This reads like fiction.

I was fighting in Ukraine in spring when Russia had invaded Kyiv Oblast and was attacking Irpin, Bucha, Brovary, and other surrounding cities. The biggest challenge fighting Russia is their massive amounts of artillery, which is invaluable for keeping attacking infantry units at bay. Russian infantry to my apprehension looked like chickens with their heads cut off, and were hesitant to attack, quick to pull back, and not decisive at all. I have personally seen Ukrainian Territorial Defense units (which are volunteer “reserve” units) hold back incursions made by Russian regulars (supported by tanks), using only automatic rifles, grenades, RPGs, & other rocket systems. To be fair, it is easier to dig in and defend than it is to attack, and attackers generally incur much higher casualties; but I was not impressed with Russia’s combat performance. There was also a host of logistical concerns Russian invaders had to contend with — not limited to bad roads, muddy conditions, fuel shortages, etc. It’s bad when a long column of Russian tanks are stalled out and you can engage them from the trees with infantry & rocket systems, then fall back & mount more attacks. To be fair again, Russia has been better with logistics since that time, but their overall performance on all but one of the Ukrainian fronts has been lackluster thus far. — Wolfman

I thought you were a cop in the USA. :rofl:

I understand from some NATO friends you need about 3 times the manpower to invade, which is why NATO was always convinced the Russians were going to invade because of the huge standing armies when the Warsaw Pact was still existing (after the fall of Berlin, they did find exactly those type of plans). Since Russia only fielded about twice as many soldiers as Ukraine, whatever strategic goals they were considering does not involve occupation of large swathes of Ukraine and should be relatively limited. And if that's the case then what is their real goal?

Have you read it? First few pages start off really weird.

merci. I'd vote for black mold over Lindsey Graham but that's me.

We have to work very carefully.

From my experience fighting the Russian invasion force is like fighting children. — Wolfman

:chin:

What I'm missing again from your reply: even if all of that is true (which I don't think any of us are in a position to say with certainty one way or the other), should they? Is it worth the deaths and destruction? Surely there's more to morality than beating the Russians at all costs?

What's an IUD?

Thank you. Custodianship is indeed what I mean. Too bad Europeans killed most of those indigenous people. Are you aware of any decent books describing their ethics?

What constitutes "beating the Russians"? I think this is a typical example of a different definition of winning (as I understand "beating the Russians" to mean). @boethius means winning as a surrender, much the same way the Dutch and French surrendered to the Germans and the Germans surrendered to the Allies and the Russians. Winning like that is nigh impossible. I think that's a bit of a semantic trick though.

Winning meaning locking up Russian forces in a stalemate which will lead them to eventually accept some type of truce or even peace deal, I think is highly probable. And I'd rather see that sooner than later.

Winning meaning reclaiming Donetsk and Luhansk and the southern occupied territories is already much more difficult. Not impossible but I think that also depends on what of the stories are true. Did the Russians merely tactically retreat form Kharkiv or was it an actual gain? Are the Russians having problems with their supply lines or are these news items exagerrated? Is Western material support sufficient or not? I can't tell and I don't think anyone on this site can accurately gage it. Along with those uncertainties, the question also becomes one of whether the costs are acceptable (eg. Ukrainian deaths first and foremost but also Russian deaths which are mostly men like you and me forced to fight). My personal feeling about that, is that territory is much less important than people. But then I've never been a nationalistic or patriotic type so I might misunderstand the psyche of Ukrainians in that respect.

Then there's winning meaning reclaiming the above and Crimea. That's exceedingly difficult and to me it's pretty obvious that that should not be attempted from a cost-benefit analysis (costs in human lives). At least as things stand now and appear to continue for the foreseeable future.

But then, the sanctions could all of a sudden have an effect, more through an erosion effect, affecting the broader Russian economy, destroying their supply lines and a general decomposition of the Russian state apparatus. This seems highly unlikely to me though due to the fact so many countries in the world have not imposed sanctions on Russia and I don't think regime change was ever affected through sanctions. The closest was South Africa but that had an active and successful anti-apartheid movement even before the sanctions started so seems to dissimilar to the current case to expect such changes from the sanctions.

So, what type of winning are you thinking about?

The problem as I see it, is that common decency is not measurable and very few people are inclined to act upon it as they're generally too busy surviving.

And "decency" apparently nowadays involves considering sacrificing butterfly races because farmers have been farming for generations and it's a "family business" and it would be so-so sad for them to quit. Except of course nobody is asking them to quit, they're demanding to farm in such a way that it doesn't destroy our biosphere.

People have their ethics backwards because economic activity has become an "interest" to be weighed against other interests. So we're willing to do something about the climate crisis as long as it's not too much of a sacrifice.

I guess by attempting to distinguish between real profit and a shift of wealth and embedding ethical decision making in economic decision making, I'm trying to change the dynamic from a weighing of interest into changing the goal of economic activity in the first place. If profit only exists in terms of increasing resources, instead of diminishing them then a lot of economic activity becomes unviable. Simply tax every non-profitable at 100% as an immoral theft from the environment.

Not my experience. But it is true people are very much married to most of their opinions and this medium isn't necessarily the best. I've personally had a few shifts over time, for instance, with respect to racism.

All that doesn't change the point though that if you don't understand why someone believes something, there's no chance of changing that perspective. And even then, people can still disagree. Which should also be fine.

I've not committed to any viewpoint with respect to that cartoon. My point is you're not going to shift a perspective by insisting it's wrong (or variants on that).

That is so cool. Thanks for sharing! Too bad most people get fucked up growing up.

What people in this thread should remember is that perspectives may differ around the same facts:



That's still a joke and therefore an exagerration. But both "NATO is a purely defensive organisation" and "NATO is an existential threat" will be considered true depending on who you're talking to. A failure to try to understand either, means parties cannot reach a diplomatic solution and this thread similarly doesn't progress either.

As Mao said: "all is chaos under the heavens, the times are excellent".

While I do believe we need the EU to effectively combat the various global crises we're facing, they're still shitty neo-Keynesians for the most part, or worse, half-hearted proponents of MMT. Meaning their economic policies are utter shit. It's like looking at a person with one bucket trying to stop a leaking roof.

Any way, we're straying off topic. We tend to agree about the problems but diverge about their causes and therefor solutions. No need to rehash I think.

For anyone with half a brain:

Trump torpedoed the deal because he refused to recertify the suspension of sanctions while it's on record the Iranians complied - just search for the IAEA reports. Trump was unhappy with the suspension of sanctions which he thought were not "proportionate and appropriate"; Iranian compliance had fuck all to do with it.

After Trump torpedoed it the Iranians still kept to the deal until it became clear the EU wasn't willing to circumvent the US sanctions. Only then did they stop following the deal, since there simply was no deal anymore as the US broke it and the other parties did nothing to alleviate the negative consequences for Iran when the US broke that contract.

The fact is, the JCPOA limited Iran’s nuclear activities and was ensuring Iran would never become a nuclear weapons power as long as it was upheld.

The fact is, after Trump torpedoed the deal Iran has moved closer to nuclear weapons.

With due respect for the fog of war - if we assume the above synopsis largely depicts events as they actually are - then it would seem that the Kremlin is prepared to play the long game in the Ukraine - or at least to the end of the coming northern winter. Putin's calculus maybe that the economic trade war is working to its favour and that European unity against Russia may begin to crumble, over the coming winter, as pressure on fuel prices, gas shortages and food continues to mount. — yebiga

@ssu Also let's talk about this. I have found the decisions to impose sanctions incredibly callous in regard of our own populations, especially when we consider the effects on the poor with regard to their energy bills, combined with the ongoing inflation caused by supply chain issues now further excarbated by those sanctions.

It started with some export restrictions on gas and later diesel.

In the first few weeks of the war we had sanctions on the foreign reserves of Russia with the potential of inflicting a banking crisis in Russia. That didn't happen.

Subsequently, we had further sanctions intended to affect Russian exports.

March: IAE says: Russian exports will crater.

April report: Russia sees output fall by 17%

May report: Russia sees revenues increase

Thank God we're going into the summer and the effects are relatively small but Russia is making a killing.

August report: Russian exports have increased from the March low as well as Russian revenues.

September report: IAE says: Russian exports will crater with new embargo package from EU.

Only donkeys try the same thing twice and expect different results. Meanwhile, bakeries and small businesses are applying for bankruptcy because they cannot afford the increased energy bills. There are 690,000 households in the Netherlands threatened to go into poverty due to the increased costs of living and rising energy prices. That's almost 9%. And once you're in poverty you're pretty much fucked in a system that only concerns itself with what rights you have instead of what you need to get out of poverty.

In the final analysis, this is not our war but we're sacrificing entire families by pushing them into poverty - that includes all the missed opportunities as a result of a lower socio-economic position in society. We're destroying the future of thousands of children in the Netherlands and I doubt it is much different in other European countries.

I think the energy sanctions have been a mistake and should never have been imposed.

I think it's funny the West likes to pretend they don't do exactly the same. There's a long history of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention

It would appear that Russia - having abandoned the Kharkiv region without a fight - has no intention of conquering/holding any territory whose population is not predominantly supportive of Russia and also capable of deploying its own troops to defend that territory.

Although, the Ukrainians were successful in reclaiming a large swathe of territory in the Kharkov region - last week - the weight of evidence suggests that the Russians had largely already withdrawn and repositioned their defensive lines behind the Oskil River on the Lugansk border. — yebiga

sources?

What's worse is that the Iranians were sticking to the JCPOA as verified multiple times by the IAEA. Then Trump torpedoes the deal, the Europeans didn't manage to create a backdoor to avoid the US sanctions so the Iranians saw no reason to stick to the deal. The Iranians now want a better deal now, which is part a more hardline regime and part a "since you'll fuck us at any time, we want to maximise the benefits for as long as it lasts". And all this of course is great for stability in the region. So yeah, let's talk about the benefits for the USA because it has zero interest in stability. :yawn:

But but polar bears have tripled since the 60s.

Yes, you're an idiot. We know that. It wasn't a trade deal. What was the purpose of the JCPOA?

I already did, I said the agreement did exactly what it was supposed to do, which is obvious to anyone having actually read the thing. Your repeated question is just proof your haven't read it.

Exactly what it wanted. It sounds like you don't understand the purpose of the agreement. So what do you think the purpose was?

:rofl: Of course you have. Which is why you claim it gave zero return on investment yet did exactly what it was supposed to do for three years.

So you haven't actually read it and don't understand why it was agreed. Got it.

So no actual opinion on the JCPA then? Why was it shoddy again? We all know the only reason Trump hated it because it was something Obama accomplished.

So in real life, I'd ask you to explain the JCPA to me and why it's shoddy and we would be enjoying to see you flounder like a fish on land but since this is the Internet and everybody had google we'll go with the assumption you're just parroting other people's talking points.

It's funny how Barr is such a huge critic lately. Also about this ruling. What struck me as particularly exceptional upon reading it, is how she offers up arguments that were never submitted by either party. She turns out to be a better advocate for Trump than his own lawyers.

They buy some bonds. — Xtrix

About 30% of most issues is not "some". Maybe it's different in the US. Even so, I have the feeling you're not understanding my general comment. The whole point is that CPI is not an adequate measure when asset inflation has real life consequences for consumers with regards to housing and pensions. That inflation existed well before covid and Ukraine so really had nothing to do with either of them.

So you've just made Friedman's case that printing money causes inflation. It indirectly funds government expenditure (increased demand) because banks always have a buyer for bonds which governmental demand cannot be answered in a near full production environment.

The additional investments banks would theoretically make to increase production doesn't work for the same reason. Meanwhile housing prices doubled in ten years in the Netherlands. Many advanced economies have seen strong rises in housing prices and they're a basic need. Rents moved with it. That's not just "some" inflation, that's a huge chunk of people's disposable income and should figure strongly in any inflation figures but usually doesn't because it's not a pretty picture (we het owner occupying costs because nobody ever moved houses in inflation fantasy land).

So housing prices are filtered out and stocks and bonds never featured in them in the first place. That has nothing to do with covid and Ukraine though definitely is inflation and will wipe out 50% in value at some point affecting pensions and people's personal holdings.

Energy price and food inflation, that's Ukraine. Broken supply chains, that's covid. The only reason they are considered predominant in inflation figures is because the methodology is arbitrary bullshit. In reality inflation is much higher.

For me the immediate problem is the information apocalypse. If we don't get a handle on that, no shared narratives and therefore no social acceptance of any solution to whatever problems we agree exists. It's not the biggest but it's the first before you can effectively get to the rest.

*facepalm* What a fucking farce.

Again, I do not know what the motivations were, and nowhere did I claim it was or was not intended to be used. — NOS4A2

Funny how that never stops judges from imputing mens rea from people's behaviour.



I invite you to search NOS4A2's comments concerning Rittenhouse to see the full extent of the hypocrisy going on here.

That's an intuition I share but I don't think we can fairly assume this. A higher universe might operate under different universal constants making the availability of energy to do the calculations a minor problem.

Also, why assume an entire universe is generated instead of only what is observed? So in the simulation there would be no quantum universe except at the moment when you'd be looking for it. Rendering observations for 8 billion people and a bunch of equipment is less complex than an entire universe.

Guys, guys, I think we just have to conclude the USA is basically a fascist country regardless who you vote for.

Since we are physically different, we choose different careers. — 64bithuman

A ridiculous ahistorical statement. Women didn't get to choose and still often don't. And in the instances they do get to choose, they've been molded from when they've been born to fit around a certain gender stereotype by society and often even the parents. And while some of those expectations are detrimental to men as well, in no case have such stereotypes ever included subservience and obedience to the opposite sex as is the case for women. That undercurrent still exists even in traditionally progressive societies, women can choose their careers but God forbid they actually take the lead at home.

Feminists are correct to identify it and continue to argue against it.

What is a secular tyranny?

Based on what? I still see Republicans defending him or arguing that prosecuting him could lead to violence, which in bait-speak is saying people should riot if Trump is prosecuted.

Btw, I was interested in figuring out who kept breaking the ceasefire of the Minsk accords. I've searched for about an hour and I can't find it. You'd think the OCSE would document that too but unless it's only in the daily reports (which I'm not going to check one by one) I couldn't find it.

While searching for it, some interesting notes are that messaging has definitely shifted. Russia sent "saboteurs" while the West sent "military consultants".
But really, they were doing the same.

And Fiona Hill seems to have totally changed her tune. Here is her 2014 real politik analysis: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/mr-putin-and-the-art-of-the-offensive-defense-ukraine-and-its-meanings-part-three/

This was a pretty good read as well. https://www.beyondintractability.org/casestudy/grover-minsk-II-accords#_ftn43

Always "Slavs"?