The All Things Political Topic - Those who do not move, do not notice their chains

[Malcador]

Ukraine now trying to talk down the crisis.  I guess they got the ammo and weapons to sell on

[Darkpriest]

The Russia - Ukraine was and still is overblown

NATO is heavily divided on this and it looks like really only UK and US want to set this to a catastrophic tone. I guess you might want some replacement topics for Boris and Biden... 

Boris having issues for covid related scandals

Biden having issues with inflation, too much of a debt, and real possibility of recession before midterms.

Stock market is puking and throwing a tantrum, waiting for FED to walkback some of the hawkinesh, and if that won't happen, Dems will have a mother of all crashes on their hands. 

 

[rjshae]

10 hours ago, Malcador said:

Ukraine now trying to talk down the crisis.  I guess they got the ammo and weapons to sell on

Regardless, the US scored points with NATO on this one.

[Zoraptor]

7 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

NATO is heavily divided on this and it looks like really only UK and US want to set this to a catastrophic tone. I guess you might want some replacement topics for Boris and Biden...

Not just UK and US. The divide is mostly US/ UK and most of the Eastern European expansion members vs Germany and France.

It's basically those who want NATO to be the be all and end all of European defence and thus need it to have A Perpetual Enemy to give it purpose, and those who want it supplanted or supplemented by a European Defence Force- that Russia could eventually be part of. That's why you have ludicrous statements like Russia being ready to invade at hours notice despite having a third of Ukraine's troops in the area and have had the same pattern of imminent invasion playing out roughly every 6 months for 7 years; in order for NATO to be capital N Necessary you have to have someone opposed to it, and the only candidate is Russia. It's extremely easy to stoke tensions when you know that there's not actually an invasion imminent, if anything Ukraine trying to tamp down tensions is evidence that they think things are going too far, and Putin may actually have been backed into a corner.

Fundamentally though that's why Russia can never be allowed to join NATO- both Yeltsin and Putin tried, and the USSR tried to join as well in the 50s- and no concessions or limitations can ever be made to lower tension. You need the threat and you need the tension, else what's the point of NATO? And then you get the European Army France and Germany want instead.

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Zoraptor

[Gfted1]

Landmark Poverty Experiment Shows Extra Money Changes Babies' Brains.

See! Incontrovertible proof that UBI will fix all of our societal ills. Get in my pocket! 

[Malcador]

Wonder how the rest of the world would see NATO with Russia in it.

[Darkpriest]

Powell, given his todays speech, is about to give a market crash and a recession to Biden and Dems in the next 6months, right onto midterms. 

I expect some calls from WH to FED speakers in order to have them ease the tensions. 

It seems however, the Dems already are fairly sure of losing in midterms, hence a move around the court, by early retirement of one of the judges and pushing race based candidate for brownie points among who-the-f-knows... 

Hopefully they can do something about increasing crime. 

Biden has a lower approval rating than Trump... and I thought it is not possible in such a short time. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Darkpriest

[Bartimaeus]

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring - thank goodness, I wasn't looking forward to the inevitable 7-2 conservative Supreme Court if he didn't.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[rjshae]

5 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring - thank goodness, I wasn't looking forward to the inevitable 7-2 conservative Supreme Court if he didn't.

Biden has promised to appoint a female PoC Justice.

White House Confirms Biden Will Pick Black Woman For Supreme Court. Here’s Who It Might Be.

It should be interesting to see how this plays out during the nomination process. Presumably Biden will want to pick somebody who can still win the moderate Democratic vote while playing to the Progressive wing.

[Gromnir]

kruger, wright and jackson are all more than qualified. wright is likely too old. kruger will require more time to have her background full investigated, and time may be o' the essence, but the cal supreme court judge is the best writer o' the three we mention. intellectually, our first choice is kruger, but am admitting jackson may be the best choice as kruger ideological and personality wise is similar to kagan. is no need for another kagan... unless she were clear a superior kagan. based on feedback from a few o' our colleagues who know judge jackson, she would shake things up considerable on the Court. if jackson becomes a Justice, the clerks is instant forming a pool and guessing which arrogant (they are all arrogant) senior Justice gets the hulk treatment from jackson. 

as for russia and ukraine, am waiting for the contrived excuse which has russia invade. russian state media is presenting the situation as one o' nato aggression, so 'course there will be an "incident" which affirms the narrative being concocted. won't be funny save to watch the putin apologists and defenders twist themselves into knots as they embrace the theatre.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

28 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

as for russia and ukraine, am waiting for the contrived excuse which has russia invade. russian state media is presenting the situation as one o' nato aggression, so 'course there will be an "incident" which affirms the narrative being concocted. won't be funny save to watch the putin apologists and defenders twist themselves into knots as they embrace the theatre.

I'm sure those people in Ukrainian uniforms attacking the Russian radio station were just media critics, wanting to deprive the Russian people of their freedom of speech!

 

(what I'm talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident)

 

[Agiel]

On 1/25/2022 at 10:16 PM, Zoraptor said:

 

It's basically those who want NATO to be the be all and end all of European defence and thus need it to have A Perpetual Enemy to give it purpose, and those who want it supplanted or supplemented by a European Defence Force- that Russia could eventually be part of. That's why you have ludicrous statements like Russia being ready to invade at hours notice despite having a third of Ukraine's troops in the area and have had the same pattern of imminent invasion playing out roughly every 6 months for 7 years; in order for NATO to be capital N Necessary you have to have someone opposed to it, and the only candidate is Russia. It's extremely easy to stoke tensions when you know that there's not actually an invasion imminent, if anything Ukraine trying to tamp down tensions is evidence that they think things are going too far, and Putin may actually have been backed into a corner.

 

Apart from the fact that European defence spending on the whole was in seeming terminal decline up until the annexation of Crimea and the the shootdown of MH17 gave European governments the kick in the pants nearly three whole US presidential administrations had failed to do, and that the character of US foreign policy ever since Obama's second term has been one of disengaging with European matters (arguably the biggest factor in softening the US position of JCPOA in favour of Iran were European negotiators, their reasons misguided or not). This is reflected by the fact that China remains top of mind for the Biden administration (only one CVN is in the Mediterranean as opposed to the two CSGs and one ARG currently in the Western Pacific) and they've made abundantly clear that it is unlikely that any wider American involvement is forthcoming (barring, well, I don't know, Wagner Group or other thugs wantonly marauding west of the Dnieper), all but stating that if nothing else Europeans themselves have to take the lead on this.

Face it, Putin is the best advertisement for NATO membership among Russia's near-abroad. I hardly think escalating in Ukraine to keep it from joining NATO is a good trade if it drives Sweden and _Finland_ into NATO's arms and adding 500+ miles of frontage with NATO countries with no love for the Kremlin, are highly motivated, armed to the teeth, have high degrees of interoperability with NATO, and are also less than 100 miles from Russia's _second_ most important city.

Quote

Now the feel is different. The ultimatums Russia gave to the U.S. and NATO in December concern Europe. They are in conflict with the European security order. Spheres of interest do not belong to the 2020s. The sovereign equality of all states is the basic principle that everyone should respect.

...

Many Europeans have asked, and not for the first time: are we being discussed without us being included? Even though the challenge was presented to the U.S. and NATO, in this situation Europe cannot just listen in. The sovereignty of several Member States, also Sweden and Finland, has been challenged from outside the Union. This makes the EU an involved party. The EU must not settle merely with the role of a technical coordinator of sanctions

...

And let it be stated once again: Finland’s room to manoeuvre and freedom of choice also include the possibility of military alignment and of applying for NATO membership, should we ourselves so decide. NATO’s business is the so-called Open Door policy, the continuance of which has been repeatedly confirmed to Finland, also publicly.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Agiel

[HoonDing]

[Gromnir]

am knowing is a meme, but the rule is not to invade russia in winter. the japanese did ok for themselves in the early 1900s with a war started in winter... the japanese declared war during first half o' february 1904. (edit: originally wrote "1905" but it looked wrong so we checked and sure enough we were mistaken 'bout the year. sheet.) the lasting national embarrassment from that war is one reason the soviets were so hot and bothered to invade hokkaido at the end o' ww2.

HA! Good Fun!

ps

am knowing bill cosby is verboten nowadays, but we were reminded o' an old cosby bit

pps the first record we were ever gifted were crime of the century by supertramp. second were bill cosby is a very funny fellow...right!  our grandfather thought the cosby coin toss were the funniest thing evar.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

Lol, yearly reminder that the evidence Gromnir provided for that claim was a plan developed literally literally after the Japanese had already surrendered, which he got from a blog that literally literally lied about the dates. Shame I checked the source. Know all those estimates for invasion forces in the hundreds of thousands to million range required for invading the Home Islands that necessitated nuking two cities? Well, the Soviets were going to do it with like 6 ships, and an initial force of about 1500, ie one thousand five hundred. Oh yeah after that got debunked there was a multi hour long youtube video (with, of course, no time stamp provided, just watch the whole thing) that for some reason I couldn't be bothered watching.

2 hours ago, Agiel said:

This is reflected by the fact that China remains top of mind for the Biden administration (only one CVN is in the Mediterranean as opposed to the two CSGs and one ARG currently in the Western Pacific)

Uh, really? Russia's western border is almost entirely land, and thus unsuitable for carriers. China's east coast however is rather more suited to them. The options that the US has for land basing in Europe are practically infinite. The options that the US has for land basing off China's coast have a massive gap between Japan and the Phils, and The Phils and Singapore- and IIRC there are no land based US planes in Singapore either, only helis. The only added deterence from a carrier in the Med might, at a stretch, be an attack on Tartus or Hmeimem. Which can probably be discounted as being somewhat too much of an escalation. You cannot tell anything about priorities from that, at all.

Quote

Face it, Putin is the best advertisement for NATO membership among Russia's near-abroad. I hardly think escalating in Ukraine to keep it from joining NATO is a good trade if it drives Sweden and _Finland_ into NATO's arms and adding 500+ miles of frontage with NATO countries with no love lost for the Kremlin, are highly motivated, armed to the teeth, have high degrees of interoperability with NATO, and are also less than 100 miles from Russia's _second_ most important city.

Meh, Estonia is already ~100mi from St Pete's, and that reality has been lived with for 30 years. The closeness to Rostov/ Smolensk/ Belgorod from Ukraine hugely outweighs that.

And yeah, it's an open secret that Finland and especially Sweden are nowhere near as neutral as they say, already. If they actually joined NATO that would formalise something that is pretty close to de facto already for both, and in Sweden's case has been so pretty much since NATO was established. But, it's handy enough to have someone 'neutral' for exactly these sorts of situations that they probably won't.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Zoraptor

[Darkpriest]

""Nothing says 'the U.S. doesn't care about your government's oppression' quite like announcing $2.5 billion in arms sales to Egypt on the anniversary of the January 25 Revolution""

A quote, which shows how much US care... For anything else than political buzz or economic interest. 

 

(imagine the turmoil if Russia would be severed from SWIFT and unable to trade with mostly EU countries, including trades in natural gas and oil...) 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Darkpriest

[Gromnir]

dear lord. not this again. you got a serious weird russia thing.

the existence o' a russian plan to invade hokkaido is hardly controversial, and the idea it were spun outta whole cloth with planned invasion to happen almost contemporaneous with the planning is amusing, 'cause that is exact how major amphibious assaults happen? sure, a memo detailing the plan is from four days following the japanese surrender, but the idea the plan were created on the nineteenth with an actual invasion date o' five days afterwards is your usual brand o' wacky we must need endure yet again.

the only question which has ever been at issue is to what degree japanese capitulation were due to the dropping o' nuclear bombs or threat o' soviet invasion or both.

from the fp article imbedded

"The impact of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different, however. Once the Soviet Union had declared war, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator — he was now a belligerent. So the diplomatic option was wiped out by the Soviet move. The effect on the military situation was equally dramatic. Most of Japan’s best troops had been shifted to the southern part of the home islands. Japan’s military had correctly guessed that the likely first target of an American invasion would be the southernmost island of Kyushu. The once proud Kwangtung army in Manchuria, for example, was a shell of its former self because its best units had been shifted away to defend Japan itself. When the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas. The Soviet 16th Army — 100,000 strong — launched an invasion of the southern half of Sakhalin Island. Their orders were to mop up Japanese resistance there, and then — within 10 to 14 days — be prepared to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan’s home islands. The Japanese force tasked with defending Hokkaido, the 5th Area Army, was under strength at two divisions and two brigades, and was in fortified positions on the east side of the island. The Soviet plan of attack called for an invasion of Hokkaido from the west.

 

"It didn’t take a military genius to see that, while it might be possible to fight a decisive battle against one great power invading from one direction, it would not be possible to fight off two great powers attacking from two different directions. The Soviet invasion invalidated the military’s decisive battle strategy, just as it invalidated the diplomatic strategy. At a single stroke, all of Japan’s options evaporated. The Soviet invasion was strategically decisive — it foreclosed both of Japan’s options — while the bombing of Hiroshima (which foreclosed neither) was not.

"The Soviet declaration of war also changed the calculation of how much time was left for maneuver. Japanese intelligence was predicting that U.S. forces might not invade for months. Soviet forces, on the other hand, could be in Japan proper in as little as 10 days. The Soviet invasion made a decision on ending the war extremely time sensitive."

renowned experts such as frank and hasegawa make repeated mentions o' the russian invasion plans o' hokkaido. 

"Hasegawa fails to sustain his main arguments with the necessary evidence. At best, he leaves the revisionist case as he found it, in ruins. Indeed, he makes the rubble bounce by convincingly demonstrating that the Soviet Union very much was racing to get into the Pacific War in order to facilitate its expansionist policies in the Far East. Those who seek the definitive analysis on the end of the Pacific War will have to look elsewhere. A good place to begin is Frank’s Downfall." --prof. michael kort

your tenacious hold on the fringe is indeed amusing. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps the reason the soviets didn't believe they needed a huge invasion force is explained in linked material. japanese defensive buildup were near entire directed at repelling a planned US invasion o' the main island and they would have months to prepare for the assault. converse, the soviets could be in hokkaido with a a couple weeks. the august 19 memo seems to suggest the Japanese fears regarding the soviet timeline were correct. 

pps unrelated to zor silliness, one thing we found most intriguing 'bout the hasegawa video were how the professor admitted to being perplexed by truman's seeming ignorance o' the significance o' the bomb, until after they were dropped. hasegawa referenced quotes from truman contemporaneous notes and documents regarding the bomb test capabilities as described in vivid detail. nevertheless, truman clear didn't see the atomic bombs as anything more than a noteworthy increase in magnitude o' conventional weapons. after the bombs were dropped, and no nation save japan complained 'bout the use o' atomic weapons at the time, truman had a kinda epiphany and there were a complete change o' tone regarding atomic weapons. it were truman who demanded the use o' nukes be taken out o' the ordinary military chain o' command decision making, but that only happened after the use o' the weapons.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

2 hours ago, Agiel said:

Apart from the fact that European defence spending on the whole was in seeming terminal decline up until the annexation of Crimea and the the shootdown of MH17 gave European governments the kick in the pants nearly three whole US presidential administrations had failed to do, and that the character of US foreign policy ever since Obama's second term has been one of disengaging with European matters (arguably the biggest factor in softening the US position of JCPOA in favour of Iran were European negotiators, their reasons misguided or not). This is reflected by the fact that China remains top of mind for the Biden administration (only one CVN is in the Mediterranean as opposed to the two CSGs and one ARG currently in the Western Pacific) and they've made abundantly clear that it is unlikely that any wider American involvement is forthcoming (barring, well, I don't know, Wagner Group or other thugs wantonly marauding west of the Dnieper), all but stating that if nothing else Europeans themselves have to take the lead on this.

Face it, Putin is the best advertisement for NATO membership among Russia's near-abroad. I hardly think escalating in Ukraine to keep it from joining NATO is a good trade if it drives Sweden and _Finland_ into NATO's arms and adding 500+ miles of frontage with NATO countries with no love for the Kremlin, are highly motivated, armed to the teeth, have high degrees of interoperability with NATO, and are also less than 100 miles from Russia's _second_ most important city.

Trump's and Biden's actions have almost ensured that Finland will not join in NATO in next 10 years.

As only 25% of Finnish people support joining Nato, as it is seen increasing problems with Russia and bringing only hollow promises of help in case of invasion. Majority of members of Finland's parliament have supported joining Nato from 1995, but support for Nato among voters has not increased in past decade much.

Quote

And yeah, it's an open secret that Finland and especially Sweden are nowhere near as neutral as they say, already. If they actually joined NATO that would formalise something that is pretty close to de facto already for both, and in Sweden's case has been so pretty much since NATO was established. But, it's handy enough to have someone 'neutral' for exactly these sorts of situations that they probably won't.

Finland and Sweden are members of EU and its defensive pacts so it is quite open that we are not neutral, which we say in every time it is asked. In case of Nato vs Russia, Finland has military co-operation agreements with both, Sweden has only with Nato, neither has defensive pacts either Nato or Russia. Concept Finland and Sweden being neutral come from Cold War, when we didn't join either NATO or Warsaw Pact and had trade and diplomatic relationships with members of both alliances.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

Trump's and Biden's actions have almost ensured that Finland will not join in NATO in next 10 years.

As only 25% of Finnish people support joining Nato, as it is seen increasing problems with Russia and bringing only hollow promises of help in case of invasion. Majority of members of Finland's parliament have supported joining Nato from 1995, but support for Nato among voters has not increased in past decade much.

Finland and Sweden are members of EU and its defensive pacts so it is quite open that we are not neutral, which we say in every time it is asked. In case of Nato vs Russia, Finland has military co-operation agreements with both, Sweden has only with Nato, neither has defensive pacts either Nato or Russia. Concept Finland and Sweden being neutral come from Cold War, when we didn't join either NATO or Warsaw Pact and had trade and diplomatic relationships with members of both alliances.

Elerond this is not a good time for fence sitting. Finland must join NATO, its in the best interest of Finland to be openly aligned with NATO. You need to convince people of the importance of this

But if the majority of the Finnish parliament support joining NATO whats stopping Finland from joining, surly your elected parliament do decide these things and not the citizens?

[Elerond]

6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Elerond this is not a good time for fence sitting. Finland must join NATO, its in the best interest of Finland to be openly aligned with NATO. You need to convince people of the importance of this

But if the majority of the Finnish parliament support joining NATO whats stopping Finland from joining, surly your elected parliament do decide these things and not the citizens?

Joining Nato needs change in Finland's constitution and in order to do that parliament needs to have 2/3 majority and then next parliament needs to also vote for change with 2/3 majority. Or parliament needs 5/6 majority to change constitution without need for next parliament to accept the change. Or government can organize constitutional referendum. 

There is no 5/6 majority that supports the joining to Nato and referendum seems hopeless considering that only 25% of people support joining to Nato, so if government wants to join the Nato they would need to take risk and face election after starting unpopular change in constitution.

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Joining Nato needs change in Finland's constitution and in order to do that parliament needs to have 2/3 majority and then next parliament needs to also vote for change with 2/3 majority. Or parliament needs 5/6 majority to change constitution without need for next parliament to accept the change. Or government can organize constitutional referendum. 

There is no 5/6 majority that supports the joining to Nato and referendum seems hopeless considering that only 25% of people support joining to Nato, so if government wants to join the Nato they would need to take risk and face election after starting unpopular change in constitution.

Okay I see what you mean, its unlikely Finland will join NATO 

[Malcador]

Russia should just say Ukraine has WMDs.

[pmp10]

9 hours ago, Agiel said:

Face it, Putin is the best advertisement for NATO membership among Russia's near-abroad. 

That is only one way of looking at politics of it.
He also reveled EU to be hopelessly divided and US to be prone to hysterics.  

[ComradeYellow]

Correct.  Russia is not going to invade Ukraine, they are just trying to create panic and destabilization and their troops are in a defensive position, almost comically like WW1 style deployments.  Anyone freaking out about this is, oh how would the psyop complex put it?  "Playing straight into Putin's hands"

 

EDIT:  Both Napoleon and Hitler actually invaded Russia in the summer, so I never understood that long running joke.  Like at all.

Edited January 27, 2022 by ComradeYellow

[rjshae]

Frankly, it's better for NATO if the Ukraine stays neutral as that reduces the potential frontage of a war. But it would also be a poor play of the cards to say Ukraine can never join NATO, as that would give Russia a free pass to invade. Better then for NATO to make sure the Ukraine is a well-armed buffer state that remains friendly to the West. But Putin probably won't tolerate that, so here we are. If we can delay the conflict a few years, then we can arm up Ukraine and make an invasion more painful.