We should be encouraging a deal but our idiocracy wants the war to continue... PM's team thinks the war helps him politically... Strauss on Nietzsche...
Dominic, what are your thoughts of an education policy similar to the Thiel Fellowship where a cohort of bright young people in the UK are given £100,000 to build something? To me this feels relatively inexpensive for the country while also offering an alternative to university for some of the brightest young minds in our country.
Boris' removal of the longstanding Tory pledge to repeal the hunting act seemed to be a watershed moment in terms of Tory attitudes to individual/minority/cancelled freedoms. To what extent was this driven by Carrie/PETA?
Below excerpts on Obama's rational thoughts about Ukraine from his 2016 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg:
Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.
I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.
“It’s realistic,” he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.” He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him, in order to knock it down. “I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn’t exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn’t maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy.”
“The ‘crazy Nixon’ approach,” I said: Confuse and frighten your enemies by making them think you’re capable of committing irrational acts.
“But let’s examine the Nixon theory,” he said. “So we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I’m going to be trying to figure out how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In what way did that strategy promote our interests?”
To flag a typo: "Now the burble comes faster and faster thanks to Twitter-addiction. But when it comes to *muclear* weapons, it is necessary to face uncomfortable truths or else our idiocracy will destroy much more than Ukraine."
An interesting piece of commentary on Ukraine - albeit from a different angle it echoes my cynical view that Biden /West would prefer a long drawn out war. However given that your basic thesis is that we have a bunch of morons in charge then your hope for a negotiated peace stands no better chance of success than the other alternatives, This requires statesmanship and that appears singularly absent in the current situation. What does a negotiated settlement look like ? Ït probably requires the establishment of a new state called Donbas or East Ukraine - a pledge not to join NATO - a jointly funded programme to rebuild Ukraine ( Russia/West) a security guarantee via UN over which there is no veto option. The ability of both Russia and Ukraine to join an expanded free trade area.. The weakness in my solution is that you have rewarded the aggressor as is the case with your solution - perhaps it is just the price that has to be paid for realpolitik and part of that is the recognition by Putin himself that he knows he is a dead man walking,
In my estimation, invading Ukraine on many fronts and going for Kiev as if pro-Russians can sort out Ukraine after this is a massive blunder on Putin's part, even more suicidal than most of the incredibly dumb moves the West have made lately. Do you agree? If no, why not? And if yes, why does it not feature more prominently in your take on Ukraine? Personally, I regarded the posturing for a full invasion as a likely Putin psyop, on the assumption that him and his team were not idiots, but playing Biden like a fiddle and threatening (actually, reassuring) Zelenskyy that paramilitarism would soon be over, one way or another (with the Russian army putting an end to it in Donbas). But I have had to seriously revise my apparently ignorant take on Putin's Russia since this thing unfolded. At this point, I'd say @kamilkazani makes more sense of it than most, even if there still seems to be an element of wishful thinking in there. What seems clear, at any rate, is that lots of his takes are structurally sound and not yet falsified, while other commentators, both pro-Putin and anti-Putin, clearly don't have coherent stories about what's going on.
Here in the USA it's difficult to wade through all the spin and especially difficult to pinpoint the reasons for it in the first place. As a truck driver (owner/operator) I travel all over the lower 48 states a see alot of varying reactions to world events.
For the most part, the working class just want their own situation to get better economically. Of course people are concerned with the carnage in Ukraine but most people don't think we should get involved except for arming the fighters on the ground. I agree NATO should "grow a set" and cover Ukraine air space, but inept politicians are running the show.
Dominic, what are your thoughts of an education policy similar to the Thiel Fellowship where a cohort of bright young people in the UK are given £100,000 to build something? To me this feels relatively inexpensive for the country while also offering an alternative to university for some of the brightest young minds in our country.
Boris' removal of the longstanding Tory pledge to repeal the hunting act seemed to be a watershed moment in terms of Tory attitudes to individual/minority/cancelled freedoms. To what extent was this driven by Carrie/PETA?
Really great post Dominic.However it is not an idiocracy more a malignocracy.
Below excerpts on Obama's rational thoughts about Ukraine from his 2016 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg:
Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.
I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.
“It’s realistic,” he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.” He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him, in order to knock it down. “I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn’t exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn’t maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy.”
“The ‘crazy Nixon’ approach,” I said: Confuse and frighten your enemies by making them think you’re capable of committing irrational acts.
“But let’s examine the Nixon theory,” he said. “So we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I’m going to be trying to figure out how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In what way did that strategy promote our interests?”
Do you think there are more wheels or doors in the world?
It’s Sunday, it’s the beginning of Summertime, are you hopeful about anything ?
To flag a typo: "Now the burble comes faster and faster thanks to Twitter-addiction. But when it comes to *muclear* weapons, it is necessary to face uncomfortable truths or else our idiocracy will destroy much more than Ukraine."
What are your thoughts on Effective Altruism? Are you an EA?
An interesting piece of commentary on Ukraine - albeit from a different angle it echoes my cynical view that Biden /West would prefer a long drawn out war. However given that your basic thesis is that we have a bunch of morons in charge then your hope for a negotiated peace stands no better chance of success than the other alternatives, This requires statesmanship and that appears singularly absent in the current situation. What does a negotiated settlement look like ? Ït probably requires the establishment of a new state called Donbas or East Ukraine - a pledge not to join NATO - a jointly funded programme to rebuild Ukraine ( Russia/West) a security guarantee via UN over which there is no veto option. The ability of both Russia and Ukraine to join an expanded free trade area.. The weakness in my solution is that you have rewarded the aggressor as is the case with your solution - perhaps it is just the price that has to be paid for realpolitik and part of that is the recognition by Putin himself that he knows he is a dead man walking,
I would highly recommend Sue Prideaux's book on Nietzche, 'I am dynamite!' - really excellent. A complicated but brilliant mind.
Common traits of the best military leaders you've studied/worked with?
Brilliant!!!!!!
In my estimation, invading Ukraine on many fronts and going for Kiev as if pro-Russians can sort out Ukraine after this is a massive blunder on Putin's part, even more suicidal than most of the incredibly dumb moves the West have made lately. Do you agree? If no, why not? And if yes, why does it not feature more prominently in your take on Ukraine? Personally, I regarded the posturing for a full invasion as a likely Putin psyop, on the assumption that him and his team were not idiots, but playing Biden like a fiddle and threatening (actually, reassuring) Zelenskyy that paramilitarism would soon be over, one way or another (with the Russian army putting an end to it in Donbas). But I have had to seriously revise my apparently ignorant take on Putin's Russia since this thing unfolded. At this point, I'd say @kamilkazani makes more sense of it than most, even if there still seems to be an element of wishful thinking in there. What seems clear, at any rate, is that lots of his takes are structurally sound and not yet falsified, while other commentators, both pro-Putin and anti-Putin, clearly don't have coherent stories about what's going on.
Excellent insight!!!
Here in the USA it's difficult to wade through all the spin and especially difficult to pinpoint the reasons for it in the first place. As a truck driver (owner/operator) I travel all over the lower 48 states a see alot of varying reactions to world events.
For the most part, the working class just want their own situation to get better economically. Of course people are concerned with the carnage in Ukraine but most people don't think we should get involved except for arming the fighters on the ground. I agree NATO should "grow a set" and cover Ukraine air space, but inept politicians are running the show.
Are you surprised to see Gary Kasparov repeating bubble memes from clowns like frum e.g. we are already in ww3 so no need for nato to hold back