blueingreen

I can only speak to my own experience, but as a young guy who studied abroad in Europe as recently as 2022, I found that young Europeans hate Russia just as much, if not more than, previous generations. Some of the older Central and Eastern Europeans actually look at the Soviet era with rose-tinted glasses, which younger generations have no connection to or delusions about (except for the typical Marxist / Socialist acolytes you'll find at any university campus). My hope is that cooler heads prevail and we can find some middle ground between communist apologetics and starting WWIII with Russia.

Americans often underestimate how much Europeans hate Russia. For the US., Russia is an adversary, but we’ve had some positive albeit brief moments that demonstrated the potential for amicable relations, like the Alaska Purchase in 1867, helping the White Army fight the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War, and allying again in WWII. For Europeans, it’s way deeper. Russia and Europe have been clashing for centuries, long before the US even existed—wars over historical territories and Soviet domination during the Cold War. Some historians like Robert Kaplan have even argued that America and Russia share a similar national spirit stemming from the historical origins of their national formation: Pioneers and settler-colonialists exploring and conquering vast swathes of uncharted lands on the edges of the known world, something he calls "continental powers". For Europeans, Russia is a historical oppressor. The hate runs a lot deeper over there. So in the event of some pan-European military alliance, I think we can safely say that Europe's hate for Russia is much stronger than their current frustrations with us.

I also highly doubt this was some 4D chess move from Trump, but it's amazing how it might finally get the ball rolling on his original strategic objective: To get Europe to start funding their own defense

I haven't heard much about Hanania before, and I didn't post his tweet originally, but here's another tweet from Konstantin Kisin, a co-host on Triggernometry, expressing the same thing. There isn't even much of a "position" here to support or object to. People just need to listen to the whole Trump / Zelenskyy interview for context...

Why not deal with the content of his tweet straightforwardly as opposed to parsing it through the lens of whatever "racism" a wikipedia editor accused him of? Don't we make fun of the progressive left for pre-screening ideas based on ideological alignment?

I think we can all agree that the public spat we just witnessed wasn't very statesmanlike for all parties involved. The Hanania tweet that @tac airlifter shared was pretty spot on, though. People on social media are watching short clips and commenting without the full context of the entire event. We all know that these types of arguments happen all the time behind closed doors, so it's interesting to see the kabuki theater disappear for once. What do people think about that mineral deal?

I'm genuinely asking you because I'm still a wannabe fighter pilot going through the rush / application process and you'll have more experience with this: Don't federal civilian employees who fall under OPM purview still use ".mil" email addresses? That's the kind of stuff I was imagining might be annoying to comb through on an agency-by-agency basis.

I was just clarifying that the FBI, DoD, and DoS informing their employees that they don't need to respond to the mass email isn't some stalwart act of resistance, it's just them explaining their organizational structure. OPM is primarily responsible for HR systems administration and guidelines in the competitive civil service. Excepted service employees (CIA, USPS, DoD, DoS, etc) have their own systems, but often adhere and/or defer to OPM guidelines on various matters. It's a lot easier to send a mass e-mail to basically every federal employee than it is to comb through every department and agency looking for every exception.

To be clear, this isn't some brave act of non-compliance. There's no discord between admin officials here. DoD, DoS, and FBI are simply not under OPM purview, and are thus not obligated to respond.

Also appreciate the civility from you and others. But because I'm an IR theory nerd who studied this for years, I have to set the record straight here: Realism doesn't concern itself with systems of government. The state is a "black box" under this theory, so whether it's an oligarchy like Russia or a constitutional republic like the USA, it makes no difference. They all deal with the same concerns and interests that motivate states to pursue certain actions in an anarchic international system of uncertainty. Regional hegemony only goes so far -- hence the "regional". Mearsheimer's work suggests that Russia would prefer a buffer zone between their sphere of influence and a competing sphere of influence like NATO's. So if we follow that realist internal logic, it would be acceptable for Ukraine and Moldova to remain neutral. Russia has said this before, but you could argue that they're lying I guess. As I mentioned before, it's slightly complicated by regions like Crimea and Transnistria, but you get the idea. Realism isn't just about states wantonly invading others for hegemony's sake, it's more calculated than that. Russia has taken quite the beating against Ukraine, so even if they wanted to invade Moldova (which they don't), they would be very reluctant to act on those feelings.

I ask in all honesty -- didn't the system change when all of these unelected bureaucrats started taking matters into their own hands, sometimes defying direct orders from POTUS? It seems like that was the historical aberration, and we're now returning to a more well-pruned and cohesive executive branch...

We're getting into philosophical territory here, but let's stick with the Russian Pitbull metaphor for a moment. Why would a dog acting in accordance with its nature absolve it of responsibility? When a Pitbull bites someone (which inevitably happens to many people every year), do we excuse it and say "Oh, you should have expected that! It's a Pitbull!" or do we put the dog down after it bites someone? I've always viewed countries like people. After all, countries are large collections of people. And at the end of the day, people are animals. We have more self-control than a dog, but we're not always as perfectly rational as we think. Human nature and evolutionary biology are powerful stuff. Don't you think it's possible to criticize a dog, a person, or a country for acting in accordance with their nature and interests -- without absolving them of guilt?

There's not much left for me to say, I just respectfully disagree. I think a Moldova situation is completely acceptable to the Russians, and they've indicated as much. NATO troops in Ukraine is a red line for them. Putin said he would accept a return to Ukraine's 1991 borders if the country remains neutral (Article), just like Moldova. World leaders don't lie as often as one might think. Again, I'm not casting any judgement, I'm just trying to deal with the cards we've currently been dealt. As for Mearsheimer, his views are far more nuanced than simply saying "he blames the US". Blame isn't always a binary thing. America has not been an innocent bystander. We have involved ourselves in the domestic affairs of Ukraine for decades, for better or worse. It's possible to pursue foreign policies that can eventually lead to provocation. Denying this is, as I said before, putting our heads in the sand.

I think that's where the disconnect is. Some people are having a moral argument, others are talking about norms of international relations, and wires are getting crossed as a result. Russia is in the moral wrong here, but scholars like Mearsheimer would say they're acting "correctly", or in accordance with realist principles of international relations.

I mentioned it very briefly at the end of my other post, but maybe an ideal outcome for Ukraine would have been something akin to Moldova: A neutral country with cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, Ukraine, and other Eastern European countries. Not a perfect manual for success, and complicated by things like Crimea, whose analogous territory in Moldova would be something like Transnistria, but it seems better than the current status quo. All this stuff is complex, I'm happy to concede that. I dated a Polish girl once who hated Ukraine as much as she hated Russia because of the Volhynia and Galicia massacres in WWII. History is closer than we think, and people carry these historical grudges for a long time. I wouldn't say America is at fault for this war, because at the end of the day every sovereign nation, Russia included, determines their own course of action. I just think America / NATO / the West pursued certain policies that, when viewed through a realist lens of international relations, increased the likelihood of conflict. Not everyone subscribes to the realist school of international relations, so they might disagree with me! And that's fine. Hopefully my opinion doesn't render me an anti-American or something, though.

People are really hung up on this. Nobody here who is arguing that the West should have seen this war coming is justifying Russia's actions. I can't speak for the others, but all I'm saying is that having foresight about a war this big should adjust the broader calculus of the West's international relations.

NATO expansion is very relevant to our current discussion of international relations and realism. You can't just ignore something as consequential as an expanding military alliance. I don't think we're dealing with a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Countries have been invaded before. Scholars like Mearsheimer have sought to understand the dynamics between nations for as long as the concept of a nation has existed. We're talking about ideas of human nature that stretch back to Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli, and even further. Try to imagine if the roles were reversed: How would you expect the United States to act if Mexico or Canada was inching closer to joining a military alliance with Russia? Try not to insert your personal morals and biases into the equation, because realist theories of international relations don't do that. Wouldn't you agree that a military conflict of some kind might be within the realm of possibility? Burying our heads in the sand and pretending that the West's actions don't have consequences is strange. It's a natural part of international relations, as inevitable as the laws of physics. I'm not absolving Russia of blame, but we need to stop acting so surprised when a world power acts in ways that world powers have done for thousands of years. If the US expected this war and went ahead with its foreign policy plans anyway, fine. I just want to know that this was calculated. IT doesn't seem like it was, though. There might have been another way to go about this. Perhaps Ukraine could have gone the Moldova route. Who knows, though.

It's good to see someone mentioning Mearsheimer. It's amazing how many people essentially paraphrase his work without realizing it. I would argue that Mearsheimer is still following the internal logic of realist theory when he partially blames the West for the war in Ukraine. You're correct when you say that Great Powers seek regional hegemony. The key here is that Russia used to have far more regional hegemony and control over Ukraine and other states. Since the fall of the USSR, Russia has watched former satellite states become NATO allies, which is a serious threat to regional hegemony from the Russian perspective. People can argue that these former Soviet states have the right to self-determination and are free to seek to join whatever military alliance they please (which I agree with), but realism doesn't cast judgement or opine on those matters. It's just a descriptive + predictive framework. Mearsheimer is simply saying that the West should have expected Russia to act belligerently when NATO began expanding beyond their traditional sphere of influence, and that Ukraine would likely be the last straw. He was right about that and predicted it over a decade ago.

What is America's goal in Ukraine? What does victory look like to you in this war? Ukraine has absolutely zero chance of winning, with or without the aid we've been providing. You made the comparison to Afghanistan, aptly describing the decades of conflict without progress (but plenty of bloodshed and resources expended). Do you want to go through that whole process again? I thought hindsight was 20/20. And calling Ukraine a "fledgling democracy" is laughable. They've quite literally suspended democratic elections, and some sources even have Zelensky polling lower than one of his dismissed generals, Zaluzhniy, in the event that elections were to resume. Europe needs to expand its defense capabilities. It's not healthy for EU - USA relations -- or international security -- that the entire continent of Europe has to rely on the United States for its defense in perpetuity. But if European countries want to continue to exist as quasi-American vassal states, they need to stop offending American sensibilities with Orwellian censorship and destructive immigration policies, among other things. VP Vance touched on this at the Munich Security Conference and nobody in Europe has provided an intelligent response yet. Right now they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm not expecting a dissertation on this, but I would like to see somebody with your ideological inclinations attempt to answer / offer a perspective on this simple question: Why has our standard of living declined in so many tangible ways? You mention things like 90% tax rates for the ultra-rich during the WWII era, but the effective tax rate for the vast majority of people, the middle income earners, was no different than it is today. As I've mentioned before, confiscating the wealth of all our billionaires wouldn't even enable us to fund our government for a year. What's going on here?

This is something the entire Western world seems uncomfortable with (our enemies are probably salivating though). We need to reckon with the fact that we're on the verge of transitioning from a unipolar environment where the USA was the #1 undisputed global hegemon to a more multipolar environment.

I'm not some TradCon type looking through rose-tinted glasses who thinks 1940 was the cultural and economic peak of civilization. But yeah, it was great in a lot of ways. Can you provide a rational explanation for why a good house in a safe neighborhood was more affordable in 1927? Genuinely, what am I missing? We've made all this cultural and economic "progress" for what? As I said, I would be happy to pay more taxes if I knew it went to a good cause and I was able to see the return on my investment in the society around me. I just get the sense that the quality of our society has not improved in fundamental ways that should be commensurate with our increased rates of taxation. Taxing the rich at 90% sounds nice until you actually try implementing it and all the billionaires move to Switzerland or Dubai. Look what happened to Norway after they passed their billionaire tax in 2023. Could the rich give us more of their money? Probably. How far do we go before we risk driving them away, though? It's a legitimate question that deserves an answer. The combined wealth of all US billionaires is only $4.5 trillion, and if we confiscated it all, we could run the government for less than a year. How about the bottom 50% of earners. Could they do more? I think the answer to this question is the hardest. Is ability innate, environmental, or both? Maybe ability or "hard work" doesn't even correspond to outcomes as you suggest. If we assume that our society continues to increasingly rely on tech-savvy people in the age of AI, and we know that cognitive ability is normally distributed, then where does that leave the increasingly large class of people who will simply struggle to survive in the modern economy? What do we do with them? Should we restructure our immigration process to only screen for those on the right tail of the distribution? Lots of questions that we as a country need to answer.

Firstly, your framing is a little disingenuous. I don't "claim" this kind of affordability existed in the past... it simply did. I provided receipts on housing prices in my previous post which you can peruse at your discretion. What is the difference between the "owning class" and the "working class?" In my mind the "working class" is a class of people who are certainly not rich but are still net contributors, and are therefore part of the "owning" or "productive" class. If the net economic output of your work is less than zero, how can you even call that "work"? I'd also refer you to what @brabus mentioned earlier. The top 50% of earners pay over 97% of the taxes. It's absolutely insane that half the country essentially contributes nothing to our finances. My hope is that a person making $30K a year is on the first rung of a long and illustrious career ladder. If that person is incapable of earning more than $30K for their entire life, it is indeed likely that they are a net fiscal burden on our society. I would also wonder if there might be an element of cognitive and/or physical impairment at play.

I'm all for building new housing. I'm also a bit of an architecture nut, so I'd love to see a revival of classical architectural ideals instead of the utilitarian concrete and steel we see nowadays. There are some up and coming studios in places like Charleston, SC that are working wonders. I'd also like to see real estate become less of a speculative asset owned by mega-corps like BlackRock. The incentives are all wrong, people and companies alike shouldn't be holding on to their homes with the expectation that it's going to appreciate in value. Just let a house be a house. When it comes to renewable energy, I'm not willing to entertain any discussion that excludes nuclear. The backbone of renewable power grids in the future is going to have to be nuclear, and people need to get over their unfounded fears about it. The improvements in safety that have been made in the past 5 - 10 years alone are remarkable. We literally have meltdown-proof reactors and reusable nuclear waste. Apologies, that was my mistake. I thought that image was from the 1940 Sears catalog. It's actually from the 1924 catalog, which means the inflation-adjusted price of that home is... $36K. Even if it was $64K, that's still a fantastic price. As for the price of plumbing, heating, and electricity, take a look at this 1927 Sears Modern Homes catalog (Full Catalog Link) I don't disagree with anything you say here. People don't need such large houses. I think the appetite for smaller starter homes is there, but nobody builds them and I genuinely don't know why. I'm not a housing policy expert, but it seems like the regulations on housing have ballooned since the days of the Roebuck homes. I live in a kit home in the Northeast that was built in 1963 and it's largely unchanged / unrenovated since then. I have no complaints about heating, electricity, etc., but these kinds of homes are no longer built today for some reason. During the New Deal era, our country had a larger share of people who were economically productive. It was all hands on deck. Today we have people committing PPP loan fraud, starting companies called "Free Money Inc." and "Hellcat LLC". I know that's just one small example, but it's indicative of a completely different mindset. There is so much fraud and waste that has accompanied the general decline in our morals and standards. Spending is only complex in the sense that there are a near-infinite number of ways to allocate resources, which can cause a headache. In another sense, it's dead simple: There are givers and takers. Working people who pay more taxes than they take out in benefits are givers. Children, the elderly, and the poor are usually takers. Does that mean we should exile all children, elderly people, and poor people to the Mojave Desert or something? No. But we need strike a balance between respecting the contributions of the productive class and helping the needy. As the ratio of givers to takers approaches 1:1, or even less, we become increasingly screwed. Our current demographic trends are moving us closer to that 1:1 ratio. If I truly felt that giving up 40 - 50% of my income would guarantee fast, widespread, and safe public transit, walkable neighborhoods, beautiful and affordable homes, low crime, high social trust, etc. I would agree with you. I've been to Denmark, I've been to Japan, I've been to places that have these things. But the sense that I get and that many other honest and hard-working Americans get is that we're being shafted, which doesn't encourage me to give more of my money to the government. It's going to take time for the government to regain the trust of the American people.

This argument doesn't even make sense in 2025 when you consider the many ways in which our standard of living has declined while our tax burdens have increased. And don't give me some bullshit about cheap toys like consumer electronics and the like. I want affordable homes, reliable cars, and cheap energy, not a $100 LCD monitor or a $15 polyester sweater made in Bangladesh. What's the point of my taxes going up, of seeing the numbers on the GDP chart go up every year, if I can't even do something as simple as ordering a beautiful and affordable kit home from the Sears catalog anymore? This house would cost $45,000 today after adjusting for inflation. According to your logic, life in 2025 should be better than it was in 1995, 1985, or 1955 because we pay more taxes, but a man in 1940 could live better than me... The whole point of "hard power" and "soft power" is to enable us to live in peace and prosperity, either through the carrot or the stick. But instead of building onwards and upwards from the success of our predecessors, we chose to coast on their legacy. Now I have to regularly worry about something as ridiculous as being accosted by a drugged out schizophrenic when taking public transportation in most major cities, which would have been a once-in-a-lifetime experience for my grandfather. It's just death by a thousand little cuts with this kind of stuff, and it fatigues the collective consciousness of our society... and empties our wallets... We need to seriously rethink our approach to these things. Higher taxation is not the answer. We need less spending, but it's almost impossible to achieve because people can't fathom the thought of losing enormous cash cows like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. "I paid into it, other people should too!!" And while we're figuring out this domestic spending crisis, we certainly shouldn't be spending any money on condoms for Gaza, transsexual theater troupes, DEI bullshit, and countless other misallocations of taxpayer money.