They are fascists not men or women. They have chosen to abandon humanity of their own free will and have shown that they will murder everyone and everything that isn’t them. Dehumanization is and has been what they believe and forfeit any rights to be allowed to continue.
Would be nice if they also left NATO as part of joining BRICS.
The Palestinian resistance groups have been saying very clearly that they welcome support like how Hezbollah, Yemen, Iran, and the Iraqi groups have been providing. But that they do not want other nations sending in troops. That they will be seen as an occupying force and will be treated as one. Though I might be conflating them entering Gaza and West Bank. So maybe the other areas that are “Israel” based on the 1968 maps? Seems like another chance for them to make a stop into PKK areas on the way?
Was talking with a co-worker the other day about Limbo and INSIDE and how he should play them. Nice to have something similar to try out!
The over-reliance on making so many weapons basically self-automated instead of actually needing humans further magnifies how little lives matter and how much more profits do. Yet we have seen historically many times over how these over-hyped systems/weapons sold at higher and higher costs are made pointless by real humans with “dumb” systems/weapons. Look at the NVA/Viet Cong, Iraqi resistance, Taliban, PKK, and so many other “less advanced” fighters were able to show how all the tech didn’t matter. The “advanced” shit is all made to supposedly fight “modern battlefields” that we haven’t really seen be reality. Even the actual military leaders over the years have admitted as much.
All the “modern” shit just makes it easier to remove the humanity of conflict. It is much easier to kill lots of people if done through the eyes of a computer. Not to mention the false sense of assumed victory by some default. If we did see these “modern” wars with all sides using the shit the Military Industrial Complex hypes up so much. Then we would just see just mass destruction and death caused by computers fighting computers. Pretty sure nukes would be used really quick too.
The ROK has been at least trying to play things smart with regards to keeping much cooler heads than the US over the past 8yrs. Even if things have regressed on their end, I think that they aren’t likely to push for making their own nukes. The DPRK knows that having them and using them are two very different things. Having them means the US and ROK can’t just attack out of nowhere without a real fucking response. But using them means that it would likely lead to all nuclear nations unloading. As far as Japan is concerned, they are one of the most anti-nuke nations period given that they are the only nation to have seen the results and horror.
The US so far seems to have the most trigger happy assholes that default to “just nuke 'em and no more issues” for just about every geopolitical issue ever since we used them. So far we have lucked out that the presidents that were overseeing the initial push to build so many of them woke up to the death cult of war hawks. The others either saw that if the US were to use them first, then it would mean we would lose the war of optics. Or they happened to be in charge while less tension on that level was going on.
And of course Reagan literally seems to have only learned how truly horrible and fucked shit would be after watching a made for TV movie about the horrors of a post-nuclear war world would be like. Better than nothing but it really pisses me off how so many US leaders both A: acted like the USSR couldn’t possibly be upping their shit based on real fear of the US just doing what we keep doing in just attacking/invading other nations. And B: honestly just seem to think that it is okay for US to put them everywhere but any other nation doing so is “acts of aggression.”
CEOs need to be taken out and any and all parachute deals they signed should be voided if they harm (mentally and/or physically) workers. And that should mean that when shit like Boeing happens where many more lives are also impacted (many even sadly paying). Then that CEO should be executed and so should the other C letter titles AND the entire board of major shareholders (and best believe the lawmakers that took money from them also should catch that fate).
Kind of not sure if this is actually just a really really weird pro-IOF propaganda thing. As it says that only 25% of US interceptors worked, while also that around 90% of IOF ones did. Given the site, seems like IOF government propaganda machine is doing the normal uber-nationalist thing. Downplaying the effectiveness of even diehard supporting nations as “cute but dumb” and the nationalist hawks as “the real fighters of true justice” or whatever.
Though I also would believe that even with it being Israel the weapons are being supplied to, would still not be the “full version” as to not allow enemies to know the real effectiveness of (in this case) the US tech. Pretty sure that most high-tech weapons that are sold outside the originating nations are very different than the ones said nation actually fields. Or at least gimped in such ways that allow the “full versions” to take out the gimped ones. Then again, I also imagine that Israel has many more spies inside the US military and all companies that make up the US’s military industrial complex. Which means they also have the shit needed to make their own copies that have the extra benefit of constant data and testing to make a better version with real-world shit
I am not “pro-USA #1 ra ra ra!!!” and very much sure that the "effectiveness of our weapons are generally very inflated. Just like all massive private/for-profit weapons manufacturing nations do. Just finding the propaganda machines of two deeply involved allies painting the other as “lesser” to be both odd to actually see, and kind of hilarious at the same time.
One of the main things that hurts the other AES nations is that they are much smaller and easier to deeply impact with all the sanctions placed on them by the US. Also China was able to get so many of the greedy US corps that only care about cheap labour for so long to move industrial manufacturing bases there. Which aside from the massive issues with corruption that came along with it, was not wasted in getting a fuck-ton of modern equipment and knowledge to catch-up with western nations fast as fuck. But the corruption is being dealt with dramatically. With China now having so much sway on getting other nations that have really only stuck with the US for fear of money/trade (and being attacked by our military of course). It is much more likely that we see the other AES nations be able to trade with those nations.
If nations like Cuba have been able to make make such amazing advancements (especially medical ones) while under US restrictions. Just imagine what they can do once said restrictions are made moot. I just hope that China and the other nations (AES or not) are able to be united in putting the US in check as the war-hawks and rich that so fear losing what they have stolen become more and more erratic.
True, but being fair to the DPRK, Google hasn’t had the most powerful nation in the world literally blocking almost all trade with them or all the sanctions. Google has been allowed to make mad money and do whatever they want more or less (at least as long as the US gov can still tap into the info), and it really isn’t shocking they have what they have at this point. The DPRK was able to do this basically completely on their own despite everything. Even the US had to start with one satellite at one point. So a “fuck you” to the US is a win for the DPRK no matter how small it is when compared to rich companies.
True. The main thing they care about is talking without actual actions, and they would rather fascism take over instead of excepting that the centrist systems of liberalism’s version of democracy has failed. They fail to see that sometimes there isn’t a “next time” to rely on for them or their parties to exist let alone run again.
Here is the second part
Taken together, this state of affairs poses an unprecedented challenge for Western leaders. Washington and its allies have been remarkably effective at tackling the most urgent aspects of this problem: staving off Ukraine’s collapse, keeping it well-supplied with advanced weapons and real-time intelligence, and devising sanctions against Russia.
But now is the time to transition to a long-term strategy that increases and sustains the pressure on the rogue regime in the Kremlin. There should be no illusions that any possible combination of short-term steps will be sufficient to force Putin to abandon his war.
What Western leaders conspicuously haven’t done is level with their publics about the enduring nature of the threat from an emboldened, revisionist Russia. They have indulged all too often in magical thinking—betting on sanctions, a successful Ukrainian counter-offensive or the transfer of new types of weapons to force the Kremlin to come to the negotiating table. Or they have hoped to see Putin overthrown in a palace coup.
During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy thinkers didn’t bet on a sudden change of heart by the Kremlin or the overnight collapse of the Soviet system. Instead, they put their faith in a long-term vision of resisting a dangerous regime and making the required investments in national defense and the military capabilities of our alliances—a policy, in George Kennan’s classic formulation, of “patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”
A policy of containment today would mean continuing Western sanctions, isolating Russia diplomatically, preventing the Kremlin from interfering in our own domestic politics, and strengthening NATO deterrence and defense capabilities, including sustained U.S.-European reinvestment in our defense-industrial base. It would also mean mitigating all of the damage—diplomatic, informational, military and economic—caused by Putin’s war.
That is not to say that we should fight the Cold War all over again. Embarking on a global competition with the Kremlin would not be a wise investment of U.S. prestige or resources. It would consign us to a pointless game of whack-a-mole against any and all manifestations of Russian influence. Putin’s Russia has little of the hard power or ideological appeal that made the Soviet Union so influential in various parts of the world.
Moreover, today’s circumstances are vastly different from the Soviet threat. Europe is not the devastated wasteland it was after World War II. NATO has welcomed two new members, Finland and Sweden. Putin is reduced to knocking on doors in places like Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang. The proverbial correlation of forces has tilted decidedly against Russia.
Most important, against all predictions, Ukraine has withstood the Russian onslaught. In less than two years the Ukrainian army has reduced an entire decade of Russian military modernization to dust. Keeping Ukraine in the fight and supplying it with weapons and ammunition, as President Biden pledged in a speech on Oct. 19, is not charity but the most urgent—and cost-effective—element of Western strategy.
No less crucial is helping Ukraine to navigate toward its rightful place in Europe. No post-Communist country in Europe has gone through what Ukraine is going through now. The country’s reconstruction will be a generational undertaking not just for its own people but for its many friends, partners, and allies.
Maintaining cohesion and resolve among the Western allies will be essential for leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. The Kremlin long ago mastered the art of driving wedges between the U.S. and its allies. Unfortunately, the prospect of Putin’s eventual departure from the scene is already sparking talk about a new strategic opening to Russia that could somehow lure Moscow away from China’s embrace.
But we should be extremely cautious about giving any new leadership in the Kremlin the benefit of the doubt. Former President Reagan needed a lot of convincing before he felt that Mikhail Gorbachev was different from his Soviet predecessors. That challenge is now vastly more difficult, given that whoever might replace Putin would have to end the war and engage with Kyiv in genuine, serious negotiations.
The U.S. and its allies need to be clear about the long-term nature of this undertaking. The war’s end, whenever that happens, is unlikely to quell the confrontation between Russia and the rest of Europe. Ukrainians and their friends rightfully want to see the rise of a prosperous, independent Ukraine that is secure and fully integrated into the political and economic life of the continent. Putin and his successors would see that as Russia’s ultimate defeat. They will do everything in their power to prevent it.
Eugene Rumer, a former national intelligence officer for Russia at the National Intelligence Council, is director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Andrew S. Weiss, who worked on Russian affairs in both the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, is Carnegie’s vice president for studies.
Was able to get the Bypass Paywalls Clean extension to get past the paywall after telling it to “clear cookies and permissions”. But I will paste the text for those that are having issues as trying to archive the page still triggers the paywall. Also having to post as multiple comments as I think the total length of the post is giving issues for just pasting the whole thing. This is the first part.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin looks toward the second anniversary of his all-out assault on Ukraine, his self-confidence is hard to miss. A much-anticipated Ukrainian counter-offensive has not achieved the breakthrough that would give Kyiv a strong hand to negotiate. Tumult in the Middle East dominates the headlines, and bipartisan support for Ukraine in the U.S. has been upended by polarization and dysfunction in Congress, not to mention the pro-Putin leanings of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.
Putin has reason to believe that time is on his side. At the front line, there are no indications that Russia is losing what has become a war of attrition. The Russian economy has been buffeted, but it is not in tatters. Putin’s hold on power was, paradoxically, strengthened following Yevgeny Prigozhin’s failed rebellion in June. Popular support for the war remains solid, and elite backing for Putin has not fractured.
Western officials’ promises of reinvigorating their own defense industries have collided with bureaucratic and supply-chain bottlenecks. Meanwhile, sanctions and export controls have impeded Putin’s war effort far less than expected. Russian defense factories are ramping up their output, and Soviet legacy factories are outperforming Western factories when it comes to much-needed items like artillery shells.
The technocrats responsible for running the Russian economy have proven themselves to be resilient, adaptable, and resourceful. Elevated oil prices, driven in part by close cooperation with Saudi Arabia, are refilling state coffers. Ukraine, by contrast, depends heavily on infusions of Western cash.
Putin can also look at his foreign-policy record with satisfaction. His investments in key relationships have paid off. China and India have provided an important backstop for the Russian economy by ramping up imports of Russian oil and other commodities. Instead of fretting about lost markets in Western Europe or Beijing’s reluctance to flout U.S. and EU sanctions, Putin has decided that it’s more advantageous in the short term simply to become China’s junior partner in the economic realm. Goods from China account for nearly 50% of Russian imports, and Russia’s top energy companies are now hooked on selling to China.
Even neighboring countries that have every reason to fear Putin’s aggressive tactics, such as Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, have made fat profits by serving as enablers of sanctions circumvention and as transshipment points for the goods that Russia used to import directly.
Despite Putin’s indictment by the International Criminal Court and abundant evidence of Russian state-sponsored war crimes in Ukraine, he is still embraced in various parts of the so-called “global South.” The Ukraine war holds little salience for many countries who bristle at what they perceive as U.S. and European double standards or a lack of engagement on issues that concern them.
None of this should come as a surprise. More than six months before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Putin signed off on a new National Security Strategy for Russia. The main thrust of that document was to prepare the country for a long-term confrontation with the West. Today Putin can tell the nation that his strategy is working.
Putin does not feel any pressure to end the war or worry about his ability to sustain it more or less indefinitely. As winter approaches, the Russian army has mounted a limited ground offensive of its own and surely will expand missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities, power plants, industrial sites and other critical infrastructure. At a minimum, Putin expects that U.S. and European support for Ukraine will dissipate, that Ukrainians will tire of the endless terror and destruction inflicted on them, and that a combination of the two will enable him to dictate the terms for a deal to end the war and claim victory. From his perspective, the ideal person to put such a deal together is Donald Trump, if he returns to the White House in January 2025.
The Russian leader is prepared to weaponize everything at his disposal to win the war in Ukraine. Nuclear arms control and European security are now hostage to Russia’s insistence on the West ending its support for Ukraine. What remains of the Cold War-era arms control framework will be completely gone in 2026, and there is a growing risk of an unpredictable three-way nuclear arms race among the U.S., Russia and China. Putin will use every global and regional issue—whether the Israel-Gaza war, food security or climate action—as leverage to win the war against Ukraine and the West.
The US is a perfect example of an abusive relationship where the abuser is really good at using emotions against the abused. Very good at love bombing and using the “this time I have changed” line and repeating the whole thing. While also somehow being seen as some kind of “respectable wealthy person” that makes big donations to “great causes” (of course is also a large part of why those causes are even needed). Eventually enough nations will be abused and will form groups to share their stories and support. And maybe even no one will want to “date” them, which will of course lead to the US claiming to be a “victim of cancellation” or whatever. But since the US and its victims are nations and not just individuals, shit is much worse and completely fucks/ruins/ends many more million people the longer it goes.
Pocket Casts isn’t on Android. I kept hearing it brought up when I was looking to replace DoggCatcher and went with Podcast Addict. Took Google so long to finally allow people to manually add feeds from URL. Which was why I never really used it unless just wanting to stream an old ep of a listed show randomly. So when they added that ability, I was happy to see they seemed to be kind of supporting it seriously. But I was already moved to PA and am glad to not gone with Google.
I liked their original Listen app for being ridiculously bare bones and no ads or anything that requires more data. But they killed that long ago. I am not sure if Google just loves to create trust issues with users. Or if they just really have self esteem issues and can only act in dramatic ways that don’t make sense.
If they were to have tried to retroactively charge anyone. That shit would be immediate lawsuits from every dev. And I would hope that all of them would manage to not let it be turned into a simple class action situation. Make them go to court in every possible state and for each dev/studio. Bleed them completely dry and force them into bankruptcy bad enough for the source code to be acquired and open sourced. And after the company is done, then bleed the entire C-staff and anyone that approved this fucked up move. But not just financially bleed either. Got to set some real fucking examples about fucking around. Maybe even make it fun for the devs that would’ve ended up paying the most, and let them drive a knife in their backs for every charge that the devs would’ve been charged.
For real! Hell, they even openly tried to fucking join NATO at one point. They tried going capitalist as fuck really fast to get the west to back the fuck off of the whole “most evil nation that is always trying to end the world because communism”. But it wasn’t going to ever matter and were still always painted as being a KGB police dictatorship, even though the west was treating other nations with much more literal versions of that shit as being our best friends in “freedom”. NATO existing after the USSR and now even expanding to literally non-North Atlantic regions at this point should be so fucking obvious to it being anything other than a mob. Everything “aggressive” being done by Russia is the result of NATO members (especially the US and UK but not limited to them) never having any plans to let Russia be treated as equal.
And the idea that China is basically pulling an op on making Russia bow to them is beyond some of the dumbest lib (both conservative and progressive)/reactionary shit. They were both being treated in every bad-faith ways possible and constantly being loudly pushed as being “evil” no matter what. Both are treated as trying to push the world into another war anytime they do big military training exercises (both joint and just within their branches internally). While the US and NATO are constantly rolling up on their borders and making sure to do similar or larger exercises and always seen as somehow not aggressive/pushing for war.
I like how they paint China as “earning money on the conflict,” like the military industrial complex of the US and other NATO nations are actually just giving shit to Ukraine without strings attached to every single bit. The west are the ones that thought they would be made richer, and that putting so many restrictions on Russia would also bring China down completely. So far Ukraine has only won over the libs and moderate conservatives because they are anti-Russia no matter what (similar to the Dems “vote blue no matter who” headspace). They also were successful in getting Putin to okay the operation due to further and aggressively trying to join NATO.
It seems (to me) to be a soft demand outwardly as China is both trying to avoid the US and western nations being able to paint them as just being pro-Russia instead of neutral (and trying to find a way to maybe be the ones to bring peace). While also still not just letting it slide. Which if Ukraine does stupidly make worse in their reply, will only help move basically all of Asia away due to calling them all stupid because of race. Which also gives the de-Nazification argument for Russia starting the special operation a boost.
Seems that if a nation has gotten to the point of needing to send people to a whole different nation due to prison overcrowding. Then it really should be a crucial time to change laws on shit that exist to feed the prison industrial complex. But I am not shocked that the nation that was shipping people to Australia originally for the same reasons is falling back on doing it. Though I am kind of shocked that they aren’t just funding the US complex to build prisons here to send them to.