Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

It is endlessly funny to me that a half-senile 77-year-old who:

-Has a terrible recruitment record,
-Has a terrible midterm record,
-Has lost as many elections as he has won,
-Is incredibly unpopular with his own party's institutions despite being one of the most popular among his party's base
-Ran literally the most inept, disorganized administrations in modern American history,
-Achieved practically none of his party's goals during a time when they had a friggin' TRIFECTA,

is somehow just going to win and cancel democracy. The GOP does not sh!t these kind of bricks over Biden, s'all i'm saying.

Because Biden has never attempted to overthrow democracy and Trump has.

If you don't understand why people are fearful of Trump's return, then you've been asleep since 2015.

He's not joking. He will stay in office beyond what is legal. He'll refuse to leave. His supporters will have learned from their previous failed terrorist attack and do it again on a grander scale.

If Trump wins this year, it will lead to America's end.

Wasn't 2016 supposed to be the end of democracy?

It is endlessly funny to me that a half-senile 77-year-old who:

-Has a terrible recruitment record,
-Has a terrible midterm record,
-Has lost as many elections as he has won,
-Is incredibly unpopular with his own party's institutions despite being one of the most popular among his party's base
-Ran literally the most inept, disorganized administrations in modern American history,
-Achieved practically none of his party's goals during a time when they had a friggin' TRIFECTA,

is somehow just going to win and cancel democracy. The GOP does not sh!t these kind of bricks over Biden, s'all i'm saying.

But why even give him the chance?

Biden should not be targeting FL

[- Since the failure of Ukraine's summer offensive last year, Ukraine's strategy has focused less on regaining territory and more on destroying Russia's equipment and manpower and damaging Russia's economy (with things like drone strikes on oil refineries).]

Coming back after much delay to finish my responses here.

- Since the failure of Ukraine's summer offensive last year, Ukraine's strategy has focused less on regaining territory and more on destroying Russia's equipment and manpower and damaging Russia's economy (with things like drone strikes on oil refineries).

To the 3rd bolded, that implies Ukraine has written off the territory they've lost or don't believe they'll ever take it back without external actors. When combined with your last statement of "they'll never be allowed in NATO with active combat on their territory" (which is the correct take), perhaps they willingly cede the territory in exchange. I don't think territory though is the Russian goal and the NATO part is more the real one. Russia's goal in my opinion is to do a version of what the U.S. did to Mexico in the Mexican-American War of Mexico at the end were still allowed to exist, but were completely dismantled from ever being allowed to form a challenge to American hegemony in the region.

I didn't mean to say Ukraine had given up on capturing territory permanently, just that they recognized they weren't in a position to take territory after the end of their last counter-offensive and before the new equipment/mobilized soldiers arrived. It's an operation shift, not a shift in strategic objectives. I disagree that Russia's goal is to keep Ukraine neutralized over territorial gains, though. This is definitely a common take in the West, but I personally have never seen any indication that Putin has decided that this is a war over alliances more than a war over territory and culture. He even famously ignored the question of NATO expansion in his interview with Tucker, even when given the most leading possible questions on it. Russia had pretty minimal reaction to Finland joining NATO, which in theory poses pretty much the same strategic threats and constraints on Russia as Ukraine joining. This is different from Georgia, where I think you're right that it was about keeping the country out of NATO, and even Ukraine 2014, which was about trying to keep Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence and out of NATO and the EU. But if you read the most pro-war voices in Russia, they never put this conflict in terms of "keeping Ukraine neutral" or out of NATO. It's 100% "These are Russians who have lost their way, and until Russia marches on Kyiv and forces their submission, they will forever be under Ukronazi oppression."

- But bottom line, this is now a war of political will with Putin thinking he can outlast Western willingness to provide support and Ukraine thinking they can hold the line until either Russia's economy collapses (not off the table, but something that has been predicted many times with only a little to show for it) or Putin faces some sort of serious internal challenge, like we saw last year with the Wagner insurrection.

To the 4th bolded, I think back to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts for precedent. First canary on this front is not in November, it's the EU Parliament elections in June. They're elections that most are agnostic about and have been used in some areas to be purely a vote to punish people. And all signs are the establishment parties will decrease to where the Parliament's center-left/center-right/liberal grand coalition that has governed forever might not have the votes to guarantee a majority. As far as the U.S., Biden if he wins could easily turn himself into Lyndon Johnson I feel if this drags on a few years if he lives, and if he doesn't live who really knows what Kamala Harris thinks and who her National Security Advisor/State Secretary/Defense Secretary will be. Putin's old if you want to look at "maybe he'll die", but he's still younger than both Biden and Trump. I'd like a better plan however to deal with Russia that's not "cross our fingers, maybe there's a coup".

I agree with all of this with two caveats: Putin is younger than Biden or Trump, but still a full seven years beyond the life expectancy for a man in Russia. Granted, he doesn't drink and has access to the best healthcare, but that's the equivalent of either Biden or Trump being 86, so it does behoove us to have plans in place for Putin's death and not take him continuing to live for a while as a given. Also, I think all signs point to a significant power struggle after Putin's death. That's not to say there will be a coup or a civil war, but even the recent reshuffle of Belousov replacing Shoigu replacing Patrushev had the effect of leveling the playing field in a hypothetical power struggle, rather than Putin making a hand-picked successor clear. He may still do this, but there are a lot of people in Russia with troops who answer to them that may want to challenge his decision after he's gone.

from my perspective, DC is still mostly "in it to win it" for Ukraine and, I think contrary to what sometimes is claimed, would rather Ukraine defeat Russia than degrade Russia in a bloody, hot stalemate.

To the final bolded, how does Ukraine at this point defeat Russia without foreign troops deployed or declaration of war on our part against the Russian Federation? There's hope and then there's realism. Victory at this point has been defined PUBLICLY as Russian withdrawal from all occupied Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. If it's privately defined as something else by either the Biden or Zelensky administrations, that needs to start becoming public. Right now the Ukrainians have a 1000-mile front line with not enough men to defend the whole thing all at once, and they just now passed a draft. What the hell? Those are not the actions of a state planning on taking back Donbass and Crimea, which tells you that victory as currently defined publicly is not realistic. Meanwhile open source satellite images tell you the Russians have made multiple defensive line fortifications for the areas they've taken over.

You'll get different answers to what victory means depending on who you ask, but victory in my mind, and in the mind of most people I work with on this, means degrading Russia's ability to fight to the point that it is dissuaded from any further military operations against Ukraine or its other neighbors. What this looks like is hard to say, but it does not look like Ukraine marching on Moscow, and Ukraine forcibly taking all the territory it has lost since 2013 is basically a 1:million best case scenario for them. If you want me to name one concrete scenario of what this might look like, it would be something like Ukraine having very successful counter-offensives that cut the Crimean landbridge, trying to cut off all access to Crimea by train, car, boat, and plane over the span of several years, and then negotiating an exchange of Russian withdrawal from all or most of the Donbas in exchange for ending the Crimean blockade, recognizing Russian control over Crimea, and an end to most international sanctions against Russia. Will that happen? Probably not, but that's one "Ukraine victorious" scenario that doesn't involve a return to 2013 borders or military capabilities well above what we've seen Ukraine manage in the past. And unfortunately, you're not going to get public declarations of specific acceptable scenarios from leadership because, as Trump likes to say but not practice, you don't want to tell your enemies exactly what you're planning and what your terms are before you try to cut a deal. If Russia senses the West or Ukraine is scaling back their goals, it will show him the attrition is working and he just needs to fight another year or two before we totally give up on Ukraine.


Also, just want to say these are all great points you brought up, and just because I have different views doesn't mean I don't respect your argument or that I don't think you could end up being right. Like I said, this is stuff I just have to think about every day, and I want to be able to articulate my views as best as possible.

First, I appreciate your responses.

You'll get different answers to what victory means depending on who you ask, but victory in my mind, and in the mind of most people I work with on this, means degrading Russia's ability to fight to the point that it is dissuaded from any further military operations against Ukraine or its other neighbors.

That's a recipe for when this is all done and over with, the Ukrainians will hate us. I've had an armchair analysis sense of the Italians and Germans post-World War I for Ukraine for some time now.

And unfortunately, you're not going to get public declarations of specific acceptable scenarios from leadership because, as Trump likes to say but not practice, you don't want to tell your enemies exactly what you're planning and what your terms are before you try to cut a deal.

I understand that, but our government is spending a lot of money on the basis of false promises.

Also, I think all signs point to a significant power struggle after Putin's death. That's not to say there will be a coup or a civil war, but even the recent reshuffle of Belousov replacing Shoigu replacing Patrushev had the effect of leveling the playing field in a hypothetical power struggle, rather than Putin making a hand-picked successor clear. He may still do this, but there are a lot of people in Russia with troops who answer to them that may want to challenge his decision after he's gone.

Post-Putin is a great topic that I feel like no one really discusses. I imagine some Kremlinologist think tanks in Washington are, but it does not get out in public.

I read Michael Every of Rabobank some, he's an economist and he always focuses on geopolitical issues. His take on the Belousov appointment was it was to get a person in charge of defense with an economic grounding to improve Russia's industrial capabilities for wartime, i.e. they're not preparing for peace. Every then takes that and other geopolitical issues (e.g. Trump's and Biden's team are now both pro-tariffs) to show the world is changing meanwhile all the markets are paying attention to are rate cuts.

It is endlessly funny to me that a half-senile 77-year-old who:

-Has a terrible recruitment record,
-Has a terrible midterm record,
-Has lost as many elections as he has won,
-Is incredibly unpopular with his own party's institutions despite being one of the most popular among his party's base
-Ran literally the most inept, disorganized administrations in modern American history,
-Achieved practically none of his party's goals during a time when they had a friggin' TRIFECTA,

is somehow just going to win and cancel democracy. The GOP does not sh!t these kind of bricks over Biden, s'all i'm saying.

Biden 50/45 same as last time

I know Eastwood seems to be throwing out lugs to Ds whom supports Biden but Biden has a 45/55 percent Approvals

We all know Trump isn't gonna win a Landslide, but Ds have managed more Landslides the last R landslide was 1988

I don't see what the problem is.

I'd imagine traitors wouldn't see the problem.

Bizarre that the most obviously true part of his speech - “Being a mother and homemaker is important and rewarding, and you shouldn’t let your career get in the way of that if it’s what you really want” - is the most controversial.

Because that isn't the point he was making.

You mean that’s not the point that you read in?

From a Facebook friend:

Here's a theology lesson: For Christians,the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament presents (among other things) guidelines on how YOU should live... not on how you should control how OTHERS live. Any ‘church” that teaches otherwise is one you should run from.

If the New Testament gives guidelines on how you should live, those same guidelines can be applied to others. Your Facebook friend posted gibberish.

Talk more when you are ready to give up your career and dreams so that your- checks notes - life can start by being a homemaker, father, and husband. After all, according to Harrison butker you've been fed the greatest lies in the world by saying that you can achieve more satisfaction in life outside of those roles.

I mean, are we waiting for him to retire to take up those roles tomorrow? Or is he just selling some double standard BS dressed up as Christian piety?

Badger, if my partner made millions of dollars a year playing sports, I would gladly be a stay-at-home husband, wouldn’t you? Or are you under the delusion that your job is more important than raising your kids and having more time to devote to your hobbies (sh!tposting on Atlas Forum)? If so, it sounds like you’ve bought into a diabolical lie!