Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
No bio...
User ID: 265
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
I'm referring to Putin's statements after the disaster at Hostomel and the decimation of the armor columns rolling towards Kiev in the first few days of the war.
Here is a video analysis of the SMO in that regard:
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Very interesting, but Russia seems much weaker now than in 2022. Heavily sanctioned, big stagflation, and fielding laughable armor deployments and infantry tactics. Quads, donkeys, motorcycles, and "camels". We've been assured that the 3 day Special Military Operation is still going according to plan. They've evacuated Syria, Wagner is a shadow of its former self, and are they still conscripting and fielding prisoners or is that well too running dry?
If Russia was going to roll into Poland, what do you think that force composition looks like?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
I was hoping the American Grand Strategy in Ukraine was to bleed Russia dry, at the expense of Ukraine. I think it has basically worked, as beyond WMD, I think Russia has very little in their arsenal to threaten the West with. I am surprised, however, by the turn of events where Trump accuses Ukraine of having started the Russian invasion. My hope remains that Trump is playing 4D chess with Putin, softening him up for a triumphant blow, but my hope wavers. It seems clear that Ukraine would be a much more likely and loyal ally than Russia could ever be.
In my view, here are the American interests in the region:
- A greatly weakened Russia
- Ukrainian mineral rights
- Opposing invasions and annexations
- Additional and stronger allies and spheres of influence
American fears:
- WMD in the wrong hands (Russian collapse, or scared Putin)
- Emboldened Russia
- China / Taiwan
The Biden strategy seemed pretty reasonable if tepid in light of these points. I'm not sure what Trump would think of the above.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Oh shit, you're veqq from /r/CredibleDefense Doing the Lord's work over there. That Tooze article was interesting for good and bad reasons. I discounted most of what he had to say after the bizarre opening paragraph. The repeated, unsupported claims of "MAGA is bullshit" seemed literally sophomoric, along with the multiple retreats to "racism!".
His analysis of the scary dilemmas presented by Vance was insightful, but I think he was wrong to downplay the now-unavoidable concerns about immigration across all Western nations which have opened the floodgates.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
I have zero knowledge, evidence, or stake in the sex pest claim. Just wanted to point out the logical inconsistency that I saw in your claim.
That is, having the knowledge of "male feminist" would (indeed) give very little indication of "sex pest", even if it is true that the vast majority of sex pests turn out to be male feminists.
Thus, the fact of very little indication, which we both agree on, weighs very little on the OP's claim.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Men do, women are, so men naturally assume that when you ask them this, you're asking them to apply the woman's label. Unless you're a man predisposed to Gayness (which forms part of the problem with Gays, from the average man's perspective), that is inaccurate, insulting, and outright dangerous.
I think there is something interesting here but I can't figure out any of this. Can you clarify?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
don't think there is any reason to believe that being a "male feminist" says much at all about how likely any particular man is to be a sex pest.
Sure, but the vast, vast majority of muslims are not terrorists, yet most terrorists who fly airplanes into buildings are muslim. Most male feminists are not sex pests, but many sex pests turn out, ironically, to be male feminists. There may be some kind of cluster that is worth examining.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
11mo ago
May Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace.
Is this not a straightforward call for violence? I find this manner of speaking despicable in public, and I'd want an apology if I was her target.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
11mo ago
Taboo the word hate, sheesh. I'm with the Count, here. The word is inappropriate for the feelings being expressed; hyperbolic and histrionic, as expected from one side of the divide.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
11mo ago
We know that "just be nice" with the treasury doesn't work in the long run. Our economists are less susceptible to flim flam than our social scientists and culture warriors.
This is not exactly the same as: I am clued in, turned on, and working hard. I imagine there was a week to respond "Yes", but it's different when asked for details on a short deadline. It sends a different signal.
More options
Context Copy link