Europe at War

[drogulus]

   
    US share of GDP should fall in a richer world, and a richer world was the offer the US made for support against the USSR. If the deal worked the US would decline percentage-wise as the world got richer. It couldn't work any other way.

    It was not an intrinsic part of the deal that the US made no adjustments to protect US jobs and incomes. That was a choice made by shrinksters of various ideological flavors, the same kind of thinking that led to the "expansionary austerity" monstrousity. Remember that one?

[Todd]

It is customary for Italy, Belgium or Spain to go for months with only a caretaker government because no agreement can be obtained for the composition of a new one. Are they less democratic countries than Finland because of that?

It is strange that voting is now considered undemocratic.

[Florestan]

It is strange that voting is now considered undemocratic.

It all depends on the vote's outcome. If one likes it, it's perfectly fair, free and democratic. If one doesn't like it, it's the result of people being brainwashed and the voting should be repeated asap and as many times as possible, until one likes the outcome. 

[Todd]

It all depends on the vote's outcome. If one likes it, it's perfectly fair, free and democratic. If one doesn't like it, it's the result of people being brainwashed and the voting should be repeated asap and as many times as possible, until one likes the outcome. 

True.  Similarly, an ideal justice system would prosecute criminals until the proper verdict is reached.

[71 dB]

They certainly didn't, see my reply above.

It is customary for Italy, Belgium or Spain to go for months with only a caretaker government because no agreement can be obtained for the composition of a new one. Are they less democratic countries than Finland because of that?

You keep arguing for the sake of arguing. I am tired and I feel agitated. I stop for now and go do other things...

[Karl Henning]

Entertaining oneself by making deliberately provocative remarks on an internet board is the very definition of trolling.

Living small.

[Karl Henning]

Is America weaker today than it was before Trump?

In terms of shaken democratic norms, yes. Nor are we out of the woods yet.

[drogulus]

    Macron has been criticized for his urging orcs and khokols to "all get along" as though that could be a thing. I don't see it quite that way. I think he'll take the opportunity to embarrass the Germans by employing performative peacemongery while sending some very cool kit to the Ukes.

    On examination this wheelytank is a serious upgrade. The 105mm gun can take out Russian tanks and the vehicle should perform well in a variety of ground conditions. The US Bradley and German Marder are also on their way. These are not tank killers, they're infantry fighting vehicles. Taken together it's a serious increase in Ukrainian capability.

    We're going beyond the "drip-feed to appease the Russian vassal" stage, perhaps giving up on his peaceful intentions.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

In terms of shaken democratic norms, yes. Nor are we out of the woods yet.

Yep! 

Second year's anniversary today.... 

PD

[JBS]

They certainly didn't, see my reply above.

It is customary for Italy, Belgium or Spain to go for months with only a caretaker government because no agreement can be obtained for the composition of a new one. Are they less democratic countries than Finland because of that?

The choas in those countries never threatened to end in imploding global financial markets.

The chaos in the US House does; especially since even when the current imbroglio is resolved, the chaotics will be better able to threaten the implosion when they have the opportunity.

[Florestan]

In terms of shaken democratic norms, yes

I beg to differ, Karl. The democratic norms dictate that the POTUS be not above the law. Check.

I think that, on the contrary, Trump's Presidency has been beneficial for the American institutional democracy, because the former was incontrovertible evidence for the latter's being fully functional and strongly resilient faced with unprecedented challenges.

[Florestan]

The choas in those countries never threatened to end in imploding global financial markets.

The discussion is about democracy, not about (its effects on) global financial markets. The fact that voting may, and often does, result in chaos in Italy, Belgium and Spain does not mean the voting is less democratic than in Finland, where it always results in stability. The idea that the House of Representatives not being able to vote their leader on the first round is evidence of the weakened democracy of the USA is preposterous.

[Todd]

The chaos in the US House does

It does not.

[Todd]

The idea that the House of Representatives not being able to vote their leader on the first round is evidence of the weakened democracy of the USA is preposterous.

It is not preposterous.  It is a flat out lie.  Circling back to the topic of this thread, Congress just recently passed The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which contains an additional $45 billion in support for Ukraine and NATO.  More funds will be forthcoming later in 2023.  If worst case/best case, the election of speaker takes longer than in 1856 (fingers crossed), then more aid will have to wait until sometime in March or more likely April, depending on voting priorities.  In the normal course of business, it should come later than that anyway.  The US government is funded and the executive branch is operating as normal.  The US military and intelligence agencies will be able to provide support for Ukraine as needed.  War will proceed unencumbered.

[drogulus]

     

The idea that the House of Representatives not being able to vote their leader on the first round is evidence of the weakened democracy of the USA is preposterous.

     The evidence we have is that in the wake of TrumPutin the electorate has less tolerance for strutting nihilists, an important factor in the underwhelming performance of MAGAts in the recent election. That's actually an indication of health.

[drogulus]

    EXPLAINED: Ukraine's New Weapons Bonanza

Why are they only being sent now?

 Western allies have been very cautious about which weapons systems they send, fearful of antagonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin and provoking a Russian response beyond the borders of Ukraine.

     Macron is acting like he's the leader of NATO. The US might actually like having Macron being the first mover. Now the US can follow along and Germany can too. Each country had excuses for not moving. That's gone.

[drogulus]

     The bit about not antagonizing our delinquent friend in Moscow was too good to let pass.

[milk]

There is no profit in it. People keep feeding the troll and provocateur with ammunition, so he keeps firing for the fun of it. Don't feed the troll and he will starve of depravation. If there is no air the fire will die out quickly.

I'm still in this same spot of simply not understanding why the majority here seemingly thinks Todd doesn't honestly believe what he's saying, isn't expressing a rational and consistent, though obviously unpopular, point of view, and isn't trying to make a point. Furthermore, while I can understand that people find him caustic, I don't really get the desire to shut him down completely. Isn't it more interesting to argue his point and to prove him wrong than to just call him names or to try to freeze him out and ignore him? I mean, I see multiple people acting very upset and Todd totally unfazed repeating the same positions. And these positions are quite rational whether or not I can say I know enough to form a judgement (I still tend to like negotiations to happen while Russia is kind of losing and for Ukraine to maybe make some concessions to let Russia save a little face so the world can calm down but, hey, I really know nothing). The position that the U.S. guided the region towards this conflict is one that at least two big names (on the left I believe)  have adopted so it's worth stating why you disagree IF you disagree. I do think people here could probably get to making more dispassionate arguments about the Ukraine and its history and why it's worth the fight and the blood. Isn't it true, for example, that Ukraine has suffered historical horrors under Soviet/Russian domination? So what is its historical imperative? But I think the big question to answer regards the necessity of U.S. money and weapons in this. That's a sober question. The fact that Todd takes no prisoners in his attitude really ruffles people too much and leaves people like me wishing to see the sober counter arguments being made by which to understand the fuller picture. Todd represents his view well. Don't kid yourself that there isn't a meeting of the far left and the libertarian-minded right and others. There are other views out there, even if they're barely represented here. It wouldn't hurt to entertain them if only to strengthen your own.

[Madiel]

I'm still in this same spot of simply not understanding why the majority here seemingly thinks Todd doesn't honestly believe what he's saying, isn't expressing a rational and consistent, though obviously unpopular, point of view, and isn't trying to make a point. Furthermore, while I can understand that people find him caustic, I don't really get the desire to shut him down completely. 

Maybe if you weren't ignoring me completely, you would have seen some of my answers.

But because you're ignoring me completely, as is Todd, there is no hope of breaking out of this circle of you popping in and saying you don't understand.

Seriously. The last couple of times you've basically asked this exact same question I've tried to answer it. But as you're ignoring me you don't see the answer, and then you come back and just ask the exact same questions again.

[Que]

EXPLAINED: Ukraine's New Weapons Bonanza

Why are they only being sent now?

 Western allies have been very cautious about which weapons systems they send, fearful of antagonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin and provoking a Russian response beyond the borders of Ukraine.

    Macron is acting like he's the leader of NATO. The US might actually like having Macron being the first mover. Now the US can follow along and Germany can too. Each country had excuses for not moving. That's gone.

The article doesn't really answer the question it raises: why now?

For France this is a major shift from Macron's initial approach to push for negotiations. Same for Germany, that has advocated restraint to avoid escalation - in the hope of a negotiated settlement.

What has changed is the realisation that Putin will not back down under any circumstance. Putin's continuous escalation and full scale attack on civilian infrastructure brought the message home that Putin rather destroys Ukraine entirely than make any concession.

France and Germany realised that the longer this war lasts, the more destruction and casualties on both sides there will be. The sooner this war ends, the better. Further Ukrainian military successes, like an attack on Crimea, might persuade Putin or any successor to make concessions after all, or not.