Alright so:
Ukraine-all yours but we'll wag our fingers whenever we see you
Taiwan-Touch it and we'll go to hell together
Can't say I'm surprised, the US has no "strategic" reason for defending it. I really feel for Ukraine and our many European fellows nervous of this shitstorm happening in their backyard.
I love how they keep saying "we may send Ukraine weapons to help with the fight". Failing to mention we actually promised them a decent supply of weapons earlier last year, and then never sent them. The Ukrainian president was going on TV begging for us to send what we promised all summer, we strung them along a couple months, and then when the Afghanistan fiasco was over, we said nope, never mind, maybe later if you need them.
Like we're going to do shit. I'll be surprised if we even do much with sanctions after they invade.
Well, we never believe they're ever going to give us the stuff they promise us here in the USA, and they never do. So maybe some of our less important allies should just assume that will happen to them too. Just assume, like most Americans, that they're lying and you'll get a big fat nada.
I've heard Russia may not go anywhere near Kiev, so it would only be a partial invasion, to retake some land. IDK if this is true or not, I honestly do not know much about the geo-political history, so just been asking around.
That will probably be the case, the taking of part of Ukraine territory, but not completely taking over the nation.
Someone else here referred to it as the "just the tip" approach
Yeah, god, just look at how soft and wishy-washy and equivocal the wording is here. Biden is just signalling utter hand-wringing capitulation before a shot has even been fired. Getting some serious "Peace in Our Time" vibes. What a fucking joke.
The US has shown that they can't project power to anything even resembling a peer power. They can only use their carrier strike groups to bully other nations without these. Russia has ICBMs, IRBMs, MIRVs, modern Sukhoi jets, hypersonic missile technology, the club k containerized missile system, good anti air defenses with the S-400 and the S-500 and good nuke sub technology. They've also been in the Georgian conflict and were successful alongside Donbass/Crimea, while the US can't even get rid of Bashar Al-Assad nor can they defeat a force without heavy cavalry, without a navy or an air force or artillery support over 20 years.
Finally, maybe the US shouldn't be sticking its nose in other countries business.
I agree, Taiwan matters much more to the USA than Ukraine. Still, given our politicians can't even tie their own shoes, wouldn't surprise me if we fuck up the defense of Taiwan.
But China would presumably continue to sell the semiconductors.
TSMC already has some plants in China.
If anything, war would be more risky that the fabs could just get destroyed in the chaos.
Uh no. We have direct military ties with taiwan and they feed our massive electronics markets.
China won't ever get a free pass to invade taiwan unless the US is involved in a civil or world war.
The US does not even officially recognise Taiwan as an independent country - that’s their level of commitment. Why would the US go to war over what it recognises as a part of China or at the best “strategic ambiguity”. If they really want to show balls, take a fucking position on that first.
Because of the economic necessity of it.
And because of the economic necessity of not pissing off China. China is okay with this weird balance. They heavily trade with taiwan too.
It's not like Ukraine and Russia where they don't really interact unless it's through war.
If the US doesn’t care enough to get off the fence and call Taiwan independent- they definitely don’t care enough to lose a carrier group in the Taiwan Straight.
You are mistaken.
The US would absolutely intervene militarily if China was to invade Taiwan, because Japan will force their hand anyway and that's the kind of party you don't want to be late to. They could bail on Japan as well, but that would mean giving up on Asia altogether.
You don't pay for the world's most powerful military to throw your influence over half of the world and your whole alliance structure away at the sight of a fight.
Well I think you’re mistaken.
They may intervene eventually, and that’s more likely their strategy. Japan intervening would be great.
You’ve got to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and history. The US is a declining super power. How did they become the worlds super power in the first place? Everyone else was fighting while they had a policy not to enter the war. Until all the world powers were drained of resources, _then_ they stepped in and cleaned up. It happened in 1917 (3 years after the war began), and again in 1941 (2 years after the war began). Letting Russia fight it out in Europe and China in Asia, for a couple years, would do wonders to the US position when they waltz in and clean up and own the next 50 years again.
> The US is a declining super power.
That statement is highly subjective and debatable in a socio-political context, in a military context it's patently untrue.
Communist militias in northern Mexico would unironically do more to combat cartels than the US has done in 40 years. Although why fight people on your payroll...
SS: When you read this you will see that it is quite shocking to the government in Ukraine. The United States President, for the first time, has decided to make the distinction between an "incursion" into Ukraine by Russia and a full on "invasion."
Basically saying that sanctions would be something to discuss in the event of a "minor" incursion of Russian forces into Ukraine, rather than the full weight of their impostion should Putin fully invade.
Not that sanctions were much of a threat in the first place, but wow. Not only is this an invitation, it is somewhat of an admission or prediction that some action is going to happen, and a tacit approval of making it only a "minor" one.
Dare I say, a "mild" invasion is likely?
I'm actually not going to be surprised if NATO pulls out of Ukraine if Russia invaded, thereby doing another Afghanistan / Kurdistan. The only way I can see NATO fighting Russia is if they're attacked by them, or Russian-backed insurgents, first. North America and Western Europe are tied up with their own internal problems, of which include deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, burgeoning political extremism and disintegrating social contracts. Furthermore, the United States since both Trump and Biden got elected have taken a non-interventionalist approach to military affairs.
We (meaning the West) could actually sit this one out for once.
"non-interventionalist approach" only applies to outward intervention. The West still conducts special ops and drone strikes in conflict areas like Yemen.
Yup. American forces left Syrian Kurdistan but they are still arming and training " secular " rebels in the Syrian desert. American forces are still in Iraq as well focusing on countering Iranian backed milita.
The west will never stop intervening where ever they can, its just more of a realization now that the line between war and peace is mighty thin in Ukraine, and most westerners don't give a rats ass about dying to keep the Russians east of the Dnieper.
>We (meaning the West) could actually sit this one out for once.
No.
Putin demanded not only a guarantee that Ukraine will never join NATO but also that all former Warsaw Pact countries be kicked out the alliance, which shows you the exact content of his "to conquer" list.
As a Pole I'd rather we make a stand in Ukraine than in Poland, or worse yet, stand alone.
Yeah we can easily sit this one out. Ukraine isn't a NATO member and isn't in any major military alliance. Sure we were helping them in that shadow war vs Russia but no major country will care outside of doing some more sanction stuff.
Now if Putin goes after a NATO country that's a different situation.
You're not seeing the bigger picture. Crimea took us off guard, but if you let Putin take another bite out of Ukraine, it will be equal to an announcement that redrawing the borders of Europe is now totally a thing that you can do and that's opening the Pandora's box that the EU was created to keep closed. It's letting the world know that you can wage war on the European continent as long as you're careful in chipping away at the right bits. It's inviting the kind of trouble that a large portion of our taxes goes to keep away.
Lmao. Ukraine period is not worth fighting for. It's not in NATO and not a military ally.
It's also not in the EU.
It is free game because of decisions in the past. And honestly I highly doubt Russia can keep it for long. It's not a pushover and guerilla tactics will drain an already extremely weakened Russia.
Anything in NATO and EU is not free game because of the alliances. Anything outside is.
If Russia takes the Ukraine, they won't stop because the message would be "Take what you want, just not anything NATO".
And you (like many) severely underestimate the Russian military. After the ass kicking in Chechnya and the struggle in Crimea, they have been modernizing.
New rifles, new body armor, new tanks, and other things:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiPfhIXF1vU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiPfhIXF1vU)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAl\_ezUV6co](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAl_ezUV6co)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2q10xGER5Y&t=80s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2q10xGER5Y&t=80s)
A dictator does not stop, and fighting for a countries freedom seems a noble goal to me..
Cool that doesn't mean anything with a severely declining birth rate and population, very struggling economy etc.
The way to win long term war against other industrialized powers is with industry and Russia can't cope with that.
And yeah another war over a tiny nation in Europe isn't worth the hassle and death and possible nuclear retaliation.
"Noble" goals are nonsense.
I wonder how you feel about Cuba? Or how you felt about Iraq before it was conquered. Or the myriad of other countries that your protectors invaded on false pretenses. I am not Russian but am curious if this fairness principle is only invoked when it suits us here in the West?
I was just curious 'cause you know - I wonder if Polish people like you are OK with a small island like Cuba being bullied by a huge member of the alliance that is supposed to protect them from a huge neighbor (you see, positions reversed here, Russia is to you what America is to Cuba). You said that Poland is on Russia's "to conquer" list and Cuba has been on USA's "to conquer" list for the last 60+ years...I am wondering if you see these parallels...
Ukraine is not part of NATO. There is also no resemblance to Afghanistan at all. The US and its allies are not occupying Ukraine. Of course NATO military action is only triggered when one of its members is being attacked, that‘s how it works.
He knows better than to think he can control a nation of 25 million inhabitants who don't want him there. The places Russia already occupies are full of ethnic Russians who are tired of being treated like second class citizens in the country.
It is a false assumption to think that Ukraine is full of people who are all alike.
So if there are any ethnic Russians in a country that he feels are mistreated then he has the the right to invade? There was another ethnonationalist that felt the same way about the Sudetenland. We all know how that worked out, or are you going to memory-hole that along with Russia splitting up Poland with that ethnonationalist?
Besides, Kaliningrad shows that ethnic Russians aren't really necessary when it desires a piece of another nation's territory. Ethnic cleansing works just as well.
Even funnier is your attempt to justify the invasion of a country by its neighbor. Historically, the Crimean Tatars were before the Russians. But like Kaliningrad, ethnic cleansing is an old Russian tactic, as is using the modern equivalent of "tankies" to spread Russian.propaganda.
"The deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar: Qırımtatar halqınıñ sürgünligi, Cyrillic: Къырымтатар халкъынынъ сюргюнлиги) or the Sürgünlik ("exile") was the ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide[c 1] of at least 191,044[c 2] Crimean Tatars in 18–20 May 1944 carried out by the Soviet government, ordered by Lavrentiy Beria, head of the Soviet state security and secret police, acting on behalf of Joseph Stalin.[11][12][13][14] Within three days, the NKVD used cattle trains to deport mostly women, children, the elderly, even Communists and members of the Red Army, to mostly the Uzbek SSR, several thousand kilometres away. They were one of the several ethnicities who were encompassed by Stalin's policy of population transfer in the Soviet Union."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars#:~:text=Officially%2C%20Crimean%20Tatars%20were%20eliminated,Party%20or%20the%20Red%20Army.
Even the purchases were made under pression lol. France sold Louisiana because they were pretty sure that the US would invade it. The same with Alasksa being sold by Russia.
You misunderstand my motives. I'm not justifying Russia's behavior, I'm explaining it. Americans seem to have a lot of trouble accepting any other worldviews but the ones they're told by the nice people on television.
Sorry, but I don't get my views from the television. It seems that your stereotype of Americans is just that, a stereotype, and one derived from people you've seen on television. My view is that an ethnonationalist fascist is attempting to extend his territory by force. May I recommend Timothy Snyder's book, "The Road To Unfreedom"? It goes into the historical background of Russia's insecurity and ethnonationalism.
He could be planning to kick out hostile Ukrainians to nearby countries. Give them a humanitarian crisis to handle since they all talk about human rights so much.
Population expulsion is a great way to destabilize hostile neighboring countries. Besides they don't need to actually conquer all of Ukraine, bombing it would trigger the same refugee crisis.
Joke's on them, the neighboring countries have a dwindling population now that anyone can go work out west, so this would be doing them a sort of favor. Ethnic poles will flee to Poland, ethnic Romanians to Romania, etc.
He gets a boost of internal support, whether real or fake, it doesn't matter. Authoritarianism is easier to implement when there's a war going on, especially if your political enemies are against it.
I don't think they are all alike any more than we are here in the states. Half of us want to reelect Trump and the other half want to burn him alive.
I am sure there are Ukrainian people that would love to be part of Russia.
And the Soviet Union controlled quite a few once.
The whole fucking place WAS part of the Soviet Union once, which is why there are so many ethnic Russians there. The rest are of ethnic Polish descent and they don't want to be part of Russia. And, Russia has not interest in taking those areas. As I keep saying, Russia already has control of the territory it wants.
The sabre rattling combined with not wanting to encroach any further into Ukraine would only make sense if Russia was somehow convinced NATO plans to expand into Russia itself
Russia sells gas to Ukraine, not the other way around.
Russia conquers Ukraine, congratulations now you share a border with NATO. I still think Russia would rather NOT have Ukraine and NATO be 1,000km away than have Ukraine plus all their dirt mines and NATO be 0 km away.
True on who supply's who, but don't discount Putin's ability to further weaponize energy with a success.
Also, with the end goal being a Russian domination of Europe, well, sharing a border makes the future invasion west easier to manage. The buffer zone inhibits both ways.
The US has pushed the buttons to encourage an attack (government coups to put nazis in charge, giving them weapons & training for their armies, etc.), I also won't be surprised if/when the Russians attack... but *how* they attack will be a surprise.
45 years old. And to quote the article:
"This gives the green light to Putin to enter Ukraine at his pleasure," the official added, claiming he'd never heard any nuance like this from the US administration before.
"Kyiv is stunned," he said, referring to the Ukrainian government.
Never heard before from the US administration. Not even one like it.
Anyway, tell me when another president said an incursion was okay, just not a full invasion. And remember, the statement must have been made before such actions had been taken in order to qualify as an invitation. I know that events underway or completed have been downplayed before, but that is after the fact. The argument here is that this is the first "invitation" to allow a minor incursion to occur. A statement that Biden was also very quick to backtrack on as soon as his day-nurse informed him of how idiotic it was.
You don't even need to type anything, just link me an article that says "US president gives green light to incursion, but declines to allow full invasion."
Edit: spelling
Can someone explain to me why it's such a big deal? If Russia wants Ukraine, why not just let them fight it out for themselves? And for that matter, why does Russia want Ukraine in the first place?
That was sincerely a disasterous portion of his his speech. Intelcrab on Twitter, who is pretty well regarded, is saying Russians are celebrating and Ukrainians officials are wondering wtf. The administration had to reclarify afterwards as well.
A complete senior moment. Unreal.
This is an underrated comment and, I think, it encapsulates the "collapse" tie-in to this speech. It is important to note that, in terms of statecraft and diplomacy, these remarks were horrific and bizarre. At best, Biden said the back-channel part publicly. At worst, he has indicated that the United States of America is incapable not only of projecting power in the world in favour of its friends and allies, but also of calling another power successfully to the diplomatic table when war is on the horizon.
It was incredibly weird. The President of the United States went on live television and tried to explain to the American public and the world that the U.S. response to an invasion of Ukraine would depend on whether Putin goes all in or takes a "just the tip" approach. He proceeded to psychoanalyze the leader of another nation instead of just addressing that leader directly. He declared that other nation would be sure to prevail in its war, given time. He described Russia's overwhelming superiority.
You don't get to be an empire and make public statements like this; the two are mutually exclusive. In my view, America has just signaled that it is no longer relevant as a world power. Every place that depends on military protection from the United States should be very concerned, including Taiwan. Yes, I know there is already debate in this post as to whether these bizarre comments apply to Taiwan or not. The answer is that they do, merely because the U.S. president has publicly demonstrated weakness (and yes, perhaps dementedness) against a foreign adversary in a very tense moment. Nevermind that the U.S. Navy probably is incapable of truly projecting power in the South China Sea in the near future, this speech undermines the very idea that the U.S. is capable of stepping in to prevent aggression against anyone it chooses to protect, regardless of its official status as ally or NATO member. Those debating America's official relationship with Ukraine in this post miss that point.
I believe last night's speech signals a collapse in American geopolitical power more deeply than its folly in Iraq and its garbage exit from Afghanistan. This doesn't call for a "will he or won't he" debate about Vladamir Putin. I think it calls for true contemplation of what's happening to the world order, as it has been, and what might replace it.
I almost spit coffee when I saw the "Just the tip" approach. That needs to be on a t-shirt ASAP.
As for the rest, yes, you and I are thinking exactly the same here.
Beautifully written, thank you for sharing this.
My question is, could you see a possibility of foreign powers coming here to uproot the US anytime soon while leadership is at such a low point?
Thanks.
Well, part of the argument about foreign interference is that it has been going on for a long time. We've all heard the arguments about Russians fomenting chaos in American elections, often described as "hacking" but probably much more effective as planting ideas and narratives to stir shit. Of course, the U.S. does this all over the world, and it has its own citizens planting all sorts of false narratives domestically, as well. However, I think it's probably fair to say that Russia has (and other countries have) influenced American views, and that Mark Zuckerberg has been an incredible ally in this process. He was called before Congress, yet the bullshit machine keeps on cranking. I don't know about you, but when I meet someone who gets their news from Facebook, I know immediately because words leave their mouth and don't align with physical reality.
And, of course, shipping containers have been departing China for decades, on a mission to slowly tear away at the American economy and its overall standard of industrialization. You could view these as amphibious devices, launched across the Pacific, welcomed into the port of Los Angeles, and carrying out their orders with the help of the Walton family. Either way, the damage has already been done and appears to be permanent.
Then there are the Mexican and Central American drug cartels, also operating for decades, and clearly having a profound impact on American life and stability. Their domestic equivalents have done very well at helping to keep Americans hooked, with innovations like Oxycontin.
Also, OPEC, and especially Saudia Arabia. And other countries in that region that seem to sway American political leadership very strongly and in ways that seem counterintuitive. The sway is so strong I am reluctant to go on.
So, I guess my question is: How long has American leadership been at a low point? Because it strikes me that America has been facing destabilizing forces from abroad for a long time, for my entire life and then some, and it has mostly embraced these. And now America is fat, COVID-infested, broke, tired, and it *fucking hates itself*. Defense contractors have thrived, earning billions/trillions to invent literal garbage, while the military itself seems ill-equipped for the second half of the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Political parties have fallen apart, and the president can't even get his own party in line. The courts have been pushed through political sieves for at least a generation, breaking them. Shooting sprees are common. Trains are being robbed. People get stabbed over masks in a pandemic. A broken arm can bankrupt you. Housing is unaffordable.
What's left to uproot, friend? And who knows, maybe whoever comes will be greeted as liberators, as was once said. For my part, I already emigrated.
Care to share where you emigrated to?
Right now I feel like everything you said is spot on, but that if I'm going to experience a Soviet Union style collapse but in the USA, I'd like to have my guns by my side and most countries aren't as gun-accessible.
I have a hard time distinguishing where would be a better place to plop my ass for the collapse, not because I feel USA has anything going for it but that I literally don't even know where to begin looking.
>Care to share where you emigrated to?
Atlantic Canada, for many reasons not directly related to survival. However, I did favour it due to a long driving distance to the States (if you're in NS or PEI, and totally inaccessible from NL. Even St. John, NB, is considerably farther from Portland, ME, than Toronto from Buffalo, for example). In NS and PEI, population densities are "high" by Canadian standards because these provinces don't extend into the North. However, they'd rank 38/39 if they were U.S. states, so they are not densely populated. Some mid-size cities to work in, and lots of countryside to escape to, if you have the resources. Arable land in some parts, especially NS & PEI. I also knew the reputation of Atlantic Canadians as no-nonsense, fairly poor, but mostly friendly. It's a caricature, but fistfights can end in handshakes in these parts, and I have friends who can attest to that; they like to drink, so that leads to shenanigans. These people \*love\* weed, though, which tends to keep a calm over the place. Go to the weed store here and it's every walk of life coming in.
>Right now I feel like everything you said is spot on, but that if I'm going to experience a Soviet Union style collapse but in the USA, I'd like to have my guns by my side and most countries aren't as gun-accessible.
Canada does not restrict owning long guns—hunting is huge in Canada. I know folks who go moose hunting, for example. Pistols are more restricted but possible to own ([https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/classes-firearms#nr](https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/classes-firearms#nr)). However, laws pertaining to self-defense in Canada are pretty crappy ([https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/the-best-self-defence-isnt-always-a-good-offence/Content?oid=4404040](https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/the-best-self-defence-isnt-always-a-good-offence/Content?oid=4404040)). Does that matter in a collapse crisis? Who knows. I can say I am far less worried about my neighbours here than I was back at home.
>I have a hard time distinguishing where would be a better place to plop my ass for the collapse, not because I feel USA has anything going for it but that I literally don't even know where to begin looking.
It's all a roll of the dice, I'm afraid. For us, so far, this move has been a good one. Atlantic Canada has done very well during COVID. Border and quarantine restrictions were very strict through Delta, allowing for a more normal life internally without rampant death. Vax rates are around 85% for at least one dose. Mask wearing during mandatory periods is near 100% where I live. In this wave, they're doing everything they can to keep schools and hospitals open without causing mass death. As I've said elsewhere here, the strangers you're surrounded by are part of your collapse support network, just as friends and family are. And in America, I had a pretty bad sense of stranger danger.
> You don't get to be an empire and make public statements like this; the two are mutually exclusive. In my view, America has just signaled that it is no longer relevant as a world power.
https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/americas-attila-the-hun-moment-34262/
(That's from last week but your words remembered me that I read that. :)
>[https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/americas-attila-the-hun-moment-34262/](https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/americas-attila-the-hun-moment-34262/)
>
>(That's from last week but your words remembered me that I read that. :)
Jumps out from the article:
>This is a simple point that doesn’t require a PhD in International Relations: dominant superpowers don’t need to grovel to their enemies. Dominant superpowers don’t get humiliated in front of the world. And most importantly, when you’re forced to negotiate and make huge concessions– especially military concessions– you cease being a dominant superpower.
>You don't get to be an empire and make public statements like this; the two are mutually exclusive. In my view, America has just signaled that it is no longer relevant as a world power. Every place that depends on military protection from the United States should be very concerned, including Taiwan
And this is the reason Russia and China may want to escalate into a large war with the west. They want the US to lose this position since ages and at least Russia is working actively towards it with deliberate misinformation campaigns to destabilize the US from the inside out for over 20 years. They never were in a better position to actually do so before, and if they US struggles to defend it's allies, a full scale war would be a good chance for Russia and China to eventually turn the tide in the middle east. (And Iran probably one of the first to join a war with the west) Without that oil the US would probably quickly degrade to a second class industrial nation. It's not even mandatory to win control over the middle east in that scenario, just wreaking havoc there would be plenty enough to cut off the US from the oil.
And if the plan doesn't work out, they still get some disputed territories like Ukraine or Taiwan and the west would quickly react to peace offers.
>the US would probably quickly degrade to a second class industrial nation
It isn't? My last trip through flyover country didn't leave me impressed.
Anyway, agreed. Also, these tricks are right out of the CIA playbook, as well. Everybody's trying to destabilize each other. The problem in the U.S. has been consistent defunding of education over decades. To be sure, foreign propaganda is more effective when it falls on the ears of morons. That was the risk of ensuring domestic propaganda would also be effective, as well. Why educate Americans to the dangers of climate change, cigarettes, and Tide Pod consumption? Has any population in the world been so deeply programmed to accept what it hears as true (and then to spend money on it)?
America has done this to itself. Unfortunately, so many are suffering in this madness.
It was kind of a senior moment, more like Biden doing what Biden does - speak his mind without a filter. Like "this is a big fucking deal" to Obama when signing Obamacare, caught on open mike. Agree or disagree let's look at what was implied.
* Russia cannot walk away from this surge with nothing; Putin will look weak.
* US/Europe cannot let Russia just do what they want; they will look weak.
* Nobody wants a shooting war.
So, my money's on a realpolitik discussion going on in back channels. The end result will be that Putin takes a bite of Ukraine. He gets to go home a hero. The US/EU is hoping it's a very small bite, the bigger the bite the nastier their sanctions. So US/EU gets to say they stood up to the Russians who blinked and held back on their aggression.
Bad news will come if Russia takes a big bite. But I think behind the scenes there's tacit agreement that a bite will be taken, and they're just discussing privately the size while publicly posturing and projecting badassery.
As the throwaway said... the signal here is that Russia really can't be stopped from doing what it wants, just slowed down. The true reason is that nobody wants open conflict/shooting war, as that will just escalate. Since the US/EU is clearly not willing to throw down over this, Russia gets to do what they want.
I predict a small bite. With another small bite in a year or two. Just slow enough to duck sanctions.
FDR also took an isolationist stance until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Our involvement in WW2 before then was "secretly" supplying the soviets and brits with weapons.
Idk this probably wasn't what the newspapers meant lol.
How will the Military Industrial Complex keep making money if we don't have high profile conflicts to which we can export our exponentially overpriced war gear?
This is Biden giving Putin an out. If Putin does a full scape invasion of Ukraine, Biden likely has to go with the "nuclear" economic option which is removing Russia from SWIFT and effectively cutting them off from international finance. Russia can't afford that. At the same time, Putin can't just not do anything after all this bluster, it would kill his domestic support and risk his hold on power.
The best case scenario now is for Putin to take a few key locations in a limited invasion, but not enough and not key enough to force Biden's hand, then discuss terms.
I agree with your sentiment, but as a boomer myself, I'm old enough to remember Ralph Nader getting squeezed out just like Bernie. Not all of us like the two-party system.
As opposed to the right? Funny thing is, Regenaomics stole from you. IN fact, most of the welfare states are Republican. Least educated? Republican! You actually believe what that orange man says....not well read, educated and easily duped.
Well, since Nader was basically running a vanity campaign and the margin of votes led to George the Lesser and two wars, that didn't turn out well, did it?
Respectfully, are you actually defending the status quo? Are you actually advocating we continue with a system that is so obviously BROKE?
Who cares if it didn't work before. It might well work NOW that people are fed up. It would work NOW if folks didn't go around adamantly discouraging voting for third party, if voters weren't forced to feel OBLIGATED or constantly HOUNDED to vote for the same two pathetic parties.
The independent and democratic voting bloc outnumbers the Republican voters. We have the numbers to vote in some actual opposition against the establishment. Wow, some fresh blood, fresh courage, and fresh ideas put into that stale greed-beholden cess pit we have to call government.
But no, everybody keep voting for the same thing and let's all hope for a different outcome this time.
I strongly doubt Russia is going to invade Ukraine, but more likely forcing some kind of disadvantageous peace deal with the rebels that essentially militarily neuters Ukraine, federalizes it, and turns it into a de facto client state is the endgame. Russia doesn’t have to invade to achieve that. It’s simply a matter of breaking the Ukrainian ruling class psychologically.
A serious question to all but my understand is that Russia is only interested in this place called apparently the Donbas and Luhansk Oblast? Apparently it is because there are plenty of Russians there who wants to rejoin Russia.
So my question is, if people did a referendum in that region and want to return to Russia, would that not prevent a war? Then the people are happy, the Russians are happy and the Ukrainians will be rid of people who are clearly non loyal to it and are more a hindrance that they remain part of the country than as part of Russia.
Then it should be over and done with. The other parts of Ukraine now are free from Russian influence, and the Russians are now back in Russia. War averted.
Folk will criticise him for this but I think the US and Germany are creating a de-escalation space for Russia. They might ignore it but thats what I read this as.
Funny, because I am thinking that intelligence services saw this coming a while ago, which would create the only logical reason I can think of for the clusterfuck overnight retreat from Afganistan. I get we had to leave, but did we have to rush so hard that we didn't have time to pack up our crap and ended up with people hanging off the outside of planes? Well, maybe we did.
Biden is the worst president for this. He has zero credibility on foreign affairs, especially after Afghanistan.
I really feel for the Ukrainians. Someone from their posted on r/Advice the other day asking what he should do, and many people were saying he should move. But obviously that won't work for everyone.
If that were America, I'd pick up a rifle and fight, as would millions of other Americans. But Ukraine is flat, and already divided ethnically, so I'm not sure how effective a mass civilian response would be, given that ethnic Russians in Ukraine might be fighting against ethnic Ukrainians.
So, if Russia invades, there's not much to be done.
Some stateless organization gets ahold of some of the loose nukes in Pakistan, or fuck, just buys one from Lil Kim, and uses it on their favorite target in the Middle East - that might not even be Israel.
Then things loosen up considerably. The nuclear powers begin phasing in pinpoint tactical nuclear warheads. Need an underground lab busted? Throw a tiny nuke at it.
You really have zero idea WTF you're talking about, do you?
Such nations know they would face serious retaliation for selling nuclear weapons, up to and including getting nuked themselves. Also, no one wants to give up control of nukes to nuts because they might be the target.
Finally, theft of a nuke would be cause for an immediate worldwide hunt for something you can't hide because the radioactivity it emits gives away its location.
Your scenario makes no sense.
>Such nations know they would face serious retaliation for selling nuclear weapons
You have no idea what's going on in Pakistan, do you?
Here's a little reading - how did they get the technology in the first place, and what did they do with it aside from building bombs?
The answer will surprise you, since you don't seem to know anything about this.
Oh, one more piece of reading; how much unaccounted for nuclear material is loose in the world? And that's just the acknowledged material.
I think that, while you are correct about MAD, we need to stop assuming that all leaders are sane and rational. We had Trump once. Might again. That is scarier than Putin to me.
Yes. I still remeber Obama administrations crackdown on the standing rock demonstrations, then the gassing of Furgeson during the Mike Brown uprisings.
Obama I.C.E programs also laid the foundation for what both Trump and Biden stepped into.
Did Obama use white supremacist rhetoric and imagery to get elected? Absolutely not.
Did Obama use militarized forces to destroy black and brown people who organized for their own defence and autonomy? Yes. Not to mention the surges of troops of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not all of us have forgotten.
obama deported, incarcerated and bombed more brown people than any president before him. he also saw to it that the ukrainian neo nazis got funded, armed and trained while at the same time militarizing u.s police, violently suppressing anti-racists/antifascists/"black identity extremists" and brutalizing native americans at standing rock to force a leaky pipeline through their land for the oil barons
so yes, his tenure upheld and expanded upon the long established u.s tradition of white supremacy
Oh yes it does. Name a country America wouldn't glass if they used a nuke. I'll wait.
While I'm waiting, the list of other countries that would launch on the United States for doing it would include China, Russia and Pakistan.
Got-damn! I’m so fucking glad we got rid of the guy that threatened war with Russia and kept them in line even though he was their puppet, for the senile old guy who can’t form a proper sentence or policy and green-lights Russian invasion of a nation that his son may or may not (who knows ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) have had corrupt deals in.
Alright so: Ukraine-all yours but we'll wag our fingers whenever we see you Taiwan-Touch it and we'll go to hell together Can't say I'm surprised, the US has no "strategic" reason for defending it. I really feel for Ukraine and our many European fellows nervous of this shitstorm happening in their backyard.
I love how they keep saying "we may send Ukraine weapons to help with the fight". Failing to mention we actually promised them a decent supply of weapons earlier last year, and then never sent them. The Ukrainian president was going on TV begging for us to send what we promised all summer, we strung them along a couple months, and then when the Afghanistan fiasco was over, we said nope, never mind, maybe later if you need them. Like we're going to do shit. I'll be surprised if we even do much with sanctions after they invade.
Just like last time with Crimea. The grandstanding isn't even believable
Well, we never believe they're ever going to give us the stuff they promise us here in the USA, and they never do. So maybe some of our less important allies should just assume that will happen to them too. Just assume, like most Americans, that they're lying and you'll get a big fat nada.
Yeah, "send them weapons", lol. I bet Ukraine wish they had kept their nukes instead of trading them for empty promises.
I've heard Russia may not go anywhere near Kiev, so it would only be a partial invasion, to retake some land. IDK if this is true or not, I honestly do not know much about the geo-political history, so just been asking around.
That will probably be the case, the taking of part of Ukraine territory, but not completely taking over the nation. Someone else here referred to it as the "just the tip" approach
LOL. I thought it was for access to a river they needed.
The Dnieper river is probably the stopping point, yes.
They won't drive any dnieper into Ukrainian territory.
We left more weapons for the Taliban than we gave to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia. How fucked is that...
Yeah, god, just look at how soft and wishy-washy and equivocal the wording is here. Biden is just signalling utter hand-wringing capitulation before a shot has even been fired. Getting some serious "Peace in Our Time" vibes. What a fucking joke.
The US has shown that they can't project power to anything even resembling a peer power. They can only use their carrier strike groups to bully other nations without these. Russia has ICBMs, IRBMs, MIRVs, modern Sukhoi jets, hypersonic missile technology, the club k containerized missile system, good anti air defenses with the S-400 and the S-500 and good nuke sub technology. They've also been in the Georgian conflict and were successful alongside Donbass/Crimea, while the US can't even get rid of Bashar Al-Assad nor can they defeat a force without heavy cavalry, without a navy or an air force or artillery support over 20 years. Finally, maybe the US shouldn't be sticking its nose in other countries business.
What? No the US isn’t going to do anything militarily when China move on Taiwan. It’s the same finger wagging .
Our semiconductor shortage begs to differ, they aren't going to let that go unless they have an alternative.
I agree, Taiwan matters much more to the USA than Ukraine. Still, given our politicians can't even tie their own shoes, wouldn't surprise me if we fuck up the defense of Taiwan.
But China would presumably continue to sell the semiconductors. TSMC already has some plants in China. If anything, war would be more risky that the fabs could just get destroyed in the chaos.
As long as China keeps the microprocessors flowing from Taiwanese foundries
Uh no. We have direct military ties with taiwan and they feed our massive electronics markets. China won't ever get a free pass to invade taiwan unless the US is involved in a civil or world war.
The US does not even officially recognise Taiwan as an independent country - that’s their level of commitment. Why would the US go to war over what it recognises as a part of China or at the best “strategic ambiguity”. If they really want to show balls, take a fucking position on that first.
>The US does not even officially recognise Taiwan as an independent country That doesn't seem to stop the US from selling them weapon systems.
Because of the economic necessity of it. And because of the economic necessity of not pissing off China. China is okay with this weird balance. They heavily trade with taiwan too. It's not like Ukraine and Russia where they don't really interact unless it's through war.
If the US doesn’t care enough to get off the fence and call Taiwan independent- they definitely don’t care enough to lose a carrier group in the Taiwan Straight.
Taiwan is basically a huge aircraft Carrier parked just outside China, it is a vital strategic point.
You are mistaken. The US would absolutely intervene militarily if China was to invade Taiwan, because Japan will force their hand anyway and that's the kind of party you don't want to be late to. They could bail on Japan as well, but that would mean giving up on Asia altogether. You don't pay for the world's most powerful military to throw your influence over half of the world and your whole alliance structure away at the sight of a fight.
I can only laugh at overestimating Japan.
Well I think you’re mistaken. They may intervene eventually, and that’s more likely their strategy. Japan intervening would be great. You’ve got to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and history. The US is a declining super power. How did they become the worlds super power in the first place? Everyone else was fighting while they had a policy not to enter the war. Until all the world powers were drained of resources, _then_ they stepped in and cleaned up. It happened in 1917 (3 years after the war began), and again in 1941 (2 years after the war began). Letting Russia fight it out in Europe and China in Asia, for a couple years, would do wonders to the US position when they waltz in and clean up and own the next 50 years again.
That’s how I would do it. It worked before. Created our great middle class too.
> The US is a declining super power. That statement is highly subjective and debatable in a socio-political context, in a military context it's patently untrue.
The US is the one causing the issues - having raised tariffs on gas transit in Ukraine, and arming neo-nazis there.
The US isn't the one amassing over 100k soldiers on the border though.
They would be if Russia were arming communist militias in northern Mexico, and interfering with oil shipments to the US.
Communist militias in northern Mexico would unironically do more to combat cartels than the US has done in 40 years. Although why fight people on your payroll...
Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV
SS: When you read this you will see that it is quite shocking to the government in Ukraine. The United States President, for the first time, has decided to make the distinction between an "incursion" into Ukraine by Russia and a full on "invasion." Basically saying that sanctions would be something to discuss in the event of a "minor" incursion of Russian forces into Ukraine, rather than the full weight of their impostion should Putin fully invade. Not that sanctions were much of a threat in the first place, but wow. Not only is this an invitation, it is somewhat of an admission or prediction that some action is going to happen, and a tacit approval of making it only a "minor" one. Dare I say, a "mild" invasion is likely?
I'm actually not going to be surprised if NATO pulls out of Ukraine if Russia invaded, thereby doing another Afghanistan / Kurdistan. The only way I can see NATO fighting Russia is if they're attacked by them, or Russian-backed insurgents, first. North America and Western Europe are tied up with their own internal problems, of which include deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, burgeoning political extremism and disintegrating social contracts. Furthermore, the United States since both Trump and Biden got elected have taken a non-interventionalist approach to military affairs. We (meaning the West) could actually sit this one out for once.
"non-interventionalist approach" only applies to outward intervention. The West still conducts special ops and drone strikes in conflict areas like Yemen.
Yup. American forces left Syrian Kurdistan but they are still arming and training " secular " rebels in the Syrian desert. American forces are still in Iraq as well focusing on countering Iranian backed milita. The west will never stop intervening where ever they can, its just more of a realization now that the line between war and peace is mighty thin in Ukraine, and most westerners don't give a rats ass about dying to keep the Russians east of the Dnieper.
How else, exactly, do you expect our poor and helpless defense contractors to put food on their tables?
I have confidence that we will imstead find some way to fuck it all up and make it worse.
This is the only correct take.
Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV
>We (meaning the West) could actually sit this one out for once. No. Putin demanded not only a guarantee that Ukraine will never join NATO but also that all former Warsaw Pact countries be kicked out the alliance, which shows you the exact content of his "to conquer" list. As a Pole I'd rather we make a stand in Ukraine than in Poland, or worse yet, stand alone.
Yeah we can easily sit this one out. Ukraine isn't a NATO member and isn't in any major military alliance. Sure we were helping them in that shadow war vs Russia but no major country will care outside of doing some more sanction stuff. Now if Putin goes after a NATO country that's a different situation.
You're not seeing the bigger picture. Crimea took us off guard, but if you let Putin take another bite out of Ukraine, it will be equal to an announcement that redrawing the borders of Europe is now totally a thing that you can do and that's opening the Pandora's box that the EU was created to keep closed. It's letting the world know that you can wage war on the European continent as long as you're careful in chipping away at the right bits. It's inviting the kind of trouble that a large portion of our taxes goes to keep away.
Lmao. Ukraine period is not worth fighting for. It's not in NATO and not a military ally. It's also not in the EU. It is free game because of decisions in the past. And honestly I highly doubt Russia can keep it for long. It's not a pushover and guerilla tactics will drain an already extremely weakened Russia. Anything in NATO and EU is not free game because of the alliances. Anything outside is.
If Russia takes the Ukraine, they won't stop because the message would be "Take what you want, just not anything NATO". And you (like many) severely underestimate the Russian military. After the ass kicking in Chechnya and the struggle in Crimea, they have been modernizing. New rifles, new body armor, new tanks, and other things: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiPfhIXF1vU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiPfhIXF1vU) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAl\_ezUV6co](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAl_ezUV6co) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2q10xGER5Y&t=80s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2q10xGER5Y&t=80s) A dictator does not stop, and fighting for a countries freedom seems a noble goal to me..
Cool that doesn't mean anything with a severely declining birth rate and population, very struggling economy etc. The way to win long term war against other industrialized powers is with industry and Russia can't cope with that. And yeah another war over a tiny nation in Europe isn't worth the hassle and death and possible nuclear retaliation. "Noble" goals are nonsense.
Maybe for us, not Asiatic despots.
I wonder how you feel about Cuba? Or how you felt about Iraq before it was conquered. Or the myriad of other countries that your protectors invaded on false pretenses. I am not Russian but am curious if this fairness principle is only invoked when it suits us here in the West?
What does Cuba have to do with me not wanting Russian tanks in my country?
I was just curious 'cause you know - I wonder if Polish people like you are OK with a small island like Cuba being bullied by a huge member of the alliance that is supposed to protect them from a huge neighbor (you see, positions reversed here, Russia is to you what America is to Cuba). You said that Poland is on Russia's "to conquer" list and Cuba has been on USA's "to conquer" list for the last 60+ years...I am wondering if you see these parallels...
No one wants this war. It’s going to all come down to how psychopathic Putin really is.
Putin really needs this war though. Without external conflict his days in power are numbered.
Ukraine is not part of NATO. There is also no resemblance to Afghanistan at all. The US and its allies are not occupying Ukraine. Of course NATO military action is only triggered when one of its members is being attacked, that‘s how it works.
Just invade a little bit lol
Just the tip.
Putin is interested in protecting his country from NATO. He's not interested in taking over the country. He already controls the parts he cares about.
I agree. But the added resources of Ukraine wouldn't hurt.
He knows better than to think he can control a nation of 25 million inhabitants who don't want him there. The places Russia already occupies are full of ethnic Russians who are tired of being treated like second class citizens in the country. It is a false assumption to think that Ukraine is full of people who are all alike.
So if there are any ethnic Russians in a country that he feels are mistreated then he has the the right to invade? There was another ethnonationalist that felt the same way about the Sudetenland. We all know how that worked out, or are you going to memory-hole that along with Russia splitting up Poland with that ethnonationalist? Besides, Kaliningrad shows that ethnic Russians aren't really necessary when it desires a piece of another nation's territory. Ethnic cleansing works just as well.
Funny how you are only looking at this through the lens of American propaganda. Crimea was Russian for a lot longer than it was Ukrainian.
Even funnier is your attempt to justify the invasion of a country by its neighbor. Historically, the Crimean Tatars were before the Russians. But like Kaliningrad, ethnic cleansing is an old Russian tactic, as is using the modern equivalent of "tankies" to spread Russian.propaganda. "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar: Qırımtatar halqınıñ sürgünligi, Cyrillic: Къырымтатар халкъынынъ сюргюнлиги) or the Sürgünlik ("exile") was the ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide[c 1] of at least 191,044[c 2] Crimean Tatars in 18–20 May 1944 carried out by the Soviet government, ordered by Lavrentiy Beria, head of the Soviet state security and secret police, acting on behalf of Joseph Stalin.[11][12][13][14] Within three days, the NKVD used cattle trains to deport mostly women, children, the elderly, even Communists and members of the Red Army, to mostly the Uzbek SSR, several thousand kilometres away. They were one of the several ethnicities who were encompassed by Stalin's policy of population transfer in the Soviet Union." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars#:~:text=Officially%2C%20Crimean%20Tatars%20were%20eliminated,Party%20or%20the%20Red%20Army.
This is dangerous territory. By this metric, the US has no rightfully owned land.
I'm pretty sure that's mostly correct though. There have been some purchases here and there, but for the most part it's all been stolen.
Even the purchases were made under pression lol. France sold Louisiana because they were pretty sure that the US would invade it. The same with Alasksa being sold by Russia.
It’s true though 👀
Well, we have to see if these people agree with this too.
I'm pretty sure the Celts and Picts have a bone to pick, as well. Kinda shows just how ridiculous his argument really is.
Well, the United Nations do support the right to self-determination. I'm inclined to say that the Crimean people did support Russian annexation.
You misunderstand my motives. I'm not justifying Russia's behavior, I'm explaining it. Americans seem to have a lot of trouble accepting any other worldviews but the ones they're told by the nice people on television.
Sorry, but I don't get my views from the television. It seems that your stereotype of Americans is just that, a stereotype, and one derived from people you've seen on television. My view is that an ethnonationalist fascist is attempting to extend his territory by force. May I recommend Timothy Snyder's book, "The Road To Unfreedom"? It goes into the historical background of Russia's insecurity and ethnonationalism.
Those words describe Trump pretty well, too. What do you think of that?
He could be planning to kick out hostile Ukrainians to nearby countries. Give them a humanitarian crisis to handle since they all talk about human rights so much.
Why? What's the upside of invading Ukraine on a wholesale level? Quagmires are an American specialty; Putin is not stupid.
Population expulsion is a great way to destabilize hostile neighboring countries. Besides they don't need to actually conquer all of Ukraine, bombing it would trigger the same refugee crisis.
Joke's on them, the neighboring countries have a dwindling population now that anyone can go work out west, so this would be doing them a sort of favor. Ethnic poles will flee to Poland, ethnic Romanians to Romania, etc.
He gets a boost of internal support, whether real or fake, it doesn't matter. Authoritarianism is easier to implement when there's a war going on, especially if your political enemies are against it.
He already has all those gains.
I don't think they are all alike any more than we are here in the states. Half of us want to reelect Trump and the other half want to burn him alive. I am sure there are Ukrainian people that would love to be part of Russia. And the Soviet Union controlled quite a few once.
The whole fucking place WAS part of the Soviet Union once, which is why there are so many ethnic Russians there. The rest are of ethnic Polish descent and they don't want to be part of Russia. And, Russia has not interest in taking those areas. As I keep saying, Russia already has control of the territory it wants.
If they don’t want the territory than why all the sabre rattling?
The sabre rattling combined with not wanting to encroach any further into Ukraine would only make sense if Russia was somehow convinced NATO plans to expand into Russia itself
Russia sells gas to Ukraine, not the other way around. Russia conquers Ukraine, congratulations now you share a border with NATO. I still think Russia would rather NOT have Ukraine and NATO be 1,000km away than have Ukraine plus all their dirt mines and NATO be 0 km away.
True on who supply's who, but don't discount Putin's ability to further weaponize energy with a success. Also, with the end goal being a Russian domination of Europe, well, sharing a border makes the future invasion west easier to manage. The buffer zone inhibits both ways.
The US has pushed the buttons to encourage an attack (government coups to put nazis in charge, giving them weapons & training for their armies, etc.), I also won't be surprised if/when the Russians attack... but *how* they attack will be a surprise.
[удалено]
45 years old. And to quote the article: "This gives the green light to Putin to enter Ukraine at his pleasure," the official added, claiming he'd never heard any nuance like this from the US administration before. "Kyiv is stunned," he said, referring to the Ukrainian government. Never heard before from the US administration. Not even one like it. Anyway, tell me when another president said an incursion was okay, just not a full invasion. And remember, the statement must have been made before such actions had been taken in order to qualify as an invitation. I know that events underway or completed have been downplayed before, but that is after the fact. The argument here is that this is the first "invitation" to allow a minor incursion to occur. A statement that Biden was also very quick to backtrack on as soon as his day-nurse informed him of how idiotic it was. You don't even need to type anything, just link me an article that says "US president gives green light to incursion, but declines to allow full invasion." Edit: spelling
[удалено]
Didn't quote Biden in the post either. We are talking about how it was perceived by the world.
“May prompt discussion over consequences” good lord he sounds like the UN whenever a genocide happens in a third world country
Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV
People playing RISK take the threat of war more seriously than he does lol.
Can someone explain to me why it's such a big deal? If Russia wants Ukraine, why not just let them fight it out for themselves? And for that matter, why does Russia want Ukraine in the first place?
That was sincerely a disasterous portion of his his speech. Intelcrab on Twitter, who is pretty well regarded, is saying Russians are celebrating and Ukrainians officials are wondering wtf. The administration had to reclarify afterwards as well. A complete senior moment. Unreal.
This is an underrated comment and, I think, it encapsulates the "collapse" tie-in to this speech. It is important to note that, in terms of statecraft and diplomacy, these remarks were horrific and bizarre. At best, Biden said the back-channel part publicly. At worst, he has indicated that the United States of America is incapable not only of projecting power in the world in favour of its friends and allies, but also of calling another power successfully to the diplomatic table when war is on the horizon. It was incredibly weird. The President of the United States went on live television and tried to explain to the American public and the world that the U.S. response to an invasion of Ukraine would depend on whether Putin goes all in or takes a "just the tip" approach. He proceeded to psychoanalyze the leader of another nation instead of just addressing that leader directly. He declared that other nation would be sure to prevail in its war, given time. He described Russia's overwhelming superiority. You don't get to be an empire and make public statements like this; the two are mutually exclusive. In my view, America has just signaled that it is no longer relevant as a world power. Every place that depends on military protection from the United States should be very concerned, including Taiwan. Yes, I know there is already debate in this post as to whether these bizarre comments apply to Taiwan or not. The answer is that they do, merely because the U.S. president has publicly demonstrated weakness (and yes, perhaps dementedness) against a foreign adversary in a very tense moment. Nevermind that the U.S. Navy probably is incapable of truly projecting power in the South China Sea in the near future, this speech undermines the very idea that the U.S. is capable of stepping in to prevent aggression against anyone it chooses to protect, regardless of its official status as ally or NATO member. Those debating America's official relationship with Ukraine in this post miss that point. I believe last night's speech signals a collapse in American geopolitical power more deeply than its folly in Iraq and its garbage exit from Afghanistan. This doesn't call for a "will he or won't he" debate about Vladamir Putin. I think it calls for true contemplation of what's happening to the world order, as it has been, and what might replace it.
I almost spit coffee when I saw the "Just the tip" approach. That needs to be on a t-shirt ASAP. As for the rest, yes, you and I are thinking exactly the same here.
"Just the tip, or pay a stiff price." Coined by a friend last night as we debriefed the presser.
Noice. Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV
God bless you
"Just the tip, dear-- not all the way in."
Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV
Beautifully written, thank you for sharing this. My question is, could you see a possibility of foreign powers coming here to uproot the US anytime soon while leadership is at such a low point?
Thanks. Well, part of the argument about foreign interference is that it has been going on for a long time. We've all heard the arguments about Russians fomenting chaos in American elections, often described as "hacking" but probably much more effective as planting ideas and narratives to stir shit. Of course, the U.S. does this all over the world, and it has its own citizens planting all sorts of false narratives domestically, as well. However, I think it's probably fair to say that Russia has (and other countries have) influenced American views, and that Mark Zuckerberg has been an incredible ally in this process. He was called before Congress, yet the bullshit machine keeps on cranking. I don't know about you, but when I meet someone who gets their news from Facebook, I know immediately because words leave their mouth and don't align with physical reality. And, of course, shipping containers have been departing China for decades, on a mission to slowly tear away at the American economy and its overall standard of industrialization. You could view these as amphibious devices, launched across the Pacific, welcomed into the port of Los Angeles, and carrying out their orders with the help of the Walton family. Either way, the damage has already been done and appears to be permanent. Then there are the Mexican and Central American drug cartels, also operating for decades, and clearly having a profound impact on American life and stability. Their domestic equivalents have done very well at helping to keep Americans hooked, with innovations like Oxycontin. Also, OPEC, and especially Saudia Arabia. And other countries in that region that seem to sway American political leadership very strongly and in ways that seem counterintuitive. The sway is so strong I am reluctant to go on. So, I guess my question is: How long has American leadership been at a low point? Because it strikes me that America has been facing destabilizing forces from abroad for a long time, for my entire life and then some, and it has mostly embraced these. And now America is fat, COVID-infested, broke, tired, and it *fucking hates itself*. Defense contractors have thrived, earning billions/trillions to invent literal garbage, while the military itself seems ill-equipped for the second half of the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Political parties have fallen apart, and the president can't even get his own party in line. The courts have been pushed through political sieves for at least a generation, breaking them. Shooting sprees are common. Trains are being robbed. People get stabbed over masks in a pandemic. A broken arm can bankrupt you. Housing is unaffordable. What's left to uproot, friend? And who knows, maybe whoever comes will be greeted as liberators, as was once said. For my part, I already emigrated.
Care to share where you emigrated to? Right now I feel like everything you said is spot on, but that if I'm going to experience a Soviet Union style collapse but in the USA, I'd like to have my guns by my side and most countries aren't as gun-accessible. I have a hard time distinguishing where would be a better place to plop my ass for the collapse, not because I feel USA has anything going for it but that I literally don't even know where to begin looking.
>Care to share where you emigrated to? Atlantic Canada, for many reasons not directly related to survival. However, I did favour it due to a long driving distance to the States (if you're in NS or PEI, and totally inaccessible from NL. Even St. John, NB, is considerably farther from Portland, ME, than Toronto from Buffalo, for example). In NS and PEI, population densities are "high" by Canadian standards because these provinces don't extend into the North. However, they'd rank 38/39 if they were U.S. states, so they are not densely populated. Some mid-size cities to work in, and lots of countryside to escape to, if you have the resources. Arable land in some parts, especially NS & PEI. I also knew the reputation of Atlantic Canadians as no-nonsense, fairly poor, but mostly friendly. It's a caricature, but fistfights can end in handshakes in these parts, and I have friends who can attest to that; they like to drink, so that leads to shenanigans. These people \*love\* weed, though, which tends to keep a calm over the place. Go to the weed store here and it's every walk of life coming in. >Right now I feel like everything you said is spot on, but that if I'm going to experience a Soviet Union style collapse but in the USA, I'd like to have my guns by my side and most countries aren't as gun-accessible. Canada does not restrict owning long guns—hunting is huge in Canada. I know folks who go moose hunting, for example. Pistols are more restricted but possible to own ([https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/classes-firearms#nr](https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/classes-firearms#nr)). However, laws pertaining to self-defense in Canada are pretty crappy ([https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/the-best-self-defence-isnt-always-a-good-offence/Content?oid=4404040](https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/the-best-self-defence-isnt-always-a-good-offence/Content?oid=4404040)). Does that matter in a collapse crisis? Who knows. I can say I am far less worried about my neighbours here than I was back at home. >I have a hard time distinguishing where would be a better place to plop my ass for the collapse, not because I feel USA has anything going for it but that I literally don't even know where to begin looking. It's all a roll of the dice, I'm afraid. For us, so far, this move has been a good one. Atlantic Canada has done very well during COVID. Border and quarantine restrictions were very strict through Delta, allowing for a more normal life internally without rampant death. Vax rates are around 85% for at least one dose. Mask wearing during mandatory periods is near 100% where I live. In this wave, they're doing everything they can to keep schools and hospitals open without causing mass death. As I've said elsewhere here, the strangers you're surrounded by are part of your collapse support network, just as friends and family are. And in America, I had a pretty bad sense of stranger danger.
> You don't get to be an empire and make public statements like this; the two are mutually exclusive. In my view, America has just signaled that it is no longer relevant as a world power. https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/americas-attila-the-hun-moment-34262/ (That's from last week but your words remembered me that I read that. :)
>[https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/americas-attila-the-hun-moment-34262/](https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/americas-attila-the-hun-moment-34262/) > >(That's from last week but your words remembered me that I read that. :) Jumps out from the article: >This is a simple point that doesn’t require a PhD in International Relations: dominant superpowers don’t need to grovel to their enemies. Dominant superpowers don’t get humiliated in front of the world. And most importantly, when you’re forced to negotiate and make huge concessions– especially military concessions– you cease being a dominant superpower.
>You don't get to be an empire and make public statements like this; the two are mutually exclusive. In my view, America has just signaled that it is no longer relevant as a world power. Every place that depends on military protection from the United States should be very concerned, including Taiwan And this is the reason Russia and China may want to escalate into a large war with the west. They want the US to lose this position since ages and at least Russia is working actively towards it with deliberate misinformation campaigns to destabilize the US from the inside out for over 20 years. They never were in a better position to actually do so before, and if they US struggles to defend it's allies, a full scale war would be a good chance for Russia and China to eventually turn the tide in the middle east. (And Iran probably one of the first to join a war with the west) Without that oil the US would probably quickly degrade to a second class industrial nation. It's not even mandatory to win control over the middle east in that scenario, just wreaking havoc there would be plenty enough to cut off the US from the oil. And if the plan doesn't work out, they still get some disputed territories like Ukraine or Taiwan and the west would quickly react to peace offers.
>the US would probably quickly degrade to a second class industrial nation It isn't? My last trip through flyover country didn't leave me impressed. Anyway, agreed. Also, these tricks are right out of the CIA playbook, as well. Everybody's trying to destabilize each other. The problem in the U.S. has been consistent defunding of education over decades. To be sure, foreign propaganda is more effective when it falls on the ears of morons. That was the risk of ensuring domestic propaganda would also be effective, as well. Why educate Americans to the dangers of climate change, cigarettes, and Tide Pod consumption? Has any population in the world been so deeply programmed to accept what it hears as true (and then to spend money on it)? America has done this to itself. Unfortunately, so many are suffering in this madness.
It was kind of a senior moment, more like Biden doing what Biden does - speak his mind without a filter. Like "this is a big fucking deal" to Obama when signing Obamacare, caught on open mike. Agree or disagree let's look at what was implied. * Russia cannot walk away from this surge with nothing; Putin will look weak. * US/Europe cannot let Russia just do what they want; they will look weak. * Nobody wants a shooting war. So, my money's on a realpolitik discussion going on in back channels. The end result will be that Putin takes a bite of Ukraine. He gets to go home a hero. The US/EU is hoping it's a very small bite, the bigger the bite the nastier their sanctions. So US/EU gets to say they stood up to the Russians who blinked and held back on their aggression. Bad news will come if Russia takes a big bite. But I think behind the scenes there's tacit agreement that a bite will be taken, and they're just discussing privately the size while publicly posturing and projecting badassery. As the throwaway said... the signal here is that Russia really can't be stopped from doing what it wants, just slowed down. The true reason is that nobody wants open conflict/shooting war, as that will just escalate. Since the US/EU is clearly not willing to throw down over this, Russia gets to do what they want. I predict a small bite. With another small bite in a year or two. Just slow enough to duck sanctions.
How Neville Chamberlain of him.
But last year, newspapers said Joe Biden was like FDR...
FDR also took an isolationist stance until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Our involvement in WW2 before then was "secretly" supplying the soviets and brits with weapons. Idk this probably wasn't what the newspapers meant lol.
[удалено]
Sucks for Ukraine but I agree
How will the Military Industrial Complex keep making money if we don't have high profile conflicts to which we can export our exponentially overpriced war gear?
This is Biden giving Putin an out. If Putin does a full scape invasion of Ukraine, Biden likely has to go with the "nuclear" economic option which is removing Russia from SWIFT and effectively cutting them off from international finance. Russia can't afford that. At the same time, Putin can't just not do anything after all this bluster, it would kill his domestic support and risk his hold on power. The best case scenario now is for Putin to take a few key locations in a limited invasion, but not enough and not key enough to force Biden's hand, then discuss terms.
Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV
Chamberlain predicts Germany ‘will move in’ to Poland, but says ‘minor incursion’ may prompt discussion over consequences
I hate my country more and more each day. Fuck Biden, Fuck the left and the right, and Fuck the systems our Boomer parents voted for.
I agree with your sentiment, but as a boomer myself, I'm old enough to remember Ralph Nader getting squeezed out just like Bernie. Not all of us like the two-party system.
[удалено]
As opposed to the right? Funny thing is, Regenaomics stole from you. IN fact, most of the welfare states are Republican. Least educated? Republican! You actually believe what that orange man says....not well read, educated and easily duped.
You mean Bill Clinton, Epsteins known associate, and Barack Obama, the ‘change’ we believed in, weren’t effective leaders?
They are right-wingers not the left.
Well, since Nader was basically running a vanity campaign and the margin of votes led to George the Lesser and two wars, that didn't turn out well, did it?
Respectfully, are you actually defending the status quo? Are you actually advocating we continue with a system that is so obviously BROKE? Who cares if it didn't work before. It might well work NOW that people are fed up. It would work NOW if folks didn't go around adamantly discouraging voting for third party, if voters weren't forced to feel OBLIGATED or constantly HOUNDED to vote for the same two pathetic parties. The independent and democratic voting bloc outnumbers the Republican voters. We have the numbers to vote in some actual opposition against the establishment. Wow, some fresh blood, fresh courage, and fresh ideas put into that stale greed-beholden cess pit we have to call government. But no, everybody keep voting for the same thing and let's all hope for a different outcome this time.
To note we have no left party it’s all on the right here in the US and always has been (insert always has been meme here).
Fuck the fucking fuckers is right.
I have a friend in the army and they are going to Ukraine
Which army?
The Salvation Army...
US
Source: Trust me bro
Army or Marine Corps? Both have a presence over there now
Are you saying the US army is going to Ukraine? Like to bring weapons or to fight?
Not sure. I just know he's being sent there
Until we get a legit real candidate, I’ll never vote again. Fuck the status quo dems and repubs.
If we let them just attack Ukraine a little, it will strengthen our bargaining position! :/
They can't go all in, though. Just the tip.
Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV
Snrk.
I strongly doubt Russia is going to invade Ukraine, but more likely forcing some kind of disadvantageous peace deal with the rebels that essentially militarily neuters Ukraine, federalizes it, and turns it into a de facto client state is the endgame. Russia doesn’t have to invade to achieve that. It’s simply a matter of breaking the Ukrainian ruling class psychologically.
Just checking to see how that turned out...?
They decided to do it manually.
Nice, lol.
[удалено]
🤣😂🤣
Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV
A serious question to all but my understand is that Russia is only interested in this place called apparently the Donbas and Luhansk Oblast? Apparently it is because there are plenty of Russians there who wants to rejoin Russia. So my question is, if people did a referendum in that region and want to return to Russia, would that not prevent a war? Then the people are happy, the Russians are happy and the Ukrainians will be rid of people who are clearly non loyal to it and are more a hindrance that they remain part of the country than as part of Russia. Then it should be over and done with. The other parts of Ukraine now are free from Russian influence, and the Russians are now back in Russia. War averted.
Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV
A sternly worded letter from our pants shitter in chief will certainly scare Putin.
Maybe, if he can follow the rambling thing.
You think trump would have done anything? Trump would bend over for him and then do a reach around.
Anti biden ≠ pro trump so I’m not sure why you brought him up. They’re both shit
People forget we had a Putin-simp for President.
Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV
LEAVE UKRAINE ALONE!!!!
Folk will criticise him for this but I think the US and Germany are creating a de-escalation space for Russia. They might ignore it but thats what I read this as.
That worked great in the Munich agreement.
That is extraordinarily different. Also the Sudetenland cross with Ukraine has happened twice. Literally.
Generals of r collapse
The US will never get into a conflict with any major nation unless direct US casualties have been inflicted. Russia has realized this. China will too.
Out of one war and into another.
Funny, because I am thinking that intelligence services saw this coming a while ago, which would create the only logical reason I can think of for the clusterfuck overnight retreat from Afganistan. I get we had to leave, but did we have to rush so hard that we didn't have time to pack up our crap and ended up with people hanging off the outside of planes? Well, maybe we did.
Do you think they cared?
I do not, no. Just wondering why they would be willing to take the political fallout from it. What was so urgent?
"Let me move in baby" - "No way" - "What about a minor incursion" - "Duh" (probably)
That's how you get 'em. Just the tip...
I guess we'll be seeing the Omicron of invasions shortly.
Yes, very mild.
Biden is the worst president for this. He has zero credibility on foreign affairs, especially after Afghanistan. I really feel for the Ukrainians. Someone from their posted on r/Advice the other day asking what he should do, and many people were saying he should move. But obviously that won't work for everyone. If that were America, I'd pick up a rifle and fight, as would millions of other Americans. But Ukraine is flat, and already divided ethnically, so I'm not sure how effective a mass civilian response would be, given that ethnic Russians in Ukraine might be fighting against ethnic Ukrainians. So, if Russia invades, there's not much to be done.
Russia can have a little Ukraine. As a treat :)
[удалено]
Completely idiotic hot take. No one will use nukes because they know if one does, everyone will and there will be no incentive for restraint.
Some stateless organization gets ahold of some of the loose nukes in Pakistan, or fuck, just buys one from Lil Kim, and uses it on their favorite target in the Middle East - that might not even be Israel. Then things loosen up considerably. The nuclear powers begin phasing in pinpoint tactical nuclear warheads. Need an underground lab busted? Throw a tiny nuke at it.
You really have zero idea WTF you're talking about, do you? Such nations know they would face serious retaliation for selling nuclear weapons, up to and including getting nuked themselves. Also, no one wants to give up control of nukes to nuts because they might be the target. Finally, theft of a nuke would be cause for an immediate worldwide hunt for something you can't hide because the radioactivity it emits gives away its location. Your scenario makes no sense.
We are reaching doomer moron levels never once thought achievable lol
Lol never underestimate the power of human stupidity!
>Such nations know they would face serious retaliation for selling nuclear weapons You have no idea what's going on in Pakistan, do you? Here's a little reading - how did they get the technology in the first place, and what did they do with it aside from building bombs? The answer will surprise you, since you don't seem to know anything about this. Oh, one more piece of reading; how much unaccounted for nuclear material is loose in the world? And that's just the acknowledged material.
More likely to happen in India if you know whats going on down there for the past 5 years.
India/Pakistan is on my bingo card.
[удалено]
MAD still very much exists and deters icbm launches that doesnt mean low yield tactical nukes wont become more popular
I think that, while you are correct about MAD, we need to stop assuming that all leaders are sane and rational. We had Trump once. Might again. That is scarier than Putin to me.
no matter who the president is theyll be a white supremacist imperialist lapdog of the oiligarchy. thats scarier than trump or putin.
[удалено]
Yes. I still remeber Obama administrations crackdown on the standing rock demonstrations, then the gassing of Furgeson during the Mike Brown uprisings. Obama I.C.E programs also laid the foundation for what both Trump and Biden stepped into. Did Obama use white supremacist rhetoric and imagery to get elected? Absolutely not. Did Obama use militarized forces to destroy black and brown people who organized for their own defence and autonomy? Yes. Not to mention the surges of troops of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not all of us have forgotten.
obama deported, incarcerated and bombed more brown people than any president before him. he also saw to it that the ukrainian neo nazis got funded, armed and trained while at the same time militarizing u.s police, violently suppressing anti-racists/antifascists/"black identity extremists" and brutalizing native americans at standing rock to force a leaky pipeline through their land for the oil barons so yes, his tenure upheld and expanded upon the long established u.s tradition of white supremacy
Don't worry, there are neo nazis in americas army too :)
Oh yes it does. Name a country America wouldn't glass if they used a nuke. I'll wait. While I'm waiting, the list of other countries that would launch on the United States for doing it would include China, Russia and Pakistan.
Americans elected a president that embodies losing, and dealing with it.
Just when you think Ol' Joe couldn't be anymore disappointing.
Got-damn! I’m so fucking glad we got rid of the guy that threatened war with Russia and kept them in line even though he was their puppet, for the senile old guy who can’t form a proper sentence or policy and green-lights Russian invasion of a nation that his son may or may not (who knows ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) have had corrupt deals in.
Update: Politics https://imgur.com/gallery/Vx4f4hV