define who is seen as a great person of the start of the 21st Century. Important historical figures there naturally will be that we also know. Vladimir Putin is one example. People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs possibly Elon Musk will be noticed too, just like Henry Ford or John D Rockefeller are historical figures.

Or Trump wants Patel to be his Lavrenti Beriya. But of course, when it's John Bolton commenting, conspiracy theorists will be enthusiastic that someone like Bolton is against Patel. For them it's just shows the "credibility" of Patel.

Yet one has to remember, that the FBI hasn't been manned from the start out of revolutionary serial killers as the Cheka / NKVD was. The organization Berija lead, just as the KGB, saw itself as the forefront figthers of the revolution. Whatever we can think about the Hoover years, the FBI, just as the US judicial system, isn't the tool of the President. FBI agents think of themselves as policemen, not servants to a revolutionary cause, who have to take care of the ugly hard work. Just as the US military sees itself as defending the Republic, not as the tool of the President.

What do you think that FBI agents will think about a director that thinks they themselves, the people he ought to lead, are the gangsters and the enemy to the American that have to be purged? This is the real issue here: this will just make the FBI weaker and ineffective. Someone like Kash Patel will enthusiastically try to fulfill every whim and vagary that Trump tells him to do. You think that will work?

And if Trump wants to deport every thirty third person living in America, guess who are then put to do this job? Already Trump has talked about using the Army, but likely all security agencies will be put into this effort, which Trump has control over. It's about many millions of people who should be deported. You think someone like Kash Patel would complain that this isn't what the FBI should do? That it isn't one the top priorities of the FBI? Heck, for a Trump minion like Patel, the mission statement of the FBI, to "protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States" is simply a carte blance for doing anything that Trump wants. His real actions in the previous Trump administration show what a sycophant he is, so it's whimsical to believe that his mission is to fight the Deep State. Previously he was part of the infant "Deep State" of Trump himself!

No, it simply won't work. Trump is no Hitler, no Stalin. Without Stalin, there's no Berija. The great populist orator lacks the essential leadership abilities that are needed to overthrow democracy in the US. And hence Patel will be just this laughing stock and afterwards Americans will ask just what happened to the FBI.

... to the silent cheers of a few that don't have the US' best interest at heart.
All their "deep state" "swamp" enemies ... crap sells, especially to a certain demographic, again to the silent cheers of...
Well, maybe they can turn the cheers into discouragement or indifference, we'll see. — jorndoe

It's basically quite logical. When you see your own government as the enemy, then you will parrot similar narratives as those countries truly hostile at you. And people don't understand just how detrimental this is when these kind of people really get into power.

When you aren't singling out the corrupt actors, just like Biden and his lies about not pardoning his son, but paint with a large brush over entire departments and institutions, the damage will be serious. Conspiracy theorist don't go after individuals, but think there's a larger organization behind everything. First and foremost, conspiracy theorists don't believe that their own government has done anything positive. Hence there's no understanding about the reality, that the alliances and the Pax Americana has actually benefited the US hugely.

Potentially, yes. Trump thinks about things very transactionally. He wants to "win" any deal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And all deals simply don't go through. "Winning" any deal might not be a win.

Why I think this is important is that usually all US Presidents attempt a domestic agenda, don't get much of it done and finally the only playing field for them is the Foreign policy arena.

What is Putin going to do, declare "victory" while leaving the "Nazi regime" in power in Kyiv with explicit US security guarantees that are for all intents and purposes going to have the same effect as being in NATO — Count Timothy von Icarus

Would in the end the US do this? That's the real question. I'm all for Trump if would seek a position of strength for Ukraine, but is it really this. Where US has really commitment is supporting Israel. That's where I see a real bipartisan commitment, which isn't fluttering in the Wind. Ukraine hasn't that. In 2016 Trump did give a damn on Ukraine. Anyway, I fear that in the US many politicians see Ukraine simply as a "problem". Like Iraq, Afghanistan, South Vietnam etc. While Putin can indeed declare a victory. After all, according to him, Russia has fought NATO all along, hence Russia can say it has defeated the might of the West and prevailed.

This was what was worth all the deaths — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, the idea of Russia that has regained it's territory, Russia re-emerging from it's latest "Time of Troubles" is indeed worth that. It's irrelevant that Crimea and the Donbas are basically more of a dead weight and a burden than new resources that would or could vitalize the country. It's irrelevant that the important economic ties to Europe are cut. Putin doesn't care a shit about economics. He has re-iterated even today what a disaster the collapse of the Soviet Union was and this is his attempt to restore it. Politicians do start wars because of ideas.

I can certainly see Putin being forced to overreach and this triggering a stronger response. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Russia could lose as it did lose the Russo-Japanese War or the Soviet-Polish war. A war lost would likely change Russian politics and lead to internal reforms. Yet if the West repeats to itself again and again that "the Ukraine war is unwinnable", then Putin will win and Russia won't stop at Ukraine.

As mentioned sometime, continuing to bring up "NATO is in a proxy war with Russia", is about as helpful/useful as saying "North Korea and Iran are in a proxy war with Ukraine", — jorndoe

Except that in the case of North Korea it isn't in a proxy war. When you commit your own armed forces into a war, you are directly a combatant, whatever you say about denying the whole issue or declare them being "volunteers" etc.

* * *
What is happening in Georgia now will be telling. After several proxy conflicts, an open war and annexations, will Georgia bow down and accept it's place under Russia sphere of influence? Another example that this isn't just about Ukraine.

Biden is currently the head of the executive branch but here in the US we know he's not running the show. Who is? Beats me. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, Biden is running the show at least to pardon his son. Yes, he is inept and corrupt. But that doesn't change things for the next administration. Why should it also be inept and corrupt?

You see, it's not the idea of a FBI director to be a purely political position. You do have the political appointment to supervise the FBI, the Attorney General. That's the "democratic oversight", usually. Just as in my country, there's a minister for Justice. But it would be questionable if a President of Finland would start putting his minions to be the head of the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (which is something equivalent to the FBI). That the guy wouldn't be a policeman and someone with intel work background would raise immediately eyebrows in our democracy.

Above all, it was Trump himself that appointed the current FBI director when he fired Comey. This is simply a power grab: Trump wants a loyal yes-man to the position to act as his personal investigative bureau. And if you look at what Kash Patel did in the White House, that's what you are getting.

If Trump was asked : "Have you no sense of decency?" he would just smirk and say: "I have the most decency, the best decency. They say no one has more decency than me." It is, of course his complete lack of decency and his shamelessness that shields him from even being bothered by the accusation. — Fooloso4

Yes, many things have changed. You see, back then people respected the system, even McCarthy. But for people who see the United States government itself as the enemy, why would they care? The ENEMY is the United States government. You fight your enemy in any way possible.

Dismissing Patel because of his lack of experience is silly because his experience includes serving as a U.S. National Security Council official, — NOS4A2

Yes, at least Fox News makes him to be well suited for the job. He also sells Trump shirts, btw.
So he was a NSC staffer there, but I think his breakthrough, if I remember correctly, was writing or assisting on writing the Nunes memo. Interestingly it was Carter Page that made me first surprised, because Page was the first American ever to say that Ukraine was an artificial state (and hence talked the Kremlin line). Then Patel was active in Ukraine when Trump was looking ways to get Biden. So basically he's a minion that Trump wants to have around.

Besides, all of your experienced directors like McCabe and Comey have been proven by investigations to be wildly incompetent, biased, and unable to abide by a strict fidelity to the law. — NOS4A2

So what failure did Trump do with the current FBI director, that he himself appointed? Comey or McCabe aren't replaced here, but Christopher Wray, a Trump appointee.

What is his wild incompetency? That he didn't deliver an "October Surprise" like Comey did with reopening the Hillary Clinton investigation and didn't go after Biden, his boss, with similar investigations? Not MAGA enough for you?

This is just bullshit. You really think you are rooting for someone like Patel to "drain the swamp", go against the Deep State? Nothing like that is happening here. Everything is just partisan politics and a power grab disguised in "fighting the Deep State". But people fall for it, just like they have fallen over every time to think that Republicans will make the Government smaller. Trump made it very clear what kind of a FBI director he really wants: a loyal Herbert Hoover that will go after Trump's own enemies.

(And correction, Kash has written at least three books about King Donald)

You can tell people are scared of getting exposed by Patel. — NOS4A2

I don't care a Goddamn fuck what Patel "exposes". It's not the director of the FBI that's job is to "expose" people. It's his job to lead a 37 000 person organization. How could some Patel make differences, really? He hasn't lead any kind of organization, has basically worked three years in the Trump administration and is a simple Floridian lawyer who has a personal grudge against the FBI. He is total political appointee. He'll just cripple the effectiveness of the department and sink it's morale.

It’s just not true that Patel has no plan, because he wrote a whole book describing it. — NOS4A2

Oh yes, he did!!!! :rofl:



Ohhh... King Trump is confronted by the evil woke Deep State. And HILLARY!!! (And seems like Kash Patel himself is in the book as the friendly magician helping king Trump) :lol:

And really @NOS4A2, you think that this yes-man of Trump really wants to "reassert self government"? What you said is simply that he's going to bog down the department by a needless moving of the department somewhere else (which will cost much and disrupt ordinary work) and then go against people that he or Trump deems to part of "the Deep State", corrupt law enforcement personnel, in retaliation of prior inquiries on Trump.

And that's fucking it. Really, if you believe that it's something else than retaliation against those who made the inquiries of Trump, and need of "aggressive congressional oversight", that's really naive. Trump doesn't give a fuck about "aggressive congressional oversight". Isn't Kash actually going after those politicians who should "aggressive congressional oversight" in January 6th.

Once again we see what Trump means by MAGA, a return to the time of his mentor Roy Cohn and McCarthyism, a campaign of fear and repression, with the "deep state" now taking the place of communism as the enemy within. — Fooloso4

Then it was the McCarthy hearings against the US armed forces that ended McCarthyism. For those who don't know, it's very telling what happened to McCarthy and Roy Cohn, as they imploded on live television. Would that happen today, no?



Yet now the idea of going against "the Deep State" is simply absurd. Yet this is the line that Trump goes on again and again: that the real enemy is inside the US, not China and, heaven forbid, not Russia. It is absurd and illogical as Trump is the head of the executive branch. And he should be the law and order President. Of course this is easy for Trump: anyone who is loyal to him is a "warrior" and anyone that opposes or simply doesn't go with all of what he wants is part of the "Deep State".

So next absolutely loyal sycophant yes-man Trump wants to head (read demolish) an US institution is Kash Patel to head the FBI. Here's (from three months ago) a short clip why the NSC staffer that Trump wanted to put into CIA and FBI leading positions. Before being the yes-man of Trump, basically Patel was a layer in Florida and that's basically it.



And this just tell what's it going to be like. Trump wants to go after people he doesn't like and minions like Kash Patel will go after them ...and figure out on the way how, as Kash himself states.

The issue with these conspiracy theorists and people around Trump that talk about the "Deep State" is that they don't give a fuck about strengthening the democratic institutions against a "Deep State", they simply want to run it, embrace it and expand it for the service of Trump. Total devotion to Trump is the key.

If he would be given the FBI, the end result would be that FBI likely would be less functioning and worse performing institution. True reforms are done by people who are devoted in improving an institution, not having their only objective to serve the whims of the President and having likely a personal vendetta against the department they will be running.

But of course, for one @NOS4A2, it's the best pick. Because of course the US doesn't need an FBI. Should it be demolished?

He doesn't need to put any effort into that. — frank

Trump will do that for him? :chin:

Actually, the Kremlin surely hopes this happens. An intense trade war might do the trick.

Or it might not. Let's remember what was written about Trump's trade wars in the first Trump administration:

(Brookings, 2020) As a candidate in 2016, Donald Trump built his argument for the presidency around his claimed acumen as a dealmaker. As the 2020 election draws nearer, President Trump and his surrogates are doubling down on that assertion, including by calling attention to what he has deemed “the biggest deal ever seen”: the “phase one” trade deal with China. The agreement reportedly includes a Chinese commitment to purchase an additional $200 billion in American goods above 2017 levels by the end of 2021.

Six months after the deal was inked, the costs and benefits of this agreement are coming into clearer focus. Despite Trump’s claim that “trade wars are good, and easy to win,” the ultimate results of the phase one trade deal between China and the United States — and the trade war that preceded it — have significantly hurt the American economy without solving the underlying economic concerns that the trade war was meant to resolve. The effects of the trade war go beyond economics, though. Trump’s prioritization on the trade deal and de-prioritization of all other dimensions of the relationship produced a more permissive environment for China to advance its interests abroad and oppress its own people at home, secure in the knowledge that American responses would be muted by a president who was reluctant to risk losing the deal.

More pain than gain: How the US-China trade war hurt America

Let’s not forget, however, that while Trump inked the deal with the Taliban that lead to the US withdrawal, it was Biden who had to execute it, which lead to those disastrous scenes and deaths at Kabul Airport and the debacle of the collapse of the Afghan military. — Wayfarer

Yes, this is so. The double whammy of two incompetent leaders is what created us scenes where desperate Afghans try to fly jet transports holding on to their landing gear... not understanding that they will die as the cruise speed of the aircraft is 520 mph and it flies at altitudes they won't have oxygen and aren't going to survive the cold either.

The unfortunate issue here is that because Presidents of both parties are culprits for this disaster, it isn't discussed at all. Because it's a bipartisan failure, in the highly partisan discourse it won't surface.

I think it’s too optimistic to hope for Ukraine to turn the tide of war, but it’s desperately important to avoid and outcome that Putin can claim as a victory. — Wayfarer

It's not so rosy either for Putin and Russia. He is burning through a lot of manpower and war material. It's not like all would be lost for Ukraine.

Why the situation is actually quite bad is very well put in the following video that also goes through what mistakes Trump made with the peace deal with the Taleban and what kind of peace plans there are now. Now we don't know what Trump will, do, yet a quick deal can have dramatic consequences. OF course, as the commentator say, this all is very speculative...



Going for an armstice and freezing the border where it is will be a victory for Putin. And then the conflict can continue as an on/off conflict it was 2014-2022. This will be simply damning and a way for Russia to really wore down Ukraine and NATO countries.

Now Trump has picked Keith Kellogg as the special envoy for Ukraine, who has been working at the America First Institute after retirement. At least this is a general, who isn't at all clueless, but has been a realist all along and just from looking at interviews he has given as a Fox commentator before the invasion and throughout the war. Kellog earlier urged the US to give more arms when Ukraine had the initiative and well predicted that the US isn't giving enough for Ukraine to win and that Russia will go on the defensive (which proved to be correct at that time).

On the America First Institute (think tank), Kellog himself gives a well thought paper on how he see the situation here: America First, Russia, & Ukraine

Some quotes from that paper that Kellog (and the think tank) state,

Ukraine’s potential admission to NATO was a sensitive issue for Vladimir Putin even before Joe Biden took the oath of office in January 2021. Although Putin was momentarily open to the idea in the early 2000s, he began to speak out against it after the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, which confirmed that NATO one day planned to admit Ukraine as a member.

Putin has long argued that Ukraine could never leave Russia’s sphere of influence by claiming Russians and Ukrainians are one people, denying that Ukrainians are a separate people, and opposing the idea of an independent Ukrainian state. During a one-on-one meeting with President George W. Bush in 2008, Putin said, “You have to understand, George. Ukraine is not even a country.” During a visit to Kyiv in 2013, Putin said, “God wanted the two countries to be together,” and their union was based upon “the authority of the Lord,” unalterable by any earthly force.[ii] Putin underscored and highlighted this idea in a July 2021 essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” in which he argued Ukraine could only be sovereign in partnership with Russia and asserted that present-day Ukraine occupies historically Russian lands.[iii]

During a February 2024 interview with Putin by journalist Tucker Carlson, Putin provided a long, nonsensical account of Russian and Ukrainian history in which he disputed Ukraine’s nationality and history and repeated his ridiculous claims that Russia invaded Ukraine in part to fight Nazism in the country.[iv]

Here you can see that Kellogg is fully aware of the reason why Putin attacked Ukraine and is fully aware (unlike the pro-Kremlin apologists. Mearsheimer, Sachs) of the reasons why this isn't only about NATO enlargement.

Then a bit of alternative history, "what if" things had been done differently:

An America First approach could have prevented the invasion.

First, it was in America’s best interests to maintain peace with Putin and not provoke and alienate him with aggressive globalist human rights and pro-democracy campaigns or an effort to promote Ukrainian membership in NATO. It made no sense even to allude to supporting eventual NATO membership for Ukraine, as this would require a unanimous vote of NATO members, which at the time was highly unlikely. Ukraine also needed to meet stiff membership requirements, including democratic and military reforms that included aligning the Ukrainian military with NATO equipment. (At the June 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius, NATO members pledged to admit Ukraine once they agreed "conditions are met," and dropped the membership requirements. This was understood to mean NATO would consider admitting Ukraine after the war ends.)

Second, it was in America’s interest to make a deal with Putin on Ukraine joining NATO, especially by January 2022 when there were signs that a Russian invasion was imminent. This was the time when the Biden Administration should have dropped its obsession with publicly criticizing Putin and worked toward a compromise. A U.S. offer to delay Ukraine’s admission into NATO for a decade might have been enough to convince Putin to call off the invasion, but Biden Administration officials refused to make such an offer.

Third, the United States and its allies should have sent substantial lethal aid to Ukraine in the fall of 2021 to deter a Russian invasion. Instead, as an invasion appeared likely in December 2021, Biden ignored urgent appeals from Zelenskyy for military aid—especially anti-tank Javelins and anti-air Stingers—and warned Putin that the United States would send lethal aid to Ukraine if Russia invaded. Biden’s message conveyed U.S. weakness to Putin, implying he could use military intimidation to manipulate U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

Some notable points. Kellogg understands that NATO membership wasn't happening, and lethal military aid should have been jumped up before the invasion. Only that is deterrence. Yet this is only a hypothetical scenario and if Putin would have been stopped from invading Ukraine is uncertain as his actions fully show that this isn't just about NATO or what the US does, but Ukraine itself.

As this is very long, here's Kellogg's actual peace plan, or what the objective of it should be:

This should start with a formal U.S. policy to bring the war to a conclusion.

Specifically, it would mean a formal U.S. policy to seek a cease-fire and negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict. The United States would continue to arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses to ensure Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a cease-fire or peace agreement. Future American military aid, however, will require Ukraine to participate in peace talks with Russia.

To convince Putin to join peace talks, President Biden and other NATO leaders should offer to put off NATO membership for Ukraine for an extended period in exchange for a comprehensive and verifiable peace deal with security guarantees.

In their April 2023 Foreign Affairs article, Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan proposed that in exchange for abiding by a cease-fire, a demilitarized zone, and participating in peace talks, Russia could be offered some limited sanctions relief. Ukraine would not be asked to relinquish the goal of regaining all its territory, but it would agree to use diplomacy, not force, with the understanding that this would require a future diplomatic breakthrough which probably will not occur before Putin leaves office. Until that happens, the United States and its allies would pledge to only fully lift sanctions against Russia and normalize relations after it signs a peace agreement acceptable to Ukraine. We also call for placing levies on Russian energy sales to pay for Ukrainian reconstruction.

By enabling Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength while also communicating to Russia the consequences if it fails to abide by future peace talk conditions, the United States could implement a negotiated end-state with terms aligned with U.S. and Ukrainian interests. Part of this negotiated end-state should include provisions in which we establish a long-term security architecture for Ukraine’s defense that focuses on bilateral security defense. Including this in a Russia-Ukraine peace deal offers a path toward long-term peace in the region and a means of preventing future hostilities between the two nations.

That seems calming as at least this is realistic, but then again, Kellogg is just an envoy and can be replaced. The notable issue here is if Ukraine really would be negotiating from a position of strength. Would Trump be ready to make a bilateral defense agreement on Ukraine to deter Russia? That Russia wouldn't just lick it's wounds, produce more tanks and ammo, have some new generations hit conscription age and continue the fight afterwards? Or will the peace deal be a Dolchstoss for Ukraine that Zalmay Khalilzad negotiated for Trump in Doha 2020.

This is the real question here.

Xi publicly chided him for talking about nuclear engagement. I took that to be a sign that Xi is in charge. No? — frank

What else would someone say? And it's not like China is putting sanctions or limits on Russia because statements like that. China isn't going to go all North Korea, naturally, as it still views that it has to have ties with Europe. It's support of Russia has already alienated European countries.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what he's thinking until he actually puts troops on the border. He lies all the time. And at this point he's using North Korean troops. Is he really at a point where he could unilaterally declare war on any European state? — frank

Nope and It doesn't happen like that.

The objective is to simply weaken the US and European ties, NATO and the EU. You see, Russia gains it's objectives is NATO collapses. Then it has military superiority against European states. Do not think that this game is played only by actual conflict with Russia tanks rolling to the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. What it's aims are for example for my country, Finland, have been said quite clearly: Finland should be as "Finlandized" as it was let's say in the 1970's with Russians having a dominant say in the internal politics of Finland. And it of course "understanding" Russian foreign policy.

These aren't 'Kremlin lies' - these are common views held among many Western scholars — Tzeentch

:rofl:

Yes, you've gone over the few many times over and over again. Jeffrey Sachs, Mearsheimer, the tiny lot.

If you don't want to debate, don't debate, but don't throw this weak nonsense at me. — Tzeentch

Good debate is to produce a counterargument based on some evidence, a clear way to say just what is wrong or something like that. Which I try to do, but going over and over again things like the Ukrainian revolution isn't worth wile with you as you stick to the obvious anti-American narrative where everything has happened because of the US and Putin simply has responded to such "outright hostility". But seems for you "debate" is like:

"Fresh evidence" - Yea, typical nonsense when unfortunate facts need to be white-washed — Tzeentch

Do we hear from you what was wrong there? Of course not.

It's a long discussion about nothing. I think the EU will pull itself together when and if it needs to. Since Russia is relatively gutted and under the thumb of Xi, I don't think it presents much of a threat right now. — frank

I'd disagree with that. Putin isn't under the thumb of Xi. Just look at how many times the Russians have disappointed Xi with their wars.

First of all, when Putin says that he's at war with NATO, you really shouldn't underestimate this. Iran hasn't declared being at war with the US, even if the US is the Great Satan. Hamas hasn't declared being at war with the US. But Putin has. This won't end in Ukraine.

Usually Eastern Europeans have clarity on the Russian intensions and objectives. One clear and thoughtful document is from Warsaw based think tank Center for Eastern Studies (OSW), and it is worth listening to.



It shows what the West is clearly lacking. Determination to counter Putin and his reconquista.

Repeating the delusional Kremlin lies isn't going to go anywhere. You can defend the rapist and accuse the rape victim as long as you want and try to win people over to your anti-Americanism. Luckily you are quite alone with that.

What are you referring to here? The Brussel summit of 2021 reiterated, for the first time in 13 years, that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. It looks like the opposite... — Benkei

The guarantees that Germany made that Ukraine wouldn't become a member after the military buildup that was "military exercizes". Or just read Angela Merkels memoirs. Or look at the position of Hungary on Ukrainian NATO membership. Ukraine has gotten only this "member in the future" without actual timetable. Just look at the comparison to the two newest NATO members: Before actual membership application Turkey didn't see any problem in Finland joining NATO (Finland asked it before the application), but once the actual application was in, then the bazaar haggling by Erdogan started just as with Sweden. Yet now Hungary is directly opposed to Ukrainian membership even before there is no application process ongoing with Ukraine. That's a huge difference.

And moreover, what about the Brussel summit of 2021? Did it really iterate that? NO! There is NO talk of when Ukraine would join NATO. Here's what the actual communique said about Ukraine:

First of the situation that Ukraine and Georgia and Moldavia are in:

We reiterate our support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova within their internationally recognised borders. In accordance with its international commitments, we call on Russia to withdraw the forces it has stationed in all three countries without their consent. We strongly condemn and will not recognise Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, and denounce its temporary occupation. The human rights abuses and violations against the Crimean Tatars and members of other local communities must end. Russia’s recent massive military build-up and destabilising activities in and around Ukraine have further escalated tensions and undermined security. We call on Russia to reverse its military build-up and stop restricting navigation in parts of the Black Sea. We also call on Russia to stop impeding access to the Sea of Azov and Ukrainian ports. We commend Ukraine’s posture of restraint and diplomatic approach in this context. We seek to contribute to de-escalation. We are also stepping up our support to Ukraine. We call for the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements by all sides, and support the efforts of the Normandy format and the Trilateral Contact Group. Russia, as a signatory of the Minsk Agreements, bears significant responsibility in this regard. We call on Russia to stop fuelling the conflict by providing financial and military support to the armed formations it backs in eastern Ukraine. We reiterate our full support to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

And here, about the relationship between Ukraine and NATO:

We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits. We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference. The Annual National Programmes under the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) remain the mechanism by which Ukraine takes forward the reforms pertaining to its aspiration for NATO membership. Ukraine should make full use of all instruments available under the NUC to reach its objective of implementing NATO principles and standards. The success of wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law, will be crucial in laying the groundwork for a prosperous and peaceful Ukraine. Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services of Ukraine, are particularly important. We welcome significant reforms already made by Ukraine and strongly encourage further progress in line with Ukraine’s international obligations and commitments. We will continue to provide practical support to reform in the security and defence sector, including through the Comprehensive Assistance Package. We will also continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to strengthen its resilience against hybrid threats, including through intensifying activities under the NATO-Ukraine Platform on Countering Hybrid Warfare. We welcome the cooperation between NATO and Ukraine with regard to security in the Black Sea region. The Enhanced Opportunities Partner status granted last year provides further impetus to our already ambitious cooperation and will promote greater interoperability, with the option of more joint exercises, training, and enhanced situational awareness. Military cooperation and capacity building initiatives between Allies and Ukraine, including the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade, further reinforce this effort. We highly value Ukraine’s significant contributions to Allied operations, the NATO Response Force, and NATO exercises.

This simply is the "Ukraine can be a member in the future" -rhetoric given already ages ago WITH NO TIMETABLE. Just commentary that Ukraine has done good, but has still to do work in "wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law" and also "Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services of Ukraine". And this will be supported. The limbo that Ukraine was continuing in 2021. And seems to continue today.

The fact is that Russia demanded a veto say on any new members to NATO. That goes against the founding charter of NATO. Or should NATO add an article to it's charter "new members have to be accepted by Russia in order to join the organization"? The alarm bells for Finnish leadership went off already back then, because Russia was demanding this. Even in the above communique, NATO states that " We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference." NATO would go against it charter if it would have accepted Russia's demands.

It's like Turkey's bid for EU membership: it's not going to get into the EU (if it still wanted), yet the EU won't admit publicly that Turkey does have no possibility of joining.

:100: :up: That's the truth, yet there are many Putin apologists like one frequent commentator on the thread who promote "realpolitik" and the anti-American narrative and tow the Kremlin-line. The real problem is that there's going to be these people in the Trump administration.

And Trump's stance is basically what you said. Hence Putin can be confident and is confident that Trump will give him a similar lucrative peace deal just as Trump gave to the Taleban. There simply is no way in hell that Trump would put pressure on Putin here. Would he, after all what he has said, then truly ramp up the support of Ukraine to pressure Putin? Would he give US cruise missiles (with conventional warheads) to Ukraine to put more pressure on Putin? Does he really think that selling US oil and gas will put pressure on Putin?

Nope. Americans don't care so much for Ukraine and they'll believe the "forever war that only supports the military industrial comples" argument. The cop out will be marketed as a brilliant achievement and any critique of it will be labelled as outbursts of "Trump Derangement Syndrom". Just look at how little the surrender deal to the Taleban sparked outcry.

And nobody responded?

Well, your proof of the apathy in the Dems camp.

Everybody's been angry for the past 10 years. Look how well that's turned out. — T Clark

Not the democratic party leadership. They haven't been angry. Yes, only about Trump have they been angry, but not about how things are.

One has to understand that DNC is now in the opposition where the ruling party has the keys to everything. Do you think Trump will really give a thought on how the GOP wins after him?

Trump has won because his supporters have been these despised underdogs. The laughs and the ridicule that Trump got made him from irrelevant to relevant. That has given them the passion that the Dems have lacked. That first the supporters of the Dems had to go with the line that Biden is perfectly capable of another four years, then it's just announced that Kamala is the candidate. You think that empowers the supporters, get's them to be enthusiastic? Hell no.

First, a general note - We can’t win elections or reach any of our goals without the support of working class people, including white men. The Democratic party is the natural home for them, but we’ve made it so they don’t feel they belong here. — T Clark

This is actually a reason why in general the center left has lost to populism. Or anti-elitist demagogues, which would be more accurate. Not just the Democrats in the US.

Real issues if the Democratic Party really wants to reform.

- Hell with the old octogenarian politicians. Party leadership should be not the age of retired people and the top leadership should be under 50. You can have capable old dogs only in the background and giving up their seats to new generations (to fuck it up, but it's the thought that counts). Octogenarian leadership is like the nearly dead leadership of the Soviet Union waving to the people on the Parade on the Red Square. That's the Dems now!

- Hell with the superdelegates system and lobby groups. That's what Americans really hate. After Trump, Americans truly believe in the "primaries" system and that the parties are so fucking democratic, that new people really can come up even if at odds with the party establishment. If they elect someone like Bernie, then go with Bernie. And if the Bernie totally crashes against a Republican nominee, then that is reality.

- Hell with the "it's their turn" thinking. The party shouldn't be so complacent to have this idea of politicians just waiting for "their turn" like Biden ...or Harris. The idea not to have a primary for the replacement of the totally unfit Biden is the reason why Democrats lost.

- Hell with criticizing of the voters! Oh, they were SO STUPID to believe Trump. Well, yes, many didn't have a better option. Stop believing in the idea that people will vote for you "because the other option is so bad". No, you are not good enough then. If an anti-elitist populist win your supporters vote, it's not the populists or the voters themselves that are the problem, it's fucking you that is the problem then.

- Hell with the mediocre and lame attitude. Be angry.

Poland seems to be the country best positioned to lead Europe against Russian imperialism.

GB put itself out of contention with Brexit. France and Germany are too politically compromised. — Banno

This is a rational choice, yet knowing the EU, no country alone can be a real leader... except the US if it would see alliances important (which it won't see in two months). Poland had the Visegrád Group, which was established by Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia (still), Lech Walesa of Poland and the prime minister of Hungary Antall in Visegrad, Hungary. Well, now unfortunately that won't work as Hungary is now pro-Russian (and quite hostile towards Ukraine).

Poland is seen as a possibility for leadership, as here (the American) Foreing Policy writes in the summer of this year:

A third model of leadership is emerging in Poland, where a new government has combined strong rhetoric with vast resources. Five years ago, then-European Council President Donald Tusk linked the future of Ukraine with the future of Europe in a speech at the Ukrainian Rada. Since becoming Polish prime minister last year, he has been very clear about Europe needing to adopt a prewar posture as it prepares for further attempts by the Kremlin to reestablish its former empire. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has been similarly clear in arguing for Europe’s long-term rearmament. He also warned Russia that it “is not we, the West, who should fear a clash with Putin, but the other way around.”

But it will take time still when Poland will be strong, even if their armament program is huge.

During the 1930's the countries between Germany and Soviet Union tried to do some defense cooperation, but that amounted to very little. In the Nordic countries when this came up, Finland saw the existential threat to be the Soviet Union, Denmark to be Germany and Sweden and Norway didn't think that anybody was threatening them.

I think the best way would be simply to form a "group" from NATO countries that would be willing to take seriously the assistance to Ukraine, perhaps UK-Poland leading with the Baltic and Nordic States. Now as all Nordic countries are in NATO, this would be totally possible. I would assume that the UK would like to be taken seriously as it has a difficulty having a new relationship with the EU. It's always difficult to start a relationship when your marked as the other one's "ex". Yet the UK is in NATO and when it's only in NATO, it will want to be an active member.

And notice that Trump won't naturally take the lead in NATO. The old orange man will just repeat his line that NATO members aren't doing their share and that time has moved past the organization and thus doesn't want to do anything with it. Anyway, he will spend his all his time bullying and quarreling about his tariffs that he so dearly loves.

Do you make notes when you listen? It's a good way, especially when listening to a person giving a longer response or a lecture. At work I do that, but not usually. On listening to audiobooks, simply where does one find that +14 hours to listen a book? A very good book you read far more quicker than you listen to,

But naturally while for example driving, your listening to something that you don't have to memorize or your already familiar with, like history. Driving and listening to Kant wouldn't work!

Seems like any counterargument against Tzeentch is "cherry picking". Like things like what the objectives of the Separatists were. Oh yes, if I mention the objectives of one side of the combatants, that's "cherry picking" for you. :lol:

You can no longer rely on the annexation of the four oblasts, since Russia has already proposed to return them to Ukraine in return for Ukrainian neutrality during the Istanbul negotiations, so now you retreat to an even less convincing argument. — Tzeentch

Who again is retreating to an even less convincing argument?

Istanbul negotiations happened in April 2022, when things weren't under control for Russia and the front hadn't been yet stabilized. Then it was perfect stalling tactic for the Kremlin then. Just look at all the Minsk agreements! That now it's a totally different situation doesn't matter to you, because this is the way you can defend Russia. And when those negotiations didn't come through then A HA! Tzeentch finds his Holy Grail: it's all the fault of US and the West, because they pushed Ukraine to continue. Not like the attrocities Bucha mattered. Everything would have been solved then.

Well, let's then look just WHY Istanbul negotiations failed:

According to the Charap and Radchenko account, the Istanbul deal would have been still born as it contains an obligation by the Western powers to provide real security guarantees that oblige them to commit troops in Ukraine if Ukraine was attacked again – something that Kyiv had not cleared with its Western allies during the talks and something they did not want to do.

This version of events tallies with earlier bne IntelliNews reporting, suggesting the proposed security deals the West was supposed to offer, but never actually agreed to ahead of, or during, the talks was the real dealbreaker.

“Even if Russia and Ukraine had overcome their disagreements, the framework they negotiated in Istanbul would have required buy-in from the United States and its allies. And those Western powers would have needed to take a political risk by engaging in negotiations with Russia and Ukraine and to put their credibility on the line by guaranteeing Ukraine’s security. At the time, and in the intervening two years, the willingness either to undertake high-stakes diplomacy or to truly commit to come to Ukraine’s defence in the future has been notably absent in Washington and European capitals,” the authors said.

(See Fresh evidence suggests that the April 2022 Istanbul peace deal to end the war in Ukraine was stillborn)

And how you cherry pick this story:

In the 2023 interview, Arakhamia ruffled some feathers by seeming to hold Johnson responsible for the outcome. “When we returned from Istanbul,” he said, “Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we won’t sign anything at all with [the Russians]—and let’s just keep fighting.”

This is the only thing important for you... not the story, just something what one Western politician said. That's all you need in your cherry pie along with the vague promises an US president has made for Kyiv about NATO membership (without there being any acceptance from all the member states about this, actually opposition to this). But who cares about the NATO charter.

After all, what has happened after, or what had happened before, what Putin has said about Ukraine, what he has done in Ukraine, what the Ukrainian territory means for Russia, that doesn't matter as the Istanbul negotiations are the only thing that matters here, because everything, absolutely everything is the fault of the West.

This is simply the Kremlin line that feeds on the self-criticism of the West.

Coming from the person that repeats one single reason for the war. :snicker:

In fact, it's plainly counter-intuitive and pretends that the developments of the war, amongst which a complete rejection of diplomacy by the West, did not significantly impact Russian war goals. — Tzeentch

Look, the obvious war goals were arleady there to anybody to see in 2014. Putin annexed Crimea. Annexed territory. Add there all the rhetoric of how artificial Ukraine as a state is and how it should be part of Russia. And all the focus on Novorossiya. It's mindboggling to say this wasn't obvious before 2022.

This map is from 2015:


Those "separatist" were directly controlled by Kremlin. The war aims have been there for anybody to see for years. Your denial about of this simply is laughable.

And oh yes, NATO enlargement was also a reason.

You're simply cherry-picking. — Tzeentch

Really? That I say that NATO enlargement was one reason, but so is also all the stuff the Putin has said, acted, put into law about the annexations of Ukrainian territory and Ukraine being an artificial coutry?

And I'm the one cherry picking?

You are hilarious! :rofl:

The unfortunate thing for you is that the Russians have told us exactly in word and in deed what they want for over a decade - a neutral Ukraine. — Tzeentch

As they exactly did about the lands they wanted to annex from Ukraine, Novorossiya.

I'm not pretending anything. I myself have said many times that Russia was against NATO enlargement. But that enlargement to Ukraine they had already stopped before February 2022. The major reason for the war and the objectives cannot be put more clearly than Putin did in September 30th 2022.

The fact is that you cannot deny what I say, hence you simply won't acknowledge the obvious and stick to this hallucination that conflict would have ended happily in Istanbul. All the various Minsk agreements and of course, the Budapest memorandum, have been simply peaces of papers Russia uses as toilet paper.

None of that has any meaning, @Tzeentch Face the reality what Putin wants.

You are like someone talking over and over about the Oslo Peace process, contemplating how it's going to be restarted. It cannot restart as Israel has truly changed, we are in a totally different era and the brief period when the conflict could have ended with the Oslo Peace process is over. Permanently.

And anyway, it's extremely likely that Putin simply would have used an agreement reached in Istanbul just for a time to get his military up after the initial failure in getting Blitzkrieg victory. Remember ALL the Minsk agreements? Remember them, @Tzeentch? THEY DIDN'T END THE CONFLICT!

What he has said and done tell it all so clearly. Face reality.