sadly this is true. If Romney were somehow able to win the Republican nomination, I would give serious thought to voting him over Biden. I probably wouldn’t end up doing it because I expect the lunatic republicans to control Congress, but I’d think about it.
300 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a fleet of destroyers is the better option. Just slap a Ukrainian flag on them. There are dozens of Ukrainian fisherman who have seen pictures of these ships. If money is a problem just allocate some of the build back better dollars towards it.
This expert and historian on sanction said that Russian' sanction is going to.... Some quote below. Link for the rest. The Four Ways Sanctions Work (Or Don’t) - The Atlantic Can Sanctions Stop Russia? Nicholas Mulder, the author of a new book on the history of sanctions, explains the West’s use of the “economic weapon.” Will these sanctions pressure Vladimir Putin to withdraw the Russian military from Ukraine? Or will their main effect be to hurt Russian civilians and damage the world economy? This week, I put those questions to Nicholas Mulder, a historian at Cornell University who recently published The Economic Weapon: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War. The book traces the history of sanctions from the Peloponnesian War to today, with particular focus on the development of modern sanctions in the period between the two world wars. Mulder finds that sanctions have always proved controversial, given their capacity to immiserate, impoverish, and injure civilians. He also shows that sanctions have often failed to achieve their desired political outcome, for all the damage they cause. Indeed, in the 20th century, sanctions were partially successful or wholly successful just one-third of the time, with their efficacy degrading as their use has expanded in recent decades. “The history of sanctions is largely a history of disappointment,” he writes. Nicholas Mulder: We’re in totally new territory. The speed, the sweep, and the size of the sanctions, or the size of the targets of the sanctions—those three factors make them extraordinary. An intense sanctions package came together—supported not only by the U.S. but by the entire European Union and a number of Asian allies as well—within four or five days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And there’s potentially more coming. Before this, the states that were targeted by sanctions tended to be U.S. adversaries or adversaries of the West, but many of them were small- or medium-sized—Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, also the Taliban government in Afghanistan. They are significant actors in their regions, but they’re not hugely important in terms of the global economy. Mulder: On top of the government sanctions, there is an enormous global private-sector reaction. It’s a divestment wave. To some degree, that process is people overreacting to sanctions, or acting beyond the scope of the sanctions. The fact that we have these combined state and private-sector sanctions means that they are hitting not only the Russian government, but Russian civil society and the private economy as well. It’s a major shock for them. It makes the discussions about whether the sanctions are working or are going to work much more difficult, because we are seeing the economic effects being caused by private actors, not just by governments anymore. Mulder: It is not the consensus position in Western governments, but some people support sanctions as a form of long-term economic war. They’ve given up on the idea that we can ever change Russian behavior. To them, the point is simply to degrade Russian capacity to do harm. There are four ways we can think about sanctions working. First, there’s the deterrent function. That was what we tried from December until two weeks ago, then the war happened. Second, there’s the compellent function: We are going to try and force Putin out of Ukraine and force him to end this war. Third, maybe we can cause regime change or a change in government. That’s a pretty ambitious goal. The fourth one is this: Behavioral change is impossible. You’re never going to change behavior. So deterrence and compellence are moot, basically, and it is futile to try them. Instead, this is purely the long-run degrading of Russian power. This is attrition, exhausting them as an adversary. Right now, it’s not really clear whether our goal is two, three, or four. It’s only clear that No. 1 didn’t work, because the war happened. Lowrey: Are there technological or technocratic innovations in this sanctions package we should be watching? Mulder: This ban on high-tech components exported to Russia. That’s one part of the sanctions supported not only by the U.S. and the EU, but also by Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—the major semiconductor-manufacturing hubs of the world. It’s a very big one because it’s going to have a medium-to-long-run effect on the capacity of the Russian economy to keep up its productivity growth and its ability to source components and hardware for its military industry. But it also has real elements of a dry run for using this sort of measure against China—that’s why those Asian countries are part of it, I think. It’s a diplomatic exercise: If we can do this with Russia, could we do it in the future with China? Lowrey: What about crypto as a technological tool for sanctions evasion? Is it just the new gold, a way for people to get money in and out? Or has it changed something more profound? Mulder: I think its viability as an alternative global reserve currency is exaggerated. It offers some evasion possibilities, but not at the scale where an economy the size of Russia’s is going to be able to derive great benefit from it. That has to do somewhat with the fact that the practical case for crypto, for bitcoin as a currency you pay with on a day-to-day basis, has diminished. It’s a speculative asset, a store of wealth, but I don’t think anyone seriously—even the big crypto firms that have gone public on Wall Street, like Coinbase—believes it’s going to be displacing the dollar. Mulder: In Putin’s regime, the essential, implicit bargain made between him and the oligarchs was: If you want to be wealthy and have all this property, do not meddle in politics. Especially not in foreign policy. There’s this running joke: One of the oligarchs goes to Putin and says, “I have had $4 billion out of my $5 billion in wealth seized!” And Putin responds, “Would you like to keep the remaining billion as well?” That’s the dynamic: They are suffering from these expropriations, but it’s not clear they can translate that into sway over the policy-making process.
I don't think NATO is arbitrary. I think it is arbitrary to restrict one's nation from helping another nation from being conquered based solely on NATO, especially since they wanted to join it but weren't accepted. Again, NATO mandates we will help in some cases, but it doesn't restricted us from helping outside of those cases.
Again though the point of NATO is a mutual defense pact. If we should just go to war to help any country invaded or any country that wanted to join NATO there would be no point for NATO and we would also end up being in endless wars. Yes the US can help countries that aren't part of NATO. We did so for Kuwait, for Bosnia and for Albania. Those were conflicts by choice where we saw other reasons to intervene beyond treaty obligation. Those were also conflicts facing much weaker opponents with very little offensive capability they could use against us. Given the risk every intervention of choice has to be weighed very carefully. Where we have a treaty obligation that isn't a choice but a legal obligation.
I agree with this post. I just think a certain amount of increased involvement is worth the risk and may avoid escalation and a more costly conflict in the future. I also understand that it might hasten it.
In this day and age don't want to rule out anything and certainly the PRC could invade Taiwan in the next couple of years. I don't think so though. As others are noting Xi is looking at what Putin's doing and it doesn't look good. Given the long running economic problems in the PRC and seeing how most of the World has united to economically sanction Russia that is a risk that Xi might be loath to take. Militarily the PRC is still a ways from putting up a credible naval and amphibious assault that could take Taiwan. Especially if the US does honor it's treaty and defends Taiwan. Note Taiwan's geography isn't Ukraine. Not only is it an island it's also mountainous with deep forests. While Taipei is pretty level it's a very large and dense city. It would be hard to take with street to street fighting and if much of Taiwan's military retreated to the mountains they could hold out for a very long time. Obviously the PRC could just nuke Taiwan but not only would that lead to likely the end of civilization as we know it there would be no point to taking Taiwan by the PRC if it's just a radioactive cinder. Most important though is that Xi isn't Putin and the PRC isn't Russia. Xi is authoritarian and the CCP has an iron grip on the PRC but Xi's power isn't as complete as Putin's. Also the CCP has built its legitimacy on economic development and nationalism. At the very minimum an invasion of Taiwan will be very costly and given that the economies of both are now very intertwined will lead to big economic problems. At the sametime a major naval conflict in the straights of Formosa and the South China Sea will be very disruptive to the global economy overall. Trade partners like Japan, SK and the ASEAN nations will be very negatively affected. All of that is even without sanctions. Most likely an attempt to take Taiwan will result in a severe economic downturn in the PRC. There is a Chinese saying called "吃苦" literally "Eat Bitter". That saying means that someone is able to put up with a lot of hardship and is part of PRC propaganda. They like to claim that their people can put up with more hardship than other people can so in a war with the US the Chinese people are more willing to eat bitter than the Americans. That's nice propaganda and looks good in great patriotic movies about the WWII or the Long March but this isn't the generation that fought WWII, survived the Long March, or even remembers the Great Leap Forward. Most PRC citizens have grown up with full bellies, warm homes, and full stores and have seen an almost steady improvement in physical improvement in their lives. In fact the PRC has been having problems with obesity and video game addiction among their younger population. In the last few years there has been a "躺平" literally "lying flat" protest movement among millennials. This is where many are rejecting the Chinese ideal of going out, working hard and making money but are just staying at home and not being productive. In other words they're becoming American slackers.. I have a very hard time seeing this being the generation that is willing to eat a lot of bitterness just so Xi Jinping can reclaim Ming Dynasty China.
One thing I've noticed in reporting is that I'm seeing a lot of reports on Russian losses including losses of command officers. What I have seen very little is reports of Ukrainian military losses. While Russia's advance is much slower than predicted and with obvious problems I have hard time believing that the Ukrainian military isn't taking very losses. Just looking at the map the Russians are slow but are making progress so that means that the Ukrainians are taking losses. I don't know if it's intentional or not but there does seem to be a bias in much of the reporting we are seeing. This is why I'm skeptical of any reports of numbers out of Ukraine.
Seen them reported by Ukrainian sources, but very small as compared to the Russian side. While O usually has more losses, skeptical also. Best to use numbers from the US or Europe, which will always lag due to how hard it is to confirm them vs Ukrainian sources. The US confirmed number is much lower than from Ukraine gov.
I've heard there are thousands of dead Ukrainian civilians so yeah, that's a lot of loses. Saw an elderly couple driving a tiny coupe get blasted by a tank. The Russians are just targeting anything that moves.
I think the main difference as far as news goes is that Russian losses are big news because they weren't expected. Everyone knows Ukrainian forces are going to get obliterated, so it's not really news that lots of them are dying. As far as famous people, we did hear that the Ghost of Ukraine (that fighter pilot that shot down lots of Russian deaths in the opening days) died.
A few days old... but Putin stated there were absolutely no conscript soldiers and only pro soldiers involved (which is a lie, they always use conscripts in every conflict dating back forever). A few days ago, the official message changed to there is but Putin wasn't aware. The at-home public missing their kids and getting calls from their kids or seeing their photo online cut through the bs and lies. The Iron Curtain is not going to block that.
The fighting is in civilian areas, and the main reason Russia is making advances is due to massive bombing. It's also been covered how the Ukrainian forces are being cared for at certain hospitals which is why Russia is another reason Russia is bombing hospitals. So yeah... they are taking heavy losses I'm sure but it's mostly civilians given the nature of Russia's aggression. Ukraine's forces are able to utilize trenches on front lines and they seem to be using alot of guerrilla tactics. They aren't going to put central command on the front lines and will use their land advantage to retreat when it's clear they're out gunned, and then flank around those same forces a few days later for a surprise attack after the Russian's have spread their forces thinner and are on the move. But yeah the civilian toll is going to be catastrophic when we finally get those numbers. That's why the two main objectives have been establishing corridors for safe passage, and getting air support. Russia won't allow that because they know they can't beat Ukranians in a guerrilla war. They've figured out that the only way to "win" is to carpet bomb civilians in order to force Zelensky to give up, and for individual cities to have no infrastructure to support it being a sustainable fortress that Ukranians army can use to operate out of. So the Ukranian army might technically be winning or suffering few losses, but I still think Ukraine is getting pummeled back to the dark ages. Putin is taking a thriving large European country, and turning it into a middle east style wasteland. It's a horror story to watch unfold, and sit back and do next to nothing.
