ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

Well, I hope we don't use the same playbook, because chi and rus are different animals in terms of economic power. And we're probably not the same animal either in that respect
The playbook won’t be identical, but it will be similar. It’s pretty clear China may have to carry Russia economically, and that is something they really don’t want to do. At this point, we’ll be up against a much weaker Russia. We were up against China prior to this anyway. Now the west is much more clear eyed.
 
I'm trying to understand your take. The information front is absolutely vital - a massive loss of support at home was critical in forcing the Russian withdrawl from Afghanistan. Perhaps I'm just reading it wrong, but it just seems that you have an issue with journalists doing what journalists do...at least so far as it doesn't fit into your criteria (whatever they are). Getting info out about pretty much everything IS the end in itself if you're a journalist. What else would it be?

As for that second claim..."holding his own" on his home front? I guess if jailing thousands of his own people with more to come while streets are teeming with protestors qualifies...sure...that's a solid assessment. *shrug*
The afghan withdrawal, while certainly influenced by public support, was about a LOT more than that. I have no problem with journalists, particularly when they are actually investigating news. Setting aside whether they should consider themselves "information warriors" (which is actually a pretty thorny question), what I do have a problem with is the ones that think they've "won" something by virtue of flaming someone on twitter. Which is 80% of the people I go up and down the elevator with every day.

As to the second claim, yes, there are protestors, and more than we've seen in past USSR/RUS days. But RUS really doesn't give a crap about protestors, and more importantly, we read of equal numbers of domestic russians who have bought in to the state line, and still others a home and abroad who haven't denounced it. That's what I mean by holding his own.

I am a person who really takes the long view in life, and an optimist to boot. But for better or worse, I've drawn markedly more pessimistic inferences over the last 36-48 hours, at least as to the well being of Ukrainians, of which I am half by heritage.
 
Last edited:
The playbook won’t be identical, but it will be similar. It’s pretty clear China may have to carry Russia economically, and that is something they really don’t want to do. At this point, we’ll be up against a much weaker Russia. We were up against China prior to this anyway. Now the west is much more clear eyed.
A fair take, certainly. What I worry about is whether, in a "more" bipolar world, the stakes (and therefore the risks) will be raised in a way that tends toward greater proxy violence.
 
More lol...there are plenty of good sources and relying on multiple sources increases your chances of getting a reasonable story. I'm not going to ask what you claim are the "few sources" left.
CNBC is a good source of actual levelheaded news. I like their nightly news cast since they got reset. CNN, MSNBC, FOX and most of the rest are trash. CNN has done a remarkably good job of covering the war in Ukraine. 80% of the rest of their coverage is gas lighting trash. I'm not referring to print. What others are there on TV that are NOT ridiculously partisan?
 
More lol...there are plenty of good sources and relying on multiple sources increases your chances of getting a reasonable story. I'm not going to ask what you claim are the "few sources" left.
He just says that because he doesn't like to be confronted with uncomfortable truths that undermine his myopic world-view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
He just says that because he doesn't like to be confronted with uncomfortable truths that undermine his myopic world-view.
WTF are you blabbering about now. You got the wrong target to spatting that shit about.
 
CNBC is a good source of actual levelheaded news. I like their nightly news cast since they got reset. CNN, MSNBC, FOX and most of the rest are trash. CNN has done a remarkably good job of covering the war in Ukraine. 80% of the rest of their coverage is gas lighting trash. I'm not referring to print. What others are there on TV that are NOT ridiculously partisan?
Any channel that sent people east of Lviv is legit with me. BBC, Sky, and CNN all had crews that were shot at.
 
WTF are you blabbering about now. You got the wrong target to spatting that shit about.
Your statement "journalism is trash right now" is overly broad, inaccurate and indicates your close-mindedness.

Not sure how you view that as "blabbering" as it was one very clear, declarative sentence.

Go cry somewhere else about getting called out for bad takes.
 
Your statement "journalism is trash right now" is overly broad, inaccurate and indicates your close-mindedness.

Not sure how you view that as "blabbering" as it was one very clear, declarative sentence.

Go cry somewhere else about getting called out for bad takes.
Foxnew's coverage looks like a YouTube channel.
 
CNBC is a good source of actual levelheaded news. I like their nightly news cast since they got reset. CNN, MSNBC, FOX and most of the rest are trash. CNN has done a remarkably good job of covering the war in Ukraine. 80% of the rest of their coverage is gas lighting trash. I'm not referring to print. What others are there on TV that are NOT ridiculously partisan?
TV is a wasteland, and I long for the day when someone at least takes the risk of testing the market to see if there's an appetite for a channel where the on screen personalities are happy being newspersons rather than aspiring to be columnists. You know, the way CNN used to be when Amanpour was a mere war slut.

The BBC is the place to be for online stuff. Each day, I look at CNN, BBC, and Drudge (which is actually not a bad news aggregator, once you get past the headlines, when it comes down to it), as well as the daily WaPo headlines projected on their giant screen in their lobby. From there, I triangulate from common stories, and the BBC is invariably the median.
 
TV is a wasteland, and I long for the day when someone at least takes the risk of testing the market to see if there's an appetite for a channel where the on screen personalities are happy being newspersons rather than aspiring to be columnists. You know, the way CNN used to be when Amanpour was a mere war slut.

The BBC is the place to be for online stuff. Each day, I look at CNN, BBC, and Drudge (which is actually not a bad news aggregator, once you get past the headlines, when it comes down to it), as well as the daily WaPo headlines projected on their giant screen in their lobby. From there, I triangulate from common stories, and the BBC is invariably the median.
Correct, because you are media literate and smart enough to evaluate platforms and outlets with an open mind. Unlike some others posting in this thread.
 
I know we're only seeing scattered audio in many of these twitter posts, but damn, it sure appears like some Ukrainian fighters seem to be enjoying themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-hawk
Welp. Add another theater to ww3. Figured Taiwan was next.
Japan kicked their ass real good the first time they tangled with Russia. Lots of parallels with Ukraine conflict, actually -- Russia thought they were vastly superior and would roll. Japan had other ideas.
 
So-let's talk about the great equalizer on the last row. The only thing holding Russia back from being ****ing ass kicked back to the stone age.


The estimated cost for the US to maintain OUR arsenal of bombs and missiles (not all of NATO) is 634 BILLION for 2021-2030. Remember, these are majorly complicated weapons that need new fuel and new fissile material to function.

When you look at it and the linked Brookings Institute Report from 24 years ago (https://www.brookings.edu/the-hidden-costs-of-our-nuclear-arsenal-overview-of-project-findings/) you will see that the US and NATO have spent trillions of dollars to maintain it's arsenal. So the question you have to ask now, after watching Russia get humiliated with outdated and poorly maintained weapons in large part due to corruption, do you really think Russia spent Trillions of dollars to maintain their arsenal as fire ready? How many of those warheads and bombs are still functioning and capable of being launched accurately? They won't find success with bombers. It would have been easy money to skim because they corrupt officials likely viewed them as never needed. I'm thinking 5-10%. .
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT