Leighton's comment reflects the post-Iraq generation's attitude toward American foreign policy, which views even the discussion of containment as part of a "manufactured consent" hyped-up rush to war. Everything is Iraq II, just as twenty years ago everything was Greatest Generation II.
The fact is that post-Iraq/Afghanistan, no American on the Right or Left feels that anything justifies putting troops in harm's way. Putin (and Xi) both know there's no domestic support for any form of overseas engagement, which is why he/they are engaging in this brinksmanship.
America has always swung between the two poles of isolationism and adventurism. Both approaches have had a price in human lives. Right now we're maxed out on isolationism. At some point we'll learn the limits of this approach, and the pendulum will swing back again.
How can you say we've "maxed out on isolationism" when we still maintain a global military empire, engaging in covert and overt military actions all around the globe every day? If that's maxed out isolationism, I'd hate to see what adventurism looks like. Nuclear war, I suppose. Which may well happen if we decide to go on an "adventure" with Russia, given the psychological instability running rampant in both nations.
Unfortunately we have and are continuing to arm the Ukraine government with the latest ground war weaponry, including missiles. So this apparently corrupt, autocratic pro-US president could will start the war on his own volition, and drag the 8500 US troops we have on standby alert as well as NATO forces into a shooting war. It’s not just Biden‘s call anymore, but if he doesn’t respond, even if Ukraine starts the war, Biden will be seen as week & undecisive. He’s going to have to send the troops in to do enough damage to prove how tough he is. Problem is that once you start hostilities, it’s not like you can change your mind after you made your point.
Thx - enjoy your writing. I’m a Bay Arean, too. Check out my DizN’Dat Substack musings. The “China Sez’ Never Again” series resonates with today’s Russian column.
I would hope we would not be stupid enough to go to war with Russia, nor drag Europe into a war. However, Tucker Carlson (yes, boo, I know) made an interesting point. The US's position, financially, is not nearly what it was thirty years ago and the last thing we want is Russia and China deciding to grow closer and form an alliance and decide to challenge the dollar as the global currency. There are nations in Europe that are dependent on Russian fossil fuels who will not challenge them (Germany comes to mind), and you could see China along with the bulk of Asia acting in concert with Russia, strong arming European nations, to unseat the dollar. Also never mind that we produce very little of what we need here, something we should have tried to rectify rather than worrying about masking and jabbing people, and it all comes to this. We don't need a war with Russia. All we need is enough of a conflict to give China and Russia an excuse to make a run on US hegemonic power, topple the US dollar as the global reserve currency, and suddenly we have trillions in debt with a currency that is worth a fraction of what it used to be. I don't know how much Tucker Carlson is exaggerating, but none of it sounds good. Our globe is far more connected than it used to be, and the US is far less independent, skillful, and focused. It feels like we're opening a window during a hurricane with everything resting on a house of cards. And that might explain the half-hearted feeling you're getting from people. Warning bells are going off that this isn't a very good idea. Let Russia have Ukraine.
You had me until the "simping" for Putin and Russia. Being wise enough not to want a conflict is hardly "simping." I've been listening to that BS since the first Iraq war and I'm frankly tired of it. We pick and chose our battles, and not on their merit but on whom they profit. That's the truth. And if you read what I said, it's not just Russia you're up against. It's Russia and China, and anyone they can pull into their orbit. Is that really a risk we want to take? We're not the "superpower" we once were. I have no problem with that. I never thought we should be running the world. But we need to stop pretending we are. We shot our wad and now we need to let the world go on its way and handle things here at home. That's not "simping." That's called having foresight.
Lillia's comment was about Russia AND China. So your response about Russia not having enough economic power misses the point. Russia and China working together, along with their allies throughout the region, surely do have enough economic and geopolitical clout to throw a monkey wrench into U.S. control over the global economy.
FWIW, there is never, ever going to be a "gratuitous armed conflict with Russia."
Russia has 3000 active nuclear warheads. The entire Cold War was premised around the idea that *any* direct shooting war would trigger nuclear armageddon. Even KGB/CIA spies in Europe were under instructions to avoid direct engagement, because a single dead spy could trigger a crisis. This was the deterrence effect in action -- US troops stationed in Europe were known as the "tripwire" because it meant any RU invasion would lead to dead Americans and then possibly to nuclear exchange. Russian pilots in Korea flew MiGs in Korean and Chinese uniforms to avoid any direct official armed conflict.
Now as then, we are forced to act through proxies. We supplied the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s, they supplied the NVA. We are now supplying Ukraine in order to turn that country into a poisoned chalice -- we're telling Putin he can invade Ukraine if he wants it, but the long-term costs will vastly outweigh the benefits. Now as then, the "winner" is the party that lets the other side get drawn into quagmires and then forces them to pay for it.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Probably what we're looking at is at worst a proxy war fueled by US arms into Ukraine, but even that might be a stretch. Russian engagement in Syria effectively kept Obama from engaging outside the Kurdish region for the same reason.
TBH, it's hard to see what Putin's endgame is here.
If he invades he's going to have Ukrainian terrorists planting IEDs inside every Moscow metro station. He'd basically be creating his own IRA.
It's possible that maybe he's gunning for another Chechnya, but it's hard to see how that's a win for him.
Either he's playing some kind of 12-D chess in which he's playing tag-team with Xi in Taiwan, or (more likely) he's just engaging in brinksmanship to distract from Russia's terrible COVID fiasco.
IMO, the correct move is to arm the Ukrainians and then step back and see if he steps on the landmine.
I'm no expert on the subject, but I did read Masha Gessen's bio of Putin and FWIW she regards him as a mediocre intellect. Basically a ruthless mafia bureaucrat. So 12D chess is probably the least likely explanation.
Good Lord, I hope you're right because I don't think we're as smart as we were during the Cold War, which ups the chances we will do something extremely stupid
Interesting that more of the so-called conservative press are actively opposing US military involvement in Ukraine. That’s actually been consistent with their focus on rebuilding America and stop wasting lives and money overseas in places that don’t want us & are not necessary for our self defense. In contrast, the so-called liberal and progressiive-left Democrats, like Pelosi wants us to resist and even fight Russia in Eastern Europe. What a flip on so-called political identities. Conservatives, or certainly a large percentage of them like Tucker Carlson, are the American Peace Movement? Go figure.
I remember making the exact same arguments in opposition to the Iraq War that people like Carlson are making in opposition to engaging in this conflict, and being considered a Jane Fonda Communist for it.
Politics is so strange now. I know Tucker doesn't actually care about going to war in Ukraine, he just wants to spite Biden/MSM . Still, watching people on the left get mad at him for not wanting to go to war is a total LOL.
Liz Cheney is a still a warmonger so not everything has changed.
Jung called this phenomenon "Enantiodromia" which he defined as "the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time." This explains a lot about the current state of U.S. politics. Those of us who are more conscious get quickly kicked to the curb by our former tribes. I was anti-war and anti-imperialist during the Bush administration, and remain so under the Biden administration. But there is now a very strong pro-war element on the left, which overlaps with the anti-speech, pro-CIA, pro-BigPharma segment of the left, all of which used to be anathema in left wing circles. Those who go along with the flow of enantiodromia know no principles. They know only tribe, and will go along with their tribe no matter how dramatically the governing ideology shifts.
Touché, David S. Are most of my formerly progressive friends thus enantiodromiacs?
Well, the proverbial curb we’re been kicked to runs along Substack street and proud to be stranded here alongside some of you. You may enjoy a series I penned on the other U.S. conflict zone, the South China Seas: DizNDat.Substack.com
I remain a 60-70s classic liberal, anti-imperialist, & a content-of-character integrationist.
The wheels have fully come off the wagon, so it is difficult to say what happens next here. While I still believe the world is run more by incompetent bureaucrats than by a cabal of calculating villains, conspiracy theory as a heuristic, if not an accurate description of the world, has served quite well for predicting events over the past several years. A benevolent and rational push towards the betterment of the human condition cannot explain the policies our elites have been pursuing for the past (at least) several years. The only thing that can explain it is a march towards ever greater degrees of totalitarian control.
War with Russia seems to have been in the "plans" for a while now. The Russia-baiting during the Trump administration was just bizarre on an intuitive level. To spend five years asserting that Russia manipulated U.S. elections to put a puppet in the White House, over whom they had "kompramat" (it's ridiculous that word is part of our lexicon now), with only the scantest of supporting evidence, made no sense unless it is seen as building up towards something bigger. A ratcheting up of military tensions was the next logical step. Almost an inevitability after the Russiagate hysteria. And here we are.
From a geopolitical standpoint, none of this makes sense. It is quite strange for the US establishment to hyperventilate about Russia building up troops ON ITS OWN BORDER when the US maintains troops in other countries throughout the world. What principle are we standing up for here? Especially after having been by far the number 1 violator of the principle of sovereignty since WWII. That the US and NATO think it is ok to surround Russia with military forces with no buffer zone, but that it is an unforgivable act of aggression for Russia to build up forces on its own border, is nonsense. It's a joke.
TPTB have developed a global turnkey totalitarian system through the insane response to the Sars-Cov-2 virus (which was quite possibly created in a Chinese lab funded by US taxpayer dollars through the joint efforts of the very individuals and institutions charged with directing the response, who we know engaged in cover ups and malfeasance without the establishment batting an eye). The system that has been created cannot be explained as rational public health measures. The vaccine mandates and passports are utterly unjustifiable given the skyrocketing case rates in the most highly vaccinated countries. Yet this is what we have, almost globally. This can only be explained as a march (conscious or unconscious) towards tighter and more centralized control. What better way to cement that control than through a war between large military powers? This is what the Great Reset conspiracy theorists have been predicting for years now, and this is the direction things seem to be heading DESPITE MAKING NO F*&KING SENSE other than as a "Wag the Dog" social control measure.
I don't know how these decisions get made or who makes them, if anyone. But it is clear at this point that there are very dark forces at work here (personal or perhaps archetypal (or maybe lizard illuminati? why not?)). War should not happen. War here is insane. But whoever or whatever is running things have either lost their marbles or have an agenda very much at odds with the well being of humanity.
Just one idea (I don’t know anyone at this company and haven’t used their services).
Based on a bit of wildlife ambassador training, humane deterrents like exclusion and ensuring there’s no easy access to food are there only longterm solutions. I’m sure humane removal can be done with release traps. I don’t know about the mites, but the rats probably don’t like them either. (Incidentally, my first exposure to ivermectin was seeing it discussed several years ago as a cheap alternative, if properly diluted, to products like Revolution (prescription needed; kinda expensive per dose) aka Stronghold in Europe) for treating dogs, cats, and yes, rats, for fleas and mites).
There is no more unjustly maligned animal - particularly in light of just how intelligent and socially and emotionally sophisticated rats really are (will free another rat - even one they don’t know - before seeking a treat; will often share the treat with the other rat; strong evidence of not just empathy in elegantly designed experiments, but also of regret (not just regret for the results of a decision but for the decision that led to that result). Domesticated rats are the smartest, cleanest, funniest, most affectionate and playfully engaging animal companions I’ve ever had.
I don’t know of another species that simultaneously has such a short lifespan and is so vulnerable on an individual level, yet is so intelligent and capable of poignant social bonds with their families, including people.
Of course they survive as a population and their rate of reproduction and worst case risk of infestation creates a real dilemma for caring people. There is nothing more primitive and cruel than glue traps (imagine doing that to a dog or cat) and poison likewise means a very protracted, painful death. Some municipalities are beginning to recognize both the cruelty and wider harm to wildlife caused by the use of poison to try to control rodent populations.
The current Commander-in-Chief doesn't exactly give off Conquering Hero vibes--even to, in the secret fastnesses of their hearts, the most ardent Democrats. He can't even go toe-to-toe with his own staff. I mean, even in a Charlton Heston-as-El-Cid dead body tied to the saddle, he ain't gonna inspire fear in anyone's heart...
Which is exactly what the military industrial complex wants. Biden is Commander-in-Chief in name only. The generals, military contractors, and foreign policy think tanks are calling the shots here. And that is a bad place to be.
I like Hanania's take that it's _how dare you_ fallout culture war from 2013 Clinton Sec of State days and the Pussy Riot arrests that started all of Russiagate tonality and got us here today.
Agree, Hanania’s take is very good. He argues that Putin is the perfect villain for the CNN/MSNBC crowd because he’s anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, and white. And the blob shares the cultural commitments of the woke Left.
Yes, I found Hanania's take on the culture war aspects undergirding the real war possibility to be very insightful. And of course Taibbi and Greenwald did what they do best in pointing out the absurdities, hypocracies, and insanities of our global military empire.
My mother lived in Kabul in the early 1960s. Her lifelong best friend Hala was an Iraqi national. After 9/11 they were both on the same page: don’t do it. They were appalled when we did. From their kitchens they accurately predicted what has happened since in Afghanistan and Iraq. The disconnect between their reasoned viewpoint, which was valueless, and the projections of the pundits and groupthink of the experts was bonkers. So, I’m thinking: just skip all the verbiage and put Fauci in charge of our Ukraine policy. We’ll be just as effective as we usually are.
Not sure what you are saying here. Your colleague Bari Weiss who respect a lot seems to be asking why U.S. media is not more focused on Russia and saying it's a problem Americans seem to think, "that Russians threatening to invade a democratic country in the middle of Europe isn’t really our business." Are you deriding Biden for engaging NATO and our diplomatic infrastructure? Or are you saying that the Biden regime is wrong for creating a bellicose confrontation?
I haven't seen yet what Bari has written but entirely possible we disagree on this, as well as that I might be persuaded by what she's arguing. But no, I don't deride Biden for anything yet because I don't think he's actually interested in war with Russia. It's talking heads on MSNBC and CNN, mostly, who are pushing for violence.
I'm not sure I really have an argument yet. This post was to open up a discussion, since I'm not expert on this subject and am interested in hearing different perspectives. But my baseline is that I'm highly reflexively antiwar, no question. And so far I see zero national interest in a conflict with Russia over Ukraine, and I have zero trust in the David Frums of the world trying to stoke war.
What's the alternative to ignoring it, though? Seems like the only responses are ever sanctions, which IMO are counterproductive, and just empty rhetoric.
As Taibbi points out, the US and NATO dug themselves into a situation from which there is no good escape. The expansion of NATO has been an ongoing act of aggression against Russia since the fall of the Berlin wall. None of this would be happening if the US and NATO abided by their commitments to leave a neutral buffer zone around Russia following the USSR collapse. Russia's build up of troops on its own border is a defensive reaction to the aggressive 30 year campaign of NATO surrounding Russia with military force. The US and NATO are the aggressors here. And they are now reaping what they've sowed.
I agree that war (involving U.S.) is not the answer and I like what David S says below about NATO. I guess what I found frustrating was what seemed to me, making this sound like this is Biden's fault.
Leighton's comment reflects the post-Iraq generation's attitude toward American foreign policy, which views even the discussion of containment as part of a "manufactured consent" hyped-up rush to war. Everything is Iraq II, just as twenty years ago everything was Greatest Generation II.
The fact is that post-Iraq/Afghanistan, no American on the Right or Left feels that anything justifies putting troops in harm's way. Putin (and Xi) both know there's no domestic support for any form of overseas engagement, which is why he/they are engaging in this brinksmanship.
America has always swung between the two poles of isolationism and adventurism. Both approaches have had a price in human lives. Right now we're maxed out on isolationism. At some point we'll learn the limits of this approach, and the pendulum will swing back again.
How can you say we've "maxed out on isolationism" when we still maintain a global military empire, engaging in covert and overt military actions all around the globe every day? If that's maxed out isolationism, I'd hate to see what adventurism looks like. Nuclear war, I suppose. Which may well happen if we decide to go on an "adventure" with Russia, given the psychological instability running rampant in both nations.
Unfortunately we have and are continuing to arm the Ukraine government with the latest ground war weaponry, including missiles. So this apparently corrupt, autocratic pro-US president could will start the war on his own volition, and drag the 8500 US troops we have on standby alert as well as NATO forces into a shooting war. It’s not just Biden‘s call anymore, but if he doesn’t respond, even if Ukraine starts the war, Biden will be seen as week & undecisive. He’s going to have to send the troops in to do enough damage to prove how tough he is. Problem is that once you start hostilities, it’s not like you can change your mind after you made your point.
Thx - enjoy your writing. I’m a Bay Arean, too. Check out my DizN’Dat Substack musings. The “China Sez’ Never Again” series resonates with today’s Russian column.
I would hope we would not be stupid enough to go to war with Russia, nor drag Europe into a war. However, Tucker Carlson (yes, boo, I know) made an interesting point. The US's position, financially, is not nearly what it was thirty years ago and the last thing we want is Russia and China deciding to grow closer and form an alliance and decide to challenge the dollar as the global currency. There are nations in Europe that are dependent on Russian fossil fuels who will not challenge them (Germany comes to mind), and you could see China along with the bulk of Asia acting in concert with Russia, strong arming European nations, to unseat the dollar. Also never mind that we produce very little of what we need here, something we should have tried to rectify rather than worrying about masking and jabbing people, and it all comes to this. We don't need a war with Russia. All we need is enough of a conflict to give China and Russia an excuse to make a run on US hegemonic power, topple the US dollar as the global reserve currency, and suddenly we have trillions in debt with a currency that is worth a fraction of what it used to be. I don't know how much Tucker Carlson is exaggerating, but none of it sounds good. Our globe is far more connected than it used to be, and the US is far less independent, skillful, and focused. It feels like we're opening a window during a hurricane with everything resting on a house of cards. And that might explain the half-hearted feeling you're getting from people. Warning bells are going off that this isn't a very good idea. Let Russia have Ukraine.
You had me until the "simping" for Putin and Russia. Being wise enough not to want a conflict is hardly "simping." I've been listening to that BS since the first Iraq war and I'm frankly tired of it. We pick and chose our battles, and not on their merit but on whom they profit. That's the truth. And if you read what I said, it's not just Russia you're up against. It's Russia and China, and anyone they can pull into their orbit. Is that really a risk we want to take? We're not the "superpower" we once were. I have no problem with that. I never thought we should be running the world. But we need to stop pretending we are. We shot our wad and now we need to let the world go on its way and handle things here at home. That's not "simping." That's called having foresight.
Lillia's comment was about Russia AND China. So your response about Russia not having enough economic power misses the point. Russia and China working together, along with their allies throughout the region, surely do have enough economic and geopolitical clout to throw a monkey wrench into U.S. control over the global economy.
FWIW, there is never, ever going to be a "gratuitous armed conflict with Russia."
Russia has 3000 active nuclear warheads. The entire Cold War was premised around the idea that *any* direct shooting war would trigger nuclear armageddon. Even KGB/CIA spies in Europe were under instructions to avoid direct engagement, because a single dead spy could trigger a crisis. This was the deterrence effect in action -- US troops stationed in Europe were known as the "tripwire" because it meant any RU invasion would lead to dead Americans and then possibly to nuclear exchange. Russian pilots in Korea flew MiGs in Korean and Chinese uniforms to avoid any direct official armed conflict.
Now as then, we are forced to act through proxies. We supplied the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s, they supplied the NVA. We are now supplying Ukraine in order to turn that country into a poisoned chalice -- we're telling Putin he can invade Ukraine if he wants it, but the long-term costs will vastly outweigh the benefits. Now as then, the "winner" is the party that lets the other side get drawn into quagmires and then forces them to pay for it.
It's the Cold War playbook all over again.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Probably what we're looking at is at worst a proxy war fueled by US arms into Ukraine, but even that might be a stretch. Russian engagement in Syria effectively kept Obama from engaging outside the Kurdish region for the same reason.
TBH, it's hard to see what Putin's endgame is here.
If he invades he's going to have Ukrainian terrorists planting IEDs inside every Moscow metro station. He'd basically be creating his own IRA.
It's possible that maybe he's gunning for another Chechnya, but it's hard to see how that's a win for him.
Either he's playing some kind of 12-D chess in which he's playing tag-team with Xi in Taiwan, or (more likely) he's just engaging in brinksmanship to distract from Russia's terrible COVID fiasco.
IMO, the correct move is to arm the Ukrainians and then step back and see if he steps on the landmine.
I'm no expert on the subject, but I did read Masha Gessen's bio of Putin and FWIW she regards him as a mediocre intellect. Basically a ruthless mafia bureaucrat. So 12D chess is probably the least likely explanation.
It's not the man you worry about, but the people behind him. Stalin was a poor intellect, but Beria wasn't.
Good Lord, I hope you're right because I don't think we're as smart as we were during the Cold War, which ups the chances we will do something extremely stupid
Interesting that more of the so-called conservative press are actively opposing US military involvement in Ukraine. That’s actually been consistent with their focus on rebuilding America and stop wasting lives and money overseas in places that don’t want us & are not necessary for our self defense. In contrast, the so-called liberal and progressiive-left Democrats, like Pelosi wants us to resist and even fight Russia in Eastern Europe. What a flip on so-called political identities. Conservatives, or certainly a large percentage of them like Tucker Carlson, are the American Peace Movement? Go figure.
I remember making the exact same arguments in opposition to the Iraq War that people like Carlson are making in opposition to engaging in this conflict, and being considered a Jane Fonda Communist for it.
Politics is so strange now. I know Tucker doesn't actually care about going to war in Ukraine, he just wants to spite Biden/MSM . Still, watching people on the left get mad at him for not wanting to go to war is a total LOL.
Liz Cheney is a still a warmonger so not everything has changed.
Jung called this phenomenon "Enantiodromia" which he defined as "the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time." This explains a lot about the current state of U.S. politics. Those of us who are more conscious get quickly kicked to the curb by our former tribes. I was anti-war and anti-imperialist during the Bush administration, and remain so under the Biden administration. But there is now a very strong pro-war element on the left, which overlaps with the anti-speech, pro-CIA, pro-BigPharma segment of the left, all of which used to be anathema in left wing circles. Those who go along with the flow of enantiodromia know no principles. They know only tribe, and will go along with their tribe no matter how dramatically the governing ideology shifts.
Touché, David S. Are most of my formerly progressive friends thus enantiodromiacs?
Well, the proverbial curb we’re been kicked to runs along Substack street and proud to be stranded here alongside some of you. You may enjoy a series I penned on the other U.S. conflict zone, the South China Seas: DizNDat.Substack.com
I remain a 60-70s classic liberal, anti-imperialist, & a content-of-character integrationist.
The wheels have fully come off the wagon, so it is difficult to say what happens next here. While I still believe the world is run more by incompetent bureaucrats than by a cabal of calculating villains, conspiracy theory as a heuristic, if not an accurate description of the world, has served quite well for predicting events over the past several years. A benevolent and rational push towards the betterment of the human condition cannot explain the policies our elites have been pursuing for the past (at least) several years. The only thing that can explain it is a march towards ever greater degrees of totalitarian control.
War with Russia seems to have been in the "plans" for a while now. The Russia-baiting during the Trump administration was just bizarre on an intuitive level. To spend five years asserting that Russia manipulated U.S. elections to put a puppet in the White House, over whom they had "kompramat" (it's ridiculous that word is part of our lexicon now), with only the scantest of supporting evidence, made no sense unless it is seen as building up towards something bigger. A ratcheting up of military tensions was the next logical step. Almost an inevitability after the Russiagate hysteria. And here we are.
From a geopolitical standpoint, none of this makes sense. It is quite strange for the US establishment to hyperventilate about Russia building up troops ON ITS OWN BORDER when the US maintains troops in other countries throughout the world. What principle are we standing up for here? Especially after having been by far the number 1 violator of the principle of sovereignty since WWII. That the US and NATO think it is ok to surround Russia with military forces with no buffer zone, but that it is an unforgivable act of aggression for Russia to build up forces on its own border, is nonsense. It's a joke.
TPTB have developed a global turnkey totalitarian system through the insane response to the Sars-Cov-2 virus (which was quite possibly created in a Chinese lab funded by US taxpayer dollars through the joint efforts of the very individuals and institutions charged with directing the response, who we know engaged in cover ups and malfeasance without the establishment batting an eye). The system that has been created cannot be explained as rational public health measures. The vaccine mandates and passports are utterly unjustifiable given the skyrocketing case rates in the most highly vaccinated countries. Yet this is what we have, almost globally. This can only be explained as a march (conscious or unconscious) towards tighter and more centralized control. What better way to cement that control than through a war between large military powers? This is what the Great Reset conspiracy theorists have been predicting for years now, and this is the direction things seem to be heading DESPITE MAKING NO F*&KING SENSE other than as a "Wag the Dog" social control measure.
I don't know how these decisions get made or who makes them, if anyone. But it is clear at this point that there are very dark forces at work here (personal or perhaps archetypal (or maybe lizard illuminati? why not?)). War should not happen. War here is insane. But whoever or whatever is running things have either lost their marbles or have an agenda very much at odds with the well being of humanity.
Last things first: the rats!
https://humanecontrol.com/
Just one idea (I don’t know anyone at this company and haven’t used their services).
Based on a bit of wildlife ambassador training, humane deterrents like exclusion and ensuring there’s no easy access to food are there only longterm solutions. I’m sure humane removal can be done with release traps. I don’t know about the mites, but the rats probably don’t like them either. (Incidentally, my first exposure to ivermectin was seeing it discussed several years ago as a cheap alternative, if properly diluted, to products like Revolution (prescription needed; kinda expensive per dose) aka Stronghold in Europe) for treating dogs, cats, and yes, rats, for fleas and mites).
There is no more unjustly maligned animal - particularly in light of just how intelligent and socially and emotionally sophisticated rats really are (will free another rat - even one they don’t know - before seeking a treat; will often share the treat with the other rat; strong evidence of not just empathy in elegantly designed experiments, but also of regret (not just regret for the results of a decision but for the decision that led to that result). Domesticated rats are the smartest, cleanest, funniest, most affectionate and playfully engaging animal companions I’ve ever had.
I don’t know of another species that simultaneously has such a short lifespan and is so vulnerable on an individual level, yet is so intelligent and capable of poignant social bonds with their families, including people.
Of course they survive as a population and their rate of reproduction and worst case risk of infestation creates a real dilemma for caring people. There is nothing more primitive and cruel than glue traps (imagine doing that to a dog or cat) and poison likewise means a very protracted, painful death. Some municipalities are beginning to recognize both the cruelty and wider harm to wildlife caused by the use of poison to try to control rodent populations.
https://vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/posts/rodenticide-ban/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email-fullban-s&utm_campaign=wildlife_poisons&utm_content=text-1&mc_cid=d3dd02f693&mc_eid=1345437533
The current Commander-in-Chief doesn't exactly give off Conquering Hero vibes--even to, in the secret fastnesses of their hearts, the most ardent Democrats. He can't even go toe-to-toe with his own staff. I mean, even in a Charlton Heston-as-El-Cid dead body tied to the saddle, he ain't gonna inspire fear in anyone's heart...
Which is exactly what the military industrial complex wants. Biden is Commander-in-Chief in name only. The generals, military contractors, and foreign policy think tanks are calling the shots here. And that is a bad place to be.
I like Hanania's take that it's _how dare you_ fallout culture war from 2013 Clinton Sec of State days and the Pussy Riot arrests that started all of Russiagate tonality and got us here today.
Agree, Hanania’s take is very good. He argues that Putin is the perfect villain for the CNN/MSNBC crowd because he’s anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, and white. And the blob shares the cultural commitments of the woke Left.
Yes, I found Hanania's take on the culture war aspects undergirding the real war possibility to be very insightful. And of course Taibbi and Greenwald did what they do best in pointing out the absurdities, hypocracies, and insanities of our global military empire.
My mother lived in Kabul in the early 1960s. Her lifelong best friend Hala was an Iraqi national. After 9/11 they were both on the same page: don’t do it. They were appalled when we did. From their kitchens they accurately predicted what has happened since in Afghanistan and Iraq. The disconnect between their reasoned viewpoint, which was valueless, and the projections of the pundits and groupthink of the experts was bonkers. So, I’m thinking: just skip all the verbiage and put Fauci in charge of our Ukraine policy. We’ll be just as effective as we usually are.
Not sure what you are saying here. Your colleague Bari Weiss who respect a lot seems to be asking why U.S. media is not more focused on Russia and saying it's a problem Americans seem to think, "that Russians threatening to invade a democratic country in the middle of Europe isn’t really our business." Are you deriding Biden for engaging NATO and our diplomatic infrastructure? Or are you saying that the Biden regime is wrong for creating a bellicose confrontation?
I haven't seen yet what Bari has written but entirely possible we disagree on this, as well as that I might be persuaded by what she's arguing. But no, I don't deride Biden for anything yet because I don't think he's actually interested in war with Russia. It's talking heads on MSNBC and CNN, mostly, who are pushing for violence.
so is your main argument that U.S. should be trying harder to avoid war? Here is recent Bari Weiss article: https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-conversation-with-the-last-liberal?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMDQxNjk2LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0NzY0NjMzOSwiXyI6IlRnNjVXIiwiaWF0IjoxNjQzMjMyMDc3LCJleHAiOjE2NDMyMzU2NzcsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0yNjAzNDciLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.RONa3-8ukamdx3QwcswaPVUdmEOmr4pz4afl5s8Z3JA
I'm not sure I really have an argument yet. This post was to open up a discussion, since I'm not expert on this subject and am interested in hearing different perspectives. But my baseline is that I'm highly reflexively antiwar, no question. And so far I see zero national interest in a conflict with Russia over Ukraine, and I have zero trust in the David Frums of the world trying to stoke war.
War is terrible, agreed (I was against both Iraq wars). But I don't think US should ignore what's going on in Ukraine.
What's the alternative to ignoring it, though? Seems like the only responses are ever sanctions, which IMO are counterproductive, and just empty rhetoric.
As Taibbi points out, the US and NATO dug themselves into a situation from which there is no good escape. The expansion of NATO has been an ongoing act of aggression against Russia since the fall of the Berlin wall. None of this would be happening if the US and NATO abided by their commitments to leave a neutral buffer zone around Russia following the USSR collapse. Russia's build up of troops on its own border is a defensive reaction to the aggressive 30 year campaign of NATO surrounding Russia with military force. The US and NATO are the aggressors here. And they are now reaping what they've sowed.
I agree that war (involving U.S.) is not the answer and I like what David S says below about NATO. I guess what I found frustrating was what seemed to me, making this sound like this is Biden's fault.