Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

69no6z.jpg

[THE_WIZARD_]

heh...a wiz tribute...nicely done...

[Hannibal]

Trigger subjects for chumps addicted to cable news and bottom-of-the-barrel culture warriors probably don't belong in a Supreme Court hearing. But have faith. I think Marsha Blackburn has yet to speak. She's always reliable for lowering the IQ of any room. Hopefully she'll leave time for a series of questions about Lia Thomas.

LMAO.

The nominee in question can't offer up a definition of "woman".

This is one of the elite among us. And she can't match the biological knowledge of a five year old.

[iam416]

This is one of the elite among us. And she can't match the biological knowledge of a five year old.

Heh. So true.

[Jeff Buchanan]

A fascinating article on a "Grand Theory" driving Putin's war in Ukraine appeared in my news feeds this morning. The grand theory or ideology is "Eurasianism." New to me but it makes sense. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, disoriented elites, Putin among them, searched for a suitable non-communist ideology to bind Russian culture and society.

One of the most alluring concepts was Eurasianism. Emerging from the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, this idea posited Russia as a Eurasian polity formed by a deep history of cultural exchanges among people of Turkic, Slavic, Mongol and other Asian origins. In 1920, the linguist Nikolai Trubetzkoy — one of several Russian émigré intellectuals who developed the concept — published “Europe and Humanity,” a trenchant critique of Western colonialism and Eurocentrism. He called on Russian intellectuals to free themselves from their fixation on Europe and to build on the “legacy of Chinggis Khan” to create a great continent-spanning Russian-Eurasian state.

If this "Grand Theory" is driving Putin's war in Ukraine, you can be sure, it won't stop there. The concept of Eurasianism, having been more recently adjusted to present conditions, states Russia has a specific non-NATO, non European opponent, but the whole of the “Atlantic” world led by the United States. It also includes a battle to replace western Christianity with Orthodoxy and views Ukraine - a decidedly western leaning country in terms of its culture and religions - an obstacle to the western spread of a Russian empire to be removed. The origins of Eurasianism was imperial in nature: Russia had always been an empire, Russian people were “imperial people,” and after the crippling 1990s sellout to the “eternal enemy,” Russia should revive in the next phase of global combat and become a “world empire.”

Crazy shit? Not IMO and begs the question of whether Putin's imperial objectives include the use of nuclear weapons to achieve it

[iam416]

I would be shocked if Putin goes beyond Ukraine and shocked if he uses nuclear weapons. Shocked.

Nations are fundamentally self-interested. In the case of Russia, Russian interests=Putin's interests. Unfortunately. However, extending Russian action beyond Ukraine or, god forbid, using nuclear weapons, is the end of Putin.

We must, IMO, be very careful about falling for the "madman" analysis. That's precisely what happened with Iraq. Saddam was a madman and, JFC, if he ever gets WMDs then it's a fucking disaster. In reality, Saddam was, most fundamentally, interested in staying in power and living. He also probably viewed Kuwait much in the same way Putin views Ukraine.

In any event, I think Putin was actually fairly rational in his calculation on Ukraine. He believed, correctly, that the West would not aid the Ukraine militarily. He believed, correctly, that the West would only impose economic sanctions. He believed, incorrectly, that the Russians would roll Ukraine in a matter of days. He probably believed the Russians could withstand the sanctions for the period of time necessary.

Now his interests probably tilt to seeing the job done in manner that allows him claim victory -- that'll require cessation of land. That's not going to happen.

But, I really don't see him as a madman hellbent an entirely implausible theory of grand Russian domination.

[Dr. Strangelove]

another faithful stooge stabbed in the back by Dear Leader. One of the only Congressmen to speak at his Jan 6 rally. Ah well, couldn’t happen to a nicer guy

Truly a Hall of Fame post btw. Mo Brooks went “woke”, lol

[Tom W]

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know the whereabouts of Hunter Biden on January 6th 2021?

[AlabamAlum]

The Mo Brooks thing doesn’t matter. It will be Durant or Britt and they’re both clowns.

[THE_WIZARD_]

No. But I have one of his laptops.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I would be shocked if Putin goes beyond Ukraine and shocked if he uses nuclear weapons. Shocked.

I'd agree with this assessment and also we're in agreement that Putin is more interested in his survival than expanding a fantasized Russian empire that spans Eurasia. But, he is, in part, and aside from his survival mentality, driven by the need to increase Russia's global influence - he hoped to do that by a blitzkrieg, shock and awe take down of Zelenski's Ukraine. Didn't happen and he's now planning for a "long war" of attrition that targets Ukraine's and the west's willingness to sustain that sovereign state within it's pre-2014 boarders.

On the employment of nukes, I've seen plenty of articles that assert Putin is not a mad-man or suicidal. He's a skilled strategist with a plan poorly informed by his intelligence apparatus and carried out by his generals. There is a great amount of tactical incompetence on display in the Ukraine invasion. I generally view his chemical and nuclear warfare threats as a strategy to restrain a NATO response and he's gauged that correctly.

I sense an emerging fatigue among Zelenski and those within his leadership circle having to watch Ukraine's infrastructure leveled by Russian bombardment and the human suffering that brings. The thinking goes, what will be left to govern? Who will survive to govern, to work and where will they work? That is why, I favor some kind of intervention, undertaken in the name of humanitarianism and to blunt the impact of Russian bombardment that if it continues will answer that question by admitting nothing will remain to govern and rebuild from.

Of course the west can just roll-over and let Ukraine go. I think that is a bad idea and I don't see many other options to save that nation than getting boots on the ground when it's clear the Russian Army in Ukraine is overextended and weakened.

[iam416]

I'm not so sure he's a skilled strategist, but I am certain he miscalculated on Ukraine. I also view Ukraine as his stop point, so I'm not in favor of Western intervention at this point. If I thought he was going to target, say, the Baltic states next, then yeah. But, I also think this Ukraine debacle significantly weakens Russia in every regard. So, I just can't see him squaring off directly against NATO and the EU.

I do think he correctly anticipated the Western response. I think he probably underappreciated the effect sanctions will have -- HOWEVER, he does have the whole Energy and Food trump cards to play that may get him partially out of jail on those -- long-term, at least. Short-term, though, his economy is getting annihilated.

[Hannibal]

He absolutely misjudged the level of resistance that the Ukraine would put up and/or the inefficiency of his own forces. This was supposed to be like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait -- over in a few days.

[iam416]

Correct

[iam416]

The Selzer/Grinnell poll has The Chairman at 34/52. Apparently this poll is deemed an "A+" by our polling overlords at 538. Apparently only 34% of the country isn't obviously racist.

Also of note, from the same "A+" poll, by a margin of 64-24, respondents say public school teaching is on the wrong track. Those numbers are fairly equal across races and sexes. I mean, yeah -- the Rs would be real fools to run on indoctrination issues in public schools. LOL.