Maggie's Farm

feeblemind: I believe this is all theatre designed to intimidate the GOP and get them to cave on border security.

The fear, justified or not, is that a Russian victory in Ukraine will result in more aggression that could draw NATO and the United States into a larger war. It is possible Russia has been cowed enough by their losses, and if the stalemate holds, they will be held in military check for a while. However, that won't stop them using non-military means to wreak havoc on open societies, just as they did in Ukraine before the invasion, and just as they did against other countries in eastern Europe and beyond.

feeblemind: What if the Ukraine loses no matter what we do

That's certainly possible, but the military situation appears to be a stalemate, assuming Ukraine has a continued supplies of arms. Russia is betting the West will not be willing to pay the financial price, even though the Ukrainians are paying in blood for their independence. Unfortunately, indecision in the United States is having a negative effect on morale, and one can never discount morale in war.

Regardless, the higher the price Russia pays, the less likely Russia or others will embark on military adventurism. They will continue to use non-military means to undermine open democracies, hoping to weaken them. That will mean weaker competitors or weak enough to co-opt through bribery, blackmail, autocracy, or even invasion.

That wasn't the question, though, but the implication that the Biden administration is making a threat rather than explaining the danger.

feeblemind: There was a stalemate in WWI, but one side ultimately collapsed.

Sure, it’s a real possibility, but it is far from inevitable. The West has greater industrial and technological capacity, while Russia has greater available manpower. Russia is betting the West will tire of war. Autocrats, such as Putin, are less constrained by naysayers who have little voice in the matter. The defense enjoys the advantage, so a deft response might be able to overcome other disadvantages.

The original point about the grand strategic situation remains. It is arguable that the costs will be far less to confront an expansionary Russia now, rather than appeasing them.

Lord Heathen: Putin has made his stated goals very clear repeatedly and that does not even include marching to Kyiv.

What the heck?

James: The west doesn't fear a conventional military attack against NATO by Russia. Russia has demonstrated a remarkable level of military incompetence and exhausted its personnel and other resources

Somewhat the case NOW. But if Ukraine had fallen in the initial invasion, then Russia would have been poised for further misadventure. Instead, the Ukrainians fought valiantly and effectively shielded Europe. The West shouldn’t abandon Ukraine after such brave action in the common defense. Doing so would encourage Russia. Even if military aggression is forestalled for a period, Russia will still use non-military means to probe open societies to create strategic fissures, looking for further military misadventure, knowing the West won’t even bear the financial cost, much less the cost in blood, and that the profit is well worth the cost.

That was a fundamental belief of the fascists in the 1930s: the democratic nations would always remain divided, full of contradictory voices, would argue among themselves, nations that could be defeated in detail and conquered by the unity of action that fascism provided, as symbolized by the fasces. The 20th century gave its answer. What is the answer of the 21st century?

James: Russia's military incompetence was apparent to military analysts less than a month into the invasion. It was also apparent at that point that they would be exhausted at the end of their conflict in Ukraine.

We agree with many of your comments. Sovereignty is the fundamental principle of international stability. What we wish to emphasize is that not funding Ukraine may lead to its collapse, ratifying Russia's invasion.

With regard to fascism, we were pointing to internal divisions common in democracies that fascists considered a fatal weakness. The question is whether those divisions can be put aside, or whether autocracy can defeat open societies in detail.

Maniac: She says that like it's a bad thing.

Haha.

While there are certainly those who might be said to be "climate doomsayers," this is a bad example. The article quotes CNN, “climate change poses a huge threat to the coffee business and to farmers," but the article is actually about how farmers can adapt to the changing climate, then goes on to detail such efforts. Adaptation includes opening new areas to coffee production, and the development of new strains of the coffee plant.


Per RSS 4.0, warming since 1979 is 0.210 ±0.050 °C/decade. That is consistent with projections based on physical principles. Given the close fit between projected warming and observed warming, that gives confidence about the degree of anthropogenic effects. Warming is expected to continue for several decades at least, though how much the globe will warm also depends on mitigation.

Anon: NZ's data and determine that more people have died from the Covid vaccine than from covid

That is almost certainly false. Please provide a citation.

Alpha_Omega: No one dies from a vaccine.

People do die from vaccination, though it is rare. That's always been the case for vaccinations. That is not the claim at issue, though, which is that scientists have determined that more people died in New Zealand from the COVID vaccination than from COVID.

Frances: Almost lost a cousin to the "jab".

Glad she recovered. While unusual, reactions to vaccinations do happen. It's a general procedure to have a person wait 15 minutes after inoculation for just that reason. Some people are more susceptible to side effects, so that has to be considered when deciding on a course of vaccination, including for tetanus or pneumonia. But for the vast majority of people, the risk of vaccination is lower than the danger of the disease itself.