If you count with that equation the "decent salary of all employees (bonuses, B)", that is a fixed term cost that cannot be easily change (or then you have to fire people), but P is basically what has happened earlier, not an estimation of the future.

Hence you are not taking into account the demand side, the buyer or consumer) or competition. Hence too many ceteris paribus assumptions.

So Germany, or the German Chancellor, couldn't make up his mind about giving Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine or even accepting that other countries like Poland and Finland could give few. Finland has stated that it will give some tanks if the transfer is an European one meaning naturally that Germany has to OK the move.

(Some spare. Finns have Leopard 2 tanks in the tank museum and even have put them as monuments on a highway where the armoured brigade is.)


The UK, which has it's tank force basically down to one regiment, is giving one tank company (14 Challengers) to Ukraine. On the other hand there are about 3500 Leopard 2 tanks produced with ample amount of older Leopard 2A4 tanks around, which still is quite potent.

Germany, for some ludicrous reason, is now waiting for the US to give tanks too before it will (could?) give Leopards too. Which basically is a farce: tiny amounts of three different main battle tanks which only two (Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams) have similar main gun ammunition and all have different logistical systems. Leopard 2 would be the optimal role as a) many countries are willing to give them and b) the Abrams is more complicated to take care of. Likely Ukrainians can sustain them (as like the Patriot SAMs). Likely we are talking about the equipment to basically one armoured brigade, yet likely the modern tanks would be used in company-size battlegroups spread around the front.

Either it's the typical German feet-dragging or then Putin has bullied Scholz too much. Basically this is ridiculous political micromanagement when you already have committed yourself to support one side, but then make one single weapon systems quite a buffoonery. As if one weapon system would be either an escalation or some wunder-waffe that would change everything in a war where the combined arms is the real issue.

A Great article!

First have to quote that article on what it says about Russian propaganda, which has been prevalent in the discussion here too:

This Russian propaganda has been amplified and endorsed by an unusual assortment of people in the United States, including the Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Democratic Socialists of America, and the Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs. The propaganda absolves Russia, blames the United States for the war, and has four main tenets: first, that a long-standing American effort to bring Ukraine into NATO poses a grave threat to Russian security. Second, that American shipments of weapons to Ukraine have prolonged the fighting and caused needless suffering among civilians. Third, that American support for Ukraine is just a pretext for seeking the destruction of Russia. And, finally, that American policies could soon prove responsible for causing an all-out nuclear war.

Those arguments are based on lies. They are being spread to justify Russia’s unprecedented use of nuclear blackmail to seize territory from a neighboring state.

Yet coming to the actual issue, this is simply obvious:

A Russian defeat in Ukraine would strengthen the nonproliferation treaty. Ukrainian success on the battlefield has been achieved with conventional weapons aimed at military targets—not with nuclear weapons causing mass civilian casualties. If the nation possessing the most nuclear weapons in the world is unable to gain victory, the importance of having nuclear weapons will be greatly diminished.

But to the core of the article, which is this:

If nuclear threats or the actual use of nuclear weapons leads to the defeat of Ukraine, Russia may use them to coerce other states. Tactics once considered immoral and unthinkable might become commonplace. Nuclear weapons would no longer be regarded solely as a deterrent of last resort; the nine countries that possess them would gain even greater influence; countries that lack them would seek to obtain them; and the global risk of devastating wars would increase exponentially.

In my view a Russian win even without the use of nuclear weapons will create a very severe Cold War and Cold War mentality. Putin has attacked his Poland, there's no going back to a "Munich settlement", a "reboot" of US-Russian ties as Bush, Obama and Trump all enthusiastically tried (of course, Trump could try again if elected). The attitude is shown in the article very well by quoting our prime minister Sanna Marin. What here should be noted that Marin is a social-democrat, and earlier Finnish social-democrat Presidents and prime ministers worked eagerly with Russia and it's leaders and made the very fabric of what now is truly a historical term, Finlandization.

(Finnish cartoon from the Cold War: President Kekkonen and social-democrat prime minister Sorsa on a well trodden route to Moscow. Current social-democrat prime minister and Finnish president (conservative) are different.)


Now Russian tanks and missiles are expended in Ukraine. The simple fact that now it is quite empty behind our border when it comes to the Russian military. The chief of Finnish military intelligence has estimated that it will take the 2020's for Russia to rearm: so large have been the materiel losses. Hence there isn't a threat right now, but with a victorious Putin, it's going to be very, very tense. Then the military buildup starts in earnest.

From the first article:

Key to a more charitable consideration of Simons is to keep his overriding concern in mind: that an inconvertible fiat money system and the corporate form of the private business organization are inconsistent with classical liberal or libertarian premises. According to Simons, it is the combination of these two institutions which is mainly responsible for some of the more significant negative side effects of modern capitalist practice, like undue cyclical instability and excessive inequality of income and wealth.

Actually, this is a very interesting thought. But what should be noticed that this isn't about the basic principles of a corporation or company being, but basically also the economic surrounding (biosphere?) and the complex system that modern economies have grown into.

Yet a widely held view is that the current debt based monetary system with central banks cannot be called a free market as basically any market mechanism correcting excesses like speculative bubbles (which would mean a severe market correction, asset deflation, severely higher interest rates) simply isn't allowed by a system controlled by central banks and in the end governments (and those who control governments). That the price of money, interest, isn't decided by markets is one problem. And the perpetual asset inflation (or hope of) simply works in favor for the traded corporations.

Simply put it, calling it free market when you have socialization of losses and only profits being privatized isn't free market. A system which needs more and more debt in the long run cannot work. But life can be shorter for the individual perhaps, so why worry.

Of course, there is the problem of the corporate elite coming to be a class of it's own, especially when mutual funds and other institutional investors play such a dominant role. The Bill Gates or Elon Musk is the oddity, which you can find likely only in an new industry, where the original pioneers still have a role to play. When corporations can own corporations, all power can be (and usually is) with those who officially would just only have basically a similar role as any other worker.

While management is the agent for shareholders in the sense of being ultimately appointed by and accountable to them, it is also the agent for the corporation itself.
After all, in order to manage the corporation’s assets, management must legally represent the corporation as the titleholder to these assets. And because the corporation is an impersonal legal entity, agency for the corporation lends a significant degree of autonomy to the position of management, which is precisely why it has proved so difficult to make shareholder control over management more effective, despite the many legislative measures aimed at enhancing management accountability to shareholders.

For-profit corporations are the problem due to limited liability and perpetual nature. — Benkei

And what about then government owned companies? At least their owner is perpetual (or acts like it) and there is even less liability.

Still, we are likely going to see primitivization of their weapons production, just as we are already seeing primitivization of civilian production (car manufacture, etc.) — SophistiCat

It's basically an issue of time: Russia can transform it's military industrial complex to wartime in year or two. The idea that sanctions work is nonsense, especially in a country which does have the knowledge to produce missiles and tanks.

Classic example is Iran and it's F-14 Tomcats. The Shah had gone on an amazing weapons buying spree and then after the revolution the new regime had these state-of-the-art advanced fighters, which had their maintenance and spare parts banned. The standard rhetoric was that they will have to be grounded, because Iran lacks the spare parts. Well, these fighters were successfully used in the Iran-Iraq war and I think even today they fly. The ban has just prevented there to be any flyable F-14 in the US (as spare parts are banned).

Hence the talk that Russia will go out of missiles. or tanks, is false. What can happen (or did happen) is that for time they cannot use them as much as earlier, and the lack of armed vehicles put the Russian forces on defense for some months and incapable of large operaions in several locations. But in spring it can be different.

I think the problem is that we compare the situation of Russia to the situation of the US and West Europe. The error is that both the US and Europe are at peace time and every aspect of peace time arms manufacturing is present with all the red tape, the haggling and the limitations starting from the fact that the arms industry is made to produce small quantities highly costly equipment to equip a small peacetime army. It's not like you put the factory to work in multiple shifts 24 hours to feed the Moloch of a conventional large scale war. Hence when a weapons manufacturer claims that the production is x amount in a year, that refers to what has been produced at peacetime.

But once a society has gone into mobilizing civilians to the front, I can assume it can handle the military industrial complex with similar sweeping changes and gets full focus of the society.

We had an industrial revolution based on partnerships. — Benkei

That were intended to make a profit.

What's so bad about that? Profit is someone's salary, and at least workers were justified to get a salary.

his critique of capitalism is very good. — Benkei

Economic/political ideas how to replace capitalism, which have been tried again and again, were not and have not been historially so good.

Critique is one thing, what is given as the solution is another.

The only potential issue for Russia is the depletion of its stocks of long-range munitions at a much faster rate than the industry can produce. But they are already supplementing their dwindling stocks with hundreds of cheap Iranian strike drones, and according to Western intelligence, they are also negotiating to buy Iranian ballistic missiles. — SophistiCat

One thing that should be noticed is that it's missiles only, which shows basically that Russia failed from day one until today to cripple Ukrainian air defenses and Ukrainian airspace is too dangerous for Russian Air Force to fly in. The lack of air superiority is extremely important: Ukraine can move it's formations around an they aren't taking losses when not engaged on Russian ground forces. Another issue is that it's cities, not the Ukrainian army, which is a far harder target to get at, are the target. And to use for example surface to air missiles in the surface-to-surface role is quite inefficient as the missiles don't have a similar high explosive charge as actual artillery missiles and rockets.

Yet I think that creating simple "el cheapo" rockets/missiles to this role is quite possible even with the sanctions etc. Scuds were made in the 1950's and then there wasn't much computer chips around. Russia is likely transforming to a wartime economy and likely changes to the military industry can be done in a year or so. Hence likely a continuation of the missile barrage against Ukrainian cities will continue and I'm not so sure if the missiles will run out.

Where it differs most from normal investments is that you can pay directly with crypto, whereas with a 'normal' investment you would first have to liquidize your investment before you can pay with it. — Tzeentch

Well, actually gold and other precious metals you can barter / pay directly and make a physical transaction with ease. And keep the possession of the metal out from the knowledge of the tax collector. A good "investment" to give to the next of kin if there is an inheritance tax in the country.

Good, so we're agreed then that keeping borders where they are is neither a guarantor of peace, nor necessary to ensure it. — Isaac

Especially when moving borders is quite rare these days in conflicts... especially the ones the US does. Last time the US made annexations like Russia was I think in the Spanish-American war. Hence Russia war and annexations are quite rare in the World of today.

In terms of large corporations, this seems to be the case. — Mikie

In all kinds of cases.

If you start an enterprise with your friends, likely the division will be done similarly: if people will give majority of their time and labour to a project or put in their money, the majority want something on paper. And hence for example even if the business is small, they may opt for a company that issues stock. Also people may will want to have that limited liability. If the project goes south, the company will go bankrupt, not them or one of them.

It's actually quite similar to if people want to do something together even without a profit making objective, they form an association. With an association, they can buy equipment or gear for example for a hobby or for a cause and that property then belongs to the association, not someone specific. Otherwise it would be a hassle to own together stuff when people can come and go.

First and foremost, these are things about practicality. Starting from things like which thing is more easy: simply buy the services or then form a company.

If this is truly the state of things, the question becomes: is it just? Has it always been this way? — Mikie

I think you are confusing two things here. The reasons why people have invented companies and then why societies have become as they are and have companies and corporations in the role they have.

You see, your example of 100 people forming an enterprise has a lot to do with the society, the business environment and all kinds of different variables than just the form of the business enterprise. "Is it just" is more of a societal question than an organizational question. A stock company is basically just: the owners have power to decide on company matters based on the amount of stock they have. And so is a cooperative basically just. There's nothing profoundly more "just" in one or the another.

Unjustness creeps in when one person or side has a large advantage in the negotiation power: it's a bit different if you start an enterprise and the 99 are well off business professionals and entrepreneurs themselves or lets say you offer 99 migrant workers a job who otherwise would face deportation.

Hence for example the historical unjustness of capitalism in the 19th Century should be understood that it came from an historical environment where feudalism still had it's roots and where the new working class came basically from landless agrarian workers.

There's a lot of incestuous lending going around in the background which creates all sorts of counterparty risk without any level of transparancy or oversight. — Benkei

I personally think that cryptos still lack of security, transparency and effectiveness. — javi2541997

What has happened is that a convincing story based on reality and genuine facts was successfully sold to people desperately looking for the new thing to invest causing a classic mania with all the side effects of it. I could refer also to the dot.com bubble. All that tech is quite in use today, quite real, but not every tech investment, tech fund and especially tech start up made wonderful results. And it was crazy before the bubble burst.

It may simply be that without the role of legal tender cryptocurrencies stay as this small alternative speculative investment while the technology behind them is adapted to use.

A self policing government sounds pretty cool, but, isn't that called fascism? — Shawn

Uh, no. I'm referring when in various countries a so-called "Police Departments" emerged I think in the 17th Century. Of course a similar role as now we have for police could be found in ancient Babylon etc, but in your question of limited government / libertarianism / role of police, I think looking at countries pre-17th Century starts to be a bit difficult. The whole question that libertarians apply is for modern societies, not so useful for medieval or tribal societies.

Is it true that for the majority of homo sapiens existence, we got along without having police officers or laws governing our behavior? — Shawn

Sure.

Homo sapiens has existed for 200 000 years. Advanced societies have been around only for a tiny part of time of that. As @180 Proof already noted.

Perhaps better question would to ask of a modern police force integrated to a central government?

The moral claim that “It is wrong to risk the lives of innocents over a border dispute” is not enough compelling because it could be also wrong to risk lives and freedoms of innocents by surrendering to the demands of a genocidal regime. — neomac

:up: :100:

Especially if people making this flawed argument then do make moral claims for taking up arms etc. if there's another state as the attacker.

* * *

I think there's few if any here that would support the Saudi-led intervention into Yemen and the fact is that nothing has happened after Afghanistan became again an Emirate making the argument of the invasion extremely dubious in the first place. The "preventing a safe Haven for terrorists"-argument for the continuation of the Afghan war was in my view false and actually far worse even than the domino-theory of Vietnam war (which also was in error). Would many women opt to work outside their home in Afghanistan and would many Afghans opt for a Western-oriented Afghanistan? Yes, but that wasn't the reason to invade Afghanistan.

Could in 2014 the war in the Donbas be called a civil war or insurgency? Partly yes, but even then the active participation and central role of Russia was obvious. Has the war changed? Obviously after February 24th 2022.

...is patently false. — Isaac

No need to reply as Christoffer said it already:

But I guess since you need to fire in every direction that's even remotely criticizing your viewpoints, you will fall to the level of criticizing semantics when there's nothing else. Big yawn — Christoffer

The question was — Isaac

about countries fighting wars. Obviously there are other kinds of wars too, but see above. As I said, there can be civil wars. And insurgencies and terrorism acted by groups and individuals etc.

Let's say only a handful of people own the property. I'm not assuming everyone is equal, I'm asking how distribution of profits is decided -- and by whom. — Mikie

Likely those people who own the property and/or basically who have gotten the 100 people together for the project make a suggestion on how the profits are going to be divided and then the rest 100 or so either accept it or say no thanks.

If somebody makes a suggestion that people aren't excited with, then time for another proposal. When there are so many people involved, then some kind of rather simple arrangement is likely done. If the enterprise is small and short timed likely it's divided by some equal basis, because nobody has the time for every 100 to haggle their share individually. And of course it can be a cooperative or then stock is issued: those who buy the stock then decide what to do with the profits. Or then the profits go to the members of the cooperative equally.

And lastly, someone will just want a fixed payment for his or her work and doesn't care if there are potential huge profits or not. This person participates in the enterprise, but isn't part of it, just someone contracted to it.

Basically the question goes to the theory of a business or company: companies are only complex agreements between people, but simply perform the same task when you buy a service from someone. After all, you can either own a company or then simply buy the work you want from other people separately.

You can instantly observe how difficult and disorganized would be you buying every day the work from either other companies and individual people the work. Hence the need for longer contracts.

How's that working out for the citizens of Iraq? Libya? I suppose the ethnic violence in Rwanda was just a bit of high jinx. Somalia? Sudan? Myanmar? Literally any civil war ever... — Isaac

Yes, Isaac, there can be civil wars.

So the Ingushetia region of Chechnya should have remained part of Russia? Kosovo should have stayed in the remnants of Yugoslavia?

You do say the daftest things sometimes... — Isaac

Daft like you arguing that Ingushetia is a part of Checnnya and Chechnya has somehow broken away from Russia?

You're really funny.

It's a textbook example of a military that was left to atrophy after the Cold War ended. — Tzeentch

I would disagree. This isn't the late 90's or the '00s as then you would have a point. And that just shows how willing European countries were to embrace a normal Russia into the community.

As @Christoffer pointed out, Sweden has done a lot. A Country capable of producing modern fighter jets and submarines (and of the latter one "sank" in an exercise an American carrier) and has the potential to create nuclear weapons (as it earlier had a nuclear weapons program), I wouldn't regard as an example of atrophy. Not anymore and especially if you make then the difference with Poland. Hence NATO is actually happy to get Sweden and Finland into the organization as the countries increase the strength of the alliance. Besides, countries that base their defence on total defence.

In short, you can ridicule and belittle West Europe's rearmament perhaps starting from Germany itself. No European country is armed to the teeth and willing to use force like Israel. Only perhaps France comes in close with both capability and willingness. And yes, the German armed forces are a mess, but one really shouldn't underestimate Europeans. Things actually have changed in the last years. And February 24th did have effects like 9/11.

Classic. — Isaac

You have peace when countries accept the present drawn borders. From history you can always find different borders. Longing for justice, that the present borders are wrong, is the usual way tyrants start wars.

You were misrepresenting history to promote the foreign policy of a country which openly profits from war. — Isaac

Wrong.

UK doesn't have any imperial aspirations towards Ireland... except naturally the part of the Island that it has. And that was the issue. Have you heard any politician arguing that Great Britain should take the whole island of Ireland back? I don't think so.

That's why Russia is so different.

None of these states have militaries that are on a modern operational level, nor have they taken any steps towards making them so. — Tzeentch

Really? Haven't taken any measures?

Let's take the example of Sweden:

So Sweden has introduced back conscription, has deployed troops on Gotland island (where earlier there were none) and increased military funding. And has a lot more exercises with NATO forces. From 10th of March last year:

Sweden’s government has announced plans for a significant boost in military spending to two percent of gross domestic product (GDP) “as soon as possible”, citing the security threat from Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“The war in Europe is going to affect the Swedish people. We need to continue to strengthen the Sweden defence capability,” Andersson said.

“The security situation in Sweden’s vicinity has deteriorated over time. The Russian attack on Ukraine further exacerbates that,” she said.

Andersson also warned that the number of young people called up to do mandatory military service – which was reintroduced in 2017 – would increase.

The right-wing opposition is expected to approve the plan in parliament.

And I can say from my own country that the local armed forces have increased their level of readiness substantially. Key reservists could spend a month or more in military exercises last year, which was unheard of earlier. Naturally the administration has opted publicly to be very low key about it. The Kremlin gets the message.

Seriously? Are you that uneducated, or just so caught up in this media narrative?

You just said that Ireland does not have bellicose neighbours who challenge their rights over territory. — Isaac

Many countries can have border disputes and tense relations. Worst in Europe are perhaps Greece and Turkey, who likely have avoided a full-blown war because both are members of NATO (and thus honor NATO's article 1.) But these tensions aren't as high as the probability for war is very, very low.

But of course, things could have gone differently even not so long time ago with UK and Ireland:

Europe isn't worried about their security. — Tzeentch

REALLY???

Or is somehow Sweden, Finland, the Baltic States not in Europe?

I beg to differ here.

That's why nearly every European country let their armed forces atrophy beyond repair — Tzeentch

And that obviously would have continued if Russia hadn't annexed Crimea and started this war in 2014. And NATO would have been happy in it's new role of international operations, not going back to it's old role of collective defense.

To have a country that basically ran down it's military and focused on international operations (because the Cold War was over, remember?) make a hasty 180 degree turn and opt to join NATO after 200 years of non-alignment tells that some countries are worried about their security. So yes, they are worried about Russia.

Yeah, Ireland and Portugal aren't worried about their security when it comes to Russia. They don't have bellicose neighbors. Especially when UK and/or Spain aren't declaring that they (Ireland or Portugal) are artificial countries and basically they belong to be part of their nations again. If the case would be so, that the dissolution of Spain-Portugal or Ireland not being part of Great Britain would be viewed in London and Madrid as the greatest accident or tragedy that has happened, they would be uneasy and commit to national defense on a totally different level.

Quite insufficient information. (Perhaps on purpose.)

Who has made the investment? All 100 equally? The equipment, the capital, is owned equally by the 100?

Whose idea was the enterprise? Do all 100 have equal share on the property rights, if there were any?

Do all really contribute the same amount to the production? Nobody is let's say an accountant on the team or a cleaner while another person is a highly important specialist crucial to the whole production who would eagerly be hired by other companies.

Before making this an ethical question on the grounds that some person gets more than he or she should and others get less, such above should be taken into consideration. These issues aren't solved in a vacuum, there's the outside world out there.

The easiest answer would be that if 100 people get together to produce something, the first obvious issue is what it costs for them to be in the project. Because there's always the option for them to be doing something else. And if they make more money somewhere else, which is equally gratifying work, then they opt out. So you won't get a corporate lawyer to solve international legal issues for 1$ per hour (assuming it's not for charity). That's where you could start: how much the 100 people have to get that they are willing to contribute to the enterprise?

I mean afterwards. When WWII ended. Nobody cared about Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc...

France and UK declared the war, yes. But we should recall some facts: the British royal family's connection with Nazis (The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were sympathetic to Nazi Germany)
The resistance of Charles de Gaulle fighting against the Nazis, while France controlled (and continued to control...) all African possessions. — javi2541997

Picking up details and individuals, or the fact that the countries were colonial powers, doesn't make us to recall the fact that UK and France went actually to war with Germany.

And afterwards, well, there was the Cold War.

What I want to mean: hypocrisy. The states and organisations only act when they see it is worthy for their own interests and I don't understand why the Western world is caring that much about Ukraine. I feel I am not seeing something. — javi2541997

And one if not the most important interest is their own security, their survival. Russia has had wars now with two of it's neighboring countries, has forces in all that aren't in NATO (or applying to) except China. If it would be just that, it would be one thing. But it isn't. The basic insecurity arises from that Russia makes territorial claims and has annexed parts from other countries and has made it clear by the words of Putin that it doesn't respect Ukraine's sovereignty, but sees it as an artificial construct.

Russia's actions basically has made the security threat quite real. Without the territorial annexations and claims it really would be different.

Let's be honest, nobody cared about Polish destruction and chaos. — javi2541997

Really?

I remember that both France and the UK declared war on Germany.

I think that doesn't sound like "nobody cared". The simple fact that these countries were too weak to do anything, but to start the "phoney war". And France got overrun in the next year.

Not all the Ukranians are opposed to Russia. The more closer you go to Russian border you would see that their citizens root for Russia instead of Western world or NATO. This is a complex issue and it is not about all Ukrainians are against the invasion. Probably, the citizens of Kiev are nationalists but I doubt if the citizens from Jerson or Crimea have the same feelings. — javi2541997

This was obvious in 2014. The creation of Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics obviously show that there were those in support of them, yet important cities like Kharkov (or Odessa) didn't follow the pattern.

But even then, it has been said that for example if an actual referendum, not a staged one, would have been for Crimea to join Russia, there would have been a large minority supporting this, but not a majority.

And before 2014 the ties to Russia were totally different. But the simple obvious truth is that Putin had ambitions over Ukrainian territories. Annexing territories and bombing people make people change their minds, obviously. So things are different in 2023 than they were in 2021 or prior to 2014.

Did Poland act as Ukraine is now acting? I think not... — javi2541997

?

The obvious answer is yes, they did fight also, but didn't get the needed aid to continue the fight. Poland was overrun and divided by Hitler and Stalin (the latter who invaded Poland 16 days after Hitler).

Nearly every fifth Pole died in WW2. That is the highest casualty rate of any country during WW2.

And Polish fighters, who could get away from the country fought in various theaters of WW2 and the Polish underground resistance made the famous Warsaw uprising, wrongly thinking that Stalin would come to their help. Only in that uprising over 15 000 resistance fighters were killed and about 150 000 to 200 000 civilians were killed.

So bit confused on what you are trying to say here...

As I stated earlier, Putins (hence Russia's) position is quite opportunist. If ideologically imperialist Russia is close to ultra-conservatism and the far right, naturally the left/extreme left in it's hatred of US hegemony aligns perfectly with Russia. So with the left, it's more of a "working relationship" on a shared enemy, not ideological partnership.

And again, the real leftist "Putinistas" can be found in the People's Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk. Where the two-headed eagle of Russia is in harmony next to the hammer and sickle.

Al Jazeera puts it well, with the example of Brazil:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to an unexpected convergence in the political arena. Indeed, all over the world left-wing parties, activists and even prominent leftist politicians are joining the far right in voicing their support for – or at least excusing – the Kremlin’s brutal, imperialist aggression against a much smaller sovereign nation.

This strange phenomenon is perhaps most visible in Brazil, where supporters of far-right President Jair Bolsonaro and his left-wing rival, former president Lula da Silva, are both working hard to demonstrate why Russia should not be blamed for the devastation we are witnessing in Ukraine today.

Just like their counterparts on the right, left-wing supporters of the Kremlin insist that it was NATO that “provoked” the war and that Russia is simply “defending itself” (they, of course, refuse to explain how this so-called act of “defence” is different from the West’s past “pre-emptive” strikes against countries of the Global South that they vehemently condemned). They are also dismissing credible reports of war crimes, crimes against humanity and even genocide coming from Ukraine as Western “distortions” and “NATO propaganda” funded by George Soros (ironically also the bogeyman of the anti-Semitic far right), in defence of Ukrainian “Nazis” trying to destroy Russia.

Lula has said that Zelenskiy is "as responsible as Putin for the war".

True— which is why the workers need to cause a crisis. Through strikes in key industries. Only then will concessions be made. — Mikie

Well, with these kind of union participation percentages, I doubt it. And I think these low participation rates are the reason just why employers in the US can be so aggressive against unions. Have a large majority of the workforce unionized and it's politically totally different.

Look at the discussion earlier discussion to get the hang of it. And who has gotten money from Putin.



And notice that many times it is as @SophistiCat said, very strange bed fellows on just what and who Russia has supported. For example, Russia could support UKIP and also The Scottish National Party, even if these are quite apart from each other. Of course, the support for UKIP was for Brexit and for SNP for Scotland to exit from the UK. So there's a logic of simple opportunism.

And to add here, I'm not saying either the UKIP or the SNP are Putinistas. Even if someone (especially in UKIP has had a nice word for Putin earlier).

They most certainly can, and I just went through how. Giving less than 90% of corporate profits to rich people, taxing corporations and wealthy Americans at a rate that was common in the 50s and 60s, and not spending 800 billion dollars annually on defense contractors — isn’t a crisis. The characterization that these actions would lead to a “crisis” is nonsense. — Mikie

My emphasis is on what the actual political system can deliver. Not what it could theoretically deliver. Yes, the US could simply copy the smartest most successful policies from other countries, but that's not going to happen. The sectors that prosper from the existing situation have too much lobbying power.

Just to give just one example, the US puts the most money per capita on health care than any other country, even more than Norway, but the system is quite lousy and with health stats the US is quite average.

And with taxation? Remember that actual money gotten from taxes, tax revenue, doesn't go up hand in hand with tax rates. Hence if you double the tax rates you will be increasing your tax revenues yes, but you won't be doubling the tax revenue. Not close. And making a gap of one fifth of your income is a problem.



Nothing will change until there's a crisis. And usually then the culprit will anybody else than the actual culprits.

So where are these people in sufficiently represented in America and Europe to make the quoted claim? — Isaac

Referring here to ?

Actually he is totally correct that many share parts of the ideology that you can call them allies as @SophistiCat said. In short, leftist and right-wing populism enjoy a common ground if actual policy implications are left out. Populist conspiracy theories are their main course. Right wing and left-wing populism share a lot. The other one just puts a lot more "bankers" being "Jewish bankers".

We had a little discussion about this, Putins new supporters, on this forum ...six years ago. See here.

"Europe and America". Not "Russia". — Isaac

Still doesn't make a difference: A true Putinista is obviously someone or a movement/group who supports and works for Putin's objectives and agenda.

Not as you say, everybody that is critical of current US policy.

And fun fact, the Europeans that are Putinistas, are obedient workers for Putin. Here's a Finnish Putinista (holding the Finnish flag) alongside others. He actually moved to the "liberated" Donbas some time ago.

It's a good sign that debate on this thread has diminished.

Hopefully it won't pick up.

Eventually something will break— and again, probably has already. — Mikie

It's already been broken. For a long time.

The basic problem is that the US simply cannot change course without a financial crisis. And that actually includes others, like the EU as they are doing exactly the same. Increasing the debt level is now basically a structural, unavoidable part of the system. This creates a limit on just high the interest rates can go, or are let to go. Positive real interest rates would simply mean far too large interest rate payments, hence inflation is here to stay on the long run.

In FY 2022, the federal government spent $6.27 trillion and collected $4.90 trillion in revenue, resulting in a deficit of 1,38 billion.

Simply put it: when the deficit spending constitutes over a fifth of the budget, there's no way the political system can stop the growth of the debt without some kind of a crisis. Why a crisis? Well, this system has gone a long time without a crisis, hence politicians can hope that it goes on another year. And then another year...

I think the ugly deserves to be the focus of art too. And it can be well done with talent also.

But of course, art can give us more than just beauty. It can question us, make a statement, express a lot more.

On what evidence? What actions determine one is a 'Putinista'? — Isaac

They have been shown and discussed even on this thread. A true Putinista is obviously someone or a movement/group who supports and works for Putin's objectives and agenda.

Like the Ruskii Obraz. Which Russian government supports as part of "managed nationalism" and has used the neonazis for example against Navalnyi:

In 2008-09, the Kremlin was threatened by Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny’s efforts to build an anti-Putin coalition of democrats and radical nationalists in Russia. In response, the Kremlin began to work with Russkii Obraz (“Russian Image”, or “RO” for short), a hardcore neo-Nazi group best known for its slick journal and its band, Hook from the Right.

With the assistance of Kremlin supervisors, RO attacked nationalists who were abandoning the skinhead subculture for Navalny’s anti-Putin coalition. In return, RO was granted privileged access to public space and the media.

Or the Black Hundreds, a reborn movement out of the ultra-conservative historical movement from the Russian Empire (which supported the Czar's autocratic rule and was fervently against any liberalization or modernization of the Russian Imperial system). And promotes the Russian nationalism that Putin favours and even sent volunteers to fight in the Donbas in the early stages of the conflict.

Or how about the Night Wolves?



But of course, these groups and their ideology, agenda and their ties to the Kremlin can be ignored, because according to someone here...

What identifies the 'Putinista' in this laughable theory is simply that they don't support current US policy. — Isaac

Which is hilarious.