How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[LongLeftFlank]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

On top of your other services to The Thread, you have now provided Exhibit B demonstrating Google en****tification of memes.

(Donnie, you're out of your element!)

Edited 2 hours ago by LongLeftFlank

[billbindc]

12 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

This! 

If it pays off, well then great (I don't exactly love the Kambot, but I don't vote in US elections so wgaf).

You realize that when you avoid factual responses to clear factual arguments, claim everyone is somehow in a “blue bubble” and you describe Harris as “Kambot” you are painting yourself into a MAGA corner, right? 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/23/former-trump-advisers-whitewashing-his-foreign-policy-record-00179111

Opinion | Don’t Listen to Pompeo, O’Brien and McMaster. Trump’s Foreign Policy Was a Failure.

In this consequential election year, it’s important to remember the actual results of Trump’s actual decisions.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

  

1 minute ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Vinman testified at Trump's impeachment hearing. Of COURSE he perforce went on the Enemies list, for reasons that have nothing to do with some inherent Trump hatred of Ukraine or love of Putin.

And why did Vindman have to testify in front of Congress?  Because Trump had the warm and fuzzies for Ukraine and Zelensky?

1 minute ago, LongLeftFlank said:

....Afghanistan, umm, goalpost shift much?

How so?  I pointed to something that the Trump Admin did and how it did it as a way to offer insights into how it might handle a nearly identical situation in the future.  And what have you done besides insult other people for challenging an opinion you aren't even trying to back up with a factual basis.

1 minute ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I really have no idea, you tell me. And then the burden is on you to demonstrate that THEREFORE we see that Ukraine is treated in the same way.

I have never thought of you as someone who is "thick", but I already explained the relevance and yet...

So let me put this in a way that you might understand the third time around.

1 minute ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Or are you seriously trying to compare the US client regime in Kabul and the ANA to Ukraine's current government and the UA?

Yes, because the circumstances are similar.

In the Afghanistan situation Trump campaigned that he would end the US involvement in Afghanistan.  His admin negotiated directly with the Taliban and did NOT include the Afgahn government at all.  The admin also sidelined pretty much everybody that had expertise because they were, in their view, the "swamp" that got them into the mess.

In Ukraine (now) Trump has campaigned on ending US involvement with Ukraine.  He has an existing beef with Ukraine and with Zelensky specifically ("enemies list" as you put it).  On the other hand, he has gone out of his way to be buddies with Putin (Helsinki is just the tip of that iceberg).  It was also Trump's political movement and influence that thwarted aid to Ukraine for 8 months.

Objective analysis of the facts does not really bode well for a Trump Admin supporting Ukraine no matter what.  Zelensky's comments MIGHT have made that now 0.0% chance of happening, but the fact is neither of us know.  What we do know is that if his comments help Harris win, then Ukraine has much better chance of continuing to receive aid from the US.  Certainly this is what Zelensky calculated.  You might not agree with it, but it's entirely rational.

Steve

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

You realize that when you avoid factual responses to clear factual arguments, claim everyone is somehow in a “blue bubble” and you describe Harris as “Kambot” you are painting yourself into a MAGA corner, right? 

I don't think LLF deserves that. He thinks Zelensky made a bad play is uhm forcefully advocating that position. He is to weel read to be a MAGAT, has demonstrated it just this morning. 

[LongLeftFlank]

22 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

*There is a small minority of Trump supporters who think he won’t ditch Ukraine, which is interesting but somewhat irrelevant, and they also won’t change their votes.

I loathe the man (and this goes back to the 1990s), but until a few days ago I thought he might still be talked into not rocking the existing boat by NATO and whomever he trusts on these topics (HINT: it won't be his own cabinet or VP). Cuz at the end of the day, he doesn't truly give a rats if a flaming crack opens and Ukraine vanishes into the earth's mantle tomorrow, so long as it doesn't make BRAD TRUMP look bad.

But BRAND TRUMP definitely would not want to be tagged with WHO LOST UKRAINE? unless there was a clear Winning! in it for BRAND TRUMP.  And what the hell does Putin have to offer in that department?

....Not now though. Z just gave him the out.

Edited 1 hour ago by LongLeftFlank

[LongLeftFlank]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 Objective analysis of the facts does not really bode well for a Trump Admin supporting Ukraine no matter what.  Zelensky's comments MIGHT have made that now 0.0% chance of happening, but the fact is neither of us know.  What we do know is that if his comments help Harris win, then Ukraine has much better chance of continuing to receive aid from the US.  Certainly this is what Zelensky calculated.  You might not agree with it, but it's entirely rational.

Steve

Yup.

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

For what it’s worth, I strongly agree with LLF. No reason to make a statement one way or the other on Z’s part when 90+%* of Americans who supports Ukraine think Trump will hang them out to dry. None of these people will change their vote. The only thing less helpful would be Z making statements about Gaza or transgenderism as it relates to American politics.

*There is a small minority of Trump supporters who think he won’t ditch Ukraine, which is interesting but somewhat irrelevant, and they also won’t change their votes.

Maybe you missed the primary issue here.  Walk this through with me...

Zelensky believes (with good reason) that a Trump Admin will not support his country based on long standing actions.  In other words, if Trump is elected his country is screwed.

Zelensky believes (with good reason) that a Harris Admin would do all that it could to support his country based on long standing actions.  In other words, if Harris is elected his country has a chance.

Zelensky believes his voice has a chance, perhaps a small chance, to help Harris win and Trump lose.

So logically, how is it a mistake for Zelensky to voice support for Harris?

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

7 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I don't think LLF deserves that. He thinks Zelensky made a bad play is uhm forcefully advocating that position. He is to weel read to be a MAGAT, has demonstrated it just this morning. 

No, Steve nailed me with his unerring command of the Socratic dialogue.

I'm really just a MAGA troll, paid by Russia to boot. And the pay rates in Mindanao really suck, believe me.

[akd]

Despite the framing in the tweet, Zelensky didn’t really attack Trump. He correctly pointed out that saying you will solve it is not a plan, so he can’t really comment beyond that.

J.D. Vance’s plan on the other hand, is literally Russia’s plan.  If that is also Trump’s plan, then he really doesn’t have a choice but to speak honestly.

Edited 1 hour ago by akd

[Butschi]

10 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

Of course, my post is moralizing. You are hinting that it is okay to trade with Russia, a country that has unleashed an aggressive war, and I am moralizing you a little, pointing out that doing business with a criminal regime is immoral.

So, do you think that the graph is fake and Finland actually continues to increase trade with Russia? I am simply interested in your logic.

Again, you did not react to any of my points.

So, are you not interested in a meaningful discussion? Do you think we should simply distribute graphs and repeat the author's opinion without knowing what they mean and if they are real? Do you think larger bars in a graph should be called smaller when they otherwise don't fit the author's narrative?

Do you think Western politicians should get to own their country's companies like Russian oligarchs, so they can directly order the companies where to sell what? How about a law against selling too many washing machines? Do you think we should send salesmen to jail when they increase their sales by 100%? No? 200%? Where is threshold?

I am simply interested in your logic.

 

[Blazing 88's]

47 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

...especially people who think he is the left hand of Satan....

Well he is a 34 count felon, rapist, liar, etc, etc, etc.

 

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I loathe the man (and this goes back to the 1990s), but until a few days ago I thought he might still be talked into not rocking the existing boat by NATO and whomever else he trusts on these topics (HINT: it won't be his own cabinet or VP). Cuz at the end of the day, he doesn't truly give a rats if a flaming crack opens and Ukraine vanishes into the earth's mantle tomorrow, so long as it doesn't make BRAD TRUMP look bad.

But BRAND TRUMP definitely would not want to be tagged with WHO LOST UKRAINE? unless there was a clear Winning! in it for BRAND TRUMP.  And what the hell does Putin have to offer in that department?

....Not now though. Z just gave him the out.

Your description of Trump is simply not realistic. Trump talked into something by NATO? He wants to pull out of NATO as he has made clear and as various ex-advisors attest. And who does he trust on Ukraine? Apparently Putin since he vocally buys into Putin’s ideas that Ukraine is within Russia’s sphere of influence, Russia doesn’t lose wars and this war is America’s fault…because, significantly, we didn’t bow to Putin imposing his will on Ukraine. 

You seem to think there is a “Brand” Trump and that’s simply not true. He came into office with plenty of unpopular stances…including tariffs, loving Putin/Kim Jong Un/Orban, etc…that he holds to no matter if it is bad politics or not. Trump was, as Steve pointed out, quite willing to abandon Afghanistan and *literally bring the Taliban to Camp David&*. 

You have to stop imposing your logical framework on him. There is no hidden statesman, there is no champagne room, there is no game being played. He is exactly as disorganized an authoritarian clown as he appears and Ukraine will be made to suffer for it if he manages to win in 6 weeks. 

[billbindc]

7 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

No, Steve nailed me with his unerring command of the Socratic dialogue.

I'm really just a MAGA troll, paid by Russia to boot. And the pay rates in Mindanao really suck, believe me.

It was me, actually not Steve. And the point was that you claimed we were painting you into a MAGA corner while spinning up a version of Trump that simply doesn't exist while dismissing us/me as "blue bubble" victims, etc. I don't actually think you are a MAGA guy but perhaps a bit of self reflection wouldn't hurt at this point. 

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I loathe the man (and this goes back to the 1990s), but until a few days ago I thought he might still be talked into not rocking the existing boat by NATO and whomever else he trusts on these topics (HINT: it won't be his own cabinet or VP). Cuz at the end of the day, he doesn't truly give a rats if a flaming crack opens and Ukraine vanishes into the earth's mantle tomorrow, so long as it doesn't make BRAD TRUMP look bad.

But BRAND TRUMP definitely would not want to be tagged with WHO LOST UKRAINE? unless there was a clear Winning! in it for BRAND TRUMP.  And what the hell does Putin have to offer in that department?

....Not now though. Z just gave him the out.

I used to think that Trump cared about BRAND TRUMP.  He only cares if it is damaged in the eyes of the people that stroke his ego and send him money for doing nothing.  And it's pretty clear, those people don't seem to care much about reality.  If you indicate to a MAGA supporter some factual issue with BRAND TRUMP, it's all dennial and whataboutisms.

5 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

No, Steve nailed me with his unerring command of the Socratic dialogue.

Based on your abandonment of having a Socratic dialogue with me, I am going to presume that this was not a statement of Sarcastic dialogue.

5 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

No, Steve nailed me with his unerring command of the Socratic dialogue.

I'm really just a MAGA troll, paid by Russia to boot. And the pay rates in Mindanao really suck, believe me.

I don't think you're a MAGA troll or a Russian bot.  I think you're making a crap argument based on crap logic.  Worse, you're the one that's been name calling and childishly insulting those who have challenged your position.

Steve

[sburke]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I don't think you're a MAGA troll or a Russian bot.  I think you're making a crap argument based on crap logic.  Worse, you're the one that's been name calling and childishly insulting those who have challenged your position.

Steve

and threatening to bite my flesh... wait a minute.. Trump likes Hannibal Lecter.  LLF wants to eat my flesh....  No, it couldn't be... could it?

[poesel]

5 hours ago, dan/california said:

It is hard to overstate how inflationary it is to dump that much money on very poor people. Every ruble, at least every ruble that is actually paid out, is going to be spent like it is on fire. And most of it will be spent on the stuff working class people buy, so the resulting inflation is going to be felt by those same people.

Since this thread is currently off-topic anyway, I'd like to comment on this.

Giving money to the poor only raises inflation if you print it for that purpose. If you take it from the rich, not so much. The total amount of money is constant, and poor people tend to spend more locally than rich ones. So that money stays in your local economy.
Circulating money is better than hoarded money.

It always makes me a bit sour that the poor are accused of 'wasting' their money. Usually, they spend it on the necessities they couldn't afford so far. Right back into the economy.

Dan - that was not meant as a quip at you.
And what Russia does is not sustainable. But the (current) positive effects on the Russian poor is why the Russians (currently) have no problems recruiting bodies.

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, poesel said:

Since this thread is currently off-topic anyway, I'd like to comment on this.

Yeah, about that

LLF made his point, a couple agreed and a couple didn't.  Statements made are what they are, so probably best to move on. 

Steve

[Eug85]

40 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Again, you did not react to any of my points.

So, are you not interested in a meaningful discussion? Do you think we should simply distribute graphs and repeat the author's opinion without knowing what they mean and if they are real? Do you think larger bars in a graph should be called smaller when they otherwise don't fit the author's narrative?

Do you think Western politicians should get to own their country's companies like Russian oligarchs, so they can directly order the companies where to sell what? How about a law against selling too many washing machines? Do you think we should send salesmen to jail when they increase their sales by 100%? No? 200%? Where is threshold?

I am simply interested in your logic.

 

To be honest, yes, various graphs from various sources have been shown in this thread many times before and no one has raised any questions. You are probably the first to raise questions about the reliability of the data shown. I assume that this is because you are very upset that Finland is doing more than anyone else to weaken Russia.

By the way, you still haven't provided your facts in response to my post. Where is your evidence that the graph in my post contains incorrect information?

Do you think the Finnish government owns Finnish companies like oligarchs?

 

[LongLeftFlank]

20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yeah, about that

LLF made his point, a couple agreed and a couple didn't.  Statements made are what they are, so probably best to move on. 

Steve

Done.

[quakerparrot67]

13 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

In 1960 Peter Ustinov published a brilliant photessay called 'Ustinov's Diplomats' (my parents owned it). He is dressed the same in each photo but merely changes his expressions to reflect each of the national diplomats. A truly amazing actor!

Anyway, I can't find the specific photo, but the caption goes something like this:

RUSSIA: "May I remind you that Russia invented the German missile scientist, which America slavishly copied."

Wasn't  Chekhov  (ensign pavel of starfleet, not anton of literature) always claiming that this or that was "Russian 'inwention' "?

[Lethaface]

14 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Reducing the RRR is intended to stimulate the banks to give out more loans. Basically an alternative to printing money. When the economy weakens, do you need cheaper credit or more robust banks? No idea. That's the question that they pay better money to answer to smarter people than I.

It's not a binary situation, you probably need robust enough banks with 'cheap enough' credit facilities to sustain that part of the demand for loans required for the economy to stay an economy.
Sometimes the law of 'problem remains' is also in action; one can basically just keep putting creative duct tapes at every symptom until... the situation changes for better or for worse.
The ways of economies can be rather unpredictable though, it's not an exact science :D.

Edited 15 minutes ago by Lethaface

[Butschi]

18 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

To be honest, yes, various graphs from various sources have been shown in this thread many times before and no one has raised any questions. You are probably the first to raise questions about the reliability of the data shown. I assume that this is because you are very upset that Finland is doing more than anyone else to weaken Russia.

By the way, you still haven't provided your facts in response to my post. Where is your evidence that the graph in my post contains incorrect information?

Do you think the Finnish government owns Finnish companies like oligarchs?

 

Still not answered a single one of my questions. You presented the graph, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove anything to you.

Btw. a lot of graphs have been questioned. How do I know that? I did it myself quite a few times. Is that a problem for you? Do you think we should discuss like in Russia where you are told by the government what is true and you agree or else end up in jail or dead?

Also, you still haven't answered my question: Should bars in a plot be called smaller when they are not if that supports your narrative?