Recreational Tweeting

There are various anecdotal accounts of how Ukrainians' feeling towards Russia have evolved throughout the course of the war, and also the prior period of Russia-backed separatism (@kamilkazani had a thesis that watching what happened in the D/LNR made many Ukrainians averse to being absorbed into the Russian sphere). It think it's also clear that Russia's ambitions go beyond the Donbas, or even the other formally annexed provinces. Putin does not view Ukraine as a legitimate state, and past demands for a ceasefire have included disarmament -- meaning, Russia could come back at any time, and Ukrainian sovereignty would only exist on paper. (Sorry for going on so long). The best evidence that Russia's demands are unacceptable to Ukrainians in general is probably the fact that they are still fighting. At one point, you could have conjectured that only American manipulation was keeping the war going. But now we have a president who clearly wanted it to be done with, and couldn't convince the Ukrainians to just accept whatever Russia was offering.

@Thx4Reading For the parts that the Russians are trying to take, the Ukrainians don’t really see the Russians as foreign. My sister in laws mom is Ukrainian.

I forgot where we are in the Ukraine cope cycle but this is just the way it’s been and the way it’s going to be: war of attrition. The side with more stuff wins. The rest is cope. “Ukraine is taking some ground now” — the battleground grey zone is huge and km square is meaningless. Wake me up when Ukraine actually retakes a significant town. The opposite is true…Russia just took konstantinovka. “Ukraine is striking deep inside Russia” — every strike deep inside Russia is answered tenfold in Ukraine. This is why ships can’t go in and out of Odesa now. “Average Russian soldier survives only 20 minutes” — if that’s the case how come more are signing up? Meanwhile Ukraine has been yoinking randos off the street to throw in the trenches for months (years?) now. “Ukraine can’t give up towns the Russians haven’t even taken yet in negotiations” — that’s exactly when they should be given up in negotiations because after they’ve been taken they have no value as chips. “Ukraine needs to be in a more advantageous position before going to the negotiating table” — the best time to negotiate was in 2022 the 2nd best time is now.

The point is that we could win an all-out war with Iran if we wanted to, but would rather disengage because it's not worth the cost. The country with more to lose from defeat will sacrifice more to win. Putin cares more about Ukraine than Trump does about Iran, and faces less internal resistance. But can the Russian system muster as much determination to remove Ukraine's sovereignty as the Ukrainian system can to defend it? That balance is just as relevant as the military balance.

@Thx4Reading When was the last time US was in a war of attrition?

@pnbphilosophy @jessesingal Sorry if I wasn't clear; what I mean is that he might view anyone who objects in those terms. There seems to be a lot of obliviousness and/or indifference among SF-adjacent futurists regarding what everyone else thinks of their outlook, which could lead to a destructive backlash.

@Thx4Reading @jessesingal I’m neither parochial nor a simpleton, and I find Johnson utterly grotesque; the sort of person who’d appear on trashy day time talk shows in saner times.

"Wait so why are you taking a photo of me again?" "Uhhhh cuz you look so pretty!!"

Thank you for providing such a detailed reply. I suppose one way you could look at Ukraine's limitations is that they have a tendency to "PR-max," focusing on winning the war on social media. Their proficiency in that domain may have served them well at the start of the conflict, when Western powers were deciding whether to write them off. But when Western aid proved less decisive than promised, a strategy that focused on impressing foreign audiences did not provide a means to end the war. Regarding the issue of Russians becoming vengeful as their losses mount: It seems that any form of attritional cost imposition is a double-edged sword. The concept assumes that there is a fixed limit to the costs the enemy will pay, but as you inflict more pain, that threshold may rise. I don't see an obvious solution to that conundrum, apart from finding some means of achieving an acute disruption, rather than wearing the enemy down over time. If you can inflict enough damage over a short period that the system is pushed to the point of failure, that may force an accommodation, while keeping cumulative damage low enough that the population is not left with scars. (Although it also seems possible for that sort of development to prompt rapid escalation -- no path is without risks). Ukraine's best means of acute disruption seems to be its strike campaign against Russian refineries (as you mentioned). If that's not good enough, and attrition is also a dubious prospect, then it seems prudent to examine diplomatic options. I assume the Ukrainians are not actually insistent on retaining (or more accurately, regaining) their pre-SMO borders, much less Crimea. The obvious sticking point seems to be whether Russia would allow them to retain the means to defend themselves from a future attack, without which complete sovereignty would only exist on paper. If they are adamant that Ukraine give up its strongest fortifications and disarm, then ... honestly, I don't know. It seems the killing will continue.

A fair question. I could go on about this at very great length, but will limit myself to a few points. First, policy-making often devolves into picking one bowl of unpalatable feces to eat among a series of unpalatable bowls. Second, Putin and Russia made their choices in February 2022 and ever since, and so has Ukraine. I think it is only fair to say that quite a few Ukrainian choices in the lead up to Feb 2022 and, more to the point, ever since, have done Ukraine no favours whatsoever. We all make our own bed. Third and in more practical terms, the long-range strike campaign, which initially prioritized the targeting of energy infrastructure in Russia but has since expanded in terms of scope, scale, and intensity, remains very promising. But there are a series of major caveats here, as elsewhere. Among other things, Ukraine has a really bad habit of doing things in small doses, seemingly to capture headlines and, in so doing, offer what amounts to the illusion of a turning of the tide and impending victory. Remember Operation Spiderweb? Remember how Ukraine offered a grossly inflated damage assessment before walking it back? Notice how Ukraine has not, to date, pulled off another such attack? There is a similar dynamic at play concerning UUVs in the Black Sea, which I have framed as Ukrainian leaders seemingly not understanding the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance. See the link below. Why does Ukraine keep promising massive things and delivering far less, and, more to the point, less than enough to alter the course of the war? Why does Ukraine self-sabotage itself by doing things in small doses and, in so doing, allow Russia to develop and deploy countermeasures (Russia incompetence, indecision, and corruption, however, frequently end up giving Ukraine a lot of slack notwithstanding its errors)? I think it ultimately comes down to having unrealistic war aims. In their haste to reach a maximalist victory, Ukraine keeps gambling. It isn't just about technology/equipment. You can see a similar dynamic at play in the Krynky and Kursk operations, etc. I don't expect future historians and analysts to give Ukrainian leaders very high marks for their day-to-day conduct over a 1500+ day timeframe—beyond pulling off the most important feat of all: ensuring Ukraine's survival as an independent state. There also, however, Ukrainian leaders should have a lot of humility and essentially thank Putin and Russia for performing far, far worse than Ukraine has. Many wars devolve into a farcical affair. This war is no exception. What is exceptional is the immense human cost of this war, which really should shock the conscience even if one supports Ukraine and opposes both Putin and Russia. Morality aside, consider the following. If Kyiv and "the West" have a Putin problem, then the problem should be simple: kill or otherwise remove Putin, or at least wait him out (he is a mere mortal and 73 years old), and "problem solved." I can only presume that many think that there is a much bigger Russia problem at play that will long outlast Putin. Okay, let us suppose it is so. How exactly does killing or severely injuring a million plus Russians bring about a stable peace with Russia over the coming years, as opposed to an utterly vengeful Russia? Remember, the Soviet generation will eventually die out, but there is now a new generation of Russians with animus. What is the expected marginal benefit of killing another hundred thousand Russians? Or adding a million more to Russia's war dead? Killing is easy, and only intellectual and/or moral degenerates reduce war to an unbounded orgy of violence. x.com/shahpas/status…

🇷🇺 🇺🇦 In early 2022, the stated logic was to produce casualties so as to engender anti-war mobilization among the Russian population. That didn't work, so it essentially became killing for its own sake, not least as technology—alongside massive foreign military and non-military support—allowed Kyiv to moderate the cost of an attritional war on its own populace while maximizing casualties among Russian forces (this dynamic really picked up in fall 2023 and rapidly scaled over the course of 2024). The current strategy, if a formal strategy even exists, appears to be more of the same until Putin capitulates/the Russian military collapses/the Russian military stages a coup and ends the war/the Russian population deposes Putin and ends the war. All things considered, Kyiv does not deserve a high grade on the strategy front, not least on account of still having patently unrealistic war aims. Remarkably, the geniuses orchestrating the Russian war effort do not appear to realize that maximizing Ukrainian battlefield casualties may be their only viable path to some form of salvaged "victory." The Russian MoD and even elite units like Rubicon act as if victory will be attained by destroying Ukrainian pickup trucks and capturing unimportant small towns.

@mercoglianos @cpgrabow Didn't he say 50 million barrels (not gallons)?

@cpgrabow 50 million gallons moved by waiver versus 8.9 Billion gallons moved by Jones Act tankers in 2025, so 0.56%?

@mikenelson586 If you're confident, there's money to be made.

Collins Agamemnon 🤝 Absolutely wrecking Troy

@carney @JamesSurowiecki Is asking Democrats to define what a woman is also a loyalty oath?

@JamesSurowiecki It is a loyalty oath. And its funny that you cannot see it.

I think Stephen’s is sufficient for conservative columnist. I think the NYT needs a conservative sufficiently sympathetic to MAGA and Trump to explain the views and policies to its readers. Much like former Nixon staffer Safire could explain Reagan.

@SeanTrende I suspect there's a subset of (wealthy) men who enjoy sending cars for their dates, since it gives them a chance to flex. While the rest are liable to feel that they're being taxed, and treated as if they have less to offer as people. So yeah, compatibility.

My apparently unpopular opinion is that it is a good thing for a woman who expects her date to send Ubers to ask for it on the first date, and for men who aren't going to do that to say "no," so they can identify the incompatibility early and move on.

@AverageCliff @TheLastNeocon @alt_ccc It's not an "own goal" for Democrats, unless the majority would rather have good cops get in trouble than allow BLM-type narratives to be weakened by the truth. Captive dreamer types believe that all of their opponents are that radical and perfidious.

@TheLastNeocon @alt_ccc This isn't hard. We can say it was overall positive for others reasons and I totally agree but those mainly pushing it really wanted transparency to get rid of bad cops. Which even so is totally fair on its face.

why do conservatives believe it was some sort of own goal

@far2horny @TheLastNeocon What's self explanatory is that you guys have an absurdly caricatured view of the opposition, and are obsessed with culture war fights to the point that you think winning them is more important than the truth. The vast majority of people don't want good cops to get in trouble.

@TheLastNeocon It’s pretty self explanatory, but allow me to help: body cameras debunked the myth behind the BLM narrative regarding police interactions with black people. Michael Brown would have been a non-story if there were cameras. But since they weren’t, BLM was able to lie. Helpful?

@basedjensen @woke8yearold He's not doing the "China collapse" meme; a temporary slump doesn't mean their long term plans won't be successful. You put him in a box with Gordon Chang rather than listening to the claims being made.

Lol I think you have consumed too much propaganda China bad slop and have convinced your self you understand fundamentals or what's going on or the long terms plans but sure you do you do buddy this time china is really gonna crash and burn the think tanks told you so with numbers even. Like the 10 times before they said it was going to happen this time for sure they are right every one else is delusional

Lol nope this is the stupid propaganda take from China bad idiots.

@KelseyTuoc With respect to human flourishing, postliberals of all stripes essentially act as parasites. They have some void that can't be filled without imposing their vision on other people, at the expense of those people's ability to pursue their own fulfillment without being oppressed.

I do think it's funny that Cassie, a Communist, and Vermuele, a theocrat, are both equally appalled at the liberal ideal that the state not be the provider of all moral meaning. Both your ideologies produce horrible hells for human beings!!

@LPDonovan Seems to be established wisdom in most fields that you should take your clients' dissatisfaction seriously, but not assume that they understand what would really make them happy. Sounds like paternalism when applied to politics, but maybe that's the way it has to be.

@LPDonovan Slightly uncomfortable/narrative-violating thought here is that "slopulist" data center backlash could end up yielding public benefits, if wielded by politicians who indulge the masses just enough to scare the hyperscalers, while employing their own better judgment on policy.

This is more or less where the puck is going anyway. Whatever marginal value #1 provides in your micro level siting decisions, it is wildly eclipsed by the macro politics; and in terms of getting projects built and online you should be more sensitive to efficiency than economics.

Worth noting that Polimath's evidence to support his scenario was an article that didn't depict that kind of behavior at all. 60 Minutes (falsely) suggested that DeSantis had been bribed into giving a particular pharmacy privileged access to the vaccine. In other words, they found a way to complain about a Republican without suggesting that the vaccines were bad. There's a narrative hierarchy, and pure partisanship is not at the top. That's what Polimath won't allow himself to understand. cnn.com/2021/04/05/med…

That suspicion might have persisted following a hypothetical Trump win, but there's no logical way it could have manifested in only one of the vaccines being "bad," when they all came from Operation Warp Speed, and were subject to approval by the same administration. This was not the assertion, but I also don't think that liberals would have been hesitant to get vaccinated in general. As long as team blue was convinced that the Dr. Faucis of the world supported the vaccines, the line would have been that they were all good.

This post is a good encapsulation of how the account that posted it views politics. In reality, mainstream media was determined to defend the COVID vaccines due to ideological commitment to "the science," not some desire for an arbitrary excuse to divide the country. Initial skepticism of Operation Warp Speed owed mostly to Trump's reputation as an enemy of the establishment, and suspicion that he would pressure independent agencies to put his personal interests above their public responsibilities (which has proven to be his disposition in the years since).