Billy Ringo

Clips from liberated town. One cannot fake it; looks like NW Europe after Falaise.
 

UKR published video from Stary karavan
 

 
I am to the fridge for my Victory schkalik. If you see later, I start mumbling some BS, you know what happened. 

Ukrainian flag over administration building in central Balaklya:
 

Ok...STOP.
  I am not a moderator on this forum but I have @BFCElvis on speed dial.  This thread is about the war Ukraine and, yes we have discussed surrounding issues and possible 2nd and 3rd order effects this war could have on the region.  This thread is not about:
- Bafflingly narrow or simply out of date concepts such as solving human cultural overlaps with policy.
- Vilifying the entirely of all Russian peoples as somehow less than human.  No human society, culture or whatever has or ever will be entirely homogeneous, good or bad.  So sweeping ideas of how to solve a "Russian Problem" by a bunch of old guys with too much time on their hands, which they should spend learning more, are not 1) viable or 2) useful here.
- I get we are sore on Russia right now, they earned that one; however, at what point on this incredibly myopic line of thinking do we become worse than that we assign to them?  All in the name of "safety" - a whole lot of atrocity and historic marks of shame lay on the feet of "safety".  I have been to one genocide and trust me none of you know what you are talking about, so stop hijacking the thread.
- FFS, we did not even take the approaches some are proposing here during the Cold War, we went with "contain and attract/entice", and we won that one.  In fact we look back on the occasion of the McCarthy era - which is where this is going- as a dark chapter 
You wanna talk about mass deportations, forced migration, race/ethnic cleansing/purity or any other whack-job nonsense there is literally an entire internet out there, let's try and keep this one small "sane space".    

It looks like it is just outside of Pradine village in Kherson and it should be RU troops. 

Not the first time in their careers. Russian nationalistic circles are very accustomed to this kind of treatment from Kremlin. They were always just tools for power, not the opposite.
You in turn probably underestimate fear the security apparatus may cause in people's hearts and simple conformism of regime servants...Russia does not have especially rich tradition of low- and mid-level groups taking on central power. Now I don't say it is impossible, just less likely than you present here.
Oh, I am fully aware of all those factors. I just don't think that our countless discussions about supposed enormus presence of Russian nationalists within power apparatus bring any conclusive results; if so, I would like to finally see some proofs. Because that would be trully enormous change in Putin's system of power and massive headache for western intelligence agencies. @Grigbexcellent translations gives us a lot of insight into how low-level (and maybe several mid-level) guys may think. But for now they are mostly useful tools for Kremlin.
By applying the same logic to every Russian structure ("everything in Russia is made from sticks and moss joined with cord") we shouldn't even talk about Kremlin and war, but care mostly about those guys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Rocket_Forces
The thing is Russian power structures varies. Not every one is rotten with corruption, inneffective to the point of riddicule and full of goofs- if that would be the case, we would long time ago probably die in nuclear fallout.
Russian military and security structures suck at many levels. But things they were relatively good (or rather "effects-driven") at were:
1. Usually intelligence gathering, corrupting foreigners by various means and keeping wide net of informants domestically. Generally stuff demanding absolutelly darwinian way of thinking about human issues, born from character of society itself and reinforced by mafia-styled governance.
2. Keeping massive nuclear arsenal. We could argue they would be much less than optimally effective in case of nuclear war, but still they didn't fail at security procedures in some spectacular ways thus far. Nor we did observe a nightmarish scenario of some terrorist buying (or stealing) part of their arsenal. Btw. if you are right about Russian nats being so desparate and influential, we should be bat**** scarred they may try to provoke true nuclear incident withinn RVSN are of competence much more than them trying to topple Putin himself.
3.Protecting Putin. I explained my thoughts about this system before, so not sense in repeating them; I don't see here any arguments presented against it other than "they are Russians". Sure somebody may be bought- that is why system is multi-layered and checked by autonomous agencies. So far it worked. It may not in the future (tensions are arguably much higher, but also defence probably much more on guard) but it is pure speculation.
Now I don't think it is impossible to organize a conspiracy; in fact the probable cases of such failed attempts from the past reinforce the fact that Putin's security apparatus is  effective at least at protecting him (and itself). And again, I am not interested in assasination attempts that fails; only successfull ones can bring serious change in geopolitical situation.
Not the first time in history of Russia when people idly see things falling apart before their eyes...we discussed previously about fatalism, did we?
As to the levels of stress within system fully agree. But effects may be different; Putin's regime is much better protected and coherent than sloppy tsarists; 1991 is even more different as system of power was much more collective.
Thanks, I know the podcast and definitelly recommend to others as well. Galeotti was wrong from time to time (he was the one who is credited with invention of "Gerasimov doctrine")but he has good sense on Russia.
Putin has no strictly speaking Chechen security now; Chechens may act as his oprichniks when somebody may need to be intimidated, killed or building blown off, but not as security guards. In the future it may change, of course, but we are still far from that.
No necessarly; nationalists are not some unified front. Many neo-nazi types certainly do, as well as part of  common "conservatives". But some others, like pan-eurasianists and crucially hawks at Kremlin actually reinforce Russian diversity. For them, it is sign of Russia being imperial power, just like British Empire in the past (note another interesting common Russo-British thrope  ). And Chechens are  respected in society that value machismo; to defeat them and force into your servants rised Russian self-esteem a lot.
Now most security apparatus and military hates Kadyrov, that is well known fact. But they are different than nationalists.

On a happier note, these folks in my neighborhood have been showing support for Ukraine for a while.  They planted most of front yard w sunflowers, which are now ~10 feet tall.  It's been great that most every kind of american is supportive of Ukraine.  While there's a few snakes in the US senate and house, the votes have ~+95% in favor for months. 

 

Hmm, well I know nothing of the good retired Gen but I am sure he has his own calculus upon which to base his opinion.
Personally, given the data and information I can see, the Russian military system is sick.  The devolution in tactics, the loss of anything that resembles operational offensive - they never really came out of the "pause", and them now dancing to Ukraine's tunes around Kherson are all symptoms.  Right along with reports of low morale, poor support, flailing targeting and other indicators of system failures (e.g. baffling suicidal OPSEC violations) point to an eroding Russian military system.  Russian option spaces have shrunk to the point that it appears all they have left are WMDs, "holding on" and tactical nibbling - they appear to have exhausted all others, if they have another gear they should have dropped into it back in Jun.
Of course Russia can lose, any nation can lose a war...I think we have demonstrated this enough times.  I suppose the question is "how much is enough?"
All war is negotiation - and sacrifice.
So in these sorts of things definitions become incredibly important.  "Russia cannot lose" - what does that actually mean?  Because by any political or strategic goals metrics, it already has lost this war. 
From a selfish western perspective, stepping back, one could argue that 'we' have gained-
- Ukraine - there is no other end-state to this thing other than Ukraine in the UE and NATO - Putin and his cronies can quack and blather but that ship sailed after March.
- Finland and Sweden.
- NATO defence spending commitments for the next decade.
- A clear demonstration to the globe that we are willing to defend the current global order to any and all revisionist states (kinda) - we have re-established a certainty.
Our opponent, on the other hand, has gained about what 60-80k sq kms of destroyed, largely empty countryside? [Aside: no there is not mountains of resources in the area they control, we covered that one already]  A crushing economic trajectory that will put them in the 3rd world if it goes on long enough.  A Europe that is literally re-wiring themselves away from Russia's one trump card.  A pretty much destroyed military - in both physical and more importantly psychological domains.  And a historic loss of global influence and credibility that will haunt them for the rest of the century.
Doesn't look too bad on paper...however, it leaves a nasty unresolved feeling doesn't it?  The single largest problem is that we in the west have never defined our war goals, our strategic and political endstates.  We went from "oh crap, ok so let's figure out how to support an insurgency", to "oh crap, ok so let's how to support a defence", to now, "oh, crap, let's figure out how to support an offence".  We have been stuck on, "let's make sure Ukraine doesn't lose" that we never figured out what it means to ensure that "we win...enough."  The west's victory is directly tied to Ukraine's outcomes in this war - all stop.  So what does that look like?
I have opinions but it is really up to our political leaders to lead and determine what "that" is, or is not.  The absence of this is apparent in a lot of the narratives such as Gen Dannatt's where we are very nervous about a run-away war in intensity or duration - especially duration because we have all had our fingers burned recently.
I think the impulse to re-establish certainty is overpowering, particularly within the large establishments of power such as government and militaries - they are the very definition of positive capability. Russia as a scary global power was a certainty, people built entire careers on it, trillions spent on defence for it.  The global order as we knew it, another enormous certainty, we built everything on it.  This entire war has been one enormous global uncertainty, and it is offensive to our sense of order - there are parts of the world where this sort of behaviour is expected, Europe was not one of them.
So victory is directly tied to "how much certainty is enough?"  And here is the thing, victory does not simply 'happen', which is very disconcerting trend I am seeing in the west - Ukraine+snazy weapons and support = "victory happens"...what it is not happening fast enough....happen faster!....hmm, maybe they should negotiate....
Victory is work, it is built, it is earned.  And we are back to sacrifice.  If we cannot define what we want, we cannot define what we are willing to spend to get it - which makes our negotiation position largely in the blind - more an act of faith and hope than a deliberate extension of collective human will to re-assert our certainty.  
I guess my question back to Gen Dannatt (with respect) and the mass of the mandarinate ( @LongLeftFlank that is a brilliant word btw) - "What is our certainty?" "What are we willing to lose?"  Until someone can answer that, then we really have no idea if this war is worth the continued effort from a western interests point of view.
Personally, I think that if we keep doing this for a decade, it will be time and money better spent than other adventures that were far less central to our certainty - but "how much?!", "how long?!"
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-budgetary-costs-date-us-war-afghanistan-2001-2022
But what about the "recession" and my gas prices?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2008
My advice - we are in this thing until Russia is back in their box and we have a gang of thugs in power we can actually do business with - we will then risk manage that train wreck of a nation, we have dealt with worse.  We are in it until Ukraine is re-built into a shining example of what western national building really means.  We are in it until we can demonstrate what western collective resolve looks like for the rest of the world into the 21st century, and that while we may have to renegotiate what world order looks like, my grandkids will damn well have their hands on that pen.
But I am just some guy on the internet.  
 
 

Ok so I am a bit pissed off with this and would ask you two to reconsider, I can kinda forgive MikeyD as I sort of get where he is coming from but Dan you have added nothing and just attacked a UK Public Servant who has given a good part of his life to protecting the UK and Europe and working with America. So shame on both of you....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dannatt
Before you start slagging off people that don't agree with your views please take a look at the whole and if you do have any evidence that he is a racist I would love to see it.
So YES he is old school and you have to view the context of these senior leaders they don't always do detail and were very used to a life at the top being fed information to make the key choices on what to do.
He could well be wrong about the outcome of the war as he does not have the detail he once had access to. He is of course has life experience to draw upon which we don't have the same as him. Unless you served at the top of your armed forces?
What we want is a quick end to this war and from following here I am hopeful that will happen but it has not happened yet and for me the next phase is key to see if Ukraine can pull off a major victory and force Russia out of say Kherson.
This would be a good indication that they can turn the tables on Russia and win the war quickly.
Of course Kherson could all be a diversion and they have another target, that would be good too but so far we have not seen it and I wait in hope and keep looking at the Tea Leafs for signs...
 

I want to bring up some interesting points about the early days in Kiev thanks to the WP article. Despite political leadership and self-doubt in the military, it looks like their preparedness saved the day, moving units and equipment off bases saving them from Russian first strikes. Interesting that that European officials stated it was impossible for Russia to take Kiev, or had enough troops to do so, despite US and UK warnings that they would try. As a result, or perhaps simply due to lack of enough units, only one mechanized formation was defending the capital, the 72nd brigade. 
The defense at Hostomel, despite Russia eventually taking it over, Ukraine counterattacked and preventing vital reinforcements arriving in the early days to overwhelm Kiev. 
UKR PR was very good, including simply pushing the buttons of Western officials via sending photos of the destruction and horrors directly to high level personnel in their governments, including the U.S National Security Advisor and members of Congress. 
Also Zelensky pressing the buttons of European leaders with his potential death was considered to be quite emotionally effective.  https://www.axios.com/2022/02/25/zelensky-eu-leaders-last-time-you-see-me-alive
The flooding of the Western front of Kiev brought their offensive to their knees. Communications with Higher Command were impacted by Russian jamming, so many actions were undertaken on lower unit initiative. Very significant in why Ukraine won the battles i think. Civilian, civil society resistance were extremely high and helped the defense. 
For me, the most important takeaway, the battle for Kiev could have gone into a Russian victory, despite whatever disadvantages Russia had, and therefore I want to emphasize that had Ukrainian resistance been less effective, had Zelensky fled, resistance might have well collapsed or not been as strong in all segments of the population, had Ukraine not done preemptive measures to secure their forces, Russia's reliance on the first strike may have worked. 
Interesting that the idea that Russia would go for it all, seems pretty unthinkable for all the people interviewed for this article, but that their response was not to freeze up. 
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/kyiv-battle-ukraine-survival/
 

From the perspective of someone who develops technology (I do aerospace, but not splody things, though I've been around some directed energy stuff), what you're trying to do is increase the amount of energy you deposit on the target, and ideally only the target of interest.  From 50,000 ft, there are two ways to do it - you can increase the energy density at the source or you can increase the energy density at the target.  Most of the history of weapons and splody things is increasing the energy at the source, with modest work on the energy at the target.  Bow and arrow to black powder to TNT to modern propellants propelling a pointy thing (kinetic energy only) or shell of black powder to TNT to tritonal, and increasing the amount of energy sent downrange by increasing rates of fire and masses of fire (lots of tubes, whether it's shoulder to shoulder lines of the Napoleonic era or bunches of 152 mm tubes today).
There appears to have been a major shift in western development that is all about precision of depositing that energy downrange.  There are a lot of reasons behind it, and it's been used and improved for decades, at least since GW1, but now we're seeing it in a peer conflict with Ukraine on the precision side and Russia on the mass side.  Some time ago, I worked on a space thing to do high precision astrometry - measuring positions of the stars to an unbelievable precision.  The US Navy was working on a similar mission at the same time, with a only a little lower precision - they and the USAF still do navigation by the stars (even if there might sometimes be a few layers of things in between).  I worked out what the precision mapped to on the surface of the earth: a few cm.  They didn't want to target a building, or even the door of a bunker like we saw on videos in GW1.  They wanted to be able to hit the doorknob.  If you can reliably hit a doorknob 1000 km away with a modest amount of high quality HE, you don't need to get 10x the energy density into the warhead.
That precision brings a lot of advantages. It makes your logistics a lot easier if you don't need to bring tons and tons of HE shells up to within 20 km of the front every day.  Way fewer trucks and truck drivers at risk, and less manufacturing committed to keeping that supply of trucks.  And so on..  And it reduces your risk of having the current Russian problem of those tons and tons of HE falling victim to stray butts because big tobacco has infiltrated your country. And it reduces collatoral damage - you don't have to bomb Belgorod flat and get RU civilians all worked up, you can blow up the ammunition dumps and the oil storage facilities without any stray shells (aside from what flies out of the ammo dump) going into civilian areas.  Increasing the energy of the splody part by making 10x more powerful HE runs you into the problem of having big ammo dumps full of stuff that you really don't want to be around when someone drops a butt in the wrong place.
And to get that precision you need a lot of resources - it's not just making a missile with a 5 cm CEP.  You need all the ISR to precisely find targets, the sensors for moving targets, the communication systems to convey that information to the control room or missile, etc.
You still need some mass, or at least ROF+retargeting speed.  Kind of like late in a game of Asteroids when there are a zillion asteroids coming at your one ship - if you can't fire and retarget fast enough, all the precision in the world won't help.  

At what point does Russia diminish their weapons/artillery stockpile as to endanger themselves from other more predatory organizations or countries?   It's interesting to theoretically estimate how long Russian artillery will last in Ukraine, but shouldn't their be some internal threshold that says--below this we are putting ourselves in grave danger?
Russia has already diminished their ability to project global power.  (Reduced manpower, exposed serious flaws and weaknesses in both execution and weapons capabilities, economic devastation, etc.)   But if they keep this up much longer they would seem to be inviting those who hold a grudge to start pushing back in other places.   Do they simply assume that because of their nukes no one will consider picking off pieces of their perimeter?  Or even China taking larger chunks in the East?
This isn't just about Ukraine in the short term.  Is there anyone in Russia thinking 5-10 years down the road?

None of the above assessments of US decisionmaking are contradictory IMHO.
It is pretty obvious to me that Mr. Biden (like Reagan as of 1984 or so) suffers senile dementia, and it is progressing, with good days and bad days, as we see pretty much every second time Joe speaks off the cuff. Nor was he an especially brilliant man when he was in his prime; let's not fool ourselves about this. Although there are many different kinds of 'smart' in this world....
But like most folks in such cases, Biden falls back on the effective habits of a lifetime (40 years in public service), plus the advice of trusted persons like his wife and longtime staff.  I won't claim he's a rubber stamp, but he knows how to 'listen' for the consensus and declare the decision, without necessarily grasping details, or contributing much in the way of synthesis or critique. Hence the comfortable armchairs around the fireplace for him and Kamala, not a conference table or the War Room..... 
Anywah, JRB makes a perfectly adequate figurehead for the permanent policy establishment (the MIC, the Swamp, whatever you are inclined to call it). This is the (very much bipartisan) group whose performance is being praised here. And in time of war, that's how it ought to be.
....Would I personally wish to be governed permanently by such an unelected permanent establishment? No! A mandarinate has its own flaws, not least that it governs for its own convenience, not that of the people, even when not overtly venal.  However, in time of war, such a  structure makes eminent sense, and we're all seeing it at work.
One expat Canuck's opinion....

The occupant of the Oval Office can't walk out of a room with assistance. Please stop pretending he even knows what's happening in Ukraine. He can't read a teleprompter properly, can't answer unscripted questions and keeps getting sent home to keep him out of the way.
If you want to thank the current US Government for their stance and actions on Ukraine, find the people making the decisions and telling Biden what to say, and thank them.
Sorry but the Afghan withdrawal was not controlled, was not properly planned, was not properly communicated to US allies and was as a result an unmitigated disaster. Yes, that failure absolutely did encourage Putin in thinking the US was weak and lacking in leadership, and yes, that has cost Ukraine dearly. A year later and the only winners are the US arms manufacturers, who got replace $80bn of equipment abandoned to terrorists, and as a result get massive sales to countries supporting Ukraine.
Biden? Does anybody anywhere on the planet seriously think he's currently compos mentis?

Czechs are most chill-out and non-problematic people in whole region. They rarely get pissed off; so, if Russians managed to bring even them into fury they should understand how f.....ed things has became.😎
But seriously, it happened I had an occassion to spend several days at the Polish border towns during first week of the war and can totally confirm the same mood. Rationally we knew NATO is here, but common people were bat**** scared nonetheless. They made extra supplies, checked bus timetables (in case), some had bags prepared with necessities. Nobody knew what Putin was capable of, where he will stop and Russian army was admitedly intimidating if only by its mechanized force. Ofc this is only fraction what Balts have experienced; my friend in Latvia even booked tickets for his family to leave country and was constantly packed, just in case something blew up next to the border. And he wasn't the only one.
Fortunatelly, fear very fast came into rage. Solidarity, slef-organization and cooperation among people of different nationalities of the first days was really something astonishing to observe close-up; probably only "Solidarity" movement from 80's and Fall of Berlin Wall came close to it.
Yup, definitelly. One learns to respect NATO uniforms much more when they are only bulwark against brutallity of this eastern Mordor 120 mln people happen to have as their neighbours. It is hard to overestimate how just presence of several NATO soldiers could be calming for locals - in my town it was a company of 20+years old paratroopers from US 82nd Airborne who seem to settled FOB at local McDonald. But boy, how local people were happy of their presence is difficult to describe...

From the article:  “Russian ears only open up when there is a giant military bat hitting the Russian head,” he said.
Truth.
One perpetual question I have is: Who is really calling the shots for the US response and strategy for Ukraine?
I am not a Biden fan, can't stand him or what he stands for.  But I have been very impressed with the overall strategy and support for Ukraine.  So he gets the credit as the man at the top regardless of who/whom is delivering the goods.
But who and or what group is driving the US strategy?  What to send, when to send it, how to send it, how to manage the press and public opinion, work directly with the Ukrainian government and their military, work directly with other countries, etc.   Is it Biden? Is it his cabinet?  One particular group or team in his administration? State Department?  Is it the US military? Some combination of Senators and Congress?  Who is coordinating the strategic efforts across the US players?
Would love to hear other's opinions and insight as to who is running the show for the US?
Thanks in advance.

Like do what about it? I don't have carrier battle group I could park in Black Sea. Nor do I have magical ninja assassins I could sent after Putin or space marines I could deploy from orbit to lay siege to Kremlin.
The US knew, and they did a lot about it. Eastern Europe had other trouble - they were at that time thinking whether NATO will hold or whether the Western Nations will Munich them off to Putin once Ukraine is done. The behavior of France and Germany in the pre- and beginning stages of the war did not inspire confidence in NATO and while it is unthinkable for Biden's US to betray its allies, Trump's / someone like Trump's US is a much less safe bet.
If the Russian plan of saying "do not help Ukraine or we'll nuke you" and West saying "oh well I guess we won't help then, we don't want to risk nuclear war after all" worked, it would very obviously turned into "do not help Baltics or we'll nuke you" and "do not help everything east of Germany or we'll nuke you".
Not sure where you're from, but the beginning stages of war looked very bleak in places that were invaded and occupied by Russia relatively recently (they left here in 1992), probably in comparison to places a continent away or parts of Europe where people never had to live with that horror.
This might be my social bubble, but even around here - where Russia would have to go through at least Ukraine and Slovakia and likely Poland to get here - people somewhat calmly accepted we are next and the West likely won't help and started making preparations. The "active reserves" system of our Army basically collapsed because of too many volunteers. I myself tried to apply for a job in our intelligence because that's where I thought I'd be most useful as a person good at working with large amounts of data (but I gave up when they asked for perfect eyesight and drug-free past).
Eventually it turned out that NATO holds, Ukraine is heroically and effectively defending, Russia sucks at war because they learned nothing since WW2 but new ways of corruption, barbarity and evil, and so on. The world is somewhat normal around here. But that was not always the case.
EDIT: this was possibly too emotional reply, sorry about that, I'll stop posting until I sober up.

The proof that Biden new and believed is the Afghanistan exit. I have zero inside knowledge on this, but I am convinced knowing about Russias plans for Ukraine are why Biden got out of Afghanistan so abruptly. We just would not have been ale to respond the same way with the Taliban suddenly being flooded with Russian kit.

FWIW, my line of work for the past 30+ years is wholesale and retail supply chain/inventory management. I've worked with Russian supply chain consultants and a couple of large Russian retailers.  The know how is there--I've seen them efficiently execute pretty advanced systems on the business side to get inventory to where it should be in the right quantities.
BUT, whether or not that expertise transfers to their military is an entirely different matter.

FWIW, my line of work for the past 30+ years is wholesale and retail supply chain/inventory management. I've worked with Russian supply chain consultants and a couple of large Russian retailers.  The know how is there--I've seen them efficiently execute pretty advanced systems on the business side to get inventory to where it should be in the right quantities.
BUT, whether or not that expertise transfers to their military is an entirely different matter.

FWIW, my line of work for the past 30+ years is wholesale and retail supply chain/inventory management. I've worked with Russian supply chain consultants and a couple of large Russian retailers.  The know how is there--I've seen them efficiently execute pretty advanced systems on the business side to get inventory to where it should be in the right quantities.
BUT, whether or not that expertise transfers to their military is an entirely different matter.

FWIW, my line of work for the past 30+ years is wholesale and retail supply chain/inventory management. I've worked with Russian supply chain consultants and a couple of large Russian retailers.  The know how is there--I've seen them efficiently execute pretty advanced systems on the business side to get inventory to where it should be in the right quantities.
BUT, whether or not that expertise transfers to their military is an entirely different matter.

FWIW, my line of work for the past 30+ years is wholesale and retail supply chain/inventory management. I've worked with Russian supply chain consultants and a couple of large Russian retailers.  The know how is there--I've seen them efficiently execute pretty advanced systems on the business side to get inventory to where it should be in the right quantities.
BUT, whether or not that expertise transfers to their military is an entirely different matter.

All war is sacrifice.  It is a bad thing if people forget that sacrifice for a greater good is an ongoing requirement in order to sustain their way of life.  
Or they could use a “great peace” to completely forget that, get rich off human insecurities and raise generations of “me-centric” entitlement (i.e. “sacrifice is for others) who believe that their last selfie is a great work of art and they should get a participant medal for everything.
Now I know this is a gross oversimplification, plenty of the last generations are doing great things.  However, after watching democracy wither largely because people don’t bother to show up, and now an egregious embolden act of war against the west by Russia that is becoming “boring”; I am concerned to say the least.
I too hope for a Rousseau-like state and an end to war but until that day comes we all need to be ready to pay the bill when it comes due.

"A man's got to do something for a living these days."
"Dyin' ain't much of a living, boy."