Famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama called Biden and told him that Kamala was on board using the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. — fishfry

Unfortunately Seymour Hersh has been on a downward trend for 10 years now, with increasingly fanciful takes on events which, unlike his previous work, have not later been corroborated. I would not take his word as gospel these days.

I think you're lying. — Tzeentch

Naturally.

What causes people to disagree with me on a public forum? Must be US agents doing it.

An American accusing me of Hollywood bias is quite rich, though. There's not a nation on earth that has wreaked as much destruction on the world as the United States. It doesn't deserve anyone's benefit of the doubt. The only proper way to view its actions is through a lens of utter cynicism, which comes natural to a realist anyway. — Tzeentch

I'm not american, but this is a neat encapsulation of your reasoning. You're emotionally committed to seeing the Great Satan at work, the facts come second.

I wouldn't expect someone who seems still to be stuck in "unprovoked invasion" territory to really get it, but still, thanks. — Tzeentch

That's what it boils down to. "You just don't get it". You either accept the metaphysical premise that all events must trace back to the "Great Satan", in this case the USA, or you don't.

Why does Ukraine seek western integration? The US engineered it.

Why don't Europeans act according to their geopolitical interests? They're in thrall to the US.

Why did Russia invade Ukraine? The US forced them too.

This is just another world conspiracy. Replace the USA with your favourite villain, the Illuminati, Hollywood billionaires, etc. the story remains the same.

If the Americans had their way, sure. — Tzeentch

So how does this look? What's the war aim? Recapture Kaliningrad for Germany?

They had hoped the Russians would more aggressively push Ukraine, which would have given NATO an opportunity to punish Russia via a guerilla war and which would have fueled Russophobia and the propaganda machines. (In a cruel twist of irony, it would be Israel that fell for such a trap in Gaza)

The Russians showed restraint though, giving NATO ample opportunity to back out of escalation and sit down for talks, which is why US warmongering is only finding limited success. — Tzeentch

This theory is nothing short of amazing. So the Russians, knowing the US wants war, are unfortunately forced (by reasons which are apparently unknowable) to oblige the US and repeatedly invade their neighbour.

But, in a stroke of genius, after eventually invading with their entire maneuver forces, they cleverly avoid winning the war. Thus depriving the US of the desired guerilla warfare. They instead engage in a total war of attrition. This, apparently, is somehow safer because, and I'm guessing here, if the war is already total, it cannot get worse.

Foiling the US by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is truly 4D chess.

The situation is still dangerous, though. Economic decoupling, the spreading of war sentiment and a measure of militarization has been achieved, so there is fertile soil for another conflict down the line. — Tzeentch

After all, you never know when Russia will again be forced by circumstance to invade another neighbour.

The US has proven it is willing to bomb its allies' infrastructure to further its agenda, so it's entirely thinkable the US may do something extreme to create the proverbial spark in the powder keg and thus we may be closer to the threshold for full-scale conflict between Europe and Russia than we think. — Tzeentch

Luckily Russia has so far safer us from being bombed by the US by selflessly taking on the duty of starting the wars.

The war in Ukraine is just the appetizer - not the actual goal. War between Europe and Russia is the American dream scenario here, and the conduct of Russia in this war so far clearly shows they are trying to avoid giving the suicidal Europeans enough reason to fall for Washington's warmongering. — Tzeentch

They can't get the war between Europe and Russia without the war in Ukraine though.

Or are you supposing there'd be NATO tanks rolling into Russia?

Because NATO insisted on threatening what the Russians believed were their vital strategic interests. — Tzeentch

That's not what inevitable means. Threatening a vital interest is just that. You can choose not to respond with a military escalation.

Even when the US pivots, it doesn't mean the US 'is gone', and you're suggesting handing the US the biggest trump card it could hope for? Haha. — Tzeentch

Like handing the US a war that according to you they desperately wanted? Yeah what could possibly be better.

Because at that point they believed war to be unavoidable. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. — Tzeentch

It's hard to understand because it makes no sense. Why would war be unavoidable?

NATO was clearly propping up Ukraine militarily with the intention of creating a fait accompli. Russia sought to stop them before that became a reality. — Tzeentch

But Russia wouldn't face any immediate consequences from that. This is the classic encirclement argument and it's not more convincing now than it was in 1914.

Because there's no way the US would have provoked this conflict unless the Europeans were willing participants. Putin probably banked on the Europeans pursuing a sensible strategy. They didn't. — Tzeentch

Why didn't Russia pursue a sensible strategy? Europeans were clearly happy buying russian gas. They also softballed their reaction to Georgia, and then offered diplomacy. What exactly does Russia demand from the Europeans here?

As I said, the US is seeking to prepare its pivot to Asia by leaving long-lasting conflict as its parting gift to Europe. — Tzeentch

And Russia is playing right along. You still haven't answered why. "But Ukraine is so important" - yeah but why is it important now. Just wait until the US is gone, where is the problem?

Of course not. The Russians believe NATO membership for Ukraine to be a threat to their vital strategic interests. They simply couldn't ignore it. That's what a red line means. They spent 15 years trying to avert this outcome. — Tzeentch

They spend 15 years trying to avoid it only to turn it into a virtual certainty by invading. What is the political endgame of Russia here?

At no point since 1990 was Ukraine closer to NATO than now. At any point prior to 2014, Ukraine would have looked at a process of several years before eventually joining. Between 2014 and 2022, it was absolutely impossible for Ukraine to join NATO. Russia has not only gained nothing in this regard, it made it's strategic situation strictly worse.

This ties into the fact that Ukraine represents Russian key strategic interests, and therefore NATO seeking to flip NATO couldn't be ignored. But it's widely accepted that Putin expected Europe to be more amendable to peace, and thus miscalculated in that regard. — Tzeentch

Why did Putin need Europe to be amenable to peace in the first place? NATO tanks weren't about to roll into Russia in 2014 or in 2022. Even if NATO "flipped" Ukraine, what does this matter to Russia if the US is going to pivot to Asia and this kills NATO? Literally all Russia has to do in this situation is not start a war. They did the opposite. Three times.

Because deterrence is supposed to make war less likely, instead of provoke it. — Tzeentch

That's just rephrasing the claim. What distinguishes deterrence from aggressive armament?

Yep. That's something I've repeatedly argued in this thread: NATO, the US in particular, was purposefully seeking conflict in Ukraine from 2008 onward. — Tzeentch

Which just seems to strengthen my argument that Russia made a bad move by choosing to continually escalate in Ukraine.

As I have argued before, the different threads of your argument are contradictory. If the theory about the pivot to Asia is correct, then Russia's security interests demand cordial relations with Europe and it should seek to expand it's soft power, avoiding open conflict with Europe while positioning itself to take over from the US. In this scenario short-term control of Ukraine is a secondary concern, as Russia can wait out the US and then push it's advantage later once the US is embroiled with China.

But given the fact that Russian actions demonstrably run counter this strategy, you're reverting to an entirely different security environment where you ignore the pivot to Asia and argue as if Russia faces eventual destruction by a war-hungry NATO unless it preemptively creates a buffer.

You're constantly accusing Europe of ignoring the obvious signs on the wall yet Russia plays exactly to the US playbook and you have nothing to say about that?

If you think you're entitled to me regurgitating topics that have been covered here dozens of times, you are sadly mistaken. — Tzeentch

Oh I'm not entitled to anything. It's just interesting to see how you're strenuously avoiding to answer uncomfortable questions.

NATO leaders admitted to signing a peace agreement not with the intention of maintaing peace, but with the intention to arm for war. — Tzeentch

That's an entirely new claim you're making. Previously it was arming Ukraine, now it's "prepare for war".

You earlier stated you agree with the principle of deterrence. Why is this not covered by deterrence?

Your suggestion that Russia could withdraw support for the Donbas separatists and in turn NATO would agree to a neutral Ukraine is therefore laughable. — Tzeentch

"Therefore"? What exactly is the premise this is referring to? Because to me it reads like you saying that NATO was bent on war this entire time.

This question has been answered a million times already. I'm not going to answer it again. — Tzeentch

Ah yes, the classic kindergarten trick.

You're asking me how it is bad faith to enter a peace agreement in order to double down on what caused the war in the first place? — Tzeentch

No, I'm asking you what is bad faith about arming Ukraine in parallel to the Minsk agreements.

The agreements contain no clause to this effect, so you're asking NATO to unilaterally de-escalate. Did Russia unilateraly take steps to reduce the threat posed by the separatists?

There's nothing within the realist framework that says cooperation cannot happen when it is rational to cooperate. — Tzeentch

Great, I agree. So why was it impossible for Russia and NATO to cooperate in February 2022, and why would it have then been possible in April 2022 or now?

Edit: Or, in case you reject my framing of the question, if it was possible to cooperate in February 2022, why didn't Russia choose this path given the many advantages of cooperation with Europe.

You're both mischaracterizing your own position (you're arguing there was "no reason" to invade Ukraine - obviously not a serious argument) and mine (I never argued the Russian leadership was unable to make mistakes).

Cheap rhetorical tricks won't help you with being taken seriously here. — Tzeentch

I'm not arguing there was literally no reason.

First-hand accounts from Merkel and Hollande tell us that NATO entered the Minsk Accords in bad faith, and used it to buy time to arm Ukraine. NATO was fully committed to flipping Ukraine. — Tzeentch

Assuming this is true, how is this "bad faith"? The entire premise of your argument is that international relations are anarchic and guided by impersonal geopolitical forces. Are you now saying that Russia did not try to use the Minsk agreements to advance their goals? Doesn't Mearsheimer argue that nations will not sit back and wait but instead aggressively seek advantages?

The idea that if only the Russians stopped backing the separatists NATO would agree to Ukrainian neutrality is probably one of the most far-fetched things I've heard so far. I hesitate to say: not a serious argument. — Tzeentch

So on the one hand you're telling us that Europe's diplomats ought to scale back the rhetoric and couple deterrence with de-escalation. But also de-escalation is not even a serious argument because NATO will by default make unacceptable demands.

This is another version of the "no reason" comment. The Russians clearly believed and told us otherwise, and the idea that a great power goes to war for "no reason" is just not a serious argument. — Tzeentch

You're constantly arguing that European politicians are stupid and / or incompetent, but entertaining the possibility that the russian leadership made a stupid or incompetent decision is "not serious". Why not?

It's quite easy to see from the Russian point of view what was changing in Ukraine: Ukraine was in the process of being trained and armed by NATO to a point where Russia's standing army would no longer be able to intervene. During the initial invasion Ukrainian forces outnumbered the Russians (est. 200,000+ vs. 100,000 - 190,000 respectively).

Coupled with NATO rhetoric of incorporating Ukraine, it was clear from their point of view they were expecting NATO to create a fait accompli. — Tzeentch

What kind of fait accompli could NATO create?

It is entirely plausible that Russia saw the window for military intervention in Ukraine closing. That was the prelude for many a military adventure through history. But that alone doesn't explain the decision for a military escalation in the first place.

Prior to the invasion, plenty of people believed Russia would be using their military for another round of gunboat diplomacy, which was a reasonable assumption. Russia of course also had the option to offer to abandon the Donbas separatists in exchange for a commitment to a neutral Ukraine with some kind of economic deal thrown in. In view of the pivot to Asia, the latter choice seems especially appealing.

Insisting that there was "no reason" and that Putin is some mad man is not a serious argument. — Tzeentch

I did add the word "particular", as in nothing had dramatically changed for Russia's position in Ukraine.

Whether or not Putin is a mad man is immaterial to the argument that the decision defies conventional wisdom (even the unconventional conventional wisdom of Mearsheimer).

It doesn't. Ukraine and especially Crimea are of great geopolitical and historical importance to Russia and always has been. They've fought several wars over them. — Tzeentch

That is not really the point though. The point is that Russia had no particular reason to invade in 2022.

No realist should have been surprised that the Russians after over a decade of warnings chose to use force to secure what they believed to be their vital strategic interests. — Tzeentch

And yet everyone was surprised. Easy to retroactively claim that it was all predictable, but no-one did predict it.

In fact, Mearsheimer predicted it almost ten years in advance — Tzeentch

He didn't. What he predicted was that Russia would use political, economic and military pressure to either force Ukraine back into it's orbit or "wreck" it. That is indeed what happened between 2014 and 2022.

These moves were already highly aggressive but, as Mearsheimer has argued, can still be put into a geopolitical framework, namely his offensive realism. Hence prior to 2022 you could still somewhat plausibly claim that Putin is a masterful geopolitical strategist.

The invasion in 2022 in contrast is a massive gamble with no clear political endgame. It's the kind of open-ended unpredictable warfare rational players avoid.

To use a historical example, after the Munich conference you could plausibly claim that Hitler was a master strategist, skillfully wringing the maximum out of his opponents for minimal cost. The subsequent annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia was already a high risk gamble, but could still be justified as an acceptable risk. Once Hitler invaded Poland though it became clear that rather than a master strategist, he was actually a compulsive gambler.

Ukraine is more important to Russia than maintaining the status quo. That's exactly what they told us over the course of some fifteen years.

Striking such a sarcistic tone while losing sight of the most basic elements to this conflict is why I can't take you seriously. — Tzeentch

What I find bizarre is that you keep switching between different premises.

On the one hand, the geopolitical realities are supposed to be impersonal and irresistible forces. But when you have to explain why events don't conform to these forces, you suddenly invoke very personal and contingent reasons. European diplomats are incapable of even basic solutions. Unspecified actors are influenced by the US in unspecified ways. Europeans are "acting in bad faith" or are "ignoring realities".

Meanwhile while the russian side supposedly has an interest in working relations with Europe due to the inevitable US-China conflict, "Ukraine is more important". But this just seems to beg the question: How could it be more important than the "fundamental power struggle of our time"?

From my perspective you're building a complicated scaffold to prop up a theory which has a giant hole in the middle: namely that the invasion of Ukraine defies traditional "geopolitical reason", including the version championed by Mearsheimer.

The solution is extremely simple: combine the creation of a deterrent with de-escalating rhetoric and with dialogue with Russia. — Tzeentch

You mean like the Minsk accords? But then:

Yet, we now know that the Europeans were acting in bad faith as far back as the Minsk Accords. — Tzeentch

Damn Europeans can get anything right. Of course all Russia had to do to ensure somewhat cordial relations with the West was to not overtly escalate the conflict and keep it's bargaining chips in eastern Ukraine.

Luckily:

These are geopolitical realities - forces of nature, almost - that they cannot ignore (though admittedly, Europe has been a king at ignoring geopolitical realities). — Tzeentch

So there's no way Russia would blow up the status quo by doing something as silly as launching a full ground invasion of it's neighbor. That would keep the US attached to Europe, force Russia to deepen it's ties to China and ensure that every European politician who argued for deterrence and cooperation with Russia is instantly discredited.

I'm so glad we live in a world where the forces of nature obtain and not some bizarre and unpredictable place where domestic politics and even the mindset of individual powerful people can shape major world events.

Oh absolutely. People want something to change, this has been visible for a while now. But neither of the big political blocks is able to deliver, and that goes for much of Europe, too.

It was anathema to neoliberalism, so anti-establishment. I think we're just quibbling over who the establishment actually is? — frank

No, I don't disagree that the rhethoric is anti-establishment. But I'm not seeing any evidence that it's connected to any actual conviction. Trump did enact some tariffs on China, but he doesn't have a plan to restructure the entire US economy. As I said he has good populist instincts, but what's his actual plan to combat neoliberalism?

And this is how it always goes with you. When pressed on the specifics you invoke your interlocutors ignorance and run away.

In fact it's because I'm aware of their arguments (and the fact that they contain no predictions for the war we could yet test) that I'm asking you for a justification.

But no matter. The core point remains that the mere fact that there's a Ukraine war at all is a fatal flaw in the theory that Europe and Russia are natural allies.

Sure. Let me know when that happens. — Tzeentch

Both Europe and Russia are demonstrably acting against the interests the theory prescribes for them. The only explanation given for this is that the US is somehow engineering all of it.

These people have been making accurate predictions about where this war would lead since Day 1. — Tzeentch

What predictions? Be specific please.

Such theories come with a risk though, a kind of epistemological moral hazard. Once you've started ascribing some events to an unnatural manipulation, there's nothing stopping you from doing so every time events fail to adhere to the theory.

I think a lot of it is the allure of the grand narrative, in this case the grand narrative about the "pivot to Asia".

It simplifies international relations into a zero sum power play, with nations essentially as blank slates. That can be a useful tool of course, but it ignores stuff like economic structure, history and culture.

Crucially, the idea that Russia and Europe are natural partners in a kind of "third block" only makes sense if you not only ignore the nature of the Russian state as it now exists, but also the lack of much economic synergy. Russia can replace neither the US nor China as an economic partner to Europe. All it can offer is cheap raw materials. It's neither a big market nor a big manufacturer. If China and the US go onto a direct collision course, Russia is in no position to materially soften the blow for Europe.

Nor is a security partnership plausible given the military capacities and the way the Russian elite justifies it's rule (as a bulwark against westernisation).

But these are all details. Economic reality demands that the US pivots to Asia and thus it demands Russia and Europe forming a block. If that doesn't happen it must be the result of some manipulation.

All the other contradictions just follow from the premise that the theory trumps the details. How can the following statements be reconciled?

In other words, there is no reason Europe should treat Russia as the big threat. The only point Russia becomes a threat is if we A. constantly play our cards wrong, and B. let mercurial powers like the US whisper into our ears. — Tzeentch

Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war — Tzeentch

Ordinarily we would suppose that war is a threat. But the war here is supposed to be the result of an unnatural manipulation by the US and thus not actually a threat by Russia.

They rigged their primary to get him nominated. They've been running a scam for three years. It blew up. But he is the legitimately nominated candidate. The insiders threatened him with God knows what, and he gave in. That's a coup. — fishfry

I think we just don't agree on what a coup is. To me, not every power struggle that the incumbent loses is a coup.

To me, a coup is an organised movement using illegal or at least extra legal means to seize power swiftly, creating a fait accompli that pre-empts organised resistance. Usually by isolating the centre of power and preventing it from rallying it's supporters.

The slowly building pressure on Biden under which his campaign ultimately collapsed doesn't fit, imho.

So we don't actually have a president, just a figurehead run by an invisible cabal? We all knew that was true, but isn't it significant that this has now been demonstrated in public? — fishfry

I don't really understand the show of indignation here. I'm sure you didn't just realise that the USA have a huge bureaucratic apparatus and that the president isn't actually required to make day to day decisions?

The cabal is less invisible than ignored. Most people just don't really think about how the government actually runs.

And in a crisis, is there or isn't there an executive decision maker? And who, exactly, is that right now? — fishfry

That is a much better question. It's impossible to know without having information from within the "war room". But even being in a situation where you're no longer sure whether the president is still capable of making emergency decisions is bad.

It's half a coup. There's no president. This is very unseemly and there are great risks to this country right now. The Dems have arguably committed treason. They didn't lawfully 25A him. They did something unlawful. You want to defend that, knock yourself out. — fishfry

I agree it's unseemly. I'm not as worried though. At the end of the day there have always been weaker and stronger presidents. Under a weak president, power will tend to devolve to the VP, department heads and advisors. The fact that Biden's weakness is age related doesn't in and of itself make it more dangerous.

I remember that everyone agreed that GW Bush was a fucking idiot. But noone called it treason.

Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army. — Tzeentch

Just because no-one has challenged this false claim yet: Europe's militaries are not "stripped". Most frontline equipment that has been handed over has been old models from storage.

E.g. Germany handed over just 18 modern tanks out of a total of about 300. France has 400 modern MBTs. The UK has about 200, and handed over 14.

Obviously the European air forces, arguably the most important deterrent factor given NATO doctrine, are entirely intact.

Where Europe is "stripped" is in terms of ground based artillery (especially tube artillery) and ground based air defenses. This is a side effect of NATO doctrine and the threats western militaries have expected to face in the early 2000s. This will likely change as a result of the Ukraine war though.

One good thing if Trump wins: he’ll probably stop funding the war that the US provoked. That’ll save many Ukrainian lives. — Mikie

What you don't care about the russian lives it would safe?

If you listened to his speeches in 2016, the message was: we're going back to the 1960s and 70s in terms of job security. That was the positive vision he outlined. Obama commented on how his vision was impossible because the industrial infrastructure of America is already gone. I take it you missed that aspect of his first campaign. — frank

I do think it fits in, actually. It's nostalgia as a substitute for the future. Obama is ultimately correct here, though of course one can debate the details.

Basically unthinkable. It would be political suicide if something like that became public. — Tzeentch

Why? What do you think "the hard way" implies that makes it unthinkable? Power struggles within parties do happen, and they do often get pretty ugly, though not as often publicly ugly.

A lot more are calling it a coup than are claiming the earth is flat. What would you call it? — fishfry

A public pressure campaign? Why insist on a loaded word like "coup" when this is about who the candidate for the next election will be.

The Dems lied for three years to hid Biden's infirmity, then stabbed him in the back. When Nancy Pelosi comes to you and says, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and a letter is put out that you clearly didn't write, that's a coup. — fishfry

They stabbed him in the chest, not the back. It was very visible and very public. Nothing hidden or conspiratorial about it.

Even before the debate the common refrain was that Biden must demonstrate that he's not senile. He didn't. Biden had a lot of support at the time but he was not unassailable as the candidate. And in fact he failed to weather the storm. Nothing about this resembles a "coup", no organised group seized power in an orchestrated operation. One man lost his backing and the best placed person moved into the resulting vacuum.

Still no idea who is running the country. — fishfry

I mean probably the same people who run it most of the time? It's not like the president is required for day to day decisions.

Germany was a diseased society during Weimar with prostitution of all ages and shemale bars. Hitler campaigned exactly against that. How can someone who campaigns against a disease embody the pathologies? It can't, even if Hitler later came to embody different diseases. — Lionino

Oh, can you pinpoint for us when Hitler went from an anti-shemale-bar-campaigner to the guy who wanted to remake Europe according to his racial ideology?

Ironically, everything that the "grotesque, marginal" Göbbels said about Burgerland 100 years ago still applies today, and the entire planet would agree: — Lionino

Of all the things I did not expect to read to today, a reverent recitation of Goebbels (his name is actually written without the Umlaut), is probably the thing I expected the least.

i agree. I'm just more focused on what it means that there was so much popular support for him. He was telling people what they wanted to hear. Let's focus again on what that was: what did they want to hear? — frank

This kinda goes into the realm of armchair psychology, but my take from talking to Trump supporters is this: Trump is the emperor with no clothes, only he proudly displays his nakedness. His message is "we're all naked, don't be ashamed. In fact the ones who pretend they have clothes are the stupid ones."

His populism is otherwise pretty boilerplate stuff. It has a nationalist/ isolationist bend but nothing about it is unique. So I think the appeal lies mostly in the irreverence itself.

So if you think of Trump vs Harris in terms of the social forces involved, how do you read it? — frank

At the core of Trumpism is ultimately a deep pessimism, I think. That's what his apocalyptic rhetoric fuels. "Make America Great Again" is the slogan, but it's more like great rearguard action, fending off the encroaching decline. It's willing to throw formerly sacred values overboard because they cannot be saved anyways. So better throw them away now to get what advantage you can.

A counter-movement would be one that develops a positive vision for the future.

And Ukraine assumed it wasn't Georgia, and look where it got them.

Yes, but I think this is a conscious choice on the part of the more strategic thinkers among the Republicans.

Obviously, presidents or politicians who have some rapport with the Russians are useful. But once the US starts backing coups in Ukraine, it's over. — Tzeentch

If that's the world we live in, why on earth would Europe follow an independent foreign policy or seek rapprochement with Russia? It'd just be one US backed coup away from war, whereas in the US sphere of influence, Europe is fine.

I guess you could call Trump elite, but I wouldn't say he's part of the establishment, which is those who set foreign and domestic policies. His power came from public support that was so strong that establishment Republicans dared not antagonize him. In that way he's anti-establishment. The only reason he's not a revolutionary is that he couldn't pull it off. No? — frank

Trump as a person is not, or was not, part of the establishment. But since he also did not come with any formed policy, his actions ended up being mostly in favour of the republican establishment.

He has the irreverence and the populist instincts of a revolutionary, but not the conviction. So I guess we could say that he is not an establishment candidate, but he also doesn't care about being anti-establishment. As long as the establishment - in this case the republicans - stroke his ego he won't move against them.

Opening any kind of dialogue with the Russians would have been a sensible start. — Tzeentch

You mean like electing a president with good relations to Russia who proceeded to declare an end to further NATO ambitions? Because that is what happened in 2010.

When the former hegemon gets involved, I see little point in ascribing much agency to Ukraine. The United States has a track record of leading countries down the path of their own destruction. Ukraine is no exception. — Tzeentch

So what really are we talking about? If noone but the great powers really has any agency, then your entire argument seems kind of hollow. The only choice anyone has is which hegemon to court.

The move to change Ukraine's neutral status predates Russian military actions by some 6 years at least. — Tzeentch

So what should Ukraine have done to diffuse the tension? Declare they're no longer interested in joining NATO? Pass a law that affirms their neutrality?

Or is it all just about what Russia thinks the US intends?

Related to this:

Was changing Ukraine's neutral status a part of that deterrence? — Tzeentch

This talks about Ukraine in the passive, i.e. their neutral status is altered by third parties.

Some are calling it a coup. — fishfry

Some are saying the earth is flat.

Certainly if you saw this plot play out in some corrupt foreign country you'd call it what it is. — fishfry

Last I checked, the US government is still the same.

The last thing he said was that he is in the race to win it. Then we saw him creaking slowly up a flight of airplane stairs, and then someone posts his resignation letter on his X account, which is known to be run by staffers and not personally used by Joe. An image is flying around social media of his signature on his four recent executive actions, which do not match the signature on his letter. The letter does not bear the presidential seal. No photograph or video exists of him signing it. Then he disappeared totally for five days, officially recovering from covid. — fishfry

Why would it have been necessary to forge a resignation letter if he is incapacitated anyways?

If Biden is too impaired, even temporarily, to perform the duties of his office, the public has a right to know. And if he's not impaired, why haven't we even seen a still photograph of him in five days, let alone live video. — fishfry

They faked his voice but faking a still photograph is a step too far for the conspiracy? Or is this one of those conspiracies that is masterfully manipulating dozens of world leaders but leaves easily traceable evidence for random guys on the internet to find?

But what did happen to Biden? — fishfry

Old age.

This is the guy who got fourteen million votes in the Democratic primaries, and allegedly eighty one million in the 2020 general election. — fishfry

Oh so you believe the numbers that fit your view but the ones that do not are only "alleged"?

I don't want to hear anyone telling me that Donald Trump is a threat to Democracy again. — fishfry

Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.

The back-room party honchos decide what they want, and screw their own voters. — fishfry

Ok so the democrats rigged the primaries to get Biden the nomination, but also these primaries are now the legitimate will of the voters? That's having your cake and eating it.

I can see your point. But I still think that incumbency is very powerful. And if Joe is in as bad shape as he appears to be, it would be better for the country and certainly better for Kamala to just 25A the guy and be done with it. — fishfry

What difference does it make to the country? The net result is the same.

The political discourse "there" is right as usual. Hillary got millions of votes for being a woman, Obama for being black. Odds are that, if Hillary were Hilbert and Barack Obama were Barry O'Bryan, they wouldn't have won. — Lionino

Of course representing certain parts of the electorate is relevant, I did not want to dismiss that. Nevertheless, Kamala Harris wasn't randomly swept off the street because she fit a certain profile.

Thoughts about Kamala Harris? — Shawn

She is a woman, and thus automatically at a disadvantage. She's also of color, so the DEI-hire narrative writes itself. In fact if you ask in more right wing leaning circles, she's universally reviled already for being a supposed DEI-hire who allegedly has zero qualifications, and is stupid because her laugh sounds weird. That's unfortunately the level of political discourse we can expect.

Apart from that she seems solid, if nothing more. She has attracted significant left wing criticism for her policies as DA but that probably won't matter against Trump and is not something that I think most voters would care about deeply.

Really it's all about whether she can effectively deal with the fact that she is a woman.

I do not think she will be a strong candidate though. I think she would be a significantly stronger candidate if she hadn't been VP, because Biden's administration is not particularly popular. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I guess the deciding question would be whether the administration is popular enough among swing state voters.

I think the only way she isn't the nominee is if she pulls herself out. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Probably, yeah. She'll be hard to get past if she decides to push it. Nor Do I think the democrats could afford another public pressure campaign.

Edit: So I just read that she reacted to Biden's endorsement by saying she hopes to "earn and win" the nomination. So she considers herself in the race, but not the heir apparent. This leaves her space to back out, so at least she apparently does not intend to run come what may.

Honestly overall I think at this point the democrats should embrace chaos and focus on making the most grassroots-based choice possible. Find some way to let the base vote for a candidate, take the hands off the convention and just make it really, really obvious that you're not pushing anyone and whoever makes the best case wins.

I think such a spectacle might energize voters who are on the fence, but what do I know.