US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Strangelove]

I think Trump has an excellent sense of humour.

This guy gets it.

MAFA (Make America Fun Again).

[Argay Ham]

I think Trump has an excellent sense of humour.

This guy gets it.

MAFA (Make America Fun Again).

Well, the breadcrumbs are all there...I just...put them together and made my own puzzle out of it.

If my parents made it through Nixon, I can make it through this. Just gotta believe.

[Strangelove]

I think Trump has an excellent sense of humour.

This guy gets it.

MAFA (Make America Fun Again).

Well, the breadcrumbs are all there...I just...put them together and made my own puzzle out of it.

If my parents made it through Nixon, I can make it through this. Just gotta believe.

"Are you not entertained?" - Donald J Trump

[Chef Boi RD]

UW, regarding tariffs…is raising them good for the American consumer struggling to make ends meet? Or are they just better for the coffers of “Trump’s government”, that is to offset his promised tax cuts and downsizing government? Ie - firing low to middle income earners in the public sector?

Generally, I think tariffs are not good for consumers.

But neither is any form of tax, regulation, or inflation that raises the costs of good or deteriorates buying power. But revenue must be raised for government, there are rules for safety, environment, etc that are either internalizing true costs or paternalistically governing citizens.

Tariffs, like taxes, are often used to modify incentives and change behaviors. Foreign policy is about that, and there’s also a knock on domestic economy effect — beneficial for some industries, detrimental to others, generally detrimental to the consumer. Possibly, but not necessarily, a drag on growth (you really have to analyze that within the constellation of policy change).

While I am generally not a tariff fan, I do think it’s a tool properly on the table for revenue generation or foreign policy influence. And while I think it’s usually not a great tool for domestic economic policy (protectionism doesn’t typically help long term), there is some sense in having economic policies that hedge against trade interruption. (Essential production and capabilities for production that would allow the US to better handle international trade disruption).

So generally bad, but I am not ideological about it and taking them totally off the table is also bad.

Nice response, UW. Thanks

[5thhorseman]

Again: Can you dispute their findings in this article?

Lol, how many government employees are doing this?

[Strangelove]

Lol, how many government employees are doing this?

Read the article.

[5thhorseman]

Lol, how many government employees are doing this?

Read the article.

Yeah I did skim it. That's a lot of government employees wiring proceeds of corruption to Swiss bank accounts to affect Google search trends LOL.

[Strangelove]

Lol, how many government employees are doing this?

Read the article.

Yeah I did skim it.

We're making progress.

[Argay Ham]

We're making progress.

Post and in.

[Per]

OK, there was a lot of interesting stuff you wrote, and I don't have time to address all at once.

I will just have to protest this bit though; you have apparently bought the Russian narrative hook, line and sinker.

There was no coup in Ukraine in 2014. Read the article below, it is quite interesting and enlightening.

Debunked by Foreign Policy? Whose propaganda have you ll bought hook line and sinker, Per. State and CIA are the best at this, are they not?

This transcript was not made up: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp
Hmmm, caught in the act (and what Nuland proposed came to be).

And it’s an example of US State playing Masters of the Universe. ) The US tirelessly pushes for regime changes in this country or that. Sometimes it’s a smart alternative to war; sometimes that’s a false choice. But it’s not “democracy.”

Where is proof a coup? They are talking to opposition leaders, in parliament, and trying to convince them to stick together and agree on a joint candidate.

Of course the USA (and Russia) is trying to persuade political leaders to see things their way.

But the suggestion that there was a coup in Ukraine is still factually wrong.

After the police opened fire on the peaceful protesters (which the add I linked to suggests was NOT ordered by Yanukovych, but by people further down the hierarchy that were taking orders from Moscow) things got out of hand.
Yanukovych then attended a meeting with the political party he represented, which is referred to in the phone conversation you linked to: "In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point." At that meeting Yanukovych realized he had lost support from many within the party as well, and it was shortly after this that he decided to leave the country.

Why was he losing support? Well, I am willing to entertain the idea that it could in part be that representatives had been swayed by arguments from US operatives, but that would probably only have marginal effect. To a large part this party was fairly pro-Russia, or at least not anti-Russia.

But the main issue was that Ukraine had been negotiating an association treaty with the EU over the course of several years. Not about membership, but just enjoying some benefits, like lower tarifs, no visa requirements, etc. In fact, Yanukovych was resposnible for these negotiations while he was prime minister, before being elected president. The treaty was ready to be signed, but at the last minute, Yanukovych , who had negotiated this treaty himself and had been in favour of it, got cold feet and refused to sign it. The parliament had already voted overwhelmingly in favour to this treaty, which also had broad popular support. Bear in mind that he actually ran on a platform of economic modernisation, greater economic ties with the EU, and military non-alignment. Out of the blue he instead presented another treaty, with Russia, that would lower energy costs but basically turn Ukraine into Belarus. People were outraged, even within his own party, and street protests erupted all over Ukraine.

All of this happened in November of 2013 already, but then gradually escalated until the fateful day when the police started shooting at the protesters and Yanukovych fled.

What happened next was actually a lesson in parliamentary politics.

The sitting parliament followed procedures given in the constitution to remove the president from office, as he had abandoned his duties. 324 out of the 450 MPs (72%) voted in favour of this. They then named an interim government that kept things running until new elections could be held later that year.

In the next presidential election Poroshenko won, and I will absolutely concede that he was the candidate favoured by the USA, but he was elected in free and fair elections in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution.

The interesting thing is that in the next election Poroshenko, still the US favourite, lost to Zelenskyy who was one of the most popular actors/comedians of the country, and whose presidency was basically just supported by the tv network he was employed by. In the first round none of the 21 candidates had a majority. The two who had received the most votes, Poroshenko and Zelenskyy, then squared off in the second round where Zelensky got nearly 75% of the vote. Now THAT is a popular mandate.

But I find it astonishing when people suggest he was installed by the US. As far as I understand it the US was firmly behind Poroshenko and was as taken by surprise as everyone else when this guy came out of nowhere and won by a landslide. His messsage was pretty simple. He ran on a platform of fighting corruption and negotiating peace in Donbass. I think the Ukrainian people were fed up with the political class and saw him as a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately he had little success once elected. He didn't have a party to lean on, but they quickly assembled one for the parliamentary election, which gave him some parliamentary support. Other than that he had to forge alliances and compromises to get thongs through. And it turned out the Russians weren't that willing to negotiate even though this Russian speaking guy from took over after the very anti-Russian Poroshenko.

Anyway, what I wanted to show is that the democratic institutions of Ukraine, though far from perfect, weathered that storm. There was no coup. The sitting parliament, after having voted to remove the president after he fled the country, was in control until new presidential elections had been held. Does the US and Russia meddle in their politics? Absolutely. Is there corruption? Absolutely.

But there was no coup.

The same political system remains in place and both the president and the parliament have been elected by the Ukrainian people.

And event though there are flaws in the Ukrainian system; even at their lowest point they have always ranked higher in the EIU democracy index than Russia has at its highest point ever. This is how it looked in 2019, when Zelenskyy was elected:



As you can see, Canada and Sweden are ranked as full democracies. The US is ranked as a flawed democracy, Ukraine as a hybrid regime and Russia as an authoritarian regime (ie a dictatorship).

The newest ranking, from 2023, looks pretty much the same. Canada and Russia have both slipped a notch, but maintain their status as full democracy and authoritarian regime respectively. Unfortunately I couldn't find a map with the same colouring as the older one.



For the Ukrainians to succumb to Russian rule would be a terrible downgrade, and most of them are old enough to remembeer how it was, which is why most of them still stick to the "give me liberty or give me death" motto.

---

I used to think that Yanukovych was just a Russian stooge, but the more I've looked into it it seems he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. His sudden decision to not sign the treaty with the EU he had negotiated himself and that had already been approved in parliament most likely resulted from Russian threats that if he did, they would invade. When they realized he had lost control of the process, they invaded anyway.

A Russian commemorative coin sets the starting date for the operation to take back Crimea two days earlier than Yanukovich leaving Ukraine, and the invasion started within days of him doing so, so it must all have been prepared well in advance.

[Per]

Oh, and a footnote, in 2019 Greenland was apparently covered in ice, but in 2023 it is a full democracy.

[Cornuck]

Wonder where trump is getting his talking points?

"The leader in Ukraine is down at 4% approval ratings. [fact check, its' about 50%] Wouldn't the people of Ukraine need to have an election? Ukraine is being wiped out,"

You should have never started it — you could have made a deal. I like him personally, but it is the leadership that allowed the war to go on."

Sure seems like Russia won the negotiations before even stepping up to the table.

The only questions left are - how much of Ukraines does the US want to give Russia, and how badly to the Europeans want to contain Russia?

[UWSaint]

Where is proof a coup? They are talking to opposition leaders, in parliament, and trying to convince them to stick together and agree on a joint candidate.

Of course the USA (and Russia) is trying to persuade political leaders to see things their way.

But the suggestion that there was a coup in Ukraine is still factually wrong.

Not just talking, Per. Carrots and sticks. If you heard the conversation, you would know that Nuland's attitude was that the US would control to the degree it could who would run Ukraine -- and that the US has pretty big carrots and sticks to make that happen. (And we know that Biden, as VP, threatened to withdraw aid for something as small as removing a "prosecutor" investigating an energy business in 24 hours or else....).

But I completely agree Russia was doing the same thing, and possibly more. And likely that influence made Yanukovych do the 180 -- Russia "winning" rather than the US pushing him out -- though it was probably push from the US to make the deal, pull from Russia to drop the deal (and make a deal with it and Belarus), and then push out the plane by the US. Coup might be the the wrong word to use; its all just masters of the universe stuff.

The big picture in all of this, though, is that the west and Russia are in the business of trying to add Ukraine as a client state, to keep the nation out of the other's sphere of influence. Low in that calculation is what the people of Ukraine want.

I think "Russian propaganda" is one of those conversation killers. It is invoked to discredit a position merely because it is what the Russian's want you to believe. There's also a lot of State/USAID/CIA/EU/NATO propaganda, is there not? Propaganda is full of truths, half-truths (limited hangouts), falsehoods, etc. That's not limited to Russian propaganda; nations playing chess with other nations identify the end they seek, and then information warfare with its truths, half-truths, and deceptions is one mechanism to get there. You would want to influence the world by saying "our way is better, we will be a better partner," but that straightforward approach doesn't always work, and is far less likely to work in certain circumstances.

What's most troubling to me about Nuland (and I'll use her as an avatar for the US State Department "masters of the universe" arm) is that my country continues to deploy (often successfully) soft power (or arms dealing....) to gain temporary allegiance of a nation or disrupt a current regime and ultimately those didn't help the United States and it didn't help the nations where they were deployed. How's did funding the Mujaheddin work for us? How about the Arab spring -- not an organic movement. And all of the tinkering with Ukraine, how has *that* worked out? Not every attempt is a failure, to be sure, but the strategies are morally dubious and the results of successfully deployed strategies are far more chaotic than the masters of the universe predict.

At the end of the day, I think Russia is as interested in having influence over Ukraine for economic and security reasons as the west is in having influence in Ukraine for economic and security reasons. The Russians couldn't win the soft power war and so they crossed a line by manifesting that interest with a real war, but is the west willing to fight a defensive war on Ukraine's behalf? Because merely funding it isn't moving the needle.... If f we are going to continue talking Ukraine and criticize whatever's on the table from the US, Per, give me your endgame -- answer my questions about what your limits are.

Or move on from Ukraine. Do you think Vance was factually wrong in his speech at the Munich security conference? Do you think that Europe is committed to free speech, freedom of conscience, political inclusion, democratically responsive governments? Do you think Europe is scared of large segments of its population who are frustrated with the way things are going? Do you think it is right to send a SWAT team to a guy's house, seize his computers and phones, and arrest him for "offensive speech." Do you think people should be jailed for criticizing government officials in an unfriendly and uncharitable way (that's still short of a direct threat of violence?

Or how about just answering a question about Sweden: are you glad for the islamic immigration into your country? Will it serve your country well in the long run? Has it been a good thing so far?

[Per]

Just adding some perspective...

[Per]

The big picture in all of this, though, is that the west and Russia are in the business of trying to add Ukraine as a client state, to keep the nation out of the other's sphere of influence. Low in that calculation is what the people of Ukraine want.

And here is where we differ, because I think that that is the only thing that matters.

And we know what they want. In the referendum on independence in 1991, a staggering 92% voted in favour of breaking ties with Russia and becoming an independent sovereign nation again. Even in the Donbass region well over 80% voted for independence.
The only region where there wasn't overwhelming support was Crimea, and even there the support for Indepenence was higher than the support for Brexit in the UK.



But sure, a May 2014 ComRes poll found that in the three easternmost oblasts of Ukraine, Kharkiv Oblast, Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast, 37% favored an alliance with Russia, so Russia's attempts at swaying people had had some effect by then. This is a problem for former Soviet republics; th eRusssian minorities still get a lot of their news from Russian TV, which is a very effective propaganda tool controlled by the Kremlin dictatorship. Still, the militias created in 2014 did not have support by th emajority of th epopulation, but were created and armed by Russia in order to undermine the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government and facilitate a future invasion.

As for closer ties with the EU, 91% of Ukrainians support joining the European Union according to a poll conducted by the Rating Sociological Group on 30–31 March 2022, up from 66.4% in February 2015. The support has always been stronger in Western Ukraine, which used to be part of Poland and/or Austria-Hungary, and has strong cultural ties to Central Europe, and weaker in Eastern Ukraine which has more ties to Russia and a higher percentage of Russian speakers.

As for the matter of sovereignty, they must have a right to choose their own government, and with nearly 75 perceent of the vote, no president in the history of Ukraine has had as strong a mandate as Zelenskyy. And that was running against an incumbent president who had support of the USA.
At present his favourability ranking is at 57 %, a level of popularity that Trump can only dream of. The four percent that Trump spoke of is straight from Russian propaganda. They also claim that this Russian speaking Jew is a nazi who wants to kill all Russian speaking Ukrainians, ie himself and all of his family then, I guess...
The claim that he is not legitimate because elections scheduled for last year were postponed is ludicrous. How can they hold elections when 20% of their territory is under occupation by enemy forces? How can they hold elections when the Russians are terror bombing Ukrainian cities and focussing on civilian targets? The polling stations would become death traps. Britain also postponed elections during WW2.

I do not support Russia or the USA in this matter, I am 100% behind the Ukrainian people and their right to sovereignty and self determination.

I think a problem many Americans have is that they see global politica as a game of chess between the USA and Russia (or China), when there really are nearly 200 different nations wwith different agendas and a whole bunch of minorities (Kurds, Palestinians, Chechens, Tibetans) that presently lack a country but strive to get one and have a political agenda of their own.

My wish is that neither the US nor Russia should dictate the future of Ukraine, and here I think the EU can fill a purpose.

And so far Europe as a whole, ie the EU, the UK, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland has provided roughly twice as much support to Ukraine as the USA overall. The US contribution in arms is higher, and there the USA and Europe are tied. So it is not as if the US betraying and abandoning Ukraine means they are completely helpless, but of course it does make the situation worse. Thus the EU has held emerency meetings, and invited the UK as well, and we are all agreeing to increase deliveries of both arms and other support.

At the end of the day, I think Russia is as interested in having influence over Ukraine for economic and security reasons as the west is in having influence in Ukraine for economic and security reasons. The Russians couldn't win the soft power war and so they crossed a line by manifesting that interest with a real war, but is the west willing to fight a defensive war on Ukraine's behalf? Because merely funding it isn't moving the needle.... If f we are going to continue talking Ukraine and criticize whatever's on the table from the US, Per, give me your endgame -- answer my questions about what your limits are.

And this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Russia is not interested in having influence over Ukraine for economic and security reasons. That is what they want you to think. The Ukraine has never and will never pose a threat to Russia, other and as a picture of what Russia could have been.

They want to annihilate Ukraine as a sovereign state and erase the Ukrainian people from history.
And that's only step one. Then they'll do the same with the Baltic countries, Moldova, and a handful of other countries.

Putin has made it clear over the past 20 years or so (he was a bit more toned down the first few years of his 25 year and running rule) that he considers Ukraine to not be a real country. It is and has always been part of Russia and should be part of Russia. They are an artifical fabrication created by the West to weaken the unity of the Russian people. He does not think that Ukraine has a right to exist, and he maintains that Ukrainian is not a language but a Russian dialect, and should not be taught in schools. So annexing Donbass and Crimea will never satisfy him. It will only whet his appetite and give him the satisfaction of having completed phase one of the project.

He has also stated that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century.
Let that sink in. Worse than WW1, worse than WW2. And he wants to reverse that.

He would like to annex all the countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union and/or the Russian Empire.

The last part is critical for Finland, who never were part of the Soviet Union, as they managed to fight off Stalin's invasion attempts, but were part of the Russian Empire from 1814 till 1917 (1918 if you ask the Russians; Finland declared their independence in December of 2017, Lenin agreed to it in February of 2018).

This is whu Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland are among the countries that give the most support to Ukraine, relative to their GDP.
They KNOW they are next in line. If Putin isn't defeated in Ukraine, he WILL come for them next. They have been here before.
And Poland is pretty nervous about their position as well. even if they weren't part of the Soviet Union, they were enslaved by the Russians who after invading Poland during WW2 executed every single officer of the Polish army and most of their political leaders. Since everyone who had a university degree was expected to serve as an officer in Poland, the damage done to their society was horrendous.
Basically, you could argue that the Russians were crueler to the Polish than the Germans were, and that's pretty horrible.
On Polish TV they regularly refer to Russian soldiers as Orcs, which should tell you a lot about how they feel about them.

My endgame? My limits?

Of course I want peace, but a just peace not surrender.

Basic building blocks should be:
- respect for the territorial integrity of the nations involved, as stated by the UN charter and the Geneva convention
- respect for the sovereignty of Ukraine; ie they elect their own government and they have the right to sign treaties with whomever they choose
- war damages paid by Russia for all the destroction they have caused by bombing civilian targets in Ukraine
- Putin and others responsible for the war crimes that have occurred during the war should be handed over to the ICC for trial

But of course, some of the details can be discussed during peace negotiations.

My limits? Ukraine decides when and if they want to initiate negotiations. Until then we should do our utmost to support them.
I personally think that Nato and the EU should consider boots on the grounds, and possibly bombing the Kremlin.
But of course an all out war would be terrible, so everyone tries to avoid that.

But when Russia brought in North Koreans, we should have responded by sending troops to Ukraine as well.
Not doing so was a mistake, imho.

- - -

I will get back to the questions about Vance and Sweden.