Author Topic: European matters  (Read 146248 times)


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19511
    • View Profile
The more Conservative party fails to deliver
« Reply #401 on: July 05, 2024, 06:07:52 AM »
so UK votes Left?

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/07/04/red-wave-britain-braces-for-five-years-of-leftist-labour-party-governance/

I will never understand the Brits or their politics.

Can this be compared to here.  If Trump wins, but fails to deliver, and we can be 100% sure the LEFT will do everything in their power to stop him every step of they way, will the US turn LEFT in '28.

Just ruminating.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
Antifa Member Elected to French Parliament
« Reply #402 on: July 08, 2024, 04:37:27 AM »
This is why the Founders created the electoral college. My understanding is that the more Conservative Party in France won every district EXCEPT Paris, with all the population centered their tipping the election to the far left boneheads, among other, less unsavory, leftists.

If you want to know what the “Progressive” plan is for the US, this offers a clue:

@visegrad24

The French Antifa leader Raphaël Arnault, classified as S (a threat to the French state by the security services) has been elected Member of Parliament.

He defeated the National Rally candidate 55%-45% in the second round.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
Crime Abates in Sweden During the Summer …
« Reply #404 on: July 08, 2024, 07:40:58 PM »
… when refugees go on vacation to their home countries. Wait, what’s that you say? People go on pleasure trips to the countries they claim to have fled due to prosecution and, as a result, crime decreases in the European country offering them refuge? Something wrong with this picture:

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/07/08/sweden-is-safer-in-the-summertime-but-no-one-wants-to-face-the-reason-why-n4930454

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71819
    • View Profile
WSJ: Political Violence in Europe
« Reply #405 on: July 19, 2024, 11:45:34 AM »



Political Violence Is Even Worse in Europe
Attacks sometimes come from the right, more often from the left, and jihadism is a 21st-century wrinkle.
Joseph C. Sternberg
WSJ
July 18, 2024 4:46 pm ET


The assassination attempt on Donald Trump stunned the U.S. and has opened debate about dysfunctions in America’s political culture. Troubling too should be the reality that America isn’t alone. Political violence is reappearing across the democratic world, if it ever went away.

The roll call of serious cases takes you aback when you put it all in one place. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico shot in May (he survived). Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe murdered in 2022. Two sitting members of the British Parliament killed in just over five years—Jo Cox in 2016, David Amess in 2021. A local-government leader in the German state of Hesse, Walter Lübcke, murdered in 2019. And others.

Then there are the assaults. In Germany alone: Matthias Ecke, a Social Democrat seeking re-election to the European Parliament, was beaten up in Dresden in May; a Green Party worker was attacked around the same time, allegedly by the same perpetrators. Former Berlin Mayor Franziska Giffey was attacked in a library a few days later. The same week, two members of parliament from the far-right Alternative for Germany party, known as AfD, were assaulted at an event in Stuttgart; an antifa (far-left) group claimed responsibility. Across Germany, authorities tallied 206 complaints of violence against politicians in 2019, 247 in 2020, 288 in 2021, 183 in 2022, 234 in 2023.

Following a mass shooting at a congressional baseball practice, an assassination attempt on a Supreme Court justice, the Jan. 6 riot and other instances, it’s impossible for Americans not to worry about a return to the chaotic and violent mid-20th century. Such concerns in Europe are worse, because that previous era was worse, too.

Countries such as Italy and West Germany were convulsed by violence perpetrated, often but not exclusively by far-left groups such as Germany’s Red Army Faction (also known as the Baader-Meinhof Group). Italy’s Red Brigades in 1978 kidnapped former Prime Minister Aldo Moro and held him captive before he was found murdered more than 50 days later. The U.K. was a frequent victim of Irish Republican Army terrorism, which claimed the life of a member of the royal family and nearly killed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, while Spain faced separatist terrorism particularly in the Basque region.

Much of Europe started quieting down in the 1980s. Britain’s Irish terrorism threat dissipated after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, and Basque separatists called it quits in 2011. One could have hoped that the 2002 assassination of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn marked a last gasp of European political violence. Instead, with hindsight it looks like the beginning of a new uptick.

Some of Europe’s political violence has far-right antecedents (the Cox murder in Britain, the Lübcke case in Germany). More of it arises from the left. Embarrassingly for Germany, AfD politicians seem to be victims more often than representatives of other parties. Some of it is a consequence of mental illness—Europe has its share of Hinckleys—and is political only in the sense that a politician’s public profile can bring him into the view of the mentally disturbed.

One also must remark on the new breed of Islamist terrorism that emerged in the 21st century. All Islamist terrorism has a political tint, and sometimes the targets have been directly political. David Amess’s killer in the U.K. was an Islamic State sympathizer who was convicted of preparing acts of terrorism alongside murder, and this was the motive for a terror attack on the British Parliament in 2017. One can include here the 2015 murder of staff at France’s Charlie Hebdo political-satire magazine.

A shameful truth to emerge since Oct. 7 is that a nontrivial portion of the European public and elite thinks this sort of Islamist political violence is OK, as long as it happens far away and targets someone else. What else to make of the excuse-making in some quarters for Hamas’s raid on Israel?

Justifying this extreme act of political violence isn’t a fringe position in Europe. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, one of the most influential politicians in France following that country’s legislative election this month, does it. So, to one extent or another, do many of the anti-Israel protesters allowed to march through Europe’s streets week after week—despite Europe’s generally tighter restrictions on freedom of speech.

All of this—the assassinations, the harassment of politicians, the excuses for political violence abroad—is a greater embarrassment to Europe’s postwar order than anyone seems prepared to admit. The premise of the European Union and the animating principle of the constitutional regimes that emerged after 1945 was that liberal democracy could supplant the violent pathologies of two world wars and a turbulent interwar period.

This has worked in the sense that no one now contemplates the state-against-state intra-European violence of the wars, excepting Russia. Europe doesn’t, however, appear to be erecting effective guardrails against other forms of political violence. The Continent still remains significantly less chaotic than it was 50 years ago. Will the relative peace last?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
The UK: A Prelude to Where the US Will Head Under Harris
« Reply #406 on: August 07, 2024, 09:44:52 AM »
A detailed look at where the US is heading. It ain’t pretty as we’ve seen at the nascent stage we are at in this trajectory.

BTW, this strikes me as better posted in an England/Britain/United Kingdom/UK thread, but I can’t find on under those search terms:

THE DISUNITED KINGDOM
By Phillip McGough — 1 day ago
On the ongoing Riots in the UK

On July 29, 2024, three children were stabbed to death by a second-generation Rwandan immigrant in Southport, a seaside town in northwest of England previously of note for nothing more or less exceptional than being home to Britain’s only lawnmower museum. From the outset, the elements of the atrocity – migration, slaughtered children, and the evil of the crime – combined to provoke an explosive upsurge of popular anger. The scale and scope of that anger has since spread across Britain in the most serious outbreak of white working-class mass protest since the Chartist Riots of the 1830s and 40s.

Signs of the approaching storm were already visible the day after the murders, when Britain’s new Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer visited Southport to lay the obligatory wreath and was met by vocal hostility from locals. This time the public wasn’t willing to go along with the British state’s choreographed rites of candlelit vigils and the hollow “anti-hate” messaging from state-sponsored community leaders mechanically deployed in the aftermath of now-increasingly frequent atrocities.

By August 2, protests composed almost entirely of the white working class and involving acts of violence had spread beyond Southport to other post-industrial towns in impoverished corners of the country, including Rotherham, Liverpool, Nottingham, and Tamworth. There seem to have been some instances of mosques being attacked, despite the fact the killer of the three children in Southport does not appear to have been a Muslim, and hotels being used to warehouse newly arrived migrants being set alight. In response, with curious readiness, gangs of Muslim men took to the streets and reciprocated.

For almost 48 hours news footage recalled analogies with Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles in the 1970s. Then Sir Keir Starmer chose to pour more gasoline on the flames. His official pronouncements in person and online in response to the disorder made no attempt to calm tensions or strike a tone of national unity, and it must be assumed that that thought never occurred to him. Nor was any sympathy offered in the direction of the complex social and economic grievances animating the protestors, or white working-class anomie in cities and towns across Britain which for decades have been used as dumping grounds for surplus immigration.

Instead, Starmer hectored the populace with incendiary far-leftist rhetoric tinged with petulant anger. There was blanket condemnation of the protestors as “far-right” (in other words, anything which isn’t far-left), sadistic threats of swift judicial retribution, recklessly clumsy threats of a “standing army” of specialist police officers to put down urban revolt, and a pledge for extra funds and resources to protect the Muslim community.

In later statements 24-hour courts and extra prosecutors were promised to fill prisons with quotas of the troublesome. There will at least be some cells for them: Labour’s very first policy announcement upon entering office on July 4, 2024, was to announce the early release of 40,000 convicted criminals. Was the space being cleared to make room for political prisoners?

Everything in Starmer’s performance, from his words to his frown, to his snarl and his body language, recapitulated the belief which now animates political elites across the West: there is no space for opinions on the right of the political spectrum at all. Accompanying this display was the other dominant contemporary leftist trait: a complete indifference to hypocrisy. This is the same Sir Keir Starmer who four years ago took the knee in servile response to the BLM riots on both sides of the Atlantic.

We are dealing here with a dogmatic psychology of fixed course and immutable outline: a lawyerly, procedural mentality that cannot think beyond law and procedure, nor concede any ground to a grassroots popular opposition whose essential demands undermine the foundations of the British liberal-multicultural project. Starmer has what the Germans call sitzfleisch, the tough ass of the bureaucrat, developed in order to execute a managerial role and completely unfitted to statesmanship.

Historically, democratically-elected governments have been able to weather unpopularity in a way that dictatorships can’t. But mass migration to Britain has not occurred democratically. For nearly thirty years, the electorate has consistently voted for parties pledged to reduce immigration, and just as consistently, immigration has continued to increase: in 2022-2023 immigration surpassed the one million mark.

Britain is now in the midst of a demographic-cultural transformation unknown at least since the Early Medieval period. Meanwhile, the British economy has stagnated (Britain’s GDP per capita is now lower than it was in 2008), Britain has the highest tax burden on record, public services are dysfunctional, crime is rising, and societal breakdown is accelerating.


Police officers stand guard between protesters defending the Abdullah Quilliam Mosque in Liverpool against the ‘Enough is Enough’ demonstration. (July 29, 2024).
How does this look to an average white working-class voter in Southport? You’ve watched helplessly from the sidelines as your country transformed from a functioning First World democracy into a semi-failed post-colonial state. You can’t help but notice that this decline overlaps precisely with the arrival of millions of men and women from strange alien cultures, not least because the town where you were born and grew up looks less familiar every day. You see these same newcomers encouraged by liberal elites to lean in to their ethnic and religious identities and grievances and leverage them for maximum tribal gain. Meanwhile, you, a member of the white residuum, are told with no sense of contradiction that any assertion of specifically ethnic interests on your part is beyond the pale of civilized discourse and just a few goosesteps from Hitler.

Increasingly alienated from the government media, you begin to obtain your news from online sites, which feature troubling stories and footage which the traditional media outlets choose to ignore. You see white-on-black crime provoke moral panic and solemn national debate, yet black-on-white crime, like acts of Islamist terrorism, is rationalized away as the aberrant psychopathology of disturbed individuals. You vote against all this, repeatedly. Yet your vote is ignored by both great parties of state, Labour and Conservative. Finally, when with all other forms of redress exhausted, you take to the streets and scream your grievances in the ‘language of the unheard’, no attempt is made to engage with your community or otherwise understand your sorrows, in conspicuous contrast to the response of the state to the BLM protests a few years ago.

What is called multiculturalism in reality is ideological window-dressing for a policy of mass importing cheap labor to maintain low-wage, high-consumption economies. As the growing cost of these policies is blamed on the failure of “racist” and “far right” working-class whites to embrace multiculturalism, whites are ironically embracing it their own way. The pace of demographic change in Britain is driving an increasing self-conceptualization on the part of whites as an aggrieved ethnic group like any other, a group with its own needs, interests, moods, and obsessions. Multiculturalism in this sense may be said to have finally worked in spite of itself: Whites are becoming as race-conscious as everyone else, even though this consciousness, we are instructed to understand, is illegitimate by default.

The Britain emerging from this crucible is an unhappy place. In his flailing and repressive response to Southport and its ancillary troubles, Starmer has already indicated his preferred solution: political repression. The only debate is about the degree of force to be applied. Britain’s liberal democratic tradition, a priceless inheritance forged by centuries of national tradition, is plainly incapable of containing the ugly, restive sectarianism of Britain in 2024: therefore it is going to be jettisoned in favor of an anti-democratic and illiberal model.

In the interim, the British people will continue to look in vain for leadership against the backdrop of a government which is little more than a rickety scaffold hugging a crumbling façade. It’s unlikely that Starmer is a man prone to introspection in the lonely hours of the night, a torment reserved for far more thoughtful men. More likely, Starmer and the regime which he embodies is in the midst of the phenomenon known to psychologists as irrational escalation: a self-destructive tendency to persist in a course of action and double down on it even as the results become obviously ruinous. As A. J. P. Taylor had it, the only thing men really learn from their mistakes is how to repeat them.

Phillip Mark McGough is a freelance writer and commentator from England.

https://im1776.com/2024/08/06/the-disunited-kingdom/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19511
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #407 on: August 07, 2024, 10:40:10 AM »
already here.
question is can it be stopped while we have some limited time while it being too late for Europe according to some who watch closely.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71819
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #408 on: August 07, 2024, 08:29:28 PM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71819
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #410 on: August 08, 2024, 06:18:45 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71819
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19511
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #413 on: September 01, 2024, 07:19:18 AM »
yup
this is what we have to look forward to here

unless Trump can win and slightly delay it.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #414 on: September 24, 2024, 03:24:49 PM »
This could land in more than one place, though seems most appropriate here. One element of particular interest: US War College suggests basing permanent (as opposed to rotating) divisions in Europe to handle the Russian threat so that European countries can use their military resources to embark on Ukrainian adventures. Nope, nothing could go wrong there:

Macron's "Europe Speech"
Not a recipe for success

STEPHEN BRYEN

SEP 24, 2024

It is billed as a major speech by French President Emanuel Macron.  The press says Macron is proposing a "new world order."  Actually, Macron is posing as the "new" leader of Europe and he is calling for strengthening Europe economically, technological, ideologically and militarily.  He was speaking at the Sant'Egidio International Meeting for Peace, held in Paris (22 to 24 September). Macron spoke on September 22.  The ÉLYSÉE, France's Presidential Palace, has released the text of the speech in English, billed as the "Europe Speech."


France's President Emmanuel Macron (C-R) and founder of the catholic charity Sant'Egidio community Andrea Riccardi (C-L) pose for a photo at the International Meeting for Peace in Paris, France, 22 September 2024. (Photo by EPA/MAXPPP)
The speech spends considerable time on Macron’s desire to see Europe strengthen its defense capabilities, but he does not deal with the significant depletion of war stockpiles in Europe because mostly they have been sent to Ukraine.  Nor does he really address the tremendous duplication of defense production in European countries.  Attempts to consolidate Europe's defense industries have only been modestly successful at best.  In critical areas, such as air defenses, Europe supports a number of domestically built systems (such as IRIS-T, SAMP/T, Aspide, Aster, NSAMS), but many have US content including US interceptor missiles)  Added to that are US (e.g., Patriot) and Israeli systems (e.g., Arrow) in use in Europe.  Macron wants to see a big increase in Europe's air defense capabilities, but these systems are expensive and there is no Europe-wide agreement on standardizing air defense products or even integrating them.  As the Israelis have demonstrated, to achieve a level of security commensurate with growing threats, it is important to integrate air defenses and operate consolidated command and control systems buttressed by artificial intelligence decision making loops.

Nor does Macron address European troops strengths, although he argues for Europe replacing the US in terms of responsibility for defending Europe.  Compared to Russia, Europe's armies are generally small.  While NATO exercises are attempting to improve combat deployment and coordination, there are major obstacles to overcome, including standardizing equipment (including ammunition) and communications.  Likewise getting troops, equipment and supplies to the battlefield remains a significant logistical challenge. The only troop reference in Macron's speech is his proposal to restart efforts to put together a 5,000-man rapid reaction force, but its actual purpose is murky.

Meanwhile a US Army War College study proposes that the US shift from rotational brigades in Europe to permanent armored combat brigades based in Europe that, the study suggests, will permit Europe to send more of its arsenals to Ukraine. In other words, the War College wants the US to relieve Europe of its ground forces responsibility for Europe’s defense.

Macron wants Europe to be a technological leader.  He mentions energy (hydrogen), battery technology, semiconductors and artificial intelligence as well as stimulating investment.  Unfortunately Europe is falling behind in advanced technology, lacks a "start up" investment mentality, and defers almost everything to the EU, including investment.  Europe's economy was underwritten for many years by cheap energy from Russia and the Middle East and nuclear power plants.  Cheap energy (oil and natural gas) from Russia has mostly ended, meaning that substitutes either come from the US (in the form of LNG) or from alternatives ("green" energy sources).  While France has held onto its nuclear, Germany and Italy have shut down nuclear power plants and stopped using coal. The energy component of European products is now far more expensive, making already over-priced items (commercial and defense) now even more costly.  There is nothing beyond ideology in Macron's proposals.

Macron's bid for European leadership will not be successful, even if he stays in office.  While European countries will spend more on defense, all of them are playing catch-up ball technologically and industrially, and most of them have to replace weapons now in desperate short supply.  Talk about Europe building sixth generation fighter airplanes or new generations of tanks, will just eat up critical budgets, just as Britain's two new aircraft carriers hide the fact that its army is weak and badly undersupplied.  Without the US, NATO would probably disband and the European "experiment" (if one can call it that, even though it is mostly wishful thinking) will end.

The speech proposed "rethinking" relations with Russia, but only after Ukraine wins its war with Russia. Then, according to Macron, Ukraine will become a member of the EU along with Moldova, and other western Balkan countries will also be brought into the fold. (The West Balkans consists of Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Serbia.) Macron omitted calling for Ukraine’s NATO membership.

Aside from that, there is not a word about a negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict, and no opening of any kind regarding Russia.  In short, although the Conference is billed as “Imagine Peace” (Imaginer La Paix), while Macron says he is “fighting for peace” his speech is about war preparations.

Macron has just appointed a new conservative cabinet that has touched off a major political controversy in France.  Most of the issues touch on social issues, not the war in Ukraine or other economic, industrial or military issues.   Like the United States the political struggle in France is over issues such as immigration, assisted reproductive technology (ART), abortion rights and LGBT rights, for example allowing same sex couples and single women to access ART.  One of the convergent issues is granting free health care to undocumented immigrants.  Macron could face impeachment and disruption in parliament and on the streets.

The two great powers in Europe, Germany (for economic reasons) and France, because it has nuclear weapons, are experiencing economic and political crises.  Both current leaders, Macron and Scholz, could easily lose their jobs unless they can halt the economic downward spiral in their respective countries and solidify their political leadership at home.  In his speech Macron suggested that France's nuclear weapons could form part of a new European security order.  Prior to Macron's suggestion, France had consistently maintained that it possessed a nuclear deterrent for France’s protection.  Its nuclear weapons were always held to be outside of any European framework and outside of NATO.  While the US does share some nuclear responsibilities with its European partners, the US maintains control of all its nuclear warheads and bombs.

France is planning to increase its military budget, although it still will remain rather modest.  According to the plan put forward by Macron, the French defense budget will increase by €3.1 billion in the 2024 budget; by €3 billion in 2025, 2026, and 2027, and by €4.3 billion in 2028, 2029, and 2030. By 2030, France’s annual defense budget is expected to top €60 billion; nearly double the amount allocated in 2017 of €32 billion. The Germans claim their defense budget will rise to €80 billion by 2028, but this is unlikely given Germany's economic problems and the fact the country is now in a recession.  Currently the German defense budget is €59.89 billion.

For comparison purposes, the US all-in defense budget (including nuclear) is $883.7 billion.

Macron does not deal with the significant depletion of war stockpiles in Europe.  Nor does he really address the tremendous duplication of defense production in European countries.  Attempts to consolidate Europe's defense industries have only been modestly successful at best.  In critical areas, such as air defenses, Europe supports a number of domestically built systems (such as IRIS-T, SAMP/T, Aspide, Aster, NSAMS), but many have US content including US interceptor missiles)  Added to that are US (e.g., Patriot) and Israeli systems (e.g., Arrow) in use in Europe.  Macron wants to see a big increase in Europe's air defense capabilities, but these systems are expensive and there is no Europe-wide agreement on standardizing air defense products or even integrating them.  As the Israelis have demonstrated, to achieve a level of security commensurate with growing threats, it is important to integrate air defenses and operate consolidated command and control systems buttressed by artificial intelligence decision making loops.

Macron's bid for European leadership will not be successful, even if he stays in office.  While European countries will spend more on defense, all of them are playing catch-up ball technologically and industrially, and most of them have to replace weapons now in desperate short supply.  Talk about Europe building sixth generation fighter airplanes or new generations of tanks, will just eat up critical budgets, just as Britain's two new aircraft carriers hide the fact that its army is weak and badly undersupplied.  Without the US, NATO would probably disband and the European "experiment" (if one can call it that, even though it is mostly wishful thinking) will end.

Macron's bid for European leadership will not be successful, even if he stays in office.  While European countries will spend more on defense, all of them are playing catch-up ball technologically and industrially, and most of them have to replace weapons now in desperate short supply.  Talk about Europe building sixth generation fighter airplanes or new generations of tanks, will just eat up critical budgets, just as Britain's two new aircraft carriers hide the fact that its army is weak and badly undersupplied.  Without the US, NATO would probably disband and the European "experiment" (if one can call it that, even though it is mostly wishful thinking) will end.

https://weapons.substack.com/p/macrons-europe-speech?r=1qo1e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71819
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #415 on: September 24, 2024, 03:45:48 PM »
As best as I can tell, the consensus here is that the our Uke policy was feckless and reckless, and that Trump had secured the management of conflict.  The Uke War was not necessary.

That said, we now face the question of "What now?"

We now face (as ahem I have predicted innumerable times) an Axis of China, Russia, Iran-sundry Jihadi groups, and North Korea.

Even if Trump wins and cobbles together some sort of agreement, the instability of Ukraine will remain.  For diplomacy to have a chance, strength is a must.   Why on earth would we not want the Euros to handle this?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #416 on: September 24, 2024, 07:20:56 PM »
As best as I can tell, the consensus here is that the our Uke policy was feckless and reckless, and that Trump had secured the management of conflict.  The Uke War was not necessary.

That said, we now face the question of "What now?"

We now face (as ahem I have predicted innumerable times) an Axis of China, Russia, Iran-sundry Jihadi groups, and North Korea.

Even if Trump wins and cobbles together some sort of agreement, the instability of Ukraine will remain.  For diplomacy to have a chance, strength is a must.   Why on earth would we not want the Euros to handle this?

Hmm, so the thesis of the piece is Marcon’s effort is doomed to failure and, as doomed to failure is all we supposedly got, why not embrace it? Pardon me for saying I’m not finding much argument in that argument.

Before I go further allow me a non-sequitur by way of preface, it’s not only a new school year, but likely my last full one before I retire, with me trying to knock out an RFP worth well over $20 million over 10 years, with the freaking respondents submitting 200+ questions I’m in the middle of wrangling among more mundane time sucks, so pardon me if this isn’t particularly well developed.

So, Russia is going to win the conflict in Ukraine, with the most likely outcome involving some sort of acknowledgement of territorial loss by Ukraine in exchange for cessation of hostilities (though that assumes Ukraine doesn’t collapse between now and Election Day). If Trump wins he likely acknowledges the obvious and makes it clear to Russian further adventurism will be more than frowned upon, thus buying time for a further reaching plan to develop, preferably one where all our allies aren’t reinventing the same wheel with separate supply chains, ammunition compatibility, et al. Russia’s armor and manpower is depleted to the point they are unlikely to want to engage in a major land battle until they recover there, Iran has recently had its ass handed to it with one of its main vehicles for projection power being reduces to red mist in Lebanon, making China the wild card, a wild card that I suspect will be much less wild under a Trump administration than a Harris one.

Harris wins we throw worse tactics after bad ones that have already failed and see how much worse things can get.

Regardless of either outcome the piece I posted not only makes numerous valid points, but reports on underlying elements you won’t find the MSM mulling, and they are elements any comprehensive answer to the circumstances we find ourselves will have to consider, if not include. As such I figure they should be included in any thinking to be done rather than dismissed with a “what now?”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71819
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #417 on: September 25, 2024, 10:19:10 AM »
Bringing this over from the Russia-Europe thread:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-s-chances-against-nato-are-zero-military-expert-admits-on-national-television/ar-AA1r2rWs?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=3eae69806c5e46e2a14f2a5cdd74f544&ei=9


So exploring this a bit more, hopefully in a simple way that respects the other demands on your time- let's see where our areas of agreement are:

a) Europe needs to man the fuck up.  Yes/No?

b) Entirely possible that the Ukraine collapses  Yes/No?

c) This is a bad thing, with big geopolitical implications.  Yes/No?

If Euros are willing to fight to stop this, why is this a bad thing?



Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
Didn't Ask for the Fire Brigade
« Reply #418 on: September 30, 2024, 09:11:14 AM »
Bringing this over from the Russia-Europe thread:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-s-chances-against-nato-are-zero-military-expert-admits-on-national-television/ar-AA1r2rWs?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=3eae69806c5e46e2a14f2a5cdd74f544&ei=9


So exploring this a bit more, hopefully in a simple way that respects the other demands on your time- let's see where our areas of agreement are:

a) Europe needs to man the fuck up.  Yes/No?

b) Entirely possible that the Ukraine collapses  Yes/No?

c) This is a bad thing, with big geopolitical implications.  Yes/No?

If Euros are willing to fight to stop this, why is this a bad thing?

Yes, yes, yes, WW III. Minds me of this sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqkWLYHWkQA

Perhaps we should place the shoe on the other foot: What do you find so objectionable about the Marcon piece? It states a grandstanding politician, one with perhaps a short political shelf life given recent French electoral realities, is writing checks with his mouth that his military, let alone the rest of the EU's combined, poorly coordinated, undertrained forces, won't be able to cash. But forsooth, Russia reabsorbing corruptacratic Ukraine would be a Bad Thing and we can't have Bad Things so said grandstanding effort very likely doomed to further failure should move forward as it will be the EU getting sucked into the big muddy, at least until the corruptacrats, neocons, & military-industrial permanent war wet dreamers (as overlapping as those subsets are) argue that the US has to step into a European land battle for the third time in a 110 years? What could possibly go wrong? Insert mushroom clouds here.

The other thing that baffles me is how you decide which pieces to challenge. I steal minutes thorughout the day to scope out various source sites and post those that make points beyond the dreck, gibberish, and propoganda the MSM seeks to enemaize the unthinking public with, and 95% of the time that's fine and nice. Alas, every now and then things go a socratic direction, or a piece is dismissed out of hand for poorly framed reasons that appear to be founded on what the MSM delivers from a hanging bag, and suddenly I've got to defend a perspective I found interesting but would prefer not to commit the time necessary to deeply dive into? Why? What's the formula for figuring which pieces I can post as I find them worth mulling, and which ones I'll be challenged to defend?

As that may be, got the 200+ vendor submitted RFP questions answered, closing in on a culprit able to explain why a supposed very low four digit amount said to be in arrears got our outbound mail meter shut down despite the six figures I have deposited in that account, finessing a way around the bank that gave me 8 months notice they were removing all ATMs and so may not have to write and expedite another freaking RFP, among the more mundane start of semester headaches and so likely can find the time to unfurrow my brow and address the next dismissal of a post, though it's only noon on Monday and I've no clue what new curves will be thrown this week, but am able to discern which ones I'm paid to contend with ... and which ones I'm not.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71819
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #419 on: September 30, 2024, 03:41:07 PM »
"The other thing that baffles me is how you decide which pieces to challenge. I steal minutes thorughout the day to scope out various source sites and post those that make points beyond the dreck, gibberish, and propoganda the MSM seeks to enemaize the unthinking public with, and 95% of the time that's fine and nice. Alas, every now and then things go a socratic direction, or a piece is dismissed out of hand for poorly framed reasons that appear to be founded on what the MSM delivers from a hanging bag, and suddenly I've got to defend a perspective I found interesting but would prefer not to commit the time necessary to deeply dive into? Why? What's the formula for figuring which pieces I can post as I find them worth mulling, and which ones I'll be challenged to defend?"

You are an outstanding contributor to this forumc 

You are greatly appreciatedc

You are quite bright and have a strong analytical mind.

Which is why I sometimes want to dig in and engage over working something out in my mind.   The question presented here seemed to be an important one and it is precisely because of the respect which I have for you that I sought to engage.  However, this is not the first time this has annoyed you mightily so maybe I should leave off from doing this.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #420 on: October 01, 2024, 06:57:13 AM »
"The other thing that baffles me is how you decide which pieces to challenge. I steal minutes throughout the day to scope out various source sites and post those that make points beyond the dreck, gibberish, and propoganda the MSM seeks to enemaize the unthinking public with, and 95% of the time that's fine and nice. Alas, every now and then things go a socratic direction, or a piece is dismissed out of hand for poorly framed reasons that appear to be founded on what the MSM delivers from a hanging bag, and suddenly I've got to defend a perspective I found interesting but would prefer not to commit the time necessary to deeply dive into? Why? What's the formula for figuring which pieces I can post as I find them worth mulling, and which ones I'll be challenged to defend?"

You are an outstanding contributor to this forumc 

You are greatly appreciatedc

You are quite bright and have a strong analytical mind.

Which is why I sometimes want to dig in and engage over working something out in my mind.   The question presented here seemed to be an important one and it is precisely because of the respect which I have for you that I sought to engage.  However, this is not the first time this has annoyed you mightily so maybe I should leave off from doing this.

Well thanks, but, we are still stuck at the dismissal of the Macron piece. He's a grandstanding politician facing electoral headwinds while the NATO-leading head of state spends his dotage at a Delaware beach wielding the most ineffective foreign policy since the one wielded when said memory ward refugee was the VP. What to do given that set of circumstances? I know! Start rattling sabres and perhaps plunge headfirst into a continental war with your foot in a bucket and one hand tied behind your back 'cause heads of state in shaky political situations have in the past improved their shelf life prospects by embroiling their citizens in an ill-conceived conflict.

The implicit premise, in short, strikes me as so absurd, particularly when compared to those made in the piece that began this exchange, that accepting it by way of devoting the time needed to respond comprehensively does not appear to bode much in the way of RO (keyboarding) I.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2024, 07:00:28 AM by Body-by-Guinness »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71819
    • View Profile
Re: European matters
« Reply #421 on: October 01, 2024, 07:03:20 AM »
This is not the first time this has annoyed you mightily so I shall leave off from doing this.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71819
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19246
    • View Profile
UK's Keir Starmer, Labour Party rule, "Baffling bad start"
« Reply #423 on: October 13, 2024, 12:58:04 PM »
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/keir-starmers-bafflingly-bad-start-as-the-uk-prime-minister

Paywall, registration wall, so I didn't read all the way through, but interesting to see the Left criticize the Left.