The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
U.S. Senate Votes 95-1 to Have U.S. Defend Finland's 813-Mile-Long Border with Russia
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Master strategist Vladimir Putin is well on his way to de-Finlandizing … Finland.

Finnish neutrality from 1946-2022 was a major foreign policy triumph for the Soviet Union and later Russia in that it neutralized a long border, and it wasn’t really all that terrible for the Finns (compared to say the occupation of Poland and Hungary by the Soviets and their inclusion in potential Soviet military adventures via the Warsaw Pact.) Soviet foreign policy dangled Finlandization in front of Western Europe as the solution to the Cold War — no World War III and no Soviet occupation — because that was a not unappealing status for many Western Europeans who didn’t trust the US to either not start WWIII or to not deter or win it.

My view is that Cold War politics tended to be inverted under the surface from what they seemed like — anti-American Western Europeans tended to accuse Washington of being dangerous war-mongering cowboys itching for a fight in Western Europe, while pro-American Western Europeans defended the peace-lovingness of the Americans. But, deep down, the anti-Americans worried that Americans wouldn’t come to their aid in case of Soviet invasion (this was most clearly expressed by the America-distrusting men of the right such as Charles de Gaulle and Enoch Powell), because, after all, they wouldn’t fight for America if the Soviets invaded the US. In contrast, the pro-American Western Europeans extolling American peacefulness (e.g., West German social democratic leader Helmut Schmidt) trusted that America would heroically fight in defense of West Germany if the Warsaw Pact poured through the Fulda Gap.

During the Cold War, Washington hated that the Soviet Union gave Finland a not too intolerable deal: in return for staying out of NATO and following Soviet foreign policy leads, Finland could have their own capitalist system (as long as they traded a lot with the Soviet Union), because Finlandization sounded not so bad to the left and some of the right of Western Europe.

But Finland’s formal incorporation into NATO may now happen, unless vetoed by a NATO member, due to Mr. Putin’s Wr.

From the New York Times news section:

The Senate on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to approve a treaty that would expand NATO to include Finland and Sweden, with Republicans and Democrats linking arms for one of the most significant expansions of the alliance in decades in the face of Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine.

The ambassadors of Finland and Sweden were on hand in the Senate gallery to watch as senators voted 95-1. Only Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, voted no. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, voted present.

The tally far surpassed the two-thirds of the Senate necessary to approve the treaty, underscoring the bipartisan appetite for a more muscular military alliance, even amid threats from President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that Sweden and Finland would face unspecified retaliation should they join NATO.

All 30 current members of the alliance must ratify the accession of the two countries. Twenty-two countries have already done so.

Republican support for the treaty was particularly striking, given former President Donald J. Trump’s vocal contempt for NATO. Some G.O.P. lawmakers who aligned themselves with him have adopted Mr. Trump’s “America first” philosophy of eschewing alliances and the concept of shared responsibility for maintaining the global order.

But the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, has made it a mission of late to push back against the anti-interventionist strain in his party.

From the Washington Post:

… Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), meanwhile, pointed out that it would be “strange indeed” for senators who voted for North Macedonia’s 2019 accession into NATO — a group that includes Hawley — to suddenly oppose Finland and Sweden’s candidacy.

“Let’s be honest, who can deny the much stronger cases for Finland and Sweden?” Cotton said, arguing that those countries were “far larger, far more capable and far more strategically situated.”

Strategic isn’t always good. The Finnish border is about as far from St. Petersburg, Russia’s number two city, as Los Angeles, America’s number two city, is from the Mexican border. The U.S. would not appreciate Mexico joining an alliance led by Moscow.

The Finnish border used to be closer but the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939 to push it back. The Finns initially embarrassed Moscow, but the the Red Army reorganized and ground out a modest victory in 1940.

NATO member Estonia is even closer to St. Petersburg, only about 100 miles.

Unlike in Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO and thus where the U.S. can fight a proxy war without U.S. troops facing off against Russian troops, a Russian attack on Finland under Article 5 — “Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies” — a Russian invasion of Finland (or Estonia) would trigger collective defense obligations.

Hawley’s opposition was all the more striking given that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who opposed North Macedonia’s membership in 2019 and Montenegro’s membership in 2017, voted in favor of allowing Finland and Sweden into NATO.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the only other senator to have opposed the North Macedonia and Montenegro bids, voted “present” Wednesday, noting on the floor that in the wake of Russia’s Ukraine invasion, “I am less adamant about preventing NATO’s expansion with Sweden and Finland.”

Obviously, Mr. Putin’s War is seen as a disaster for the cause of non-interventionism in American politics by our handful of principled statesmen such as Senator Paul.

The Senate rejected Paul’s efforts to attach an amendment to the ratification that would explicitly state the United States’ Article 5 obligations to defend member nations would not supersede Congress’s constitutional right to authorize the use of military force.

Menendez said the amendment was “unnecessary” to protect Congress’s constitutional role. He told his colleagues it was potentially “deeply damaging” and “self-defeating to do anything that casts doubt on our rock-solid commitment to NATO.”

Heckuva job, Vladdie!

 
Hide 344 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. It would trigger jack because we can’t beat Putin in Estonia any more than we can in Ukraine.

    The only thing stopping Putin is his magnanimous nature or a nuclear war that would also go very poorly for our European friends.

    • Agree: Wade Hampton
    • Troll: Guest007
    • Replies: @Wade Hampton
    , @Ian Smith
  2. The Senate rejected Paul’s efforts to attach an amendment to the ratification that would explicitly state the United States’ Article 5 obligations to defend member nations would not supersede Congress’s constitutional right to authorize the use of military force.

    Rand showing himself to be the only Senator worth a damn yet again

  3. bomag says:

    Is there shadows of WWI here? Alliances made rather casually… for narrow reasons… timed moved on… things changed…

    • Replies: @Paul Rise
    , @Slim
  4. We’re ruled by insane suicide cultists. But they’ll shed the blood of millions of others before they shed their own.

  5. Goodbye, Iraq.

    • Replies: @bomag
    , @WJ
  6. When it comes to promoting war overseas, the two major political parties always manage to find common cause.

    • Agree: Charon, Daniel H
  7. Anonymous[175] • Disclaimer says:

    Hey Steve, your country is being conquered by foreigners. How are you in any position to judge Russia’s attempts to defend itself?

  8. Mike Tre says:

    “Heckuva job, Vladdie!”

    Uh, how is this Senate vote Putin’s fault exactly?

    • Agree: meh, TWS
  9. Anon[114] • Disclaimer says:

    I have to admit…these people in the senate are too stupid to avoid a nuclear exchange.

    Sure…they are greedy, duplicitous and venal…but also just really, really dumb.

  10. Rich says:

    Allowing Finland into Nato only means that if there’s a border skirmish in that far off, snow covered wasteland, we get to join the fight. Is it a good idea to set up nuclear trip wires in as many places as possible? Our genius leaders have managed to make nuclear war just a little more likely.

    • Agree: Charon, mark green
    • Replies: @TWS
    , @HA
    , @Esso
  11. nebulafox says:

    Looks like ensuring the outcome you most want to avoid by your own actions isn’t limited to American politicians.

    I wouldn’t be shocked if COVID-zeroism in China also turns out to backfire if Xi doesn’t successfully get attention focused elsewhere.

  12. I’ll be impressed when our leaders commit to defending the 1,954-mile border between the United States and Mexico.

    • Agree: Charon
    • Replies: @thenon
  13. nebulafox says:

    OT:

    Newt Gingrich visited Taiwan in 1997. At the time, the PRC was focused on their impending re-acquisition of Hong Kong and their economic development, so they weren’t happy, but they didn’t care too much. It helped that Gingrich was a member of the opposition party, which the friendly administration in the White House could disavow.

    Needless to say, neither factor held this time around. I’m sure the Chinese understand by now that Biden is senile and doesn’t control his own backyard, which helps keep things under control, but is really, really not the way I’d prefer for that to happen.

    The most interesting part of this has been to see how the establishment of the United States really was torn down the middle on this one between two competing impulses: to keep the old relationship with China that they profited from, and the romantic drive of their emotions. The result was a complete lack of coherence if you look through mainstream sources. Since everything mainstream is otherwise more in lock-step than they ever were in the face of increasing hostility from the American populace, this speaks volumes of how brittle that worldview can be.

    Anyway, I caught Carlson on TV speculating about Pelosi’s motives the other day. The thing about people like Nancy Pelosi is (unlike someone like Joe Biden, who is whatever party politics demands him to be at that exact moment) that they are what they were in the 1970s. If you view her and people like her through that prism, a lot of the seemingly nonsensical policies on everything from energy to crime makes more sense. There’s no evidence of any change in worldview, which in her case, might as well be taken out of a model UN meeting. I’m sure she really believes that her actions are done to defend “democracy” against “autocracy”, all the moreso in the context of the “attempted coup” of January 6th launched by supposed would-be autocrat Donald Trump.

    Don’t believe me? Look at the Marvel comic these people have produced about that. They really do view the world in such terms.

    The rub is, these are the same people who enthusiastically push forward what we call the “HR-ization” of the United States and would be thrilled to have a social credit system like China does. One can only conclude that the key to the implied mental contradiction is… that they really think they have a benevolent duty to look out for people that can’t look after themselves. This is “democracy” to them. The spirit of the classroom, not adult life.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  14. the uniparty really holding a grudge that Vlad changed their ability to dictate reality by proving us to be paper tigers in Ukraine eh?

    more reality checks on the way for the war party

    • Agree: JimDandy, Abe, meh
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  15. What did Pat Buchanon say: “Treaties are the conveyor belts of war.”

    Should have exited from NATO when the USSR went belly up.

  16. Anonymous[690] • Disclaimer says:

    Only if it’s a military invasion.

    But if hordes cross over as illegals or ‘migrants’, Finland will have to accept them all.

    • Agree: Rob McX, Gordo
  17. Wokechoke says:

    Some credit due to Hawley. He’s in favor of arming Finland and Ukraine though. He’s striking a necessary balance. Not quite isolationist but critical of overextending commitments.

  18. Acilius says: • Website

    The Finns have a much, much better conventional army than do the Russians, and a political culture that is unlikely to produce leaders who will exploit an association with NATO the way the Georgians exploited their candidacy in 2008. A Russian assault on Finland would be a precursor to nuclear war whether Finland is formally an ally of the USA or not. So I don’t see that we’re losing anything by admitting Finland to NATO.

    • Agree: Abe
    • Troll: Eric Novak
  19. Eventually, we’ll have a worse humiliation than in handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban. Then, no nation will value a treaty backed by the US. This should happen very soon.

  20. Daniel H says:

    NATO or no NATO millions of African/ME/South Asian migrants will not be swarming the borders of Russia, ever, but Putin’s disruption of the hydrocarbon/grain/fertilizer markets (and matters will likely get worse for the markets) has set millions of migrants on the march towards NATO countries. Camp of the saints is upon us. There will be no Europe to speak of within 30 years, except those that will fall under Russia’s hegemony. Putin will have the last laugh. Oh, and BTW, I heard that Ireland is threatening to join NATO too. That one really has Putin worried.

    • Agree: BB753
  21. Anonymous[305] • Disclaimer says:

    Master strategist Vladimir Putin

    What else were the Russians supposed to do though? The CIA has been running color revolutions in the countries surrounding Russia. Their obvious goal was to break up Russia.

    So I don’t have any idea what else they could’ve done. They had to stop the Ukraine from becoming a staging ground against them.

    It seems to peeve Steve that anyone would, you know, stand up for their own people. But I think this was pretty predictable.

    We know Steve will make smart aleck, childish statements that Vladimir isn’t doing good by his people, but he fails to provide an alternative strategy for protecting a homeland for future generations of Russians. Maybe being loyal to his own people is an alien concept to Steve.

  22. @nebulafox

    … There’s no evidence of any change in worldview, which in her case, might as well be taken out of a model UN meeting. I’m sure she really believes that her actions are done to defend “democracy” against “autocracy”, all the moreso in the context of the “attempted coup” of January 6th launched by supposed would-be autocrat Donald Trump.

    Don’t believe me? Look at the Marvel comic these people have produced about that. They really do view the world in such terms.

    Or they are packaging their show for what they know is a mostly simpleminded public that really does view the world in such terms.

    And back on topic: Steve’s take on The War Between Two Vlads is equally comic book and thus suspect as a show itself.

    • Thanks: Coemgen
    • Replies: @nebulafox
  23. Enochian says:

    I like the Finns a lot more than I like the Ukrainians, but I don’t like this.

  24. Steve gets bent out of shape when someone stands up to bullies. He’s like a McFly character who thinks the really smart thing to do is always submit to the Current Power Structure (CPS).

    Toadies to power are always jerks to those who resist the CPS. The act of others standing up for themselves is taken as a personal affront. It betrays their own lack of character.

    Thus comments like:

    Heckuva job, Vladdie!

    Think of a kid on a playground who is standing behind a bully, throwing taunts at someone who has finally stood up to the tyrant.

    • Agree: dimples
    • Replies: @James B. Shearer
  25. @dcthrowback

    more reality checks on the way for the war party

    Yes more reality checks are on the way for Putin.

    580 ghost drones to be exact.

    If Putin was a real man he would admit this was all a mistake and call it off.

    But real men don’t start needless wars just as real men don’t need height enhancing shoes or 1.4 billion dollar mansions.

    So have fun playing with all these new weapons that the Ukrainians will be testing for us.

  26. Thea says:

    Disappointed in Cotton.

    • Replies: @Ron Mexico
  27. Dmon says:

    “Unlike in Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO and thus where the U.S. can fight a proxy war without U.S. troops facing off against Russian troops, a Russian attack on Finland under Article 5 — “Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies” — a Russian invasion of Finland (or Estonia) would trigger collective defense obligations.”

    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-gives-austria-hungary-blank-check-assurance
    https://www.britannica.com/event/Anglo-Polish-Pact-of-Mutual-Assistance-1939

    What could go wrong?

  28. @nebulafox

    Pelosi called China’s bluff. Amazing. But it could come back to bite her.

    • Replies: @anon
  29. Thea says:
    @nebulafox

    Pelosi is eighty freaking two! Some people a decade younger have great-grandchildren.

    Surely these octogenarians don’t really run anything and are just puppets on an able-bodied wizard’s string.

    I’m grateful for what Trump did, but….If Trump truly loves America, he needs to step aside for our nation’s long-term well being.

    • Agree: FPD72
  30. Franz says:

    Show some sisu, all you Finns!

    Who would you trust guarding your kids — Sleepy Joe or Vlad?

    Sometimes you have to skip politics and trust you gut. As I recall, that’s what sisu is all about.

  31. Worry not Steve-o.

    Neither the West or Russia is really interested in Cold War 2.0.

    There will likely be ethnic unhappiness/contention in the Donbass area–much like Northern Ireland–for some time to come. (Nations continue to do a poor job at doing the one proven method for resolving ethnic contention–separating people.)

    But I’d bet that in ten or fifteen years or so when old Vlad is dead and gone, this war will mostly matter to the unfortunate families of the dead and maimed.

    I very much doubt the average Russian shares Putin’s fixation on restoring the Russian Empire. (Afterall, they don’t get to be the Czar of all Russians.) Like most folks, Russians want their family to do well, their kids to have good opportunities–and maybe be able to take a nice vacation. If there’s an imperial issue to be sorted out, I’d bet it would be wishing all the muzzie illegals would get the hell outta Russia.

    Russian boys all juiced up with patriotic fervor in 1914 quickly learned how unpleasant it is to be cannon fodder for some a*hole’s imperial program. As did the Austrian, German, French, British, Canadian, Australian and Turkish boys. Imperialism is peachy for the emperor. For most everyone else it sucks.

    A few asswipes like Vlad and some paper warriors in Washington have their fantasies. But unlike the Cold War there is no grand world historical ideological struggle here. And most people have grown up–and are not signing up.

    This is a big nothing–a big nothing unfortunately getting a lot of Russian and Ukrainian boys killed–not Cold War 2.0.

    The real battle in every civilized nation remains immivasion control and recovering eugenic fertility. Nations smart enough to bring in leaders–like Orban–focused on those things, will survive. Those that don’t will be rapping (and raping)–or bowing toward Mecca–in the 22nd century.

  32. A fun fact about Article V of the NATO Treaty is that it doesn’t actually require NATO members to go to war to protect the other members. Rather, each country is only required to “assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith . . . such action as it deems necessary.” What are the odds that if Russian tanks are rolling through Poland or Romania, Finland will decide that it doesn’t “deem it necessary” to go to war with the Russian Bear next door?

    Adding Finland is just a one-way burden on NATO (which is itself just a one-way burden on the U.S.).

    Article 5

    “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

    • Agree: Greta Handel
    • Replies: @Greta Handel
  33. Curle says:

    “with Republicans and Democrats linking arms for one of the most significant expansions of the alliance in decades in the face of Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine.”

    Sounds like the Iraq vote. What could go wrong?

    • Agree: anonymouseperson
    • Replies: @meh
  34. Curle says:
    @John Johnson

    Have you been following the war to date? You sound like that Monty Python knight issuing threats after his arms have been severed.

  35. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    Alliances cause wars.

    They don’t prevent them.

  36. Unlike in Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO and thus where the U.S. can fight a proxy war without U.S. troops facing off against Russian troops, a Russian attack on Finland under Article 5 — “Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies” — a Russian invasion of Finland (or Estonia) would trigger collective defense obligations.

    Did you read closely the actual text? It’s buried in one of the sub-articles at the NATO site you linked:

    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

    NATO members under Article 5 have no “troop” or “obligations.” Pat Buchanan — who went so far with his mischaracterization as to quote a truncated version — has already been called out several times in 2022 on this point.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
  37. Anon7 says:

    The Finnish border used to be closer but the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939 to push it back. The Finns initially embarrassed Moscow, but the the Red Army reorganized and ground out a modest victory in 1940.”

    That’s not all. After the Nazis broke their treaty and invaded the Soviet Union, the Finns broke their 1940 treaty as well and helped the Nazis.

    After the Soviets beat back the Nazis, they took another ten percent of Finland. And extracted a promise of perpetual neutrality in a new treaty. Which was extended with Russia after the CCCP imploded.

    • Disagree: Pixo
  38. I think it’s a great idea.

    And after Finland is admitted to NATO, if we get invaded by, say, Mexico – then Finnish troops are obligated to deploy to our Southern border and defend us, right?

    • Thanks: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Rob McX
  39. @Hypnotoad666

    I had already submitted my comment about this point when yours emerged.

    Sadly, the jingoes are getting pretty ripe.

    The MIC obviously wants people to believe that “we” have treaty obligations to “defend” as many foreign lands as practicable. But why do so many other Americans in 2022 apparently want to have Washington committed to another foreign war by a document written back in 1949?

  40. @Greta Handel

    * “troop obligations.”

    Sorry, ran out of time to finish editing.

  41. @John Johnson

    Cheering on the MIC as it tests new weapons in NATO’s proxy war with Russia is classic frat boy.

  42. JimDandy says:

    Yeah, Putin would rather see a US commitment to defend Finland than let a Neocon puppet government continue pulling their shit in the Donbas. And?

    • Agree: PhysicistDave, Mr. Anon
  43. “Heckuva job Vladdie!”

    Steve’s siloed approach to Russia v. NATO omits the globohomo elephant in the room. I hope with his new eyeball he’ll be able to widen his scope, take in the big pix. What became of his old, defective eyeball? Lambo demands treats.

    • Agree: AndrewR
  44. Zelensky opens door to same-sex civil partnerships in Ukraine

    Heckuva job, Voloddyye!

    (Vladimir, Volodymyr. Kiev, Kyiv. Stuff some marbles in your mouth, speak Russian, and out comes Ukranian.)

    And no, I don’t have a side in this War Between The Vlads. I just can’t figure out why Steve Sailer does.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  45. How does assuming responsibility for Finland’s safety help Americans? A good deal for the Finns. I am sure they wish they had had it in 1940 (this could have been America’s version of the insane pledge to Poland from the idiotic UK government). But how does any of this help Americans?

  46. Anonymous[313] • Disclaimer says:

    Yep.

    How wonderful.

    The very same USA – which signally *refuses* to actually secure its *own* borders against foreign invasion – has now committed itself to defend a snow bound remote and exceedingly long foreign border thousands of miles away.

    And, oh, Finns be sure to welcome the diversity and the diverse ways which the USA is certain to impose upon your ungrateful selves – the Japanese residents of Okinawa can tell you a thing about that.

  47. anon[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    You had the choice to laugh it off or say nothing but you put together a Twitter thread to simp for Pelosi and the globohomo world order.

    This could be some of your all-time best work Dave. Keep it up!

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  48. Rob McX says:
    @AnotherDad

    Nations continue to do a poor job at doing the one proven method for resolving ethnic contention–separating people.

    They only start doing that after a war, when millions have been killed. After WWII, there was a massive displacement of peoples. Ethnic Germans in particular were forced to move in their millions back to what is now Germany. These mass deportations did at least make war less likely by having more people live in countries that matched their nationality.

    Things were shaping up pretty well as Europe moved into the second half of the 20th century, with war between Western European nations becoming a less and less likely prospect. The obvious next step was to ensure as much homogeneity as possible and minimise the risk of conflict. So the rulers started importing millions of Africans and Muslims, and have been doing so ever since.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
  49. The U.S. would not appreciate Mexico joining an alliance led by Moscow.

    This kind of gives the game away, Steve. If we respected Russia’s backyard they way we expect them (and everyone else) to respect ours, the Ukraine War wouldn’t have happened.

  50. Abe says:

    Heckuva job, Vladdie!

    Ukraine has been a de facto NATO member for almost a decade now- or maybe you believe a couple convoys-worth of Javelins just happened to fall off some NATO trucks and the Ukrainians got really, really good with them after a couple weekends of shooting beer cans off a fence?

    With that said, provided neither country is used to stage either nuclear missiles or ABM systems this move does not strike me as unreasonable. Sweden and Finland are both advanced, mature democracies where the sort of 2-way grifts that got us into our current mess (e.g. IKEA paying Hunter Biden \$100,000/month for his invaluable management skills, experience, and sunny workplace demeanor) is unlikely to fly.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  51. Anon[301] • Disclaimer says:

    This war will last many years. And it’s going to be painful for us little people. Time to start preparing for hard times. One doesn’t need to go full on doomster prepper, but it’s sensible to rekindle some depression era frugal virtues. A good place to start is find a church that fits your beliefs and start participating.

  52. J.Ross says:

    Sweden and Finland actually have serious militaries precisely because they weren’t in NATO. Now successive governments will gradually yield to the same temptation seen in Western Europe: why spend money we need for programs when you know the Americans will pick up the tab?

  53. meh says:
    @John Johnson

    Yes more reality checks are on the way for Putin.

    580 ghost drones to be exact

    “Our miracle technology will surely vanquish Putin, this time!” says an increasingly nervous US military contractor for the 162nd time since the Ukraine War started.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  54. @Anonymous

    Hey Steve, your country is being conquered by foreigners. How are you in any position to judge Russia’s attempts to defend itself?

    Yes, why is Steve’s scorn directed at some foreign leader who is never going to invade us? The people we should focus on are the dumb Senators who signed off on expanding NATO to our detriment. Why is he so emotional about a conflict in deep eastern Europe?

    He didn’t even use such invective when our leaders invaded countries on the other side of the Earth!

    Steve is giving moral support to the very people who push invade/invite the world.

    • Agree: Pierre de Craon
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  55. @Abe

    • Replies: @Pixo
  56. @Anonymous

    What is putin doing that’s good for russians? Driving away young smart people? Killing young men by the tens of thousands? Ifnlicting structural damage to the russian economy that will take decades to fix?

    A lot of observers note that Putin doesn’t even seem to like ethnic russians very much (generally preferring Caucasians and Central Asians).

    Russia at present is the successor of the russian empire, a dysfunctional mess that turned into the USSR (another dysfunctional mess), so it’s no surprise that russia at present is a dysfunctional mess that does stupid things like invade neighboring countries in order to reintegrate them into a new dysfunctional mess

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  57. meh says:
    @Curle

    “with Republicans and Democrats linking arms for one of the most significant expansions of the alliance in decades in the face of Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine.”

    Sounds like the Iraq vote. What could go wrong?

    Whenever Congress is doing something “bipartisan” we are probably being, or about to be, screwed.

  58. Dumbo says:

    Steve’s comments on this war are weirdly tone-deaf. Is it a boomer thing?

    Sure, let’s defend the borders of Ukraine, Taiwan, Finland, Estonia. Any border but the U.S. ones.

    • Thanks: YetAnotherAnon
  59. AndrewR says:
    @Mike Tre

    Sailer has Stage IV PDS. If he stubs his toe he blames Putler.

  60. AndrewR says:
    @nebulafox

    I really don’t understand why the CCP is so committed to Zero COVID. Is it just a way to flex/expand their power? I am unable to believe that their COVID policy is increasing their political legitimacy in China.

  61. AndrewR says:
    @AnotherDad

    WW1 was anything but “peachy” for the Romanovs. Nor was it great for the Habsburgs, Ottomans or the Hohenzollerns.

    • Replies: @BB753
  62. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:

    There is about 50% chance that Turkish parliament will refuse to ratify. You see, Erdogan demanded extradition of many, many Kurdish activists. Which Sweden almost certainly refuse to do.

    https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/turkey-warns-freeze-sweden-finlands-nato-process-87014637

  63. @Anonymous

    “… but he fails to provide an alternative strategy for protecting a homeland ..”

    Russia has plenty of land, they don’t need more. What they need is better government.

  64. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    “Steve gets bent out of shape when someone stands up to bullies. ..”

    Russia looks the bully to most people.

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @ladderff_
  65. For more than 40 years after WWII Finland abutted the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union during this period was among the worst of the world’s bad guys. They sent their army into Hungary, Czechoslavakia and Afghanistan to ruthlessly suppress independence movements. They occupied numerous Eastern European countries. They had a policy of actively trying to export their harmful communist ideology. During this time period, nonaligned Finland had no NATO guarantees of protection. Yet, the bad guys in the Soviet Union, essentially, left them alone.

    The Soviet Union is long gone, eventually replaced by Putin’s Russia. Putin’s Russia is no evil empire. And certainly, Putin’s Russia is no threat to a nonaligned Finland.

    But now Finland, in an apparent case of Putin Derangement Syndrome, wants to join NATO and thereby make it a potential target for Russia’s nuclear weapons should a disastrous nuclear war occur. There was a time when countries sought ways to remove themselves from the potential target lists of the nuclear super powers. Not so with Finland anymore.

    What I find unusual in Finland’s efforts to willingly put a nuclear target on its back is the timing. Why take actions that will put yourself on Russia’s potential nuclear target list during a period when the risk for nuclear war is the highest it has been in 60 years. Indeed, some military experts on this site are predicting that the Ukrainian army is going to chase Russia’s army practically all the way back to Vladadovstok. Personally, I do not think that Russia will accept this or any other type of defeat in this war. So, if need be, I think they would use nuclear weapons to avoid defeat. (Fortunately, other military experts on this site, such as myself, think that Russia is winning this war and that Russia will not have to use nuclear weapons to achieve its goals. Paradoxically, whether nuclear weapons are used or not, in this war, the more Ukrainians win the more they lose.)

    Given that the risk of nuclear war is at its highest in 60 years, this military expert suggests to the Fins, if you want to join NATO join it after the risk of nuclear war has receded back to its normal, albeit too high, level. Doing so will increase the chances of ordinary Fins to become grandparents.

  66. Rob McX says:
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    In the make-believe world of international politics, you can only invade a country with an army and tanks. Immigration has a much more damaging and lasting effect than these invasions, but we’re somehow supposed to believe it’s good.

  67. Charon says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    When are they going to vote to defend the USA’s borders?

    When either hell freezes over, or the current (ruling class) is dislodged, whichever comes first. Which is to say, don’t hold your breath.

  68. @anon

    You had the choice to laugh it off or say nothing but you put together a Twitter thread to simp for Pelosi and the globohomo world order.

    I thinking maybe you didn’t read the whole thread.

  69. Sailer wrote:

    Strategic isn’t always good. The Finnish border is about as far from St. Petersburg, Russia’s number two city, as Los Angeles, America’s number two city, is from the Mexican border. The U.S. would not appreciate Mexico joining an alliance led by Moscow.

    Glad to see you are getting over your “war fever” and returning to your America First view of foreign policy, Steve.

    Sailer also wrote:

    Unlike in Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO and thus where the U.S. can fight a proxy war without U.S. troops facing off against Russian troops, a Russian attack on Finland under Article 5 — “Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies” — a Russian invasion of Finland (or Estonia) would trigger collective defense obligations.

    Well… here is what Article 5 actually says, in its entirety:

    Article 5

    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

    If you read it like a lawyer, you see that the perfidious Yankees built an awful lot of “wiggle room” into Article 5: e.g. “such action as it deems necessary.” Might include “the use of armed force” if the Party deems that “necessary.”

    Then again, might not.

    The dirty little secret is that the US would go to war to defend Britain, France, or probably Germany against Russia — not that any of them are in any danger from Russia! But the US will not go to war to defend the Baltics or Finland, and are not required to do so under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty, if read with a lawyer’s eye.

    The only purpose of this move is to further bait the Russian bear.

    Baiting Great Powers for no actual strategic reason has generally proven unwise.

    • Agree: Mr. Anon
    • Thanks: Greta Handel
    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    , @Jack D
  70. Pixo says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Russians with Attitude? More like Russian women with barren abortion-scarred wombs and Russian men with the world’s worst alcoholism rate, and both pathetically submissive to a personality-cult dictator-for-life.

    Russians with Aptitude leave as soon as they can. The people who know the Russians best—Poles, Finns, Estonians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Georgians—all want as little to do with them as possible.

    Beefcake Pinsen sees the men of Ukraine defending their home from Putin’s conscripts, Chechen terrorists and mercenary “Wagner Group” thugs and just feels so deeply inadequate by comparison. So he snarks against these literal heroes that make him feel so weak on Twitter. We see straight through you.

    • Thanks: Corvinus
  71. Altai says:

    It’s worth noting that the current PM of Finland who took the initiative to join NATO despite her party’s historical opposition looks like this and her age and appearance are chiefly how she rose so high so fast.

    The current Swedish PM who is apparently quite chummy and influenced by her Finnish counterpart and also from a party that has historically been less enthusiastic to join NATO, looks like this.

    Older but apparently not by enough.

    Both Sweden and Finland tend to be quite well-run and have chosen to not join NATO because they knew it meant they were on the frontline for a conflict between the US and Soviet Union (And later Russian Federation) and it meant you lose control of how hostile your relationship is with Russia. In practice it can never be better and almost certainly worse.

    Both countries have national service and both have quite good plans and military procurement specific to their doctrines to hold off a Russian invasion in conventional terms for a little bit before the army melts into the wilderness and launches a guerilla war campaign.

    And specifically for Finland they adopted this policy along with one which sought to have non-hostile relationships with Russia. (Finland even participated and won the Warsaw pact version of the Eurovision song contest) Thus you deter both with a strong military and strategy and by not seeking to provoke. It worked well for decades and despite both countries having better military defense.

    Now they will be forced into a situation that makes war with Russia more likely, demands they pay more of their budget for stuff that doesn’t help their defense much and requires them to participate and get blood on their hands in whatever horrible thing the neocons have planned in the Middle East next. And they have completely lost control of their diplomatic relationship with Russia.

    I strongly get the feeling that male social democrat politician wouldn’t have gone so deranged from social media exposure to have made this incredible mistake. I get the feeling that geopolitics doesn’t interest Ms Marin much and she doesn’t understand what she has done.

    Imagine if you’d been able to talk to the leaders of West and East Germany and ask if they’d like to be neutral, they’d only be so lucky not to be the front line for somebody else’s war.

  72. George says:

    The exchange of Eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea coast for Finland and Sweden is a really good deal for Russia.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  73. @SunBakedSuburb

    SunBakedSuburb wrote to John Johnson:

    Cheering on the MIC as it tests new weapons in NATO’s proxy war with Russia is classic frat boy.

    Americans, including Trump are stunningly naive about what NATO actually means.

    Here’s the deal with the devil made by the US satellites in Europe:

    The US taxpayer will pay for much of your national defense.

    IN EXCHANGE:

    You agree to a military occupation of your country in perpetuity by US troops.

    You agree to allow the US to meddle in your elections as it sees fit (vide Italy).

    You agree that the US will control your foreign policy.

    You agree to submit to the international financial, monetary, and trade agreements and institutions imposed upon you by the United States.

    You agree to buy much of your military equipment from the US Military-Industrial Complex.

    A lousy deal for the US taxpayer and for any European who yearns for national independence.

    But a great deal for the US Deep State, and its quislings in European capitals, not to mention the US Military-Industrial Complex.

    De Gaulle partially saw through the scam, but he was never completely able to free France.

    And everyone else is just not supposed to talk about the actual facts on the ground.

    Shhhhhh…. Don’t mention that the emperor has no clothes!

    • Thanks: EddieSpaghetti
    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    , @nebulafox
  74. @Pop Warner

    Pop Warner wrote:

    Rand showing himself to be the only Senator worth a damn yet again

    But he wimped out in voting “Present” instead of “No!”

    Josh Hawley just took a big step forward toward being the GOP nominee: he is now the only Senator who had the guts to stake out a position for “American First!”

    If a half dozen GOP Senators had voted “No,” Hawley would just be one in the pack.

    But now Hawley is a singular profile in courage.

    I’m feeling good tonight about having been born in the “Show-Me State”!

  75. @Altai

    Actually the Soviets offered Germany reunification/neutralization very early
    on after WWII; it was Adenauer personally who sold out to the US sugar daddy.

    Otherwise, good points – apart from losing sovereignty and ruining their budgets
    the Scandis will also lay waste to their own heirloom arms industries
    (which will probably hurt most in the medium term).
    Sweden has not been neutral for 100 years – it was a mutually-agreed-upon fiction;
    Finland makes little strategic difference – it´s marginal real estate that will only
    wither on a hostile border (I have seen what the Iron Curtain did) i.e. they have shot
    themselves in the clit big time.

    But isn´t it rich how Congress go full upskirted virgin on Muh Constitutional
    Rites ™ given they haven´t declared a single one of the over 200 wars they
    started since WWII?

    • Replies: @Houston 1992
  76. Clyde says:
    @John Johnson

    Putin and his rotten old bungler-gangsters make war from Moscow, while the young men do all the dying. Putin’s ego demanded this war for his place in Russian history books. I wish the Chinese would make a move on Siberia, to take thinly defended (actually none at all) Russian oil and gas fields. But with their birth rate collapse, they don’t have enough Han Chinese to push North of the Rus-China border. The one child policy was eliminated 2015, but all the CCP leaders got was nothing.

    Ironic that due to attacking Ukraine, that NATO with Finland will be much closer to Russia now. Putin has made NATO more solid, and has expanded it. NATO members need to ramp up their war industries to produce the weapons that will keep The Bear at bay. As demonstrated in Ukraine.

  77. Clyde says:
    @Pixo

    No one bordering the Russians likes the Russians. Russians don’t like Russians, going by the way they send tens of thousands of ethnic Russians to Ukraine to be killed and maimed. Isn’t this the Russian reputation since WW2? To overwhelm with massive artillery and massive numbers of canon fodder? OK boys do that old Stalin quote — “Quantity has a quality all its own”

    Putin’s idol is Stalin. Another Russian psycho who liquidated his top command (Generals) on the eve of WW2. (Yes born in Georgia)

  78. Of course this has little to do with Russia Putin or even Sweden and Finland.
    This is all about the collapse of the USA and the USA’s inability to act as the second biggest country in the world (to China).

  79. J.Ross says:
    @John Johnson

    >if Putin was a real man he would tolerate the loss of his navy, enemy bases on his border, and the shelling and disenfranchisement of ethnic Russians
    Uh, no.

  80. Russ says:
    @Joe Stalin

    Should have exited from NATO when the USSR went belly up.

    Should’ve dissolved NATO when the USSR went belly up.

  81. Maybe the best way to Finlandize Finland is to have it join an alliance that’s predicated on outsourcing a once-proud tradition of self defense to an addled and confused superpower an ocean away.

  82. Why show our colors one bit at a time? Let’s say “in your face!” to Russia, China and any other country that gets on our shit list. Commit ourselves to defending anywhere, any time. Leave no doubt, just as Britain did in 1939 by guaranteeing to go to war for Poland if it was attacked. That stopped Hitler in his tracks.

  83. Thugs understand only force.

    And Stephen Kotkin/Joe Pesci was right about everything regarding Russians, when he commented on Oliver Stone’s “deep thoughts” :

  84. @Thea

    The thing about Cotton is that he will always shrink under pressure.

    • LOL: Thea
    • Replies: @Ralph L
    , @anon
  85. @PhysicistDave

    You’ve been patient and polite refuting Jack D, HA, and their ilk on Ukraine/Russia, Dave. And you’re spot on here about Article 5.

    But this

    Glad to see you are getting over your “war fever” and returning to your America First view of foreign policy, Steve.

    sounds like something said copefully to a dumbbell relative at Thanksgiving. You don’t have to sit with a forced smile and forkful of turkey while he shares Exceptional! insight blaming the Establishment’s Russian boogeyman for the vote of 95 invertebrates in the Senate.

    Face it. When he squints at things outside the HBD tree fort that brought so many here, Mr. Sailer — brainwashed like the typical American — reflexively roots for Uncle Sam.

    What is heartening is to see so many other “Sailer fanboys” criticizing his take.

    {#62}

  86. bomag says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Goodbye Iraq

    As if it was ever somewhere.

    The place is overpopulated, so expect more such stories; other people’s fault, etc.

    First Gulf war was circa 1990; Iraq had 17 million people. Now it’s at 40 million. So much for slaughtering them into oblivion.

  87. bomag says:
    @Anonymous

    I guess we’re experts in the field.

  88. thenon says:
    @Stan Adams

    As a member country of NATO, why cant we get countries such as Finland to send forces to defend our southern border? I for one look forward to having horse riding blond men whipping Haitians on the front page of the NYT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67j1YjZWpsc

  89. @SunBakedSuburb

    People here are missing a big story about the real, Big Battle.

    US military inter-service rivalry.

    The US Way of War is to achieve not just Air Supremacy by absolute aerial dominance over the battlefield. Tremendous resources have been poured into Defense Budgets to achieve and maintain this, and the trillion-dollar-plus price tag of the F-35 program is just one tranche of expenditure.

    The US Army, bless them, has been developing its own “systems”, especially for the contingency of a Red Storm Rising war against a “peer adversary”, where control of the skies is not assured. These include weapons ranging from the Javelin anti-tank rocket to the HIMAR anti-Russian-colonel missile.

    Remember the war-nerd bloggers salivating about the 40-mile Russian column on the road to Kiev? How they fantasized turning it into another Highway of Death in a repeat of Saddam’s retreat from Kuwait? In US doctrine, that column is properly a fat target for the A-10 Warthogs. Similarly, the ammunition depots and command centers on Eastern Ukraine are properly a target for anything from F-16 raids to salvos of GPS-guided bombs dropped from “stand-off” range by B-1s.

    Given Russia has at least air superiority over Ukraine, Ukraine doesn’t have any hope of attacking Russian forces from the air, or at least apart from drones, and there is some indication Russia has neutralized some of Ukraine’s drone capability through electronic jamming or other means. Enter the HIMARS, which is largely carrying out a deep-interdiction mission for combat aircraft.

    HIMARS is a game changer. It certainly has been a combat demonstration that the United States Army is still in the game, especially in a direct conflict with Russia or China. There must be satisfied grins on the faces of many an Army general as of now. There also must be a number of Air Force generals with faces looking like that Cheney lady right now.

  90. @Dave Pinsen

    This kind of gives the game away, Steve. If we respected Russia’s backyard they way we expect them (and everyone else) to respect ours, the Ukraine War wouldn’t have happened.

    The men who fought the Cold War for decades knew that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union the Ukraine was a “no go” zone because the Russians have always viewed its Eastern regions as essentially part of the Russian cultural/ethnic/religious universe regardless of the current political borders. Whether Russia has a particular moral “right” to freakout about NATO encroaching eastwards to its borders or not, as a practical matter such expansion would always be provocative unless and until the political situation vis a vis Russia and the West had normalized to the point that it would have been Russia herself seeking NATO member status.

    The peoplx who run American foreign policy now have nearly all been matriculated through a postgraduate “school of government” wherein the purpose of the exercise is to coax “history” along its “arc” towards a very particular and bizarre moral end which they call “democracy.” The only acceptable outcome is rainbow flags flying from the point of every dome of St. Basil’s Cathedral.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
  91. @International Jew

    Maybe the best way to Finlandize Finland is to have it join an alliance that’s predicated on outsourcing a once-proud tradition of self defense to an addled and confused superpower an ocean away.

    Has anybody explained precisely what it is in Finland that Russia might want enough to cause it to invade Finland? (I mean, before Finland would have entered an alliance against Russia’s primary geopolitical adversary).

    Is it just now required to believe that Russia is a cartoon villain which is inclined to do evil things for the sake of their evilness, rather than out of some perceived self-interest?

  92. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    Non sequitur and a red herring all rolled up into one.

  93. @Cloudbuster

    We’re ruled by insane suicide cultists.

    “If you’re born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you’re born in sin. But if you’re born in socialism, you’re not born in sin.”

    -Jim Jones

    • Thanks: BB753
  94. Brutusale says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    We don’t respect our own backyard. Or do we call it el patio trasero now?

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  95. @nebulafox

    I wouldn’t be shocked if COVID-zeroism in China also turns out to backfire if Xi doesn’t successfully get attention focused elsewhere.

    This would be terrible for China and her people, but good for the rest of the globe.

  96. HA says:
    @Anonymous

    “How are you in any position to judge Russia’s attempts to defend itself?”

    If the US were respond to being invaded by rolling tanks into Mexico City and declaring that the Baja peninsula is now “ours”, I’d definitely be in a position to judge.

    How about you get back to us when that happens?

  97. @PhysicistDave

    Not really true. Look at the behavior of Britain and France since this began. Macron has tried talking to Putin several times, without success. Did the U.S. ask or order him to do this? Very unlikely. I give Macron credit btw for opening channels to Russia.

    Now look at Britain. Since Feb. 23 they’ve been the most belligerent country by far, with Poland a close second. Boris and his underlings have floated no-fly zones, have formed independent security pacts with Sweden and Finland, have given Ukraine the green light to lob bombs inside Russia, have suggested that taking back Crimea is a legitimate military goal, and have openly encouraged its citizens to grab a rifle and head to Donbass.

    Then there’s Boris doing laughable shit like this.

    The idea that the U.S. is stage managing all of this is utterly ridiculous. What’s more likely is that cynical European politicians are using the U.S. military backstop to behave recklessly.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  98. Jack D says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Baiting Great Powers for no actual strategic reason has generally proven unwise.

    #1 – Russia is not a Great Power anymore except in Putin’s mind. It’s a gas station with nuclear weapons.

    #2 There is a strategic reason. Russia has stated that it has “no choice” but to invade neighboring countries if Putin thinks that Russia’s interests are threatened by them (and he alone gets to decide what makes your country “Nazi”). But the reality is that it does have a choice. By upping the stakes, the possibility of Finland and Sweden being invade by Russia have just been reduced, just by signing a piece of paper.

    In addition, Steve is looking at the wrong end of the telescope – it’s RUSSIA that now has 813 more miles of border to defend from NATO. Russia’s defenses are already stretched. Their oil money is going to be going down down down in the future. Someday their friend China won’t be their friend. So 813 more miles of border to protect is the last thing that they needed.

    #3 This was punishment for Putin invading Ukraine. This will deter Russia from further invasions (e.g. Moldova) . Putin will have to understand that further invasions will have an even higher price and price that into his model. Putin is a rational player and responds to punishments and incentives. He invaded Ukraine because he was badly advised and wildly mispriced the costs and benefits but he’s not going to be fooled twice. Don’t mistake Russian bravado for what Putin is actually thinking.

  99. @JohnnyWalker123

    Never? That’s pretty obvious by now.

  100. TWS says:
    @Rich

    It’s not like our entire fighting force has been geared towards fighting in the desert for the last thirty or forty years. Fighting in subzero snowy forests should be a snap.

    • Agree: Rich
  101. HA says:
    @Rich

    “Is it a good idea to set up nuclear trip wires in as many places as possible?”

    Yeah, as if shutting the door to NATO isn’t waving a big white flag with a banner that says “Come and get it, Putin — it’s all yours and we won’t do a thing about about it!” You think THAT isn’t a trip wire? Ask a Georgian or a Kazakhstani how they feel about that. Yeah, it’s just “hackers” playing games — I totally believe that.

    And you can bet if Putin DID make a move on either Finland or Sweden, the fanboys would be faolling over themselves going “Honestly, what other choice did he have? Existential threat, I tell ya!”

    Again, whatever beef Putin has with NATO could have easily been taken care of without swiping a single inch of Ukraine, and without rolling a single tank there, and until Putin did that, in blatant violation of earlier Russian guarantees, Ukraine (not to mention Finland and Sweden) had a population whose “let’s join NATO” polling numbers were generally in the low 20’s and always out matched by the “no to NATO” crowd.

    Putin could have easily out-spent, out-spied, and out-bribed Nuland and Soros and that oligarch who bankrolled Zelensky. He came really close to locking up the whole country Belarus-style with Yanukovych, and would have had plenty opportunities to rinse-repeat, given that Ukrainians seem to have a color revolution with every election cycle. But instead, like a 6-year-old smashing the checkerboard after his first attempt to cheat fails, he just threw a tantrum and decided that a military invasion was the way to get things done. He and the fanboys — and the other useful idiots who now want to pretend how it’s NATO that’s setting up the trip wires — have no one to blame but themselves.

  102. Paul Rise says:
    @bomag

    There have been shadows of WW1 since 2014, the wars Centennial. 2 more years and the fun really starts is my estimate.

  103. BB753 says:

    Whenever there’s a need to defend the Narrative, commenters Jack D., HA, John Johnson and Triteia Laxa come out of the woodwork, whether it be COVID vaccines, Ucraine or any other issue dear to our globalist overlords. It makes you think…

    • Thanks: The Wild Geese Howard
  104. TWS says:
    @PiltdownMan

    Interesting they don’t show where the actual border lay before they shoved that thousand mile long red line east another thousand miles. We see tiny enclaves like kalingrad but not the border of flipping Norway

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
  105. @Jack D

    There is a strategic reason. Russia has stated that it has “no choice” but to invade neighboring countries if Putin thinks that Russia’s interests are threatened by them . . .

    * * *

    In addition, Steve is looking at the wrong end of the telescope – it’s RUSSIA that now has 813 more miles of border to defend from NATO.

    If you can’t see the incoherence between these two assertions, I don’t know what to tell you.

    Putin is paranoid about Russia’s interests because of impending NATO expansion, but now he has 813 miles of new border to defend from NATO? It’s the international edition of “it’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”

    Russia is not a Great Power anymore except in Putin’s mind. It’s a gas station with nuclear weapons.

    They will make us less dead than nuclear weapons launched from a nation with high GDP growth?

  106. @Acilius

    The Finns have … a political culture that is unlikely to produce leaders who will exploit an association with NATO …

    Not for much longer, if Barbara Lerner Spectre has anything to say about it.

  107. Paul Rise says:
    @John Johnson

    Not to dismiss the impact these drones might have, but that video doesn’t prove anything. Most videos we see from the warzone are propaganda.

    Also, I dont see how mass drone bombing works any better than mass air bombing unless you are willing to destroy the infrastructure of the target nation, which we arent willing to do because of civilian casualties. BTW the Russians are just slightly less reluctant to target civilians but also have taken pains not to just slaughter innocents (like US did in Germany and Japan in ww2).

  108. Mr. Anon says:
    @HA

    I take it that you’ll be joining up then, huh dips**t?

    Nuclear War will kill you just as dead as COVID, and after all that time you spent masked-up and locked down too.

  109. mousey says:

    Maybe we should worry more about our own borders and quit trying to antagonize a country that is on the other side of the planet.

  110. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jack D

    #1 – Russia is not a Great Power anymore except in Putin’s mind. It’s a gas station with nuclear weapons.

    Nice – quoting John McCain in one of the most insulting and dismissive things he ever said.

    You know – I hear that Israel is just Pornhub with nuclear weapons.

    • LOL: Russ
  111. anon[216] • Disclaimer says:

    Americans have stopped caring about Russia-Ukraine. Doesn’t make that smart, still . . .

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/poll-finds-only-1-americans-see-russia-major-problem

  112. Farenheit says:

    Finland has a fertility rate of 1.35 babies per woman (TFR). They, like most of Europe, is fastly heading toward a nursing home demographic structure.

    My view, if you care so little about your society and country to not be able to screw up the energy to sustain it, why should I?

    • Agree: EddieSpaghetti
  113. The Finnish border is about as far from St. Petersburg, Russia’s number two city, as Los Angeles, America’s number two city, is from the Mexican border.

    Cæsar’s anti-imperialist compromise: allow Finland and Sweden in in exchange for taking the US out. Their membership makes more sense than ours. Take “North Atlantic” out of the name.

    Sweeten the pot with Puerto Rican independence. San Juan can then join, and offer them Vieques. This isn’t contradictory. PR would be Spain’s version of French Guiana.

    Yes, NATO borders Brazil. On the North Atlantic, no less.

    • Agree: rebel yell
    • Thanks: Alden
  114. tyrone says:
    @Jack D

    It’s a gas station with nuclear weapons.

    …..right, a gas station that sells wheat ,fertilizer ,rare metals like platinum …..HEY! isn’t that a John McCain quote…..

  115. @Joe Stalin

    What did Pat Buchanon say: “Treaties are the conveyor belts of war.”

    Good line! Britain went to war in WWI over a vague treaty promise to Belgium given in the early 19th Century.

    • Replies: @HA
  116. @PhysicistDave

    Josh Hawley is (one) jolly good fellow.

    Missouri’s finest son knew the score.

    All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity

    — Mark Twain

    • Thanks: Russ
  117. It warms the cockels of my heart to know that there are borders in the world that the US government is willing to defend.

    • LOL: Rich, Adam Smith
  118. HA says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    “Britain went to war in WWI over a vague treaty promise to Belgium given in the early 19th Century.”

    You curiously forgot to mention the part where Germany decided to flagrantly violate that treaty because they were too cool to let a little “scrap of paper” get in the way of doing what they wanted, leading to what subsequently came to be known as the “rape of Belgium”.

    THAT is what Britain went to war over. Given all the historic parallels, it’s bizarre that you think that the “vague treaty” was what got Britain into that war, instead of the invasion and rape and flagrant violation. Fanboy logic at its finest.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Disagree: Houston 1992
  119. @Altai

    I get the feeling that geopolitics doesn’t interest Ms Marin much and she doesn’t understand what she has done.

    I thought she was mostly interested in nightclubbing, even though she’s a bit old for that at 37.

    The current Swedish PM who is apparently quite chummy and influenced by her Finnish counterpart…

    Aren’t both of them just more WEF criminal plants? Pretty sure both of them have pages on Klaus’ site.

  120. Mr. Anon says:
    @HA

    The British Government went to war because they had been itching to go to war with Germany for 30 years. The German invasion of Belgium was the pretext, but it hadn’t been that, it would have been another.

    And, BTW, clown, You ought to stop throwing around the term “fanboy”, given that you were a slavering fanboy of every imaginable repressive bio-security-state measure.

    • Agree: William Badwhite
    • Thanks: Brutusale
  121. @HA

    Yeah, as if shutting the door to NATO isn’t waving a big white flag with a banner that says “Come and get it, Putin — it’s all yours and we won’t do a thing about about it!” You think THAT isn’t a trip wire? Ask a Georgian or a Kazakhstani how they feel about that.

    You might also ask an American how they feel about that. I feel great about the US getting entirely out of NATO. We don’t need a trip wire in Europe or Asia for our security. We need a trip wire in Texas and California.

    • Agree: Rich, Rob McX
  122. @Greta Handel

    My “{#62}” remains Whimmed while Corvinus, Jack D, and HA (thrice!) have all since posted.

  123. pyrrhus says:
    @Cloudbuster

    All this to give US generals even more useless, demographically dying countries to boss around, at the expense of American taxpayers, while even those morons know we can’t defend any of these countries near Russia or even Europe in general….

  124. @Acilius

    The US Military presence on Russia’s borders is an act of War against Russia…Russia will respond and the escalation will increase from there…

    Fins like to tell themselves fantasies based what happened 80 years ago.

    The Russian Army could easily destroy the US Military in a conventional war with the US Military on Russia’s borders….Can the Finnish Military defeat the US Military in a conventional war on the Finnish border?

    But since you live in Fantasy Land…here is a nasty reality check:Finnish Women will be impregnated by Negro US Soldiers…..out come the mutant mulatos “Finns”….Finnish Men are Cucks….

  125. Steve – nowhere in your comment do you ask why American security is at stake in Finland. I don’t think you can even make a case that American security is at stake in Germany, France, or England.
    Why are we in NATO again? – I forgot.

    People in Brazil aren’t worried about Ukraine, Taiwan, or Finland, because:
    a. Their security is not at stake
    b. They aren’t powerful enough to do anything about it anyway
    c. They have their own problems to worry about
    d. They don’t have the crazy idea that they are supposed to butt into everyone else’s business

    All those reasons apply just as much to Americans as Brazilians. We don’t need to worry about Putin.

  126. @Curle

    Have you been following the war to date? You sound like that Monty Python knight issuing threats after his arms have been severed.

    Yes I have been following the war. It’s currently a stalemate.

    Just because I enjoy watching the Ukrainians blow up Orcs doesn’t mean I think they are taking ground.

    It certainly isn’t in “mop up phase” as described by one of the pro-Putin bloggers here.

    But then the pro-Putin bloggers were certain that the invasion would never happen and that it was all just Western propaganda.

    • Replies: @Curle
  127. @HA

    Yes…Vladimir Putin should have waited another 8 years…The Azov Brigade in the meantime allowed to slaughter Slavic Russian Infants in Donbas……

    The Ukrainian Goverment post-maiden coup has been a US puppet Goverment ruled by greedy Jew Oligarch’s….seriously-fuck off…

  128. @Pixo

    Russians with Aptitude leave as soon as they can. The people who know the Russians best—Poles, Finns, Estonians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Georgians—all want as little to do with them as possible.

    Correct and that is going to cause permanent damage to the economy.

    Putin is clueless when it comes to economics. This isn’t the Soviet days where they can lock in their smartest workers. I warned early on that is he clueless about imports:
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1650279/putin-russia-ukraine-war-pilots-save-spare-parts-ont

    Russians with in-demand skills can simply drive to a nearby country. Then by having a high wage job they meet a local woman and have kids.

    Why go back? Russian loyalty? Hilarious. Russian loyalty works best with a gun to your head.

    Beefcake Pinsen sees the men of Ukraine defending their home from Putin’s conscripts, Chechen terrorists and mercenary “Wagner Group” thugs and just feels so deeply inadequate by comparison.

    There is certainly an incel subset that seems to idolize Putin. I guess they identify with the fantasy of pushing buttons from their lair and blowing up men that don’t share their insecurities.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @ladderff_
  129. @HA

    Little Britain created “Belgium” to make sure neither France nor
    Germany would control the Schelde estuary (the only conceivable threat
    to the hallowed Thames one) and to keep them warring forever.

    By and by the kindergartners here are becoming a nuisance.

    • Replies: @Anon
  130. anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    Pretty nervy for any American to cast stones at any other country, Russia in this case, in light of the fact of the US invading, bombing, destroying how many countries by now? One loses track. Listening to all the self-righteous Americans denounce others for what they themselves are guilty of in spades is the embodiment of chutzpah. A nation of shameless, un-self aware boors.

  131. Anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:

    off topic –

  132. Kylie says:

    “Heckuva job, Vladdie!”

    Vladdie>Poopy!

  133. J says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Putin attacked Ukraine because he feared that NATO tanks would move nearer to Moscow and Russia’s heartland. But now NATO tanks will be positioned on its border with Finland, which is only 150 km away from Saint Petersburg on Route 84. It proves that it is easy to start a war, but difficult to foresee how it will develop. And we don’t know yet how the invasion of Ukraine will end.

    • Replies: @Rich
  134. @HA

    I give up–why am I supposed to care how Georgians and Khazakstanis feel?

  135. Ralph L says:
    @HA

    No, Britain wouldn’t accept another great power so close to the Thames estuary. It’s why they fought alongside and bankrolled the Dutch to get France & Spain out of the Low Countries for centuries after they lost control of Normandy and Calais. It wasn’t just because they were both Protestant.

    • Agree: Alden
  136. Anonymous[386] • Disclaimer says:

    In other news:

    In a deliberate and calculated act of provocation and aggression, Nancy Pelosi has just visited Taiwan.
    Surely, the only outcome of this will be to bolster Russian/Chinese economic ties to the maximum level possible – think of all of those natural resources diverted from the west – strengthen political ties between those two nations, and to utterly convince the Chinese leadership, if indeed they need convincing, that the USA can only be handled from a position of absolute Chinese military/industrial superiority.

    You have been warned.

  137. Anonymous[386] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    A year ago you despised Ukrainians.

  138. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    What’s the difference between a “kamikaze drone” and a missile?

  139. @John Johnson

    I don’t have illusions about Putin, but- in my view- he’s much smarter. True, he did make a huge mistake. But I think he’ll survive & somehow get out of this all.

    Theoretically, he could be assassinated (one never knows), but I don’t think that will happen. He’ll basically lose as European imperialist, but he’ll compensate that somewhere else, probably Asia.

  140. ladderff_ says:

    Steve as a very long time reader I swear it feels like two different people have been publishing posts under your name.

  141. @PhysicistDave

    Screw Rand Paul. No excuse for not voting NO.

  142. @Buzz Mohawk

    And no, I don’t have a side in this War Between The Vlads. I just can’t figure out why Steve Sailer does.

    Every analyst has their blind spots?

    The Zman and Natural News just posted MSM-tier takes on Taiwan.

    The New Atlas has been arguing that 91.1% ethnic Han China is some kind of multicultural paradise compared to the horrible racist US.

  143. Art Deco says:

    If I’m not mistaken, about five paved roads cross that border.

  144. @Whereismyhandle

    Fully agree with your first paragraph. NATO has shown itself to be completely ineffective in preserving what’s most important to the Globalist West in Ukraine (a partial list below):

    1) To protect the Ukro-Nazi’s right to commit genocide against ethnic Russians in the Donbas,

    2) To protect the cash flow from the Biden Crime Family’s grift with Burisma,

    3) To protect America’s ability to operate bio-weapons labs there to in order to test them on the locals

    Disagree with your second paragraph. There is nothing at all stopping Putin from accomplishing the goals he stated at the commencement of his special military operation.

    By the end of August, the vaunted AFU will have been crushed, the Donbas will have been liberated and Putin will be free to complete his full “demilitarization and deNazification” of the country. This will include the annexation of the Donbas oblasts, the entire Black Sea coast and everything from the northern border of Moldova (including Transnistria) eastward across to and including the Kharkivska oblast.

    The Poles can have the rest and Zelensky can enjoy his well-earned retirement in Israel.

    Then the Biden administration can, moving from triumph to triumph, declare Taiwan an independent country and trigger war with China. We will fight to defend Taiwan’s independence to the very last Taiwanese, just like we did with Ukraine.

    Afghanistan, Ukraine, China. What triumph will Biden achieve next? A modern Augustus Caesar.

    • LOL: BB753
  145. ladderff_ says:
    @John Johnson

    There is certainly an incel subset that seems to idolize Putin

    This is probably the worst look on the internet. As with “racists,” there are clearly a thousand keyboard cowboys dunking on “incels” for every actual individual who fits your hysterical dossier. It’s just weird, and rhetorically risible: is everyone who thinks your take is retarded first supposed to prove to your satisfaction that he gets laid?

    The worst part is that this sort of rhetoric is usually beneath this space’s standards, until Steve sets the tone for this topic with extremely uncharacteristic snark & schoolboy reasoning.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
  146. Off-Topic: Scott Alexander has a good Substack article out on the demographics of population decline: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/slightly-against-underpopulation?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

    Interestingly, he even talks objectively about dysgenics and IQ decline. Alexander (who is certainly a stealth race realist because he always follows the data), shows, however, that the only respectable way to get away with such talk (even for an “alternative” blogger-analyst), is to use “education level” as a rough proxy for forbidden categories.

    7. Dysgenics Is Real But Pretty Slow
    Another potential demographic shift in both types of country is shift among social classes / levels of educational attainment:

    In general, educated people reproduce less than uneducated people (although this picks up slightly at the doctorate level).

    The claim isn’t that fewer people will have PhDs in the future: colleges will certainly solve that by increasing access to education and/or dumbing down requirements. It’s a dysgenic argument where we assume at any given time the people with higher degrees have on average higher genetic intelligence levels. If they’re reproducing less, the genetic intelligence level of the population will decrease.

    There is some debate in the scientific community about whether this is happening, but as far as I can tell the people who claim it isn’t have no good refutation for the common sense argument that it has to be. The people who claim that it is make more sense, and have measured the effect in Iceland, an isolated population that it’s easy to measure genetic effects in. It seems to be a decline of about 0.3 IQ points per decade. If the American rate is close to the Icelandic one, this implies that the average US IQ in 2100 will be 97.5 by current standards, unless we get more mileage out of the Flynn Effect, in which case it might be higher (although the environmental Flynn Effect and genetic dysgenic effects seem to hit slightly different skills). I think societies are probably hyper-sensitive to small changes in average IQ, so I’m not excited about this, but I don’t expect it to directly be apocalyptic.

  147. For all the good that NATO membership would do.

    It seems like only yesterday that Putin’s best comrade, ex-President Trump (no friend to Ukraine) was talking about withdrawing the US from NATO, which no doubt made the Russkis think that frankly, the US didn’t give a damn, especially after Trump dickering over whether Ukraine should receive arms shipments approved by Congress (for which he was impeached, but found not guilty by the Senate.)

    However, we all seem to have forgotten about the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances signed at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe conference in Budapest, Hungary, just before Christmas 1994, whereby Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for assurances from Russia(!), the US, the UK, with limited support also from China and France.

    The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, “except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”

    However, it is now apparent that the Memo was not worth the paper it was written on.

    The whole debacle has shown that international diplomacy is not worth a hill of beans, and that the Charter of the United Nations is just toilet paper.

    Both the Russians and the Ukrainians have behaved badly since 1994, and it is difficult to have much sympathy for either side, but is there no global statesman who can cut a deal. You need someone who has specialized in The Art of the Deal. There is a guy who used to advertise expensive workshops on the art of negotiation in airline magazines. Perhaps he should be called in. His website promises immediate results.

    https://www.karrass.com/

    • Replies: @anon
  148. @Jack D

    A gas station with grains, meats, oil, metals, minerals, and timber that Germany, Italy, China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Africa and many other countries need to survive at something approximating “modern and advanced”, densely populated, industrialized society.

    Go down the list of countries: which of those countries could survive without US imports, and which could survive without Russian imports? Easy answer, and rather inconvenient for your childish, jealous, and grossly inaccurate characterization of Russia.

    Also, where are our daughters safer walking in a big city at night, LA / NYC / Portland / Chicago / DC / Baltimore / Cleveland / Detroit / Newark-Paterson-Camden-Trenton-Atlantic City NJ / Albuquerque …… or Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Vladivostok, and Ekaterinburg? Also an easy answer if you’re being honest.

    Where are most children learning and preparing for work and life fairly effectively in school (including real math and science), without destructive distracting perversion and anti-traditional, unhealthy sexual, racial, and political indoctrination, US schools or Russian schools?

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
  149. Ian Smith says:
    @Whereismyhandle

    Putin to Whereismyhandle: Mmmmm…very good, comrade. But little less teeth next time, da?

  150. @HA

    “Come and get it, Putin — it’s all yours and we won’t do a thing about about it!” You think THAT isn’t a trip wire? Ask a Georgian or a Kazakhstani how they feel about that.

    You have everything backward, as usual. Rather than rolling over to imaginary Russian aggression, our policy is to aggress against the Russians and then whine about Putin being evil when it all backfires against us. Since you mentioned Kazakhstan, you probably missed that we staged an attempt color revolution/coup there just six months ago. This caused the regime to beg Putin to send Russian troops to put it down. Kazakhstan is now linked at the hip with Russia. Heckuva job, Deep State idiots!

    [MORE]

    Scores of citizens and more than a dozen security forces personnel were killed last week as dissent that began over fuel prices swelled, while nearly 8,000 people were arrested.

    “Under the guise of spontaneous protests, a wave of unrest broke out … It became clear that the main goal was to undermine the constitutional order and to seize power. We are talking about an attempted coup d’etat,” Tokayev told the CSTO, which sent troops to Kazakhstan as the crisis unfolded, at his request.

    The Kazakh president, who has blamed the unrest on foreign-trained “bandits and terrorists”, said that a large-scale “counterterrorism” operation would soon end, along with the CSTO’s deployment, which he claimed numbered 2,030 troops and 250 pieces of military hardware.

    He also defended his decision to invite Russian-led troops into the country and said that doubts over the legitimacy of that mission stemmed from a lack of information. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/10/kazakh-leader-declares-attempted-coup-detat-over

    • Replies: @HA
  151. WJ says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Well, that was 2 trillion US tax dollars and thousands of American lives well spent. We invaded a sovereign country and had it’s leader murdered.

  152. WJ says:
    @HA

    We did something even more stupid and brutal in 2003. We went around the world and rolled our tanks into a sovereign country.

    • Agree: Old Prude
  153. @HA

    If the US were respond to being invaded by rolling tanks into Mexico City and declaring that the Baja peninsula is now “ours”, I’d definitely be in a position to judge.

    I’d bet that the inhabitants of Baja would vote in a plebiscite to become a territory of the U.S. by a wide margin.

    The Mouse that Roared has more than a smidgen of truth to it. See, for example, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

  154. Rich says:
    @HA

    We’ve avoided nuclear war since 1945 with what was the status quo. Why did we need Ukraine in Nato? We already advanced to several Warsaw Pact nations; the buffer was there. Ukraine could have been peacefully integrated into the EU, there was no need to push the Russians into invading. Would the US stand by if Mexico or Canada started making noises about joining a military alliance with China or Russia? Nuclear war is a real possibility now in Central Europe. Before 2014, before abrogating the Minsk Accords, before threatening to join Nato, the threat wasn’t as high. And there was an actual chance for cooperation between the West and Russia. No more.

    • Agree: Dnought
  155. nebulafox says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I disagree. Rewind the clock back to 1989. She’s doing and saying the same crap she was doing and saying in 2020 with Hong Kong.

    Besides, how much of the now 82 year old Pelosi’s track record in other areas suggests she thinks her public image is at risk?

    As far as the American public goes, I’d be cautious about dismissing them as a bunch of idiots. More average people seem to realize that China deserves more attention than Russia and that domestic problems deserve more attention than either than among our talking heads. Remember: Trump’s nomination was truly firestormed in February of 2016 by being willing to call a spade a spade on Iraq, and for suggesting that America might be better off picking and choosing what it does on a cost/benefit basis. Establishment attacks on him afterwards only fueled the fire.

  156. @Mike Tre

    Oh that’s just Little Miss Stevie’s lazy nonsensical throwaway dig against a man who is in every way superior to little miss Stevie. Its best we ignore the insecure chemo-befogged simp.

  157. Mitch McConnell is married to a Han Chinese woman with shady ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

    Mitch McConnell voted for Reagan’s nation-wrecking amnesty for illegal alien invaders in 1986.

  158. Since when did a “guarantee” of anything from the USA mean jackshit?

    What’s the last thing an American ally hears?
    “So long, sucker.”

    • Thanks: EddieSpaghetti
  159. anon[196] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    There is a guy who used to advertise expensive workshops on the art of negotiation in airline magazines. Perhaps he should be called in. His website promises immediate results.

    Is he good?

  160. @Hypnotoad666

    Interestingly, he even talks objectively about dysgenics and IQ decline. Alexander (who is certainly a stealth race realist because he always follows the data), shows, however, that the only respectable way to get away with such talk (even for an “alternative” blogger-analyst), is to use “education level” as a rough proxy for forbidden categories.

    He does touch on the problem with discussing “education level” as an proxy for intelligence – the elements who obscure talk about intelligence would absolutely insist that the decline in intelligence could be solved by more years of schooling. Boost “education level” and you have solved the problem that you’ve identified fairly easily. Right? Right?

    The issue with modern dysgenics seems to be manifold, or at least compound. High levels of formal schooling delay parenthood for the overwhelming majority of people who pursue such courses of study. For some percentage, the delay is “terminal” in the sense that they’ve delayed parenthood long enough that it never occurs for them (regardless of whether the issue is medical or social or both). Because of extraneous reasons, some fringe of society has imposed upon the rest of it the idea that it’s a great moral crime if there aren’t at least as many female physicists and astronauts and Indian Chiefs as there are males. So the delay of parenthood by formal education is applicable to both sexes, but more acute in the case of women since their window for complication-free childbearing is narrow and conflicts with the ordinary timetable of postsecondary education.

    At the same time, assortative mating has been normalized such that men and women with high rates of formal education (and attendant high, non-dischargeable debt) seek mates who also have high rates of formal education (and debt). The s0-called “Cinderella” pairings of Lawyer and Secretary and Doctor and Receptionist are no longer considered socially appropriate, whereas Doctor and Lawyer, Lawyer and Lawyer, and Doctor and Doctor are socially appropriate and socially high status. The issue of course is that the former pairings are conducive to above-replacement populations, while the latter are for all manner of reasons conducive to below replacement fertility rates. The Lady Lawyer or Lady Doctor doesn’t simply graduate from Law School or Medical School, she then takes on a low level, demanding job in the profession at least for a few years and work in part to pay down their high debt burden. The one child or so from these pairings may have a higher likelihood of inheriting high intelligence than the more numerous products of the Cinderella pairings, the latter probably produces more smart people overall. Of course, a 1964 Cinderella pairing may have been between the Doctor and a naturally intelligent Receptionist whose life script prioritized marriage and family to meet social expectations, while in 2022 it’s much less likely that such a pairing would be a match of two persons of relatively high intelligence due to the low social status of “receptionist” and “secretary” especially for bright women.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  161. nebulafox says:
    @PhysicistDave

    >Here’s the deal with the devil made by the US satellites in Europe:

    You know what Stalin did to the countries he occupied after 1945, regardless of what side they took in WWII? He didn’t just install thugocracies built on his own model. The Red Army, like the Wehrmacht before it, looted anything that wasn’t nailed down and shipped it back to the USSR. Some former Warsaw Pact countries have only truly completely recover from the systematic impoverishment meted out in the immediate post-war era in the last decade or two.

    I’m far from starry eyed about American history, but let’s not pretend NATO didn’t exist for a reason or that the Marshall Plan wasn’t a night and day contrast to the Warsaw Pact. The only thing deterred the USSR from marching across Europe and subjecting the rest of the continent to the same fate was a broad alliance encompassing the remaining part of Europe backed with American money and material.

    That being said… the USSR has been gone for 30 years. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not the Soviet Union reborn, either in terms of ideological inclinations or ability to project power. The military-industrial complex should have been dissolved the moment the Cold War ended. Unfortunately, you know how these things go. Bureaucracies never dissolve of their own free will.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  162. @Jack D

    Looking forward to the accession of the ukraine east of the Dnieper River, and the entire Black Sea coast of the ukraine, to the Russian Federation. That’s not Russian bravado, as I’m not Russian.

    Throw in South Ossetia’s request to join the RF next, then Abkhazia down the road. In light of current events, these and other peoples may decide it’s better to be part of a country that will have adequate affordable energy to exist at a modern civilized industrial level, than an alliance of deviants who won’t.

    You know, energy to run factories, operate hospitals, and adequately heat and cool their homes and schools, fertilize the croplands, move goods by truck or train, etc. What Germany, the uk, and most western/central European countries clearly don’t have but the Russian Federation does, and will.

    All the rhetoric about Putin and what he is or isn’t thinking, or about Russia’s problems and limitations, doesn’t change the life-and-death facts: Russia controls a great share of the resources needed for decent life as we know it, greatly disproportionate to their share of the world population or their people’s domestic needs. By contrast, other than the USA and Canada, most other countries in the world do not have fossil fuel / metal / mineral resources beyond their own people’s needs (to be exported or saved for future use). Other than the USA and Canada, very few countries will be able to keep going as currently constituted without consistent Russian supplies (especially countries that refuse to build substantial new nuclear power capacity to substitute for imported Russian oil and natural gas).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  163. Since when did the WSJ become so woke? Is it good for business?
    Their acronym WSJ should stand for Warriors for Social Justice.

    Here are some examples of some woke articles from the past week:

    1. Black Professionals Say Workplaces Have Changed Since George Floyd—but Not Enough
    Two years after Mr. Floyd’s murder, hard conversations about race are easier to have at work, many say. But some worry that companies have stalled in making bigger changes.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-professionals-workplaces-havent-change-george-floyd-11659127328?mod=ig_csuitereport

    2. Black and Hispanic Employees Often Get Stuck at the Lowest Rung of the Workplace
    A new comprehensive survey by McKinsey suggests that companies’ diversity efforts have largely missed the employees who stand to gain the most from them
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-hispanic-employees-stuck-lowest-rung-workplace-11659131490?mod=ig_csuitereport

    3. Companies Increase Efforts to Recruit Black Remote Workers to Diversify Their Workforce
    Some businesses are hiring from regions with greater Black populations. Others are training Black front-line workers for corporate jobs that can be done from home.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-hire-black-remote-workers-for-diversity-in-workforce-11659044060?mod=ig_csuitereport

    • Replies: @Simon
  164. Pixo says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    Woodley of Menie says dysgenics are even worse than this, partly because of increasing mutational load from higher parental age.

    I didn’t find his article that convincing.

    Ultimately the dysgenic trend for whites from negative selection for intelligence is tiny compared to the effect of low IQ immivasion. The non-hispanic pure white population is also shrinking due to interbreeding, and I would guess this effect may fully offset anti-IQ selection.

  165. @Brutusale

    American elites are okay with illegal aliens, coyotes, and drug cartels crossing our southern border, because they facilitate our elites’ desired demographic change, but they wouldn’t be okay with the Russia or China doing in Mexico what we’ve done in the Ukraine.

  166. @HA

    If the US were respond to being invaded by rolling tanks into Mexico City and declaring that the Baja peninsula is now “ours”, I’d definitely be in a position to judge.

    How about you get back to us when that happens?

    There were no tanks in 1847, but the U.S. military did occupy Mexico City in response to a territorial dispute then.

    It still smarts, per Charles Portis. https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1535476362064150528?s=21&t=dGo3p1bMDi_CboplmL8Kkg

    • Replies: @HA
  167. HA says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    “You have everything backward, as usual. Rather than rolling over to imaginary Russian aggression, our policy is to aggress against the Russians and then whine about Putin being evil when it all backfires against us.”

    Yeah, yeah, we know the spiel. If you want me to believe it, show me pictures of US tanks rolling into Kiev without government permission. Then we’ll talk. As it is, our “aggression” turned out, on closer inspection, to be pastries and Soros money, and allowing countries like Finland and Sweden and Ukraine to respond to Putin’s land-grabs by deciding that NATO was a pretty good idea after all. If you want aggression, I’ll show you Bucha and a certain snuff film featuring a castration that is currently making the rounds.

    “Since you mentioned Kazakhstan, you probably missed that we staged an attempt color revolution/coup there just six months ago.”

    I didn’t miss jack. Russia did indeed do a much better job regarding their usual policy of installing a Lukashenko/Kadyrov/Yanukovych stooge in a neighboring country who is then allowed to be as ridiculous and autocratic as he pleases so long as he does the genuflect/sujud thing to Putin, and while their puppet’s ham-fistedness did manage to spark a revolution, as happened in Ukraine, the Russians sent in troops to quell it so it didn’t succeed. However, the puppet now knows a debt is due, and he’s decided to try sitting on the fence — which should be proof enough even to the fanboys of how terribly Putin is doing, because if the Ukraine invasion had been the rout that Putin wanted it to be, Kazakhstan’s dictator wouldn’t dare give any indication of a spine.

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  168. @Pixo

    Russians with Aptitude leave as soon as they can.

    Not anymore, thanks to typically self-sabotaging Western sanctions.

    Beefcake Pinsen sees the men of Ukraine defending their home from Putin’s conscripts

    Russia isn’t fighting the war with conscripts, and the men of Ukraine are increasingly deciding discretion is the better part of valor. Which is good: I’d like to see them stop getting themselves killed.

    By the way, even lefty Amnesty International is starting to acknowledge the Ukrainian military’s war crimes.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  169. @RadicalCenter

    A gas station where you can buy food and other essentials?

    A nation-state minimart. Cool!

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  170. @AndrewR

    I really don’t understand why the CCP is so committed to Zero COVID. Is it just a way to flex/expand their power?

    There are a couple somewhat logical theories about Zero Cv I keep seeing.

    One is that Xi is using it to crush high-level internal political opposition. That will backfire if he loses the masses due to the troubles with the banks and real-estate market.

    The other theory is that Xi is using it as cover to reorient the Chinese economy to military production for war with the US.

  171. @nokangaroos

    the USA allows British Aerospace , Cobham to bid for USA contracts so perhaps SAAB will be allowed to bid for fighter, submarine contracts…? The outgoing six Collins class subs that Australians use are SAAB built.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  172. @nebulafox

    nebulafox wrote to me:

    You know what Stalin did to the countries he occupied after 1945, regardless of what side they took in WWII? He didn’t just install thugocracies built on his own model. The Red Army, like the Wehrmacht before it, looted anything that wasn’t nailed down and shipped it back to the USSR. Some former Warsaw Pact countries have only truly completely recover from the systematic impoverishment meted out in the immediate post-war era in the last decade or two.

    I’m far from starry eyed about American history, but let’s not pretend NATO didn’t exist for a reason or that the Marshall Plan wasn’t a night and day contrast to the Warsaw Pact.

    Yaeh, I do know the history, and Stalin was indeed a monster.

    On the other hand, the Soviet Union was devastated by WW II, and I don’t think it is realistic to think that Stalin was planning on pushing on all the way to the Channel. He actually pulled out of Austria, you know, without much trouble.

    In the Trotsky-Stalin vendetta, Stalin was the “socialism in one country” guy: Trotsky was the real threat to the world at large. The one good thing Stalin did for humanity was to arrange for the ice-axe in Trotsky’s skull in Mexico!

    What Stalin actually did after WW II was establish a cordon sanitaire around the USSR as a buffer against Germany and the West: the purest sort of geopolitical realpolitik. It’s not surprising that he erected in the captive nations the same sort of brutal dictatorship he had created in the Soviet Union: every indication is that Stalin was a True Believer, just like our friends HA, Pixo, Trit, Jack, etc. who all believe that they know what is best for the future of humanity.

    “Humanitarians with a guillotine” is the phrase.

    And there were lots of informed, strongly anti-Communist Americans at the time — most notably Senator Robert “Mr. Republican” Taft — who opposed the North Atlantic Treaty.

    In any case, whatever the case in the late 1940s, by the 1960s Western Europe could clearly defend itself. There was no reason for NATO to exist in perpetuity. Surely its “use by date” had passed by, say, 1970.

    • Agree: Dutch Boy
    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    , @nebulafox
  173. BB753 says:
    @AndrewR

    There are many possible explanations but these are my favorite:
    – As you mentioned, flexing the power of the State. Making sure citizens understand that the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese State are one and the same.
    – Perhaps they fear a nasty biochemical attack, worse than COVID. Coranovirii are common in the area but COVID caught them off-guard, possibly due to it being a lab creation and so a bit nastier than usual in its first instantiation.
    – Sheer bureaucratic stupidity. In case of a bio-attack, quarantines are the first measure they apply regardless of the severity of the virus or pathogen. In this case, COVID ( or rather, SARS-CoV-2 poses no threat to the population at large but they keep treating COVID as a killer disease.
    – Chairman Xi playing ball with the globalist western power structure and their Great Reset plans which were ushered in with COVID and the stabbies. He’s probably here just throwing them just a bone and biding his time to destroy said elites. Who knows?

  174. @Corvinus

    Non sequitur and a red herring all rolled up into one.

    Accurate if lengthy title for your autobiography, Corvy?

  175. Dnought says:
    @HA

    That’s nonsense. The violation of Belgian neutrality is not why Britain entered World War One. At the time that was populist fodder for the impressionable, which apparently includes you.

    https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/08/how-the-lights-went-out-all-over-europe-but-did-they-need-to-go-out-here-.html

    And boy, were military obligations under discussion, but not openly but in secret cabals, behind the backs of Parliament and even most of the Cabinet. Barbara Tuchman writes at some length in ‘The Guns of August’ about the years of secret conversations between Sir Henry Wilson and Ferdinand Foch about joint Anglo-French military arrangements, down to train timetables, rations and billets.

    The British were going to war with France against Germany, regardless. There was a reason the Brits put away hundreds of years of animosity against the French and signed the Entente Cordiale.

    • Replies: @HA
  176. BB753 says:
    @AndrewR

    That was the idea: destroy all big continental monarchies not in step with the Anglo-American Establishment. Even if it meant turning Russia red.

  177. @HA

    HA wrote to Hypnotoad666:

    [Hypnotoad666]: “You have everything backward, as usual. Rather than rolling over to imaginary Russian aggression, our policy is to aggress against the Russians and then whine about Putin being evil when it all backfires against us.”

    [HA] Yeah, yeah, we know the spiel. If you want me to believe it, show me pictures of US tanks rolling into Kiev without government permission.

    Russia was asked by two neighboring independent countries — the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics — to come to their aid to defend them against unprovoked aggression from an illegal puppet regime in Kiev installed by the US.

    Putin did so, after holding back for many years.

    Putin is in the clear under international law, just as the US was when it helped South Korea in 1950.

    Did either Putin or Truman act wisely in terms of the interest of their own peoples? I am inclined to think not, but their actions were legal under international law.

    You are so driven by your fanatical hatred of Russia that you refuse to acknowledge the actual, well-documented facts.

    And you still cannot believe that, unlike you, most of us here are on the side of neither Putin nor Zelelsnky (I just indicated my own criticism of Putin, which I have voiced many times): we are simply on the side of peace and the well-being of the American people.

    The killing must stop.

  178. Ralph L says:
    @Ron Mexico

    I’m sure he felt that.

    No need to get him in hot water.

    • LOL: Ron Mexico
  179. Rich says:
    @J

    The problem we’ve created is that if we station troops in Finland, the Russians, if hostilities were to break out, would have to immediately nuke the Finns. They couldn’t leave that large back door open. I always thought that when that nuclear war started, the Finns, up there in that snow covered wasteland, might be one of the small groups of humans that survived. Being neutral and all. No more. They get cooked with the rest of us now.

    • Replies: @HA
  180. HA says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    There were no tanks in 1848, but the U.S. military did occupy Mexico City in response to a territorial dispute then.

    Yeah, let’s point to 1848-era US/Mexico relations as the proper model of how neighboring states should behave. No, I say it’s good of the US that it at least made efforts to grow a little, and too bad Putin can’t do the same.

    And did Mexico City previously obtain assurances of territorial sovereignty in exchange for giving up nukes? No? Sorry, no dice.

    And we both know that it’s not the 1840’s we’re in danger of repeating here — it’s the 40’s that came a century later. That’s why we decided that respecting treaties and negotiation was far better than the “never again” mayhem that proceeds when governments resort to landgrabs and dismissing treaties as mere scraps of paper, only to swap them out with some loony Nietzschean make-your-own-meaning/morality schtick. I’m not absolving Hitler, but he became Hitler because he tapped into that strain of Germany rather than the far more benevolent strains he could have gone with, all of which predated him.

    And since I only have 3 comments an hour, let’s go with a lightning round of replies. I hope I kept all the names straight:

    WJ: “We did something even more stupid and brutal in 2003. We went around the world and rolled our tanks into a sovereign country.”

    So that makes it OK for Putin to do stupid and brutal things? Fanboy logic again! And remind me, what portions of Iraq got turned into the 51st flag on the American flag? And when it comes to invading a neighboring country on the pretense that it never should have existed and has no real standing other than a subregion, I think it was actually the guy whose country the US invaded who was saying that about Kuwait, so again, you got your priorities flipped around a bit there.

    Alec Leamas: “I’d bet that the inhabitants of Baja would vote in a plebiscite to become a territory of the U.S. by a wide margin.”

    I suspect you’re right about that (ironically, the strongest opposition might turn out to be the actual US citizens spending their twilight years there in hippie bliss). I think the local inhabitants of Guantanamo would also much rather become citizens of the US than trust their fates to the tender mercies of the Castro spawn if the US ever pulled out of that lease. Given the Russian military base that was being leased in Crimea, that’s perhaps an even more apt analogy. Even so, if the US were to send their little green men to hold a referendum there, and declare that region to be independent from Cuba, I suspect every single Putin stooge on this thread would recognize it as the naked land-grab that it is. But when Putin does it, it’s ‘no hay problema’.

    rebel yell: “You might also ask an American how they feel about that. I feel great about the US getting entirely out of NATO.”

    It all feels great until it doesn’t. We’ve had two world wars where we started out felling oh-so-great about how none of that was any of our business, only to get sucked in anyway. You want to fool me three times? No way. Letting Putin have his way with Crimea was not the solution to peace it was reported to be. Even Merkel now admits that. Anyone who trusts Putin enough to think that this won’t get even worse if he’s allowed to keep going probably deserves to have their feelings ignored.

    War for Blair Mountain: “Yes…Vladimir Putin should have waited another 8 years…The Azov Brigade in the meantime allowed to slaughter Slavic Russian Infants in Donbas……”

    Oh, here we go again with the “poor slaughtered Russian infants in Donbass”. Get it through your heads: it didn’t happen. At least not anywhere near like that. I mean, get a clue.

    the OSCE observed the situation in Donbass over the course of several months. They found that 90% of the violations were coming from the non-government-controlled areas. I.e. the Russian stooges.

    Here’s more on those Russian stooges and the mafia statelets they set up in Donbass, where they were allowed to loot, rape, and “liberate” anything of value.

    So stop with the poor-shelled-children-of-Donbass meme, or else, in all fairness, let the Ukrainians go on believing that the Ghost of Kiev was totally legit.

    Anti-Gnostic: “I give up–why am I supposed to care how Georgians and Khazakstanis feel?”

    As opposed to anyone caring how you feel? Again, blatant land-grabs and boundary redrawing has had a terrible record over the past century. Therefore, enormous efforts were put in place to try and prevent that kind of thing from happening again the third time around, and people are alarmed that one guy in Moscow wants to unravel so much of that. The fact that any of this has to be explained to you is reason enough for people not to care in the least about what you think.

    Rich: “We’ve avoided nuclear war since 1945 with what was the status quo.”

    Well, at least maybe you can explain to all the “we don’t need NATO” loons around here why ditching NATO might be a bad idea. We made those security assurances to Ukraine precisely because we wanted to avoid nuclear war and by getting them to give up their nukes, we did that. They did us all a solid by doing that, and now, thanks to Putin, the bill is due. As for why Ukraine needs to be in NATO, I already clearly explained, to the extent that it doesn’t need repeating, about how you can blame your boy Putin for all of that. It was never an issue until he made it one.

    nokangaroos: “Little Britain created “Belgium” to make sure neither France nor
    Germany would control the Schelde estuary (the only conceivable threat
    to the hallowed Thames one) and to keep them warring forever.”

    In that case, maybe Germany shouldn’t have signed on to that “scrap of paper” assuring Belgium’s neutrality. Once they did, they should have followed through and honored it. It’s really not that hard, and if explaining to you why something that is still referred to as the “Rape of Belgium” was a really bad idea, don’t complain about having to deal with children in the room.

    And last I heard, despite the continued stubborn refusal of Belgium to stop existing, France and Germany haven’t been warring “forever” for quite some time. I.e., it turns out treaties and agreements can be conveyor belts to peace, too — I mean as long no one decides to roll a bunch of tanks right through them.

  181. unwoke says:

    “Heckuva job, Vladdie!”

    Yeah, big guy, you’ve managed to piss off everybody from musty Mitch to nattering Nancy; even green Greta & oily AOC hate your guts (because those pussies don’t have any & you do!) Congratulations our hero, you’ve got all the right enemies! Every homo country (& c***sucker) in the world is lined up against you – you’re the man valiant Vlad! (you too, Josh!)

    • LOL: PhysicistDave
  182. Here’s Putin in his own words on Sweden and Finland joining NATO. I suspect the reason you rarely see these clips of Putin speaking in the American mainstream media is he usually sounds logical and reasonable.

    • Thanks: EddieSpaghetti
  183. @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    “The s0-called “Cinderella” pairings of Lawyer and Secretary and Doctor and Receptionist are no longer considered socially appropriate, whereas Doctor and Lawyer, Lawyer and Lawyer, and Doctor and Doctor are socially appropriate and socially high status. The issue of course is that the former pairings are conducive to above-replacement populations, while the latter are for all manner of reasons conducive to below replacement fertility rates.”

    Agreed. The days when doctors married nurses (who then had lots of babies) were better – if only because (in the UK) medicine is so female-dominated there aren’t enough high occupational status partners for all the lady doctors – currently over 50%, maybe 66% at med school.

    I only know one woman doctor with more than 2 kids, and she married a consultant (then gave up work).

  184. Anonymous[898] • Disclaimer says:
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Yes, why is Steve’s scorn directed at some foreign leader who is never going to invade us? The people we should focus on are the dumb Senators who signed off on expanding NATO to our detriment.

    It’s almost an admission by him that our country has been taken over by a hostile regime, one that we are powerless to oppose. So he puts the responsibility on Russia. But that is nonetheless unfair.

    Why is he so emotional about a conflict in deep eastern Europe?

    A subconscious atavism? Steve is one of the righteous Jews, but hatred of ethnic Russians can still run deep.

  185. @Jack D

    Jack D wrote to me:

    #1 – Russia is not a Great Power anymore except in Putin’s mind. It’s a gas station with nuclear weapons.

    Russia has probably the third most powerful military in the world (after China and the US) and, as you say, it has nukes.

    That does not make it a Great Power?

    Jack D also wrote:

    #2 There is a strategic reason. Russia has stated that it has “no choice” but to invade neighboring countries if Putin thinks that Russia’s interests are threatened by them (and he alone gets to decide what makes your country “Nazi”). But the reality is that it does have a choice. By upping the stakes, the possibility of Finland and Sweden being invade by Russia have just been reduced, just by signing a piece of paper.

    When people say they have “no choice” they always mean they have no other choice that they find tolerable.

    Russia surely has much more reason to be bothered about NATO in Ukraine (in effect, NATO has already been in Ukraine for the last eight years) than the US has had for its various interventions in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, and on and on in the US “near abroad.”

    Perhaps you are not familiar with the saying that before complaining about the mote in your neighbor’s eye you should think about the beam in your own?

    Americans need to shed their arrogance and look at their own behavior.

    No one thinks Russia was planning on hitting Finland or Sweden. But now their risk has increased, at least if actual NATO forces are installed in those countries.

    And as I and a couple other commenters have pointed out, Article 5 does not require the US to defend Finland: you’re a lawyer — read the text. In fact, the US will not go to war over Finland or the Baltics.

    The Finns are taking on an unnecessary burden and risk.

    It is very foolish to poke the Russian bear.

    Jack also wrote:

    #3 This was punishment for Putin invading Ukraine. This will deter Russia from further invasions (e.g. Moldova) . Putin will have to understand that further invasions will have an even higher price and price that into his model.

    The West provoked Putin in Ukraine for eight years — he showed incredibly more restraint than US leaders have ever shown in the history of our country.

    Putin will invade in the future wherever he feels it is in the interest of Russia.

    This war has been utterly fantastic for Putin:

    – The Russian people are rallying around the flag.
    – The war has strengthened Putin vis a vis the oligarchs.
    – The war has smoked out the Western “fifth columnists” within Russia.
    – The war has shown ordinary Russians how deeply the Western elites hate Russia and, indeed, you and other commenters here have shown the depth of that pathological hatred.
    – The war has shown the world and the Russian people how strong Russia is in terms of its basic economic strength and how weak the West is.
    – The war has proven that most of the world is no longer willing to fall in line with the demands of the US.
    – The war has therefore shown that the US hegemony is at its end — this war is the death knell for the American Empire.
    – The war has solidified a new “Law-Based World Order” on what Mackinder called the “World Island,” centered around China and Russia.

    I wish this war had never happened, because I hate war.

    But in terms of Machiavellian realpolitik, this war is a godsend for Putin and Xi and an utter disaster for the US ruling elite and Deep State.

    In a nutshell, in terms of world geopolitics: Russia wins and wins hugely; America loses and loses catastrophically.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Thanks: J.Ross, EddieSpaghetti
    • Replies: @Jack D
  186. @Houston 1992

    “the USA allows British Aerospace , Cobham to bid for USA contracts”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobham_(company)

    Both bits of Cobham now US-owned.

    In January 2020, the company was acquired by American private equity firm Advent International for £4 billion and Cobham Mission Systems was sold to Eaton in June 2021 for \$2.83 billion.

    • Thanks: Houston 1992
  187. Anonymous[898] • Disclaimer says:
    @George

    The exchange of Eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea coast for Finland and Sweden is a really good deal for Russia.

    How so?

  188. Anonymous[135] • Disclaimer says:
    @Altai

    The more women we have in the commanding positions, the more wars the world will experience. The kind that manages to get to the top tend to be the worst warmongers. They have no skin in the game of war, yet are too sensitive to the emotional propaganda.

  189. anon[345] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Mexico

    The thing about Cotton is that he will always shrink under pressure.

    Is Cotton a neocon?

  190. anon[345] • Disclaimer says:
    @Greta Handel

    Face it. When he squints at things outside the HBD tree fort that brought so many here, Mr. Sailer — brainwashed like the typical American — reflexively roots for Uncle Sam.

    If you care about the American nation, you should be rooting for Russia.

    • Agree: J.Ross, YetAnotherAnon
  191. Anon[717] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew

    Maybe the best way to Finlandize Finland

    What do you mean by “Finlandize Finland”?

    • Replies: @International Jew
  192. Anon[717] • Disclaimer says:
    @nokangaroos

    Little Britain created “Belgium” to make sure neither France nor
    Germany would control the Schelde estuary (the only conceivable threat
    to the hallowed Thames one)

    How can an estuary be a threat to another estuary?

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  193. Thea says:

    The U.S. would not appreciate Mexico joining an alliance led by Moscow.

    If only there was a way to coerce Mexico into doing this. Suddenly Washington would become serious about border control.

  194. Steve Sailer:

    “Heckuva job, Vladdie!”

    I am sure Putin is shaking in his boots. You and I know that the U.S.A won’t do shit!!!!! Yours is the most impotent boast ever. You are gloating over nothing. Russia has 6,500 thermonuclear warheads armed to I.C.B.Ms. At least 2,000 of those have been confirmed to be functional even by NATO estimates.(which is sayins something, since NATO, for PR reasons, underestimates Russia’s capabilities).

    What the U.S.A is doing is the best example of hubris and stupidity on a titanic scale. Let me use an analogy to explain the relation between the U.S and Putin. Every high school has that boy who is a handsome jock that gets the girls and gives all the dweebs wedgies. But there is always a masculine boy that is an outcast for being ugly, or unathletic, or poor, that can give jocko boy a seriously bloody nose or make him spend some serious cash on teeth restoration. The boy is not particularly popular, but he is strong as an ox and has some serious anger management issues. So one day the school’s Crown Prince decides that pushing around 99.8% of the boys was not good enough, and that he must achieve absolute supremacy. So jocko goes behind Angry Ox and tries to give him a wedgie. In the same movement, Ox turns around and hits jocko boy with a cross straight to the upper lip that makes 3 of jocko’s teeth to go flying in the air. So jocko’s rich hedge fund manager daddy has to spend 3 Grand on teeth restoration for his formerly handsome son, who can no longer get girls because of how ugly he is now toothless and after having been emasculated in front of the whole school.

    The U.S.A is basically the handsome jock that pushes everyone around, while Putin is the Ox kid, the only kid in school that can do something against jocko boy. Jocko boy can have a perfectly happy life pushing around the 99.8% of kids, but he is too greedy, and wants to also show his dominance over Ox Boy.

    Myself, I actually think that Russia can win a land war against the U.S Military without the use of nukes. But let’s assume that they can’t. Do you really think Putin will allow himself to be treated like the dictator of a Banana Republic taking orders from the Imperial Power(the U.S)? Of course not.

    Putin doesn’t want a nuclear war. He has made this abundantly clear. He is not suicidal. However, if things get so bad for him that he starts to feel *personally* threatned by the U.S, he will absolutely 100% use nukes. If America actually sends troops to Ukraine or Finland, Putin will not use nukes but will make a devastating attack on Americans to show that he considers this unacceptabel, and then dare Americans to escalate it. If America enters Russian territory, he *will* use nukes. Most likely, he use a small tactical nuke against the U.S Militaryl, killing some 20,000-30,000 Americans on the spot, and then daring Americans to escalate it, knowing full well that all the other powers in the World will side with him since the U.S actually entered Russia’s territory. Putin knows that Americans will not escalate and will have to live with the humiliation of 30,000 Americans killed on the spot because the escalation means essentially the entire continental U.S turned into a smoking sheet of glass with ~100 million Americans killed in one day. Another 50 million will die in the 3 years following that from cancer.

    I am the only one who thinks that this is an absolutely terrible situation. “Winning” moral victories against Putin is actually a terrible thing. The concept of “saving face” is one of the most accepted in internation relations since time immemorial.

    U.S. Vs Putin is like Rome Vs Carthage, except that this time there is no way to actually beat Hannibal because of the nature of modern warfare. This is a *catastrophe*.

    I want to remind everyone of the consequences of actually pushing Putin too far by reminding everyone of the classic scene that shows the detonation of a 20 megaton Russian SS-18 Subot thermonuclear warhead over Los Angeles. The scene of little kids in the park being reduced to steaming piles of Carbon in the fraction of a second should remind Americans of how dangerous the game that they are playing is. I think that everyone in Washington should be forced to watch this scene before any meeting about Russia to remind themselves of the consequences of what a serious blunder can do. I am not joking about this. Everyone in the State Department, Congress and Pentagon should be forced to watch this scene before every meeting about Russia to put things in perspective:

    • Replies: @Jack D
  195. Anonymous[305] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    It’s a gas station with nuclear weapons.

    Please don’t repeat lines from that traitor John McCain.

    You might as well say the USA is nothing but a chain of fast food joints with nukes.

    You people really are foolhardy.

  196. vinteuil says:
    @Anonymous

    I think this was pretty predictable.

    It wasn’t just predictable – it was predicted.

    For years, John Mearsheimer told everybody what would happen if “the West” kept on keeping on with their maniacal anti-Russian vendetta.

    Well, “the West” kept on keeping on – and Russia finally struck back.

    • Replies: @Professional Slav
    , @HA
  197. @Anon

    His point is that the primary object of British foreign policy has long been to keep one power from dominating continental Europe. Britain’s egging on of sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine is of a piece with this, as it drives a wedge between Germany and Russia and weakens Germany.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  198. Suomeen on viitattu :DDD

  199. Dutch Boy says:

    Europeans who thought we wouldn’t fight apparently did not notice the army we had in Europe (the 7th). How that army would have just stood aside during a Warsaw Pact attack is beyond me but maybe de Gaulle or Powell knew how. We missed a golden chance to remove our troops from Europe and leave NATO when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact dissolved, removing the threat which had justified NATO’s existence in the first place. NATO is just like every other government program: aspiring to immortality.

  200. Dutch Boy says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I had a BS session with a group of Europeans in Amsterdam in 1985 and commented that the USA should remove its forces from Europe and allow the Europeans to defend themselves. I got no disagreement from the assembled. They were all aware that Europe was perfectly capable of self defense. The continued presence of foreign troops is a corrupting influence on a country and should be tolerated only in extraordinary circumstances. Its basically a form of military welfare.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    , @BB753
  201. @HA

    The Brits didn’t give a shit about Belgium. Their blockade of the Belgian coastline was the cause of a mass starvation among the civilian population that would have become Biafran-like if future President Herbert Hoover hadn’t showed up. The Germans invaded Belgium, but the Brits starved them. I’m having a hard time figuring out who the bad guy is.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @HA
  202. Corvinus says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    You’re a master class in propaganda. Thanks for burying the lede Noo Yawk Times style.

    —On Wednesday, ETS told the state-run TASS news agency that Russians and Belarusians would be able to take the test remotely or in person in another country starting Thursday.—

    Furthermore…

    Upon subsequent inquiries for further clarification on the subject, ETS explained that due to US Treasury Department requirements, residents and citizens of the DPRK and Russia are not permitted to register for the exam or create an account. The restrictions affect not only Russian citizens but also foreigners permanently residing in the country.—

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  203. HA says:
    @Dnought

    “That’s nonsense. The violation of Belgian neutrality is not why Britain entered World War One.”

    Even if that were true, it would mean the earlier post claiming that Britain’s involvement in the agreements regarding that neutrality is full of it, too. But I didn’t see you complain about that, did I? Weird how that works.

    That being said, the fact that the Germans chose to “rape” a country aiming to stay neutral might well have triggered Britain’s entry anyway, with or without its participation in setting up that neutrality, so to that extent you might be right, but it doesn’t change anything. The point is: don’t go around raping and invading countries you agreed not to rape, whether it was in exchange for them giving up their nukes, or most any other reason. Is that really so difficult to get across?

    In fact, to the extent diplomacy (not to mention pastries and Soros money) is all you need to swing a country into your orbit — and according to the fanboys it is — let THAT be the upper limit of what is allowable, given that no tanks and no land-grabs are involved (given that last I checked, the Crimean peninsula was never claimed as yet another one of Alaska’s islands). It puts Russia at no disadvantage, given that Putin has access to just as many pastries as Nuland did, and his oligarchs can more than outspend whatever Soros (and/or Hunter Biden) ponied up or arranged in the way of funding for drag-queen library readings. The fact remains, your boy didn’t need to do what he did to get everything he wanted, and Germany would have been far better off that whole rape/invasion approach had remained the road not taken.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Dnought
  204. HA says:
    @Rich

    “I always thought that when that nuclear war started, the Finns, up there in that snow covered wasteland, might be one of the small groups of humans that survived. Being neutral and all. No more. They get cooked with the rest of us now.”

    Or else, they don’t get invaded in the first place which lessens the chance of anyone getting cooked in the first place. If Russia is going to go after Georgia and Kazakhstan next, then I see a curious pattern about which states it is choosing not to mess with. I suspect that observation comes as no surprise to the Swedes and Finns, and they see that as the greater good as opposed to whatever calculation-free assurances you could provide that their neutrality would reduce their exposure/fallout/direct-hit numbers so so as to push them into the survived group.

    Or, if we’re going to bank on calculation-free assertions, I’ll match yours with mine and lay out the suspicion that, should the nukes start getting tossed around, they’re not going to be wasted on a fringe country like Finland with or without NATO entry. See, we can both do that. In the end, we maybe ought to let the Finns and Swedes decide for themselves and they’ve done that. The same should apply for the Ukrainians.

    • Replies: @Rich
  205. @Corvinus

    I’m having trouble parsing the paragraphs you’ve quoted (Presumably? You haven’t used blockquotes for them.) there. Maybe you can clarify.

    The first paragraph says Russians and Belarusians will be able to take the test remotely or in person in another country starting Thursday. Does this mean they have to leave Russia to take test?

    The second quote says residents and citizens of Russian and the DPRK are not permitted to register for the exam.

    How can they take the test if they can’t register for it?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Corvinus
  206. @Dutch Boy

    Its basically a form of military welfare.

    It may look like that from the perspective of an American taxpayer. But when foreign soldiers are stationed in your country, it’s plainly military occupation. And I suspect that your group of Europeans back in 1985 and today would agree.

    {#212}

  207. HA says:
    @Bragadocious

    “The Germans invaded Belgium, but the Brits starved them. I’m having a hard time figuring out who the bad guy is.”

    To the extent that the Brits didn’t assassinate Hoover’s rescue of Biafra (or assassinate him later, like, say, the Soviets eventually assassinated Gareth Jones after he publicized the Ukrainian Holodomor) the answer should be obvious.

    And once you willingly choose to add “Rape of Belgium” to your CV — or in your case, attempt to extenuate it away — the “are WE the baddies?” discussion likewise becomes a pretty straightforward one.

  208. @vinteuil

    Interesting “strike back”, at the poorest nation in Europe. But Russian propaganda unironically tells their mouth breathing audience (plenty of them in the West) that they’re “striking back” against NATO, with generalissimo of holy Rus Kadyrov literally saying Russia is fighting NATO armies and taking NATO generals as prisoners. The gullibility of Unzite boomers never ceases to amaze me.

  209. @Curle

    Have you? A few big boy weapon systems that you can count on one hand have sent “the second army in the world” into complete dissaray. So much so their propaganda, often official MOD releases, are destroying those systems everyday, with corrupt hohols selling them to Russians (no photos though), footage of drones hitting random buildings with apparently those systems inside, etc. Laughable nonsense. Yet here we are.
    6 months, 20% of Ukraine occupied, 0.2% gained in the last month. Surely Vova is just taking it easy.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  210. nebulafox says:
    @PhysicistDave

    > The one good thing Stalin did for humanity was to arrange for the ice-axe in Trotsky’s skull in Mexico!

    Agreed. But Stalin still believed in the inevitability of the USSR pushing Communist ideology across the globe, and acted accordingly. The behavior of Soviet security services across all embassies in which they operated was consistent from the beginning of his rule to the end: subvert the stability of the society they were working in by all costs. Even if that society was helping them get off the ground, as was the case in the 1920s.

    Suffice it to say, the only reason the Red Army did not go further west was because of short-term military deterrence. Ironically, Stalin believed that in the long haul, the UK and the US would go to war with each other, so he figured he had time to strike! It was the failure of this to happen-and the desire to ensure that Mao remained subordinate to him as a satellite, among other factors-that shifted his attention to Korea.

    I’m not disputing that Stalin was far more out of the traditional Russian geopolitical streak than Trotsky was: everything going back to their radically divergent backgrounds explains that. But Stalin was still an ideologue who did believe in his mission. If he wasn’t, he would have listened to Beria in his final years and called off the long-term struggle with the US that Beria recognized the USSR couldn’t win. Beria wanted the Cold War to end in 1953, but had too many enemies to realistically take power and enact his agenda after Stalin’s death.

    (Interesting how the KGB would produce such types during the Andropov years. I suppose having access to all that information about the outside world does that to you.)

    >Surely its “use by date” had passed by, say, 1970.

    I disagree. The Red Army would have simply marched west if they didn’t know for certain it meant nuclear war, and this remained true until Gorbachev at the earliest. Different Soviet leaders had different takes on relations with the West and how world revolution was to be achieved, but nobody doubted the latter was a goal in the first place.

    The big difference between modern day China and the USSR is that the former *isn’t* interested in that. It poses problems for America in myriad ways, but it’s a fundamentally defensively focused power. For that matter, neither is Putin’s Russia: and even if it was, it has a fraction of the ability of the USSR to project power.

    The main threat to American citizens, above all else, lies in Washington DC.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  211. nebulafox says:
    @HA

    It’s unlikely Britain would have intervened if the Germans didn’t invade Belgium because the pro-Entente intervention camp wouldn’t have gotten a declaration of war in time before the Irish crisis exploded. Furthermore, the reason the Germans invaded Belgium was the insistence of the high command to follow the Schlieffen Plan to the letter because they thought that was their only chance at victory. This was done out of pessimism over Germany’s prospects (i.e, following that plan to the letter, despite it being 10 years out of date, was the only chance of victory), not optimism about the weakness of their enemies, so I don’t think a comparison to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine checks out. Putin’s problem was overconfidence, not underconfidence.

    As it turned out, the blockade did what four years of infernos in France and Russia couldn’t. Irony practically knows no limits when studying WWI.

    • Thanks: HA
  212. Rich says:
    @HA

    77 years without a nuclear war with the old status quo. Neutral Finland and Sweden, no invasions. As soon as Nato starts sniffing around first Georgia, then Ukraine, bullets and bombs fly. Has the threat of expansion of Nato resulted in peace? I guess if we’re both alive 77 years from now and there’s been no nuclear war, I’ll owe you drink. In the meantime, I think the expansion of Nato is unnecessary and dangerous.

    • Replies: @HA
  213. ladderff_ says:
    @James B. Shearer

    Yeah, so do Darren Wilson, those frat boys in UVa, George Zimmerman, and the McMichaels. We’re supposed to know better around here that how things look depends a lot on who’s painting the picture.

  214. HA says:
    @vinteuil

    “For years, John Mearsheimer told everybody what would happen if “the West” kept on keeping on with their maniacal anti-Russian vendetta.”

    Did he also mention it was an outcome that could have easily been avoided if Putin had had the staying power of a mid-level hack like Nuland? As in, he couldn’t even manage to outwit HER? And letting Putin pretty much walk away with Crimea hardly constitutes a “maniacal anti-Russian vendetta.”

    See, if you’re going to characterize that with hysterical hyperbole like that, then you’ve got nowhere to go if you need to describe the much more significant (if still insufficient) pushback Putin has gotten since. What do you call that —super-duper-maniacal vendetta with extra lemon-juice-on-a-paper-cut? Nah — it’s just lame. So next time, tone down the drama and leave yourself some cushion. Because if Putin IS stupid enough to go after NATO, you’re going to be glad you gave yourself some clearance.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  215. Dnought says:
    @HA

    In fact, to the extent diplomacy (not to mention pastries and Soros money) is all you need to swing a country into your orbit

    Uh, there was violence, bribery and and serious violations of Ukraine’s own constitution involved.

    That’s why it’s called a coup.

    Germany would have been far better off that whole rape/invasion approach had remained the road not taken.

    Actually the world would have been far better off if the UK and (eventually) the USA never got involved, because the war would have ended sooner with a German victory, and this planet would never have had to suffer through the Nazi and Bolshevik regimes.

  216. BB753 says:
    @Dutch Boy

    ” Its basically a form of military welfare.”

    My correction: it’s basically a form of military occupation.

  217. @nebulafox

    nebulafox wrote to me:

    But Stalin still believed in the inevitability of the USSR pushing Communist ideology across the globe, and acted accordingly. The behavior of Soviet security services across all embassies in which they operated was consistent from the beginning of his rule to the end: subvert the stability of the society they were working in by all costs. Even if that society was helping them get off the ground, as was the case in the 1920s.

    True enough: as I said, I think Stalin was a True Believer, just like some of our friends here who are True Believers in the neo-liberal/neo-conservative American Imperial Mission.

    nebulafox also wrote:

    Suffice it to say, the only reason the Red Army did not go further west was because of short-term military deterrence. Ironically, Stalin believed that in the long haul, the UK and the US would go to war with each other, so he figured he had time to strike!

    Well, that is really my point: as far as I can tell, Stalin really believed that if he could just protect “socialism in one country,” then the rest of the world would inevitably become socialist as a result of the “dialectical process of history.”

    A question still up in the air, you know. Socialists are doing pretty well in the West nowadays! Not so well in the countries that tried “actually existing socialism,” of course.

    Have you read details about how the Soviets thought and talked among themselves? They were absolutely paranoid about the capitalist West. My take is that their orientation really was (rather obsessively) defensive, even though they thought their ultimate victory was ultimately inevitable.

    Leftists are very, very strange people.

    I’d guess that the next generation of historians will start sorting this out with some objectivity now that the Communist aberration is behind us. It’ll be interesting to see their analyses.

    nebulafox also wrote:

    The big difference between modern day China and the USSR is that the former *isn’t* interested in that. It poses problems for America in myriad ways, but it’s a fundamentally defensively focused power. For that matter, neither is Putin’s Russia: and even if it was, it has a fraction of the ability of the USSR to project power.

    Yeah.

    Rather bizarrely, it is the American experience from 1776 to 1898 that proves that overseas conquests are not the road to power and riches. Beijing and Moscow have learned that lesson.

    Sadly, the American elite has not.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  218. @HA

    HA write to vinteuil:

    Did he also mention it was an outcome that could have easily been avoided if Putin had had the staying power of a mid-level hack like Nuland? As in, he couldn’t even manage to outwit HER? And letting Putin pretty much walk away with Crimea hardly constitutes a “maniacal anti-Russian vendetta.”

    Fr once, HA, you’re right: the neo-cons (AKA Trotskyites) have certainly remembered the art of subversion better than the fellows who now run the Kremlin.

    Yeah, Nuland outsmarted Putin.

    In the short term.

    But Putin has a bigger geopolitical view. And he is now proving that, in terms of the global chessboard, he can outsmart all you neo-cons.

    As I said to Jack D up above:

    The West provoked Putin in Ukraine for eight years — he showed incredibly more restraint than US leaders have ever shown in the history of our country.

    Putin will invade in the future wherever he feels it is in the interest of Russia.

    This war has been utterly fantastic for Putin:

    – The Russian people are rallying around the flag.
    – The war has strengthened Putin vis a vis the oligarchs.
    – The war has smoked out the Western “fifth columnists” within Russia.
    – The war has shown ordinary Russians how deeply the Western elites hate Russia and, indeed, you and other commenters here have shown the depth of that pathological hatred.
    – The war has shown the world and the Russian people how strong Russia is in terms of its basic economic strength and how weak the West is.
    – The war has proven that most of the world is no longer willing to fall in line with the demands of the US.
    – The war has therefore shown that the US hegemony is at its end — this war is the death knell for the American Empire.
    – The war has solidified a new “Law-Based World Order” on what Mackinder called the “World Island,” centered around China and Russia.

    I wish this war had never happened, because I hate war.

    But in terms of Machiavellian realpolitik, this war is a godsend for Putin and Xi and an utter disaster for the US ruling elite and Deep State.

    In a nutshell, in terms of world geopolitics: Russia wins and wins hugely; America loses and loses catastrophically.

    This round of the Great Game is pretty much over, and you neo-cons have lost.

    I’m an anarchist: I wish all the damned governments on the planet would just disappear and let us all live in peace. My sentiments are Thoreau’s:

    I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

    But I am also, as was Thoreau, enough of a realist to know that men are not yet prepared for it.

    And so the governments keep killing people.

  219. Jack D says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    There’s no contradiction because you are talking about 2 different time periods. The registration restrictions that existed before have now been lifted. Read the TASS article. You can believe TASS:

    https://tass.com/society/1488495

    Students in Russia and Belarus will be allowed to take some editions of TOEFL English tests and other tests of ETS company remotely, but not at test centers, starting August 4, a spokesperson at ETS told TASS.

    “Beginning August 4, ETS is updating its March 2022 policy and will now allow test takers in Russia and Belarus to register for the TOEFL iBT Home Edition, TOEFL Essentials and at home GRE tests

    Travel to another country will no longer be required. The tests can be taken at home. The only restriction is that they cannot be take at TEST CENTERS in Russia and Belarus due to OFAC restrictions.

  220. Jack D says:
    @Zero Philosopher

    Your tale of the Crown Prince and the Angry Ox is interesting because it fits with the psychoanalysis others have proposed for Putinists. You say that Crown Prince gets the girls and gives all the dweebs wedgies . Putinists were the dweebs RECEIVING the wedgies and in their imagination their hero Angy Ox Putin is going to take revenge on Crown Prince on their behalf.

    Sorry, Putin is no Angry Ox or Hulk. Putin is 5′ 6″ in his elevator shoes and lately he has been walking with a limp and his right arm appears partially paralyzed. So he is not going to take on Crown Prince, not in real life and not metaphorically either. All the Putin fanboys keep cashing the check that hasn’t been written yet and declaring that Putin has punched Uncle Sam in the teeth, when in reality he hasn’t laid a scratch on us, nor will he if he wants to remain alive and he knows this better than anyone.

    Nuclear weapons are useless as offensive weapon because no one dares to use them . Their only use is to turn your country into a vipers nest that no one dares to attack. Ukraine made a grave mistake giving up its nuclear weapons for this reason.

  221. Jack D says:
    @PhysicistDave

    This war has been utterly fantastic for Putin:

    One more “victory” like this and he will be undone. Putin will invade any country he wants in the future wherever he feels like it , using the army he no longer has, but he won’t as a gesture of “good will ”
    – that’s ’cause he’s just a good will kind of guy.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  222. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @Professional Slav

    Are you saying Russia is winning or losing?

  223. Dennis Dale says: • Website

    Shouldn’t it be “heckuva job, Brandon”? Putin giving up Finlandization to keep nato missiles out of Ukraine doesn’t sound half as stupid as Biden taking on the defense of Finland’s borders.

    I know someone living in Finland and nobody among regular Finns is looking to join nato.

    What Ukraine–ultimately our failed play–has revealed is the utter delusion Americans live in. The individual American thinks Putin is “losing” because he’s so unpopular–on Western TV. We’ve lost the ability to distinguish hype from reality.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  224. @TWS

    They do. The border with Norway is the yellow bit to the north of the red line. Prior to Finland joining NATO, it was the 830 mile long buffer state between Russia and NATO member Norway.

    • Replies: @TWS
  225. @Jack D

    Jack D wrote to me:

    [Dave] This war has been utterly fantastic for Putin:

    [Jack] One more “victory” like this and he will be undone.

    I have no dog in this fight, Jack. I just want the killing to stop. I do not care whether Russia walks away with any territory at all.

    I do care about the truth and about keeping the US out of this mess. But, mainly, I just want the killing to stop.

    You have made clear that that is not your main concern. You hate Russia.

    You are a neo-con, pretty much the same thing as hating Russia of course. You have bought in to the grand American Imperial Mission. You think that if Russian troops move across a border, it is a great evil, but I have never seen you morally condemning the dozens of cases where the US has done the same.

    You do have a dog in this fight, for reasons I frankly do not understand. I suspect that it is the same reason that, growing up in St Louis, I knew that I had better root for the Cardinals — I mean they were “our team.” And so guys like you root for whomever the elites claim is “our team,” which this week happens to be Zelensky.

    As Orwell said in 1984, we have always been at war with Eurasia (“always” meaning since the official line changed six months ago).

    I’m afraid that way of thinking just does not compute for me.

    I note that you did not bother to dispute any of the specific points I made: you just vented again your hatred of Putin.

    So, I’ll make another prediction: Putin will be around when Biden is gone.

    I have nothing invested in this (I don’t even want Biden gone before January 2025, since Kamala would be even worse!).

    So, here is your chance to vent your hatred for Putin again.

    But do you really think Biden will last longer? I mean not your emotions, but what you actually think?

    Your neo-con world is collapsing, Jack. The new Law-Based World Order may not be so hot either (as I said above, I am an anarchist — i.e., I put my faith in no government), but it will not be your World Order.

    You neo-cons are starting to look kinda silly — kinda like Mao suits or Nehru jackets.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
  226. Anonymous[138] • Disclaimer says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Yes, the war is over and Russia has won. The Russians have taken all the territory they want and the Ukrainians are too weak to take it back.

    (HIMARS is an annoyance not a game changer. The Kherson “offensive” will be a token affair “for show” with minimal casualties on both sides.)

    Plus Russia now controls the Dnieper river, which means it can strangle the Ukrainian economy at will. Whether it wants to or not, Ukraine will now become a Belorussia-style ally of Russia, with neither the ability nor desire to annoy Russia.

    Gaining Ukraine was well worth losing Sweden and Finland.

    I predict (1) a mass-exodus from Ukraine of Ukrainians who don’t like the new political arrangements (they will be replaced by Russians), and (2) all the expensive toys that the U.S. has given to Ukraine over the last couple of years will now be transferred to Russia.

  227. @Greta Handel

    Greta wrote to me:

    Face it. When he squints at things outside the HBD tree fort that brought so many here, Mr. Sailer — brainwashed like the typical American — reflexively roots for Uncle Sam.

    Well, it’s curious: I am genuinely interested in why some of the commenters here are so incredibly hateful towards Russia.

    In some cases, they are, no doubt, foreign nationals with historical beefs against Russia: I think this is true for Bardon Kaldian and I suspect it is true for HA. Some of them may even be paid or unpaid agents of a foreign power — Ukrainian Hasbara, so to speak (our friend HA?). And some may make a living off the US Deep State or the US Military-Industrial Complex.

    But none of that is true for Sailer. As far as I can tell, for Steve it is simply that in his and my generation, you just did root for “our team.” I grew up in St. Louis, Missouri which was (and I suppose still is) a huge baseball town. If you did not root for the Cardinals… well, you better stay quiet about it! I literally cannot recall anyone ever expressing support for any team the Cardinals competed against.

    One year, the Cards played in the World Series against the NY Mets, and the phrase in St. Louis was that the Mets were “pond scum.” I casually mentioned to my mom that of course the Mets were a great team (or they would not be in the Series) and were hardly “pond scum.”

    Mom could not understand how, as a son of St. Louis, I could deny that the Mets were pond scum! And this was decades after I had moved to California.

    Beyond that, part of maturing intellectually when Steve and I were kids was figuring out which other countries were or were not on “our side.” I remember figuring out that India was not on “our side” since it had good relations with the USSR and that France was pretty iffy, since de Gaulle had the effrontery to think that he could pursue an independent foreign policy.

    Anyone who dissented from this official line must just be too stupid to figure out the intricacies of international politics!

    We see that with many of the Putin haters here who are convinced that guys like Dave Pinsen are just weak mentally, even though Dave obviously knows much more about the subject factually than any of the Putin haters.

    Still Dave does not accept the Party line as to who “our side” is, so this can only be due to Dave being stupid.

    Human beings are… interesting.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter, Russ
    • Replies: @Russ
    , @Ron Mexico
  228. @Anon

    Neutralize it, render it harmless, etc. Look up Finlandization. During the Cold War it was a thing.

  229. Anonymous[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes, the war is over and Russia has won. The Russians have taken all the territory they want

    Seriously?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  230. Simon says:
    @ginger bread man

    Since when did the WSJ become so woke? Is it good for business?
    Their acronym WSJ should stand for Warriors for Social Justice.

    Good point. In fact, although the topic is different, I did a double take at one of today’s WSJ headlines, which made me wonder if I was reading the Times:

    Several 2020 Election-Result Deniers Advance in Races
    Many Republicans who support former President Donald Trump’s false claims of widespread 2020 election fraud are winning GOP primaries….

    • Replies: @Alden
  231. @PhysicistDave

    Thanks, in particular for noting the Exceptional! hypocrisy:

    […] but I have never seen you morally condemning the dozens of cases where the US has done the same.

    Below’s a reply to Jack D that I posted under Mr. Sailer’s “Putin Using Nonwhites to Abuse Whites in Ukraine” (May 24, 2022):

    ***

    This doesn’t sound like the toughest guy in the HBD tree fort, does it?

    The blood of the dead Ukrainian civilians is on Putin’s hands and on the hands of all of his enablers. Even one civilian murdered in cold blood is a war crime but there is not one, there are thousands.

    More like the weeping of a crocodile.

    Back under Mr. Sailer’s April 28 “Russia’s Weakness Makes It Dangerous,” the author candidly reconciled (#121) this ongoing Ukraine obsession with his general nonchalance about Washington’s Exceptional! wars: he doesn’t much care when those dying and suffering are of a different race.

    I also asked the White-knightwashing Jack D:

    How about you, Jack? Have you ever expressed any opposition to Uncle Sam’s destruction of other people and places beyond wryly detached Noticing of the consequent influx of immigrants?

    You’ve never replied, despite being reminded.

    ***

    He hasn’t since, either.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  232. @Dave Pinsen

    Churchill in I think 1936, I paraphrase:

    “For 400 years our policy has been to oppose the strongest, most dominating power in Europe and particularly to prevent the Low Countries (Belgium/Holland) falling into the control of such a power … note that it does not matter who that power is … Spain, France, Germany… thus through the centuries we have kept our liberties and maintained our life and power.”

    Alas, the dominant power is now the EU, and who runs that? The same Blob that runs the Tory and Labour parties in the UK?

  233. @Anonymous

    Good points … but you both left out it´s reinsurance against the next
    color revolution in Kazakhstan – the oil provinces on the Caspian are just
    as Russian as the Donbass (it was idiotic not to annex them during the
    breakup in the first place, but no one imagined the Jews will stop at nothing).

  234. Anon[926] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Your tale of the Crown Prince and the Angry Ox is interesting because it fits with the psychoanalysis others have proposed for Putinists.

    I know it’s popular now and all — they did the same for Trump — but isn’t it a violation of their own professional ethics with these remote diagnoses through communing with the New York Times or whatever they pretend they’re doing?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  235. @Anonymous

    “Yes, the war is over and Russia has won. The Russians have taken all the territory they want and the Ukrainians are too weak to take it back.”

    As someone who wants the war to be over, that’s the equivalent of the sports commentator, in a close soccer match with five minutes left and your side a single goal ahead, proclaiming the game is won – tempting fate and simply asking for two late goals from the opposition.

    There’s the real war and there’s the propaganda war, and each can affect the other – the Ukrainian defence of Kiev against the coup-de-main was real, and the propaganda generated from it also had real effects in the weapons sent by NATO countries (as in WW2, there would have been no point in sending weapons had the recipients been about to surrender).

    The DPR forces haven’t taken all of Donetsk – AFAIK they are at Bakhmut/Artomovsk, Slovyansk/Kramatorsk are the last cities of Donetsk. Then the two republics will have the autonomy promised by the Minsk Protocols.

    But things have changed with the “everything but war” sanctions, arms supplies, intelligence feeds from NATO – not to mention the bombardment of cities like Donetsk with both artillery and anti-personnel ‘butterfly’ mines, which can only be considered attacking the civilian population. I imagine the entire Black Sea coast is now in Russian sights, and a land bridge to Transnistria.

    Wading through the propaganda from both sides is hard. The Allied side (Russia/DPR/LPR) tells me the last fortifications in Donetsk will soon be pierced and beyond them the way to the Dneiper lies open. Ukraine/NATO tells me that once HIMARS have degraded the ammunition dumps and logistic facilities between Crimea and Kherson sufficiently, it’s all go all the way to Russia.

    As Ghan-buri-Ghan rightly put it – “big fight, and who will win?”.

    My money is on Russia, but I don’t think the bookies are anywhere near paying out yet.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  236. Jack D says:
    @Greta Handel

    This is called “but what aboutism” and was a favorite Soviet ploy. “But you are lynching Negroes!”

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. The US has made mistakes in the past but Putin isn’t making mistakes – he fully intends to commit war crimes and his only regret will be if he doesn’t get away with them.

    • Troll: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Greta Handel
  237. Jack D says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    not to mention the bombardment of cities like Donetsk with both artillery and anti-personnel ‘butterfly’ mines, which can only be considered attacking the civilian population.

    You blame Ukraine for this , but your link says this:

    Determining whether the attack was carried out by Ukrainian forces, or whether it was a ‘false flag’ attack or even friendly fire by Russian forces or local militia, as some have suggested, is likely to be difficult.

    Given who has been committing war crimes in this war it’s more likely the Russians, but you assign this to the Ukrainians based on zero evidence.

    These mines are an annoyance but regardless of who dropped them they are nowhere near the worst atrocity of this war. I think the Rushists are getting all excited about them because now FINALLY they have a war crime that they thing they can pin on the Ukrainians (so far based on no evidence).

    BTW, the Russians have STILL not given the Red Cross access to the prison where the Ukrainian POWs died – the US believes they are stalling while they plant evidence. Remember that for decades the Russians maintained that the Katyn Massacre was a German atrocity -it was only when the Soviet regime fell that they stopped lying.

  238. Jack D says:
    @Dennis Dale

    nobody among regular Finns is looking to join nato.

    Pauline Kael said she didn’t know how Nixon got elected since none of her NYC intellectual friends voted for him.

    Finnish Support for NATO Membership Jumps to 76% in Latest Poll

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-09/finnish-support-for-nato-membership-jumps-to-76-in-latest-poll

    Could it be that the “someone” that you know is the kind of person who shares your views (and his friends are the kind of people who do too) so that he is not a reliable indicator? In any case, a survey of one person is not a very reliable survey.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  239. Slim says:
    @bomag

    And if the Chinese had shot down Archduke Ferdinand Pelosi’s aircraft before it landed in Taiwan…

    • LOL: Rob McX
  240. Corvinus says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    The first paragraph is from your Russians With Attitude site. They left out an important caveat. Russians and Belarusians who live overseas are still able to register and take the test. There is a prohibition in those two countries, so if they want to move forward in their studies, it would behoove them to leave.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  241. Jack D says:

    What’s interesting here is I think that the unz consensus is that the US should NOT sign up to protect Finland but the Senate voted 95-1 in favor. It goes without saying that most Sailerites are not on the Democrat side in most Senate votes but here is a measure that had overwhelming bipartisan support. So either 95 out of 100 Senators are wrong or you are wrong.

    And if you are right (which personally I doubt) how are you ever going to get to a situation where your views will carry the day? I can see flipping the Senate (indeed the House and the White House too) to R because the balance is poised on a knife edge but how are you ever going to get from 95-1 to even 51-49 the other way. You would have to turn 50 senate seats, half the Senate. Not just to R but to isolationist. That strikes me as close to impossible.

    I think y’alls best bet is jut to move to Russia, which most of you seem to like better anyway. No homos there. Putin with his beefcake photos is definitely not gay. Being a top doesn’t make you gay.

  242. @Jack D

    No, Jack, that’s “but what aboutism.” The subject is your hypocrisy.

    Neocon propagandists, under enough pressure, usually emit that nonspecific

    The US has made mistakes in the past

    line. Which is no more sincere than the sobbing about the Ukrainians being ground up by Wash•• — oops, Putin! — now.

    But thanks for finally acknowledging, in your dissembling fashion, that you have never expressed any opposition to Uncle Sam’s destruction of other people and places beyond wryly detached Noticing of the consequent influx of immigrants.

  243. @Bardon Kaldian

    Apparently this is not true, if you can believe the usual fact checkers… the written apology is the part that pushes it to not believable. They wouldn’t do that.. the settlements just hand out money with no further action and are intended to make the liabeled party go away quietly, take the money and we media grandees keep up our bullshit. But if you can find a source that proves it.. that would be dandy.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  244. @HA

    If you believe “rape of Belgium” propaganda, which came right out of the British foreign office, you need to pick up a (non-British) history book. Do you also believe babies were skewered on German bayonets? That was another British whopper.

    And the Brits deserve credit for not killing Herbert Hoover? Welcome to the big bowl of crazy that is the UR commentariat.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  245. Juvenalis says:
    @Acilius

    The disastrous “Finlandization” scam is finally ending. Russians lie as they breathe. Russian military operational strategies have already treated Finland (and Sweden) as if they were NATO members for decades. “Neutrality” is just a propaganda term pushed by the Kremlin as an information warfare tactic. “Finlandization” of the sort USSR/Russia/Putin demands of neighbors is more akin to neutralization.

    Decades of brainwashing by Moscow finally is wearing off in Finland (although there are still many old leftist/anti-NATO politicians around who were KGB/FSB assets from those wonderful days of “Finlandization” when the Kremlin would get to sign off on lists of acceptable politicians Moscow wanted in power in Finland)…

    Retired Finnish intelligence colonel Martti J. Kari believed Moscow’s lies about NATO in the 1980s, being part of so-called “Treaty of Friendship” between Finland and USSR:

    Sad that some Kremlin useful idiots in the U.S. remain [willfully?] ignorant in their blind worship of Lil’ Vova Putin and his AIDS/Abortion Empire aka Russian Federation!

  246. Juvenalis says:
    @Altai

    It’s worth noting that the current PM of Finland who took the initiative to join NATO despite her party’s historical opposition looks like this and her age and appearance are chiefly how she rose so high so fast… I get the feeling that geopolitics doesn’t interest Ms Marin much and she doesn’t understand what she has done.

    It’s worth noting you are extremely ignorant and/or a shameless liar, on multiple fronts, as Prime Minister Sanna Marin was not the reason public opinion in Finland dramatically reversed in favor of joining NATO (and polling consistently has shown that if it were only up to men, Finland would have joined NATO a long time ago). A PM is not a dictator and Marin did not support joining NATO until the Finnish people did. But if you are a Russian, that would explain why you do not understand how any kind of government functions except the autocratic despotism that has prevailed in Russia since Mongol times.

    Finnish foreign policy is not the domain of the PM but of the President of Finland, 73-yr-old Sauli Niinistö. Perhaps his “age and appearance” are how he rose to the position, but not in the way you Russian propagandists seek to falsely imply is behind the policy change in Helsinki. Like all Finnish men, President Niinistö has served in the Finnish Defence Forces, and “understands” what the Finnish people collectively have decided to do, after decades of fickle women obstructing Finnish NATO membership.

    https://yle.fi/news/3-12437506

    In the May poll, 81 percent of men and 72 percent of women support a Nato application. That’s up from 71 percent of men and 53 percent of women in March. In the March poll, almost a third of women were still unsure of their position, but many have now turned toward Nato.

  247. @Jack D

    I remember way back when, I used to respond to Corvinus, until I realised he wasn’t arguing in good faith and was just wasting people’s time.

    On this subject, you don’t argue in good faith either. On this subject, I don’t engage your posts (this an exception because you are replying to me) any more, indeed I skim past as I do with HAs, because I know I won’t learn anything from them.

    On this subject, you assert that only Russia can commit crimes, and any apparent Ukrainian crimes are committed by the Russians to smear the Ukrainians. On this subject, it’s pointless reading, let alone debating you.

    I try to get a view of what’s actually happening, not tell a morality tale. FWIW, I imagine the unpleasantness is probably 50/50 with maybe a bit more, motivated by revenge for the invasion, on the Ukrainian side. When the guy who runs Ukrainian field hospitals tells his medics to castrate Russian prisoners, even if he apologises the following day (after being doubtless told not to say it on record), you have an idea of the emotions aroused. I’m sure these emotions are shared by more people than a single doctor.

    When a doctor goes wrong, he is among the first of criminals” as Sherlock Holmes put it. Wasn’t the recent Al Qaeda head a doctor?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10636597/Ukrainian-doctor-tells-TV-interviewer-ordered-staff-CASTRATE-Russian-soldiers.html

  248. Corvinus says:
    @Jack D

    “Could it be that the “someone” that you know is the kind of person who shares your views (and his friends are the kind of people who do too) so that he is not a reliable indicator? In any case, a survey of one person is not a very reliable survey.”

    I take that advice. You really should as well.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  249. @Jack D

    Remember that for decades the Russians maintained that the Katyn massacre was a German atrocity [ ]

    Yes … but this time the lying Jew is on the “other” foot.

  250. Esso says:
    @Rich

    You may feel a bit apprehensive at this point, wondering about what this will cost you. But look at it this way: This border is the place where memories are made. It’s not just fun in the snow, there are challenges for all seasons.

    And you have to look what it gets you: from the archipelago of fjells in Saariselkä to lake Saimaa: lakes, bogs, and some more bogs, only interrupted by moraines and rocky hills. There is forest everywhere. The east side of Kymenlaakso between lake Saimaa and the Gulf of Finland, where most of the mechanized action is to be expected, is quite pretty. The Russian occupied Suursaari in the gulf has great views and dilapidated charms, very much like an island out of the computer game Operation Flashpoint.

    On the Russian side of the border there are pristine, thick boreal forests and clear blue lakes there and there. The sky seems wider there, and the people are very soulful and sympathetic.

    • Thanks: Rich
  251. @Inquiring Mind

    So the question was, which countries can survive well without imports from Russia? Which can survive well without imports from Rah-Rah-Yoo-Es-Ay?

    We await your answer.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
  252. Esso says:

    Thanks for the quick ratification and the almost unanimous support for our membership. And the discount on those F-35 airplanes.

  253. @Anonymous

    You’re right, they should take back the rest of the Black Sea coast of their borderland, as well as a land bridge to the Russian sliver Transdniestria.

  254. @Jack D

    The Senators are wrong, as usual. Do you really want to stick with that approach — either 95 senators are wrong or we’re wrong — given what the rest of us know and think about the murderers, thieves, liars, and deviants in the “united” states congress?

    You seem to be vouching for the honesty, morality, loyalty to the American people, concern for our safety and liberty, common sense, realism, and sound judgment of US senators. That helps clarify things quite a bit, showing us where you’re coming from — so thanks.

  255. Alden says:
    @Simon

    Drudge has this headline about Kari Lake.
    Election denier “wins” election.

    I really hope the Trump allies win big in the mid terms. I hope Trump runs again and becomes president again. For two reasons . The liberals hate him. The liberals hate me, my family and every White person on earth.

    A survey for 2 state assembly men sent me a text. California. 2 candidates, both men, Hispanic and Jewish surnames; both civil rights attorneys working for non profits. And both trying to out do each other in woke insanity.

    Abortion rights, LGBQT rights, help for working families. Which means more help for immigrant families on welfare. So father/baby daddy can continue to work for wages so low they literally wouldn’t have a roof over their heads if it weren’t the mother and kids welfare and government housing .

    Environment environment environment which means abolishing gas fueled furnaces stoves hot water heaters and of course cars in favor of electricity. Maybe the intention is to give away all those 80K electric cars to working families on welfare.

    The survey was like a Babylon Bee satire about liberals.

  256. Jack D says:
    @Corvinus

    Thanks. There’s no one whose advice I would trust more than yours.

    You know, I was shocked when I found myself agreeing with some of the things you have said about Ukraine. Generally speaking, I disagree with you on everything. But I guess even a stopped clock is right once in a while. If I happen to agree with you (and with 95 out of 100 US Senators) on certain issues, I’m just going to have to accept it.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    , @Corvinus
  257. @meh

    “Our miracle technology will surely vanquish Putin, this time!” says an increasingly nervous US military contractor for the 162nd time since the Ukraine War started.

    No one has said that.

    It’s currently a stalemate.

    Putin is the one that thought the war would last 2.5 weeks. 580 ghost drones will make it even more apparent that he isn’t getting his way. Ukraine is also getting more HIMARS which are causing major headaches for Russia’s supply lines.

    The best way out of this is for the FSB to put a bullet in Putin’s head. No one wants this war and especially not the Russian military.

    But keep cheering Putin and his needless war. I’m sure you were on here with the other pro-Putin losers telling us that the war would never happen.

    Putin can seemingly do anything and his army of keyboard losers will cheer him on. YEA PUTIN KILL THOSE KIDS YEA TAKE THAT BLOOMBERG

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  258. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Putin would use them alright.

    I have no doubt whatsoever he would unleash nuclear Armageddon and take the world out with him if the neocons unleashed a second Barbarossa style attack. Something that you are shilling for.

    You simply don’t understand the man you love pontificating about.

  259. TWS says:
    @PiltdownMan

    For goodness sake. That frozen bit in the actual Arctic is absolutely nothing compared to the gigantic gap between there and Estonia. The Russians would have laughed themselves sick if NATO tried to march an army through there. There is a bit of a difference you might have noticed between the Barents Sea area and the rest of the entire planet.

  260. How many Russian orcs can you fit into a shack before blowing it up?

    Answer: Not enough.

    More evidence that Putin is using body doubles:
    https://nypost.com/2022/08/04/ukraine-pushes-putin-body-double-theory/

    • Replies: @Box Boiderdeck
  261. Mark G. says:
    @Jack D

    You would have to turn 50 senate seats, half the Senate. Not just to R but to isolationist. That strikes me as close to impossible.

    Any future move away from foreign policy interventionism will come from future financial constraints. We had the Boomers in their peak earning years and paying taxes. From here on out they will be collecting retirement benefits. Due to the dysgenic effects of our welfare and immigration system, the younger generation is ill prepared to generate the same level of tax receipts for the government. Add to this the problem of the increased interest payments on the national debt as the Fed raises interest rates to fight inflation. Maybe we could afford a huge military in the nineteen fifties when we still had our industrial base, a smarter and more productive population and low levels of debt but we can’t now. A smaller military in the future will result in a less interventionist foreign policy since we won’t have the military power to play policeman for the world.

  262. nebulafox says:
    @PhysicistDave

    > Stalin really believed that if he could just protect “socialism in one country,” then the rest of the world would inevitably become socialist as a result of the “dialectical process of history.”

    Stalin believed that enough that he didn’t see the need to follow the Trotskyite policy of actively confronting the world. This is already on display with Stalin’s favored strategy in 1920s China, which would come back to haunt them when Chiang Kai-Shek revealed he was a step or two ahead of the Soviet intelligence and advisors on the ground, so I assume this was partly him learning the lessons of the civil war and the foreign intervention in it. It was also, again, partially Stalin just being more… “rooted” in traditional Russian-isms than either Lenin or Trotsky. This never trumped Communism ideology, as none other than Vladimir Putin has ruefully pointed out (his complex take on the Bolsheviks and the USSR in general are never pointed out nearly enough in Western media), but it was there.

    But that’s not the same thing as not believing that world revolution (under Moscow’s benevolent, paternal guidance, of course) might not happen soon, or doing whatever he could to help it along. Part of the reason Stalin made a deal with Hitler at all in 1939 was his belief that the Nazis and the West would wear each other down to the point that he could send the Red Army in to do what they couldn’t in 1919.

    >Have you read details about how the Soviets thought and talked among themselves?

    Yes. The Mitrokhin Archives in particular were an obsession of mine as a teenager, and are the reason why I stress one of my contradictory takes: the KGB was, despite being the vanguard of the revolution and taking the mission far more seriously than corrupt party princelings (which Andropov ensured stayed *out*-only through the KGB could someone like Putin achieve upward mobility in the 1970s and 1980s USSR), the only part of the state not truly captive to it in analyzing the world.

    My take is that the as the decades went on, life happened, as it does to anybody. Coexistence with the West was a policy that could be pursued. Another factor was the decline or fall pro-USSR Communist parties in Western Europe and the rise of them in the Third World, leading to a shift in foreign policy emphasis. In the 1940s, Stalin could count on a number of people in the West openly helping the Red Army if they marched. By the 1970s, not so much.

    But the Soviet state could never escape its initial ideological imperatives, no matter how cynical people eventually grew about them. To abandon that would result in people questioning what the point was of the USSR in the first place, as eventually happened in the late 1980s. Once the genie was let out of the bottle, you couldn’t put it back in. If there was no threat at all of a broad military push-back in Europe-none whatsoever-it’s hard to imagine the USSR not… well, utilizing that. It’s much like the debate over nuclear weapons limitations in the 1950s. Whatever the US did or did not do, the Soviet leadership was certainly not going to stop developing nuclear weapons in response to unilateral disarmament: they’d think it was either a trick or suicidal insanity on America’s part and take advantage of that. Arms limitation agreements were feasible precisely because they were mutual.

    (That’s the problem with Marxism. History being deterministic, there’s no explanation for what happens when history fails to go according to plan. This is, in a *very* different way, Xi’s weakness as well. Again, I view China as fundamentally defensively focused in a way the USSR never truly was, but the CCP isn’t equipped to handle situations like this well. This and their relative lack of soft power are the two big weaknesses they’ve got, but that’s of little use when America is so visibly insane.)

    More broadly speaking, it is absolutely true that the Soviet leadership genuinely feared that the United States would lob nuclear weapons at them in a first strike. Partially, this was just the logical conclusion to draw given Russia’s historical experiences with threats from the West (Time of Troubles, Charles XII, Napoleon, Hitler). Partially, this was the result of the USSR’s own experiences, going back to its troubled gestation: the siege mentality would lessen after Stalin’s death, but it never went away. And partially, this was thanks to Moscow’s own actions-particularly in the 1920s and 1930s, when their embassies acted as fronts to destabilize any society they came into contact with. Native true believer Communists were a big problem back then.

    >Sadly, the American elite has not.

    Shades of Athens not paying heed to the warnings of Aeschylus against hubris in the construction of their empire ringing through my head.

  263. @John Johnson

    What’s the Ukrainian ‘orcs destroyed’ to ‘territory lost’ ratio?

  264. Curle says:
    @John Johnson

    And every time the Ukes lose more territory will continue the stalemate?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  265. Finland and Sweden were already effectively integrated in NATO…for example there was a NorPol battalion, which included both countries, with SFOR in Bosnia, operating under NATO auspices. Both countries participated with NATO in ‘Northern Wind’ in 2019, and the relationship goes way back.

    https://shape.nato.int/news-archive/2019/nato-allies-participate-in-swedish-exercise-northern-wind

    Some NATO fanboys and Charlie Whiskey nostalgics think that the mighty Finnish Army is going to pose a threat to Murmansk supply lines. But if Finland attacks Russian territory I’d bet Russia would respond and not with the kid gloves like it’s doing in Borderland.

  266. @Jack D

    Aww…

    Get a room, guys. Watch out for monkeypox.

  267. @Jack D

    Since 2014 the Kyivan forces have shelled the ethnic Russians of Lugansk and Donetsk and blaming those folks for ‘shelling themselves’. Granted that shelling was most intense in 2014 and 2015, but continued on and off right up to the start of the war, and now has intensified again. The theory that Russian or Donetsk people bombed the Olievka (sp?) prison has a bit of plausibility*; the DNR people want revenge against Azov. But shelling themselves with anti personnel mines designed to maim and especially attractive to young children? Mines that the Borderlanders are known to possess? C’mon man.

    *(However, my understanding is that the latest is that the Russians are inviting an IRC or other investigation).

  268. Alvin says:

    Just when it appears Rand Paul could be a viable Presidential candidate in 2024, he wimps out again by voting “present”.

  269. @HA

    A post with less than 500 words, that doesn’t use ad hominem, and you didn’t call anyone “fanboy”. You’re growing up!

  270. @Jack D

    After the photo op:

    I take no side in The War Between The Vlads, but I feel as though Sweden and Finland might as well be in NATO.

    I was happy when Romania was admitted, and I remember starting to see NATO flags around there afterwards.

    The thing is, what I really think is that NATO should have been disbanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then again, I am old-fashioned about American foreign policy. Very old fashioned. I agree with George Washington regarding foreign entanglements:

    Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

    Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

    Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

    — From President George Washington’s Farewell Address 17 September 1796

    • LOL: John Johnson
  271. @Altai

    … the current PM of Finland … the current Swedish PM …

    The people who solemnly warned the world that no woman should be allowed to get a driver’s license, let alone be allowed behind the wheel of a car, were sneered and scoffed at. Who’s laughing now?

  272. @Jack D

    Determining whether the attack was carried out by Ukrainian forces, or whether it was a ‘false flag’ attack or even friendly fire by Russian forces or local militia, as some have suggested, is likely to be difficult.

    You honestly think Russia is the one shelling its DPR ally’s civilians in Donetsk? Are you this dumb or do you just think the rest of us are?

    You know radar can track where shares are fired from, right?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @Dave Pinsen
  273. @Corvinus

    But his whole point was that if you want to facilitate brain drain, you’d want to make it easier for Russians in Russia to leave.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  274. @Anon

    I know it’s popular now and all — they did the same for Trump — but isn’t it a violation of their own professional ethics with these remote diagnoses through communing with the New York Times or whatever they pretend they’re doing?

    In professional medical and commercial practice, it is certainly not ethical to diagnose people without a face to face meeting and taking an organised history. If this was allowed, there would be no end to the abuse for example with psychiatrists diagnosing prisoners and making recommendations to the courts having never met them.

    However, when psychiatrists comment on world leaders it is in a role as citizens, and they bring their own expertise, just as any other types of citizens bring their own expertise to comment and offer opinions on political matters, and on the behaviour of individual political leaders.

    After all, if you have made your living for decades by formally evaluating the behavior of thousands of individuals for abnormalities, chances are that you have more expertise in that field than the average Fox News or CNN commentator

    So I cannot see any harm in it as long as they are not billing Medicare for informally diagnosing Biden or Putin from afar, or prescribing medication for them.

  275. @Curle

    And every time the Ukes lose more territory will continue the stalemate?

    Do you pay any attention to actual war reports or do you just check in with the bitter misanthropic bloggers at Unz that make up “feelz” beliefs to support Putin? The same bloggers that told us the war would never happen and that it was all just Western propaganda? Remember that?

    The borders haven’t changed much in the last month.

    The Ukrainians are currently on the attack in Kherson.

    Whether or not the counter-attack succeeds or fails is the question. Either outcome could change the stalemate.

    The problem however with taking Eastern territory back is that Putin has no problem with carpet bombing an entire area including the homes Russian speaking Ukrainians. Meaning he will blow his former supporters into bits if it means saving face.

    This could end up as a fight for the ruins of Kherson.

    If the Ukrainians succeed it will further demoralize the Russian soldiers and public. The next few weeks could be pivotal.

  276. @John Johnson

    It’s currently a stalemate.

    It’s not a stalemate. It’s a slog, but one the Russians have been winning, most recently with advances in the settlements of Peski and Marinka. There have been no corresponding Ukrainian advances recently, AFAIK.

    Putin is the one that thought the war would last 2.5 weeks.

    Can you quote where he said this?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @Jack D
  277. @Dave Pinsen

    You honestly think Russia is the one shelling its DPR ally’s civilians in Donetsk? Are you this dumb or do you just think the rest of us are?

    You know radar can track where shares are fired from, right?

    So you think the Ukrainians shelled the POWs? You know that the US gets to approve every target, right? You know the US has satellites that can read the text on a cigarette, right? Why would they shell their own POWs?

    Anyways the Russians were already caught on tape admitting to it.

    Russians fight dirty in every war. They seem incapable of doing otherwise.

    In WW2 they went on a massive rape frenzy in Germany and the Allied soldiers were told to look the other way. The German hospitals were performing abortions 24/7. The Russians also killed most of their German POWs.

    When this war is over all kinds of Russian atrocities will come out. They don’t know what a principled fight is and seem to see rape as part of the game. They view their own soldiers as entirely expendable and POWs are below them.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  278. HA says:
    @Rich

    “Has the threat of expansion of Nato resulted in peace?”

    Are you serious? Ask a Pole or a Lithuanian whether they feel safer in NATO. We both know what the answer will be.

    Then, explain to a Georgian or a Ukrainian how shutting that same door in their face, instead of letting them through as well, isn’t just hanging a big sign over them that says “Come and get it, Putin — it’s all yours for the taking and we won’t do jack about it.”

    • Replies: @Rich
  279. Corvinus says:
    @Jack D

    “Thanks. There’s no one whose advice I would trust more than yours.”

    That’s a great first step for you to become more self-aware of your confirmation bias. We are all prone to it, but it comes down to making a conscious effort to minimize its impact on our thought processes.

    “Generally speaking, I disagree with you on everything. But I guess even a stopped clock is right once in a while. If I happen to agree with you (and with 95 out of 100 US Senators) on certain issues, I’m just going to have to accept it.”

    We agree on more issues than you want to personally admit.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
  280. @Dave Pinsen

    It’s not a stalemate. It’s a slog, but one the Russians have been winning, most recently with advances in the settlements of Peski and Marinka..

    It is currently a stalemate. No one expected Ukraine to last this long and Russia has taken Eastern territories which was entirely expected. The borders haven’t changed in over a month.

    There have been no corresponding Ukrainian advances recently, AFAIK

    Ukraine is on the offensive.
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/08/02/ukraines-battle-for-kherson-could-be-a-key-victory/

    Putin is the one that thought the war would last 2.5 weeks.

    Can you quote where he said this?

    It was in the leaked battleplans that they found on captured soldiers.

    They planned on taking Kiev and didn’t think it would last more than 2.5 weeks. They expected the military to stand down and Zelensky to flee. They planned on taking the entire country through a decapitation strike. That is why Putin sent one giant support column to Kiev.

    Old news. Try reading outside Unz. I’m really sick of Googling old news for you and the other Putin defenders here. NEWSFLASH: Andrew Anglin, Kevil Barrett and Mike Whitney are not reliable sources of information. They are openly pro-Putin. I have corrected all three of them on NATO numerous times with multiple sources and they just go back to fantasy feelz beliefs regarding their favorite dictator.

  281. Rich says:
    @HA

    There was no threat of invasion of either Georgia or Ukraine until they began talking about joining Nato. You really can’t understand that? And why should I, as an American, risk nuclear war if Russia invades the Baltics or Romania? Why should my children burn to death in a nuclear holocaust because of Poland or Belgium? Why should my tax dollars pay to protect the Germans while the cost of college goes through the roof? Why is the US carrying Europe instead of financing social security?

    • Replies: @HA
    , @John Johnson
  282. @John Johnson

    So you think the Ukrainians shelled the POWs?

    Probably.

    Why would they shell their own POWs?

    1) To discourage other Ukrainians troops from surrendering.

    2) Because the POWs were members of the neo-Nazi Azov regiment, some of whom had begun to testify about Azov’s human rights abuses.

    Back to the shelling of civilians in Donetsk. Why would the Russians do it? You can’t even say “to make the Ukrainians look bad” because Western media either ignores the shelling, or pretends Russia is doing it. Why would the civilians in Donetsk not accuse the Russians of shelling them, and demand the Ukrainians protect them? Why are they doing the reverse?

    As immoral as the Ukrainian shelling of their own civilians is, there is some logic to it. It draws Russian artillery and air power to suppress it, artillery and airpower which can’t be used to support Russia’s advances against Ukrainian positions elsewhere (the Ukrainians move their guns after shelling, so it’s a game of whack-a-mole for the Russians to suppress their artillery).

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @John Johnson
  283. @Dave Pinsen

    To answer my own questions, from his comments on other subjects, I don’t think Jack D is dumb. And I don’t think he thinks the rest of us are dumb either. Rather, I think he’s dug himself into a deep hole supporting the Ukraine as the latest Current Thing, and as evidence of the Ukrainian authorities’ human rights abuses piles up, he’s too proud to backtrack, so he keeps digging.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  284. @nebulafox

    Stalin’s favored strategy in 1920s China, which would come back to haunt them when Chiang Kai-Shek revealed he was a step or two ahead of the Soviet intelligence and advisors on the ground

    The Soviet agent in that case was CCP (before Mao was leader). Both the KMT and CCP were Soviet Comintern clients at the time. Stalin instructed CCP members to join KMT as individual members. In a sense CCP was Stalin’s Trojan horse.

    Trotsky was against this tactic of KMT-CCP cooperation (First United Front 1924),

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky#United_Opposition_(1926–1927)

    Interestingly timing of Trotsky’s purge was the same as the first KMT-CCP split i.e. 1927 Shanghai Massacre.

    In the end the Soviets still got the better of Chiang, in forming the Second United Front, Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1937 and subverting him to war against Japan.

    Mao on the other hand, would muscle over control of CCP from Soviet-trained Bo Gu after the Long March in 1935, and demonstrated clearly that he was not a Soviet puppet after the signing of Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact in April 1941, by continuing to fight the Japanese (if mainly for propaganda purpose) during that eight months before Pearl Harbor and when China and Japan would be officially at war.

    As soon as Soviets were invaded by Germany, Mao kicked off the Yan’an Rectification Movement in 1942 to purge the pro-Soviet wing in the CCP. Post Chinese Civil War 1949 he was able to negotiate from Stalin very favorable territorial terms for the nascent PRC.


    Mao and Stalin in Moscow, December, 1949, the only time they’ve ever met in person
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_Treaty_of_Friendship,_Alliance_and_Mutual_Assistance

    actively confronting the world

    From the Japanese perspective, the Soviets were always viewed as their main threat. In their post-war memoirs the Japanese generals noted the commonalities between their “Special Military Operation” in China, with the American experiences in Korea and Vietnam.

  285. Jack D says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    evidence of the Ukrainian authorities’ human rights abuses piles up,

    Why don’t you ever mention the Russian abuses, only the Ukrainian ones? There are a hundred or a thousand reports of Russian atrocities for every alleged Ukrainian one, and most of your sources are questionable Russian sources, but you only ever mention the Ukrainians.

    The Ukrainians are surely not angels but whatever they have done pales in comparison to Russian war crimes. You are just playing the old Russian “but what about” game. “But you are lynching Negroes” – this while Stalin killed millions.

  286. Jack D says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    As immoral as the Ukrainian shelling of their own civilians is, there is some logic to it. It draws Russian artillery and air power to suppress it, artillery and airpower which can’t be used to support Russia’s advances against Ukrainian positions elsewhere (the Ukrainians move their guns after shelling, so it’s a game of whack-a-mole for the Russians to suppress their artillery).

    Have the Russians been shelling Ukrainian civilians or only the Ukrainians? If shelling civilians draws suppressive fire which can’t be used to support Ukraine’s advances against Russian positions elsewhere, why wouldn’t the Russians use this great tactic too? Are the Russians too moral to do this? We know how deeply Putin cares about Ukrainian lives.

  287. Corvinus says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    “But his whole point was that if you want to facilitate brain drain, you’d want to make it easier for Russians in Russia to leave.”

    LOL, why would Putin want to enable his fellow citizens to exercise their own free will to head out to greener pastures?

    Or even talk openly about the war he started for that matter?

    https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-military-false-news/31737627.html

  288. Jack D says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    The Ukrainians have been advancing near Izyum. The Russians are stretched thin and have shifted forces toward Kharkiv and Kherson and this has left an opening near Izyum.

    BTW if the name Izyum sound familiar it was supposed to be the upper jaw of the “cauldron” that was going to swallow the Ukrainian Army. I never hear any “cauldron” talk anymore for some reason. Now “slow methodical advances are the way to go”. The copium is strong among Putin fanboys. Whatever the Russians are doing at this moment, they meant to do that from the very beginning.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    , @nokangaroos
  289. @Corvinus

    We agree on more issues than you want to personally admit.

    At least here, anyway.

    neocon = neoliberal

    thus, 95 to 1

  290. @Jack D

    “Putinists were the dweebs RECEIVING the wedgies and in their imagination their hero Angy Ox Putin is going to take revenge on Crown Prince on their behalf”

    The dweebs are trolls like you, who worship a cadre of hate-filled Jews who control the U.S State Department and have been waging aggressive wars of conquest throughout the World since the Berlim Wall fell 33 years ago, and the U.S has been going around the World like a big dumb drunk at a bar starting fights with everyone. You are such a idiot that you cheerleader the U.S out of patriotism, when your country does not even serve your interests, and is mostly a shill government for Israel.

    “Sorry, Putin is no Angry Ox or Hulk. Putin is 5′ 6″ in his elevator shoes and lately he has been walking with a limp and his right arm appears partially paralyzed”

    Pure baseless ad hominem. Putin is a 6th degree black belt in Judo, and a 5th degree master in Kyokushin karate. He would embarass your dweeb ass in a fight even at age 70.

    “Putin fanboys keep cashing the check that hasn’t been written yet and declaring that Putin has punched Uncle Sam in the teeth, when in reality he hasn’t laid a scratch on us, nor will he if he wants to remain alive and he knows this better than anyone”

    More jingoism devoid of any reflexion or intelligence. Even the Taliban kills Americans, and they are not dead. In fact, the U.S left Afghanistan with it’s tail between it’s legs. The U.S.A is a Paper Tiger and massively overrated. The last serious war the U.S has been in was in 1945. All the U.S has been doing for the past 70+ years is pushing Banana Republics around, and even the Banana Republics sometimes kicks America’s ass, like Vietnam and Afghanistan.

    Converse, the last time that Russia has lost a land war was against the Golden Horde many centuriues ago, and they were severely outnumbered, and the Mongols were much better fighters than Americans.

    Get your head ouf of your ass and face facts: Putin has already won the Ukraine Wark, despite what Jewish necons like you think. It is literally *impossible* for the U.S to beat Russia at a land war in Europe.

    “Nuclear weapons are useless as offensive weapon because no one dares to use them . Their only use is to turn your country into a vipers nest that no one dares to attack. Ukraine made a grave mistake giving up its nuclear weapons for this reason”

    That’s the point that I was making, dummy. It’s not my fault that you can’t read. If the U.S *invades* Russia, Putin will use nuclear weapons. You claim that Putin will de dead if he tries to lay a finger on the U.S. Actually, there will be a nuclear mushroom over Washington D.C much before Putin thinks that the U.S is a threat to his life.

    • Replies: @HA
  291. @Jack D

    Izyum sounds familiar because the Russians took it in April. Let’s see if the Ukrainians can take it back.

    I never hear any “cauldron” talk anymore for some reason.

    Probably because Ukrainian troops are retreating rather than risking getting caught in one.

  292. HA says:
    @Rich

    “There was no threat of invasion of either Georgia or Ukraine until they began talking about joining Nato.”

    No, this is one more Moscow-troll-farm howler that I have dispelled numerous times before. Up until Putin invaded Crimea, support for joining NATO in Ukraine was polling at about 20% and was always lower than the “no-to-NATO” number.

    And as we saw in the case of Finland and Sweden, NATO doesn’t come in and grab countries unwillingly — that’s the Putin way. Sure, they were joint-exercising in a whole lot of ways for decades, but until they themselves decided to join up — and that was, again, only after seeing Putin’s way of doing things — NATO was polite enough to stay out. I know it’s hard to believe, given all the trolls muttering about there being “no other alternative” than launching a military invasion, but don’t fall it. There are actually numerous preferable alternatives out there, and the NATO approach of waiting to be invited is one of them.

    Even after the Maidan “coup” as the Putinists like to call it, the interim government (the one favored by Victoria Nuland herself) nixed the idea of joining NATO. It was only after Putin started swiping things that Ukraine realized they were idiots for believing anything Putin (or Moscow, given the extent to which Putin calls the shots there) had to say.

    • Disagree: Rich
  293. HA says:
    @Stan Adams

    Give me a break. Didn’t the guy in the top photo dump his partner for a younger, hotter model, and now runs a strip club in his presidential palace?

    In other words, you can’t have it both ways. If you want to prevent the gays from making a mockery of the institution of marriage, then don’t put on a pedestal those who long ago beat them to the punch. Those people are not your saviors. The gays are demanding their fair allotment of time with that same wrecking ball. I agree that it would be better for the wrecking to stop altogether, but hey, you first.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    , @John Johnson
  294. HA says:
    @Zero Philosopher

    “The last serious war the U.S has been in was in 1945. All the U.S has been doing for the past 70+ years is pushing Banana Republics around…”

    Even if that were true, it was good enough to outlast the Soviet Empire. If Putin wants a second dose of that, he ought to be careful of what he wishes for.

    • Replies: @Zero Philosopher
  295. Russ says:
    @PhysicistDave

    One year, the Cards played in the World Series against the NY Mets, and the phrase in St. Louis was that the Mets were “pond scum.” I casually mentioned to my mom that of course the Mets were a great team (or they would not be in the Series) and were hardly “pond scum.”

    In case it’s on the final exam, here is the origin of the Mets = pond scum story, courtesy of that David Letterman fellow in New York:

    All too many for whom Russia is now pond scum deemed Russia the sweetest cream of the richest crop when Russia was spelled S-O-V-I-E-T.

    • Replies: @Box Boiderdeck
  296. @HA

    More idiotic patriotic drivel. The U.S won’t do shit against Russia and you know it. Imagine that, the U.S trying to win a land war against Russia. Napoleon was a much better general than anything America has to offer right now, and look where warring with Russia took him.

    You dumb patriots should get your heads out of your asses. The Blumenthals, Rosenfelds, Greens and Moscowitzes that write op-ed for The Times and control the NSA behind the curtans and create endless false flag operations to cheer America into war don’t care one bit about your stars&stripes and apple pie. They don’t even hide it anymore. There is a reason why there is a Menorah placed right next to the President’s desk in his ofice. Open your eyes, fool. Zalensky is circumcised, and so are all his Washington “advisers”. You are shiling for the destruction of the last truly independent state in Europe(NOT the Ukraine).

    Neoconservatism requires a never-ending expansion of the American Empire as it is a rapacious economy that depends on financial services. You are not only cheering for the destruction of the last independent state in Europe, but also for the continual loss of jobs and American Industry. Nice job!

    • Replies: @HA
  297. @Dave Pinsen

    Back to the shelling of civilians in Donetsk. Why would the Russians do it? You can’t even say “to make the Ukrainians look bad” because Western media either ignores the shelling, or pretends Russia is doing it.

    Why would the Russians do it? Because they were tortured. Because they hate them. Why do they need a reason? Russians kill their POWS in every single war.

    But more importantly they already admitted on audio. Russian soldiers can’t seem to resist using stolen cell phones:

    Anyone that has studied Russian wars knows to not bet on the assumption that they followed international rules. There is a video of a Russian soldier castrating a Ukrainian. I’m not going to post a link but it can be found.

    All kinds of atrocities will come out and you can look back and think about how you desperately wanted to believe that Putin isn’t such a bad guy and that the Russian soldiers weren’t acting like brutish orcs as usual.

    Hint: Don’t put moral faith in a little dictator who poisons the opposition and wears height enhancing shoes. It’s just a bad idea.

    • LOL: EddieSpaghetti
  298. @Rich

    There was no threat of invasion of either Georgia or Ukraine until they began talking about joining Nato.

    Ukraine never qualified for NATO nor were they invited. They also didn’t have votes from France and Germany. The vote has to be unanimous. Turkey also opposes allowing Ukraine.

    The US at one point said “Ukraine should join NATO” and the Putinsphere has exaggerated that statement to Ukraine planned on joining NATO. If you would like I can post the source for the 100th time where NATO says that Ukraine is not invited. I posted it for Anglin and the other Pro-Putin bloggers but they ignored it.

    The Putinsphere has a very hard time with that historical reality. They *want to believe* that Ukraine was about to join NATO and Putin felt cornered. That is an unsupported belief but like most of their Putin related beliefs they are heavy on feelings and light on objective history.

    Furthermore Putin never issued an ultimatum to Ukraine. If it was about NATO then the rational move is to require that Ukraine adopt neutrality or face invasion. Attacking without an ultimatum or diplomacy supports the superior theory that this is just Putin playing wargames because he is dying. NATO was just an excuse and he has in fact moved on to a different reason (Donbass).

    Russia had in fact already pledged to respect the borders of Ukraine in the 1994 Budapest Convention and that included Crimea. But don’t expect to read that on one of the pro-Putin blogs. They conveniently leave that out of their timelines.

    Why should my tax dollars pay to protect the Germans while the cost of college goes through the roof?

    Well thanks to Putin the pro-NATO contingent has had their dreams come true. It is in fact expanding and the critics will now be ignored.

    I wanted NATO to go away along with the cold war but Putin made the exact move that would expand NATO which was a full on war. So yes more tax dollars for NATO toys and what can the critics say? It is no longer needed? Putin flat out threatened Finland. That insecure little dictator has taken us back to the cold war. Thanks a bunch.

  299. If you want to figure out who is winning a football game, but you can’t see the field, just listen to the crowd or watch the coaches. Their actions will give away who is winning the game.

    Now, sports are not war. Sports are games. War is life and death. Nevertheless, they have some similarities. In particular, if your view of the war’s battlefield is obscured by propaganda, you can learn a lot about what is going on by watching the commanders and chiefs.

    In the case of Putin, he is behaving as if he is winning in a rout. Indeed, the fact that he has never used some of his most effective weapons, in particular, shock and awe and the resulting lights out and water off, suggests that Putin is treating this war like it is such a mismatch that he is resting his starters.

    Zelensky on the other hand behaves like a coach whose team is getting crushed and who understands that he is about to lose his job.

  300. @HA

    If you don’t support a mass murdering dictator then you must support gay marriage.

    100% solid logic that could have come from Aristotle.

    This is really all the pro-Putin contingent can come up with.

    They love White people so much that they cheer as they are blown to bits cause they won’t be taking part in gay marriages.

    It’s the same people that *want to believe* this war somehow sticks it to the Jews even though Putin sells Israel its oil.

    • Agree: HA
  301. @Jack D

    JackD wrote:

    Nuclear weapons are useless as offensive weapons because no one dares to use them.

    Actually, nuclear weapons could be extremely useful as an offensive weapon to a nuclear superpower that was losing a war that was vital to its interests to a non-nuclear armed country. (See Avril Haines.)

    Of course, there is nothing like that going on right now (which is very fortunate for a certain non-nuclear armed country).

    JackD also wrote:

    Ukraine made a grave mistake giving up its nuclear weapons for this reason.

    Personally, I think that the world has been a much safer place for everyone, especially Ukrainians, due to the fact that Ukraine gave up its nukes.

  302. @John Johnson

    “I wanted NATO to go away along with the cold war but Putin made the exact move that would expand NATO which was a full on war.”

    Senator Paul feels much the same.

  303. @Russ

    Yeah, I noticed that about NATO/OTAN too. Loved by the Left now, violently despised by it before. In fact that Leftist hatred of NATO/OTAN is, not quiet the McGuffin, but the motivation for Whit Stillmans movie ‘Barcelona’. (Whit, btw, is quite the ‘OSINT’/’BROSINT’ fanboy on twitter). I personally know US servicemembers who were beaten up by Greek leftists in the ‘anti-NATO’ day (had something to do with the Colonels coupe). But the worm has turned. Now that Russia is simply an authoritarian state with not much ideology, very free markets etc, the Left hates it and loves its enemy NATO.

  304. @Steve Sailer

    NATO/ the EU/ the Color revolution crowd was de facto expanding into Ukraine anyhow. Listen to Meersheimer’s lectures on this. He even went into the lion’s den at the European University Institute (or some such) in Florence (or, if we treated Italians like we grovel before the Borderlanders, Firenze) .

  305. @John Johnson

    How can you possibly claim NATO on Russia’s borders and heavy US involvement in Ukraine weren’t major factors in Putin’s choice to enter Ukraine. The failure to follow through on the Minsk agreement wrt DPR and LPR was the most important motivation.

    The result will likely be a treaty that yields to Russia having asserted itself in Ukraine. I predict a reduction in bear baiting after this ordeal is over. Although if this increases instead, it’s not Russia restarting the Cold War. What’s unfortunate is that we in the West aren’t trying to strengthen our relationship with Russia and that Russia isn’t getting along well with some of its neighbors.

    NATO is a defunct organization that needs to be disbanded and is more a sideshow than anything else. We’re not going to war against Russia, never were and never will. NATO is for posturing only. We should be beyond threats and taunts by now. Some adults should take over the diplomacy. Some taxpayers should mutiny over the expensive show they’ve been funding for far too long.

    I don’t see any result from bombast and polarization than the West staying stuck in a self-destructive holding pattern for the next two or three decades. Europe is hurting itself more than it’s hurting Russia. Sure drill the NATO troops and vilify Russia and stagnate. Meanwhile the BRIC nations move forward with cooperation and prosperity and the West impoverishes itself going Green.

    • Agree: Rich, Russ
    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  306. @Bragadocious

    Bragadocious wrote to me:

    Not really true. Look at the behavior of Britain and France since this began. Macron has tried talking to Putin several times, without success. Did the U.S. ask or order him to do this? Very unlikely. I give Macron credit btw for opening channels to Russia.

    Read again what you wrote: you are giving Macron credit for having the grit to (maybe!) have talked to somebody without permission from his mommy in Washington.

    “Now, children, don’t talk to any strangers unless I say so!”

    You make my point: the US’s European allies (AKA satellites) never engage in an independent foreign policy without permission from their mommy in Washington.

    Every now and then they may grumble a little bit, like a sullen child, but they never really disobey.

    To change the metaphor, they are all Washington’s little toy poodles..

    The last time the poodles did something on their own was the 1956 Suez crisis when France and Britain, along with Israel, acted without their master’s permission.

    And Ike yanked pretty hard on their leash and brought them to heel.

    Since then, they have known their place.

    Pretty sad — once great nations totally emasculated.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
  307. @Jack D

    In case you haven´t noticed, that´s the Severskij Donets (((they´d))) have
    to cross again – impossible given the geometry.
    Meanwhile the DNR have reacted to the provocations (including the shelling
    of a female colonel´s funeral and of course the PFM-1) and taken on
    Avdeevka frontally (the crown jewel of Ukie fortifications, as Verdun was once
    upon a time); I´m not sure if that´s a good idea but Pesky and Marianka fell
    yesterday and I am sure I wouldn´t want to be caught in Avdeevka,
    astride a warm HIMARS. À propos, Ze has admitted in as many words they
    are using the HIMARS for revenge attacks against civilians (“justice” in Jewspeak)
    instead of counterbattery. Amnesty International (= State Department spox
    for libtards) has officially accused the Ukies of using human shields (well duh),
    and the Germans are losing patience; second thoughts must be spreading like
    pooter poker pox among the Ukie leadership (i.e. Ze´s final exit to Tel Aviv is
    probably a matter of weeks).
    – The Russians have formed a Schwerpunkt in the Kherson bridgehead,
    meaning Nikolaev (Krivoj Rog would be pointless) and/or Odessa
    (and yes, I believe they intended to do that from the beginning – there are
    also rumblings north of Kharkow). Now the question is how much waste the
    (((Ukies))) are willing to lay to not their land.

  308. @AnotherDad

    AnotherDad wrote:

    But I’d bet that in ten or fifteen years or so when old Vlad is dead and gone, this war will mostly matter to the unfortunate families of the dead and maimed.

    Yes and no.

    Does anyone today care about the Spanish-American war and the (much more bloody) consequent War of the Philippine Insurgency? It’s why we are stuck with Puerto Rico, but otherwise…

    On the other hand, historians take great note of those events, because they are generally taken as the watershed event in which America first asserted itself as a Great Power.

    And, similarly, it is likely that the War to Liberate the Donbass will be viewed by historians as the beginning of the end of the American Imperium. The casus belli consisted of independence for the Donbass and neutralization of Ukraine (no membership in NATO).

    Almost no one any longer believes that Putin will fail to achieve both objectives, despite the resources the US has poured in to stop him. Also, the US recently tried “Color Revolutions” in Belarus and Kazakhstan, and Putin squelched both.

    By achieving his goals in Ukraine, showing that the “World Community” at large is no longer willing to bow down before ukases coming out of Washington, and by forging a new counter-alliance to the West (China, Iran India, etc.) that includes three of the top economic powers on the planet, Putin has changed the direction of world history.

    Was it worth it?

    As I keep saying, I doubt that all this was in the best interest of the Russian people.

    But will it be remembered by future historians?

    The defenestration of Prague, the assassination in Sarajevo, the storming of the Bastille, the War to Liberate the Donbass…

    • Agree: Mr Mox
  309. @nebulafox

    nebulafox wrote to me:

    But that’s not the same thing as not believing that world revolution (under Moscow’s benevolent, paternal guidance, of course) might not happen soon, or doing whatever he could to help it along. Part of the reason Stalin made a deal with Hitler at all in 1939 was his belief that the Nazis and the West would wear each other down to the point that he could send the Red Army in to do what they couldn’t in 1919.

    Agreed.

    nebluafox also wrote:

    But the Soviet state could never escape its initial ideological imperatives, no matter how cynical people eventually grew about them. To abandon that would result in people questioning what the point was of the USSR in the first place, as eventually happened in the late 1980s. Once the genie was let out of the bottle, you couldn’t put it back in. If there was no threat at all of a broad military push-back in Europe-none whatsoever-it’s hard to imagine the USSR not… well, utilizing that.

    But they didn’t: Stalin pulled out of Austria, for example, rather than making an issue of it.

    And the Soviets backed down over the Berlin Airlift and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Their foreign policy was in fact very conservative: partly I think because of their terror of the West and partly because, yes, until their later years, they knew that they would inevitably win anyway, so why risk “socialism in one country” to slightly hasten the day of that inevitable victory?

    nebulafox also wrote:

    More broadly speaking, it is absolutely true that the Soviet leadership genuinely feared that the United States would lob nuclear weapons at them in a first strike. Partially, this was just the logical conclusion to draw given Russia’s historical experiences with threats from the West (Time of Troubles, Charles XII, Napoleon, Hitler). Partially, this was the result of the USSR’s own experiences, going back to its troubled gestation: the siege mentality would lessen after Stalin’s death, but it never went away. And partially, this was thanks to Moscow’s own actions-particularly in the 1920s and 1930s, when their embassies acted as fronts to destabilize any society they came into contact with. Native true believer Communists were a big problem back then.

    I agree with all of that.

    Will the day ever come when the Soviet pawns and sympathizers in the West are viewed with the contempt everyone has for Nazi pawns and sympathizers?

    Sometime history can only mete out justice posthumously, but it would be good for the human soul to tell the truth about those people.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  310. @PhysicistDave

    “But will it be remembered by future historians?

    The defenestration of Prague, the assassination in Sarajevo, the storming of the Bastille, the War to Liberate the Donbass…”

    As someone who hasn’t paid much attention to world affairs for over a decade, I find myself watching major events of history unfolding in shockingly rapid succession. Yet I just recently read up on the background to these goings-on. The whole series of actions by Russia and reactions by the US and the EU as well as Ukraine have led to an unexpected but definite juncture in history. Yes, this will be featured in history books. What’s more we won’t stop talking about it in the present (once the establishment accepts reality).

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  311. @PhysicistDave

    “One year, the Cards played in the World Series against the NY Mets,” Same league (NL), not a WS.

  312. Rich says:
    @John Johnson

    “Thanks to Putin”. Yes, we in the States have no choice but to act in response to border skirmishes in far-off parts of the world. And yet, somehow we survived Soviet troops in East Germany, but horror of horror, Russian troops in Ukraine mean we have to set up nuclear trip wires in at least 2 more countries. And I wouldn’t support US troops heading to Europe if Putin crossed the Rhine. My family already fought Germans over there, let them all defend themselves for a hundred years or so. You know, kind of like they did pre-20th century.

  313. @PhysicistDave

    Read again what you wrote: you are giving Macron credit for having the grit to (maybe!) have talked to somebody without permission from his mommy in Washington.

    No, that’s not what I’m giving him credit for.

    The real question is why you and so many UR commenters have this childlike view of Europe as a continent of innocents, a place that just wants peace but is being led astray by a perfidious Uncle Sam.

    What. A. Joke.

  314. Jack D says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Will the day ever come when the Soviet Russian pawns and sympathizers in the West are viewed with the contempt everyone has for Nazi pawns and sympathizers?

    Some people in the West were dazzled by the ideological clothing with which the Soviets dressed up traditional Russian Imperialism but fundamentally nothing has changed from the Czars to Stalin to Putin – Russian rulers see it as their mission to expand the zone of Russian territory and Russian controlled puppet states as far as possible.

    Similarly, Putin dresses up his imperial ambitions as fighting for the white race (but somehow simultaneously fighting against Nazism) and against globohomoism but same thing – it’s just a costume he wears to fool gullible people in the West.

    • Thanks: Corvinus, Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    , @Gc
  315. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    Like most folks, Russians want their family to do well, their kids to have good opportunities–and maybe be able to take a nice vacation.

    Well Putin just “took care” of that for them. They can forget about that vacation on the beach in Italy now. Or a new car or whatever – ordinary Russians are going to have to lower their sights considerably for years to come.

    Putin just spent the last 20 years beating it into ordinary Russians that they should stay as far away from “politics” as possible and leave the ruling to Putin, using both the carrot and the stick. You just go about your business and leave the politics to us and things will be great for you. You’ll be able to afford that package tour to Europe and that new smartphone. If OTOH you try to mess with politics, well bad things could happen to you and your family. You might be poisoned or set to prison on trumped up charges. For the most part, this succeeded extremely well – basically you had to be nuts to try to oppose the regime. Most sane people got the message and chose the easy life. If it really bothered you, well it was not like the old days. You could just get on a plane any day of the week and move to Latvia or Georgia. People even learned to love Big Brother who was advertised every day on the TV like toothpaste – new improved Putin, now with more macho!

    Well, the chickens have now come home to roost. Maybe Putin at one time actually did care for ordinary Russians and not just for his gang, but as he has gotten closer to old age and death he started worrying about his place in the history books (he had more billions than he could ever spend in his remaining years – there was no point in stealing any more money at this stage in life). No one will remember the tens of thousands of Private Oseyev’s killed in the assault on Kyiv, but they will put Czar Putin right next to Peter the Great.

    https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-war-soldiers-poverty-funeral-buryatia/31862097.html

    Maybe Private Oseyev’s family now wishes that they had gotten involved in “politics” earlier (the Putin thugs could beat up a few individuals but could they have beaten millions? – Solzhenitsyn had the same thought) but it’s too late now.

  316. Here is an excerpt from an article titled “Is Russia Winning the War?” by Aris Roussinos (thanks to AKAHorace for providing the link):

    A couple of weeks ago, I was smoking a cigarette outside my hotel in Kharkiv when a Ukrainian man, hearing me speak English, came over to show me a photo on his phone. It was of his 21-year-old son who he had just buried that day, killed fighting as part of a volunteer battalion outside Izyum. “He was my only son,” the man told me, “I still can’t believe my line has died out. I keep calling his phone and then remembering. Tomorrow I will join his unit and take his place.”

    As we consider votes in the US Senate, it is important to remember that 73% of Ukrainians, essentially, voted against this war.

    And how tragic that a man whose line had survived the Golden Horde, Tartar slave trading, the Holodomor and numerous other Bolshevik savageries, Nazi attrocities and WWII, as well as all the other tragedies that have disproportionately plagued his part of the world could not survive a geopolitical war that few Ukrainians wanted.

    • Thanks: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @HA
    , @Anonymous
  317. @cliff arroyo

    Who are those observers, and specifically what do they claim as their basis for this belief about President Putin?

  318. HA says:
    @Zero Philosopher

    “More idiotic patriotic drivel. The U.S won’t do sh*t against Russia and you know it.”

    In the case of the dissolution of the Soviet Empire, whatever it was that the US didn’t or won’t do was still enough to break it all apart. If the new Soviet Union similarly chooses to die primarily from self-inflicted injuries, that’s good enough for me. NATO got a whole lot bigger as a result of that earlier breakup, and they just added two more entries and became a whole lot more relevant, and all of it by invitation. Not a single tank rolling in uninvited, not a single acre of land being swiped by little-green-men tricks. As far as I can tell, no polonium or poison umbrellas either. Easy street.

    Whereas as noted by Triteia L, Putin has burned through tens of thousands of his own men to advance a couple of dozen kilometers from where he was when this invasion started and is scrambling to hold on to Kherson. The way I see it, the US has already done plenty against Russia, and stands to do a whole lot more, though Putin seems to be more or less doing their work by his own self. Again, it’s good enough for me.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  319. @Stan Adams

    Yes, but look at Mr. Putin’s male gaze directed at the protestor’s eyes?

    And look at the security guy sacrificing his male gaze in protecting Ms. Merkel from seeing where Mr. Putin isn’t looking?

    • LOL: Stan Adams
  320. @Jack D

    Russia has 7000 nuclear weapons and \$75,000,000,000,000 in commodity reserves in 12 time zones. You need to stop huffing toluene with your Chivas Regal. The carfentanyl may need to be diluted a bit before aerating it in your home’s HVAC system while you’re online, as Spetsnaz learned while taking out those hostage-taking Chechen terrorists at the Moscow theater.

  321. Russ says:
    @Stan Adams

    Thanks, Stan.

    Were the (highly improbable) Russian response to a NATO-conscripted Finland to take over Helsinki and bring that cleavage-to-navel PM [photo in Altai’s comment {#73} above – https://www.unz.com/isteve/u-s-senate-votes-95-1-to-have-u-s-defend-finlands-813-mile-long-border-with-russia/#comment-5476294, as best I can link] to Putin as a concubine, the GAE would have little room to be more shrill against Putin than it was pre-invasion. The GAE would shine her up as an enlightened hybrid of Margaret Thatcher and Jeane Kirkpatrick (if it hasn’t already).

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
  322. @Steve Sailer

    Senator Paul feels much the same.

    Thanks for frankly confirming that you share his lack of sound judgment.

  323. vinteuil says:
    @Jack D

    Putin dresses up his imperial ambitions as fighting for the white race

    Really? Seriously?

    Vladimir Putin has “imperial ambitions?

    And he “dresses up” these “imperial ambitions” as “fighting for the white race?”

    Shame on you, Jack.

  324. HA says:
    @EddieSpaghetti

    “As we consider votes in the US Senate, it is important to remember that 73% of Ukrainians, essentially, voted against this war.”

    Apparently, according to your quote, the man who tragically lost his son (not that there’s really any way to lose a son that isn’t tragic) has decided to join up and take his son’s place in his unit, so he’s apparently not eager to toss it in.

    And as of early Jul, about 90% of Ukrainians are against trading land for “peace”. I’m guessing they think hat any such “peace” will be temporary anyway and an invitation to Putin to come and take even more the next time. Crazy, I know — I mean, where could they have possibly gotten a bizarre idea like that given how trustworthy Putin has been when it comes to respecting agreements?

    That being the case, some of the details you’re omitting seem pretty relevant, making your overall argument a house of cards on a windy day.

    • Replies: @EddieSpaghetti
  325. @Russ

    The attractiveness of Finnish female PMs has increased over the years.

    [MORE]

    • LOL: Russ
  326. Anonymous[305] • Disclaimer says:
    @HA

    If the new Soviet Union

    Oh stop it, there is no new Soviet Union. And you wouldn’t have been against the actual Soviet Union back in the day.

    We’re all so sick of you guys and your ancient ethnic grudges.

    • Replies: @HA
  327. Gc says:
    @Jack D

    Similarly, Putin dresses up his imperial ambitions as fighting for the white race (but somehow simultaneously fighting against Nazism

    They are always the same thing? IRL, most of the people in this comment section more or less do fight for the white race. So paint it like that, Jack.

  328. Gc says:
    @Altai

    Number 1) I say East-Baltic and Germanic mixture. Very talented girl.
    Number 2) Scandinavian round eye. Whatever that means. Anyway,
    I had these Finnish 70 Focus dictionaries that I found as a kid, where all the sub-races were explained with map and features. I want my old books back.

  329. @Bragadocious

    Do you also believe babies were skewered on German bayonets? That was another British whopper.

    That is just standard boilerplate text that has been used to justify war since the time of the Athenians versus the Spartans.

    “Can we allow babies to be left out on hillsides to be eaten by wolves?” (Pericles.)

    It was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait.

    It will probably be used when Texas decides to invade Kansas to arrest abortionistas.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
  330. @HA

    I certainly said that few Ukrainians wanted war [in 2019] since 73% of them voted for the peace candidate. You certainly implied that most Ukrainians NOW want war by writing that currently “about 90% of Ukrainians are against trading land for peace.”

    So what’s your point? Are you questioning what I wrote? If so, then you must be implying that Ukrainians really did want war in 2019, because they were unwilling to trade land for peace even back then. That would tend to confirm what the Russians said when they accused the Ukrainians of massing their forces (before Feb 22, 2022) in the Donbas in order to mount a military offensive in the Donbas and eventually Crimea. Also, if the Ukrainians really did want war, then the Russians did them a favor by invading en masse on Feb 22, 2022.

    As far as the Ukrainians being unwilling to trade land for peace, that is very unfortunate, especially for the Ukrainians.

    • Replies: @HA
  331. HA says:
    @Anonymous

    “Oh stop it, there is no new Soviet Union…”

    Says you. Those who claim to know Putin best say otherwise:

    Trump speculated that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was an attempt to bring back the Soviet Union. “You could see it was a country where there was a lot of love,” Trump said…

    Yeah, a whole lotta love — that’s all it ever was. And I’m sure Ukrainians and Finns and Swedes and Latvians and Poles will be glad to learn from a real expert like you that their opposition to the Kremlin is merely “ethnic” and so very “ancient”. Yeah, sure. “That little misunderstanding in Bucha? Dude, that was WEEKS ago. Stop trying to dredge up ancient history!”

  332. Anonymous[226] • Disclaimer says:
    @EddieSpaghetti

    As we consider votes in the US Senate, it is important to remember that 73% of Ukrainians, essentially, voted against this war.

    How so?

    • Replies: @EddieSpaghetti
  333. HA says:
    @EddieSpaghetti

    “I certainly said that few Ukrainians wanted war [in 2019] since 73% of them voted for the peace candidate.”

    In other words, that would be BEFORE Putin chose to invade their country? So, how many of them NOW realize any notion of a peace candidate is — and really, always was — a cruel farce? And if the “war candidate” (let’s keep that sotto voce lest we trigger another conniption of logorrhea from Sean) had indeed been elected, the fanboys would be screaming right and left that it was the Ukrainians who sparked this war by refusing the peace candidate. As it is, they don’t even have that, but they’re still claiming Ukrainian aggression is to blame for this invasion. They’re STILL not satisfied. They never are.

    “So what’s your point? Are you questioning what I wrote? “

    I’m simply calling out your Orwellian attempt to bend reality to your Putin troll-farm propaganda. To the extent the Ukrainians are dissatisfied with their government, or want some other alternative, a large portion (I daresay the lion’s share) now realize their government should have done far more, and trusted the Kremlin far less.

    • LOL: EddieSpaghetti
  334. @Jonathan Mason

    Thanks for pointing out that people lie during wartime, Captain Obvious.

    The issue isn’t that the Brits lied, it’s that some of their lies have such traction that they’re even being repeated 106 years later by some dingbat on the pages of UR. That’s the real tragedy.

    Nice deflection to the abortion issue btw, but as usual, you’re talking out of your ass. Much more likely is a Putin nuke dropped in the middle of your beloved London.

  335. @Anonymous

    This excerpt from an interview of the late Stephen F. Cohen by Aaron Mate’ speaks for itself:

    “Zelensky ran as a peace candidate,” Cohen explained. “He won an enormous mandate to make peace. So, that means he has to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.” But there was a major obstacle. Ukrainian fascists “have said that they will remove and kill Zelensky if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin… His life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine.”

    Mate’s interview with Cohen is the center piece of Mate’s article on Substack titled “Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate.”

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism