TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
No bio...
User ID: 373
There are basically no neutral sources on the war, with everyone cheerleading for one side or the other. That said, there's still degrees of credibility, and if you focus on the better sources you can get a decent idea of what's going on. The ones I keep up to date with are /r/credibledefense, Perun, and Kofman. There are also prediction markets for some things.
The fog of war will be thick around Prig's insurrection for a while yet, but from my outside observations it smelled like Prig launched the uprising because he was desperate. Despite this, he got surprisingly far with it, and likely took the first offramp that would allow him to escape with his life (for now). The deal he got was interesting because Lukashenko wants to remain independent from Russia and this might give him some leverage somehow. I'd estimate Prig has a 90% chance of dying if he remains as high-profile as he was before the uprising, while the chances go down to 50-50 if he quiets down or goes fully pro-Putin. His power base is likely to be severely degraded in the short to medium term with many of Wagner's soldiers being switched to MoD control and Prig being effectively banished from Russia for the time being. His ability to reconstitute seems uncertain, but it's a possibility.
'Russia' (the government that is representing it, at least) has to view this conflict as existential, since they need to control certain geographic positions if they are to be safe from future invasion.
This is flatly wrong. Russia could leave whenever it wanted to and their security situation would not change significantly, even if Ukraine joined NATO (which is very much still an open question, not a done deal by any means). The Russian fever dream of NATO launching an unprovoked ground invasion Barbarossa-style is ludicrous in the age of nukes and China. The invasion of Ukraine has always been about Russian influence, not security.
Russia's logistics are in atrocious shape, so Ukraine is punching above its' weight regardless of anything else because their soldiers have ammunition, food, and working equipment.
Russian logistics are performing reasonably well actually. There are problems of course, and they're not up to US standards, but that's pretty high bar.
Thanks
Source on this? I'm a big WW2 fan and haven't heard of this before.
Prediction time! Prigozhin is almost certain to lose. He has some collaborators in the RuAF but almost certainly not enough to make the coup seem inevitable. This is important, since coups basically only succeed if they seem inevitable within a few days at most. Coups need to act fast, neutralize the old leader as quickly as possible, and take over radio/TV stations to get people to acquiesce. Wagner's main body of forces were >1000km from Moscow in Rostov, Putin has had a full day to prepare and evacuate, and Prigozhin has not seized communication lines to make the effort seem inevitable. Perhaps that might be because it started out as more of a "mutiny" than a "coup", but there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube now.
The upper brass at the MoD will remain steadfastly loyal to Putin. Junior and mid-level officers might waver a bit at first, but once it becomes clear that Prigozhin doesn't have everything tied up in a neat little bow he'll be hard pressed to get them to join his side outright. Prediction markets show a ~70% chance for Putin to come out on top, which is quite low for how this has progressed so far. This entire thing feels quite reminiscent of the Turkish coup against Erdogan. It feels like something forced Prigozhin's hand and he had to act early. He obviously would have preferred not to have his forces 1000km from the capital when it started.
The end result will likely be more (justifiable) paranoia from Putin, and for Russia to sink into an even more totalitarian state. I doubt there will be appreciable first-order impacts for Ukraine, although who knows what could happen down the road. Anything from Putin deciding to pull out of Ukraine to focus on retaining power, to Putin going all-in and doing something nuclear due to feeling like the West put him in this no-win position. But both of those extremes are pretty unlikely, and the most probable course of action is... nothing much.
I'm kind of surprised this is your reaction, since in the past you've been predicting (one might even say "hoping for") Putin's death at the start of the war. This is by far the closest its come to fruition. I mean, the coup is overwhelmingly likely to fail and Putin will remain in power, but still.
Agreed, this is a nothingburger.
Everything will be an estimations until after the war. The radical skeptic's take is to just throw a big question mark on everything, and in some ways that'd be more epistemically hygienic. In that case, you should still see the confident claims of 2-4x Ukrainian casualties as improbable. I'm personally still in favor of trusting Western (especially US) intelligence since it's been pretty accurate in this conflict.
There are ways of estimating casualties including visually confirmed losses, obituaries, social media, espionage, etc. These will give estimates with significant error bars of course, but most credible estimates put UAF casualties below those of Russia's. In the Discord leaks the pro-RU side had to photoshop the CIA's casualty estimates since it was embarrassing.
I agree with many of the sentiments expressed below. It's not an issue of saturation, but rather that the Ukrainian war has dropped off the radar for most people, and it's been a grinding stalemate for over half a year now. There was the initial flurry of people taking their positions at the start of the war, and they're very unlikely to change given that they're based on unfalsifiable high-level generators of disagreement.. It was fun debating the takes like "Do Europeans have any agency?" and "Why die spend some money for Danzig Donetsk?", but it got old after a while. It didn't help that one of the most eloquent pro-Russian pundits, Mearsheimer, completely lost his marbles. It's hard to claim he isn't just swallowing Russian propaganda wholesale when he asserts Ukraine's army is taking 2x-4x more casualties than Russia's army, which is just wildly out-of-band with any credible analysis.
"aaaaaany day now the big Reddit-killer will swoop in and save us! Trust me bro!"
I know it's certainly possible, but Reddit would have to screw up way harder than it has. The current drama won't make much of a difference.
Fascinating stuff. As someone who was never big into Tumblr, it's interesting to see how one of the Internet's major sites shot itself in the foot.
This is giving me some gamer boycott energy. There's no other real Reddit alternative with nearly the same amount of content thanks to network effects, so while a handful of users might drift away, the majority will eat the changes no matter how much they might dislike it.
If you believe Hanania thinks leftist voters are all geniuses... you're not very familiar with his work. He's gone into what he thinks of left-leaning voters before I'm sure, but this article isn't about "R voters are uniquely stupid", so he didn't deem it relevant to bring it up.
It's not a motte and bailey because it's not a central point, or even an argument (as you presented) that he believes in at all. The real point is about Desantis. Desantis would be crushing Trump if the R electorate was completly made up of themotte posters and National Review type right-wing intellectuals, but it's not, and it's ludicrous to expect them to be. Desantis' pitch of "Trump but competent" won't land with less engaged, less interested rightwing voters.
Presidential aspirants are highly incentivized to run whenever they see an opening. Losing a primary is not a political death sentence by any means. Romney lost 2008 before winning the R nom in 2012. Biden flamed out twice before winning the D nom in 2020. On the other hand, staying out could mean they miss their shot forever. Plenty of people said Obama should have sat out in 2008 with the logic that it was basically "Hillary's turn". There's a good chance Obama would have never been president if he didn't run in 2008. Chris Christie lost his best shot when he didn't run in 2012
Both parties have a large contingent of dumb or midwit voters, either because they're low-intelligence or simply because they don't pay attention to politics that much and as such have simplistic opinions, e.g. a "guy who just wants to grill" making voting decisions by "going with his gut". This isn't a boo-outgroup screed, but rather a proper understanding of reality. It's utterly fanciful to pretend these people don't exist or have that they don't have a massive impact on vote tallies.
His crusade against woke in Florida shows he clearly knows who the enemy is. The problem is he needs to get through Trump to take on Biden. I'm sure there will be plenty of Biden-bashing in the R primary, but that's just standard fare. Desantis really needs to fight against Trump right now to actually win the nomination, but he's been too meek to do so.
Agreed, Hanania's great. He's kind of replaced Scott for me since Scott doesn't write much about politics any more.
The legal issues related to Trump don't seem particularly troubling. Trump has always been in a legal gray area with stuff like the Russia investigation, but Mueller cleared Trump of collusion when most of the media thought he would go down for sure. Counting on a legal issue to bring down Trump seems like a bad bet unless he does something particularly egregious.
nationally has gained ground as well.
Flatly wrong. He went from 30% after the midterms to 20% now. He's down in both the polling aggregators like 538 and in betting markets. He's up maybe a point or two from his nadir, but that doesn't come close to catching Trump, or even to reversing his spring/summer slide.
Richard Hanania thinks Desantis should challenge Trump to a boxing match. Desantis's campaign so far has been pretty pathetic. He's been afraid to really push back against Trump despite Trump lobbing almost daily attacks against him. Desantis is great on paper, with his victories against woke institutions in Florida, but he's failed to appeal to the Republican id so far. Many Republican voters care far more about appearance and physical vigor than policy positions, good governance, intelligence, etc.
I don’t think Trump can lose a Republican primary at this point. But if I were giving DeSantis advice, it would be to do the opposite of what Abernathy suggests. Republican voters love the stupidity, obnoxiousness, vulgarity, and simian chest-beating. While the conventional wisdom seems to be that Rubio and Cruz tried rolling around in the muck with him and failed, Rubio’s most vicious personal attacks in 2016 didn’t come until after Trump had won the New Hampshire primary and Nevada caucuses, that is, pretty late in the game. And Rubio wasn’t the guy to do it.
Instead of seeing Republican primary voters as concerned citizens seeking a voice, try to imagine them as chimps laying around under a canopy. They’ve chosen the alpha male. He’s the loudest, most obnoxious member of the tribe, and his power depends on the degree to which other apes are afraid of him and give him symbolic displays of respect, which in this case has meant saying, for example, that he actually won the 2020 election. What could break this spell? Not reasoned arguments, but signs of weakness. And no, not weakness in the sense that he might not be the most electable candidate — that’s counting on a level of thinking that is far too abstract for this population.
Rather, one needs to emphasize literal physical weakness. Notice how obsessed Republicans have been with the real and imagined physical and cognitive shortcomings of figures like Biden and Hillary. In many corners of right-wing media, “our opponents are old, fat, ugly” seems to get at least as much attention as actual issues, especially during election season. In 2020, we saw doctored videos of Pelosi slurring her words go viral on social media, and this shows not only how susceptible the Republican base is to fake news, but also how obsessed they are with physical and physiological correlates of health.
The Dylan Mulvaney hysteria is another demonstration of the red tribe being driven by the most base and primitive instincts. These people started shooting beer cans with assault rifles because a company sent a six pack to a guy who acts like a sissy. Good luck explaining to them the importance of going after higher education accreditation agencies.
You might think it’s strange for a group like this to have chosen Trump as their leader. But when he posts memes of himself as an Adonis or says things like he’s in better shape than Obama or Bush were while they were in office, and no one corrects him, that serves to only cement his dominance over the party. Trump’s perfect body is like the unreliability of Dominion voting machines. Shirtless Putin has a similar effect in Russia. Educated Westerners roll their eyes at his primitive demonstrations of vigor, but I suspect that, like Trump, he’s a much better student of human nature than they are. The conspiracy theories might have been false, but the Trump-Putin bromance was real, and no accident.
This means that DeSantis’ best shot is trying to emphasize that Trump is physically weak and he no longer intimidates others in the party. You can’t do this with words alone. DeSantis can call him fat, and Trump can reply everyone is saying that I’m in the best shape of any man who’s ever lived, and the voters will eat it up. The Florida governor needs a way to clearly highlight that he’s younger, stronger, and more physically courageous.
DeSantis should therefore challenge Trump to a boxing match. Trump will almost certainly refuse, at which point he can say that this shows what a coward the former president is. Or, DeSantis could say that, on further reflection, maybe it wasn’t fair to challenge an 85 year-old man (yes, lie and exaggerate, Republican voters love that too), and he understands that his opponent is too feeble at this point in his life to get into the arena.
DeSantis shouldn’t do this out of the blue. He could start by trying to bait Trump into saying something particularly nasty about him, or preferably his wife or kids. Then he can play the role of the justifiably angry patriarch. Every time Trump launches a personal attack, DeSantis can reply by saying that his opponent is a pathetic coward, and if he has a problem with him he’s already made clear that they can settle their differences like men. If he’s not willing to do that, then we can stick to the issues, at which point DeSantis can go on about whatever he did in Florida. At the very least, a challenge to fight will eat up all the energy and make sure no other candidate gets any attention, as one of the main things DeSantis needs to do is make the primary into a two-man race.
Right now, the DeSantis strategy is to try to get the Republican voter to ask questions like “who is more electable?” or “who has shown more focus in fighting woke?” Those are exciting questions to conservative intellectuals but way too boring for the Republican masses. They will never tell a pollster this, but they resent anyone trying to make them think too hard, which is part of the reason they hate liberals in the first place.
There are a lot of ways that this could go wrong, and it probably wouldn’t work. But I think people are still yet to truly understand that, if things proceed as normal, Trump is going to be the nominee. Making sure he’s not would require meeting Republican voters where they are, instead of continuing to wish they were something else.
The important point was that it led to the creation of superPACs, which it did unless you want to get nitpicky. Describing that as like "Hamlet as a play created in ancient Greece by Emperor Nero" is uncharitable.
Asserting Citizens United had "nothing to do with superPACs" is going way too far, as most of the logic and legal articulation for the formation of superPACs happened in Citizens United, while the Speechnow case simply applied that logic to explicitly allow superPACs. After Citizens United, the creation of superPACs was inevitable, hence why everyone knows about Citizens United while Speechnow is relatively obscure.
While the precise notion of which court case started and ended where might be interesting, I kinda feel like this whole digression was more of a "gotcha" on a specific technical detail, rather than a pushback on the central point I was making.
if you claim that the decision "threw gasoline on the fire in terms of money in politics"
I don't understand your point here. The "gasoline in terms of money in politics" was a reference to superPACs. Are you saying Citizens United didn't lead to the creation of superPACs?

If you want to handwave nukes and the geopolitical impact of the rise of China and everything else, then maybe, but at that point you could handwave everything with "maybe it will change at some point in the future, perhaps". That's a blank check to invade all neighbors at all times... which is arguably Russia's MO for most of its history. It's completely understandable for people outside of Russia to look at that and say that's unjustified.
More options
Context Copy link