@FirmWeird's banner p

FirmWeird

Randomly Generated Reddit Username

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 23:38:51 UTC

				

User ID: 757

FirmWeird

Randomly Generated Reddit Username

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 23:38:51 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 757

Before we engage in fantasies of mighty Russian army reaching the English channel like the last three years never happened

They'd just let the British leadership know that the start of the conflict would involve an oreshnik hitting them and the Brits would immediately surrender when they learned that it wouldn't just be poor people dying.

The current situation is the equivalent of the entire US being halted in Tijuana during an attempted invasion of Mexico (and indeed, having to fight the Mexicans in Arizona two years into the war).

If we're going to adopt that metaphor then you would also have the entirety of China and Latin America supplying advanced munitions, satellite targeting data, ammunition, "trainers", training and equipment while also sanctioning the US' economy and preventing any chips from TSMC getting exported. It's actually entirely believable to me that the US would struggle to take territory in those circumstances - and at the same time, when that support came to an end, the US would be able to bulldoze their way to Chile without much difficulty.

Those NATO arms also erased vast quantities of Russian invaders and their hardware, making Russia even less of a threat to NATO than they were before the war.

It is generally agreed that the Russian army is stronger than it was before the war started. A lot of the corruption and dead weight was forcibly cleaned out by actual combat, and they've made multiple advances in weapon technology in the same timeframe. Their missile technology has advanced to the point that it is superior to NATO technology (there's no NATO equivalent to the Oreshnik) and their soldiers have substantially more experience on modern battlefields than NATO troops, and against NATO weaponry to boot. Even on the manufacturing side, they're producing substantially more shells and ammunition than NATO is, especially if you include all their other allies. If Russia wanted to invade and take over the entirety of Western Europe the only way to stop them would be nuclear. Have you seen the pathetic size and readiness of most NATO militaries?

And substantially less militarily equipped. Vast sums of arms and ammunition (and plenty of "trainers") were sent to Ukraine to be destroyed or sold on the black market. Sure, there are more nations in NATO, but the USA is making loud noises about leaving and the military investment just isn't there. NATO being larger doesn't even rise to the level of a refutation of RandomRanger's point - bigger is not always better.

Defensive technology is simply too good. Even Houthi rebels have ballistic anti ship missiles.

I agree with your overall point but I think you have this mixed up slightly - the problem is not that defensive technology is too good but precisely the opposite. Anti-missile technology hasn't advanced to the same degree as missile technology, and there's now a significant advantage on the offensive side. There are only hypothetical defence systems against the newest round of hypersonics (which the US doesn't even have), and this is going to cause a major shift in wars - it means that incredibly expensive floating targets protected by sophisticated anti-missile systems can be taken down and defeated by far less expensive offensive technologies.

What makes this even worse for any nations who invested vast sums of money into expensive and now obsolete-against-peer-competitor technologies is that those expensive technologies now have political constituencies who will aggressively advocate for more money to be poured into them, preventing any kind of adaptation or shift until serious consequences have already shown up.

Do you have any actual evidence that he was lying or just insinuations?

and also because Israel comments often feel more like bait than legitimate attempts at discussion

Bait? I'm being completely earnest here, and it seemed to me like you just ignored the Israel question and went on a tangent because it completely destroys your main argument.

Sure, they took a little more land from Syria recently, but that's whatever, they didn't even fight over it.

See, you don't actually care about these norms at all. "Yeah we come down really harshly on gaining new territory via conquest but Israel doesn't have to abide by those rules because... umm, they just don't, okay!" is not a norm that anyone will give a single shit about. Why should Russia or China care in the slightest about this supposed norm against wars of conquest when your moral condemnation passes silently over Israel and gives them a pass to exterminate an unwelcome ethnicity because of their stated desire for more lebensraum? Why can't Russia, China or 1930s Germany simply claim the same "that's whatever" exemption Israel does? And if you want to say that Israel didn't even fight over it, do you want me to go get some evidence of Israel's frequent military interventions in Syria before the fall of the Assad regime?

But their behavior falls far short of "expansionist wars" by most measures (I guess they've invaded Lebanon a time and a half? Is that what you're referring to?).

Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. If you don't think that what happened to Palestine counts, then Russia and China can simply adopt the same strategy and conquer new territory in the same fashion.

Anyways, this has nothing to do with the value of lives and everything to do with the balance of world power + avoiding mega-wars.

Asia's population is almost 7 times larger than Europe's - a total war that impacted the entirety of Europe would barely even be a regional conflict by Asian standards. China alone is a far larger player in the real global economy than Europe is - the TSMC fabrication plants getting destroyed and Japanese shipping getting interdicted due to conflict seems to me like it would have a far larger knock-on effect than anything Russia or the US would do to Europe. It seems like you agree with that, but I got the opposite impression when you claimed(seemingly, my apologies if I misunderstood) earlier that "in Europe" rendered a conflict more serious than elsewhere in the world.

I don't think we have some kind of moral duty to police everyone, though I do think we can do some smaller things to help keep stuff stable.

The US is currently aiding and abetting Israel's aggression, and actively working to prevent peace in the region. You're right that there's no moral duty to police everyone, but there is a moral duty to police those who you shower with mountains of blood and treasure. As for keeping stuff stable, I have good news - with Trump and Elon Musk demolishing both USAID and the NED, a lot of places around the world are going to be substantially more stable (especially Latin America).

So do I hold big states to a different standard than small states?

So it's fine to be an aggressive, expansionist power, you just can't get too big. Would you be fine with Russia's invasion of Ukraine if they instead simply loaned all their troops and equipment to the Donbass Republic? After all, you can't hold small states to the same standard as large ones like Russia.

I don't think such a world-view is possible, not with total consistency.

I oppose wars of aggression and conquest no matter the size of the states in question - I am an advocate for peace and believe that peaceful co-existence is not just possible but an ideal worth striving for. Total consistency with no pretzels needed! Of course, actually adjudicating whether or not a given war is a war of aggression can be tough in some circumstances, but you get that issue with just about any world-view.

I think if we're all being honest there is an actual difference between wars of aggression by a major world power and in Europe than elsewhere in the world.

I don't think that. What, exactly, makes the lives of people outside of Europe worth less than those of Europeans? Why would it be more acceptable for China to invade my nation than it would be for Russia to invade Poland?

It doesn't fit the expansionist mold, and expansionist wars by major powers are the most dangerous kind, the kind we want to discourage.

Ok, so what about Israel? They are explicitly waging expansionist wars with the backing of the US, a major power. Why didn't you address the core point of my comment and instead go onto a tangent about Iraq? I mean, I agree that the Iraq war was a terrible idea, but what does that actually have to do with the west's full-throated and enthusiastic support of expansionist wars by heavily militarised ethnostates?

Those are some nice additions. I think there are a few other US supported wars of conquest as well, but I just stuck with the most belligerent violator of said norms I know of.

Make it crystal clear that there's a rules based order and if you just cross boundaries in a war of conquest we will not make it easy.

Are you sure about this? The US' current policy is that if you cross boundaries in a war of conquest, invade other nations, bomb their hospitals and murder their children the US won't just go out of their way to make it easy for you, they'll make boycotting you illegal and declare criticism of your actions a public health crisis while supplying you with vast quantities of money and advanced weaponry. If you actually want to send that message, would you be fine with declaring Israel a rogue state and applying the same sanctions on them until they return to the 1948 borders?

The first step to authoritarianism is creating a climate in which dissent is punished.

Are you going to seriously sit here and post about how terrible it is that people aren't bringing up their political opinions or views due to fear of retribution from Trump, and then claim that this is the start of some creeping authoritarianism? Have you been in a coma for the past two decades? You're describing a kind of pressure and chilling that doesn't even reach ten percent of the pervasiveness of social justice culture as some brand new authoritarian threat, but if you actually took your stated position seriously you'd have been cheering Trump on in the hope that he could smash "woke" culture (if that is the case then I applaud your consistency).

Instead of being afraid, more of us need to speak out for the values of democracy. It is harder to suppress voices this way. And people who are threatened by Musk and Trump especially need to be supported.

"Values of democracy" - could you please tell me what those are? Because your post seems to imply that these values are just "uncontested rule by the managerial class", and I don't think "democracy" is a good word to describe that.

Well I do apologize (sincerely) for the rudeness, that’s never my intention. But I do think people often feel that propaganda doesn’t work on them even though it would, or even though they don’t notice it already doing so.

Thank you. And you're perfectly right when you say that people often feel that propaganda doesn't work on them, but I think you're overestimating the effectiveness of it by far. Propaganda isn't going to turn someone like me who goes out to protests in support of the Palestinian cause into someone willing to go bleed out in the sand to protect Israel, but it doesn't need to do that to be effective. It has a bigger impact in the way that it shapes the issues that I focus on - I haven't been paying attention to all manner of low-level corruption scandals in my home country even though they ultimately have a larger impact on my life than what's happening in Ukraine or Israel.

I don't really advocate for leftist economics on here terribly much but as someone who is technically a leftist I take the same approach to open borders that Bernie Sanders used to before the vampire castle got to him - open borders are a tool used by the wealthy to drive down wages and make living conditions for workers much more precarious, because that shifts the balance of power to them (desperate workers are more willing to put up with abuse, low pay, etc).

The claim @FirmWeird is making that Starmer started something is straightforwardly false.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I just want to clarify that I wasn't saying this was the start of all foreign election interference. I was making that claim in a more limited context (the current slapfight), which is why I then went on to say that the US did not have clean hands and that the supposed norm was broken a long time ago. My apologies for being unclear!

What an incredibly rude and insulting statement - I actually did take offence. I don't post many details about my personal life here, but I am actually the sort of incredibly contrarian person who wouldn't have fallen for it - which isn't necessarily always a positive thing and has caused me issues in my life before (I have self diagnosed myself with ODD in the past). Besides, the powers that be DO want me to die for Ukraine or Israel - and they haven't succeeded so far. Please don't project your own personal failings and moral weakness onto others.

Any military where the basic troops are only given their weapons for the first time in active combat is so incompetently run that fighting to the death against the conscription officers in my own home would give me better odds. Being shipped to the front line and given your weapon only when you get there is a death sentence in a modern battlefield and if that's the strategy we have already lost.

Yes, absolutely. Sorry, that's just an editing mistake (accidentally removed the only sentence where I actually named Israel). I don't think there are any other potential candidates, however - the health issue one specifically has no other comparisons.

How could conscription cause they state to lose "all legitimacy" when the aforementioned crimes against the people barely dented it?

None of the things you mentioned involve those people having to give up their exceedingly comfortable lives. Caring or doing anything about those issues causes you to lose your job, family and entire social life - and if you have any responsibilities or dependents, that means you aren't going to be doing anything to mess up your ability to put food on the table, nor are you going to spend countless hours researching obscure political stories that are heavily suppressed by major respectable institutions. Throw in the trends towards social alienation, isolation, bowling alone etc

Conscription isn't like that. Conscription actively steps into people's lives and completely destroys the comfortable existences they thought they had. In a healthy society where people have real attachments to the nation, trust in its leaders and an understanding that their loyalty to it will be rewarded, this won't be a big problem. But for vast swathes of modern western populations this just isn't the case. Social trust and cohesion are in the toilet, nobody has kids they want to fight for, huge numbers of men don't even have girlfriends to miss and there's even a growing contingent of men who actively despise women and wouldn't want to fight for them at all. Speaking for myself personally I'd rather frag my commanding officer before I even got out of basic training than go die in the Middle East for Israel or in Ukraine for nothing. I don't think I'm alone, and I believe my life is worth preserving (from my perspective, not universally) - when you look at how many people are miserable, lonely and depressed I really don't see conscription working out at all.

Just to clarify, the entire Russian collusion conspiracy theory has already been dealt with and completely discredited. Trump is not a Russian agent and the entire debate has been done to death over and over again - the source of the entire claim is a combination of opposition research purchased from the Russians by the Clinton campaign and 4chan /pol/ trolls making fun of a conservative anti-Trumper who was relentlessly bullied online by people who read his son's book about indulging in a piss fetish.

Besides, we know that Trump actually is a compromised agent of a foreign power, and we can see what that compromise leads him to do:

  1. Deport people who protest against this foreign power
  2. Deliver vast sums of blood and treasure despite ostensibly promising to shut down foreign aid
  3. Have his underlings declare criticism of said foreign power a "health crisis"
  4. Make sure that important evidence of serious crimes which implicate said power and would have a negative effect on their reputation remain redacted and unpublished.

Trump has done none of these things for Russia, and while he hasn't treated them as The Great Satan that a lot of NATO-types believe they are, he hasn't been an obsequious lickspittle either. He's treated them with the respect due to a nuclear power that has their own interests, but that's just good statesmanship and negotiation rather than him being compromised.

Elected leaders should be respectful of the elected leaders of other countries, even if they privately hate them.

This is just tit-for-tat - the Europeans violated this first, with Starmer sending staff over to campaign for Kamala and Zelensky doing it in person. I agree that the norm of not interfering is good, but it was broken a long time ago (and it isn't like the US has clean hands here either).

As someone frequently accused of being a Russia apologist, I have to disagree - people living in Crimea should be voting in Russian elections, not Ukrainian ones. If Ukraine doesn't want to let the people in the contested regions vote, they're simply making the implicit case that those regions are not part of Ukraine.

I'm not Hydro but I absolutely expect this to withstand the ensuing media blitz. Who gives a shit about what the media wants or does anymore? Trump would be more at risk from an alternative media blitz, and that just won't happen in this scenario. Most people understand that the TSA doesn't do anything worthwhile or productive anyway.

No, it's literally what you said:

What I was objecting to was the claim that the alternative media were right about "everything". There's plenty they were wrong about - just ask Sidney Poitier. There was a lot of nonsense and misinformation spread on both sides of the Ukraine conflict, and just because one side was ultimately correct in the end doesn't mean that they were right about everything.

despite there being some very obvious reasonable alternative explanations.

Are there? I haven't seen any. The idea that Trump was captured by Russian propaganda falls outside the "reasonable" camp to me, and it falls especially far out when I cast my mind back over the Russiagate scandal and what actually happened there.

Birther conspiracy theory and the 2020 stolen election conspiracy theory.

My reading of the Birther conspiracy theory was that he was testing the waters for an eventual political run and building up some goodwill with the republican base. I don't think he actually believed that, but I'm open to the possibility that he did (it doesn't actually change my estimation of him though). As for the 2020 election, I'm not sure how much of that is "conspiratorial thinking" or whatever pejorative you want to imply with use of that language as opposed to trying to win and retain power.

But the bigger problem with accusing Trump of being a conspiracy theorist is that there actually were several conspiracies against him from inside the federal government. There really were spies listening to his communications and cooking up ways to prosecute him on spurious charges! I think you're really further destroying the value of "conspiracy theorist" as a pejorative here - was MLK a conspiracy theorist when he thought the government was surveilling him?

If mixpap is right about Trump's character, and he is susceptible to low-effort social media campaigns in a way which the vast majority of people who are paying attention and have 90+ IQs are not,

I don't actually think this is the case. There are real and serious reasons for Trump to hold the stance he currently holds on Ukraine, and social media campaigns just aren't one of them. Do you remember the Burisma scandal? Do you remember Trump getting impeached over it? Do you remember the entire Russiagate scandal? Do you remember Trump's stated policy positions, which involved pulling out of Ukraine? You mentioned being alive in 2014, but if you were actually paying attention since then it is abundantly clear why Trump hates Ukraine and wants the war over and done with. That's just so much more likely than the Russian hypnosis hypothesis I don't think you're going to be convincing anyone until you can explain what happened in a bit more detail.

No - the weapon doesn't work close to universally. We know that because Tim Pool and Lauren Southern had to be paid to spout Russian propaganda on Twitter.

Actually, in the sci-fi mind control weapon scenario you're proposing this isn't necessarily the case. It could be that the weapon is simply expensive to use and so only gets deployed on high value targets, or uses mechanisms which they don't want to risk revealing. Maybe it only works on people past a certain age, or maybe alcohol provides a protective barrier against it. We're already well into sci-fi territory here so we may as well have fun. As for Dim Fool and Lauren Southern, I think they're morons - just go have a read of the Kiwifarms threads on them.

The troop movements were detectable by satellite - the invasion was definitely coming from Russian-controlled territory and not, say, the United States.

Are you familiar with the details of Mearsheimer's position? Yes, I agree Russia sent their troops into Ukraine... but arguing that this means they're solely responsible is like saying that a bullied child who finally snaps and punches their bully in the teeth started a fight. Technically he was the one who went and punched the other child in the face, but giving him all the responsibility makes your understanding of the world worse. That said, I won't litigate it here - Mearsheimer himself actually wrote a much stronger version of the argument which I will just link https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war

Russia is not currently open to peace without victory, and Ukraine probably isn't either. The rest of us can either shut up or pick a side. Trump has picked the Russian side, and the rest of us can judge him accordingly.

The alternative to a Russian victory would be a nuclear war that destroys advanced civilization. Ukraine and the West are not capable of defeating Russia in this conflict and to pretend otherwise has done nothing but consign a generation of young Ukrainians to pointless, wasteful deaths. Trump is simply recognising reality and doing what he can to minimise the death and wasted money - I think he's done bad things (see his plans for Gaza) but this really isn't one of them.

Did you not elect him to crush the deep state, banish drag-queens from schools, deport every illegal immigrant or whatever and defy hostile parts of government?

No, I'm not American. I'm not even a right-winger - but I am a populist, and I hoped Trump would got re-elected because he would smash and destroy the infrastructure of the American Empire. I'm not exactly shedding tears over the shutdown of USAID, an organisation which provided both generators and torture training to right wing regimes so that they could prevent the socialists from taking power and charging Americans slightly higher prices for fruit.

Did you expect him to listen to something so silly as secret services? Down with that woke nonsense!

I think the ironically named intelligence community in the US is full of shit and actively hostile to Trump, as they revealed in their text messages. But if your position is that the intelligence community can (and should) defy the will of the voters and implement the policies they prefer in the face of popular opposition, I think you're defending something far worse than Trump is even threatening to be.

I cannot help but feel like "either the Russians have a mind control device or else the alternative media were right about everything" is a bit of a false dichotomy.

You're right - fortunately, that's a bit more extreme than what I actually said. I think John Mearsheimer presents the strongest version of the argument that the Potus and his administration seem to believe, and I've heard that a lot of people in Trump's orbit agree with his views. By far the most likely situation to me is that Trump and his team, after gaining access to the Federal Government's resources on the topic, think that he's correct as well.

The alternative alternative hypothesis

You mean the mainstream hypothesis promulgated by the legacy media organisations.

Trump is a simp for authoritarians in general and Putin in particular

I don't think that's an accurate characterisation of his thinking. If he prefers authoritarians, why is Vance out there telling Europe to roll back their incredibly authoritarian hate speech laws? Why is he telling Zelensky that he needs to have free elections - wouldn't he prefer Zelensky more if he just proclaimed himself Caesar for life? I don't think that whether or not someone is an authoritarian is what decides Trump's view of them. As for Putin in particular, do you want to go talk about Russiagate? I've made a lot of posts on the topic both here and on the old site we can go through first.

how a not very bright 78 year old conspiracy theorist might fall for bullshit that flatters his preferences.

The POTUS is a conspiracy theorist? Bro, were you alive during Russiagate? The feds really were listening to his phonecalls and trying to take him down - we have the texts and the documents (ever read the Peter Strzok texts?). The Big Guy really was getting a cut from the Burisma scandal, and Trump was totally right to attack Ukraine over it in his first term. When you use the term conspiracy theorist to describe someone with multiple government agencies making spurious attempts to throw him in jail or stymie his efforts and who survived multiple legitimate assassination attempts you're just making the term even more useless than it already is. I mean, sure, the statement is literally true - but the conspiracies in question weren't just real, they were thoroughly documented and some people even went to prison over it.