And what does any of this have to do with the invasion of Ukraine? — Tzeentch

Are you so absolutely clueless that you don't understand that this war started in 2014? That just for some time, it was called a frozen conflict, yet Russian forces where all the time involved in the Donbas?

But now you are asking what does the occupation of Crimea have to do with this war now? :snicker:

I was answering to @Tzeentch, not you.

Are you refuting that Russia didn't try to attempt a strategic strike? That's brilliant!

So your 'proof' that Russia intended to take Ukraine is that some analysts thought that Russia could beat Ukraine in a full invasion. — Isaac

No. What I was referring as proof was against the argument from @Tzeentch that:

Everybody and their dog knew it wasn't going to be a repeat of 2014, and that the Ukrainians would be prepared. — Tzeentch

You're now claiming the Russians modelled their invasion of Ukraine after their invasion of Czechoslovakia - a conflict that took place over 50 years ago? Lets see some proof then. Or anything that resembles a reasoned argument. — Tzeentch

Learn what a strategic strike means in military terminology first.

The similarity with the occupation of Czechoslovakia and Crimea should be evident: Both were military operations where the opponent didn't fight back. Both achieved strategic surprise. Both events we even don't call wars, they were so successful. When you can achieve your objectives without even a shot fired, the military operation has really achieves it's goals. The tanks just appeared on the streets of Prague, just like the Russia paratroops appeared in Crimea, whom the Western media even didn't call out to be Russian, so totally dumbfounded was back then the Western media. The totally insane lie that these would be "Crimean volunteers" got the media confused and it fell into bothsidesing. The pro-Russian propaganda had a field day.

Invading a diplomatically isolated, unprepared Soviet republic and invading a western-backed, militarily prepared Ukraine? — Tzeentch

This just shows how ignorant you are.

Czechoslovakia wasn't a Soviet Republic (like Ukraine was during the Soviet Union). And Ukraine in 2014 was totally unprepared for any military attack. There were no shots fired when Russia took over Crimea. The military was able to respond to the Donbas insurgency only far later. Ukraine was militarily prepared by the West.

(Russian troops and Ukrainian troops confined to their barracks in Crimea in 2014)

Everybody and their dog knew it wasn't going to be a repeat of 2014, and that the Ukrainians would be prepared. — Tzeentch

Perhaps not as an easy cake-walk as Crimea, but the view was that it was totally possible for the Russian military to take out Ukraine quickly. Your "and your dog" argument that everybody knew that Ukraine would be prepared is totally false, absolute bullshit.

Proof:

The US offered Zelenskyi to evacuate him. Why would they offer this, if they were certain that there would be a war fought for months? Before the attack the ability for Ukraine to defend itself from a Russian aggression was seen quite futile.

For example, the Atlantic Council openly questioned in December 2021 Ukraine's ability to defend itself in a conventional war and opted to go for an insurgency:

Deterrence can be achieved by denial or punishment of the aggressor. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely Ukraine can deny Russian invasion forces at or near its border. Therefore, Ukraine’s best chance of deterring the Russians is to threaten to punish them once they cross the border.

Ukraine can raise the cost to Russia by preparing for a long war complete with significant guerrilla activity behind Russian lines. Russian leaders are acutely aware of the price Afghan guerrillas extracted for the occupation of their country. Preparation for this kind of war requires recruiting and training personnel as well as establishing weapons caches quickly. Such efforts are already underway and will likely intensify in the weeks ahead.

See Guerrilla tactics offer Ukraine’s best deterrent against Putin’s invasion force

Something like fighting a conventional war was obviously out of the question to the author above.

This is what the CSIS think tank thought of the chances of Ukraine in November of 2021, just months before the attack happened:

Russian military forces—including elements of the 41st Combined Field Army and 144th Guards Motorized Rifle Division (see Figure 4)—would likely outmatch Ukrainian conventional forces and overrun Kiev in a matter of hours if they invaded.

See CSIS report: Moscows continuing Ukrainian buildup

A well-respected think tank estimating that the capital will fall in hours showed just how little the West believed in Ukraine. The West had just experienced the fall of Afghanistan. The Russian military machine looked smart: modernized and capable.

You expect me to take your "they're a bunch of dummies" argument seriously — Tzeentch

Because you are inventing your own fabricated narrative that you then answer and not that what people actually say, I guess I shouldn't take you seriously either.

Russia modeled it's attack from the most successful military operation that the Soviet Union did post-WW2: Operation Danube.

The objective was to capture Kyiv and replace the existing administration and take basically the part of "Novorossiya" into Russia. That the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics were planned to be annexed into Russia is quite evident (starting from the Freudian slip of the intelligence chief, just to give one example). Hence it was basically a strategic strike.

Which then failed the first day.

2. Russia's invasion of Ukraine can from a military-strategic viewpoint be compared to Hitler's invasion of Poland and France — Tzeentch

When you don't get it, you really don't get it.

The success of Hitler in Poland and France made not only him, but his generals to believe that the Soviet Union could be beaten in 100 days. Hubris kicked in. If France fell so easily, why wouldn't the Soviet Union too, which couldn't even annex puny Finland?

Similarly Putin's earlier victories and the West's mute response made him confident the Ukrainians wouldn't be much of a match and he could pull off the invasion that he started on the 24th of February this year. That since 2014 when the war started, the Ukrainians basically wouldn't have done anything.

What the hell you are talking about above, I don't know.

What you're implying is that all territory Russia at one point or another controlled they also meant to hold.

I think that's a highly questionable assumption. — Tzeentch

LOL! :rofl:

Oh boy, these arm-chair pro-Russians....

The reason you are "struggling to see where this idea comes from that Russia is losing" is simply that you subconsciously assume that whatever happens is a desirable outcome for the Russians. Rid yourself of this assumption, and you may start to read the message on the wall. — Olivier5

:up: :100:

If they wanted to invade and occupy all of Ukraine, the troops they'd need to deploy to keep it under control would have to be several times what they've deployed now. — Tzeentch

How much troops did they need to annex Crimea? And the way Russia could interfere in Ukrainian politics before makes it easy to underestimate Ukrainian resolve.

Putin made quite easily same kind of mistakes like Hitler after the victories against Poland and France.

The number of troops the Russians have deployed indicate they never intended to invade all of Ukraine. — Tzeentch

If the Ukrainians would not have defended at all, just why would you think Putin would have stopped? What Putin has said about the "artificiality" of the sovereignty of Ukraine shows clearly what he thinks about Ukraine.

What's the Y you'd be willing to advocate? Because apparently it's not ceding territory and it's not ceding any autonomy and you've just admitted that Ukraine are no threat to Russia. — Isaac

The only way Russia is going to the negotiating table is when it cannot obtain it's objectives through military means. What is so difficult here to understand?

Just to take a historical example: Finland was able to negotiate a separate peace with the Soviet Union in 1944 after it repulsed the Soviet offensive in the summer of 1944 with having one defensive line (the Salpa-line) still far behind the front line. Other German allies couldn't do that, even if the switched sides like Romania.

What Ukraine can do is simply what it is doing right now, quite successfully.

Isreal did not continuously declare "we will not negotiate!" throughout all these conflicts with neighbours. — boethius

Yet Israel never agreed on to stop a military engagement before reaching it's military objectives.

Usually there was a push from especially the Superpowers to cease the military actions. Both in the Six Day war and in Yom Kippur basically the Arab powers were defeated on the battlefield. That is a simple fact. Also was in the case of the Suez crisis with Egypt. Then Operation Musketeer was totally successful reaching it's primary objectives (and I assume Operation Kadesh too), the failure was political, which saved Nasser's ass.

So, it's when people say Ukraine does not need to negotiate and can "win" militarily, which is when I point out that without diplomacy "winning" means conquering and defeating your enemy; otherwise, the war just continues forever. — boethius

I'm not sure what your point is. Ukrainian have tried to negotiate with the Russians and understand that even a ceasefire needs negotiations. Remember the negotiations in Turkey. So I'm confused just what is your point here.

So true.

The truth is that there's really only a few things Trump got right. Like talking to the Germans how being dependent on Russian energy is a bad idea.

Good question. I find this puzzling as well. Russian authoritarianism hasn't quite morphed into totalitarianism. I suppose the regime isn't ready to unleash Stalinist purges on its supporters. — SophistiCat

There's obviously a lot of disgruntlement and dissatisfaction how this war is going in Russia. Putin is no Stalin and even if his Russia is totalitarian, it isn't as totalitarian as Stalin's Russia was. Yet people are killed in prominent positions: too many people die in "accidents" to be real accidents.

With his army on the back foot, is escalation over Ukraine Vladimir Putin’s only real option?

Putin's options:
Invade Moldova
Send a ‘stabilisation force’ to Kazakhstan
Full mobilisation
Draw NATO in
Arrange a radiological ‘accident’
Use tactical nuclear weapons — Banno

Invade Moldova > ummm...with what? How to supply them? Russia doesn't have total air superiority over Ukraine and the last thing the Russian troops defending Kherson front are capable to do is to push into Transnistria/Moldova. Troops in Transnistria can basically hold ground there.

Send a ‘stabilisation force’ to Kazakhstan > They already handled that. Kazakhstan is OK for now. Perhaps Armenia would be that place. That Russia would actually defend it's allies that it has (and not only look from the side and be a mediator when it's allies are attacked and lose territory).

Full mobilisiation > Oh, that's going to be so popular in St. Petersburgh and Moscow! But a possibility.

Draw NATO in > Great! Let's have WW3! That's the solution...

Arrange a radiological ‘accident’
Use tactical nuclear weapons > If Ukrainians want to take Crimea, perhaps nuke the narrow corridors into the Peninsula could work. Because Crimea is Russia, according to Putin. Just like defending Russia proper: then the established nuclear doctrine can be said to be followed. Perhaps just a nuclear test on Novaja Zemlija would be enough. That would scare enough of WW3 fearmongers to do the trick. Likely China could tolerate that. Simple fact: Ukrainian battlegroups especially on the vast plains of Ukraine are a lousy target for a tactical nuclear weapon. Weapons of Mass Destruction are more political instruments than solutions for the battlefield.

Likely option(?): hope the Ukrainian offensive loses it's momentum and winter comes quickly. And focus on keeping the power in the Kremlin.

You can say so. But I assume you got my point.

You can’t name a single return on investment. Iran gets everything, United States gets nothing. A shoddy deal. — NOS4A2

Another thing Trump said he would deliver and didn't do.

Yet far better than the surrender deal that Trump did with the Taliban. I mean talk about backstabbing your own ally you created.

I guess North Korea and China would happily have during the Korean war accepted a similar treaty where they would have stopped attacking US troops and continued the fight only against the South Koreans. I guess with that kind of "Trump Peace Deal" we surely would have a united Korea with a capital in Pjongyang in the early 1950's.

Nobody could then even fathom the idea of there being K-Pop and (South) Korean electronics.

Is the multiverse science fiction only? — TiredThinker

If we can model our reality better with multiverse models than without, then why wouldn't it be science?

Everybody ought to understand that it's a model of reality, not reality itself.

Even if they pushed Russia out of Ukraine that's still not "winning" a war, the war would still be on and Russia could re-invade anytime which is not an end to war in a "winning" state. — boethius

Hmmm... has then Israel won any of it's wars against it's neoghbors? It still has them around and never have Israeli soldiers entered Damascus, Amman or Cairo.

With every tenth Ukrainian being a refugee, the GDP having crashed and the possibility of hyperinflation would be devastating politically in peacetime. — ssu

I'm not talking about those things, but the electricity grid which is required for things like the train system. — boethius

What?

Oh you think that a -40% drop in GDP, a naval blockade and every tenth citizen being a refugee don't have real life implication quite somehow comparable to the electricity grid???

So even if Russia's objective is not to threaten the existence of Ukraine ... it's still an existential fight for Ukraine? — boethius

To have connection to the sea, or a long coastline as Ukraine has enjoyed, is quite existential.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here about postponing the elections. — boethius

Of course.

A referendum on joining Russia has been postponed by the Russian occupation authorities in Kherson, a city in southern Ukraine, due to security concerns.

As the brutal war in Eastern Europe entered day 195 on Tuesday, a purported referendum on joining Russia has been postponed by the Russian occupation authorities in Kherson, a city in southern Ukraine, due to security concerns. According to Kirill Stremousov, the Deputy Head of the territory's military-civilian administration, the Kherson region is prepared for a vote on joining Russia but has postponed it because of security concerns.

During an interview with the Rossiya-1 television channel, Stremousov said, “We have got prepared for voting. We wanted to organize the referendum in the near future, but because of the current developments, I think we will take a pause.” He continued by saying, “It is quite explainable from the practical point of view. We are not running before the hounds and are focused on our key task - to feed people, to ensure their security".

According to the BBC report, the deputy head of the Russian-appointed administration asserted, “This is being paused because of the security situation". He further added that intense Ukrainian bombardment rendered a crucial Kherson bridge inoperable.

The same analysts that said Russian troops have low morale and will completely collapse ... like 2 days into the war? — boethius

Nope. Anyone serious hasn't said that.

So, yes, militarily speaking that Ukraine can do any offensive is certainly good for Ukraine, but losing the power grid (potentially permanently) is bad for Ukraine. — boethius

With every tenth Ukrainian being a refugee, the GDP having crashed and the possibility of hyperinflation would be devastating politically in peacetime. But Ukraine is facing an all out war and the people do understand it. Even if Russia's objective isn't to take of all of Ukraine, basically just the Novorossiya-part, it is an existential fight for the Ukrainians. That Russia has now postponed those referendums to join Russia tells very clearly to Ukrainians what is at stake. And there's still the option that Putin goes for martial law.

For us Europeans, living in our comfortable peacetime, energy shortages can be a huge issue.

We can agree that the global economic system is complex and complex phenomenon like "inflaton" don't have unipolar reasons.

Well then, do they accept partly that blame?

Or do the governments accept partly blame for their COVID give aways?

I don't think so.

There’s plenty to criticize the Fed about. Being “the” cause of inflation isn’t one of them. — Xtrix

What would you then criticize the central banks for?

Ukraine had a serious offensive there that did not work. It's now said that it was a "faint" to attack around Kharkiv, but that doesn't seem the case to me. — boethius

There you are going on against a lot of military analysts, to whom it's their actual job to analyze these.

First of all, a military operation to do such an attack has to be methodically planned and prepared a long time before. It's not just political "spin" of "Oh well, our offensive didn't work there, so let's try somewhere else". Military operations aren't done like that.

Kharkiv is simply not a strategically important offensive. — boethius

Really?

I think that when Ukraine is capable of such a counterattack, it tells quite a lot. It doesn't mean that the war is at all over or who will "win". The war can drag on for years still. That Russia has had to withdraw tells a lot of the situation.

It seems not only to be acknowledged but downright insisted upon — myopically. — Xtrix

Really, officially?

Are the central banks accepting the blame themselves for the inflation? I don't think it was so.
Never has that happened.

Oh no, you should remember what they were saying just last year:

Aug 27 2021 (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Friday pushed back against concerns that swiftly rising prices could become an enduring feature of the economy, forcing the U.S. central bank to raise interest rates and cut short the recovery.

While recent inflation readings are "a cause for concern," Powell told the Kansas City Fed's annual Jackson Hole economic symposium, responding to what he sees as likely to be a temporary trend by tightening monetary policy could be a "particularly harmful" mistake.

FRANKFURT, Sept 24 2021 (Reuters) - Many of the drivers of a recent spike in euro zone inflation are temporary and due to fade in the next year, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said.

FRANKFURT, Dec 2 2021 (Reuters) - Euro zone inflation remains temporary, two key European Central Bank policymakers argued on Thursday - "The current inflation spike is temporary and driven largely by supply factors," ECB board member Fabio Panetta told a conference. "Central banks should have the patience to look through these effects and explain their policies to the people."

Harmful mistake to fight against temporary inflation. :snicker:

Eerily similar. Guess that's because geography doesn't change much and the same points still make natural boundaries. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:100: :up:

Seems like Ukraine has achieved a strategic surprise.

All the talk about the counterattack in the Kherson region. Even the civilians were warned about the counteroffensive there, plus a lot of artillery bombardment in the section. Then a counterattack in the East. Hopefully the counterattack continues well.

And then he might declare full-scale mobilization.

Never underestimate a country that goes full-time war economy.

Seems that the Ukrainian counteroffensive is going somewhere. Hopefully they can retain and continue the drive. :up:

Russians can be gotten to negotiate for an armstice (if not peace) only with making this option to be the better one for them than just for Putin to stick onto the original plan.

I think it should have been quite easy to anticipate what would happen when Europe puts sanctions on Russia. But in hindsight, that didn't seem to be anticipated. I think since from the Russo-Georgian war it was clearly evident that commercial ties didn't mean much if anything for Russia. And only something that could be used as a tool of policy. Not like in the West, where foreign policy actually serves commercial ties and business, not the other way around.

A recap of how Europe is now facing an energy crisis:

An unprecedented global lockdown has major consequences. Claiming this is used as a "patsy" is laughable.

Inflation has multiple causes. One cause is the money supply. — Xtrix

Yet one should understand that the role of money supply isn't going to officially acknowledged. It can be said when referring to Turkey (or Ukraine desperately fighting a war) or some Third World country by the media, but not in the case of the US or the EU zone.

That's not just "some" inflation, that's a huge chunk of people's disposable income — Benkei

Thus housing prices aren't counted when talking about inflation. Rents don't change as much, hence they are usually preferred.

It's not a conspiracy, the simple fact is that "ugly" or politically delicate statistics like actual inflation or the unemployment rate are made to look better by changing the statistics. Just as the companies in a stock index are changed if the stocks don't perform well (and you don't take them all into account), the food stuffs in the basket are changed too. And then there's hedonic adjustment with which you can lower also inflation.

they're just using 'existential threat' as concept that isn't technical but rather figuratively and political, to indicate that it's going to be really really bad if we don't do anything. — ChatteringMonkey

Oh I agree. But the problem is when the discourse stays on that level when making actual decisions. Politicians just love grandstanding and hence the problem is that rhetoric and actual decisions can part to totally different realms. When an administration that likely has few years to go until the next election makes an "ambitious" plan for the next twenty years, one can be doubtful of what actually will be done in the next decade or two.

This is a basic problem especially in energy policy, which is quite central to the actual environment policy. Since at least 40 years the emphasis has been to "transfer to renewables". Well, that's really happening only now and the current energy crisis shows just how much dependent we are on oil and gas.

This probably isn't biological but more of a sociological phenomenon. — Agent Smith

Prosperity and wealth is a sociological phenomenon, so yes, it hasn't got anything to do with biology.

Ok, maybe I agree that this kind of alarmism as a political strategy isn't all that helpful, in that it potentially alienates those that weren't already convinced even further. — ChatteringMonkey

Wrong models won't just alienate those that aren't already convinced, they simply can contribute to wrong policies. It's not just pep talk. If a forecast is ulitmately proven wrong, we cannot excuse it because "it supported the good cause". Something "for the cause" isn't the way to make models about the future, especially the ones that you base your actual policies on. The issues are complex, not so simple to be good or evil as people want them to be. And furthermore, to criticize models about their validity when they are wrong isn't some "climate denier" scheme, it's basic way to do science. And strawmanning this, like responding "oh, so you are denying climate change?", doesn't help. The models really need to be accurate, realistic and not simple extrapolations from linear models, where the end result is that you are forecasting the year when the human race, or all species, are extinct.

Just take the extremely stupid Chinese "one child" policy, a real product of the fears of the overpopulation debate in the 1970's implemented in 1980. Or similar policies in Singapore: that there simply will be too many SIngaporeans / Chinese and hence drastic measures were taken to limit population growth. All because of the threat of overpopulation, which ought to have resulted in widespread famines twenty years ago. And now both policies have backfired and they face a bigger problem now (Singapore is desperately trying that Singaporeans would have more children). India utterly failed in any kind of population growth limitations and guess what: it's fertility rates have gone down. The simple fact that prosperity alters the need for people to have children was shown again to be true, but I'm not sure how anyone saying this would have succeeded in any of the overpopulation debates in the 1970's. The Malthusians would evidently have won the day as they did. And likely will win a public debate, because that's what people want to hear.

But my point this time was that it doesn't really matter that it isn't an existential threat, it is still or should be very alarming nevertheless. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree.

Just as in the Zeihan example, over dramatization still is not great when you are dealing with facts. It's far too easy to ask the question: Is China really to collapse now, immediately, and get the answer "Likely not". The same happens if we take the most dire forecast in the shortest time period. When that most dire forecast doesn't happen (in the few months or one year) it's supposed to happen, you can seriously question then the forecaster.

To think that the most dire forecast is just a way to "wake up" people and hence it's OK to be alarmist, then one should remember that to get most closest to what happens will be the best forecast.

Let's remember that for 20 years the nuclear codes were “00000000” in Minuteman silos.

I love me some polarization, to be honest. — NOS4A2

We know, NOS.

And in Canada you are a spectator, just like me.

So getting your popcorn ready for the binge watching of blood on the streets?

Yes.

We can always just hope for the Yellowstone supervolcano to erupt. Then we'll have those nice cold winters and beautiful sunsets for a long time.

Yeah, I know. It isn't a solution. Most recent volcanic activity was 70 000 years ago and major eruption some 700 000 years ago.

Biden’s whole theme was unification and decency but he has done the exact opposite. — NOS4A2

Because it sells in America.

Polarization rules.

Not being an existential problem is a very low bar. I know there's people focusing especially on existential risk — ChatteringMonkey

And that's alarmism. Call something existential when it's really existential, then you don't fall into alarmism: of making unwarranted claims. The Sun poses an existential threat to life on Earth as current theory on the sun's stages in the future holds, but that is in the billion year time scale. This isn't just a rhetorical question, it really drives the discussion. Because pointing this out, I am categorized as being non-alarmed about climate change, as simply giving a "meh" about it. When doubting the most severe predictions is labeled as being a denier of the whole problem, that is a real problem for honest discussion. We have to avoid the lures of tribalism and making making issues to be like religious movements with their proper liturgy and other views considered blasphemy.

I had this same issue come out on the Xi Jinping and the CCP has no clothes thread where, yes, China is facing real difficulties and no, China isn't going to collapse. Again the love affair we have with "end-is-nigh" thinking.

Or it's similar when talking about the financial system. I believe that sooner or later our international monetary system will have a huge crisis and something new will replace this present system. Yes, it's also a big issue, even if climate change is a fa larger issue. But that collapse doesn't mean a societal collapse. The last time when the monetary system collapsed, many didn't even notice what had happened.

The question is: How many? Already scores of youth are opting for not having kids because of CC. — Olivier5

With more prosperity, people have less kids. That's what historically has happened. This is a trend that didn't start yesterday. And just look Japan: their stock market hasn't ever reached the highs in the late 1980's, they have a lot more old people than young people and are they on a verge of collapse? I don't think so.

The real problems are in the places that are already in dire straits before the largest impact of climate change.

And so do children from malnutrition in the Sahel region, and people in the conflicts there, where part of the reason is surely climate change. A lot more than the official bodycount in Pakistan as of now. But then, when we look at the statistics about people killed in famines:



Or then the statistics of natural disasters:



Those tell a different story, not of climate change or it's impact, but simply that our society can handle problems such as climate change better now than hundred years ago. And this isn't denialism, I'm not denying that climate change is a serious problem, only that it's not a existential problem for human kind. The year 2100 or 2200 there will very likely be humans around. That's the alarmism I'm talking about.

So, do you think you and your family will die directly or indirectly because of climate change?

The world will not end, but our world will. That's the point. — Olivier5

Oh, but that's call change. Like in climate change.

And I'm not so sure climate change will kill you and all of your family. Or mine.

These 'non-alarmed' folks are just trying to ignore the problem, to reassure themselves. — Olivier5

I don't think so. At least me I think that climate change is a real problem for us and it has been happening already for a long time. And will be to us and the next generation after us. But the World will not end. That's the point.

They would have embraced and sung revolution songs together as they tore down American democracy. — NOS4A2

That's correct.

The only way to destroy American democracy is to say that you are protecting it from a clear and obvious threat. And then really believe in what you are saying (to be clear, obvious and true).

In my view in January 6th Trump could have made a self-coup, assuming he would have the objective and the leadership qualities starting from forming a real junta, controlling at least his own security entourage (which drove him off, which is hilarious) and then going forward with emergency powers until the "threat to the democratic system" would have been dealt with. Then have the ability to stage fake trials.

But he didn't do that.

He didn't put a no-nonsense guy like general Flynn in charge in the military and have ready other supporting officers to replace the joint chiefs of the armed forces when they would have resigned. No, he relied on his lawyers and some pillow guy. As if these kind if things are done by legal loopholes. Any kind of real self-coup would have to have real planning, solid backers in the government believing the cause to be righteous, which would mean that the main conspirator would have to have some leadership skills.

Which we know the very able orator and populist Trump doesn't have. What he would have had is fervent die hard supporters on the street backing his self-coup. One cannot underestimate their role...if Trump would have walked to Capitol Hill with them. And the strategic surprise: people simply wouldn't have fathomed a self-coup happening in the US. The nation simply would have been in self denial afterwards.

To do real self-coup, on live television, Saddam Hussein actually shows the way:


But of course it was the usual Trump train wreck. Because what else does Trump do?

And as pathetic the whole debacle was, the worry that it can happen again is alarmist. And frantically sounding the Trump alarm bells just alienates people, when actual problems of the present should be the focus of discussion.

Nope, the US will just have awful elections, especially Presidential ones.