How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, poesel said:

Because we don't relate to them culturally. You care about people you 'know'.

I do care more about Ukraine than Gaza, although my co-worker is Palestinian and I personally know no one from Ukraine!?!
I guess this is some basic human tribal thing.

Yup, it's embedded in our DNA.  Back in college I had an ethics class where this phenomena was discussed.  I don't remember the ethicist whose book I read (it was a while ago!), but the basic gist is that the closer something is to you the more you care about it.  Including inanimate objects.  Your favorite shopping mall gets bombed and 30 people whom you have no connection to die.  The brain says "damn, where am I going to get my cool neckties now?"

More seriously, who here has pets?  Who here would spend thousands of Dollars to help them in a time of need?  And how many thousands would you send to some random Gazan?  If you're Palestinian, maybe, but otherwise likely not.  You're also not any more likely to give thousands of Dollars to some random homeless person you see on the street either.

If one focus on Human suffering only and what people can do about it, none of this makes sense.  Yet this is the way the world works, everywhere.  Therefore, it's clear that we are not programmed to prioritize Human suffering over all else.

Steve

[Kinophile]

https://newlinesmag.com/spotlight/a-russian-journalist-believed-ukraine-had-taught-her-about-war-and-suffering-then-she-moved-to-israel/

Not wishing to derail into Mid East chatter, but an interesting comparison of Ukraine v Russia with Israel v Gaza, in terms of the depth and intensity of feelings and the travel still to go for the former to match the latter. By a Russian liberal journalist who seems to have stayed focused on exposing Russian war crimes and has zero support for the Putin regime. So, for a once, a Russian actually doing something sustained against the war - I guess?

Quote

I had assumed that the loss of my own country to a budding military dictatorship — one that unleashed a war on Ukraine, killing the families of my friends — had prepared me for dealing with suffering in a foreign land. I was wrong. The unbridled thirst for mutual destruction on both sides, espoused by the dozens of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians I have interviewed and spoken to since Oct. 7, is unlike the marginal war bloggers and Kremlin-paid television hosts we have in Russia. What I saw here eclipsed my imagination.

It seems, from a distance, that there are certain parts of Ukraine society that haven't bought into the whole existential war aspect. This is from @Haiduk, @Kraft, some of Zeleban's notes and other more regular sources. The size of he country pushes the war away, where Israel is very small and Gaza is insanely small, allowing for more visceral, simultaneous and prolonged exposure of much larger amounts of both populations.

Quote

I used to feel that watching endless Russian talk shows debating how and when the Putin regime would fall got me down. Now that I was living in the land of an unresolved conflict going back lifetimes without a glimmer of hope in sight, I feel Russia has a better chance of turning around while I’m alive: It was only the matter of a 71-year-old aspiring dictator and his circle of same-age associates who were personally vested in the invasion of Ukraine.

 

Edited January 8 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, paxromana said:

"Dictators are good at getting stuff done. They're not so good at deciding whether stuff should be done in the first place."

Prince Harry (paraphrased slightly as its from memory and bowdlerised ... he doesn't actually say 'stuff' but uses another four letter  word starting with s), Axis of Time series, John Birmingham

I like that very much, even with "stuff".  This happens in business all the time.  Oh like, I don't know, Elon Musk?  He was able to quickly purchase Twitter for a staggering amount of money.  But should he have done it in the first place?  Me thinks that's a solid no.

Steve

[Kinophile]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia invaded Ukraine in part because its economy was faltering and the rich in Moscow weren't getting as rich any more.

This feels very speculative and off-the-cuff. Is there something to ground this on?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, alison said:

I have been seeing "line goes up" charts about China for at least 10 years now. China has best mobile payments system in the world. China has best bullet train network in the world. China has best surveillance systems in the world. China has best supply chain in the world. China has best drones in the world. China has best EV manufacturing in the world. And while some of these may be true in the abstract, somehow the Chinese government has not been able to convert these economic and technological advantages into global dominance. I am not sure there is enough evidence yet to show that the current Chinese government is capable of influencing foreign affairs in a major way, outside of propping up a few neighboring authoritarian states.

If China was really willing and able to flick a switch and plunge the rest of the world into darkness, it would have done so. But it hasn't. On the contrary, despite the self-own of wolf warrior diplomacy, the government largely still tries to project an image of neutrality because it needs the support of the rest of the world to succeed in its domestic goals. If the Chinese government really wanted to flex, it wouldn't just be selling weapons to Russia, it would trigger a remote kill on every DJI in Ukraine. But instead they're happy to play both sides, because making money is more important than dictating the outcome of a regional conflict. And that's going to be true of regional conflicts all over the world.

So maybe the Chinese military industrial complex eclipses the American one at some point, so what? They'll sell weapons to everyone, just like the Americans did.

The point that I think other commenters are making in this discussion is that over the long term democracy wins out over autocracy. And I think that victory is better seen through a cultural lens than a military one. People all over the world are watching Japanese anime and Korean dramas. Maybe briefly they were watching Chinese palace dramas, but those got too popular so the government squashed them. Remember Chinese hip-hop? Yeah, so do I until the government harmonized it. Maybe gaming is where Chinese pop culture will finally break through? But gaming has been under attack from the government for years now and it remains to be seen if the Disneyfied versions of what the government lets through will continue to resonate with the global audience. And, if they do, how much of that audience will translate gacha games whose stories are deliberately as far removed from political controversy as possible into a greater trust of China-as-global-leader, as the government perhaps hopes?

In recent years, the Xi administration has been pushing Chinese people, Chinese corporations and useful idiots overseas to "tell China's story well", so it can parlay that into global influence, but is that really happening? If the only version of the Chinese story that can ever be shared with the world is a sanitized one, is that really a compelling story? And if the Chinese government can't win hearts and minds, can it ever really achieve the kind of hegemony that the US - or, more broadly, "the democratic west" - does today? Are you really the winner if you sell gadgets to everybody but nobody actually trusts you?

The big difference between the US economy and China's is the supporting systems.  Above the US property bubble bursting in 2007/2008 was survived, but it wasn't pretty.  It required a huge effort by the free market and government to get things put back in order.  Both of which have gone through lots of similar things on a smaller scale over the previous 100 years.  There was institutional experience and knowledge that helped make (mostly) good decisions on how to prevent the economy from collapsing.  Some people lost everything, but most people didn't lose much.  Many gained.

Now, look at China and you won't see this in place.  Everything is centrally controlled, even if a little loosely at times.  What's more, the population has no "ownership" of the problem or the outcome.  In the US a huge chunk of the US population looked at the housing crisis and acknowledged there was a lot of blame to spread around.  Will the Chinese people have the same feeling if they experience the same level of economic pain?

The US has lots and lots of social pressure release valves for this sort of stuff.  Stand up comics, the media, personal discussions, local government, you name it.  Cripes, even music is a relief valve.  As Alison pointed out, China has been shutting off those valves.  If someone told me they welded shut pesky leaking/noisy valves in their steam heating system I wouldn't go visiting them in the winter, that's for sure.

Steve

[Sojourner]

31 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

So why are UKR snipers dicking around in east bloody Africa?

Meting out justice to war criminals that would otherwise never see the inside of a courtroom?

[Kinophile]

2 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

Meting out justice to war criminals that would otherwise never see the inside of a courtroom?

Yeah but there's plenty of war crimes happening day after day right now, in Ukraine. Perhaps killing Russian generals would have amore direct battlefield impact?

[Kinophile]

2018 Blast from the past:

Its now ~$1.8 trn.

Edited January 8 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

This feels very speculative and off-the-cuff. Is there something to ground this on?

This covers the basics pretty well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia

The gist is that Russia got hit really hard by sanctions and the collapse of oil prices in 2014/2015.  It took a while to get out of that rut, but it did.  The problem was it didn't really grow much and certainly not as much as other economies.  As it hit 2020 it was in trouble again, going negative in many indices. 

A stagnant economy is a problem even for a mature industrialized nation, but one that is ruled by oligarchs who are used to plundering is worse.  Why?  Because someone who believes they are the most important thing on Earth doesn't accept this sort of thing but, instead, looks for illicit ways to improve their personal position.  Autocratic governments also behave like this, because if the people realize how incompetent they are then they might get upset.  So clamp down on dissent and figure out how to play shell games.

The war against Ukraine was supposed to be a quick shot in Russia's economic and political arm, as it was in 2014 when Russian oligarchs carved up Crimea and the Russian people saw Putin as a great leader.  It's no coincidence that as the Russian tanks were still driving northward from Crimea that Russians (notably Chechens) were there stealing everything that could be transported.  Grain, agricultural equipment, cars, cultural heritage items, you name it.  This was planned, in some way, ahead of time.

Anyway, the point is that Russia's economy and Putin's domestic political capital were not in great shape in 2020/21 when he decided to invade Ukraine. I have *no* idea how important it was in his decision making, but I think it's safe to bet it was significant.

Steve

[dan/california]

37 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

Meting out justice to war criminals that would otherwise never see the inside of a courtroom?

 

34 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Yeah but there's plenty of war crimes happening day after day right now, in Ukraine. Perhaps killing Russian generals would have amore direct battlefield impact?

Their presence in Sudan is tiny, and they seem to be providing assistance to what is looking very much like the winning side. If the RDF keep up their current momentum they could well be the next government. Having the people who basically own half of one side of the Red Sea owe Ukraine a favor or five is exactly how Ukraine could suddenly have the ability to act against Russia further afield in all sorts of ways. It would also provide a great deal of leverage with Egypt, who has been far to cozy with the Russians. 

I realize the RDF will be an abysmal government for Sudan, but they seem to be fresh out of good choices. For that matter they seem to be out of merely bad ones.

[kimbosbread]

9 hours ago, holoween said:

Autocracies can make decisions and allocate resources faster than democracies can.

Just because you make a decision doesn’t mean resources are allocated, or thing you want actually happens. Witness all the nasty military corruption in Russia and China. Sure, you can decide you are going to build 1000 tanks a year, and the comissars will make sure a factory exists, but that is a parallel reality often from the one where those tanks get built and actually function.

8 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Some groups are VEOs but not terrorists (legally) - but every terrorist is a VEO.

Is that actually the case? What if I wanted to inflict terror, but I used social media to lower young women’s self esteem and make them kill themselves? What about eco-terrorists and derailing trains?

8 hours ago, billbindc said:

It is an astonishingly strong conceit that autocracies are somehow better at war than more liberal states.

Yeah, people forget which country is the most warlike in the last few centuries.

[kimbosbread]

6 hours ago, dan/california said:

I am seriously tempted to work back to the discussion of how much of the Russian nuclear arsenal even sort of works, but The Capt would hurt me, so......

I know people in that business on our side, and they say that Russia’s nuclear forces get as much funding as much as the rest of their military combined. They admit, however that perhaps they overestimate the bear!

5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

While the West retains a large edge in innovating tech cuz "our Freedomz", it's the Chinese manufacturing behemoth that can flood the planet with cut-price fit-for-purpose knockoffs of anything you can hit with a stick, long before our 'shareholder value' guys can even roll out the first generation.

yada yada

The Chinese state also can, and will, keep surplus heavy industrial capacity on the shelf for decades. Short of buying off China Inc. to supply our team instead, I just don't see how this changes

It’s kinda true, but not completely. They can definitely build more ships, and ammunition, but the tough stuff- jet engines, turbines, rockets, that they can’t do as fast or well. China is rightfully freaking out over SpaceX, which launched 80% of the world’s mass to orbit in 2023. And they can’t build jet engines that last that long, still. And all the chips… that’s basically tech from Lawrence Livermore we sold to the lowest bidder (the Dutch) who then build machines for Taiwan.

China wants to pretend they can do expeditionary military ****, but that’s really only in the domain of the US at this point (maybe UK 30+ years ago). When you have to move forces across large bodies of water but not too large, it’s a different ballgame, and it’s even more unkind than the whole ISR across minefields thing where at least there are some trees to hide.

Also, the problem with real estate in China is it is where people park savings, and local goverments make money by selling land. It’s a whole different ball game than our mess.

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

So why are UKR snipers dicking around in east bloody Africa?

Are they actually UKR SOF, or are they merely UKR who were for example serving in another country’s military, which is already heavily involed in Africa since forever? And maybe it’s just a few guys, with their Polish and whatever friends, and they get the occaisonal ride from American transport planes.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

I know people in that business on our side, and they say that Russia’s nuclear forces get as much funding as much as the rest of their military combined.

Yes, but the Question isn't what they got, but what they stole. The Chinese answer to that question seems to be rather a lot.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

 

Are they actually UKR SOF, or are they merely UKR who were for example serving in another country’s military, which is already heavily involed in Africa since forever? And maybe it’s just a few guys, with their Polish and whatever friends, and they get the occaisonal ride from American transport planes.

I like this...

 

[Carolus]

9 hours ago, billbindc said:

This take is highly redolent of the attitudes of pessimists in the 1930's and contra your claim, there was very extensive German/fascist influence in Western democracies during that period.

Oh, there were pro-German head of states and 20% to 30% of elected legislative members were stoutly pro-German among many countries of the Allies? Because that is roughly where we are now. 

If that was the case, I really need to read more about the period.

 

Quote

Nuclear weapons change the way these things play out somewhat but Russia and China are simply not a match for an aroused and committed US/EU.

I agree. 

But isn't that why the main strategy of Russia and China is to make sure the population does not activate?

How would you judge the situation so far? Does the US and EU population strike you as aroused to stand up for democracy while people are being killed daily solely because they wanted to be their friends and allies? 

Since people seemed to agree lately that a nuclear power which calls the Western World its sworn enemy is absolutely no worry for the vast majority of the Western population and plays no role for their elections, it seems that the answer is no, right?

Edited January 8 by Carolus

[Carolus]

8 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:

And a cruel reality perhaps, but what you call "unneccesary deaths" are also happening in Sudan, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, Congo, Somalia, Gaza and the rest, but they seem less important than the Ukranian deaths?

This was not your best post, I think.

Do these deaths happen in a conflict that is fundemantelly challenging the global order? 

Political self-interest is a reality, as well as prioritsarion of resources, and societies who forget that tend to be not around for long.

I thank you for the implications that other posts of mine were agreeable to you, despite being someone who came to this forum as a someone "outside the field". 

[Carolus]

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Yeah but there's plenty of war crimes happening day after day right now, in Ukraine. Perhaps killing Russian generals would have amore direct battlefield impact?

By giving Russia a greater edge?

Russian generalship is currently one of Ukraine's greatest ally, because all reformers pushing for quality improvement in the Russian Army are grassroots. Nationalist volunteers and such. The more these people get ignored, the better for Ukraine, and the current Russian high officer corps is ignoring them very handily.

[Sgt Joch]

The big difference between WW2 and now is that in 1942, the U.S. public realized beating Germany and Japan was not a given and were willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary to win the war including rationing, higher taxes and seeing their boys, brothers, friends go to war and possibly be killed or maimed.

Now, most western citizens will "support" Ukraine, but only as long as it does not cost anything: no inflation, higher taxes, restrictions on consumer goods and god forbid, losing a single service man/woman/non-binary/whatever. That makes it very hard for western politicians who are forever on the tightrope of trying to provide support while trying to argue the support actually does not cost anything.

[omae2]

The bigger difference is that western countries are under the influence of eastern psy ops. Many people are hooked on social media that is a great tool to influence their opinion.

I can speak from somewhat of an experience, in my country (Hungary) this type of psy ops influences firstly seemed like just different opinions or some loud mouth dumb guy on the internet. But they manage to hijack most of the forums that is a place for political or military discussion in a decade. They usually have at least one or two build in account for years than there is a lot of new one. They generate discussion that derail the original cause of the forum, attacking those who has some sort of know how on the subject but not pushing their agenda. For that they use throw away accounts that will vulgarly insult the individual until one day it breaks that person who either answer with vulgarity and get banned or simply leave out of disgust.
Here we even had a better soil for that because the government policy is based on russian gas and a fight against the liberal EU leadership. So when the **** hit the fan in 22 we were in an isolated political standing already that played us more to the hand of russian propaganda. But i bet that tiktok 9gag and other Chinese owned social platform are have much subtle way to generate hate and divide the population of the west. They actively pushing trump btw.

And the main problem with democracies that you don't have to persuade those who are in power cause its enough to persuade the masses. The masses are usually not that bright. If russia can get this conflict settled with territorial gain than this will be a precedent that they can do what ever they want, its only the cost they have to worry about. In russia this will shown as a great success where they beat NATO in a war. Within ten years they gonna build up a new army based on this war and will attack again.
In eastern Europe this will prove that the power of the west indeed is dwindling, so they have to calculate russia into their policies. You will see a lot more anti west politicians because they will have plenty of ammunition to spend in rhetoric on how the west failed at Ukraine.
The EU had to face a new reality where the USA does not defend its interest in east Europe if its cost too much, so they have to fend for them self. Spending a lot of money on weapons and the army, building down the social benefits. That will be exploited by russian and Chinese agency that will actively stir **** in Africa to push more and more refugees into Europe. The more polarize the society the better for them.

I can only see one good outcome and that is if the USA is stop ****ing around and realize that this war can make or brake their hegemony in the world.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Sgt Joch said:

Germany and Japan

The big difference is Japan carried out a preemptive strike and Germany declared war on the US. Not much choice there. After the war international contracts were signed in US$, to keep it the US played for Sheriff internationally. 

[Butschi]

Gents, IMHO this whole democracies vs autocracies discussion is driven more by faith/ideology/wishful thinking than actual facts.

I think the fallacy most here are making is to equate democracy to economical strength/success. Democracy, however, is a political system, not an economical one. Sure, when we are talking about "the West" we mean democracies + capitalism/free market. Of course economical success can and probably is also influenced by the political system but you can't just go and say: "look, that country has a strong economy and it is a democracy, ergo democracy is the cause of economical strength". This is just correlation and is very open to lots of different interpretations, e.g. that economical success makes people more likely to want political participation (as opposed to the other way round).

To look into this on a scientifically sound basis you'd have to compare democracy + capitalism, democracy + socialism (or any other economical approach very different from capitalism), autocracy + capitalism and autocracy + socialism.

Democracy + socialism wasn't really tried except the one or two attempts where the CIA intervened, so that already makes a real study impossible.

Autocracy + socialism (Soviet style) didn't really work that well, no arguing that. To be fair, we don't know how things would have looked if that had existed in isolation instead of in competition to democracy + capitalism (which may be the stronger system but for whatever reason the countries in question had also been historically stronger, so that comparison is still mildly flawed).

The best example for autocracy + capitalism is, of course, China. Sure we can argue all day long how sustainable that system really is but so far it works, and most (Han-)Chinese appear to be supporting it. (Though of course we might not get to talk to those who don't very often).

There are obviously lots of autocratic countries that don't look that good. Due to corruption and all that but also due to historically worse starting positions (let's say that the effects of colonialism still hampering Africa is at least a matter of debate).

On the other hand there a quite a few examples of democracy + capitalism that face similar issues. (Greece to name just one that comes to mind).

I'm not arguing pro autocracies here, personally I'd much rather live in a democracy than an autocracy. Just saying that the evidence really isn't as clear as some here make it look.

Even going by won conflicts, the picture isn't all that clear. Sure, democracies won WW2. But did they because they were democracies? France was a democracy. Reminder: it had the largest army at that time. It got steamrolled by Nazi Germany partly because the political elite was incapable of looking beyond their suspicion of the military and thus prevented a modernized army. UK, did they win because they were a democracy or because they really were still that world spanning empire (and actually a constitutional monarchy...) that could draw on enormous resources from their colonies and Commonwealth? Did the US win because of democracy or capitalism? And what about the USSR? Had it been a democracy would they have been able to wage that war in the way the did? Probably not, though we will never know if that would have made for better or worse strategies and equipment.

Again, not suggesting I know the answers, just saying that things aren't as simple as they appear on first sight.

[Astrophel]

2 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

The big difference between WW2 and now is that in 1942, the U.S. public realized beating Germany and Japan was not a given and were willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary to win the war including rationing, higher taxes and seeing their boys, brothers, friends go to war and possibly be killed or maimed.

Now, most western citizens will "support" Ukraine, but only as long as it does not cost anything: no inflation, higher taxes, restrictions on consumer goods and god forbid, losing a single service man/woman/non-binary/whatever. That makes it very hard for western politicians who are forever on the tightrope of trying to provide support while trying to argue the support actually does not cost anything.

I think you are wrong on this, at least from my essentially European perspective.

 In the first winter of the war European citizens demonstrated an uncomplaining resolve to manage the energy blackmail and huge costs emanating from russia and their allies in Opec.  Ukrainian women and children were sheltered from russian attack by being given a unique refugee status - millions of ukrainians have been adopted.  An unintended side effect is that tens of millions of Europeans have had the opportunity to meet ukrainians at work, around schools and refugee centres with largely positive feelings resulting.  I have heard no complaints about donating military equipment to ukraine, or about the economic subsidies being given generously.

In the second world war we had a different situation because war had been declared.  In those days the majority of citizens felt it to be their duty to fight on behalf of their government decision.  Having seen our citizens diligently conform to government orders in the Covid crisis, I rather suspect that the majority today would back any government decision to declare war on russia, or anybody or anything else for that matter deemed to be an existential threat.  I was raised with the expectation that I, like my father and grandfathers, might have to fight should war be declared.  It is the same sentiment that Putin is trading upon.

You are from Canada it seems.  Maybe what you say is true for Canada - and I lived in Montreal for a couple of years so I doubt it - but please do not extend your "Canadian" cynicism to western europe.  Many of us are well aware of the rights and wrongs of this situation, and the danger of tolerating russian fascism as Hitler was tolerated for too long.

We do not want a declaration of war but Putin better not provoke further.  Nobody in their right mind would want a war and all the sacrifice that entails.  But it is Putin and fellow travellers, not western politicians, who are walking the tightrope.

Edited January 8 by Astrophel

[Mindestens]

6 hours ago, dan/california said:

 

Their presence in Sudan is tiny, and they seem to be providing assistance to what is looking very much like the winning side. If the RDF keep up their current momentum they could well be the next government. Having the people who basically own half of one side of the Red Sea owe Ukraine a favor or five is exactly how Ukraine could suddenly have the ability to act against Russia further afield in all sorts of ways. It would also provide a great deal of leverage with Egypt, who has been far to cozy with the Russians. 

I realize the RDF will be an abysmal government for Sudan, but they seem to be fresh out of good choices. For that matter they seem to be out of merely bad ones.

Isn't that the other way around? I was pretty sure RSF is supported by Wagner and they made some rapid gains lately, with Ukraine supporting the other side

[Maciej Zwolinski]

The issue of advantages and disadvantages of democracies vs autocracies at war is in general a very complex one and admits a lot of subtle arguments.

However, in the case at hand the test seems quite simple:  autocratic Russia had blundered into a war, where it managed to piss away its entire standing military, and then turned that war into a repetitive peformance of head-on assaults, exchanging high casualties for minute territorial gains of a village here, half a village there. Their theory of victory mostly consists of outlasting Ukrainian artillery ammunition stock.  If they succeed because Western countries cannot maintain focus on this war for more than a year or so, and Russians win by default by just being there - then (without unnecessary generalisations) I would say at least this set of democratic countries sucks big time, at war, policy, everything.  

[Astrophel]

1 hour ago, omae2 said:

The masses are usually not that bright.

The basic tenet of democracy is that the masses ARE that bright!

In recent human European history - since the Beaker People 5000 years ago - we have lived with the tyranny of the monarchs.  The masses had little to say.  There has been progress but it has been cruel, and painful, and inefficient.

More recently we discovered diversity.

The most successful organisations today enjoy consolidating diverse opinions - sex, ethnicity, achievement.  The autocracy paradigm is bankrupt!  We are developing ways of working together with the best insights and challengers.  The "russian" way is a threat to humanity similar to the way an asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs.

The masses ARE that bright.  We are learning that russian autocratic ideas. like the asteroid, are a threat to humanity.  Survival means learning not only to iive together but learning together.  Diversity is the key!

Like most wars in the past few thousand years we are in a conflict of values.  Do we narrow our focus to a Putinesque prison cell of hetrosexuals, or do we embrace freedoms?

I know where I stand, do you?

Edited January 8 by Astrophel