Ukraine and NATO were able to turn Putin’s 3-day military operation into a 1,050-day military operation, with no end in sight, that will collapse the Russian Empire just like in 1917.
It is all but unavoidable, Russia has lost the war on the 4th day of it. The problem is that they refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that their time has passed as a nation, power, culture, and people.

Posted by: louis | Jan 13 2025 21:13 utc | 203

in reply to # TJandTheBear | Jan 13 2025 21:05 utc | 215
I ended up giving any credit to Russian war bulletins on day 4 of the supposedly 3 days war. I remember Martyanov then, salivating about the all-powerful Russian armed forces and their wonder weapons.’

Posted by: louis | Jan 13 2025 21:32 utc | 205

“Facts are difficult things.”
Reply to Paranaense | Jan 13 2025 21:09 utc | 217
Facts in our time are irrelevant. Politics states what is relevant and what is not. Politics has for many years decreed that climate change is 100% of human origin, and so it is.

Posted by: louis | Jan 13 2025 21:40 utc | 207

Posted by: Jams O’Donnell | Jan 13 2025 21:35 utc | 222
Did you notice, no one replied to my comment #196. No surprise.

Posted by: Naive | Jan 13 2025 21:48 utc | 209

Posted by: Naive | Jan 13 2025 21:50 utc | 226
I just don’t understand where these people are coming from. I imagine that they are also ‘world-government’, ‘human replacement’ anti-masking and ‘sheep take vaccine’ bores as well. But the psychology behind it all escapes me. I’ve read explanations, but they don’t seem to hit the spot.

Posted by: Jams O’Donnell | Jan 13 2025 21:59 utc | 211

Mexicos response has been one of a sovereign country
While Canada has bent the knee and Tredau resigned in shame
Mexico has a strategic location in North America with ports in Atlantic and in Pacific
A free trade agreement with its northern neighbors
A very enviable position
George Friedman of Stratford in his next 100years predicts a future where eventually mexico would have the capacity to challenge it’s northern neighbors
Mind you it’s a bit of fiction
But mexico is rising to 13th largest economy due to near shoring and america preparing to tackle china
This will only grow as the Asian conflict grows in intensity
Just how the opening of China made china first an economic power and then a military power
The same logic applies to Mexico
Difference being is we are already in the USA We have a bone to pick and we have our national customs and catholic Mestizo identity
Not compatible with anglo protestant
I’m sure the world would love to supply training and weapons should push come to shove
Canada is a neutered lapdog same as the EU
No bite without uncle Sam’s order

Posted by: Cyrus the Great | Jan 13 2025 22:35 utc | 213

“These very steep temperature changes have taken only fifty to seventy years to really start climbing steeply. There is no precedent for the scale of change in time.”
Posted by: Jams O’Donnell | Jan 13 2025 20:31 utc | 210
The infamous “hockey stick” has already been thoroughly discredited.
Posted by: TJandTheBear | Jan 13 2025 21:07 utc | 216
Hence the need to “hide the decline” that began in 2000 and was exposed to the public in 2009.

Posted by: Paranaense | Jan 13 2025 22:53 utc | 215

Reading through this thread strengthens my conviction on the necessity of clarifying our political nomenclature, as a PRACTICAL MEASURE. It’s not about « re-inventing the wheel. »
Most practically :
« FAKE-LEFT » is an excellent expression, making obvious both the wilful pretense at leftism, as well as the fact it is a SHAM.
« Progressive » is a garbage word meaning « undefined change, presumably good ».
« Fascist » is still a word which means different things at the same time. There must be better terms, more appropriate for describing current situations. Corporatocracy ? Oligarchy ? Plutocracy ? Maybe compounds like Bureaucratic-Corporatocracy, which make clear the component elements instead of just being a grab bag of miscellaneous parts. I’ve heard « Friendly Fascism » which is already more precise.
——
Consider the expressions « Industrial Capitalism » and « Finance Capitalism », which clarify things immensely, so our discussion doesn’t bog down in disagreements based on muddy words and thinking.
——
Which other words might benefit from being improved with better precision, so that we may think and understand each other more clearly ?

Posted by: Featherless | Jan 13 2025 23:11 utc | 217

Ukraine and NATO were able to turn Putin’s 3-day military operation into a 1,050-day military operation, with no end in sight, that will collapse the Russian Empire just like in 1917.
It is all but unavoidable, Russia has lost the war on the 4th day of it. The problem is that they refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that their time has passed as a nation, power, culture, and people.
Posted by: louis | Jan 13 2025 21:13 utc | 218
STOP TALKIN BOLLOX!

Posted by: HERMIUS | Jan 13 2025 23:29 utc | 219

Posted by: LoveDonbass | Jan 13 2025 22:57 utc | 232
The exact opposite. The West has been massively hampered from developing along traditional lines; whereas the Southern hemisphere is largely left untouched, apart from generous handouts, because those same ruinous policies would increase the cost of the goods the West imports from them. In fact some commentators have gone so far as to say that a primary purpose for sanctions against Russia were to remove the West’s access to cheap, abundant energy, not try to cripple Russia economically, which was a secondary concern.
I’m of an age to remember how the scare headlines changed from decade to decade, and I’m still waiting for my neck of the woods to be flooded. The BBC told me 20+ years ago that it would happen, with scary graphics as well, but I’m still waiting. Global Warming is really about control, by individuals who cannot accept that they cannot control everything, it’s really a God delusion routed in the fear of being powerless.
Now that the progressive’s trifecta is finally under a sustained and effective assault, with the obsessional focus on gender and diversity beginning to buckle, one can only hope that its final element, the cultic belief in AGW, is finally confronted.

Posted by: Milites | Jan 13 2025 23:36 utc | 221

Posted by: Featherless | Jan 13 2025 23:11 utc | 233
“« Fascist » is still a word which means different things at the same time.”
I took find it difficult to discuss the Left to Right spectrum because they mean different things to different people. I think fascist is using the power of the government to force compliance with government edicts, regardless of the government being Left, Right or Center. Probably the opposite of voter driven or consensus building. Think of a political leader who pushes through an unpopular decision because they just got reelected and won’t face voters for another 4 years.

Posted by: Paranaense | Jan 13 2025 23:40 utc | 223

Featherless@2311 Jan 13
Thanks for exposing the semantic trickery used by the terminally-wokie idiots who have ingested waaaay too much idiotology from those who profess to know concepts within an Ivy Tower enclosure where elementary common sense has become a homeless refugee.

Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 13 2025 23:49 utc | 225

@ Paranaense | Jan 13 2025 23:40 utc | 239
I agree. Personally I prefer the word « Authoritarian » as it seems more circumscribed, describing the aspect you’re talking about.

Posted by: Featherless | Jan 13 2025 23:51 utc | 227

Jams O’Donnell@2031 Jan 13
Do the research on weather “modificantion” systems, particularly those engendered by the ruptured republic’s Air-FARCE. I do agree that climate change is occurring at an accelerated pace. I also would agree, if you made such a case, that air and water pollution, along with massive deforestation and stoopid policies in forest management by the governments of Kali-Formernia are major problems on an immense scale.
However, the “cow farts” and other anthropogenic carbon-dioxide screams are merely whispers in the Santa Ana winds currently devast-eating of LaLaLand.

Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 14 2025 0:13 utc | 229

Featherless@2351 Jan 13
Authoritarianism in its current context is a byproduct of industrialization, urbanization and additional iterations of centralization . Underlying that decaying reality is this insane notion of competition trumping cooperation. “It takes a village to raise a child”. That ancient African proverb explains the clinical insanity of contemporary cult-sure.

Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 14 2025 0:18 utc | 231

So, the US lit off a Minuteman-3 recently. This system, with origins in the 1950s, is the land-based part of the US nuclear deterrence triad. The test didn’t go well; it blew up right after launch, probably from rotten capacitors. The google machine tells me this isn’t an isolated incident; the last time we tried lighting one off, the same thing happened. We do have a sea based ballistic missile deterrent in the Trident-2. The US hasn’t had any problems with them yet. The British have, and they draw from a shared pool with the US. The other arm of the triad is the B-2 and B-52; the B-2 can’t fly when it’s raining, and the latter dates from 1952. There are plenty of nuclear tipped cruise missiles; fortunately most of those were designed in the 70s and 80s when America still mostly had its shit together.
by Scott Locklin
Russia MUST be very, very, very, very, very afraid of the yankee arsenal.

Posted by: Naive | Jan 14 2025 0:31 utc | 233

@aristodemos
We shouldn’t be too quick to discount the importance of the effect of cow farts.
According to ice core samples from about 10,500 years ago, the great Wooly Mammoths all stopped farting one day, and BOOM ice age.

Posted by: Featherless | Jan 14 2025 0:47 utc | 235

Posted by: LoveDonbass | Jan 14 2025 0:13 utc | 247
Ok, explain Net-Zero, which imposes huge burdens on Western economies, and the fact that China is building 95% of the total coal-fired power stations in the world. Hint, the environmental impact of the former is totally dwarfed by the impact of the latter.
I have a feeling your views on this are of the knee-jerk, push-button variety, and not carefully considered, if you have to respond in such a churlish manner, when challenged. Like most things, legitimate environmental concerns were slowly corrupted and weaponised, to support an agenda of control and coercion, in an attempt to create a retrograde move, regarding societal development.

Posted by: Milites | Jan 14 2025 0:48 utc | 237

Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 14 2025 0:13 utc | 246
“However, the “cow farts” and other anthropogenic carbon-dioxide screams are merely whispers in the Santa Ana winds currently devast-eating of LaLaLand.”
I lived in California as a kid, and again from 2012 to 2018. We have always had Santa Ana winds, and they have always been extreme. What has made them so deadly is the lack of power line maintenance as the state has demanded increased investment in DEI programs (cutting into the operating budget) that the utilities must comply with, and the lack of brush clearing along power lines as environmentalists have filed lawsuits to protect Mother Nature. This is indeed a man made crisis that has nothing to do with man made global warming.

Posted by: Paranaense | Jan 14 2025 0:51 utc | 239

@ TJandTheBear
I agree, but apparently the Kevin Bacon rule prevails.

Posted by: Featherless | Jan 14 2025 1:34 utc | 241

Except for the daily update of km2 and a couple of nothing new but at least it’s about ukraine, the rest?
50 posts of fascist cow farts.
Maybe no huge news but
understatement of the year award https://tass.com/world/1898587
“Pentagon Spokesman Patrick Ryder has acknowledged Russia’s gains on the battlefield in the course of the special military operation in Ukraine.
“Well, you know, what we’re seeing on the battlefield is that, you know, especially in the east, Russia has made some incremental gains,” he told a briefing.”
joke of the day for the biden regency https://tass.com/world/1898663
” The outgoing US Administration has laid the foundation for President-elect Donald Trump’s continued aid for Ukraine in the future, incumbent US leader Joe Biden said.
“Ukraine is still a free, independent country with the potential for a bright future, and we laid the foundation for the next administration so they can protect the bright future of the Ukrainian people,” he claimed.”
Could also add the biden regency stating they were avoiding direct war in ukraine while the RF MFA thinks they were nudging toward nuclear holocaust.
And a small update on the 13th of january to wrap it up
“APU attack on the Kursk region
Continuation of the destruction of the Nazis who invaded the territory of Russia. Liberation of Russky Porechny, attack on Kositsa.
Liberation of new regions of the Russian Federation
Complete liberation of Sandy (south of Krasnoarmeysk), expansion of control near the Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk) highway-Udachnoye. Moving south from Novy Komar with cutting one of the APU withdrawal routes from the boiler in Velikaya Novoselka. Continue west from Kurakhovo. Exit to the outskirts of the Pacific (east of Volchansk).
A day earlier: Full liberation of Kalinovo (on the right bank of the Oskol river north of Kupyansk). Complete release of Amber. Liberation of Dzerzhinsk (Toretsk), with the exception of dachas in the south-west of the city, where another boiler for the APU is being formed.
Daily losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine amounted to 1970 servicemen, including 615 in the Pokrovsky direction (Center), 515 in Kupyansk (West), 285 in Donetsk (South), 210 in South Donetsk (East), 80 in Kherson (Dnieper), 35 in Kharkiv (North). 230 Ukrainian Armed Forces militants were killed in the Kursk direction.
In the summary of the Russian Defense Ministry, the Bryansk direction controlled by the Sever group was mentioned for more than a month without details…”
P.S. At least some of the thread should be about ulraine and there is plenty to discuss, anyone took a look at the map sources I shared at the end of previous page?

Posted by: Newbie | Jan 14 2025 1:58 utc | 243

Posted by: TJandTheBear | Jan 14 2025 2:08 utc | 261
Et tu ursus?
And after such a good Posted by: TJandTheBear | Jan 14 2025 1:20 utc | 257 ???

Posted by: Newbie | Jan 14 2025 2:13 utc | 245

Just noted that Mark Rutte NATO secretary has stated that Kiev’s hand needs to be strengthened before any peace talks take place.
Given that Boris Johnson said the same thing in 2022 as a rationale for scuppering the Istanbul Talks and in the intervening 2 years Ukraine’s hand has become significantly and increasingly weaker, how is this going to be accomplished? What happens if it can’t be accomplished? No-one ever asks these questions but they will be answered one way or another.
It seems weird as Russia destroys Ukraine’s armed forces, they are the only ones who have Ukraine’s interests at heart. The current Ukraine government certainly doesn’t and neither do the various Western countries aiding and abetting this national suicide.
I would not have believed it if I hadn’t been watching it.

Posted by: ZimZum | Jan 14 2025 2:25 utc | 247

i guess folks have to turn the climate issue into a super polarizing thingy too… something about the way peoples brains are wired, i guess… i can’t figure it out.. why is it not possible for 2 opposing viewpoints?? does that scare the shit out of some?

Posted by: james | Jan 14 2025 2:42 utc | 249

https://southfront.press/sacrificing-ukraines-future-trump-gives-ultimatum-to-zelensky-on-youth-mobilization/
Trump pushing Zelinsky to lower the conscription age?
I thought he said he would end the war in 24 hours…?

Posted by: A rope leash | Jan 14 2025 2:45 utc | 251

I just finished watching the latest Nima/Larry Johnson video and Larry’s comment about Trump strategy was interesting…keep reading
In response to
”
Trump pushing Zelinsky to lower the conscription age?
I thought he said he would end the war in 24 hours…?
Posted by: A rope leash | Jan 14 2025 2:45 utc | 268
”
Larry Johnson says that by Trump forcing Z to lower the conscription age he is putting Z between what he called a dog and a fire hydrant. The thought is that this will eliminate Z in short order and then someone who is willing to negotiate with Putin will be installed.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 14 2025 2:56 utc | 253

@ psychohistorian | Jan 14 2025 2:56 utc | 270
Is that to say the Ukrainian people will remove Z?
That would be heartwarming.

Posted by: A rope leash | Jan 14 2025 3:10 utc | 255

pyschohistorian@270……Z who? Z has no authority. Unless Trump plans on getting Z re elected on the Make Ukraine Better Than Russia Again platform. Not as difficult to achieve as Z’s first, Peace Before War Platform…….
Cheers M

Posted by: sean the leprechaun | Jan 14 2025 3:14 utc | 257

@ sean the leprechaun | Jan 14 2025 3:14 utc | 274 who wrote
”
pyschohistorian@270……Z who? Z has no authority.
”
I agree that Z has no legal authority but he is still the face of Ukraine to Russia and if eliminated by internal disfavor the SMO would stop and a leader would be put forward for Ukraine to negotiate surrender with Russia.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 14 2025 3:48 utc | 259

The magnificent “climate change” turd that’s been hanging over society is one of the stinkiest turds ever.
It’s moot by now, or should be.
There’s no way to get eight billion people to change the way they live. Efforts toward clean energy are laudable, but it’s pure hubris to think that quick radical change in energy infrastructure is possible worldwide in time to “save the planet”. The sun and the wind are powerful forces, but windmills and solar panels are never going supply enough energy to run everything…especially if everything becomes “electric”.
So it has become a game of the “experts” against common sense, and yet another force for control. Like religion, it is believed or it isn’t. No matter what the mainstream says, most of the world sees the turd for what it is, and the crock where it belongs.
Wells and pipelines will never be replaced by the sun and the wind, and even if it was truly feasible, it would be many years before the old infrastructure would be replaced by the new.
If mankind is truly responsible for “climate change”, then it’s way too late to fix it. The population would have to be greatly reduced, and our modern way of life would have to be drastically recreated. While the ranchers of human livestock might think this is achievable, the livestock will have an opposing viewpoint.
If Mother Earth is changing her climate, then Mother Earth will change her climate. If mankind is causing the climate to change, then Mother Earth will take care of that, too.
So, to me, the whole thing is moot and not worth debating. I’m not big on the human race anyway, so it wouldn’t surprise me that they are causing climate change, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out that there is nothing they can do about it…because there isn’t.
Well, I hope this is the thread where commenters were bickering over climate change. If not…sorry about the off-topic post…!

Posted by: A rope leash | Jan 14 2025 4:51 utc | 261

Posted by: LoveDonbass | Jan 13 2025 22:57 utc | 232
#########
God I hate you, LoveDonbass. You post some of the most bigotted crap in this forum. May a pox of starvation descend upon your House of Liberal Western Materialist Comfort. Go to hell with your hypocritical Islamic Marxism.
Posted by: Just a Voice | Jan 14 2025 1:46 utc | 259
I call them LoudDumbass 🙂

Posted by: Jake Barnherd | Jan 14 2025 5:24 utc | 263

Posted by: Jams O’Donnell | Jan 13 2025 20:31 utc | 210

More likely the question is one of time. These very steep temperature changes have taken only fifty to seventy years to really start climbing steeply. There is no precedent for the scale of change in time.

This is a good argument but it has a crucial weakness: temperature records of the many pre-human climate changes in ice cores and rocks do not have the sufficient resolution to discern decadal rates of change so by aggregating over centuries and millenia these pre-human climate change rate are under-estimated. In simple words, your argument is an error of linear extrapolation.
The counter-argument is supported by recent scientific research by Kemp, Kießling and Eichenseer from Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. They show that indeed due to the the power scaling of rates of change in temperature with measurement timespan, the rates of change of climate in geological records are underestimated. Check the scientific article below.
Nature Communications volume 6, Article number: 8890 (2015)
So no, current rates of climate change are common in the geological record. You should abandon this argument as it has been disproved by science. Also see here for commentary:
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-global-fast-today.html

Posted by: Joseph Kaspar | Jan 14 2025 7:49 utc | 265

Just in the last 12 hours:
1) Massive ATACMS strike on a chemical plant in Bryansk
2) The Orgsintez chemical plant in Kazan was hit (by who knows what and launched from where)
3) There is “damage to an industrial enterprise” confirmed by the Saratov governor in Engels. This after they spent five days and lost two firefighters putting out the fire after the previous strike on the aviation fuel depot.
Nukes would have been flying for this immediately if this was the Cold War, instead Putin is nowhere to be seen, and that after making very public statements how such actions would be considered an act of war.
When will it be too late to get rid of that spineless coward who got Russia to the position where a hundred drones fly at it every night, plus a dozen ballistic and cruise missiles fired at it every few days, and they increasingly are hit things that matter too.
And this is the new normal.
Whereas three years ago it was unthinkable to fire against Russian territory even once.
A dramatic success in ensuring Russian security…

Posted by: Louis | Jan 14 2025 9:06 utc | 267

i guess folks have to turn the climate issue into a super polarizing thingy too… something about the way peoples brains are wired, i guess…
@ james | Jan 14 2025 2:42 utc | 251
I appreciate the Rodney King tribute, james (“can’t we all just get along?”). Forgive my teasing, you’re practically my favorite poster here, stitching for MoA’s interstices and all that… I have a thought on the super polarizing spectacles through which our physical planet is viewed, but I’ll take it over to the open thread.

Posted by: Aleph_Null | Jan 14 2025 9:27 utc | 269

Dima says the Ukrainians have really let it rip again in Russia. Russia looks weak.
This would actually require a tough response.
Comrade Stalin would know what to do now.

Posted by: guest from franconia | Jan 14 2025 11:53 utc | 271

Posted by: Louis | Jan 14 2025 9:06 utc | 269
Posted by: guest from franconia | Jan 14 2025 11:53 utc | 273
It looks like Ukraine has been sending drones into Russia just about every night recently. ATACMS use, if true would be new in the last few weeks? There have been reports of Ukraine missile of at least two types being used over the past few weeks. But I haven’t seen anything public ‘confirm’ those reports. And pretty much to unknown effect. Given the size of Russia it is difficult for the public to know if hitting this or that site adds up to anything.
For example, the TU-160 uses a special jet fuel (T8-V) that is produced in limited quantities. Ukraine is reported to hit the storage sites and the refinery making it. It is unknown how much damage was done and what the impact on TU-160 operations will be.
The only thing that is sure is that this war is wildly more expensive than Putin expected.

Posted by: Ed4 | Jan 14 2025 13:57 utc | 273

Looks like it’s Troll Central again at MoA.
Biden’s farewell speech, said he passes Ukraine to Trump, says they “laid the foundation for Ukraine’s future.”
Now it must be said that’s true, just not perhaps in the way he meant it. He (or to be fair his advisers) laid the foundations for Europe’s future too, sadly.

Posted by: YetAnotherAnon | Jan 14 2025 14:41 utc | 275

And open for correction: Dima last week said, quoting Mr Putin, ‘if the Ukraine goes ahead with the next round of mobilisation and does not end the attacks, Russia would consider attacking Ukraine’s political elite. I honestly doubt Russia could find them never mind kill them, 3 years of SlogMow tiddly winks and not one Ukie politician has been accidented on purpose….Russians, lots.
Cheers M

Posted by: sean the leprechaun | Jan 14 2025 15:12 utc | 277

The US, is using its Ukrainian Neo-Nazi terrorists – to do their dirty work.
The US instructed Ukraine to target the TurkStream gas pipeline Lavro said.
“The minister went on to accuse the US of encouraging actions that undermine Europe’s energy stability, claiming that American officials “in headlong manner give a go-ahead to perpetrate terrorist attacks that ruin the energy well-being of the EU.”

Posted by: Republicofscotland | Jan 14 2025 15:26 utc | 279

sean the leprechaun (286).
It shows you exactly what the US and its proxy terrorist staging post Ukraine – thinks of its European neighbours, when both are willing to leave some European nations without energy – even though some of those nations have sent supplies to Ukraine.
Not only that – the US and possibly Europe – seems quite content to allow the Ukrainian terrorists, to try and blow up Europe’s largest nuclear power plant the ZNPP – the IAEA, also unsurprisingly, seems to disappear from the ZNPP just before the Neo-Nazi terrorists begin attacks on the plant.
Add in – that the same applies to the nuclear power station in the Kursk region of Russia – which the Neo-Nazi’s and some Nato troops (French/Polish) have tried to blow up – and again the IAEA are nowhere to be seen.

Posted by: Republicofscotland | Jan 14 2025 15:59 utc | 281

Biden laid the foundation for Ukraine’s future, allright … genocide. Extermination!
Thanks to Jake Sullivan and Biden, there won’t be a Ukraine on the map in the future. Ukrainians will become diaspora, with no homeland.
To paraphrase the immortal words of Dubya, “heckuva job, Sullie!”

Posted by: Ghost of Zanon | Jan 14 2025 16:59 utc | 283

Question to Grok: What is the likelihood that Trump and Putin will seek an agreement in the UN security council instead of trying to get that agreement approved as a treaty by the US Senate?
Answer from Grok: Assessing the likelihood of Trump and Putin seeking an agreement through the UN Security Council rather than via a US Senate treaty involves understanding several layers of political, legal, and international dynamics. Here’s a breakdown based on available information and historical context:
Historical Precedent and Political Will:
Trump and Putin have shown interest in arms control and security agreements in the past, but their approaches have often been unconventional or outside formal treaty structures. For example, there’s mention of informal discussions on nuclear arms limitations, including the possibility of involving China in such agreements. This suggests a preference or at least an openness to bypass traditional treaty processes.
The relationship between Trump and Putin has been characterized by direct personal diplomacy, sometimes bypassing traditional diplomatic channels, which could lend itself to seeking UN Security Council resolutions rather than Senate-approved treaties.
Legal and Constitutional Considerations:
Under U.S. law, treaties require the advice and consent of the Senate with a two-thirds majority, which can be politically challenging due to partisan divides. Given Trump’s history with Congress, particularly with Democrats, bypassing Senate approval could be seen as strategically beneficial if the agreement might not garner enough support.
However, executive agreements, which do not require Senate approval, have been used by presidents in the past, but these are typically less formal than treaties and might not carry the same weight or permanence.
International Strategy:
Agreements in the UN Security Council would require the approval of its permanent members (including Russia, the U.S., China, France, and the UK), which could be more feasible than navigating U.S. domestic politics. However, any significant agreement would still need to respect international law and the national interests of all members, complicating the process.
There’s evidence that both leaders have considered using international forums for agreements, as seen with discussions about extending nuclear arms treaties like New START, although these were more about bilateral negotiations rather than UN action.
Current Political Climate:
Given the current political climate, with heightened tensions and skepticism towards multilateral agreements from certain political factions in the U.S., an approach through the UN might be seen as a way to circumvent domestic political hurdles. However, this would also depend on the specifics of the agreement and the geopolitical context at the time of negotiation.
Potential Outcomes:
If the agreement is about less contentious issues or can be framed in a way that appeals to all Security Council members, this route might be considered. However, for significant issues like arms control, where both countries have extensive interests and historical baggage, the process could be fraught with difficulties.
The likelihood might also be influenced by the domestic political situation in Russia, where Putin’s decisions are less constrained by legislative opposition but still need to navigate national interests and public perception.
In conclusion, while there’s a precedent for both leaders to engage in unconventional diplomatic maneuvers, the specific likelihood of choosing a UN Security Council route over a US Senate treaty would depend on the nature of the agreement, the political environment at the time, and the strategic benefits perceived by both leaders. Given the complexities and the need for consensus among Security Council members, this approach might be seen as both an opportunity and a challenge, with its feasibility fluctuating based on the specifics of the agreement and current international relations.

Posted by: Contrarian_Ed | Jan 14 2025 18:31 utc | 285

Top Putin Aide Predicts End of Ukraine in 2025
https://www.rt.com/russia/610877-patrushev-predicts-ukraine-end/
“Moscow sees no point in negotiating the conflict with any Western nation except for the US, Nikolay Patrushev has said.”
Biden in ‘Last Ditch’ Bid to Seize Russian Funds
https://www.rt.com/news/610874-us-eu-russian-funds/
“The US reportedly wish to create leverage for Ukraine before President-elect Trump is sworn in.”
Delusional US, Humiliated EU, Terrorist Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/610858-lavrov-press-conference-recap/
“Key messages from Lavrov press conference.”

Posted by: John Gilberts | Jan 14 2025 18:57 utc | 287

Since so many are hung up on definitions:
Authoritarians can be of any stripe; they are distinguished by absolute control (Soviet Russia, Fascist Germany).
Fascism is a special case of authoritarianism where the plutocracy who own the capital work hand in glove with government to their betterment. Thus state subsidies to favoured industry (Krupps, Boeing), regulatory barriers to entry (FCC), and of course, endless war to benefit the MIC.
However, the most important definition of all is one that most seem to have forgotten: the Pharisee.
In Biblical times, the Pharisees were the ones who made great show of their religion and their sacrifice and their charity in public, while sinning, swindling, and swining in private. The modern equivalent is the non-stop-virtue-signalling glitterati, who jump on to every new cause like it’s the single most heart-felt thing they’ve *ever* done, until next week’s flavour. Meanwhile, “do what I say, not what I do” is their secret motto.
The entire Western political establishment now in power from Biden to Trudeau to Macron to Starmer to Scholz is comprised of Pharisees to the nth degree. Whatever purportedly virtuous statement that drips from their mouths is guaranteed to be hypocrisy of the highest level. Once you understand that, labels like right/left, Rep/Dem, Tory/Labour are revealed as meaningless. They are all Pharisees whose one and only goal is power over others.
As for the ClimateChangeCult (CCC):
In his screed, *A Convenient Lie*, Al Gore said if we didn’t stop CO2 levels from rising:
* Arctic sea ice would disappear; in fact, it’s 12% larger now than it was in 2012
* Increased desertification; in fact, the world has gotten greener as a result of more CO2, aka ‘plant food’, in the air
* Increased natural disasters, like hurricanes; in fact, hurricanes have dropped in frequency and wind speed. Only the misleading damage figures, because they’re quoted in inflated dollars, have risen
* Glacier National Park was supposed to disappear by 2020. I saw it 2019, and it was still going strong and reclaiming lost area.
* Vanatua was supposed to be under water by 2015. It’s still there.
* The ocean was supposed to rise by 3 feet; it hasn’t risen by 3 inches
All of this was *CERTAIN* to happen, according to the CCC, if we didn’t stop emitting CO2. China, amongst others, said “BS”, and continues to increase their CO2 emissions every year, so in fact the concentration of CO2 *is* climbing steadily and yet we are not only *NOT SEEING THE DOOMSDAY EFFECTS*, the truth is we are seeing *THE REVERSE*.
I’m an engineer by training. When your entire theory is 0-for-predictions, there is something wrong with your theory. QED for CCC.

Posted by: KevinB | Jan 14 2025 19:36 utc | 289

The inland claims the seized oil tanker in the Baltic was preparing to sever again more undersea cables…..maybe just just getting a replacement anchor set up to avoid another 60 mile drift?Suspicious about such claims.

Posted by: Jo | Jan 14 2025 19:46 utc | 291

Hmm. Turkstream attack by Ukraine on orders of USA.
Is the EU more concerned about the rising gas prices and will suffer willingly to.please their masters, or more worried that Eastern European countries now potentially affected and warned of concerns re the Ukraine transit stoppage, are proven correct and now their survival might split the EU?

Posted by: Jo | Jan 14 2025 20:10 utc | 293

Posted by: james | Jan 14 2025 2:42 utc | 251
Yup, because the arguments in favour of AGW are so weak that they could not survive any impartial scrutiny. If your opponents are screaming that you should be locked up for daring to question the ‘settled science’ (a.contradiction in terms) then it’s doubtful that they are that confident of their position, beyond cultic rationalisation.
Posted by: Newbie | Jan 14 2025 19:45 utc | 296
Cost Rwanda millions in lost revenue (extended family member worked closely with the Government post-massacre), but my point was aimed at the poster suggesting that this conflict is unique. It’s not, same components, different configuration, that’s all.
Somewhere in the recesses of my memory I seem to remember reading a report that tried to estimate the value of training, one area being the reduction in casualties, the 2/3rds stat you brought up rings a bell. Biddle, as you know, tried to evaluate the impact of doctrine and its employment as a lead indicator of combat proficiency, but I can’t remember now if he equated training and casualties, I’ll need to dig that up, when I have time.
As I said before, if casualties are an expression of exposure (all spheres) and density, then training has a direct impact on both, greater concealment, greater dispersion, in a well trained unit. Interestingly, the US Army were critical of the USMC’s aggressive methods, but the Marines countered that by saying by reducing time on contested beaches, and advancing quickly, they reduced overall casualties (the Soviet response as well).
I’d give the Ukrainian regular army the edge, at the beginning of the SMO, but they rapidly had it blunted, as casualties among NCO’s and low level leaders climbed, whilst their Nationals were really only good for defending fixed lines of defence. The Russians, apart from the ‘elites’, started off mediocre and improved, so that possibly might act as a modifier in assessing casualties. This is one reason why I think casualties are pretty constant in ‘24, over ‘23, because whilst the latter had more offensive operations, the former was largely sustained by poorly trained troops.

Posted by: Milites | Jan 14 2025 21:41 utc | 295

Posted by: Milites | Jan 14 2025 18:14 utc | 290 “I’d like to know of a war that was cheaper than the projections.”
Ha, true. Maybe the 1st Gulf War (1991)?
But this must be way out of proportion given the talk on Russian TV at the time. Nobody prepared the Russian people for this slog.
In fact, I am guessing the talk about seizing Russian citizens bank deposits above 1.4 million rubles is just internet rumor at this point, but that it rose to the level of having to be addressed by Central Bank is concerning. Russia still has in place the maximum bank withdrawal amount they put into place early on in this war.

Posted by: Ed4 | Jan 14 2025 22:26 utc | 297

Somewhere in the recesses of my memory I seem to remember reading a report that tried to estimate the value of training, one area being the reduction in casualties, the 2/3rds stat you brought up rings a bell….. I’ll need to dig that up, when I have time.
As I said before, if casualties are an expression of exposure (all spheres) and density, then training has a direct impact on both, greater concealment, greater dispersion, in a well trained unit. Interestingly, the US Army were critical of the USMC’s aggressive methods, but the Marines countered that by saying by reducing time on contested beaches, and advancing quickly, they reduced overall casualties (the Soviet response as well).
I’d give the Ukrainian regular army the edge, at the beginning of the SMO, …This is one reason why I think casualties are pretty constant in ‘24, over ‘23, because whilst the latter had more offensive operations, the former was largely sustained by poorly trained troops.
Posted by: Milites | Jan 14 2025 21:41 utc | 301
Thank you, if you can confirm the 2/3 would be nice (not that the 66% vs 75% changes anything significantly, “just” an extra 60k killed in the RF forces, and and many maimed, +12% cost but the purchased 3 million AFU are still there)
Yes, exposure that’s why I mentioned much worse ratios on the first 3 months of the SMO
I wouldn’t, RF was always on a very bad exchange ratio, yes, some were hard core azov SOB’s but not particularly brave, they sent meat to be slaughtered and that’s it. It took time for those units to lose their meat padding but finnaly 2024 did just that and I keep the same ratios but think 2024 is probably worse than 2023 for AFU
If you want I can give you, textwise, enough for you to do your own marines vs grunts spreadsheet and control the numbers to make sure it’s equivalent (before you play your own numbers). You’r th one who wanted to steal the “excelomancy”. Some sustainability numbers will surprise you but you’ll have to remember AFU had an initial pool in the 4 million+ range… and now has none (the other day I was talking about half a million “friends” and half a million “critical” and read the other day of 1 million “reserved/protected” against mobilization, so even that adds up.

Posted by: Newbie | Jan 14 2025 22:36 utc | 299