veqq
22d ago
without any coherent vision
You mean establishing a totalitarian state worshipping reason as a god (for a while) which forcibly conscripted much of the population (for the first time ever)?
fight off the whole of Europe
Historical demographics are quite different from today's. On the eve of WWI, Europe had 25% of the world's population. To copypaste an old comment of mine a bit later:
The idea that Napoleon’s odds were insurmountable in 1813-14 doesn’t add up numerically either. The demographics of Europe in the early 19th century were very different than they are today. The French Empire and its Italian, Swiss, and Dutch client states contained 56 million people. French-occupied Germany was another 20 million at least. The Russian Empire had 35 million people, Austria 23 million, Britain 10 million, Prussia 10 million, and Sweden 3 million. Britain had imperial possessions as well, but their governments were even more decentralized than in later periods and their people could not be effectively mobilized for war. So, we can see that the “inexhaustible allied hordes” are a myth. Altogether, the allies controlled 81 million people and the French 76 million. France also controlled what was then the richer part of Europe, and could more easily mobilize its population. Case in point, after the total loss of his army in Russia Napoleon had another one waiting for him in Germany already.
In 1800, metropolitan France had about 30 million people and Russia 25 million (including many Poles, just incorporated, who would support Napoleon.)
veqq
22d ago
There are many errors in the common retellings:
- in 1990 Ukraine's declaration of sovereignty rejected nuclear weapons
- in 1991 Ukraine signed away any rights to Soviet nuclear weapons
- in 1992 Ukraine signed Start I pledging no proliferation etc.
- Ukraine never had launch codes, command over the soldiers and equipment (the Russian and Ukrainian were still the same and working directly together under the CIS framework until perhaps 97) not that it had money to maintain it either
The Budapest Memorandum helped implement this, but contained no security guarantees just promises to vaguely help or not to attack.
veqq
24d ago
The Oranians stress only using their own labor for just this reason. Exploiting cheaper, outside labor, succumbing to Mammon's siren song, corrupts morally and leads to generational destruction like a Gothic novel.
veqq
26d ago
I just want technocrats who will build a thousand nuclear reactors, regulate industrial contaminants and unhealthy food, craft policy for cheaper industrial inputs, rationalize local (city, county, state) regulations and bureaucracy (e.g. a unified online tax or building permit system) and encourage our people and culture to prosper, like Lew Kuan Yew. I've seen nothing like this in the West. Should I build it?
veqq
26d ago
with the rest probably safe in Kyiv
Without security guarantees, what prevents Bucha, Makarov, Izyum, Liman etc. from happening in Kiev? We actually have more evidence of Russian atrocities against Ukrainians than Nazis against Jews in 1938.
veqq
27d ago
Edited, I'm sorry for expressing myself poorly! That was an actual question. I've not seen anyone advocate for leftist economics nor open boarders in quite a while (at most, someone saying they'd like to immigrate.)
anti-Trump
Most seem to be regular contributors whose red line Trump already passed (they don't trust Trump to fix demographics enough to overlook the rest.)
leftist
"More than two sides", political compass blabla. What does leftist mean to you? It's easy to object to them from the right (or wherever) e.g. Vance for not raising his children Christian/Catholic (his wife hasn't converted) (cf. him saying "my wife's children" and saying he feels terrible for dragging her to church.)
Personally, I criticize Trump from the industrial and commodity lobby, where he was bad for mining and energy in his first term (Biden was good for O&G, bad for nuclear and mining), wants to increase production (although crude's already around break even for many producers and the last booms and busts ravaged the industry) and ban exports. Lately, I oppose insane rhetoric about Ukraine and may appear to be a fierce defender of Ukraine; but I have 10 year old pro-Crimea comments, prefer Russian culture to American and Ukrainian etc. but I respect the truth and don't lie for position advantages in some great metapolitical crusade.
veqq
27d ago
Ukraine and Russia need it because we’re in a transition phase in terms of warfare
It's more so due to incompetence (in different ways, depending on the situation). A friend's writing a series on how "meat" appeared (on both sides): https://duncanlmcculloch.substack.com/p/meat-part-1-expendable-infantry-in
Turns out you can claim a 50 year old treaty had different words and your supporters won't look at it!
Trump et al. now claim China controls the canal, because Landbridge and Hutchison, Chinese companies, have port concessions nearby. It's some Art of the Deal crap to message incoherently and obscure your actual goal for theoretical leverage. The US charged cost for transit, but the Panamanians regularly increase transit costs (a free market between using it and going around). That was ok, until the LNG boom, where even though LNG exports (to Japan, Korea...) through the canal are limited because of wait times (only 60% go through, the rest opt to go around), they compose almost half of canal revenue. (Tanker transit costs about $600k.) This feels like US industry is being unjustly charged.
The Neutrality Treaty specifies "just, reasonable, equitable" tolls. Although the US Navy always paid, the administration recently wanted Navy ships exempted. (N.b. US Navy ships don't have to wait in line.) Brzezinski convinced everyone to support the treaty by stating the US could simply take the canal back if Panama closed it. Trump's trying to equivocate charging market rates with closing the canal.
Personally, I think ceding control was a bad move (just like opposing the Suez intervention in 57) but this has all the finesse and trustworthiness of a sleazy carny. Simply announce that the US is open to expansion, allow Greenland, Panama or sections thereof to join the United States as new territories (if both sides desire). Simply announce that the US wants lower transit fees and higher throughput at the same time (logically, how could this happen considering the maintenance and construction burden?) and negotiate from that. But no, the administration does not respect its own electorate nor its peers and regularly lies to them (whether out of malice or ADHD, who can know?)
veqq
28d ago
Do you actually speak Russian or Ukrainian? Can you actually show us ...Ukrainians suicide bombing offices?
veqq
28d ago
the rise of a new ethnic group,
How much have you read about 18th-19th century European state formation, national awakenings, the Huegenots etc.? In European France, French was spoke by 10% of the population when the revolution started https://books.google.com/books?id=jKX1TenIOH0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Sur+la+necessit%C3%A9+gregoire&source=bl&ots=3hG3zAtBfF&sig=7aqGkOkwSlxt3wRG-3mp4TMDbSg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1p5MUOGZLoWa9gS_sYHoCQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sur%20la%20necessit%C3%A9%20gregoire&f=false
not based on shared genetic traits, but on certain cultural traits being emphasized more than others,
This actually happened quite a lot. People of all races became German in Central European cities, e.g. in the great immigration waves from the Netherlands, Scotland, Germany etc. after Poland was depopulated by the Mongols. Those city dwellers were specifically craftsmen as opposed to farmers etc. The aristocrats became French in culture (there were 2 waves of Frenchification in the 13th century and 17th centuries) (or German by blood, especially after the 18th century.)
With understanding he is quite o'errun;
And by too great accomplishments undone:
With skill he vibrates his eternal tongue,
For ever most divinely in the wrong.
veqq
29d ago
The fed's already changed US Q1 growth forecasts from 2% to -3%: https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow
veqq
1mo ago
the world that they don’t get everything for free anymore
Even for those not sharing the Atlantic consensus' liberal secular values, how does America's control over many of the world's largest economies constitute charity? Why don't you believe that it gives American companies full access to foreign markets, subsidizes American debt etc. contributing a large portion of American prosperity after the 1980's and especially 2000's deindustrialization? E.g. a trade deficit is good for consumers, for the normal folk...
veqq
1mo ago
would have given the Americans substantial influence over the future of the Ukrainian economy.
N.b. it was only 50% of revenues from non-existent and infeasible industries, not that it matters anymore.
veqq
1mo ago
as Obama stated
For fuller context:
As regards the two-year-old conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the president said Ukraine is a core interest for Moscow, in a way that it is not for the United States. He noted that, since Ukraine does not belong to NATO, it is vulnerable to Russian military domination, and that “we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for.”
Democrats international money laundering operations that have been further exposed via the vetting of USAID
That's still a conspiracy. At least, I've yet to see any proof or even mildly plausible concrete descriptions. Domestic webs of domestic (insert pejorative adjectives) NGOs (and in Central America) doing things we don't like, sure. But they're doing concrete work, which we oppose. If they were just laundering the money into their pockets, the culture war might look different. But in Ukraine? Ukrainian journalists and logistics organizations certainly aren't redirecting money to help people break the law in the US, they're making up for destroyed logistics systems and talking about the war... Anyway, please do point me to proof if I'm wrong!
Why should we even continue to listen to discredited warhawks?
You are simply listening to (Russian) warhawks, while calling incompetent bureaucrats, scared of escalation, warhawks for trickling material. If not for Bucha, I might not object to your argument...
From your other comments, I don't think you understand much about this war in any sense, what combat is like, why there's a stalemate, what goals the parties have etc. The real threat is ensuring deescalation happens in both Russia and Ukraine at the same time, otherwise peace only means disarming Ukraine so Russia can continue later, tripwire or not. (I'm not convinced recent US and EU governments would have reacted to the red line of their tripwire forces being overrun, were they hypothetically there in 2022 already.)
who fantasize about killing millions of Russians
Full NATO mobilization would have a mean estimated death toll in the millions
The forces involved are a magnitude lower. Russia is not a peer and even some cartoon scenario without air power, NATO would not need to mobilize or increase its industrial base (just actually sign multiyear munitions contracts with its existing factories).
veqq
1mo ago
While I agree with you overall and liked the mineral deal:
Instead, a big American mining concession in the Donbass, right on the border, acts as the tripwire.
It was less concrete than that. It's unclear whether economically viable rare earth reserves even exist there. The true genius would have been signing a 300 or 500 billion or whatever deal for something that doesn't exist, making everyone happy. Remember, rare earths aren't rare nor found in veins like gold, they're just spread in trace amounts everywhere and unprofitable to extract from already-mined-ore in most circumstances. No American company would waste money building such infrastructure, but could an empty concession be a tripwire (with part of it already occupied)?
tl;dr: Yes, it would not degrade readiness against China, at all nor require out of theater assets. NATO air forces would quickly defeat Russia, NATO land power would help but not change things without air support.
Ok, let’s pretend that we actually have the balls to go fight Russia and curb-stomp them out of Ukraine (including, of course, Crimea). Does the US and her allies really have the ability to fight a two-theater war? I would question this.
Ukraine is conventionally equal to Russia. (Ignoring making Russia sad and nukes), a small increase in power would result in local overmatch cascading to relatively cheap victory. Even just the EU's F-35s (though they're probably lacking in munitions) are more than enough to shape the front (like 2022 with HIMARS in Kharkov) or even win the war (there's debate how effective Russia's air defense would be, but failures in Syria (of Russian operated systems) against Israel suggest not very.)
NATO minus the US and Turkey doesn't have especially more ground power than Ukraine (e.g. in brigade numbers, due to lack of mobilization and equipment). ( /r/credibledefense there are some comments giving detail) but even some 10 brigades would be enough to break the current stalemate (if not for drones and the recon fires complex. That is, the stalemate is of a different kind.) But if F-35s' EW capabilities are able to saturate the spectrum, degrading Russian C2-5 or degrade air defense enough for other assets, existing Ukrainian forces could very well suffice (but more would help.)
veqq
1mo ago
The point is youtube will serve all necessary files at the same time, you're not limited to a slow data stream. This is what we would call 'instant'.
veqq
1mo ago
yt-dlp will download and transform a 20 minute youtube video in under a second, including subtitles if you want.
high ... middle... new... are all the same link
More options
Context Copy link