remzem
11mo ago
Who do you guys think blew up the dam?
Russia pros
-
makes the area downriver nearly impassable in the short term, with the counter offensive kicking off kills that front.
-
could make crossing even upriver more difficult with much more mud to cross for a landing? This would allow them to concentrate forces on the donetsk / zaparozhne lines
Russia cons
-
humanitarian disaster and large escalation. Would make western populations more willing to keep writing the blank checks for the MIC
-
could threaten the nuclear plant within their own territory (this seems like a con for anyone in the region, Russian or Ukrainian though)
-
most models show more damage to the left bank of the Dnieper which they control and have fortified after the Kherson withdrawal.
-
cuts off a large supply of water to Crimea
Ukraine pros
-
Escalation, assuming a successful false flag would allow them to push for more western military aide. Ukraine's war is less against Russia and more against the minds of western populations as their continued support with elections upcoming is all that is keeping them afloat.
-
Long term (weeks to months for the banks to dry) easier to cross upriver to regain the nuclear plant.
-
potentially wipe out Russian minefields, troops and fortifications located downstream.
Ukraine cons
-
freezes the entire Kherson front right as the counter offensive seems to be kicking off.
-
damages their own territory, humanitarian disaster, threatens nuclear plant.
Edgecases:
-
God is laughing his ass off, Historic high levels and lack of maintenance due to war lead to failure of the dam on accident right as a major offensive is about to start and major escalations (attacks on civilians in Russian territory etc.) had just begun.
-
Some crazy high quality deep fakes? I guess it could lead to chaos and unbalance things downriver? Throw one side off? Would think they'd have better information sources for either side than twitter posts though.
remzem
30d ago
just a puppet state and source of expendable shock troops for the new Russian Empire.
So if they lose they end up being in exactly the same place they are now but for the Russian Empire instead of the Atlanticist Empire?
remzem
5mo ago
One thing that's always bugged my about progressivism and especially EA is that despite all their claims of being empathetic and humanistic they completely ignore the human. They are ironically the paperclip maximizers of philanthropy.
The argument is that despite some of the questionable things EA has been caught up in lately, they've saved 200 thousands lives! but did they save good lives? What have they saved really? More mouths to feed? Doctors and lawyers? Someone that cares about humanity would want to ask these questions. A paperclip maximizer that discounts a persons humanity entirely and just sees each life as some widget to maximize the number of would not.
The purpose of empathy is to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to understand their feelings. Except, to do that you have to have some level of understanding of how they function, some mental model of their mind. Else you are simply projecting. It's easy to just imagine what you'd feel like if you were in Palestine or Israel etc. Except that isn't empathy. Even just listening to what a person says isn't truly empathy. If I were an alcoholic and I said I wanted a drink, to someone that has no knowledge of me it might seem a nice thing to do, but clearly it would not be. I'm not sure what it even means to have empathy for someone you don't know. I'm not sure it's possible. What is it really that you are feeling? Do you believe people are all the same, with the same wants? same needs? some values? It's such a dim view of people and of the world.
I suppose some people do, "We're all human," is something you'll hear espoused by this ideology, but that is literally the least you can have in common with another person. Trying to apply it to any other human interaction is instantly ridiculous. You wouldn't apply that logic anywhere in life, you don't hire someone just because they're human, you don't befriend someone, care about someone, hate someone. It's basically an open admission that you have nothing convincing to say. Even if someone was forced to compliment their worst enemy they'd manage to ad lib something more convincing than, "he's human."
Anyone that has had relationships with other humans, so basically everyone, knows how complicated it is to actually know someone. You can have spent years living with a partner and still be completely caught off guard when your mental model goes awry and your attempt at empathy then completely falls flat. The idea that some ideological group is more moral or more caring because of the sheer number of lives they've saved completely discredits and belittles one of the pillars of being human, getting to know each other, socializing, learning friend and foe. It discounts their humanity itself, that it's even necessary to get to know or to understand someone before you can help them. Your wants and needs don't matter, you are a widget, you need x calories, y oxygen, to continue existing and I will supply these needs, such altruism, wow.
Looking around at social media and world events I can't help but wonder if this is some major glitch with human psychology in the digital age. Too many strangers, too much opportunity for, "selflessness." So many people caught up in an empty and self serving empathy that has no imagination for others. Meanwhile people that have normal empathy are dismissed because they aren't as "selfless" as the newer movements. Spending time with and focusing on people that share your values isn't altruistic because if they share your values than you are less selfless than the progressive who cares about the stranger. (Not to mention the bay area tech bro that managed to save 0.0345 persons per dollar spent, blowing away the nearest tech bro competitor who only saved 0.0321)
This logic seems mad though, taken to it's extreme the most altruistic move would be to help someone that shares none of your values, and since altruism is a core value you should be exclusively helping the least altruistic of people as that is the most selfless thing you could do. Of course this is obviously ridiculous and self defeating (like the lgbt groups supporting hamas)
More cynically I think this sort of caring is just a way to whitewash your past wrongs, it's pr maximizing, spend x dollars and get the biggest number you can put next to your shady bay area tech movement that is increasingly under societies microscope given the immense power things like social networks and ai give your group. If you really want to help others you need to understand them, that means spending time with others, not with concepts. If you're lucky you might eventually find a few people that you understand well enough that more often than not your actions are positive and beneficial to them. Congratulations you have now invented the family and traditional community.
remzem
6mo ago
Or more likely it's just a convenient stance to take when there are big donors like the MIC putting bags of money on the scales behind the scenes.
remzem
6mo ago
More bad press for them, the base is riled up and wants them out, elections are coming up, etc.
I agree with most of what was said below, but I think the education rift / credentialism as well was a big factor. Though that could really just fit under the same "political realignment" label that everyone else is commenting on.
Culture and race are big dividing lines that led to the realignment, but realistically so many americans are white (or see themselves as white like a lot of asians and hispanics) that dems couldn't realign purely around minority identity, not yet at least. A big portion of their new voting base are the upper class educated white people.
Globalism, outsourcing, low trade barriers etc. tends to be less of a threat to the more highly educated, as education and development levels are generally lower in foreign countries. So you're effectively increasing demand for high skill jobs by giving them access to a larger market where their skills are more in demand. On the other hand for low skill jobs things feel the opposite. Labor goes on strike and they just ship your job overseas. They can find plenty of people that can work in a factory in east asia. Or import them here from south of the border. They've effectively increased the supply of low skill labor.
I guess according to neolibs the low skill americans still benefited as overall the pie grew more, prices were lower, etc. Not sure if that mattered when their power relative to the upper class educated was reduced, their cultural power eroded, status was gone and professions like plumbers were the butt of every joke.
Can see why the urban and educated upper class would feel more positive towards globalism while the rural less educated lower class felt cheated by it. So they ended up in opposite camps politically and I think that has changed the calculus for leadership in both political camps as well. With dems no longer being protectionist towards labor and republicans doing a 180 on their earlier neolib econ ideas that kinda kicked off globalism. Though it's kind of wild to watch them try to fit this change in with their older communism vs capitalism vision of the world. Mass immigration is treated as a sort of welfare for the 3rd world by the left, even though it's hurting labor at home and brain draining foreign countries into permanent poverty. On the right people want to overthrow the elite! but not like those commies, in a cultural sense, not a material one. Basically just read the lyrics of 'rich men of north richmond' to get the picture.
This general attitude towards globalism has also influenced attitudes towards foreign policy, that's why anytime you go on a republican leaning subreddit it's spammed to death by people called RandomWord1234 that say, "We're getting a great deal! weakening our enemy for pennies on the dollar!"
A big focus is on how the elites are spending money on their foreign pet projects while people rot at home, so most of the commentary to try and influence conservative minds revolves around that.
"It's not things you could actually use to have a better life, it's old surplus military equipment that would've gotten thrown away anyways."
Though that one has dropped off now that it's become more apparent that we are spending a lot to keep their government and services afloat.
get weapons to save a thousand of Ukrainian lives
This is a bit off topic, but as a realist I really wonder at the neocon thinking here. I'm asking you since you are vocal about your beliefs, but really anyone jumping into this question would be fine.
Assume you are an average Ukrainian. For reference that is someone probably working Ukraine's most common job, a factory worker, making the Ukrainian median salary of 600usd a month. If you live in the South from Odessa to Dontesk, or the east from Donetsk to Kharkiv than you more than likely already speak Russian, especially if you are in a city. You've lived in a country that was a Soviet territory, then a Russian puppet state, and now a western puppet state. What would most likely happen to you in the following scenarios:
-Russia invaded and the Ukrainian leadership completely capitulated and the war was over before it even started.
-Russia invades and you fight back, the west is initially supportive but pulls its support when it becomes clear the war has become one of attrition and there is no path to victory. You lose the war a couple years later, sometime in 2024-25. (current timeline)
-Russia invades and you fight back, the west gives you whatever support you want, the war drags on for years and years as more and more are sent to a front increasingly supplied by more modern and deadly weapons systems.
To me if I'm the average Ukrainian I prefer scenario 1. I probably still have a pretty below average life, maybe I keep a good mindset about it, maybe alcohol is cheap enough it doesn't matter. I don't die though, no conscription, and as long as I'm not part of the ultra nationalist movement I'm unlikely to see much of a difference, there is a new set of corrupt officials to bribe here and there to get through daily life, but life is mostly the same. At worst there is a major uptick in terrorist attacks as ultra nationalists shift to insurgency type tactics. Though without western support it's not clear how long these would last.
Since I anticipate you will take issue with the framing and suggest a hypothetical where Ukraine gets all the aid it wants and then wins and takes back all it's territory and for some reason Russia decides to never look west again... What wonder weapon would result in this actually happening? Even if we gave them nukes that seems to just result in a stalemate, since if Ukraine nuked Crimea* or Moscow, surely Russia would make sure Kiev no longer existed. In fact given the sheer number of nukes Russia has it might make sure most of Western Europe and the US no longer exist as well. Other than that there doesn't seem to be any conventional weapon that doesn't simply result in more escalation. They are already scraping the bottom of the barrel for conscripts and are at a serious population disadvantage. Sometimes surrender is the better move and the one that saves more lives, if it didn't and everyone that surrendered instantly died than it really wouldn't exist as an option.
remzem
10mo ago
Maybe I'm just burnt out on 4d chess takes after the Trump era, but I feel like it's real, even as someone that is entirely anti-nato to the point I would turncoat in a second if i had a chance to damage the alliance. Prigozhin actually reminds me of Trump after following the war the last year. Issues with emotional regulation that border on mental illness, or maybe drug issues, or both. Something goes well and he's singing everyones praises, something doesn't go well and he jumps on telegram and calls everyone names and goes on a rant.
Seemed like earlier in the war he banked on the successes of Wagner relative to the rest of the Russia military and Shoigu who fucked up the initial invasion and took forever to reorient. Used his successes in Bakhmut as currency to keep himself afloat after his outbursts and tirades.
Then going into the Ukrainian Counteroffensive he seemed to be banking on continued Russian failures to keep him untouchable but when they didn't materialize and even western sources started to comment that Russia is starting to adapt and get the rust off he's now found himself in a corner. All the insubordinate outbursts were remembered but now he is losing his pull due to the regular Russian military finally (sorta) getting it's shit together.
Think it could be real and he is just that desperate. Seems more straightforward than all the other theories, Occam and what not.
remzem
23d ago
Which ones should I ask? The rebels in the east? The regime in Kiev? The more Russian speaking groups in the south and east? The more Ukrainian speaking groups in the west? The ones that have fled to Russia? The ones that have fled to Western Europe?
remzem
23d ago
These sorts of articles were all over the place early in the war even in MSM as propaganda to fool westerners into providing aid.
War in Ukraine: Is Russia’s stock of weapons running low? - 13 October 2022 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-63247287
US official says Russia has probably lost half its tanks, used majority of precision-guided weapons in Ukraine - November 8, 2022 https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-11-09-22/h_1d3301daec6bd4cf650d0151cf751b2a
remzem
1mo ago
I don't really see any evidence that authoritarianism is the sole variable when it comes to corruption. It can be a factor but on the other hand the west is nominally democratic and it's ruling classes central ideology, DEI, is an ideology that exists entirely to enable grift. Lots of things can lead to corruption. In Russia's case the necessity of winning the war now that things have gone hot is reducing corruption. Can't win a war if your bombs are full of water and your intelligence gathering agencies are lying to you.
I would say that this 'being under pressure' is the bigger underlying factor when it comes to corruption. At least corruption that doesn't get caught quick and exists long term. That's basically the way that democracy and capitalism combat corruption when they actually function properly. If you're a corrupt business or politician you are going to have unhappy constituents or products that aren't competitive, they vote you out / don't buy your stuff. Authoritarianism is kinda like Monopoly where this pressure is removed. Though I think people overestimate the amount of power and freedom to act that authoritarians have, people still have the power to 'vote' via violence, but the stakes are a lot higher and coordination issues mean that this 'vote' is rarely exercised.
In the textbook definition of authoritarianism where one entity does have sole power to do whatever, like if a god came down to earth or something, this pressure is entirely removed though. This probably ties in with the idea that ,"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times."
remzem
1mo ago
Since it seems like all parties are incentivized to lie here I propose a test that I will call the "Budanov test" in order to eventually determine who is likely culpable. People are missing the point when it comes to ISIS claiming to have done it. ISIS isn't the same as it was during the Obama era. It's been beheaded and is just a loose collection of various Islamic extremists. These guys specifically seem to have been really low IQ hired meat, with the whole op having been planned by others and them recruited through telegram. Anyone could contract them or the people that contracted them, there is no central command. Could be actual Islamic extremists or state actors and we won't ever know. It's like 'Anon' claiming to be behind a high profile hack.
When it comes to the response even if Russia has information that it was in fact Islamic extremists they will be incentivized to point fingers at Ukraine. The same is true for the opposing parties. Ukraine will deny and so will any western country if they are involved. None of the big players are likely to reveal specifics as this could compromise their intelligence gathering with little to gain in a low-trust post fact deepfake environment.
However, if Russia does in fact have information it believes points to Ukraine their response would potentially differ from their response if it's purely being used as propaganda to further war goals. They are likely to use the attack to further support for Ukraine war yes, but it's not clear that they'd want to escalate things much beyond their current level as this risks more western support and they are currently, albeit very slowly, winning the war.
If they do have information that points to it being planned in some way by Ukraine from the logic of a state actor this is a major escalation and would require a response so as to deter similar attacks in the future and not appear weak. In this case Russia would not only be incentivized to ramp up the usual bombings they would likely target the people involved which would be Budanov or people in the intelligence agencies that are involved with Ukraine's assassinations. A response like this occurred after the dugina, and cafe assassinations. Where Russia targeted the main Kiev hq of intelligence services and Budanov went off the radar and was rumoured dead or injured for a while.
So tl;dr if Budanov is still in Ukraine and no major attempt or escalation has been made towards him and/or Ukrainian intelligence within the next couple months, it was probably just run of the mill extremism. If we see some ramped up attempts at Budanov or targetted attacks on Ukrainian intelligence agencies then Russia at least suspects it was Ukraine.
I suppose there is also the case they suspect it was western backed, seems less likely to me. There could be retaliation via an islamic terror attack in the US or a western country, but given the upcoming elections and the geopolitical stakes for the great powers in an election between maximalist and isolationist parties, the state of the US border, and also the current turmoil in the middle east... it's probably not a useful indicator. An attack is too likely in the lead up to the election and too many groups are incentivized here.
remzem
2mo ago
Isn't Hanania full open borders? Maybe i'm mixing him up with someone else but I don't think he's focused on immigration.
remzem
2mo ago
China doesn't need a navy to fire missiles at Taiwan. It's only 120 miles off their coastline. It could continue firing them as long as it could produce them well after it's navy was gone.
remzem
2mo ago
basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur
which that might be based off.
remzem
4mo ago
Being stupid, putting oneself at risk, being naive all seem like things that are more likely to make someone a martyr. I think he won't become a martyr because regime media in the west will simply ignore it. Or at best right wing media will cover it while regime media ignores it so it becomes a polarizing culture war issue, he'll be an Ashli Babbitt basically.
remzem
7mo ago
They have around 4x the population of Ukraine, for Russia to run out of manpower before Ukraine they would need to have a more than 4:1 loss ratio. I don't think even the Ukrainians are claiming that and they're been claiming absolutely absurd things the whole time.
The military production is up in the air, but so far Russian production appears to be up significantly from what it was prior to the war. They might've exhausted soviet stockpiles but they're producing 1k tanks per year, we're sending 31 Abrams. The US is trying to up artillery shell production but it costs 10x as much to make a single shell here. We've gone and strong armed basically every ally we have to provide them with their spares and even sent cluster munitions when that ran out.
It's just not realistic thinking. It's cynical as hell to boot, basically saying eventually enough Ukrainians will die that Ukraine will win.
remzem
7mo ago
Russia has plenty of AD systems but Ukraine can still hit them. Problem right now is that drones are too cheap relative to the cost of any of the intercept systems. Can easily just over saturate and overwhelm them.
To get to exist as a people
See this right here makes no sense to me. Are you claiming that all of Ukraine will be killed if Russia wins? Some kind of Nazi concentration camps but on an even grander scale? That seems incredibly unlikely, probably not even possible given logistics of attempting to round up all of the Ukrainians to exterminate them, unless Russia goes total mobilization or something.
If you're claiming some kind of more hazy spiritual collective sense, then I think you really misunderstand how divided things are in Ukraine.
remzem
7mo ago
I don't think they have to push further into Ukraine though. They have the combat power to maintain the pressure they're putting on Ukraine, whereas Ukraine does not. Ukraine lacks any industry to produce more weapons so without western support they'd be short on those. They also lack people, so even with western support if its just a long war of attrition eventually Ukraine collapses. Attritional wars are ugly and boring, which makes western public interest less likely to stay high. If Russia were to make big gains the western MIC could sell that as a threat and push for more support, if Ukraine makes gains people keep supporting them because they think they can win. Long ugly stalemate of a meat grinder with Ukraine eventually collapsing seems the most likely outcome with current western support.
I don't know that they'd go for a peace treaty after the last one was just used to arm and organize Ukraine. If they did it'd be seen as just a pause in the war while both sides reorganized imo, not a real peace.
remzem
7mo ago
and with what pilots would the planes fly? A massive airforce requires even more massive logistics to keep it running, Ukraine has had difficulties even keeping their tiny airforce from being targeted and is forced to regularly fly them from place to place so they don't get taken out by Russian missile strikes. There is no way we can just park a few 100 f16s somewhere in Ukraine and maintain them without them being targeted even if there was such a location where they could be kept and maintained which there isn't...
This is the problem with all the wishful thinking of the pro Ukraine side. There is no depth to it. It's just endless handwaving away all the issues. How do you completely and unanimously win against Russia? Oh just give them airplanes. Wow. Insightful. Meanwhile 200-400k Ukrainians are dead up to 50k just from this doomed summer offensive and all those fancy western Leopards and Challengers are useless because war has evolved and between drones and remote mining they are sitting ducks. Ukrainians are crawling through tree lines at night to lead assaults on trenches after softening them up with artillery. That's so far the only strategy that gets them any progress. So forgive me if I doubt that America winning against 3rd worlders via airplanes isn't a guaranteed win.
remzem
7mo ago
Bit of an update on some things I saw this week on this.
Looks like Youtube has already demonetized his account. Guilty until proven innocent.
https://apnews.com/article/russell-brand-youtube-sex-assault-ecf7aeecb3b66a02a4f3eb74282dc1c8
YouTube said Tuesday that Russell Brand will no longer make money from the video streaming site after several women made allegations of sexual assault against the comedian-turned-influencer.
The BBC removed some of Brand’s material from its streaming archive, joining a growing list of organizations distancing themselves from the performer, who denies sexual assault and has not been charged with any criminal offenses.
YouTube said monetization of Brand’s account, which has 6.6 million subscribers, has been suspended “following serious allegations against the creator.”
“This decision applies to all channels that may be owned or operated by Russell Brand,” the Google-owned video service said.
Something that popped up in my feeds today that seems even more concerning is this from alt-media site Rumble though.
https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584927834960196
They received an email from British parliament inquiring as to whether Russel Brand was still monetized on their website.
Dear Chris,
I am writing concerning the serious allegations regarding Russel Brand, in the context of his being a content provider on Rumble with more than 1.4 million followers.
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is raising questions with the broadcasters and production companies who previously employed Mr. Brand to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today.
However, we are also looking at his use of social media, including on Rumble where he issued his pre-emptive response to the accusations made against him by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches. While we recognize that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr. Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.
We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand is able to monetize his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.
We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behavior.
It's twitter and rumble along with a few other alternative media sites like post-millennial reporting on it so far, so it could be a hoax. It would be interesting if true. It looks like they are using this not just as a way to silence Brand entirely by cutting off his income, but also as a pretext to "examine the culture of the industry," i.e. pressure media both old and new in a more general sense beyond Brand.
remzem
8mo ago
Isn't Greenwald that as well? I mean maybe not as far left as Brand. Brand always seemed more of an anarchist to me, anti corporation but anti-state as well, so I don't see it as reaping what he sowed, as he was opposed to communist style centralized power iirc. I mean he was a celebrity not a politician though so I don't know how consistent he was with his ideology.
remzem
8mo ago
That's true, they seem to specifically conform to authority figure narratives. It seems like more of a very online American thing, maybe they're still functionally conformists in the 'good neighbor', or religious sheep sense, but due to America's decaying social fabric lack any sort of social group to conform to and so tend to adhere mostly to w/e the prevalent authority narratives are.
Surely this doesn't apply when the judge is openly partisan and basically making stuff up out of thin air? In other words that has to have actually been an attempt at fact finding for them to defer to.
More options
Context Copy link