Interesting talk with Mr. Davidzon. I like listening to what he has to say.
You're spot on, Claire, about the egalitarian nature of American society. I was one of the National Guardsman who went up to DC for Biden's inauguration. We all got to talk to a few congressman here and there. Nancy Pelosi even handed out sandwiches.
I don't understand why Donald Trump is considered such a threat to "democracy". Mr. Davidzon, I think was spot on when he said that the liberal side of the aisle shouldn't be condemning Trump supporters as a bunch of red-neck hillbillies.
When Trump won the 2016 election, the Democratic party had two options:
Option A: Man, how did we lose? Why did a considerable part of the country actually think that it was in their best interest to vote for Donald Trump? How have we lost connection with traditionally Democratic , blue-collar voters?
Option B: It's because they're a bunch of racists!
I'm generalizing, of course, but you see my point. Personally, I think Obama was a much more divisive president than Trump was, but I wouldn't call him a threat to our government. Rather, it is the electorate that votes for these guys is who we should all be worried about.
The way you keep talking about Tucker Carlson, I'm beginning to think you might have a crush on him. I'm joking, of course, but I don't think Tucker is shaping American opinion. In fact, Fox News is getting sued by Dominion Voting Systems because all their major hosts decided to run with the story that those voting machines were faulty, even when they knew they weren't. They thought it was what their audience wanted to hear, and they were right. Dare I say that Fox News was... fake news.
I think that the Iraq War may have more to do with the resistance about arming Ukraine than anything, or anyone, else. I'm just a tad bit too young to remember it, but at the height of the Iraq War, it was pretty unpopular to publicly support it. Bush, for instance, wouldn't have had a Surge if he had been running for re-election. Now, flash-forward 20 years, and the same people who largely contributed to the troops who went to Iraq and Afghanistan (lower/middle class Americans from the "fly-over" states) and who supported those wars even when it was unpopular to do so are now being asked to donate billions of tax-dollars during a recession or they're cowardly? I'm not quite sure about that.
Lastly, I'm working towards a bachelor's in mathematics and I've found your father's books very helpful and illuminating. Especially "A Tour of the Calculus". I'm probably going to have to re-read it soon. He refers to "the calculus" with the same sort of reverence I've heard machinegunners use when referring to "the Fifty".
Here’s an extremely interesting article about what might come next in Ukraine. It suggests that both the U.S. and the U.K. have committed to sending shells made from depleted uranium to Ukraine. If the author is correct, the United States is addicted to the use of these weapons.
There’s a reason to believe that the use of these shells might provide an excuse to Putin for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Personally, I doubt he will need an excuse; if a Ukrainian offensive against Russian positions in Crimea looks potentially successful, Putin will use nuclear weapons happily or not.
Once the taboo against the use of these weapons is breached, our world will be changed forever in a horrible way.
All for what?
The author also suggests that the Biden Administration is pressuring Zelensky to attack Crimea because Administration officials are convinced that Ukraine can be successful and that a productive Ukrainian assault on Crimea might result in Putin’s overthrow. Who knows if this might happen but it seems remarkably unlikely to me. The chance that Putin would use battlefield nuclear weapons to save Crimea seems far higher than the likelihood that a Russian failure in Crimea will lead to the overthrow of Putin. Who do you suppose is more politically popular in his country; Putin or Biden, Macron, or Sunak. Who will be deposed first; Macron or Putin?
I listened to the Davidzon and Berlinski podcast and they both seem really down in the dumps. We haven’t even witnessed the Ukrainian offensive yet. Isn’t it a bit early to be sitting shiva?
But if things do end up turning out badly for Ukraine (which might actually end American hegemony permanently) there’s something Vlad and Claire seem unwilling to admit. If Ukraine loses perhaps it’s not because NATO didn’t deliver weapons fast enough. Maybe it would just be because Ukraine never had a chance against a stronger, wealthier, and better armed adversary. If this is true, it means that interventionists who were the chief cheer leaders for this war, adopted a remarkably bad strategy that could result in Ukraine being dismembered. It would be just one more in a long line of American policy failures.
Something I do want to point out is actually more members of Congress than just Barbara Lee opposed the Iraq Invasion in 2003. I think one problem over the long term has been that in both the US and France the people who opposed the invasion are actually a pretty heterodox bunch ranging from people like Howard Dean, Ned Lamont, and now Emmanuel Macron who are basically relatively centrist and support Ukraine but did NOT support the invasion in 2003 for discreet reasons to elements of the anti American far left(and now the Tucker Carlson far right).
Perhaps the real elite failure in the US was not Iraq in 2003 but failing to stop 9/11 as France did with it's own attempted 9/11 style attack. The fact the US already had essentially the Al Queda playbook from Air France flight 8969 but "still" couldn't stop 9/11 was perhaps the greatest form of elite failure in the US in my lifetime.
Excellent talk. I just listened. Just reading the comment above me, i’m disinclined to think Putin invaded Ukraine largely because he thinks we failed in Iraq. It was more the widespread perception that we failed which is what he seized on for his own preconceived ends. He would be designing on Ukraine, Moldova Georgia, regardless of whether we intervened in the middle east. Only when we got cold feet about it, did he get excited though. Obama encouraged Putin to start making expansionist moves and then Trump of course excited him enormously, also Xi. The Populist domestic reaction to intervention within America, not the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in themselves, is encouraging our adversaries. Biden’s terrible decision to withdraw from Afghanistan was probably very significant if not pivotal to putin deciding to invade Ukraine. Populism.
And I was glad you guys touched on the civic virtue problem. That is the root of the issue for me. We wouldn’t have such abysmal leadership in America if we weren’t so deluded and superficial as to elect charlatans, posers, buffoons and idiots, Obama, Trump, Biden-- if the people weren’t so shallow and stupid that we think we can take whoever is superficially appealing in the most vulgar way without there being real consequences. But the American character over the last decade has been utterly transformed from the inside out. That’s hardly the elites’ fault. They are accountable to we the people. It’s our damn fault.
I take Tom Nichols’s and George Will’s line on this. It’s the coarsening of our civic bonds and our excessively permissive licentious culture, the entitled pseudointellectual rot bred in our universities, phone addiction, nonexistent parenting. People can barely read or write or reason anymore. They wear their political affiliation like a sports jersey. Why can’t we realize our international obligations to Ukraine and Europe? We can’t see past our fucking petty narrow little identities! I blame what Tobias Smollett in the 18th century decried as “Luxury.” Definitely get Chuck Schumer on. If there is anyone who can persuade our self-involved leaders to arm Ukraine, it’s you guys. Great talk. Very intelligent.
(caveat - I read the transcript because I don't have time today to listen to the podcast).
Some random thoughts;
* I agree with Mr Davidzon on Iraq. I remember my sense of dread at the likely foolish American response to 9/11, and the Iraq invasion was so obviously a bad idea. I submit that the connection between Ukraine and Iraq is actually even stronger, because without the Iraq invasion there would very possibly have been no invasion of Ukraine - Iraq is what triggered the decline in US prestige and influence (and arguably the various internal declines) and created a lot of the geopolitical reality we're now living through.
* Not being in the US, I don't have a feeling for how much influence Carlson has, but I'll reiterate a point I've made here before - when you say Carlson, you should be saying "Murdoch". Unless something has radically changed in the way the Murdoch organisation works, people like Tucker Carlson don't make news policy, and the people who do are doing what they're pretty confident Rupert wants. Instead of asking why Tucker Carlson wants to undermine Ukraine, ask yourself why Rupert (or Lachlan) Murdoch wants to - and the answer will be, because they think it is better for business. Either the small scale (but highly profitable) business of Fox News, or the larger scale business environment in general - possibly they think the war is too disruptive, just like those in the British elite who wanted to get rid of Churchill in the early '40s and come to an accommodation with Hitler.
Interesting talk with Mr. Davidzon. I like listening to what he has to say.
You're spot on, Claire, about the egalitarian nature of American society. I was one of the National Guardsman who went up to DC for Biden's inauguration. We all got to talk to a few congressman here and there. Nancy Pelosi even handed out sandwiches.
I don't understand why Donald Trump is considered such a threat to "democracy". Mr. Davidzon, I think was spot on when he said that the liberal side of the aisle shouldn't be condemning Trump supporters as a bunch of red-neck hillbillies.
When Trump won the 2016 election, the Democratic party had two options:
Option A: Man, how did we lose? Why did a considerable part of the country actually think that it was in their best interest to vote for Donald Trump? How have we lost connection with traditionally Democratic , blue-collar voters?
Option B: It's because they're a bunch of racists!
I'm generalizing, of course, but you see my point. Personally, I think Obama was a much more divisive president than Trump was, but I wouldn't call him a threat to our government. Rather, it is the electorate that votes for these guys is who we should all be worried about.
The way you keep talking about Tucker Carlson, I'm beginning to think you might have a crush on him. I'm joking, of course, but I don't think Tucker is shaping American opinion. In fact, Fox News is getting sued by Dominion Voting Systems because all their major hosts decided to run with the story that those voting machines were faulty, even when they knew they weren't. They thought it was what their audience wanted to hear, and they were right. Dare I say that Fox News was... fake news.
I think that the Iraq War may have more to do with the resistance about arming Ukraine than anything, or anyone, else. I'm just a tad bit too young to remember it, but at the height of the Iraq War, it was pretty unpopular to publicly support it. Bush, for instance, wouldn't have had a Surge if he had been running for re-election. Now, flash-forward 20 years, and the same people who largely contributed to the troops who went to Iraq and Afghanistan (lower/middle class Americans from the "fly-over" states) and who supported those wars even when it was unpopular to do so are now being asked to donate billions of tax-dollars during a recession or they're cowardly? I'm not quite sure about that.
Lastly, I'm working towards a bachelor's in mathematics and I've found your father's books very helpful and illuminating. Especially "A Tour of the Calculus". I'm probably going to have to re-read it soon. He refers to "the calculus" with the same sort of reverence I've heard machinegunners use when referring to "the Fifty".
Here’s an extremely interesting article about what might come next in Ukraine. It suggests that both the U.S. and the U.K. have committed to sending shells made from depleted uranium to Ukraine. If the author is correct, the United States is addicted to the use of these weapons.
There’s a reason to believe that the use of these shells might provide an excuse to Putin for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Personally, I doubt he will need an excuse; if a Ukrainian offensive against Russian positions in Crimea looks potentially successful, Putin will use nuclear weapons happily or not.
Once the taboo against the use of these weapons is breached, our world will be changed forever in a horrible way.
All for what?
The author also suggests that the Biden Administration is pressuring Zelensky to attack Crimea because Administration officials are convinced that Ukraine can be successful and that a productive Ukrainian assault on Crimea might result in Putin’s overthrow. Who knows if this might happen but it seems remarkably unlikely to me. The chance that Putin would use battlefield nuclear weapons to save Crimea seems far higher than the likelihood that a Russian failure in Crimea will lead to the overthrow of Putin. Who do you suppose is more politically popular in his country; Putin or Biden, Macron, or Sunak. Who will be deposed first; Macron or Putin?
I listened to the Davidzon and Berlinski podcast and they both seem really down in the dumps. We haven’t even witnessed the Ukrainian offensive yet. Isn’t it a bit early to be sitting shiva?
But if things do end up turning out badly for Ukraine (which might actually end American hegemony permanently) there’s something Vlad and Claire seem unwilling to admit. If Ukraine loses perhaps it’s not because NATO didn’t deliver weapons fast enough. Maybe it would just be because Ukraine never had a chance against a stronger, wealthier, and better armed adversary. If this is true, it means that interventionists who were the chief cheer leaders for this war, adopted a remarkably bad strategy that could result in Ukraine being dismembered. It would be just one more in a long line of American policy failures.
Anyway, here the article. It’s worth a look.
https://weapons.substack.com/p/depleted-uranium-ammunition-and-crimea
Something I do want to point out is actually more members of Congress than just Barbara Lee opposed the Iraq Invasion in 2003. I think one problem over the long term has been that in both the US and France the people who opposed the invasion are actually a pretty heterodox bunch ranging from people like Howard Dean, Ned Lamont, and now Emmanuel Macron who are basically relatively centrist and support Ukraine but did NOT support the invasion in 2003 for discreet reasons to elements of the anti American far left(and now the Tucker Carlson far right).
Perhaps the real elite failure in the US was not Iraq in 2003 but failing to stop 9/11 as France did with it's own attempted 9/11 style attack. The fact the US already had essentially the Al Queda playbook from Air France flight 8969 but "still" couldn't stop 9/11 was perhaps the greatest form of elite failure in the US in my lifetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
**I believe there are several movies in France about flight 8969 that the Cosmopolitan Globalist's Arun Kapil has reviewed over the years.
Excellent talk. I just listened. Just reading the comment above me, i’m disinclined to think Putin invaded Ukraine largely because he thinks we failed in Iraq. It was more the widespread perception that we failed which is what he seized on for his own preconceived ends. He would be designing on Ukraine, Moldova Georgia, regardless of whether we intervened in the middle east. Only when we got cold feet about it, did he get excited though. Obama encouraged Putin to start making expansionist moves and then Trump of course excited him enormously, also Xi. The Populist domestic reaction to intervention within America, not the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in themselves, is encouraging our adversaries. Biden’s terrible decision to withdraw from Afghanistan was probably very significant if not pivotal to putin deciding to invade Ukraine. Populism.
And I was glad you guys touched on the civic virtue problem. That is the root of the issue for me. We wouldn’t have such abysmal leadership in America if we weren’t so deluded and superficial as to elect charlatans, posers, buffoons and idiots, Obama, Trump, Biden-- if the people weren’t so shallow and stupid that we think we can take whoever is superficially appealing in the most vulgar way without there being real consequences. But the American character over the last decade has been utterly transformed from the inside out. That’s hardly the elites’ fault. They are accountable to we the people. It’s our damn fault.
I take Tom Nichols’s and George Will’s line on this. It’s the coarsening of our civic bonds and our excessively permissive licentious culture, the entitled pseudointellectual rot bred in our universities, phone addiction, nonexistent parenting. People can barely read or write or reason anymore. They wear their political affiliation like a sports jersey. Why can’t we realize our international obligations to Ukraine and Europe? We can’t see past our fucking petty narrow little identities! I blame what Tobias Smollett in the 18th century decried as “Luxury.” Definitely get Chuck Schumer on. If there is anyone who can persuade our self-involved leaders to arm Ukraine, it’s you guys. Great talk. Very intelligent.
(caveat - I read the transcript because I don't have time today to listen to the podcast).
Some random thoughts;
* I agree with Mr Davidzon on Iraq. I remember my sense of dread at the likely foolish American response to 9/11, and the Iraq invasion was so obviously a bad idea. I submit that the connection between Ukraine and Iraq is actually even stronger, because without the Iraq invasion there would very possibly have been no invasion of Ukraine - Iraq is what triggered the decline in US prestige and influence (and arguably the various internal declines) and created a lot of the geopolitical reality we're now living through.
* Not being in the US, I don't have a feeling for how much influence Carlson has, but I'll reiterate a point I've made here before - when you say Carlson, you should be saying "Murdoch". Unless something has radically changed in the way the Murdoch organisation works, people like Tucker Carlson don't make news policy, and the people who do are doing what they're pretty confident Rupert wants. Instead of asking why Tucker Carlson wants to undermine Ukraine, ask yourself why Rupert (or Lachlan) Murdoch wants to - and the answer will be, because they think it is better for business. Either the small scale (but highly profitable) business of Fox News, or the larger scale business environment in general - possibly they think the war is too disruptive, just like those in the British elite who wanted to get rid of Churchill in the early '40s and come to an accommodation with Hitler.