RSS
From Associated Press:
Tesla CEO Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter in cash deal
Posted: Apr 14, 2022 / 03:44 AM PDTElon Musk is offering to buy Twitter, just days after the Tesla CEO said he would no longer be joining the social media company’s board of directors.
Twitter Inc. said in a regulatory filing on Thursday that Musk, who currently owns slightly more than 9% of its stock and is the company’s biggest shareholder, provided a letter to the company on Wednesday that contained a proposal to buy the remaining shares of Twitter that he doesn’t already own. Musk offered \$54.20 per share of Twitter’s stock.
That’s an 18% premium over Twitter’s closing stock price on Wednesday and up 38.6% since April 1.
“I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy,” Musk says in the filing. “However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.” …
I was talking to somebody last week who had a strong opinion on the subject of Elon Musk and Twitter, but, damn, I can’t remember what he said. He did say that he’d heard the Chinese are testing nuclear weapons on the dark side of the Moon.
In 1958, the U.S. began a project to consider blowing up a nuclear bomb on the light side of the Moon. From Wikipedia:
Project A119, also known as A Study of Lunar Research Flights, was a top-secret plan developed in 1958 by the United States Air Force. The aim of the project was to detonate a nuclear bomb on the Moon, which would help in answering some of the mysteries in planetary astronomy and astrogeology. If the explosive device detonated on the surface, and not in a lunar crater, the flash of explosive light would have been faintly visible to people on Earth with their naked eye. This was meant as a show of force resulting in a possible boosting of domestic morale in the capabilities of the United States, a boost that was needed after the Soviet Union took an early lead in the Space Race and was also working on a similar project.
The project was never carried out, being cancelled after “Air Force officials decided its risks outweighed its benefits”, and because a Moon landing would undoubtedly be a more popular achievement in the eyes of the American and international public alike. If executed, the plan might have led to a potential militarization of space. A similar project by the Soviet Union (Project E-4) also never came to fruition.
The U.S. wasn’t the only superpower thinking about nuking the Moon in 1958.
A late iSteve reader’s dad had come up with the idea in 1958 that the USSR should blow up a Soviet nuclear bomb, which with Andrei Sakharov he’d helped invent, on the Moon.
How else would anybody trust that the Russkies had actually sent a rocket to the moon other than to blow up a nuke visible from the Earth?
My reader was a brilliant professor in Florida and his dad was a genius Soviet physicist. So the historic Russian-Ukrainian rocket scientist Sergei Korolev, the Soviet equivalent of Werner von Braun, who’d won the first two legs of the Space Race, mocked up his proposal.
The primary aim of the project was to prove to the whole world that a Soviet spacecraft had really reached the surface of the Moon. XXX had the following in mind: The spacecraft would in itself be quite small and its flight to the moon would not be possible to observe for any astronomer on earth. Even if filled with conventional explosives, its drop on to the lunar surface would not be possible to observe from Earth. But, if a nuclear device was exploded on the Moon’s surface, the whole world would be able to observe the event and nobody would be able to pose the question: has a Soviet spacecraft really reached the Moon? It was assumed that a nuclear explosion on the Moon would be accompanied by such a light flash that it would easily be observable by all observatories on Earth.
Despite the number of opponents to such a project it was studied, like the other proposals, in detail. OKB-1 (S.P Korolev) even manufactured a mock-up of the spacecraft. Its dimensions and mass were determined by nuclear physicists basing their work on the rather inefficient nuclear weapons designs of that time. The container with the nuclear charge was to equipped with initiator rods in every direction, be like an anti-shipping mine, to ensure an explosion at the moment of contact with the Moon’s surface.
Fortunately the project never advanced beyond the stage of a mock-up. Already at the initial stage of the project the safety issues associated with such flight were raised. Nobody could provide a 100 percent guarantee that the charge would be safely delivered to the Moon. If the carrier rocket would fail during the operation of the first or second stage the container with the nuclear charge would fall on the territory of the Soviet Union. In case the third stage would fail, the charge could possibly fall on the territory of other countries causing a highly undesirable international incident. Also, the charge could end up in Earth orbit from which it would fall at a time and lace that nobody could predict. To miss the Moon and to send the charge on an infinite journey around the Sun was also an unpleasant thought.
There was also an organisational-political problem. In order for the explosion to be observed by foreign observatories these had to be notified in advance. The method of doing so nobody could find. Finally it was decided to drop the E-3 [E-4] project.
As Tom Wolfe explained in The Right Stuff, both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. conceived of the Space Race as a sort of Single Combat alternative to World War III. The Soviets won the first two legs (putting a satellite and a man into orbit), so they got cool allies like Fidel Castro. But the US won the third leg by putting a man on the moon, so we got the better quality of the next generation, such as Chou En-lai and Anwar Sadat, while the Soviets were stuck with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddaffi.
Ultimately, we didn’t have a nuclear war, so I admire the guys who got the human race out of a very sticky situation. As I’ve mentioned before, it would be really stupid to have World War III in 2022 when the stakes are so much lower.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
It would be great to see America’s most successful African American fire that Indian prick who thinks he can decide what is permissible speech in the USA.
(We’ll be back in space I’m sure…)
The Musk move on twitter was inevitable when he turned down the Board Membership.Replies: @Muggles
Like a lot of iStevers I've been following the incredibly interesting life of Elon Musk. I see parallels to Howard Hughes in that both men, inventors and businessmen, have deep ties to the national security state. I hope Elon doesn't end up like Howard.
Even if Elon is unsuccessful in placing Twitter -- an efficient and fun platform -- back into the marketplace of ideas there is reason to feel some optimism: coming out of the crypto-world, which is here to stay btw, is a powerful liberation theology of decentralization that will wreck the QR code fantasies of the malignant Gaian Cartel. Their woke ESG (Environment/Social/Governance) scheme which ultimately leads to depopulation and hybrid humans (not only do they want you to start eating bugs they also want you to become a bug) is a rocket to planet Hell.
When Jeff Bezos bought Washington Post, it became worse.
When Elon Musk buys Twitter it will become worse.
Money corrupts; absolutely large quantity of money corrupts absolutely.
Indian prick? More like Indian interloper.
Does Musk get the nose ring and ratty beard, too?
This post reminds me of Stanislaw Lem’s “Fiasco”
Both for the lunar destruction and thinking about how easily war can escalate due to human shortcomings.
1958 US Atomic Energy Commission proposal to construct an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson on the North Slope of the U.S. state of Alaska by burying and detonating a string of nuclear devices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chariot
Musk 2024! “What are you, a Martian?” “Not YET…”
(We’ll be back in space I’m sure…)
Why is this one post instead of two? What connection am I missing?
https://youtu.be/erO0UCQ7nfgReplies: @Coemgen
Hell yea
My concern is that a sense of ‘Oh, the military and Biden have ultimate control and they won’t do it’ gives a false sense of security to the situation and the US stays right up on the edge of war. But the edge of a cliff is not a recommended place to be. Just because you don’t intend to jump off doesn’t mean you can’t be pushed. We’ve already seen a torrent of sanctions from the West partly driven by the sense of ‘Well, we can’t go to war over this, so let’s do everything short of declaring war’ that tacitly puts the whole Western world at war with Russia reprising the Cold War. (In some ways even exceeding it, Russians are just banned from almost all international events) After that what do you do? You start sending small arms and then larger arms and then tanks and then planes and then… what do you do except go to war?
An awful lot of people probably would have tried harder to get the US and neocons to knock it off on Russia if they knew the Russians were prepared to actually no longer put up with an endlessly escalating situation and decide a full-scale invasion of Ukraine to hive off the Donbas to end the ethnic civil war and end it on their terms, prove to the US and Ukraine that the US had no intention of fighting over Ukraine and make it clear it considered NATO expansion an act of war. But they didn’t. Near the end the French and Germans realised that even if Russia initially had no intention, the US would push it into having to or submit forever and tried hard. But ultimately the US would not let Zelensky cut some kind of deal or openly say Ukraine would never be admitted to NATO.
That this would be the outcome was assured to any rational analysis. Even Obama more or less admitted this when pushed by Jeffrey Goldberg, quite correctly stating that he didn’t know what rational reason there was to get into it with Russia over Ukraine since it mattered far more to them than the US and so any war of escalation would reach the point of war since the Russians would never back off first.
Now we’re here and none of us really think either the US or Russia would use nukes. But at the same time even Sean Penn is on Fox News bemoaning how US nuclear deterrence won’t work if it is scared of threatening to use them on Russia over Ukraine. (Ignoring the fact that nukes are never expected to be used unless you feel existentially threatened, Russia does feel this is existential, in the US people just put a Ukrainian flag after their name on Twitter and go to sleep soundly), we’ve got more radical Congressmen out there saying the US shouldn’t be afraid of Russian nukes!
The neocons are convinced that anything but complete military supremacy of the US is an existential matter since it limits what they can do for Israel. Russia feels losing this war or being dragged into a quagmire for at most a Pyrrhic victory is existential since it will make it look weak and have it cut off from Europe for nothing with perhaps the Russian nationalists prey for a regime change and the return of a Yeltsin tool of oligarchs.
Steve may correctly see Ukraine as not existential for the US while it is for Russia, making nuclear escalation not under US control in the event of a war but the neocons (And perhaps Biden admin) do potentially see this as existential and it only takes a few handwaves and assurances for people to get into trouble. “I’m just gunna get a little bit of nuclear brinkmanship Stan, tell mom it’s okay, it worked out well for JFK!”
Hopefully a situation won’t present itself for Russia to get bogged down in a decade or longer insurgency or occupation of large portions of Ukraine which would be the worst case scenario (Short of nuclear war) for the West. (For the neocons, the best) Hopefully for Ukraine a settlement arises that gives it joint sovereignty or ethnic power-sharing in the Donbass. But unless they think they can win the war, NATO isn’t their friend, it’s their enemy. ‘NATO security arrangements’ have so far lost it Crimea, maybe the Donbass. But if any negotiated settlement is conducted, does anyone think the US and Biden wouldn’t consider that an unacceptable defeat? What would they be prepared to do to stop it?
E. Prussia was once "existential" to the Germans but they reconciled themselves to its loss. Despite all the nukes, it doesn't really appear that Russia has the military power to enforce its will against Ukraine, no matter how badly they may want it. Ukraine was presumably just as existential to the Russians for the last 30 years and yet somehow they managed to live with out it up until now.
The Russian navy missile cruiser Moskva — the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, yesterday suffered an "ammunition fire" according to the Russians and the ship has been abandoned. The Russians were not exactly lying - it's ammunition was certainly on fire. They just forgot to mention that the reason it was on fire was that two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles had hit it.
We may need Ukraine less than the Russians do, but the Ukrainians need it more.
There is no reason for the Russians to get bogged down in Ukraine any further. When they got bogged down outside of Kyiv, they radioed order to their surviving troops to turn tail and retreat back to Russia - end of bog. They could do the same in the Donbass tomorrow if they wanted to.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @kpkinsunnyphladelphia, @Unintended Consequence, @AnotherDad
All this brinksmanship the US regime has done to secure the unearned riches of rentier oligarchs in the most corrupt country in Europe, which has no strategic significance for the West whatsoever and which most Americans could never find on a map.
In writing his History of the Peloponnesian War, the conflict that ended the Greek Classical Age, Thucydides finds that he has to explain to his readers where the obscure hotspot places are, where the conflict originated. But the conflict was no less apocalyptic for having been so obscure in origin.Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jack D, @Bill Jones
Ukraine is only "existential" to Putin's vision of the Russian Empire. It is not existential to Russia, or the Russian people.
Russia has 6000 nukes, a big military and the world's largest land mass. It is ridiculously secure from external threats. The "existential threat" Russia actually faces is the low fertility of Russians and higher fertility of its Muslims, and illegal immigration from the 'stans. That is the only "existential threat" Russia faces right now. (Maybe in the future some bio-engineered plague from China--the likely end of all of us!)
Of course, it's good for Russia to have friendly relations with Ukraine and all its neighbors, and good trade relations with the EU. Putin has f'd that up. Poisoned trade relations with the West, made Ukraine an enemy for at least a generation and is fixing to hive off a piece of Ukraine that will have millions of Putin/Russia hostile residents (even after refugee flight). Winning!
I will give Putin the obvious: Putin is not as obviously hostile to the Russian people as American elites are to deplorable flyover white gentiles like myself, and Western elites generally are to their native populations. But neither does Putin really seem to give a shit about Russians either--put their interests first.
This is a guy who leveled Grozny in order to keep Chechens in Russia! LOL. People pretty much every Russian knows they'd be better off without. Now he's on to Ukraine.
Can you imagine an American president leveling San Juan in to force separatists to capitulate and keep Puerto Rico in the US? Would anyone here seriously think that's a good idea? "We need to keep the American empire strong!" Anyone?
Funny that so many folks here can't seem to figure out that Steve's most famous--"Invade, invite"--quip applies not just to American's elite, but to useless pompous leaders around the world.Replies: @Jack D
That’s good news about Elon Musk and Twitter. If he does take over Twitter, I hope he brings along a team of guys to reform the thing. It would be tough to staff the place with people who understand what makes conversations on the Internet different from the one-way, curated and staged “conversations” of the mass media.
It’s ironic but it seems like the most militant reactionaries against the game-changing potential of the Internet are the junior staffers in Silicon Valley and the legacy media. They’re the ones who want to recreate the era of half a dozen TV channels, a handful of newspapers and a magazine rack carefully guided by people in Manhattan who we’ll never meet.
Of course the Silicon Valley lumpen-PMCs only want to recreate that mid-20th century full-spectrum dominance in order to impose their gloomy race & genital worldview on us, rather than offer us Rockefeller Republicanism or jet set lifestyles. Hopefully Musk has a team with him who wants to use Twitter to break through that.
Encouraging, but I’m not gloating yet. It’s not clear how things would really play out if Musk got control of the company.
Musk, like Paul Graham and some other prominent Silicon Valley figures, seems to be relatively moderate in his own political views but supportive of free speech. The problem is that the founders of the companies that now suppress dissident right speech- Twitter, Facebook, Google, to name a few- all used to think the same thing. Jack Dorsey used to talk a big game about free speech, Mark Zuckerberg once said Holocaust deniers could stay on Facebook, and Sergey Brin once defended the fact that an anti-Semitic site was the top Google search result for “Jew”. They all reversed course.
The problem, for them, is that the internet is so high-bandwidth that allowing white nationalist speech means you get tons of it. Conquest’s Second Law is reversed online; any platform that is not explicitly left wing becomes white nationalist over time.
The Paul Graham and Elon Musk types seem surprisingly naïve, actually. The SJW blue hairs who call them far right enablers are on to something; the mainstreaming of white nationalism is what their vision looks like in practice. Would Musk hold fast to his convictions if Andrew Anglin and all of /pol/ were running rampant on the revamped Twitter? I have my doubts.
But how well does he sleep?
Devil’s always in the details: notice they say “working-age” rather than “working.”
Further detail:they say *rates* have risen disparately.
When I read the headlines about Twitter I was thrilled. Popcorn time!
But having read Musk’s filing, I don’t think it will happen. The offer is good, but not so good that the board can’t come up with an excuse to reject it, and boards tend to reject offers if they can get away with it.
Musk said he will not raise his offer, and the vibe of the filling is that he will not make a hostile takeover offer directly to shareholders.
This may be a combination of a troll and a retconned attempt to avoid trouble for his delay in notifying the SEC about his stock acquisitions.
working on rockets and electric cars and doesn't burn his time on trying to make Twitter less Twittery.
So does this mean we’ll hear Grimes playing on our speakers while on Twitter?
Well not quite, since the Russians had their own Nazi rocket scientists. The difference is that the Russians sent theirs back to Germany at the earliest opportunity (once they had downloaded all of their knowledge) while we kept ours.
"... while we kept ours."
You're distorting the truth, Jack. None of the 72 Project Paperclip guys were kept in the USA against their will.
I can't figure out your motive here, Jack. have you become a CCP partisan?Replies: @Jack D
Is there any chance that Twitter might become irrelevant in the near future, like Facebook? It’s low-tech compared to other types of social media platforms. In any case, I don’t believe Musk will change any Twitter policies. Or else the Deep State would not have approved.
If he really makes it a free speech platform, Twitter will be kicked off the Apple app store and Google Play. Blue checks, corporations, government departments etc will leave en masse. And normies won’t use it via the web interface.
So maybe not the best use of \$50 billion – unless he is ready to escalate (ElonPhone, maybe with a Starlink subscription).
Just because you keep saying that Ukraine is “existential” to the Russians doesn’t give them the right to just take it. Are the Baltics “existential” to them? Finland? Where does “existential” end?
E. Prussia was once “existential” to the Germans but they reconciled themselves to its loss. Despite all the nukes, it doesn’t really appear that Russia has the military power to enforce its will against Ukraine, no matter how badly they may want it. Ukraine was presumably just as existential to the Russians for the last 30 years and yet somehow they managed to live with out it up until now.
The Russian navy missile cruiser Moskva — the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, yesterday suffered an “ammunition fire” according to the Russians and the ship has been abandoned. The Russians were not exactly lying – it’s ammunition was certainly on fire. They just forgot to mention that the reason it was on fire was that two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles had hit it.
We may need Ukraine less than the Russians do, but the Ukrainians need it more.
There is no reason for the Russians to get bogged down in Ukraine any further. When they got bogged down outside of Kyiv, they radioed order to their surviving troops to turn tail and retreat back to Russia – end of bog. They could do the same in the Donbass tomorrow if they wanted to.
Is that what you have in mind for Russia?Replies: @Jack D
But i'm not sure how "bogged down" the Russians are in the Donbass.
I tend to steer away from comment on the military side of this as i'm not a military guy. For the military situation, I can't do the sort of straightforward "the emperor has no clothes" analysis i can do--anyone can do--about subjects like immigration, fertility, sex differences, black crime, sexual deviancy, minoritarianism, etc.--with just basic logic and 6th grade math. On the military side, one really needs decent data and more expertise. (The political debacle in contrast is obvious.)
The military side things that do seem straightforward even to the "generally knowledgeable reader" types, like me:
-- this is the age of the missile
-- thousands of people are dead
-- Russia has generally "underperformed" expectations, Ukraine "overperformed" expectations
-- Putin's Kyiv gambit--quick fold--did not work
more speculatively ...
-- Russian armed forces "aren't all that"
-- it is possible the US has the only military that gets enough $$$ thrown at it for the continual combined arms training that is necessary. But i still would not want to be in some US tank, much less a Striker or Humvee during an invasion in this "age of the missile".
But really no idea about "bogged down" in the Donbass. Judging from the maps, seems to me Putin is in fact, slowly, expensively--killing lots of Ukrainian and Russian boys as well as Ukrainian civilians--closing the noose and conquering Eastern Ukraine.
When he is done, seems he will likely end up annexing to Russia millions of people who hate him and Russia--or else chasing them out? Hatred that probably won't quiesce for a generation--until after Putin is dead and new generation grows up.
But ... if he keeps pouring in people and material--and the Russian establishment doesn't say "enough" and push him out--seems likely Putin "wins".Replies: @Jack D
I didn’t know Robert Reich was Indian.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/robert-reich-goes-full-orwellian-more-freedom-tyranny
The Musk move on twitter was inevitable when he turned down the Board Membership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Abian
Fly me to the moon
And let me kick its fucking ass
Let me show it what I learned in my moon jujitsu class
http://www.amiright.com/parody/misc/franksinatra471.shtml
Abian may have been an inspiration for Neal Stephenson’s Seveneves, in which the moon is destroyed by an asteroid. Subsequently its fragments rain on the earth, almost wiping out all life.
A badthinker might be tempted to interpret the scene as a subversive commentary on affirmative action.
Yes, there's a dumb fart joke:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FFUPB-cVozg
Great strategy, drive the price of the stock up, then sell at the top secretly, knowing Twitter will not “accept” your terms. Then, publicly acknowledge you have sold all your stock, watch price plummet, and then buy the company at a fraction of the price you originally said you’d pay.
E. Prussia was once "existential" to the Germans but they reconciled themselves to its loss. Despite all the nukes, it doesn't really appear that Russia has the military power to enforce its will against Ukraine, no matter how badly they may want it. Ukraine was presumably just as existential to the Russians for the last 30 years and yet somehow they managed to live with out it up until now.
The Russian navy missile cruiser Moskva — the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, yesterday suffered an "ammunition fire" according to the Russians and the ship has been abandoned. The Russians were not exactly lying - it's ammunition was certainly on fire. They just forgot to mention that the reason it was on fire was that two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles had hit it.
We may need Ukraine less than the Russians do, but the Ukrainians need it more.
There is no reason for the Russians to get bogged down in Ukraine any further. When they got bogged down outside of Kyiv, they radioed order to their surviving troops to turn tail and retreat back to Russia - end of bog. They could do the same in the Donbass tomorrow if they wanted to.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @kpkinsunnyphladelphia, @Unintended Consequence, @AnotherDad
Yes, after their total defeat in a devastating war and the subsequent dismemberment and occupation of their country.
Is that what you have in mind for Russia?
Is that what you have in mind for Russia?Replies: @Jack D
Is that what you have in mind for Ukraine?
Because a total defeat in a devastating war and the subsequent dismemberment and occupation of their country is exactly what Putin planned (apparently STILL plans) for Ukraine.
I’ll tell you who this war is REALLY existential for – it’s existential for Ukraine.
AFAIK, no one in America wants to occupy Russia. Who the hell would want that place?
Russia? What could be there that anyone would want? Solvent country with a healthy annual trade surplus, and varied and extensive manufacturing and commercial sectors Interesting. Major Gas and Oil exporter - especially to the EU, which is heavily reliant on it. Yes. Produces 40% of World's agricultural fertilizers and rare earth metals. The World's largest exporter of wheat, and a major food exporter. Major supplier of nickel, palladium. aluminium and a whole host of other economically important metals. Indeedy doody.
The American Neocons and the EU Eurocrats want a prostrate Russia, totally subservient to them, where they can dominate the Russian economy and get their essential commodities dirt cheap. Just like the mid-1990s, but much worse. Ideally, they want to dismember Russia into 4 or 5 pieces, all under their control.
But you know all this, Jack D, and we know that you know. Does the D stand for disingenuous, deceitful or dishonest ? Please tell.
What is existential for Russia is mere existence of China.Replies: @HA
Damn, Elon is going hard. Among the psychopathic billionaires he’s definitely my favorite psychopathic billionaire.
On a more pessimistic note, he seems like he genuinely would bring a certain degree of free speech which will probably mean this isn’t going to happen.
E. Prussia was once "existential" to the Germans but they reconciled themselves to its loss. Despite all the nukes, it doesn't really appear that Russia has the military power to enforce its will against Ukraine, no matter how badly they may want it. Ukraine was presumably just as existential to the Russians for the last 30 years and yet somehow they managed to live with out it up until now.
The Russian navy missile cruiser Moskva — the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, yesterday suffered an "ammunition fire" according to the Russians and the ship has been abandoned. The Russians were not exactly lying - it's ammunition was certainly on fire. They just forgot to mention that the reason it was on fire was that two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles had hit it.
We may need Ukraine less than the Russians do, but the Ukrainians need it more.
There is no reason for the Russians to get bogged down in Ukraine any further. When they got bogged down outside of Kyiv, they radioed order to their surviving troops to turn tail and retreat back to Russia - end of bog. They could do the same in the Donbass tomorrow if they wanted to.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @kpkinsunnyphladelphia, @Unintended Consequence, @AnotherDad
But they’ve taken part of it–and they may take more. They’re also clearly wrecking it. So much for righteous indignation. Reality doesn’t accede to your moral compass. Sorry to disappoint.
Recent history is more important than past history. Victoria Nuland was in graduate school 30 years ago.
True that, but look at what they need NOW. They are way way WAY worse off now than they were two months ago. Maybe that could have been stopped, but we and Zelensky were too stupid to see how.
They could, but will they? Anything is possible, but this is highly doubtful
Speaking of games nuclear powers play, a reminder that in 1961 the (Democrat) Kennedy administration considered launching a massive nuclear first strike on the USSR in 1963. Not for any particular reason, but just because the US/USSR missile ratio would be at its most advantageous at that point. The Soviet Union’s insertion of intermediate range missiles in Cuba may have headed off this nuclear apocalypse.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/
I can’t image how Musk will profit from this purchase but then, I’m not Peter Gregory:
Why isn’t there a blockchain solution to social media? That seems like the logical thing the current-year get-rich-quick jabronis would be trying hard to make happen, combining the gold rush of the 2010s with the gold rush of the 2020s.
I suspect a first order swipe at an answer might be that the electricity cost of maintaining the blockchain is not worth the integrity of a bunch of tweets.
AFAIK, no one in America wants to occupy Russia. Who the hell would want that place?
Russia? What could be there that anyone would want? Solvent country with a healthy annual trade surplus, and varied and extensive manufacturing and commercial sectors Interesting. Major Gas and Oil exporter – especially to the EU, which is heavily reliant on it. Yes. Produces 40% of World’s agricultural fertilizers and rare earth metals. The World’s largest exporter of wheat, and a major food exporter. Major supplier of nickel, palladium. aluminium and a whole host of other economically important metals. Indeedy doody.
The American Neocons and the EU Eurocrats want a prostrate Russia, totally subservient to them, where they can dominate the Russian economy and get their essential commodities dirt cheap. Just like the mid-1990s, but much worse. Ideally, they want to dismember Russia into 4 or 5 pieces, all under their control.
But you know all this, Jack D, and we know that you know. Does the D stand for disingenuous, deceitful or dishonest ? Please tell.
US policy seems to be all about leaning over the cliff.
Musk has no problem with being seen as the asshole in any given story, and I respect that. I don’t care if I seem naïve, I grow opinions like teens grow pimples, I feel that it’s one the few rights I can still believe in. Maybe I’m naïve because I refuse to believe in the nuclear threat, but I see it as a taboo similar to not being sexually attracted to children, if I may reference another article by Mr Sailer. As I understand it it would be pointless to worry about nuclear war once it starts, you dead, man. I just don’t think most people would go there. Yes I wish Musk would take the cap off shitposting, but I still would not want to use twitter. It bores us.
Twitter has been losing money, is Elon willing to spend that much money to promote free speech? I thought he had bought the 9% share for the sole reason that he could then tweet anything he wants without getting censored. Maybe he thinks he can make it profitable by allowing free speech again?
E. Prussia was once "existential" to the Germans but they reconciled themselves to its loss. Despite all the nukes, it doesn't really appear that Russia has the military power to enforce its will against Ukraine, no matter how badly they may want it. Ukraine was presumably just as existential to the Russians for the last 30 years and yet somehow they managed to live with out it up until now.
The Russian navy missile cruiser Moskva — the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, yesterday suffered an "ammunition fire" according to the Russians and the ship has been abandoned. The Russians were not exactly lying - it's ammunition was certainly on fire. They just forgot to mention that the reason it was on fire was that two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles had hit it.
We may need Ukraine less than the Russians do, but the Ukrainians need it more.
There is no reason for the Russians to get bogged down in Ukraine any further. When they got bogged down outside of Kyiv, they radioed order to their surviving troops to turn tail and retreat back to Russia - end of bog. They could do the same in the Donbass tomorrow if they wanted to.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @kpkinsunnyphladelphia, @Unintended Consequence, @AnotherDad
I had thought early on that Russia would stop after it’s initial foray into Ukraine and wait for a diplomatic response from the US/NATO. Despite the fact that the invasion looks more like conquest than assertion, I still think Putin is waiting for serious overtures of negotiation from the West. And I’m tired of people insisting on making Russia and Putin out to be some mindless imperialistic evil. All along Russia’s border with the West are the bases of an alliance specifically designed to fight the USSR. The mindset remains the same despite the Soviet union having been transformed ideologically into modern day Russia. So I see the conflict in Ukraine as more the place of battle rather than the main objective. I also get the sense Putin is still waiting for serious intention to negotiate peace settlements on the part of the West. I have thought this at most stages of Russian military deployment. NATO build up all the way to Russia’s border, Ukraine being permanently refused membership and otherwise remaining neutral have always been the cause of this conflict. Russia has shown great restraint in the face of NATO aggression up to now and probably thinks further failure to respond would give NATO the green light to subjugate Russia outright. I wish more people would attend to what our side has been doing over the past few decades. We certainly aren’t free of blame in this matter.
Finland and Sweden have entered the chat.
So there's your response, right there.
“There is no dark side of the moon, it’s all dark” P.F.
It’s funny that I’ve met people who still think there is a permanent dark side rather than a far side. If the bomb had been detonated I would suppose it would have been done during a new moon phase when the side towards Earth is dark so the flash would have been easily visible.
Dark Side of the Moon is just an album, sung by a some druggies. It should not be used as an astronomical reference.
there will always be moderation on any mass market social site. If not, then the neonazis, racists, and nut cases take over and push everyone else out.
Indian prick is redundant. It would be nice to see every Indian in America fired, including the fake Indian doctors shortening the lifespans of poor rural whites and fake Indian computer scientists sabotaging power grids, NASA missions, and government IT software.
I would guess that the military and the administration consider all sorts of plans, only to reject most of them.
It would be remarkable if there have been no high-level discussions of, for example, invading Iran; or helping Taiwan develop nuclear weapons; or pulling out of NATO. When the discussions are declassified decades later, the fact that nightmare policies were “considered” makes a good headline, but it does not mean that those policies had any realistic chance of being approved.
XXX = Zeldovich.
It makes sense in a way – there are people who to this day don’t believe that the US actually landed on the moon, but a nuclear blast visible from earth would be undeniable.
Zeldovich, Sr. did important work on the Russian atomic bomb but he did have help from Klaus Fuchs and Ted Hall. I hadn’t known that his son ended up in Orlando at the end of the Cold War (nor that he was an iSteve reader). I’m sure the weather and the pay were both better than in Moscow.
I wonder to what extent the post Soviet brain drain (there is another round going on right now) has affected Russian capabilities in this war? The Moskva was supposed to have a CIWS that would surround the ship with a cloud of flak if it detected an incoming missile but the Ukrainian Neptunes evaded it. There are rumors that the Ukes distracted the CIWS with drones first. I don’t know what the cycle time of the Russian CIWS is (but the Ukrainians probably do – the Moskva was built in Ukraine) so I could see that you might be able to trigger off the CIWS by approaching with some sacrificial drones and sneak a missile in during the time that it was resetting – the Russians probably didn’t have the fastest computers running this thing. Even if the window was only a matter of seconds if you carefully coordinated the drones with the missiles you might be able to sneak them thru that tiny interval. In any event whatever they did worked – this is going to cause the US to also reevaluated its own CIWS for vulnerabilities.
Or who knows whether the CIWS was even turned on? Throughout this war, the Russians have had the mentality that while they represent the great Russian civilization, Ukrainians are a bunch of inferior peasants with no navy to speak of, so how could they strike the Moskva with their inferior weapons? There is another rumor that Putin was awakened and told that the Moskva was hit with a British anti-ship missile (which is false) and was naturally really pissed. The Russians can’t seem to conceive that the Ukrainians could have their own weapons systems even though most of them are based on the same USSR stuff that they have, with modern improvements, so when their ship was hit they automatically assumed it was Western stuff. A lot of the videos of Russian tanks getting destroyed show Ukrainian Stugna ATGMs rather than British or American weapons.
Speaking of ship losses, the U.S. Navy is seeking to decommission most of its disastrous Freedom-class LCS ships, the oldest of which is only seven-years old. The financial cost of that design fiasco doubtless dwarfs the cost to the Russians of losing Moskva. Nobody ever said that pork comes cheap.
I will give credit to armament of the Moskva, which was stuffed with heavy anti-ship missiles. In contrast, and in view of its virtually non-existent offensive armament, I always thought that the lead ship of the LCS-class should have been named USS Hippocrates, with its motto: "First, do no harm."
Scooped by AM radio. Reported this morning that Max Boot said we need more speech regulation, not less, to preserve democracy.
Everything is now existential for the U.S. regime. What happens to them and their sinecures if the Covid story and the Black Lives Matter story and Boys Can Become Girls story and the We Need to Spend more Money on Weapons Than the Rest of the World story and the We Need More Immigrants story are all recognized to be false? Better to risk a nuclear war than to be called to account for your crimes against your own people.
Elon Musk is an enthusiastic promoter of brain-chips:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/20/elon-musk-brain-chip-firm-neuralink-lines-up-clinical-trials-in-humans
So you get the panopticon surveillance state from Jeff Bezos, the bi0-security, fake food, you-vill-eat-ze-bugs stuff from Bill Gates, and the bio-hacking brain implant chips from Elon Musk.
Even though it’s coming from different directions, it’s all part of the same agenda.
Elon Musk is not your cool, rich friend. He doesn’t have your interests at heart. He is a multi-billionaire oligarch. He has his own interests at heart.
Don’t trust billionaires.
Au contraire. I’ve been calling for us to Mine The Ozone for years. It makes young precious things turn the funniest colours of apoplexy!
Now I’m thinking even bigger. Why stop with orbiting the sun? My new campaign is to randomly mine the milky way.
So strange how Russia was crushing us in the space race, we went to the moon a bunch of times, and then Russia went right back to crushing us (ask Elon Musk). Of course their military rockets are way ahead of ours, too.
If one weren’t a childish boomer who needs his fairy tales, one might wonder about the moon landings. The footage is hilarious and, personally, I burst out laughing at the lunar landing module in Houston. The rocket was epic. But the lunar landing module? Lol, it was duct taped birthday balloons. Like a parody of what would look like “space age technology” to old people. Look, shiny foil! I highly recommend seeing it in person, it’s amazing they have the balls to still show people what they came up with back then.
Musk is doing a Sailer on his fanbase
Musk is building it to a climax
Musk is building a fanbase that will climax to whatever he completes
You’re changing the subject. You were the one who analogized present-day Russia to the Germans after WW2. I said nothing about Ukraine.
For you to casually toss out the remark that East Prussia was once existential to Germany, but the Germans got used to not having it, as an analogy to Russia’s current relationship with Ukraine, is disingenuous.
Russia is in no danger of being occupied and dismembered, and therefore it has no reason to accept your East Prussian example as a way forward in its relationship with Ukraine.
As for Ukraine, most people, including me, are condemning Putin for his actions.
However, the scale of what he intends for Ukraine is not on the same level as what happened to Germany after WW2. It will not be fully occupied. The loss of its lands will most likely be confined to the heavily ethnic Russian-populated areas. And what’s left of Ukraine will be free to organize politically as the people will, with the exception of their security alliances, which is not an uncommon limitation on states in areas with powerful neighbors who are sensitive to their security.
So your historical analogy fails at every level.
The US is a powerful neighbor but we tolerated Cuba having a security alliance with the Russians - our only "ask" was no nuclear missiles. We didn't like it or enjoy it or enjoy having American culture and investments eliminated from Cuba in favor of Russian, but we put up with it because Cuba is a sovereign nation and we had no right to invade it.Replies: @Pincher Martin
Agreed. And it is worse than that since the US (via NATO) has already have been “sending small arms and then larger arms”. Particularly vexing to Russia are the man-portable missiles arriving in the thousands and thousands that probably turned the tide at Kiev and are making the Donbas front much more costly than it would otherwise have been. Russian forbearance of this meddling has been Stakhanovian, but the US/NATO should not presume it is endless. Cutting the NATO supply lines in Western Ukraine is becoming more and more essential for Russia while simultaneously requiring more and more extreme measures to do so. We are about one escalation away from tactical nuclear deployments. Which is itself one escalation away from strategic nuclear deployments.
All this brinksmanship the US regime has done to secure the unearned riches of rentier oligarchs in the most corrupt country in Europe, which has no strategic significance for the West whatsoever and which most Americans could never find on a map.
In writing his History of the Peloponnesian War, the conflict that ended the Greek Classical Age, Thucydides finds that he has to explain to his readers where the obscure hotspot places are, where the conflict originated. But the conflict was no less apocalyptic for having been so obscure in origin.
Seeing someone like Elon buy Twitter would be like seeing some second rate hero no one ever heard of who did pretty much nothing in wwii pretend to do something in 1945 just for photo shoots
But I know Sailer is erect with anticipation at how his nation will somehow bob and weave its way to some sort sort of equilibrium.
Has anyone ever checked Sailer for drugs?
Haven’t you ever noticed Sailer is wrong about pretty much eveything?
That seems like a lot of money, particularly since the accounts, that represent “free speech” are probably a tiny fraction of the tsunami of crap that is Twitter. I was thinking that if you had \$40 billion, you could start a new site and then pay the essential contributors to different points of view to switch.
OTOH, Twitter happened to benefit from what I call the “Internet Highlander Rule“; namely, there can be only one really consequential site for a particular social purpose. One Amazon, one Google, one Facebook. It might be useless to start a competing site.
And I suppose that some of the cachet of having a lot of followers on Twitter building up your social credit score (or strakh [Jack Vance, 1976] or whuffie [Cory Doctorow, 2003]), even if it is mostly imaginary, is a huge draw for Twitter.
People here keep telling me that I’m not a mind reader. How do you know WHAT Putin intends? As the war has been going poorly, the rhetoric from Russia on what they intend to do to Ukraine and its culture and language sound increasingly genocidal. The way that they have been treating Ukrainian civilians and cities is not promising. It’s absolutely false that they will be free to organize politically as the people will – Russia would surely install a pro-Moscow puppet government even if it was detested by most of the local population. That’s what they did for 40 years in every country in Eastern Europe.
Does this limitation apply just to Ukraine? Russia has a lot of neighboring states. Is NATO off limits for all of them too, including the ones who have already joined and those who are about to join (Sweden, Finland)? What if Russia is not as powerful a neighbor as it thinks it is (at least in conventional weapons) and is not entitled to determine the foreign policy of its neighbors who are sovereign countries?
The US is a powerful neighbor but we tolerated Cuba having a security alliance with the Russians – our only “ask” was no nuclear missiles. We didn’t like it or enjoy it or enjoy having American culture and investments eliminated from Cuba in favor of Russian, but we put up with it because Cuba is a sovereign nation and we had no right to invade it.
How does that compare to Germany after WW2? The allies announced their intention to pursue the war to an unconditional surrender. When the Nazi government finally gave up the ghost, it left behind a Germany which did not have one square mile of territory free of occupation and rule by outsiders.
*That* is the Germany which gave up East Prussia.Obviously not. Belarus. Georgia. A couple other border nations to Russia's south are also in this category. They can exist as either neutral or pro-Russian states, but they can't be in the military camp of Russia's foes.
Frankly, I'm surprised we were able to get away with NATO membership for the Baltic states.Sweden? Not off limits to NATO. Sorry, Putin, you're just going to have to live with it - and he will.
Finland? It's trickier because of its long border with Russia, but probably not. We will see how Russia responds if Helsinki decides to join.There was no security alliance between Havana and Moscow in North America after 1962. No Soviet military bases. The Soviets could and did conduct naval exercises near Cuba, but they were free to do that anyway. The Soviets could and did sell weapons to the Cubans, but they were free to do that with any nation in the Americas.
But all offensive weapons were removed from Cuba after 1962. There were ports in Cuba built to handle Soviet ships and submarines, but no permanent Soviet base was allowed.Replies: @Jack D
All this brinksmanship the US regime has done to secure the unearned riches of rentier oligarchs in the most corrupt country in Europe, which has no strategic significance for the West whatsoever and which most Americans could never find on a map.
In writing his History of the Peloponnesian War, the conflict that ended the Greek Classical Age, Thucydides finds that he has to explain to his readers where the obscure hotspot places are, where the conflict originated. But the conflict was no less apocalyptic for having been so obscure in origin.Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jack D, @Bill Jones
A lot of those weapons supposedly didn’t end up in Ukie hands. My money is on secret caches being stocked up for the larger war on Russia.
All this brinksmanship the US regime has done to secure the unearned riches of rentier oligarchs in the most corrupt country in Europe, which has no strategic significance for the West whatsoever and which most Americans could never find on a map.
In writing his History of the Peloponnesian War, the conflict that ended the Greek Classical Age, Thucydides finds that he has to explain to his readers where the obscure hotspot places are, where the conflict originated. But the conflict was no less apocalyptic for having been so obscure in origin.Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jack D, @Bill Jones
The Russians supplied the N. Vietnamese throughout our war with them and we didn’t sink the Russian supply ships. Likewise, we supplied the Afghans with Stingers against the Soviets and again the Russian did not retaliate. The unwritten ground rules of the Cold War were that it was OK for both sides to supply their allies with weapons. The Russians gave/sold so many AK-47s to revolutionary movements in Africa that some of these countries have AK-47s on their flags. The Russians can grumble about this but they can’t really stop it.
So far the weapons that are hurting the Russians the most are their own Soviet era weapons in the hands of Ukraine. Even now, most of the stuff that is being shipped in from the rest of E. Europe is ex Soviet stuff left behind at the end of the Cold War.
The US (and especially the Europeans) were content to leave the status quo in place – Putin could continue to run his corrupt dictatorship as he pleased and collect billions in oil and gas money every day. Putin was the one who started this war and now he must deal with the consequences. Putin was the one that wanted this war to be about more than Ukraine – he (and China) wanted to make the world Safe for Autocracy. He was the one with ambitious goals who created the symbolic contest and now that he has created it we can’t let him win it.
Russia didn’t have to have this Cold War with America any more than they needed the previous one but having started it (and yes, they started it, both times) we need to see that they lose it just like they lost Cold War I. You’re right that Ukraine is a stupid prize for us – I’ve been there and it’s no great shakes. But that’s not what this war is about anymore and the reason that it’s not is because Putin, not us, made it otherwise. He wanted a to play a high stakes game because he thought he could win it and we can’t let him win it because it would only encourage him to go further rounds – the Baltics, Poland, Finland, etc. Maybe even back to the beloved Dresden of his youth?
Maybe trying the negotiating table might be a better option than a full-court military and economic press against Russia, right up to, but not quite over the point where the Russians try out a tactical nuclear weapon.
I’ll float another reason neither side set off a nuke on the moon. If we/they did, then they/we would get a very clear picture of the other team’s capabilities.
Out of curiosity, was this before or after the H bomb was invented. Must’ve been before? Also out of curiosity, let’s say there were a 1980’s capacity full nuclear war on a planet around Alpha Centauri. Would we be able to see it? Would we have to have a really good telescope looking right there?
Assume “the stars are right” and we have a great view of AC.
This new article is relevant to the topic of Twitter, free speech and the state of the public conversation:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-end-of-progressive-intellectual-life
So, thousands of Twit “content moderators” (censors) will soon be looking for new jobs.
If they can read Chinese, they might be hiring there. Requires relocation, COVID lockdowns, etc.
I’m sure the NYT and WaPo will be full of articles featuring newly distraught former employees whining about that. Mainly otherwise unemployable female liberal arts grads and assorted Woke people of uncertain gender.
No former Trump voters will be affected.
(Why is the Soviet nuke stuff added to this Elon Musk story?)
At that point, Twitter's engineers will decamp to a new woke Twitter, they'll rewrite all the code from scratch in no time, and Musk will be left with an empty husk that cost him about $35 billion.
And I'm with you in failing to see any connection here to nuking the moon.
Jack you’re getting what you want and your faction (the militantly anti-Russian) has been in charge, on and off, since the Truman era. Relax, kick back and enjoy MSNBC or any of the other networks, apart from when Tucker is on.
Sorry, left this nuke-moon comment on the wrong thread.
I’ll float another reason neither side set off a nuke on the moon. If we/they did, then they/we would get a very clear picture of the other team’s capabilities.
Out of curiosity, was this before or after the H bomb was invented. Must’ve been before? Also out of curiosity, let’s say there were a 1980’s capacity full nuclear war on a planet around Alpha Centauri. Would we be able to see it? Would we have to have a really good telescope looking right there?
Assume “the stars are right” and we have a great view of AC.
The 1st hydrogen bomb was detonated (by the US) in 1952. Presumably the plan to launch a nuke to the moon occurred after Sputnik (1957), so later.
During the era of above ground nuclear testing, many bombs were set off right here on earth and could be detected and measured by the other side seismically and with radiation detectors so setting off one on the moon would not have given away any secrets.
In early 1968, the Atomic Energy Commission conducted “Project Faultless,”an underground test of a 1-megaton hydrogen bomb.in an extremely remote part of Nevada. Its intent was to see if the peacetime use of atomic bombs for large construction projects would be feasible. It worked … too well. To everyone’s surprise, the ground sank by up to ten feet in a large radius and it created several fault lines. The AEC cancelled its plans for further tests, and the idea of peaceful use of atomic bombs was abandoned.
Today the site of Project Faultless is on public land, and radiation levels are well below the danger threshold. It is such a remote area that travel is not without some risks, however.
the reason why the deal will not go through is because w/r/t to Twitter, it’s not about the money at all (for either side)
bigger (hypothetical?) accomplishment: going to the moon and having a guy walk on it OR (allegedly) fooling billions of people for 60+ years that we actually went to the moon and had a guy walk on it
——–
As a Bush aide once boasted to Ron Suskind: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
———
Almost MO brings in the escalation to tactical nukes, brought on by intensified US and NATO meddling. Plausible. Are you alright with that, Jack D? If not, what is your proposal to de-escalate?
Maybe trying the negotiating table might be a better option than a full-court military and economic press against Russia, right up to, but not quite over the point where the Russians try out a tactical nuclear weapon.
It’s funny that I’ve met people who still think there is a permanent dark side rather than a far side. If the bomb had been detonated I would suppose it would have been done during a new moon phase when the side towards Earth is dark so the flash would have been easily visible.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Just Some JB, @The Germ Theory of Disease
Thank you, Alfa! There’s a near side and a far side, and with libration, about 55-60% of the moon can be seen from Earth (not at the same time).
Dark Side of the Moon is just an album, sung by a some druggies. It should not be used as an astronomical reference.
I’ll float another reason neither side set off a nuke on the moon. If we/they did, then they/we would get a very clear picture of the other team’s capabilities.
Out of curiosity, was this before or after the H bomb was invented. Must’ve been before? Also out of curiosity, let’s say there were a 1980’s capacity full nuclear war on a planet around Alpha Centauri. Would we be able to see it? Would we have to have a really good telescope looking right there?
Assume “the stars are right” and we have a great view of AC.Replies: @Jack D
Our capabilities outside of visible frequencies (e.g. radio frequencies) are much greater than with respect to light. Nuclear explosions emit not only light but all sorts of energy in all frequencies so a nuclear explosion would probably be picked up by radio telescopes, especially since a nuclear EMP is must stronger than background noise.
The 1st hydrogen bomb was detonated (by the US) in 1952. Presumably the plan to launch a nuke to the moon occurred after Sputnik (1957), so later.
During the era of above ground nuclear testing, many bombs were set off right here on earth and could be detected and measured by the other side seismically and with radiation detectors so setting off one on the moon would not have given away any secrets.
We did mine the harbors though.
Agreed, but the Cold War is over (or it was until this insane neocon furor to restart it).
The Warsaw Pact had dissolved, and the Soviet Union withdrew. Since then, Russia did not interfere in the US’s many foreign adventures, no matter how pointless, feckless, bloody or unjust they were. Russia cooperated with the US on Central Asian airbases in the aftermath of 9-11. Russia permitted US military overflight to resupply US forces in Afghanistan. Even after the neocon-hatched Georgian kerfuffle, the US and Russia smoothed things over and kept pressing the reset button, figuratively and literally. Both sides reduced their nuclear arsenals, to the great relief of those of us who recall living under the perpetual specter of momentary nuclear armageddon.
But now all that intolerable peace and comity has been cast to the wind for … what exactly? Safeguarding Ukrainian oligarchs? Deepstate Risk® games? Making Ukraine safe for child tranny grooming?
Putin was elected. His election was more legitimate than Biden’s.
Meanwhile, the Ukraine is an even more corrupt dictatorship. Not that I think that matters, but some claim to.
The war started back in 2014 with the US-backed coup overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. Thousands of Russian-speakers in the Donbas could have explained this if they weren’t already dead from the already existing war.
Putin spent eight years negotiating settlements to end the the war, which the Kiev regime—with US backing—agreed to and then double-crossed. There is indeed a war party, but its location stretches from Washington to Kiev.
The idea that Russia is about to roll to the English Channel unless we kill them all now is one of the many stupid memes currently in MSM circulation. Russia has shown no interest in sovereignty over non-Russian lands. Even if Russia had the means to attack NATO-allied Europe (they don’t), they would be stupid to try for the same reason we are stupid to get involved in the Ukraine: nuclear deterrence. (And this is before considering whether it was really such a great idea for the US Senate to sign us up to fight a nuclear war over … [checks notes] … Northern Macedonia. Global thermonuclear war in exchange for Pride Parades in Skopje? Hey, what a deal!)
Putin has been "elected" for the last 22 years. His political opponents are mostly dead or in jail. There is no free press. Yup, sounds legit to me.
The arguments for Putin retaking, for example, Latvia are highly similar (from the Russian POV) as those for Ukraine - arguably just as "existential". Sits on the border, large Russian minority, NATO threatens Russia, etc. Emboldened by his lightning fast victory in Ukraine and believing that the NATO leaders are a bunch of wimps - either senile or nice white ladies, an emboldened Putin rolls for the Baltics as well. He figures that Biden will not start WWIII over a place that most Americans couldn't find on a map. And the people here who are saying that Ukraine is not an American interest would say the same about those countries as well.
I don't think that Putin was rolling for the English Channel but if a genie granted him a wish, he would wish for the status quo ante 1989 be restored. Lacking genies, he was going to try to do it militarily and see how far he could get. Russian imperialists have strange appetites - eating a country doesn't make them full, it just makes them hungry for more.Replies: @Almost Missouri
There was indeed an accidental nuclear explosion triggered on the far side of the moon back on September 13, 1999
It’s funny that I’ve met people who still think there is a permanent dark side rather than a far side. If the bomb had been detonated I would suppose it would have been done during a new moon phase when the side towards Earth is dark so the flash would have been easily visible.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Just Some JB, @The Germ Theory of Disease
No, the far side of the Moon is never ever facing the Earth so an explosion on the far side of the Moon would not be visible from Earth. The Moon is tidally locked. This means that the Moon rotates around its axis at the same speed as it revolves around the Earth. So there is permanent “far side of the moon” always invisible from the Earth’s vantage point.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/far-side.html
For the record, Ukraine is not “existential” Russia. Sure, it is more important for Russia–being a neighbor–than the US (or France or Germany), just as the reverse is true of Mexico.
Ukraine is only “existential” to Putin’s vision of the Russian Empire. It is not existential to Russia, or the Russian people.
Russia has 6000 nukes, a big military and the world’s largest land mass. It is ridiculously secure from external threats. The “existential threat” Russia actually faces is the low fertility of Russians and higher fertility of its Muslims, and illegal immigration from the ‘stans. That is the only “existential threat” Russia faces right now. (Maybe in the future some bio-engineered plague from China–the likely end of all of us!)
Of course, it’s good for Russia to have friendly relations with Ukraine and all its neighbors, and good trade relations with the EU. Putin has f’d that up. Poisoned trade relations with the West, made Ukraine an enemy for at least a generation and is fixing to hive off a piece of Ukraine that will have millions of Putin/Russia hostile residents (even after refugee flight). Winning!
I will give Putin the obvious: Putin is not as obviously hostile to the Russian people as American elites are to deplorable flyover white gentiles like myself, and Western elites generally are to their native populations. But neither does Putin really seem to give a shit about Russians either–put their interests first.
This is a guy who leveled Grozny in order to keep Chechens in Russia! LOL. People pretty much every Russian knows they’d be better off without. Now he’s on to Ukraine.
Can you imagine an American president leveling San Juan in to force separatists to capitulate and keep Puerto Rico in the US? Would anyone here seriously think that’s a good idea? “We need to keep the American empire strong!” Anyone?
Funny that so many folks here can’t seem to figure out that Steve’s most famous–“Invade, invite”–quip applies not just to American’s elite, but to useless pompous leaders around the world.
Putin pays lip service to Orthodox Christianity but his personal life is as depraved as any Western elite (and in similar ways). Meanwhile Moscow has the largest Muslim population of any city in Europe. He pays lip service to the economic well being of the average Russian but he and he friends live like Oriental potentates while out in the provinces a washing machine is an aspirational purchase. He sends boys from the countryside to be cannon meat in Ukraine by the thousands and he doesn't even tell them where they are headed.
Russian elites always thought of their masses as being subhuman - they had the same regard for them and their intelligence and wishes as plantation owners in the South had for their slaves. Putin regards the masses as a mob to be led around by the nose. He wouldn't dream of listening to unmanipulated popular opinion any more than he would allow a herd of cattle to run a cattle farm. He doesn't believe that such a thing as authentic public opinion even exists. If such a thing is possible, his contempt for common Russians is even deeper than that of American elites.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote.Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
So Ukraine’s mistake was not getting under the US nuclear umbrella sooner and Sweden and Finland are rushing to correct their mistake. How is this in Putin’s interest?
Putin has been “elected” for the last 22 years. His political opponents are mostly dead or in jail. There is no free press. Yup, sounds legit to me.
The arguments for Putin retaking, for example, Latvia are highly similar (from the Russian POV) as those for Ukraine – arguably just as “existential”. Sits on the border, large Russian minority, NATO threatens Russia, etc. Emboldened by his lightning fast victory in Ukraine and believing that the NATO leaders are a bunch of wimps – either senile or nice white ladies, an emboldened Putin rolls for the Baltics as well. He figures that Biden will not start WWIII over a place that most Americans couldn’t find on a map. And the people here who are saying that Ukraine is not an American interest would say the same about those countries as well.
I don’t think that Putin was rolling for the English Channel but if a genie granted him a wish, he would wish for the status quo ante 1989 be restored. Lacking genies, he was going to try to do it militarily and see how far he could get. Russian imperialists have strange appetites – eating a country doesn’t make them full, it just makes them hungry for more.
To join NATO de jure, Finland would have to foreswear any claim to the Karelian lands that the USSR took from it eight decades ago. There hasn't been any prospect of Finland recovering those lands in the near term anyway, but that may have been part of Finland's NATO hesitancy heretofore.Putin has been popular for the last 22 years. That can happen when you don't work for the parasitical oligarch class. Unlike, for example, his predecessor. Or his American counterparts.The Russian press has a wider diversity of opinion than the American press. On select subjects, the Russian government overtly censors the domestic press. The American press is less overtly but more comprehensively censored on nearly all subjects. Alternative internet media are available in both countries, but there is no Russian equivalent of the American ADL seeking to censor all information globally. If you believe there is no free press in Russia, you must regard the US press as even worse.It is true that the Baltic states have Russian minorities, though this is not true for Poland, Norway, Finland, or other Russian neighbors. The difference between the Baltics and the Ukraine is that the Russians in the Baltic states are not on geographically important land and are not asking for Russian protection. Indeed, those Russians in the Baltics who prefer Russia have already decamped back to Russia. Those who remain, remain because they prefer it that way. There is also the small matter than the Baltic states are not bombarding and murdering their Russian minorities, unlike the Ukraine.
But even if none of this were true and Russia really were planning to roll on the Baltics just as soon as they get the Ukraine stitched up, is—to use your example—Latvian independence worth nuclear war? I've already said I'm unhappy that the US has signed up to defend whatever regime happens to be in Skopje with nuclear weapons. I know some Latvians and like them, but that doesn't mean I think we should go nuclear over that. Indeed, I don't think we should start a nuclear over France or the UK either. Europeans are perfectly capable of deciding what what and how Europe's best defense is. We should let them. It would be good for both them and us.I don't know how you know this. Perhaps this refers to the semi-quote of Putin that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a great disaster? But that quote is semi because it leaves off the second half: "because it stranded so many Russians outside of Russia." Putin isn't trying to restore Stalinism. He's trying to restore Russia.Again, this is not borne out by history. In 1812 Russia annihilated the preeminent army in Europe. And then the Czar immediately exploited European weakness to invade and crown himself Emperor of a New Roman Imperium! Oh wait, no, what actually happened is nothing at all: Russia returned to concerning itself with Russian problems and left the rest of Europe alone.Replies: @Jack D
Ukraine is only "existential" to Putin's vision of the Russian Empire. It is not existential to Russia, or the Russian people.
Russia has 6000 nukes, a big military and the world's largest land mass. It is ridiculously secure from external threats. The "existential threat" Russia actually faces is the low fertility of Russians and higher fertility of its Muslims, and illegal immigration from the 'stans. That is the only "existential threat" Russia faces right now. (Maybe in the future some bio-engineered plague from China--the likely end of all of us!)
Of course, it's good for Russia to have friendly relations with Ukraine and all its neighbors, and good trade relations with the EU. Putin has f'd that up. Poisoned trade relations with the West, made Ukraine an enemy for at least a generation and is fixing to hive off a piece of Ukraine that will have millions of Putin/Russia hostile residents (even after refugee flight). Winning!
I will give Putin the obvious: Putin is not as obviously hostile to the Russian people as American elites are to deplorable flyover white gentiles like myself, and Western elites generally are to their native populations. But neither does Putin really seem to give a shit about Russians either--put their interests first.
This is a guy who leveled Grozny in order to keep Chechens in Russia! LOL. People pretty much every Russian knows they'd be better off without. Now he's on to Ukraine.
Can you imagine an American president leveling San Juan in to force separatists to capitulate and keep Puerto Rico in the US? Would anyone here seriously think that's a good idea? "We need to keep the American empire strong!" Anyone?
Funny that so many folks here can't seem to figure out that Steve's most famous--"Invade, invite"--quip applies not just to American's elite, but to useless pompous leaders around the world.Replies: @Jack D
I know that this is a tough contest because American elites are deeply hostile to deplorables but I have to tell you that Putin wins, he is just better at hiding it (Russians are expert liars and as a KGB agent Putin was a PROFESSIONAL liar.)
Putin pays lip service to Orthodox Christianity but his personal life is as depraved as any Western elite (and in similar ways). Meanwhile Moscow has the largest Muslim population of any city in Europe. He pays lip service to the economic well being of the average Russian but he and he friends live like Oriental potentates while out in the provinces a washing machine is an aspirational purchase. He sends boys from the countryside to be cannon meat in Ukraine by the thousands and he doesn’t even tell them where they are headed.
Russian elites always thought of their masses as being subhuman – they had the same regard for them and their intelligence and wishes as plantation owners in the South had for their slaves. Putin regards the masses as a mob to be led around by the nose. He wouldn’t dream of listening to unmanipulated popular opinion any more than he would allow a herd of cattle to run a cattle farm. He doesn’t believe that such a thing as authentic public opinion even exists. If such a thing is possible, his contempt for common Russians is even deeper than that of American elites.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote.
I begin with the notion that all synthetic elites are depraved. So you might be correct about Putin. He may be captured by the same Babylonian corruption that has spread like a foul disease throughout the West. But if you have facts about Putin's wickedness spill the beans. We all know the little jester/drag queen NATO hero Zelensky is a puppet. Putin is undoubtedly being yanked by other strings. You would provide illumination if you have info as to who or what has captured Putin.
ot; The Daily Mail is asking why the Brooklyn shooter wasn’t captured sooner:
https://dennisdale.com/2022/04/14/6325/
“ The loss of its lands will most likely be confined to the heavily ethnic Russian-populated areas.”
While much of Ukraine is Russian speaking, ethnic Russians are not a majority in any oblast other than Crimea. Luhansk, which Russia wants all of, is 58% Ukrainian 39% Russian. Donetsk similarly is 57% Ukrainian and 38% Russian.
And the part Russia is actively try to conquer but does not control now has an even larger Ukrainian majority.
Also, a reminder that Russia ethnically cleansed the Christian ethnic Georgian majority from parts of Ossetia and Abkhazia to create a depopulated Muslim-majority unrecognized puppet state. Highly relevant given the PutinBots’ constant refrain of Russia’s benevolent humanitarian motives for invading and occupying their neighbors.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia
The US is a powerful neighbor but we tolerated Cuba having a security alliance with the Russians - our only "ask" was no nuclear missiles. We didn't like it or enjoy it or enjoy having American culture and investments eliminated from Cuba in favor of Russian, but we put up with it because Cuba is a sovereign nation and we had no right to invade it.Replies: @Pincher Martin
Follow his actions. They reveal his preferences. Not at any point from the start of this invasion did Putin intend to conquer all of Ukraine.
How does that compare to Germany after WW2? The allies announced their intention to pursue the war to an unconditional surrender. When the Nazi government finally gave up the ghost, it left behind a Germany which did not have one square mile of territory free of occupation and rule by outsiders.
*That* is the Germany which gave up East Prussia.
Obviously not. Belarus. Georgia. A couple other border nations to Russia’s south are also in this category. They can exist as either neutral or pro-Russian states, but they can’t be in the military camp of Russia’s foes.
Frankly, I’m surprised we were able to get away with NATO membership for the Baltic states.
Sweden? Not off limits to NATO. Sorry, Putin, you’re just going to have to live with it – and he will.
Finland? It’s trickier because of its long border with Russia, but probably not. We will see how Russia responds if Helsinki decides to join.
There was no security alliance between Havana and Moscow in North America after 1962. No Soviet military bases. The Soviets could and did conduct naval exercises near Cuba, but they were free to do that anyway. The Soviets could and did sell weapons to the Cubans, but they were free to do that with any nation in the Americas.
But all offensive weapons were removed from Cuba after 1962. There were ports in Cuba built to handle Soviet ships and submarines, but no permanent Soviet base was allowed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_SIGINT_stationThe end point for Putin in Ukraine would have been similar to the outcome in E. Germany - after a period of military occupation, leave behind a puppet government answerable to, and economically tied to, Moscow.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @The Alarmist
The idea of sending a bomb to the moon so we could prove we had the technology to get there is a very old idea- I believe I saw it in an old silent movie about going to the moon….
Also, the first Rick Brant book, (sort of the intellectual’s Tom Swift), had the same idea ( non-nuclear) in “The Rocket’s Shadow”, the first book of the series, published in 1948 IIRC…..
How does that compare to Germany after WW2? The allies announced their intention to pursue the war to an unconditional surrender. When the Nazi government finally gave up the ghost, it left behind a Germany which did not have one square mile of territory free of occupation and rule by outsiders.
*That* is the Germany which gave up East Prussia.Obviously not. Belarus. Georgia. A couple other border nations to Russia's south are also in this category. They can exist as either neutral or pro-Russian states, but they can't be in the military camp of Russia's foes.
Frankly, I'm surprised we were able to get away with NATO membership for the Baltic states.Sweden? Not off limits to NATO. Sorry, Putin, you're just going to have to live with it - and he will.
Finland? It's trickier because of its long border with Russia, but probably not. We will see how Russia responds if Helsinki decides to join.There was no security alliance between Havana and Moscow in North America after 1962. No Soviet military bases. The Soviets could and did conduct naval exercises near Cuba, but they were free to do that anyway. The Soviets could and did sell weapons to the Cubans, but they were free to do that with any nation in the Americas.
But all offensive weapons were removed from Cuba after 1962. There were ports in Cuba built to handle Soviet ships and submarines, but no permanent Soviet base was allowed.Replies: @Jack D
False.
The Lourdes SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) facility, located near Havana, Cuba, was the largest facility of its kind operated by Russian foreign intelligence services outside of Russia. Located less than 150 km (93 mi) from Key West, the facility covered 73 km2 (28 sq mi). Construction began in July 1962. The station closed in August 2002 [ironically Putin 1.0 closed it – too costly to maintain at that time].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_SIGINT_station
The end point for Putin in Ukraine would have been similar to the outcome in E. Germany – after a period of military occupation, leave behind a puppet government answerable to, and economically tied to, Moscow.
Today the site of Project Faultless is on public land, and radiation levels are well below the danger threshold. It is such a remote area that travel is not without some risks, however.Replies: @Jim Don Bob
There were also plans to “build” a new Panama Canal using atomic bombs.
I was surprised to learn that Moskva is 40 years old. Although, presumably, many of its systems have been updated over the years. I don’t think the probable sinking of such an old ship is that much of a material loss for the Russians. However, it is definitely a tremendous blow to their prestige, and a huge morale booster for the Ukrainians.
Speaking of ship losses, the U.S. Navy is seeking to decommission most of its disastrous Freedom-class LCS ships, the oldest of which is only seven-years old. The financial cost of that design fiasco doubtless dwarfs the cost to the Russians of losing Moskva. Nobody ever said that pork comes cheap.
I will give credit to armament of the Moskva, which was stuffed with heavy anti-ship missiles. In contrast, and in view of its virtually non-existent offensive armament, I always thought that the lead ship of the LCS-class should have been named USS Hippocrates, with its motto: “First, do no harm.”
OT:
NYT readers are triggered by an article in the theater section on David Mamet. Are there no safe spaces any longer in the Times? Not only does Mamet support Trump, but he is highly critical of musical theater…homophobic.
Meanwhile two articles interesting only in their appearance on the same page: ND man arrested on string of golf cart thefts over years netting him \$200,000. But a rapper was surprisingly arrested over a stolen Rolls Royce worth \$350,000.
The media is complaining, but you would think an African American buying Twitter would be something to celebrate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ChariotReplies: @Emil Nikola Richard
My high school history teacher liked to tell us we were going to make the Panama Canal obsolete by blowing a sea level canal with thermonuclear bomb excavation. Any month now like he had the Dredge Report in his mailbox every week.
“great to see America’s most successful African American fire that Indian prick”
Like a lot of iStevers I’ve been following the incredibly interesting life of Elon Musk. I see parallels to Howard Hughes in that both men, inventors and businessmen, have deep ties to the national security state. I hope Elon doesn’t end up like Howard.
Even if Elon is unsuccessful in placing Twitter — an efficient and fun platform — back into the marketplace of ideas there is reason to feel some optimism: coming out of the crypto-world, which is here to stay btw, is a powerful liberation theology of decentralization that will wreck the QR code fantasies of the malignant Gaian Cartel. Their woke ESG (Environment/Social/Governance) scheme which ultimately leads to depopulation and hybrid humans (not only do they want you to start eating bugs they also want you to become a bug) is a rocket to planet Hell.
Look! A squirrel.
Musk has been all over the place with his position on Twitter. First he declares he’s a passive investor, then an active investor, he’s on the board, then he’s off the board. He’s been buying Twitter stock since January, and he just offered to buy the entire company and take it private.
He’s certainly trolling Twitter. By being so erratic right now, he’s screwing with Twitter right before it declares earnings in late April. Some might say that after being forced to report his share holdings by SEC rules, he’s trying to troll the share prices down again so he can buy them cheaply on the market. He’s like a cat toying with a mouse. If he buys up to 51% of all its shares, it doesn’t matter what the Twitter board does, he can fire them all at that point.
The WSJ reports that Twitter is preparing a poison pill. A classic poison pill is usually the company taking on so much debt it becomes a bad buy. In a time of rising interest rates, any new debt will be harder to pay off. Twitter is barely profitable as a company. It is possible that Musk is planning to let the company poison itself, then he’ll sell off its shares (he already bought them at a lower price), and just watch Twitter go bankrupt while building another media platform.
That Twitter would prefer suicide as a company just because it doesn’t like free speech, it absolutely insane. It’s also stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_SIGINT_stationThe end point for Putin in Ukraine would have been similar to the outcome in E. Germany - after a period of military occupation, leave behind a puppet government answerable to, and economically tied to, Moscow.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @The Alarmist
A signals intelligence station hardly qualifies as a permanent military base. You know, one with guns, missiles, tanks, fighter jets, attack helicopters, etc.
He thought he was going to achieve that with just 200,000 troops and an invasion plan that left all of eastern Ukraine alone except for a couple of missile strikes?
I highly doubt Putin was ever that deluded, and if he was that deluded, then the first days of the war ended that fantasy rather quickly.
Like I said, your historical analogy is highly flawed. The Germans gave up all of East Prussia because they had no choice in the matter; Putin is in no such quandary today.
If Putin is only going to give up his claims on Ukraine because he has "no choice" - then be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
Maybe, just maybe (though I doubt it) the loss of the Moskva will finally wake up Putin that he is fighting with a paper military - all those billions that he though he spent on making Russia at least a 2nd rate power are invested in overseas real estate and not in Russia's military assets. He knows this to some extent but his reaction is the usual Russian one which is to arrest the wreckers and double down on failure. He needs to wake up and sue for terms now before Russia is further humiliated. He should have stayed with the pre-war bluffing because now that he has played his cards, they aren't so good.
Zelensky is not a fool and will give him some face saving measures. No NATO, just security guaranties from certain countries. The fate of the disputed territories will be decided by a referendum in 15 years or something like that. Some date after Putin can assume that he will be dead. In the interim there will be internationally monitored guaranties to protect the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine, blah, blah, blah. There is a deal to be had - Putin just has to realize that it's time to make a deal now before he is totally humiliated.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Pincher Martin
If they can read Chinese, they might be hiring there. Requires relocation, COVID lockdowns, etc.
I'm sure the NYT and WaPo will be full of articles featuring newly distraught former employees whining about that. Mainly otherwise unemployable female liberal arts grads and assorted Woke people of uncertain gender.
No former Trump voters will be affected.
(Why is the Soviet nuke stuff added to this Elon Musk story?)Replies: @International Jew
I’m worried that Twitter will lose what’s more essential — engineers. Watch free speech spun as hate speech, and the woke part of tech (almost all the rest) making it clear that if you’re an engineer at Musk’s Twitter, then you’ll be a pariah unemployable anywhere else. (Same kind of threat that starved the Trump administration of talent.)
At that point, Twitter’s engineers will decamp to a new woke Twitter, they’ll rewrite all the code from scratch in no time, and Musk will be left with an empty husk that cost him about \$35 billion.
And I’m with you in failing to see any connection here to nuking the moon.
Of course this is existential for Ukraine.
What is existential for Russia is mere existence of China.
A Kraut, a Cuban and an African walk into a bar…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_SIGINT_stationThe end point for Putin in Ukraine would have been similar to the outcome in E. Germany - after a period of military occupation, leave behind a puppet government answerable to, and economically tied to, Moscow.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @The Alarmist
The frequent tropospheric ducting over the Gulf of Mexico made Lourdes an ideal location for picking up SIGINT across a very broad share of the spectrum. PCR is very correct when he asserts Mr. Putin has been too trusting of the USA over the years.
Putin pays lip service to Orthodox Christianity but his personal life is as depraved as any Western elite (and in similar ways). Meanwhile Moscow has the largest Muslim population of any city in Europe. He pays lip service to the economic well being of the average Russian but he and he friends live like Oriental potentates while out in the provinces a washing machine is an aspirational purchase. He sends boys from the countryside to be cannon meat in Ukraine by the thousands and he doesn't even tell them where they are headed.
Russian elites always thought of their masses as being subhuman - they had the same regard for them and their intelligence and wishes as plantation owners in the South had for their slaves. Putin regards the masses as a mob to be led around by the nose. He wouldn't dream of listening to unmanipulated popular opinion any more than he would allow a herd of cattle to run a cattle farm. He doesn't believe that such a thing as authentic public opinion even exists. If such a thing is possible, his contempt for common Russians is even deeper than that of American elites.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote.Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
“Putin pays lip service to Orthodox Christianity but his personal life is as depraved as any Western elite (and in similar ways).”
I begin with the notion that all synthetic elites are depraved. So you might be correct about Putin. He may be captured by the same Babylonian corruption that has spread like a foul disease throughout the West. But if you have facts about Putin’s wickedness spill the beans. We all know the little jester/drag queen NATO hero Zelensky is a puppet. Putin is undoubtedly being yanked by other strings. You would provide illumination if you have info as to who or what has captured Putin.
“Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun.”
E. Prussia was once "existential" to the Germans but they reconciled themselves to its loss. Despite all the nukes, it doesn't really appear that Russia has the military power to enforce its will against Ukraine, no matter how badly they may want it. Ukraine was presumably just as existential to the Russians for the last 30 years and yet somehow they managed to live with out it up until now.
The Russian navy missile cruiser Moskva — the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, yesterday suffered an "ammunition fire" according to the Russians and the ship has been abandoned. The Russians were not exactly lying - it's ammunition was certainly on fire. They just forgot to mention that the reason it was on fire was that two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles had hit it.
We may need Ukraine less than the Russians do, but the Ukrainians need it more.
There is no reason for the Russians to get bogged down in Ukraine any further. When they got bogged down outside of Kyiv, they radioed order to their surviving troops to turn tail and retreat back to Russia - end of bog. They could do the same in the Donbass tomorrow if they wanted to.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @kpkinsunnyphladelphia, @Unintended Consequence, @AnotherDad
Jack, i certainly agree that it would be highly desirable–basically for everyone in the world, outside of Putin and maybe the Chicoms–for the Russian army to just pack up and leave.
But i’m not sure how “bogged down” the Russians are in the Donbass.
I tend to steer away from comment on the military side of this as i’m not a military guy. For the military situation, I can’t do the sort of straightforward “the emperor has no clothes” analysis i can do–anyone can do–about subjects like immigration, fertility, sex differences, black crime, sexual deviancy, minoritarianism, etc.–with just basic logic and 6th grade math. On the military side, one really needs decent data and more expertise. (The political debacle in contrast is obvious.)
The military side things that do seem straightforward even to the “generally knowledgeable reader” types, like me:
— this is the age of the missile
— thousands of people are dead
— Russia has generally “underperformed” expectations, Ukraine “overperformed” expectations
— Putin’s Kyiv gambit–quick fold–did not work
more speculatively …
— Russian armed forces “aren’t all that”
— it is possible the US has the only military that gets enough \$\$\$ thrown at it for the continual combined arms training that is necessary. But i still would not want to be in some US tank, much less a Striker or Humvee during an invasion in this “age of the missile”.
But really no idea about “bogged down” in the Donbass. Judging from the maps, seems to me Putin is in fact, slowly, expensively–killing lots of Ukrainian and Russian boys as well as Ukrainian civilians–closing the noose and conquering Eastern Ukraine.
When he is done, seems he will likely end up annexing to Russia millions of people who hate him and Russia–or else chasing them out? Hatred that probably won’t quiesce for a generation–until after Putin is dead and new generation grows up.
But … if he keeps pouring in people and material–and the Russian establishment doesn’t say “enough” and push him out–seems likely Putin “wins”.
Maybe, it will be like the Maine or the Arizona, but I doubt this - it can't be used to start a war because there is already a war. So I think it will be more like the sinking of the Yamato or the Tirpitz. It's going to symbolically signal to the Russian public (not that Putin cares about public opinion) and to Putin himself that Russia does not have the mandate of heaven in this war - everything that they touch in this war, including their own stuff , their generals and privates, crumbles into dust. Now maybe Putin gets some kind of sick satisfaction of turning "disloyal" Ukrainian cities and civilians into dust but presumably he is fond of his own flagships, especially ones named for his capital city and his own generals, at least the "good" ones. At some point (I pray) it's going to register on him that the game is not worth the candle, and if he doesn't maybe somebody else in Russia will.
I know that people keep saying that the Donbass is different but the same kinds of weapons that worked so well against Russian tanks outside of Kyiv are going to work in the Donbass too and more keep arriving every day.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @clifford brown, @AnotherDad, @HA, @HA
The Cuba analogy is poor for today’s Ukraine. In addition to Lourdes SIGINT the Soviets had their entire 7th Special Motorized Rifle Brigade present in Cuba to defend it, along with who knows what else they had in Cuba. They also supported the export of Cuba’s army to serve in proxy wars in Africa so whatever advisory and infrastructure support that entailed remained after the 1962 missile crisis as well.
The Soviets' security agreements with Castro for sending Cuban troops to SSA to fight proxy wars in Africa would be outside that purview.Replies: @Alden, @Jack D
Who is “late”? The dad, the reader, or iSteve?
Russia gave up all of Ukraine 30 years ago when (I guess) they had no choice. Putin is trying to claw all or part of it back because he thinks he is strong enough to do so now and might makes right. Why shouldn’t (maybe some future nuclear armed) Germany do the same for Kaliningrad?
If Putin is only going to give up his claims on Ukraine because he has “no choice” – then be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
Maybe, just maybe (though I doubt it) the loss of the Moskva will finally wake up Putin that he is fighting with a paper military – all those billions that he though he spent on making Russia at least a 2nd rate power are invested in overseas real estate and not in Russia’s military assets. He knows this to some extent but his reaction is the usual Russian one which is to arrest the wreckers and double down on failure. He needs to wake up and sue for terms now before Russia is further humiliated. He should have stayed with the pre-war bluffing because now that he has played his cards, they aren’t so good.
Zelensky is not a fool and will give him some face saving measures. No NATO, just security guaranties from certain countries. The fate of the disputed territories will be decided by a referendum in 15 years or something like that. Some date after Putin can assume that he will be dead. In the interim there will be internationally monitored guaranties to protect the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine, blah, blah, blah. There is a deal to be had – Putin just has to realize that it’s time to make a deal now before he is totally humiliated.
But i'm not sure how "bogged down" the Russians are in the Donbass.
I tend to steer away from comment on the military side of this as i'm not a military guy. For the military situation, I can't do the sort of straightforward "the emperor has no clothes" analysis i can do--anyone can do--about subjects like immigration, fertility, sex differences, black crime, sexual deviancy, minoritarianism, etc.--with just basic logic and 6th grade math. On the military side, one really needs decent data and more expertise. (The political debacle in contrast is obvious.)
The military side things that do seem straightforward even to the "generally knowledgeable reader" types, like me:
-- this is the age of the missile
-- thousands of people are dead
-- Russia has generally "underperformed" expectations, Ukraine "overperformed" expectations
-- Putin's Kyiv gambit--quick fold--did not work
more speculatively ...
-- Russian armed forces "aren't all that"
-- it is possible the US has the only military that gets enough $$$ thrown at it for the continual combined arms training that is necessary. But i still would not want to be in some US tank, much less a Striker or Humvee during an invasion in this "age of the missile".
But really no idea about "bogged down" in the Donbass. Judging from the maps, seems to me Putin is in fact, slowly, expensively--killing lots of Ukrainian and Russian boys as well as Ukrainian civilians--closing the noose and conquering Eastern Ukraine.
When he is done, seems he will likely end up annexing to Russia millions of people who hate him and Russia--or else chasing them out? Hatred that probably won't quiesce for a generation--until after Putin is dead and new generation grows up.
But ... if he keeps pouring in people and material--and the Russian establishment doesn't say "enough" and push him out--seems likely Putin "wins".Replies: @Jack D
Wars are psychological as well as military events. I think that the loss of the Moskva will prove to be a psychological turning point for Russia and for Putin.
Maybe, it will be like the Maine or the Arizona, but I doubt this – it can’t be used to start a war because there is already a war. So I think it will be more like the sinking of the Yamato or the Tirpitz. It’s going to symbolically signal to the Russian public (not that Putin cares about public opinion) and to Putin himself that Russia does not have the mandate of heaven in this war – everything that they touch in this war, including their own stuff , their generals and privates, crumbles into dust. Now maybe Putin gets some kind of sick satisfaction of turning “disloyal” Ukrainian cities and civilians into dust but presumably he is fond of his own flagships, especially ones named for his capital city and his own generals, at least the “good” ones. At some point (I pray) it’s going to register on him that the game is not worth the candle, and if he doesn’t maybe somebody else in Russia will.
I know that people keep saying that the Donbass is different but the same kinds of weapons that worked so well against Russian tanks outside of Kyiv are going to work in the Donbass too and more keep arriving every day.
Ukraine should negotiate a settlement to save Ukrainian and Russian lives. Sadly, Ukraine and NATO seem to want to fight to the last dead Ukrainian.
This all could have been resolved six months ago. Six years ago even! Russia's ask is reasonable, NATO needs to accept reality.
'Tis but a feint.
The Musk move on twitter was inevitable when he turned down the Board Membership.Replies: @Muggles
The reference was likely for the CEO of Twitter, not some washed up Clinton adviser. The CEO is Indian.
Maybe, it will be like the Maine or the Arizona, but I doubt this - it can't be used to start a war because there is already a war. So I think it will be more like the sinking of the Yamato or the Tirpitz. It's going to symbolically signal to the Russian public (not that Putin cares about public opinion) and to Putin himself that Russia does not have the mandate of heaven in this war - everything that they touch in this war, including their own stuff , their generals and privates, crumbles into dust. Now maybe Putin gets some kind of sick satisfaction of turning "disloyal" Ukrainian cities and civilians into dust but presumably he is fond of his own flagships, especially ones named for his capital city and his own generals, at least the "good" ones. At some point (I pray) it's going to register on him that the game is not worth the candle, and if he doesn't maybe somebody else in Russia will.
I know that people keep saying that the Donbass is different but the same kinds of weapons that worked so well against Russian tanks outside of Kyiv are going to work in the Donbass too and more keep arriving every day.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @clifford brown, @AnotherDad, @HA, @HA
Nicholas II lost an entire war *and* territory (South Sakhalin) without losing his throne. And he was the runt of the litter – probably the most ineffectual Romanov in centuries. It took the millions of Russian dead during WWI to loosen and finally remove his grip on power.
If Putin is only going to give up his claims on Ukraine because he has "no choice" - then be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
Maybe, just maybe (though I doubt it) the loss of the Moskva will finally wake up Putin that he is fighting with a paper military - all those billions that he though he spent on making Russia at least a 2nd rate power are invested in overseas real estate and not in Russia's military assets. He knows this to some extent but his reaction is the usual Russian one which is to arrest the wreckers and double down on failure. He needs to wake up and sue for terms now before Russia is further humiliated. He should have stayed with the pre-war bluffing because now that he has played his cards, they aren't so good.
Zelensky is not a fool and will give him some face saving measures. No NATO, just security guaranties from certain countries. The fate of the disputed territories will be decided by a referendum in 15 years or something like that. Some date after Putin can assume that he will be dead. In the interim there will be internationally monitored guaranties to protect the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine, blah, blah, blah. There is a deal to be had - Putin just has to realize that it's time to make a deal now before he is totally humiliated.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Pincher Martin
For tradition’s sake, he should get them from Britain and France, given that they were so quick to come to Poland’s rescue during WWII.
Breaking news:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61114843
Gotta watch out for those “stormy seas” – they’ll send your flagship to the bottom of the ocean every time.
I once visited the Baltic on a calm date at the height of summer and it looked like the N. Atlantic in a Noreaster. Waves crashing over the docks. The sea was this ugly pea soup color. I can only imagine what it is like in a winter storm.
But the Black Sea is nothing like that.
Maybe, it will be like the Maine or the Arizona, but I doubt this - it can't be used to start a war because there is already a war. So I think it will be more like the sinking of the Yamato or the Tirpitz. It's going to symbolically signal to the Russian public (not that Putin cares about public opinion) and to Putin himself that Russia does not have the mandate of heaven in this war - everything that they touch in this war, including their own stuff , their generals and privates, crumbles into dust. Now maybe Putin gets some kind of sick satisfaction of turning "disloyal" Ukrainian cities and civilians into dust but presumably he is fond of his own flagships, especially ones named for his capital city and his own generals, at least the "good" ones. At some point (I pray) it's going to register on him that the game is not worth the candle, and if he doesn't maybe somebody else in Russia will.
I know that people keep saying that the Donbass is different but the same kinds of weapons that worked so well against Russian tanks outside of Kyiv are going to work in the Donbass too and more keep arriving every day.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @clifford brown, @AnotherDad, @HA, @HA
Keep telling yourself that. Russia has already won. The Ukrainian military has been devastated. The only thing up for debate is the extent of the Russian advance in Donbass.
Ukraine should negotiate a settlement to save Ukrainian and Russian lives. Sadly, Ukraine and NATO seem to want to fight to the last dead Ukrainian.
This all could have been resolved six months ago. Six years ago even! Russia’s ask is reasonable, NATO needs to accept reality.
OT:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/dianne-feinstein-fitness-for-office-senate-1337674/
Another public figure exhibiting Alzheimer’s. We really need to put an age limit on government service but apparently everybody’s perfectly fine with doddering old figureheads who can barely stay upright while their underlings and the lobbyists actually carry out the functions of the office. It’s not even coming up for debate.
Maybe, it will be like the Maine or the Arizona, but I doubt this - it can't be used to start a war because there is already a war. So I think it will be more like the sinking of the Yamato or the Tirpitz. It's going to symbolically signal to the Russian public (not that Putin cares about public opinion) and to Putin himself that Russia does not have the mandate of heaven in this war - everything that they touch in this war, including their own stuff , their generals and privates, crumbles into dust. Now maybe Putin gets some kind of sick satisfaction of turning "disloyal" Ukrainian cities and civilians into dust but presumably he is fond of his own flagships, especially ones named for his capital city and his own generals, at least the "good" ones. At some point (I pray) it's going to register on him that the game is not worth the candle, and if he doesn't maybe somebody else in Russia will.
I know that people keep saying that the Donbass is different but the same kinds of weapons that worked so well against Russian tanks outside of Kyiv are going to work in the Donbass too and more keep arriving every day.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @clifford brown, @AnotherDad, @HA, @HA
This is complete fantasy.
I have no particular idea how this is going to turn out. (Though i suspect it is with Putin annexing a bunch of Eastern Ukraine.) But Putin’s cruising right through the deaths of a few thousand Russian soldiers. Losing one 40 year old cruiser is going to psychologically unsettle him? No.
The Battleship NJ was in service for 50 years. It was repeatedly upgraded. The Moskva was SUPPOSED to be upgraded, but apparently," working close-in weapon system" is spelled "townhouse in London" in Russian.
You're probably right that Putin is only going to double down. When someone bets "double or nothing" , nothing is one of the possible outcomes.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @silviosilver
I was wondering the same thing. Apparently, Steve’s stream of consciousness switched from Elon Musk buying Twitter to blowing up the moon because of some guy he remembered talking to . . . .
I hope Steve’s not going all Abe Simpson on us.
When Carlos Slim Helú bought New York Times, it became worse.
When Jeff Bezos bought Washington Post, it became worse.
When Elon Musk buys Twitter it will become worse.
Money corrupts; absolutely large quantity of money corrupts absolutely.
Nope. Prove it.
I specifically said in the Americas (I actually wrote “in North America,” but that was a mistake – I meant in the Americas).
The Soviets’ security agreements with Castro for sending Cuban troops to SSA to fight proxy wars in Africa would be outside that purview.
And Castro sent others to S America to stir up trouble and kill thousands in the wars the Marxists incited. .
I’m too cynical to be fooled by Putin’s building new churches for his alleged revival of Christianity.
7-я Особая мотострелковая бригада
Military Unit: 52388
Headquarters:
Narokko, Cuba, 4.63 - 6.91
http://www.ww2.dk/new/army/other/7omsbr.htm
https://warisboring.com/in-1979-soviet-troops-were-in-cuba-and-americans-were-terrified/
https://www.iwp.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/20150115_CubanArmedForcesandtheSovietMilitaryPresence.pdf
https://news.usni.org/2012/10/24/soviet-navys-caribbean-outpost
Had enough?Replies: @Pincher Martin
All this brinksmanship the US regime has done to secure the unearned riches of rentier oligarchs in the most corrupt country in Europe, which has no strategic significance for the West whatsoever and which most Americans could never find on a map.
In writing his History of the Peloponnesian War, the conflict that ended the Greek Classical Age, Thucydides finds that he has to explain to his readers where the obscure hotspot places are, where the conflict originated. But the conflict was no less apocalyptic for having been so obscure in origin.Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jack D, @Bill Jones
And what tide was that?
--------
As a Bush aide once boasted to Ron Suskind: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
---------Replies: @Stan Adams
“It would be great to see America’s most successful African American fire that Indian prick who thinks he can decide what is permissible speech in the USA.”
Indian prick? More like Indian interloper.
https://youtu.be/erO0UCQ7nfgReplies: @Coemgen
Maybe Steve’s going all Peter Gregory on us.
If Putin is only going to give up his claims on Ukraine because he has "no choice" - then be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
Maybe, just maybe (though I doubt it) the loss of the Moskva will finally wake up Putin that he is fighting with a paper military - all those billions that he though he spent on making Russia at least a 2nd rate power are invested in overseas real estate and not in Russia's military assets. He knows this to some extent but his reaction is the usual Russian one which is to arrest the wreckers and double down on failure. He needs to wake up and sue for terms now before Russia is further humiliated. He should have stayed with the pre-war bluffing because now that he has played his cards, they aren't so good.
Zelensky is not a fool and will give him some face saving measures. No NATO, just security guaranties from certain countries. The fate of the disputed territories will be decided by a referendum in 15 years or something like that. Some date after Putin can assume that he will be dead. In the interim there will be internationally monitored guaranties to protect the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine, blah, blah, blah. There is a deal to be had - Putin just has to realize that it's time to make a deal now before he is totally humiliated.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Pincher Martin
Your faulty assumption continues to be that Putin is trying to take over all of Ukraine in much the same way Stalin took over what would become Kaliningrad.
But for your historical analogy to work, you must admit that the former East Prussia is less like Ukraine and more like Crimea, DPR and LPR, but with Putin having a better historical and demographic (but not legal) case for taking over those three former Ukrainian territories than Stalin had for taking over East Prussia.
In neither Stalin’s case in 1945 nor Putin’s case at the start of the invasion this year were either Russian leader seriously interested in taking over all of Germany or Ukraine, respectively.
This is not even a useful fantasy with which to play around. Kaliningrad is now filled with Russians. The Germans were expelled long ago. What would be the purpose of Germany taking it over? Genocide?
Whether you like it or not, what you can do, and what you believe you must do, always lurks behind what you will do.
The Russian leadership – and not just Putin – believes that while Ukraine can be recognized as another country apart from Russia, it’s never going to have the same freedom of action that, say, Romania or Poland have.
So the Russians are not interested in your selective principles. Those are, after all, your principles and not their principles. They have the ability to prevent, and the belief that they must prevent, Ukraine from becoming another Western country on their border.
Good luck with that.
This war is going to be a bloody drawn-out mess. Russia just can’t pick up and fly home like the U.S. in Afghanistan. It’s in Crimea for good. It’s in DPR and LPR for good. That’s true even if Putin is overthrown or dies, which I doubt will happen anytime soon. The 1991 dissolution was a special event. It won’t happen again. Changes of power in Russia more often lead to expansionism than a spinoff of territory.
If you really ever truly cared about the Ukrainians, Jack, you would’ve supported a neutral Ukraine.
“I had thought early on that Russia would stop after it’s initial foray into Ukraine and wait for a diplomatic response from the US/NATO.”
Finland and Sweden have entered the chat.
So there’s your response, right there.
Yes, I know. But those are still the most “heavily ethnic Russian-populated areas” of Ukraine, and they are also the most supportive of Russia as a result. Majorities in those oblasts voted for pro-Russian Ukrainian candidates, for example, even if ethnic Russians did not make up majorities in them.
Yes, controlling Novorossiya seems to be at least Putin’s short-term military aim, but I’m not convinced that he is committed to keeping that larger territory to the same degree he is to Crimea and the Donbas. It may have military utility for the Russians or be kept in reserve as a negotiating ploy.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/UaFirstNationality2001-English.png
I think the significance of the vote total pro Russia parties is low. You can’t infer that areas of Belgium where the Vlaams Belang dominate therefore support or desire Flanders being invaded and conquered by the Netherlands.
The Russian military also seems to be engaging in a pretty brutal “grab able bodied men off the street” type mass conscription in DNR and LNR that would lead a lot of ethnic Russians to want the Russian army to just go home. I’ll concede this may be greatly or mostly exaggerated by Ukraine. But it is plausible given Russia’s clear inability to man its invading force at all the initial fronts and desire not to use conscripts from Russia proper.Replies: @Pincher Martin
Fly me to the moon
And let me kick its fucking ass
Let me show it what I learned in my moon jujitsu class
http://www.amiright.com/parody/misc/franksinatra471.shtml
Abian may have been an inspiration for Neal Stephenson's Seveneves, in which the moon is destroyed by an asteroid. Subsequently its fragments rain on the earth, almost wiping out all life.Replies: @Stan Adams
There is a scene in the mind-numbingly stupid Nutty Professor II in which Professor Klump (Eddie Murphy in a fat suit) is sent to blow up an asteroid hurtling toward the earth. Unfortunately, his intellect has been stolen by the evil Buddy Love (also Murphy, sans fat suit), so he accidentally blows up the moon instead.
A badthinker might be tempted to interpret the scene as a subversive commentary on affirmative action.
Yes, there’s a dumb fart joke:
Oh, that’s a stamp. Without the edges, it looked like a banknote. Fifteen is an odd denomination, but not without precedent:
What is existential for Russia is mere existence of China.Replies: @HA
“What is existential for Russia is mere existence of China.”
I think you can take that further. Given Poland’s historic anti-Russian animus, there’s no way that a country like that can be allowed to exist outside a short leash from Moscow. I mean, ask Putin’s fanboys — they’ll tell you that the existence of Poland is downright unreasonable, and it’s all the fault of the West, anyway, for being so belligerent and not keeping Poland in its place. You need Russia in order for that to happen. And once Ukraine is “assimilated”, the existential-threat/Overton-window/roulette-wheel will spin again and land on Poland. It’s destiny, I tell ya.
And if they do get Poland to become their “friend” again, well, then there’s Germany. I mean, who wants Russia and Germany at it again, and practically right next door to one another? No way. The best way to solve that is for Germany to fork over a sizable portion of their country and have it be in the “Russian sphere of influence”. Again, ask the fanboys — that’s the perfect solution. Maybe build a dividing wall, just to seal the deal.
So, to the extent that Russia does regard China in the same way it regards the West, it might take some pressure off the latter.
The Soviets' security agreements with Castro for sending Cuban troops to SSA to fight proxy wars in Africa would be outside that purview.Replies: @Alden, @Jack D
You’re so right. Cuba like the rest of the Caribbean is full of blacks and mulattos . Castro rounded up the darkest and sent them off to Africa to fight for Rhodesia Angola etc becoming part of the Marxist global paradise.
And Castro sent others to S America to stir up trouble and kill thousands in the wars the Marxists incited. .
I’m too cynical to be fooled by Putin’s building new churches for his alleged revival of Christianity.
Maybe, it will be like the Maine or the Arizona, but I doubt this - it can't be used to start a war because there is already a war. So I think it will be more like the sinking of the Yamato or the Tirpitz. It's going to symbolically signal to the Russian public (not that Putin cares about public opinion) and to Putin himself that Russia does not have the mandate of heaven in this war - everything that they touch in this war, including their own stuff , their generals and privates, crumbles into dust. Now maybe Putin gets some kind of sick satisfaction of turning "disloyal" Ukrainian cities and civilians into dust but presumably he is fond of his own flagships, especially ones named for his capital city and his own generals, at least the "good" ones. At some point (I pray) it's going to register on him that the game is not worth the candle, and if he doesn't maybe somebody else in Russia will.
I know that people keep saying that the Donbass is different but the same kinds of weapons that worked so well against Russian tanks outside of Kyiv are going to work in the Donbass too and more keep arriving every day.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @clifford brown, @AnotherDad, @HA, @HA
“I think that the loss of the Moskva will prove to be a psychological turning point for Russia and for Putin.”
‘Tis but a feint.
Rumor says another 400 went down on the Moskva (“all of the sailors were rescued” being another Russian lie – let’s see them getting off the rescue ships). What part of “my flagship was sunk ” don’t you understand?
The Battleship NJ was in service for 50 years. It was repeatedly upgraded. The Moskva was SUPPOSED to be upgraded, but apparently,” working close-in weapon system” is spelled “townhouse in London” in Russian.
You’re probably right that Putin is only going to double down. When someone bets “double or nothing” , nothing is one of the possible outcomes.
Because this has happened exactly zero times in the past. Get a grip.
The Battleship NJ was in service for 50 years. It was repeatedly upgraded. The Moskva was SUPPOSED to be upgraded, but apparently," working close-in weapon system" is spelled "townhouse in London" in Russian.
You're probably right that Putin is only going to double down. When someone bets "double or nothing" , nothing is one of the possible outcomes.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @silviosilver
He may settle for the complete annexation of 3 Ukrainian oblasts – Donetsk, Kherson and Luhansk. The questions are whether (1) Ukrainian public opinion will support this concession and (2) the West will provide sufficient funding and weaponry to Ukraine to push the Russians back. If the answer to (2) is “yes”, a follow-on question is whether that support extends to the eviction of Russia from what it held of Ukraine antebellum (i.e. Crimea, DPR and LPR).
Well here’s a map. It is clear that what you describe still involves Russia conquering mostly areas where Russians are less numerous than Ukrainians.
I think the significance of the vote total pro Russia parties is low. You can’t infer that areas of Belgium where the Vlaams Belang dominate therefore support or desire Flanders being invaded and conquered by the Netherlands.
The Russian military also seems to be engaging in a pretty brutal “grab able bodied men off the street” type mass conscription in DNR and LNR that would lead a lot of ethnic Russians to want the Russian army to just go home. I’ll concede this may be greatly or mostly exaggerated by Ukraine. But it is plausible given Russia’s clear inability to man its invading force at all the initial fronts and desire not to use conscripts from Russia proper.
Now this is the kind of interwhite status competition I can behind. Beats the pants off “I’m so tolerant and wonderful – not like you, you filthy racist!”
Still, it carried its own risks. Isn’t there some old Zen proverb about “the missile pointing at the moon is not the moon”?
The Battleship NJ was in service for 50 years. It was repeatedly upgraded. The Moskva was SUPPOSED to be upgraded, but apparently," working close-in weapon system" is spelled "townhouse in London" in Russian.
You're probably right that Putin is only going to double down. When someone bets "double or nothing" , nothing is one of the possible outcomes.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @silviosilver
Is the naval theatre really so critical to the outcome of this conflict though? I would like to say I don’t think so, but I don’t want some know-it-all military asshole to jump down my throat.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LbxDZRgA4Replies: @jamie b.
African-American offers to purchase Twitter for 42 Billion
The Soviets' security agreements with Castro for sending Cuban troops to SSA to fight proxy wars in Africa would be outside that purview.Replies: @Alden, @Jack D
7th Special Motorised Rifle Brigade
7-я Особая мотострелковая бригада
Military Unit: 52388
Headquarters:
Narokko, Cuba, 4.63 – 6.91
http://www.ww2.dk/new/army/other/7omsbr.htm
https://warisboring.com/in-1979-soviet-troops-were-in-cuba-and-americans-were-terrified/
https://www.iwp.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/20150115_CubanArmedForcesandtheSovietMilitaryPresence.pdf
https://news.usni.org/2012/10/24/soviet-navys-caribbean-outpost
Had enough?
Elon should start up an investment bank and buy up as much of Silicon Valley as he can.
That would make him a Musk Mellon.
https://www.rareseeds.com/store/vegetables/bulk-vegetables/melon/kajari-melon
7-я Особая мотострелковая бригада
Military Unit: 52388
Headquarters:
Narokko, Cuba, 4.63 - 6.91
http://www.ww2.dk/new/army/other/7omsbr.htm
https://warisboring.com/in-1979-soviet-troops-were-in-cuba-and-americans-were-terrified/
https://www.iwp.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/20150115_CubanArmedForcesandtheSovietMilitaryPresence.pdf
https://news.usni.org/2012/10/24/soviet-navys-caribbean-outpost
Had enough?Replies: @Pincher Martin
There appears to have been brigade-sized contingent of Soviet combat troops in Cuba after 1962. They numbered around two to three thousand. While it’s unclear exactly when they were put in Cuba, it seems uncontroversial that they were there in the late seventies.
Okay. I did not know that. I knew the Cubans had plenty of Soviet military advisors on the island. They would have to with all the Soviet military equipment they were buying. But I did not know they had a brigade of Soviet combat troops.
But did this constitute a “permanent Soviet military base,” such as existed at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam after the Fall of Saigon or the large Soviet air force base in Yemen or the numerous Soviet army bases throughout Eastern Europe?
No. Obviously not. The U.S. didn’t even know about it until the late seventies, so obviously it was small enough to go under the U.S. radar. It also made a big stink when it was finally discovered.
So I was absolutely correct when I wrote you that “[b]ut all offensive weapons were removed from Cuba after 1962. There were ports in Cuba built to handle Soviet ships and submarines, but no permanent Soviet base was allowed.“
You are trying to get by on a technicality by pointing to this largely unknown Soviet brigade as evidence of a permanent military base.
The difference is that the Russians sent theirs back to Germany at the earliest opportunity (once they had downloaded all of their knowledge) while we kept ours.
“… while we kept ours.”
You’re distorting the truth, Jack. None of the 72 Project Paperclip guys were kept in the USA against their will.
I can’t figure out your motive here, Jack. have you become a CCP partisan?
The problem was that some of these Germans were Nazis and war criminals. We looked the other way because of the Cold War. V-2 were criminal on both ends - they were built by slave labor and they struck civilian targets.
The Russians didn't send their Germans back because they were more moral. They were obsessed with security and didn't trust them. Rockets are first and foremost military technology (a rocket just sent the Moskva to the bottom of the sea) and civilian uses like moon rockets are secondary.
If a nuclear warhead were to detonate in outer space (so not on the Moon), presumably there would be no blast effect as there is no atmosphere. You just have to worry about getting a nasty sunburn from the radiation. In that case, those movie scenes in which everyone is given a good shaking are unscientific. Hollywood, eh?
Put it this way – the Soviets had a lot more military (and sigint) presence in Cuba than we ever had in Ukraine. But, as I said, we put up with it because Cuba is a sovereign country and we have no right to declare it in our “sphere of influence” and invade if they don’t agree.
Jack D wrote:
Of course, this is bunk. It is a fact that we have occupied Cuba, against their wishes, for many years. Indeed, we currently have about 8,500 troops stationed at “our” naval base at Guantanamo Bay. These troops, as well as the base, are unwelcome in Cuba. And they are considered by Cubans as an affront to their sovereignty. Consider the following comment from Wikipedia:
I ask you the same question you asked another commentator – Had enough?
Note that before the Russians seized all of Crimea, they had a similar lease on a naval base in Sevastopol, Ukraine.
This has nothing to do with "sphere of influence". We don't influence or control the policies of the Cuban government at all. As you say, they are quite hostile to us, which they have the right to be, just as Ukraine can (and now definitely will be) as hostile as they want toward their neighbor Russia.Replies: @HA, @EddieSpaghetti
If they’re not in Ukie hands, I don’t understand whose hands they would in. Non-Ukie forces? Or they are buried somewhere in Ukraine unavailable to Ukrainians?
Good question.
I suspect a first order swipe at an answer might be that the electricity cost of maintaining the blockchain is not worth the integrity of a bunch of tweets.
This plan made it all the way to the White House, which most plans do not. And we don’t actually know what the White House decided about it or why, other than someone with access later described the meeting as “the one where they wanted to blow up the world“.
It’s funny that I’ve met people who still think there is a permanent dark side rather than a far side. If the bomb had been detonated I would suppose it would have been done during a new moon phase when the side towards Earth is dark so the flash would have been easily visible.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Just Some JB, @The Germ Theory of Disease
“There is no dark side of the moon, it’s all dark” P.F.
Actually, the origin of that snippet is very interesting. (btw, the line is literally, “There is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact it’s all dark.”)
When Pink Floyd were recording “Dark Side” at Abbey Road studios, they thought it would be interesting sonically to incorporate random bits of found speech as a sort of musique-concrete spoken word element, as part of the overall composition. (They liked found noises.)
To get what they wanted, they wrote a series of questions on index cards, then asked various employees of Abbey Road, various roadies, sound techs and other people working and recording there, to come in and answer the questions. They recorded only the answers, not the questions themselves, then used snipped-up bits of people’s replies in the recording.
The questions were things like, “Are you afraid of dying?” “Do you ever feel as if you were going mad?” “When was the last time you hit someone?” “Were you in the right?” These questions generate some of the memorable, seemingly out-0f-nowhere statements that are heard on the record. (They recorded Paul McCartney’s answers but didn’t use them because they didn’t find them interesting.) This process is why the first track is called “Speak to Me.”
One of the questions was, “What does the phrase ‘the dark side of the moon’ mean to you?”
The memorable answer was given by an 80-year-old Irish guy who worked as a doorman at the studio. His full answer was a detailed astronomical explanation of how the moon rotates and so forth, but his opening line was so poetic that they just snipped it right there.
btw the guy who keeps giggling is the actress Naomi Watts’s dad.
Vanguard is the major shareholder now. You didn’t think those WEF guys were going to let this happen did you?
Putin has been "elected" for the last 22 years. His political opponents are mostly dead or in jail. There is no free press. Yup, sounds legit to me.
The arguments for Putin retaking, for example, Latvia are highly similar (from the Russian POV) as those for Ukraine - arguably just as "existential". Sits on the border, large Russian minority, NATO threatens Russia, etc. Emboldened by his lightning fast victory in Ukraine and believing that the NATO leaders are a bunch of wimps - either senile or nice white ladies, an emboldened Putin rolls for the Baltics as well. He figures that Biden will not start WWIII over a place that most Americans couldn't find on a map. And the people here who are saying that Ukraine is not an American interest would say the same about those countries as well.
I don't think that Putin was rolling for the English Channel but if a genie granted him a wish, he would wish for the status quo ante 1989 be restored. Lacking genies, he was going to try to do it militarily and see how far he could get. Russian imperialists have strange appetites - eating a country doesn't make them full, it just makes them hungry for more.Replies: @Almost Missouri
The Ukraine trying to get under the the US nuclear umbrella is a big part of what caused this conflict in the first place.
As is reasonable. In reality though, they’ve been de facto members for quite some time. The NLAW, which has proved so devastating in the Ukraine war, was originally developed in Sweden.
To join NATO de jure, Finland would have to foreswear any claim to the Karelian lands that the USSR took from it eight decades ago. There hasn’t been any prospect of Finland recovering those lands in the near term anyway, but that may have been part of Finland’s NATO hesitancy heretofore.
Putin has been popular for the last 22 years. That can happen when you don’t work for the parasitical oligarch class. Unlike, for example, his predecessor. Or his American counterparts.
The Russian press has a wider diversity of opinion than the American press. On select subjects, the Russian government overtly censors the domestic press. The American press is less overtly but more comprehensively censored on nearly all subjects. Alternative internet media are available in both countries, but there is no Russian equivalent of the American ADL seeking to censor all information globally. If you believe there is no free press in Russia, you must regard the US press as even worse.
It is true that the Baltic states have Russian minorities, though this is not true for Poland, Norway, Finland, or other Russian neighbors. The difference between the Baltics and the Ukraine is that the Russians in the Baltic states are not on geographically important land and are not asking for Russian protection. Indeed, those Russians in the Baltics who prefer Russia have already decamped back to Russia. Those who remain, remain because they prefer it that way. There is also the small matter than the Baltic states are not bombarding and murdering their Russian minorities, unlike the Ukraine.
But even if none of this were true and Russia really were planning to roll on the Baltics just as soon as they get the Ukraine stitched up, is—to use your example—Latvian independence worth nuclear war? I’ve already said I’m unhappy that the US has signed up to defend whatever regime happens to be in Skopje with nuclear weapons. I know some Latvians and like them, but that doesn’t mean I think we should go nuclear over that. Indeed, I don’t think we should start a nuclear over France or the UK either. Europeans are perfectly capable of deciding what what and how Europe’s best defense is. We should let them. It would be good for both them and us.
I don’t know how you know this. Perhaps this refers to the semi-quote of Putin that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a great disaster? But that quote is semi because it leaves off the second half: “because it stranded so many Russians outside of Russia.” Putin isn’t trying to restore Stalinism. He’s trying to restore Russia.
Again, this is not borne out by history. In 1812 Russia annihilated the preeminent army in Europe. And then the Czar immediately exploited European weakness to invade and crown himself Emperor of a New Roman Imperium! Oh wait, no, what actually happened is nothing at all: Russia returned to concerning itself with Russian problems and left the rest of Europe alone.
2nd, the Russians did NOT leave the rest of Europe alone. Throughout the 19th century they tightened their control over a large chunk of it - Poland and the Baltic States. Aren't they part of Europe? They even concerned themselves with Serbia, setting off a world war.This is the paradox of nuclear weapons - having them means never having to actually use them. If the Ukrainians had kept some nukes, would Russia have dared to invade?Replies: @Almost Missouri
That Twitter would prefer suicide as a company just because it doesn't like free speech, it absolutely insane. It's also stupid.Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Anonymous
It’s also very Current Year.
135 comments into a blog posting about a major business investment having no known connections to Ukraine:
Ctrl+F profit has 3 hits.
Ctrl+F ukraine has 89 hits.
???
Yes and the squabbling here about Ukraine is about as informative for the rest of us as overhearing an argument between drunks on the train. Mr. Sailer must think it's a hoot because he always rushes Jack D's comments through moderation.
Thanks for the link to Elon Musk's Ted talk in any case.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Mark G.
Musk on why he wishes to buy controlling stake in Twitter:
"... while we kept ours."
You're distorting the truth, Jack. None of the 72 Project Paperclip guys were kept in the USA against their will.
I can't figure out your motive here, Jack. have you become a CCP partisan?Replies: @Jack D
I didn’t say they were kept against their will. By all accounts, they loved it here. (I don’t think that the Germans exactly loved their stay in Russia but apparently the Soviets did try to make them comfortable by Soviet standards).
The problem was that some of these Germans were Nazis and war criminals. We looked the other way because of the Cold War. V-2 were criminal on both ends – they were built by slave labor and they struck civilian targets.
The Russians didn’t send their Germans back because they were more moral. They were obsessed with security and didn’t trust them. Rockets are first and foremost military technology (a rocket just sent the Moskva to the bottom of the sea) and civilian uses like moon rockets are secondary.
That’s a stupid gotcha. Guantanamo dates back long before the Castro regime. We leased it in perpetuity from the then Cuban government in 1903. Of course the Communists don’t like it, but that’s one piece of American property that they were unable to expropriate.
Note that before the Russians seized all of Crimea, they had a similar lease on a naval base in Sevastopol, Ukraine.
This has nothing to do with “sphere of influence”. We don’t influence or control the policies of the Cuban government at all. As you say, they are quite hostile to us, which they have the right to be, just as Ukraine can (and now definitely will be) as hostile as they want toward their neighbor Russia.
Good point. Given what would happen to all the "collaborations" Guantanamo locals if the Cuban government ever managed to kick out the Americans, I guess Washington could send some little green men and set up a referendum giving people there a choice between declaring Guantanamo to be American, or else being left to the tender mercies of Castro's people.
After all, you gotta allow people to exercise their right of self-determination, am I right? And now that I think of it, the US military and personnel should definitely be allowed to vote in that referendum, as well. You can't deny people the right to vote -- that would be unconstitutional or something.
Finally, you wrote:If this is the case, it certainly is not due to a lack of trying. Assassination attempts and plots, a proxy invasion, endless sanctions, clearly, our de facto policy towards Cuba has been regime change for more than 60 years.
QED
To join NATO de jure, Finland would have to foreswear any claim to the Karelian lands that the USSR took from it eight decades ago. There hasn't been any prospect of Finland recovering those lands in the near term anyway, but that may have been part of Finland's NATO hesitancy heretofore.Putin has been popular for the last 22 years. That can happen when you don't work for the parasitical oligarch class. Unlike, for example, his predecessor. Or his American counterparts.The Russian press has a wider diversity of opinion than the American press. On select subjects, the Russian government overtly censors the domestic press. The American press is less overtly but more comprehensively censored on nearly all subjects. Alternative internet media are available in both countries, but there is no Russian equivalent of the American ADL seeking to censor all information globally. If you believe there is no free press in Russia, you must regard the US press as even worse.It is true that the Baltic states have Russian minorities, though this is not true for Poland, Norway, Finland, or other Russian neighbors. The difference between the Baltics and the Ukraine is that the Russians in the Baltic states are not on geographically important land and are not asking for Russian protection. Indeed, those Russians in the Baltics who prefer Russia have already decamped back to Russia. Those who remain, remain because they prefer it that way. There is also the small matter than the Baltic states are not bombarding and murdering their Russian minorities, unlike the Ukraine.
But even if none of this were true and Russia really were planning to roll on the Baltics just as soon as they get the Ukraine stitched up, is—to use your example—Latvian independence worth nuclear war? I've already said I'm unhappy that the US has signed up to defend whatever regime happens to be in Skopje with nuclear weapons. I know some Latvians and like them, but that doesn't mean I think we should go nuclear over that. Indeed, I don't think we should start a nuclear over France or the UK either. Europeans are perfectly capable of deciding what what and how Europe's best defense is. We should let them. It would be good for both them and us.I don't know how you know this. Perhaps this refers to the semi-quote of Putin that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a great disaster? But that quote is semi because it leaves off the second half: "because it stranded so many Russians outside of Russia." Putin isn't trying to restore Stalinism. He's trying to restore Russia.Again, this is not borne out by history. In 1812 Russia annihilated the preeminent army in Europe. And then the Czar immediately exploited European weakness to invade and crown himself Emperor of a New Roman Imperium! Oh wait, no, what actually happened is nothing at all: Russia returned to concerning itself with Russian problems and left the rest of Europe alone.Replies: @Jack D
First of all, Czar means Caesar so the Czar DID think of themselves as the heads of a Roman Imperium (specifically Byzantium) .
2nd, the Russians did NOT leave the rest of Europe alone. Throughout the 19th century they tightened their control over a large chunk of it – Poland and the Baltic States. Aren’t they part of Europe? They even concerned themselves with Serbia, setting off a world war.
This is the paradox of nuclear weapons – having them means never having to actually use them. If the Ukrainians had kept some nukes, would Russia have dared to invade?
Look at how many websites have removed comments because of the explicit racism. Look up why the Federalist eliminated comens. Look at how Steve has to moderate comments to keep the comment section from going out of control. Without moderation, social media drifts to the extremes and actually loses users.
2nd, the Russians did NOT leave the rest of Europe alone. Throughout the 19th century they tightened their control over a large chunk of it - Poland and the Baltic States. Aren't they part of Europe? They even concerned themselves with Serbia, setting off a world war.This is the paradox of nuclear weapons - having them means never having to actually use them. If the Ukrainians had kept some nukes, would Russia have dared to invade?Replies: @Almost Missouri
Yes, the Czars liked to imply they were the descendants of Byzantium, so I really should have written “Imperium” in Greek letters (“αυτοκρατορία”?) rather than Latin, but I don’t know Greek and was too lazy to look it up. Fortunately, you are smart enough to know that Byzantium’s archaic territorial claims petered out north of the Balkans, and in any case the Czars’ Byzantine pretensions were always more decorative than functional.
As you may recall, Russian control of Poland and the Baltic (the parts that weren’t controlled by Prussia or Austria or Scandinavia) predated Napoleon. There was a brief uprising in Poland on Napoleon’s bow-wave, which Napoleon supported as a useful puppet state, but it lasted only as long as Napoleon’s army.
A century later. And it involved a lot more than just Russian patronage of Serbia. Britain, France, Germany and Austria all might have had something to do with it, for instance.
The point was that Russia had a huge opportunity to impose itself into Europe’s post-Napoleonic military vacuum if it wanted to, and Russia didn’t bother, even when there was a real Czar in charge rather than just a beleaguered intel officer.
Russia has always been more expansionist to the South and to the East than to the West. Its original capital was Kiev(!), but today the capital is hundreds of miles east in Moscow. Historically, this Eastward and Southward expansion caused a fair bit of friction in Asia and the Caucasus, but nowadays those places are relatively quiescent. If Russia can barely be bothered to invade tiny Georgia, after naked Georgian aggression, then nuclear-backed Western nation-states have nothing to worry about from Russia. The countries of Western Europe could much more profitably concern themselves with the actual and ongoing invasion into themselves from the global South and East that they themselves are facilitating. I mean, you know, if they are really concerned about getting invaded.
It is certainly fashionable in the braindead prestige press to characterize Putin as a Czar and Russians as ravening Mongols, but the facts just don’t bear that out. For a quarter century Putin and Russia have been meanderingly pursuing Russian national interest. Falsely ascribing the identity and motives of Bolsheviks, Czars, or Khans to them enlightens no one and obscures the actual nature of events. Why would anyone want to obscure actualities and promote falsehoods?
Maybe, it will be like the Maine or the Arizona, but I doubt this - it can't be used to start a war because there is already a war. So I think it will be more like the sinking of the Yamato or the Tirpitz. It's going to symbolically signal to the Russian public (not that Putin cares about public opinion) and to Putin himself that Russia does not have the mandate of heaven in this war - everything that they touch in this war, including their own stuff , their generals and privates, crumbles into dust. Now maybe Putin gets some kind of sick satisfaction of turning "disloyal" Ukrainian cities and civilians into dust but presumably he is fond of his own flagships, especially ones named for his capital city and his own generals, at least the "good" ones. At some point (I pray) it's going to register on him that the game is not worth the candle, and if he doesn't maybe somebody else in Russia will.
I know that people keep saying that the Donbass is different but the same kinds of weapons that worked so well against Russian tanks outside of Kyiv are going to work in the Donbass too and more keep arriving every day.Replies: @Johann Ricke, @clifford brown, @AnotherDad, @HA, @HA
“Wars are psychological as well as military events. I think that the loss of the Moskva will prove to be a psychological turning point for Russia and for Putin.”
Well, I have to concede you were right about this, though sadly, this is another case of people giving Russian “expertise” too much credit.
Apparently, some Russians are so incensed that Ukrainians would sink the flagship of the Russian navy (I guess they didn’t get the memo from TASS that this sinking took place only due to a fire “of unknown origin” and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ukrainian drones dropping bombs overhead, no that’s silly), that they now say it’s time to end this “special military operation” and head straight on to WWIII.
I think it’s pretty obvious what kind of bomb he’s talking about at the end there. Yeah, there might be fallout beyond Kyiv, but apparently, that’s a sacrifice that Russians well to the south of his studio should be willing to make.
warspecial military operation).BUT, we all know that the Moskva sank due to an "ammunition explosion" followed by "stormy weather". This is why the Russians have moved their remaining fleet further off the Ukrainian coast, to get away from stormy weather. The Ukrainians had nothing to do with it. Neither did the Neptune missile factory, which is why the Russians have now bombed it.So the sinking of the Moskva, even though the Ukrainians didn't cause it, is still a causus belli just because.In the Reddit comments, someone helpfully links to an essay http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdfwhich distinguishes between truth and lies OTOH and bullshit OTOH. Truth and lies are both concerned with constructing an internally consistent reality. In the case of lies, the story may not be true but the liar at least aims to be internally consistent so that you can't call him out on his lie. A bullshitter, OTOH, is not constrained by consistency, and has no concern with the truth. He just wants to get a desired result, and is convinced that his audience doesn't care about the nuances of fact. So Russian-Wilford-Brimley is not merely a liar, he is a bullshitter. The Moskva is Schrodinger's Battle Cruiser - it is both sunk and not sunk by Ukrainian missiles.Also possibly a couple of nukes. Maybe the Ukrainians could retrieve them - I'll bet they are sorry they gave them up the last time.
The consensus is that the Moskva was NOT sunk by drones or overhead bombs. The drones were just a distraction. Apparently the night before the Ukrainians approached the Moskva with one of their Turkish drones and the crew of the Moskva locked onto it and succeeded in "chasing" it off - the Russians were so proud they even posted a video. Then the next night they did the same thing. Russians - "Oh there are those bothersome Ukrainians with their ineffective drones. Let's shoot them down." And while the Russian crew was distracted with shooting at the drone, they sent in their missiles from the opposite direction. They were cruise missiles that skim along just above the waves so they are difficult to detect, at least for Russian radar. The missiles (2) hit the Moskva on one side, probably causing it to take on water and list so that it sunk under tow.
Note that before the Russians seized all of Crimea, they had a similar lease on a naval base in Sevastopol, Ukraine.
This has nothing to do with "sphere of influence". We don't influence or control the policies of the Cuban government at all. As you say, they are quite hostile to us, which they have the right to be, just as Ukraine can (and now definitely will be) as hostile as they want toward their neighbor Russia.Replies: @HA, @EddieSpaghetti
“Note that before the Russians seized all of Crimea, they had a similar lease on a naval base in Sevastopol, Ukraine.”
Good point. Given what would happen to all the “collaborations” Guantanamo locals if the Cuban government ever managed to kick out the Americans, I guess Washington could send some little green men and set up a referendum giving people there a choice between declaring Guantanamo to be American, or else being left to the tender mercies of Castro’s people.
After all, you gotta allow people to exercise their right of self-determination, am I right? And now that I think of it, the US military and personnel should definitely be allowed to vote in that referendum, as well. You can’t deny people the right to vote — that would be unconstitutional or something.
My favorite (ex) Lefty sums up today’s America well.
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/youve-been-misinformed/
The difference is that we operate in the open and the Soviets did not.
We openly touted NATO membership for Ukraine and ignored strong Russian complaints that Ukraine’s accession to NATO was unacceptable. The Soviets, on the other hand, snuck into Cuba and nearly caused a nuclear war.
The actions are the same; the way the two countries went about doing them were entirely different.
We do declare it all the time. It’s called the Monroe Doctrine. We invoked it during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Khrushchev in 1961: “The Monroe Doctrine has outlived its usefulness. It has died a natural death. The only thing left to do with the Monroe Doctrine is to bury it”
Kennedy in 1962: “[The Monroe Doctrine means] what it had since President Monroe enunciated it, and that is why we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today”
The Monroe Doctrine is us specifically delineating a sphere of interest in the Americas. We use NATO for the same purpose in Europe. And we ought to do the same in East Asia.
I have no problem with our spheres of interest. I just think it is hypocritical and dangerous to not recognize other great powers have them, too.
I love your names for these characters. They are spot on.
Russian-Wilford-Brimley, like anyone who wants to get on TV in Russia, is very cautious. First, he double checks to make sure he is naming the “special military operation” correctly. You could get in trouble if you called it by the wrong name. It would be like forgetting to capitalize Black in America except that you don’t get 15 years in the Federal pen if you do that in America.
2nd, he has to hurdle past the Party Line regarding the sinking of the Moskva. OTOH, if the Ukrainians sank it, that is a causus belli. Never mind that the Moskva has been shooting missiles at Odessa – THAT’s just a special military operation, but if the Ukrainians shoot back, THIS MEANS WAR. (Same thing if the Ukrainians bomb anything in Russia – Russia bombing Ukraine is a special military operation and is A-OK, but Ukraine bombing Russia is off limits according to Russia rules of
warspecial military operation).BUT, we all know that the Moskva sank due to an “ammunition explosion” followed by “stormy weather”. This is why the Russians have moved their remaining fleet further off the Ukrainian coast, to get away from stormy weather. The Ukrainians had nothing to do with it. Neither did the Neptune missile factory, which is why the Russians have now bombed it.
So the sinking of the Moskva, even though the Ukrainians didn’t cause it, is still a causus belli just because.
In the Reddit comments, someone helpfully links to an essay http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf
which distinguishes between truth and lies OTOH and bullshit OTOH. Truth and lies are both concerned with constructing an internally consistent reality. In the case of lies, the story may not be true but the liar at least aims to be internally consistent so that you can’t call him out on his lie.
A bullshitter, OTOH, is not constrained by consistency, and has no concern with the truth. He just wants to get a desired result, and is convinced that his audience doesn’t care about the nuances of fact. So Russian-Wilford-Brimley is not merely a liar, he is a bullshitter. The Moskva is Schrodinger’s Battle Cruiser – it is both sunk and not sunk by Ukrainian missiles.
What are you saying – that we should have operated covertly in Ukraine, like the Soviets?
If the Russians themselves advocated that “spheres of influence” such as the Monroe Doctrine have outlived their usefulness, why has Russia changed its mind now? Is it spheres of influence for me but not for thee?
Base upon what actually happened and not Kennedy’s rhetoric, the US agreed to a modified Monroe Doctrine – Russia COULD and in fact did extend its power in Cuba, with the only red line being nuclear weapons (based upon a secret face saving protocol where the US withdrew its missiles from Turkey). If that’s all that Putin wants, he could have that deal in a minute – Ukraine will join NATO but with the proviso that no nuclear weapons will be stationed on its territory. But what Putin wants extends far, far beyond that.
I guess that you can have a sphere of influence regardless of whether the country that you declare to be inside your sphere likes it or not IF you can (a) successfully enforce that sphere with military force for an indefinite period and (b) are willing and able to bear all the consequences of waging war against your neighbors. In order for this to be a good idea, not only do you have to prevail on points (a) and (b) but the costs of doing so have to be less than the benefits you gain from having a sphere of influence.
By the fact that he started a war, Putin thought that this WAS a good idea. However, it appears that he was perhaps acting on bad information – he had not been properly apprised of the relative military strength of Russia and Ukraine and the battle readiness of the Russian forces, he had not been properly apprised of the level of “welcome” the Russian army would receive in Ukraine or the level of popular support in Ukraine for continued integration with the West and he had not properly evaluated either the severity of the Western reaction against such military action nor the actual level of support he was going to get from China.
You can easily see that if you act on bad information, what you thought was a good idea may really not be a good idea. Even if you now realize it, you have the added problem of how to dig yourself out of the hole you have just dug. Just saying “never mind” doesn’t generally work and the natural human tendency is to just keep digging.
While we really don’t know for sure what Putin was told, we can infer from the fact that various people inside Russia have been arrested that Putin didn’t feel as if he had been properly informed.
The following may or may not be true:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718247/Putins-defence-minister-Sergei-Shoigu-massive-heart-attack-not-natural-causes.html
I could see Shoigu having a completely natural heart attack if he best friend Putin called him a piece of shit and threatened to have him locked up for the rest of his life, etc. OTOH, I could also see Putin arranging for him to have a “heart attack” – it’s certainly not beyond the man.
Note that before the Russians seized all of Crimea, they had a similar lease on a naval base in Sevastopol, Ukraine.
This has nothing to do with "sphere of influence". We don't influence or control the policies of the Cuban government at all. As you say, they are quite hostile to us, which they have the right to be, just as Ukraine can (and now definitely will be) as hostile as they want toward their neighbor Russia.Replies: @HA, @EddieSpaghetti
Jack D wrote:
As is often the case, you have got it backwards. Indeed, as is easily shown, it’s a “gotcha stupid.” Consider your justification for the US occupation of Cuban territory:
But, under what conditions was this leased signed? Here is an excerpt from a report prepared for members of the US Congress in 2016:
So, in order to become “independent,” Cuba had to allow us to occupy a part of their country in perpetuity. Essentially, we gave Cuba an offer that they couldn’t refuse. And, you can bet that if, say, one Cuban authority was unwilling to sign this lease, he would have been replaced by someone who would have signed it.
Finally, you wrote:
If this is the case, it certainly is not due to a lack of trying. Assassination attempts and plots, a proxy invasion, endless sanctions, clearly, our de facto policy towards Cuba has been regime change for more than 60 years.
QED
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/UaFirstNationality2001-English.png
I think the significance of the vote total pro Russia parties is low. You can’t infer that areas of Belgium where the Vlaams Belang dominate therefore support or desire Flanders being invaded and conquered by the Netherlands.
The Russian military also seems to be engaging in a pretty brutal “grab able bodied men off the street” type mass conscription in DNR and LNR that would lead a lot of ethnic Russians to want the Russian army to just go home. I’ll concede this may be greatly or mostly exaggerated by Ukraine. But it is plausible given Russia’s clear inability to man its invading force at all the initial fronts and desire not to use conscripts from Russia proper.Replies: @Pincher Martin
That map is misleading. It doesn’t take into account shades of Ukraine’s demography or political affiliation.
Here, for example, is a more detailed ethnographic-linguistic map:
Here, for example, is a map on how Ukrainian voted in the 2010 presidential election, with the red colors for the pro-Russian candidate Yanukovych and teal colors for the pro-Western candidate Timoshenko.
This map, too, is far more specific about the exact percentage of ethnic Russians in each region of Ukraine:
Oh, I can’t imagine many Ukrainians are happy with Putin now, not even the most pro-Russian Ukrainians. An unnecessary war has a way of bringing that out. The question is whether they will acquiesce with Russian rule or a Russian-backed independence for their regions in the future. My guess is that they will.
That would make him a Musk Mellon.https://i.etsystatic.com/6728015/r/il/8aa521/1098450798/il_794xN.1098450798_jqao.jpgReplies: @MEH 0910
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajari_melon
https://www.rareseeds.com/store/vegetables/bulk-vegetables/melon/kajari-melon
I’m saying that a difference in how the two countries operate militarily and diplomatically doesn’t demonstrate a principled difference in their mutual belief about spheres of interest.
We did NOT accept a Soviet military presence in Cuba. The Soviets just were sneakier about it than we have been in Ukraine. When the small brigade in Cuba was finally discovered by the U.S., we were pissed and considered retaliating, but the small force there didn’t constitute enough of a threat against us to reenact a sequel to the Missiles of October.
No one has changed their mind. But all great powers are always testing the limits of what they can get away with in another great power’s sphere. Note today that a couple of U.S. senators visited Taiwan, violating longstanding protocols against such direct visits by U.S. officials and causing China to ramp up their military exercises in the Taiwan Strait.
I expect China in turn will soon retaliate in Latin America. Perhaps with some splashy sale of weapons to Venezuela.
Great powers always test each other. Always. But they also usually acknowledge traditional spheres of interest and don’t push too hard against them out of fear of what they might unleash.
The links you provided show differently. The Soviets kept a low-profile in Cuba, staying under the U.S. radar, but slowly ratcheted up their presence to see what they could get away with.
Yes to all this. Russia has to win this war or it’s in trouble. It needs at least a limited victory in the Donbas. If it can’t defend its interests in Ukraine, then where can it impose its will?
Note that the US was a Great Power in the '60s and while it COULD have conceivably defended its interests in Cuba, it chose NOT to impose its will. If even you CAN impose your will (which in the case of Russia vs. Ukraine seems to be a definite maybe) and even if protecting your interests is a good idea in the abstract, you have to weigh all the minuses of doing so against the benefits. The US did the math and decided that the minuses of a US invasion of Cuba outweighed the pluses. Putin reached the opposite conclusion.
I think the US made the better decision. Cuba has declined into irrelevancy. If Ukraine is really the stinking hellhole of corruption that the Putinists say it is, it would have also, without needing the Russians to smash it. Buildings in Cuba collapse every day from their own rot - no US bombs necessary.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/12/02/havana-cuba-collapsing-buildings-housing-unesco/1998606002/Replies: @Pincher Martin
Putin wanted Russia to join NATO in 1998/9 but was refused because Russia as an enemy was far too valuable to the filth that run Washington.
This assumes that Russia is still (or again) a Great Power. Where can Italy (larger GDP) impose its will nowadays? What about France (which is a nuclear power to boot)? Inside the borders of Italy and France, respectively. France maybe has a few islands left and and a little sway in certain ex-French countries in Africa. Italy has no influence anywhere outside its borders, not even in the neighboring countries where some of the people speak Italian.
Note that the US was a Great Power in the ’60s and while it COULD have conceivably defended its interests in Cuba, it chose NOT to impose its will. If even you CAN impose your will (which in the case of Russia vs. Ukraine seems to be a definite maybe) and even if protecting your interests is a good idea in the abstract, you have to weigh all the minuses of doing so against the benefits. The US did the math and decided that the minuses of a US invasion of Cuba outweighed the pluses. Putin reached the opposite conclusion.
I think the US made the better decision. Cuba has declined into irrelevancy. If Ukraine is really the stinking hellhole of corruption that the Putinists say it is, it would have also, without needing the Russians to smash it. Buildings in Cuba collapse every day from their own rot – no US bombs necessary.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/12/02/havana-cuba-collapsing-buildings-housing-unesco/1998606002/
I agree that Russia's small economy precludes it from being anything other than a minor regional power. That's one reason I've long supported the U.S. pivoting to East Asia. That's where the real action and danger is today. While I'm surprised Moscow is having such trouble projecting effective military force in Ukraine, I haven't viewed the Russian army as a serious threat to Warsaw or Prague or Budapest for over the last two decades.
If Russia can't succeed to even a limited degree in eastern Ukraine, if it can't even impose its will in the Donbas, then I think we will all have to adjust our priors as to whether it should any longer even be considered a great player. Perhaps it's just a big poor country with a large nuclear arsenal and antiquated military equipment.Wisely, in my opinion. Kennedy ultimately believed that a military showdown over Cuba was not worth the very real possibility of a nuclear war. But he also made sure the U.S. was perceived as winning that diplomatic outcome and Moscow was perceived as losing it.
It was a close call, though. Most in the Kennedy administration initially favored the use of force to remove the Soviets from Cuba. Quite strongly, too.
But having read Musk’s filing, I don’t think it will happen. The offer is good, but not so good that the board can’t come up with an excuse to reject it, and boards tend to reject offers if they can get away with it.
Musk said he will not raise his offer, and the vibe of the filling is that he will not make a hostile takeover offer directly to shareholders.
This may be a combination of a troll and a retconned attempt to avoid trouble for his delay in notifying the SEC about his stock acquisitions.Replies: @NOTA
Honestly, it’s better for the world if Musk keeps
working on rockets and electric cars and doesn’t burn his time on trying to make Twitter less Twittery.
First of all, Putin himself ruled out direct Russian rule outside of Crimea. In the famous dog and pony show where he forced his cabinet ministers to publicly buy into the war before he invaded, one of the ministers was so nervous that he accidentally said something about Russia annexing the Donbass and Putin yelled at him and humiliated him. Of course it will be all phony, but Russian rule in the Donbass will be indirect, thru proxy “independent republics”.
2nd, even if Russia manages to bite off the Donbass, it’s not going to get any international recognition for it and it’s going to be a permanent thorn in its side and an obstacle to the normalization of its relations with most of the rest of the world. Even if it takes 50 more years, the Donbass is going to have to go back to Ukraine one way or another.
The “independent republics” were, before the war, crime ridden and corrupt and most people who lived there did not enjoy living in them. I doubt that the war is going to improve things in the new larger “independent republics” even if Putin manages to hold onto them.
Note that the US was a Great Power in the '60s and while it COULD have conceivably defended its interests in Cuba, it chose NOT to impose its will. If even you CAN impose your will (which in the case of Russia vs. Ukraine seems to be a definite maybe) and even if protecting your interests is a good idea in the abstract, you have to weigh all the minuses of doing so against the benefits. The US did the math and decided that the minuses of a US invasion of Cuba outweighed the pluses. Putin reached the opposite conclusion.
I think the US made the better decision. Cuba has declined into irrelevancy. If Ukraine is really the stinking hellhole of corruption that the Putinists say it is, it would have also, without needing the Russians to smash it. Buildings in Cuba collapse every day from their own rot - no US bombs necessary.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/12/02/havana-cuba-collapsing-buildings-housing-unesco/1998606002/Replies: @Pincher Martin
Well, Italy was never a great power, but many Russians alive today remember when they lived in a country which was not only a great power but a superpower.
I agree that Russia’s small economy precludes it from being anything other than a minor regional power. That’s one reason I’ve long supported the U.S. pivoting to East Asia. That’s where the real action and danger is today. While I’m surprised Moscow is having such trouble projecting effective military force in Ukraine, I haven’t viewed the Russian army as a serious threat to Warsaw or Prague or Budapest for over the last two decades.
If Russia can’t succeed to even a limited degree in eastern Ukraine, if it can’t even impose its will in the Donbas, then I think we will all have to adjust our priors as to whether it should any longer even be considered a great player. Perhaps it’s just a big poor country with a large nuclear arsenal and antiquated military equipment.
Wisely, in my opinion. Kennedy ultimately believed that a military showdown over Cuba was not worth the very real possibility of a nuclear war. But he also made sure the U.S. was perceived as winning that diplomatic outcome and Moscow was perceived as losing it.
It was a close call, though. Most in the Kennedy administration initially favored the use of force to remove the Soviets from Cuba. Quite strongly, too.
Ctrl+F profit has 3 hits.
Ctrl+F ukraine has 89 hits.
???Replies: @Cagey Beast
“Ctrl+F ukraine has 89 hits”.
Yes and the squabbling here about Ukraine is about as informative for the rest of us as overhearing an argument between drunks on the train. Mr. Sailer must think it’s a hoot because he always rushes Jack D’s comments through moderation.
Thanks for the link to Elon Musk’s Ted talk in any case.
Well, that was one of the possibilities I listed. What did you think I meant when I said “Russian-backed independence for their regions”? Just as is the case with Abkhazia, the sovereignty of any breakaway regions in Ukraine will have to be protected by the Russian Army. That’s true even if they are considered independent nations by Moscow.
I don’t think that matters to Moscow at this point. If it can’t win at least the Donbas, then this whole war will be for nothing.
I have no high hopes for them. I was merely wondering whether the people in them will still want independence now if it means continuous war.
Old Elon is the gift that keeps giving.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/twitter-board-adopts-poison-pill-thwart-musk-takeover-exposing-itself-titanic-legal
Yes and the squabbling here about Ukraine is about as informative for the rest of us as overhearing an argument between drunks on the train. Mr. Sailer must think it's a hoot because he always rushes Jack D's comments through moderation.
Thanks for the link to Elon Musk's Ted talk in any case.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Mark G.
I apologize. I’ve been just as bad as Jack D in speaking out of turn here about Ukraine. I’d even forgotten this thread wasn’t about the war.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10722883/Pentagon-confirms-Ukraine-DID-hit-Putins-Black-Sea-flagship-Moskva-two-Neptune-missiles.html
Also possibly a couple of nukes. Maybe the Ukrainians could retrieve them – I’ll bet they are sorry they gave them up the last time.
The consensus is that the Moskva was NOT sunk by drones or overhead bombs. The drones were just a distraction. Apparently the night before the Ukrainians approached the Moskva with one of their Turkish drones and the crew of the Moskva locked onto it and succeeded in “chasing” it off – the Russians were so proud they even posted a video. Then the next night they did the same thing. Russians – “Oh there are those bothersome Ukrainians with their ineffective drones. Let’s shoot them down.” And while the Russian crew was distracted with shooting at the drone, they sent in their missiles from the opposite direction. They were cruise missiles that skim along just above the waves so they are difficult to detect, at least for Russian radar. The missiles (2) hit the Moskva on one side, probably causing it to take on water and list so that it sunk under tow.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1514713220325466120?s=20&t=EovTIJOZ__--EQ6L09CV3Q
Who was cruisin’ for a bruisin”?
https://youtu.be/cdZZpaB2kDMReplies: @Cagey Beast
I’m very encouraged by Elon Musk’s idea to make Twitter’s moderating algorithms open source.
Sorry to be a Debby Downer but I make my living as a programmer.
Interesting that my co-workers, some of them quite intelligent and well versed in electronic communications, do not understand the degree of corruption associated with Hillary Clinton's private server that was in operation, only, during her time as Secretary of State.Replies: @Cagey Beast
That Twitter would prefer suicide as a company just because it doesn't like free speech, it absolutely insane. It's also stupid.Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Anonymous
I’m sure wealthy liberals will quickly make good any Twitter debt earned in the attempt to resist Musk. (It would be similar to what happened with Oberlin college which was inundated with donations after losing that bakery lawsuit.)
If one weren't a childish boomer who needs his fairy tales, one might wonder about the moon landings. The footage is hilarious and, personally, I burst out laughing at the lunar landing module in Houston. The rocket was epic. But the lunar landing module? Lol, it was duct taped birthday balloons. Like a parody of what would look like "space age technology" to old people. Look, shiny foil! I highly recommend seeing it in person, it's amazing they have the balls to still show people what they came up with back then.Replies: @Sam Malone
Totally agree. The moon landings, which we somehow succeeded at perfectly while being behind the Russians at absolutely everything else in the space race, are clearly a national fairy tale. On the surface it’s still holding very strong, but after the boomers I think the public will become willing to accept a deflating of the myth. The mass media though is always likely to resist the truth since it would represent a dramatic a crumbling of the regime’s prestige.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67pHoVsKgp4
https://youtu.be/ZfQG3X4ekNY?t=733
[12:13]
Yes and the squabbling here about Ukraine is about as informative for the rest of us as overhearing an argument between drunks on the train. Mr. Sailer must think it's a hoot because he always rushes Jack D's comments through moderation.
Thanks for the link to Elon Musk's Ted talk in any case.Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Mark G.
When you think about all the serious problems we have here in the U.S. like the economy, inflation, high gas prices, illegal immigration, crime, big tech censorship and a corrupt senile president to spend so much time on a regional conflict on the other side of the planet here is kind of like watching a heated argument about how the deck chairs should be arranged on the Titanic.
How do we know that the open source code is the same code that is being run by Twitter?
Sorry to be a Debby Downer but I make my living as a programmer.
Interesting that my co-workers, some of them quite intelligent and well versed in electronic communications, do not understand the degree of corruption associated with Hillary Clinton’s private server that was in operation, only, during her time as Secretary of State.
Nah. The Russkies were NOT able to do a manned space rendezvous of two space ships in orbit until January 16, 1969.
Neil Armstrong did the first successful space rendezvous in 1966.
That’s why the Russkie version of the moon landing envisioned the cosmonaut space walking over to his lunar lander.
[12:13]
Sorry to be a Debby Downer but I make my living as a programmer.
Interesting that my co-workers, some of them quite intelligent and well versed in electronic communications, do not understand the degree of corruption associated with Hillary Clinton's private server that was in operation, only, during her time as Secretary of State.Replies: @Cagey Beast
Yes, it was the equivalent of a Secretary of State having all top secret diplomatic cables sent to a rented office in Washington and only returned to the State Department hours later, having been opened and with all the seals broken.
One more comment regarding Mr. Musk – some time ago, he publicly stated that his “finances” were so simple and straight-forward that he could file his own federal income tax return HIMSELF and that it would only require a few hours to accomplish.
The guy is as full of CRAP as the day is long.
Pink Floyd • The Dark Side of the Moon playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_l1x-JAx0w53suECoCI0YJtW6VB8DBQWRQ
Pink Floyd • Wish You Were Here playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_mzowhqljIOba8BVGEmVkeaWeL2S_bO4bw
Pink Floyd • Animals playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_mOd2Ws36n_VlDvTIUsyWGb3Y9UVIlB9BA
https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-twitter-set-accept-musks-best-final-offer-sources-2022-04-25/
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1518557794806415361Replies: @MEH 0910