Perhaps accidentally, the movie had me thinking something like: look closer and you see through the stories about your nation, your government and your world. Give voice to these realizations and learn, through the resistance your realizations engender, that you begin to move in ways you never imagined.
But don’t you think it’s a fabulous idea to antagonize a ‘deranged madman’ who sits astride the world’s largest nuclear arsenal ?
Ran across this today and it is an interesting debate. For those who have time the podcast is 1hr 22min long but worth a listen considering all the talk about nuclear weapons at this point. Some may not know that tactical nuclear weapons are an arsenal in the US, Russia and China. So what exactly is a tactical nuke? The consensus is these are nukes with lower yields than strategic nukes which are cumbersome and have the capability of taking out cities with high yield explosive and radiation. Tactical nukes are lower in radiation yield and targeted to battle field conditions. Think of them as an upgrade to uranium depleted munitions that were used in Iraq. From my point of view we are not getting rid of tactical nukes or strategic nukes anytime in the near future nor do a I see a day when the world is free of nuclear arsenals. Have a listen to the debate and you decide. Given the nature of tactical nukes it would certainly be an escalation of major concern as it would be one step away from strategic deployment. Is It Time to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons? Ward Wilson is the author of Five Myths about Nuclear Weapons and president of RealistRevolt. He argued that nuclear weapons have almost no practical application, and it's time to end world leaders' fascination with their awe-inspiring power. Peter Huessy, is director of strategic deterrent studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and president of his own defense consulting firm, GeoStrategic Analysis. He argued that we can't get to nuclear abolition without getting other nuclear powers on board, including Russia and China, which both see them as essential tools in their foreign policy agenda.
The most interesting thing about conspiracy theorists: they so commonly lack the ability to actually think critically about their own theories. They accept their theories even with glaring holes in internal validity. For example, take your theories about how the US is fighting this as a way of making money for "the elites," while at the same time, acknowledging that the war has had the effect of increasing inflation, which has caused the Fed to raise interest rates, which has potentially caused or at least exacerbated an economic downturn, costing the "elites" a heck of a lot more money than whatever they have made selling military equipment. Clearly inconsistent thoughts. But this hasn't made you question your theories. People who broadly believe conspiracy theories are engaged in little more than motivated reasoning run amuck. For one reason or another, they want their claims to be true, so they are, regardless of the numerous holes that can be poked in them. And, because it is motivated reasoning, poking those holes results in the backfire effect.
I was listening to Ward Wilson long before Ukraine! I posted earlier that mobilization, bringing larger numbers of troops, may serve to RAISE the threshold for nukes, given that more manpower gives you more options.
As to the theory that it cannot be true that people in power would aggrandize themselves in ways that ravage those below them there are two problems: (1) it is not axiomatic that they will feel the effects of their actions and (2) they may simply be evil.
So if your neighbor breaks into your living room, bribes your dog and children into voting to be a part of his property, do you accept that the living room, dog, and the kids belong to the neighbor?
It is axiomatic that they have felt negative effects. Believe it or not, rich people have more invested in businesses that rely on capital than non-rich people. But yeah, they are all willing to lose money so that you can lose money too. Makes total sense. Good critical thinking there.
The likes of Fauci and Birx on the phone for you. Better pick up. They’re awfully busy with book deals and going from home to home checking on updates.
And now the Gish Gallop starts. Because you can't actually defend the logical inconsistency, so off you go to another theory. Gish gallop - Wikipedia
Gallop ? I’ve just broken into a trot as this point. Another problem with your, shall I say, conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories: the reason why people and power get away with really bad things is because most people cry for more of them! See: 2020.
If Russia gets its ass kicked severely enough in this little land grab, and Putin gets put out of his misery and replaced by someone who has more sense and wants to return to the good graces of the western world, it will be a long time (maybe 50-100 years, maybe more) before they think about attempting to invade a neighbor again. Who knows what Ukraine will be like after they recover from this war. They should get plenty of support from Europe and the U.S. (plus Russian money frozen in international accounts) for rebuilding, and that might help limit the corruption of Ukraine 2.0. The U.S. should recognize the hazards of abandonment of a wartime ally after they win a devastating war with Russia, after the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan in 1989-90. Zelenskyy has been an excellent war-time leader, and maybe he could transition into being a good peace-time leader. And even if Ukraine reverts to corruption, how does that hurt the rest of the world? Their version of corruption does not invade other countries. I am fairly certain that if Putin had a crystal ball and could see what his invasion would look like seven months after he started, he would abandon the idea completely and never start the invasion. And every Russian leader who comes after Putin will remember this misadventure and think twice before starting an invasion of another country, knowing that defeat is a possibility.
Still trying to determine the authenticity of the video, but reportedly this is the disposition of recently mobilized Russians heading into Ukraine ...
My theory is exactly the opposite of a conspiracy theory, in fact. It argues that individuals create theories to benefit themselves through motivated reasoning. When questioned, the people dig into the theories because they aren't getting truth out of them; they are getting information that makes them feel better for one reason or another (i.e., they think they are smarter, more interesting, or safer than they would be if their theory wasn't true). But sure, the guy arguing against facts on the ground to support the former KGB agent in charge of a kleptocratic autocracy is really worried about people getting away with really bad things.
At last check the US has 13 major military bases in Europe. That may have grown by now. When I get a spare couple I’ll tally up the number of major military bases Russia has in Mexico and Canada.
I think it's safe to say at this juncture there has been no decisive defeat by either side. At this point, I think what the lesson the US should be taking from this is that it's time to get back on a peer-war footing like in the cold war. They aren't anywhere close to that right now, and the more I read, the more I understand the administration's decisions not to try to stop Russia from doing this by putting troops on the ground. Essentially if they do have to fight the Russians now, which would be shit for everyone, they at least have a 7 month head start on supplies and trained soldiers that Russia has essentially thrown away in Ukraine with no efficient way to replace them.
