Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LOL. I’ll give you some credit: you know very well that it isn’t “better”. It’s idiotic, like the guy who suggested it. If you actually think it’s a plausible idea then you’re welcome to correct me.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
How about painting Chinese flags on some of our planes and bombing Russia?
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Thanks everyone. I don’t disagree with much of it. I actually think long term this is worse than has even been suggested above. Regardless of China, Russia isn’t going to go away quietly. How that plays out, I don’t know. But even if we are weakening Russia, I’m sure they have plenty of cards to play still. And now they will play them when they have an opportunity. I hope someone comes back in a few years and tells me I was wrong and that it somehow works out well.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
My guess: I think China will rape Russia economically. Russia has been “cancelled” by the west and isolated economically, so China will seize their opportunity.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
You didn’t. Neodymium’s posted previously that he blamed, in part, the western press and said Putin didn’t want this war.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
A few days ago it was the West’s fault for goading Russia into this war and now you’re complaining that we didn’t send in enough arms over the last few months which would have been even more provocative.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
You really think the west isn’t doing anything? You’re reading different news than I am. Even Germany is now providing weapons.
regardless, it’s a risky thing sending arms, medical supplies, logistics, intelligence to fight your neighbor who has nuclear bombs.
so I don’t blame anyone for taking a cautious approach. But the west seems to be all in on support.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-coordinate-arms-shipments-ukraine/When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I actually came here looking for some insight, thinking a few of you might give some thoughtful responses without turning it into political axe grinding. My initial question was very nonpolitical and I thought it therefore might garner some dispassionate responses to a very serious issue. Naïve of me, I suppose.
In the meantime, I did come across a well thought-out prediction (the kind I was inquiring about in my initial post above) on another site. In case anyone’s interested, I’ll paste it here:
All available evidence is, they’re on the verge of a pincer movement: push south on Kyiv out of Belarus, push north on Dnipro out of Crimea, meet in the middle around Cherkasy. Then, fortify the fuck out of the line of the Dnieper, and double-dare NATO to counter-attack while they surround and capture the remaining eastern half of Ukraine. Then, you let China “broker” a “peace” of a divided Ukraine, where a western rump state centered on Lviv is free to join Europe and the eastern half is absorbed by Russia.
Tactically, it has a lot going for it. It’s limited in scope, well within their capabilities, doesn’t leave exposed flanks or potentially over-extend, and operates within natural frontiers. It’s basically recreating a cauldron battle.
Strategically, it has a lot going for it too. NATO will help defend western Ukraine, but they can’t risk going east because it puts them on Russia’s doorstep. If you’re Russia, and you figure it’s when not if Ukraine joins NATO and the EU, and once they do it’s too risky to attack, now is the perfect time. You secure your frontier, you gain a major breadbasket and series of ports, and you get to look strong to your public.
But on a grand strategic level, it seems a bit insane. Even leaving aside the possible risk of nuclear war, it doesn’t make much sense. Russia’s economy is only about the size of Texas’s, and the whole of Ukraine’s economy is only about the size of a small state like Nebraska, or a mid-size city like Washington, DC. They’ll become an instant pariah, and be sanctioned to the eyeballs, in return for…half of DC? With a population that mostly hates them, and will never accept it? And to stay economically viable, they’ll have to essentially become a Chinese vassal? It seems a bit of a steep price to me.
I can only assume this is mostly about internal Russian politics. Ukraine is no threat to invade, and a NATO member Ukraine is no more dangerous than a NATO member Estonia. This appears to be betting that the long term economic hit won’t surpass the short term gains, ie what happened in Georgia and Crimea.
[Putin] needs a small winnable conventional war. A fast grab entirely behind a major river frontier, against a small country alone, 300 miles from Moscow fits that. Grabbing all of Ukraine does not. In fact, even if things went well and he got all of Ukraine anyway, he’d surely give part of it back, or set it all up under a puppet.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I was mostly just curious about expectations rather than a long thread full of political diatribes blaming the Democrats. Thank you Neodymium60 for a thoughtful answer.
As for the rest of this thread, I agree the situation has been mishandled by Democrats, but the roots of this arguably go back to the Bush administration and NATO expansion efforts over the objections of Russia and NATO allies. The Trump administration also heavily armed Ukraine with anti tank and other lethal weapons. It was a point of pride on this board that Trump had been arming Ukraine more than Obama ever did.
Of course, this has all been seen as a major threat to Russia by Putin. I’m not going to absolve Biden or the Democrats — much less Putin for that matter. As with all things, the history is more complicated. But from this board you’d think Republicans had nothing to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine or any other foreign policy problems.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I haven’t given up on the CEB, but I am overwhelmed with work and other personal issues in the last year with no end in sight so I just barely have time to read occasional updates. Once in a while I’ll try to engage. But it’s also tough being the only sane person on here 😉 kidding.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I don’t disagree. But I just think it’s a tired trope to imply that the media is dominated by the left. I actually think the right has a much bigger advantage. The left tends to be mainstream milk-toast stuff that lefties passively pay attention to. I’m not saying it’s not influential, but it’s not followed like it is on the right.
On the right you have a huge network of self-reinforcing talking points and echo chambers that many conservatives listen to, read, watch, etc. with much more regularity because it tends to be much more personality driven with talk shows, blogs, podcasts, etc. Meanwhile on the left, things like Air America (remember that) and political personalities just don’t get any traction. I guess Rachel Maddow would be the closest thing on the left, but I barely hear about her anymore (never watched much of her anyway). Jon Stewart was big for a while, but that was ages ago. Whereas on the right I could probably name 15 personalities off the top of my head.
The right has mastered the guerilla marketing side of the media, but also have major outlets like Fox and the WSJ. Some that is by necessity since the left traditionally had a leg up on the mainstream outlets. But those outlets are 20th century things that are more and more outdated.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I see y’all are still talking about “the media” as if it’s 1990.
Meanwhile the right wing owns most local newspapers, AM radio is a vast wasteland of right wing reactionary shows that are popular throughout the country, conservative podcast are some of the most popular, the majority of the daily top 10 trending stories in Facebook are usually right wing sources like Ben Shapiro, Breitbart, Newsmax, The Daily Caller, Dan Bongino, Fox News, Franklin Graham, etc., Rupert Murdoch has built up a global media empire, Fox is the number one cable news in America, and now we have OAN, Newmax, and even Trump is starting his own media thing. I could go on…
Its amazing to me how much mileage you all get from criticizing CNN as if it casts some great shadow on America. It doesn’t even reach 800k viewers each night and those viewers have a have a median age of 64.
just a reminder that it’s almost 2022 and the right wing has a vast network of media outlets and echo chambers.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I predict they impose sanctions and/or blockades and try to force an agreement economically rather than militarily. Nothing will happen until after the Olympics at the earliest — though something will happen in the next few years. That’s my prediction.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 9 months ago by .
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by
