Ukraine

[reeshau]

44.25km in the U.S, with a river crossing, compared to 5.2km in Syria. Maybe there's hope for us idiots after all.

I looked, too.  But Washington National is a lot closer. 4.6 miles.

[rocketpj]

"This perception of Russia's war in Ukraine as something distant - I've heard that so often here. I get the sense that, for a considerable portion of the population, this is a war they only experience on their TV screen or on their smart phone. In many ways, a virtual war.

Comparable to Iraq and Afghanistan for the vast majority of Americans and people of other countries.  Yes, aware it is happening, but not really a big factor in our day to day.  I imagine if the Taliban or any of the Iraqi groups had started car bombing US generals in Washington that would have got some attention.

[Travis]

Kamaz is one of Russia's largest commercial and military truck makers. The government already owns 50% of the company.

Sales down 30% this year, went from 15b ruble profit to 3b ruble loss, and debt payments went up 174%.

https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/russian_armys_biggest_truck_supplier_kamaz_declared_multi_million_financial_losses-12417.html

https://x.com/evgen1232007/status/1869767254663115136

[Lews Therin]

"This perception of Russia's war in Ukraine as something distant - I've heard that so often here. I get the sense that, for a considerable portion of the population, this is a war they only experience on their TV screen or on their smart phone. In many ways, a virtual war.

Comparable to Iraq and Afghanistan for the vast majority of Americans and people of other countries.  Yes, aware it is happening, but not really a big factor in our day to day.  I imagine if the Taliban or any of the Iraqi groups had started car bombing US generals in Washington that would have got some attention.

Shouldn't it be more comparable to vietnam?

A lot more deaths, injuries, and visible effects than afghanistan or iraq.

[LennStar]

Shouldn't it be more comparable to vietnam?

A lot more deaths, injuries, and visible effects than afghanistan or iraq.

Who of the people alive have actual clear memories of something 50 years ago? And that war was even farer away - not speaking of geographics, but of available, visual media to consume that keeps itself in your memory.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Would Russia have invaded a nuclear-armed Ukraine?  I think countries at risk of Russian invasion may be asking themselves that, and making the world a riskier place.  The risks aren't just from Russia: China has used water canon to force Philippine ships to not resupply their territory, and had border skirmishes with India (which China started).  I wonder if we'll see more nuclear-armed countries as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Thirty years ago, on 5 December 1994, at a ceremony in Budapest, Ukraine joined Belarus and Kazakhstan in giving up their nuclear arsenals in return for security guarantees from the United States, the UK, France, China and Russia.

Strictly speaking, the missiles belonged to the Soviet Union, not to its newly independent former republics.

But a third of the USSR’s nuclear stockpile was located on Ukrainian soil, and handing over the weapons was regarded as a significant moment, worthy of international recognition.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3ndxglwxo

[MustacheAndaHalf]

"Americans are divided about evenly over whether the U.S. should continue to help Ukraine win back territory it lost in the war with Russia, even in a prolonged conflict (48%), or try to reach a quick end to the conflict, even if that means Ukraine does not recover all of its land (50%). This marks a shift from prior readings, when the majority of Americans backed a fight for total victory.

Americans are also split as to whether the U.S. is doing too much (37%), the right amount (31%) or not enough (30%) to aid Ukraine."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/654575/americans-favor-quick-end-russia-ukraine-war.aspx

Although the largest group think the U.S. is doing too much, another 61% think aid should not go lower.  Maybe that will matter when Congress decides on Ukraine aid, but I suspect Trump's veto will block further aid to Ukraine.

[FIPurpose]

The veto is almost pointless with the way congress runs now. Omnibus bills mean even the president can’t veto all parts of spending he doesn’t want. Ukraine funding would be tied into the budget, and that’ll mostly depend on what Dems will demand in order to vote for it since Democratic votes will almost certainly be required to pass a bill.

[waltworks]

Unfortunately I think lack of soldiers is the bigger problem now. 

-W

[Radagast]

I'm recently feeling optimistic once again for Ukraine. It feels like Russia has once again peaked. Their first peak was in February 2022, when their standing army advanced quickly before being crushed. This time it feels like the war effort of the whole nation has peaked. This is it, this is all they have. Available armor will enter a precipitous decline in the war's 4th year, as will their economy. The biggest thing they have done so far is infowar: they have elected a lot of Putinist puppets throughout the world, and convinced a lot of people that ill-considered dovish nationalist socialism is the best, when the opposite is what would be worst for Putin. The right thing to do in 2025 is double down and end the Russian menace to our societies, but to a large extent Putin has preempted this by persuading societies to turn against their own interests. I think it might be too late for him though.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The veto is almost pointless with the way congress runs now. Omnibus bills mean even the president can’t veto all parts of spending he doesn’t want. Ukraine funding would be tied into the budget, and that’ll mostly depend on what Dems will demand in order to vote for it since Democratic votes will almost certainly be required to pass a bill.

Isn't that what happened earlier this week, even before Trump took office?

The key assumption is that a President can't risk a bill failing, when it could shut down government.  But Trump presided over the longest government shutdown, so I don't think those consequences restrain him.

While the filibuster remains, it doesn't apply to budget reconciliation.  I think Republicans can get majority votes in Congress, and use budget reconciliation (once per year) to bypass the filibuster.

[ChpBstrd]

Unfortunately I think lack of soldiers is the bigger problem now. 

-W

I find it interesting that the Ukrainians have not yet, to my knowledge, made a wholesale effort to recruit Africans, Asians, Arabs, Nepalese, Latin Americans, etc. with a promise of citizenship and steady employment. The world is full of people who would be willing to fight for the chance to earn a living wage in a European democracy as legit citizens. The line would be millions of people long.

Such individuals might have more at stake than the mercenaries Russia uses as bullet absorbers, and might be more motivated too. A quarter-million immigrants with one person employed in the military could turn the tide of the war, and only increase the population 0.75%. Such a plan would not even restore half of the probable war dead, but it would send a strong signal to Russia: We can replenish indefinitely.

Immigration might solve the immediate running-out-of-soldiers problem and narrow the population gap with Russia, but it comes at the cost of national unity, by encouraging the sort of right-wing, anti-immigrant domestic politics seen in the rest of Europe. We cannot know how many Ukrainians are fighting for their ethnicity more so than their political system, and the country has little precedent for dealing with cultural differences. So maybe this is the ultimate barrier to a Ukrainian victory. I don't know if Russia has the same opportunity.

It's one of those situations where the solution is right in front of people, but they find the solution unacceptable.

[LennStar]

Unfortunately I think lack of soldiers is the bigger problem now. 

-W

I find it interesting that the Ukrainians have not yet, to my knowledge, made a wholesale effort to recruit Africans, Asians, Arabs, Nepalese, Latin Americans, etc. with a promise of citizenship and steady employment. The world is full of people who would be willing to fight for the chance to earn a living wage in a European democracy as legit citizens. The line would be millions of people long.

First of all I think you are overestimating the willingness, especially to one of Europes poorest countries.
Second: Having more people just to have more people is what Russia does, and it doesn't work that well, does it (if you value lives)? Training is very important and the available training facilities are overbooked.
Third: Keeping morale. Ukraine had about 100K deserters. This does not only include forcibly mobilized people, but also those who started full of mental fire. A few month under artillery fire, with trench feet in winter or a few bullets catched might change the view about the worth of that citizenship (which, by the way, only happens if Ukraine wins).
Fourth: A combo of 2+3: A sizeable chunks of Russias bigger sudden gains are because Ukrainian defender simply stood up and left their positions against their orders. For whatever reason (like they knew comrades who were never given the retreat order even if encircld, like it just happened 2 times) they lost the will to fight even if they would have been able to hold out.

Ukraine has been extremely reluctant (even when pressured by the US) to draft more people. Partly that is internal politics, but it's also because they don't think it would help much.

[cerat0n1a]

I find it interesting that the Ukrainians have not yet, to my knowledge, made a wholesale effort to recruit Africans, Asians, Arabs, Nepalese, Latin Americans, etc. with a promise of citizenship and steady employment. The world is full of people who would be willing to fight for the chance to earn a living wage in a European democracy as legit citizens.

You might be surprised at how poor Ukraine is relative to many countries. Before the 2022 invasion, almost everywhere in S. America had a higher GDP per head than Ukraine, as do places like Gabon, Egypt, Botswana, Nigeria etc.

[FIPurpose]

While the filibuster remains, it doesn't apply to budget reconciliation.  I think Republicans can get majority votes in Congress, and use budget reconciliation (once per year) to bypass the filibuster.

Look at what the latest CR passed with in the house: 366-34-1. All the no's came from the GOP.

The new house majority is a 3 vote margin.

They couldn't pass a republican budget on a 4 vote majority, they're not going to do any better with 3 this time.

And every budget of the past 2 years has required democratic votes in order to pass the congress. That's why McCartney was ousted: for making a deal with democrats to pass a budget. And democrats absolutely used that leverage for Ukraine funding.

It's the same predicament this time: the House GOP is completely incapable of passing a partisan line vote for a budget. They will have to capitulate and work with the Dems on it.

[Ron Scott]

Maybe I missed it in the news or the discussions above, but has Biden ever even articulated a plan for actually ending the war? Or is his plan still “it’s up to Ukraine”.

[FIPurpose]

Maybe I missed it in the news or the discussions above, but has Biden ever even articulated a plan for actually ending the war? Or is his plan still “it’s up to Ukraine”.

Does Biden have the power to stop the war? I don't think that's something the US can strongly dictate. If Russia doesn't want to stop, then the US pulling back may actually reignite Russia's attempt to take more land and make the war worse.

Ukraine will almost certainly have to give up some land to maintain itself, but it will also want NATO assurances for whatever it is left with. Russia on the other hand, will see Ukraine becoming a NATO ally as a non-starter. The war will continue until one country is exhausted enough to cede otherwise.

[sixwings]

Maybe I missed it in the news or the discussions above, but has Biden ever even articulated a plan for actually ending the war? Or is his plan still “it’s up to Ukraine”.

Biden isn't really capable of articulating anything anymore. However, it's a good Q and his administration has been pretty silent about it. My impression is that they are trying to get Russia to the table on terms that are friendly to Ukraine by funding them and making it very, very hard and expensive for Russia to advance. Basically force them into a stalemate, funded by a willing NATO, which gives Ukraine at least a reasonable position at the bargaining table.

[zolotiyeruki]

Ok, here's a dumb question:  what's to prevent Ukraine from negotiating a peace treaty that precludes them from joining NATO, and then promptly joining NATO anyway?  What's Russia gonna do--invade a (now-)NATO country in retaliation?

[LennStar]

Ok, here's a dumb question:  what's to prevent Ukraine from negotiating a peace treaty that precludes them from joining NATO, and then promptly joining NATO anyway?  What's Russia gonna do--invade a (now-)NATO country in retaliation?

Theoretically nothing, as nothing stopped Russia from ignoring the Minsk treaty.

In reality it would probabyl states like Turkey or Hungary that would say no in such a case.

[Ron Scott]

Ok, here's a dumb question:  what's to prevent Ukraine from negotiating a peace treaty that precludes them from joining NATO, and then promptly joining NATO anyway?  What's Russia gonna do--invade a (now-)NATO country in retaliation?

Under your scenario, or if Putin simply concludes the outcome of the end of the war was advantageous to him, he’ll regroup and start another war.

Putin needs to be taken down one way or the other or he’ll be back. I mean he’s an asshole so.

[zolotiyeruki]

Ok, here's a dumb question:  what's to prevent Ukraine from negotiating a peace treaty that precludes them from joining NATO, and then promptly joining NATO anyway?  What's Russia gonna do--invade a (now-)NATO country in retaliation?

Under your scenario, or if Putin simply concludes the outcome of the end of the war was advantageous to him, he’ll regroup and start another war.

Putin needs to be taken down one way or the other or he’ll be back. I mean he’s an asshole so.

If he did, it would trigger article 5, and then it's game on, with no artificial shackles.

[YttriumNitrate]

Ok, here's a dumb question:  what's to prevent Ukraine from negotiating a peace treaty that precludes them from joining NATO, and then promptly joining NATO anyway?  What's Russia gonna do--invade a (now-)NATO country in retaliation?

Becoming a NATO member is not a quick process as it requires unanimous consent from all existing members. As soon as Ukraine starts the process of joining NATO Russia would attack. An active war in the Ukraine basically ensures at least some members will not consent to Ukraine joining.

[waltworks]

I have my doubts that the incoming administration would honor US commitments if Article 5 was invoked. I'm guessing a lot of NATO members are worried about that exact scenario.

-W

[Ron Scott]

Ok, here's a dumb question:  what's to prevent Ukraine from negotiating a peace treaty that precludes them from joining NATO, and then promptly joining NATO anyway?  What's Russia gonna do--invade a (now-)NATO country in retaliation?

Under your scenario, or if Putin simply concludes the outcome of the end of the war was advantageous to him, he’ll regroup and start another war.

Putin needs to be taken down one way or the other or he’ll be back. I mean he’s an asshole so.

If he did, it would trigger article 5, and then it's game on, with no artificial shackles.

Makes you wonder why we created current artificial shackles in the first place.

Obama was asleep at the wheel for Crimea, Trump got his knee pads out for Putin, and Biden dribbled arms with restrictions for years now.

If I was Putin I’d figure the Americans are pansies and the EU are close to defenseless. And I’d probably be right.

[waltworks]

Poland has a real military and could probably effectively defend themselves against Russia. The rest of Europe... yeah, no.

It will be interesting to see if the Syrian refugees going back to Syria takes some of the air out of the far right parties in various places. Because right now, Europe is on the verge of voting itself part of Russia.

-W

[LennStar]

Poland has a real military and could probably effectively defend themselves against Russia. The rest of Europe... yeah, no.

It will be interesting to see if the Syrian refugees going back to Syria takes some of the air out of the far right parties in various places. Because right now, Europe is on the verge of voting itself part of Russia.

-W

No, they wont. The racists will ever be racist, if there are other "races" or not.
It is a well-proven fact that the less foreigners there are the more racist people are. So maybe it even increases.

[Ron Scott]

Poland has a real military and could probably effectively defend themselves against Russia. The rest of Europe... yeah, no.

It will be interesting to see if the Syrian refugees going back to Syria takes some of the air out of the far right parties in various places. Because right now, Europe is on the verge of voting itself part of Russia.

Insanity, isn’t it?

The primary strategy of a NATO member in protecting itself from Russia is to follow America’s lead and provide support, and the reactionary backlash is to embrace the Putin leadership model. The inmates are running the asylum and The West is rotting from within.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Poland has a real military and could probably effectively defend themselves against Russia. The rest of Europe... yeah, no.

It will be interesting to see if the Syrian refugees going back to Syria takes some of the air out of the far right parties in various places. Because right now, Europe is on the verge of voting itself part of Russia.

-W

No, they wont. The racists will ever be racist, if there are other "races" or not.
It is a well-proven fact that the less foreigners there are the more racist people are. So maybe it even increases.

I'm not familiar with this "well-proven fact", so it would help to see some proof.

I believe Germany's AfD gained more support as immigration problems became worse.  Am I wrong about that?

[Ron Scott]

It's only been a couple days, but so far Ukraine is doing much better than anybody expected. Dozens of Russian armored vehicles destroyed, about 10 fighter planes and helicopters shot down, and an airborne landing repulsed. A couple hours ago Ukraine returned the ballistic missile favor and hit an airfield on Russian soil destroying some planes on the ground.  Whether any of this translates into changes to the strategic situation remains to be seen. Losing a battalion of tanks sucks, but the Russians have more. If Ukraine can't hold back the tide, or the supply routes to the west are cut off, Putin could just keep plowing ahead regardless of casualties.

what do you mean a one man problem? Obviously the war is Putins idea. But he has the military and secret service on his side

The question is what would happen if Putin were removed from the situation.
Having the military and intelligence services on his side is different from having the institutional and political structures in place that would guarantee the ongoing pursuit of the war objectives with Putin absent.

My guess is his successor would be cut from the same cloth. The Russian people are not uprising and Putin would probably be removed by insiders upset with his failures.

—-

But—breaking news—maybe Putin is trying to smashmouth his way out of political trouble at home. The Fins are looking at Russia for cutting underseas electric distribution cables, and Russia likely took out a civilian airliner. I suspect we and the EU will be continuing a decades-old tradition and wringing our hands and making excuses for him. We shall see.

[LennStar]

Poland has a real military and could probably effectively defend themselves against Russia. The rest of Europe... yeah, no.

It will be interesting to see if the Syrian refugees going back to Syria takes some of the air out of the far right parties in various places. Because right now, Europe is on the verge of voting itself part of Russia.

-W

No, they wont. The racists will ever be racist, if there are other "races" or not.
It is a well-proven fact that the less foreigners there are the more racist people are. So maybe it even increases.

I'm not familiar with this "well-proven fact", so it would help to see some proof.

I believe Germany's AfD gained more support as immigration problems became worse.  Am I wrong about that?

Putting aside the problem of "problem", the last one is certainly correlated. But putting aside the hardcore racists, from what I have seen it's more the old a social problem - rich getting richer, poor getting poorer.
(The AfD started out as a economic liberial party by people for whom the standard conservative party was not conservative enough, those left the AfD a few years later when it was overtaken by the extremist right. That was already in process during the 2014 elections. If the AfD was using the 205/16 Syrian refugees or of those refugees helped her getting big is a bit of a hen/egg question.)

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Poland has a real military and could probably effectively defend themselves against Russia. The rest of Europe... yeah, no.

It will be interesting to see if the Syrian refugees going back to Syria takes some of the air out of the far right parties in various places. Because right now, Europe is on the verge of voting itself part of Russia.

-W

No, they wont. The racists will ever be racist, if there are other "races" or not.
It is a well-proven fact that the less foreigners there are the more racist people are. So maybe it even increases.

I'm not familiar with this "well-proven fact", so it would help to see some proof.

I believe Germany's AfD gained more support as immigration problems became worse.  Am I wrong about that?

Putting aside the problem of "problem", the last one is certainly correlated. But putting aside the hardcore racists, from what I have seen it's more the old a social problem - rich getting richer, poor getting poorer.
(The AfD started out as a economic liberial party by people for whom the standard conservative party was not conservative enough, those left the AfD a few years later when it was overtaken by the extremist right. That was already in process during the 2014 elections. If the AfD was using the 205/16 Syrian refugees or of those refugees helped her getting big is a bit of a hen/egg question.)

Again if you have a link to where racism rises as immigrants decrease, I'd be interested in seeing it.

If you're saying immigration is only a supposed problem, why are German political parties all proposing tighter immigration controls?  If there's no "problem", why are most politicians trying to solve it?

The anti-Islam, anti-migration AfD has called for borders to be closed and asylum seekers to no longer have the right to family reunification. Some senior members have gone further in their comments and were present at discussions among far-right activists on deporting millions of people of foreign origin, including German citizens.

The conservatives have adopted a much stricter stance on immigration in recent years, advocating for pushing back asylum seekers at the borders, while calling for limits on family reunifications and naturalization for refugees.

They also want everyone applying for asylum in Europe to be transferred to a safe third country for processing their claims.

The SPD has also toughened its position by enforcing stricter border controls and accelerating deportations, although it also wants to bring in more foreign skilled workers.

In contrast, the Greens maintain a more open asylum policy, promoting state-backed sea rescue initiatives and simplifying family reunification processes and enhancing integration.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germanys-election-polls-parties-policy-debates-2024-12-10/

As an aside, there is one bit of good news.  When Germany's Scholz gets kicked out of leadership, his view that Ukraine doesn't need long-range missiles will also get kicked out.  Hopefully in 2025, Germany will decide to provide Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine (especially if Trump prevents U.S. Congress from aiding Ukraine).

[LennStar]

Again if you have a link to where racism rises as immigrants decrease, I'd be interested in seeing it.

If you're saying immigration is only a supposed problem, why are German political parties all proposing tighter immigration controls?  If there's no "problem", why are most politicians trying to solve it?

You got that wrong.
It's not that racism rises as foreigners decrease, it's that racist views are higher where there are lower amounts of foreigners. (Or the lower the amount fo foreigners, the higher the amount of AfD voters in the last election.)
As always with sociological phenomenon, there is a myriad of factors, but the correletion is very strong (in, afaik every European country).
Is that not true for the US?

[ChpBstrd]

Again if you have a link to where racism rises as immigrants decrease, I'd be interested in seeing it.

If you're saying immigration is only a supposed problem, why are German political parties all proposing tighter immigration controls?  If there's no "problem", why are most politicians trying to solve it?

You got that wrong.
It's not that racism rises as foreigners decrease, it's that racist views are higher where there are lower amounts of foreigners. (Or the lower the amount fo foreigners, the higher the amount of AfD voters in the last election.)
As always with sociological phenomenon, there is a myriad of factors, but the correletion is very strong (in, afaik every European country).
Is that not true for the US?

North-central Arkansas, an area I am familiar with, is an almost all-white area and hosts the national headquarters of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups in the 88%-white town of Harrison. When driving through these hills, one notices scenery including numerous Confederate flags, and monuments in town centers to Confederate (but not Union) veterans. Trump support is at fanatical levels.

In this case, the racism drove out and continues to drive out minorities. Race riots and lynchings in the early 20th century set a pattern that continues to this day. Many of the area's inhabitants have ancestors who fled places like Tulsa, Little Rock, Kansas City, or Memphis after schools were desegregated in the 1950s to 1970s.

In the case of north-central Arkansas, that racism ran out the minorities and also attracted racist migrants into the area. Of course, the area is relatively impoverished. Racism is generally at odds with academic achievement or self-accountability, so it's not exactly a hotbed of industry, intellectualism, or technological development. An hour or two's drive west, in the Fayetteville-Bentonville corridor, things are somewhat better due to the university and a more business-oriented focus. The people resisting the economic pull of cities, and living in run-down trailers at the ends of dirt roads, are there for a reason that is important to them. Not being around the type of people they blame for all the world's ills is their concept of paradise. 

[BicycleB]

Again if you have a link to where racism rises as immigrants decrease, I'd be interested in seeing it.

If you're saying immigration is only a supposed problem, why are German political parties all proposing tighter immigration controls?  If there's no "problem", why are most politicians trying to solve it?

You got that wrong.
It's not that racism rises as foreigners decrease, it's that racist views are higher where there are lower amounts of foreigners. (Or the lower the amount fo foreigners, the higher the amount of AfD voters in the last election.)
As always with sociological phenomenon, there is a myriad of factors, but the correletion is very strong (in, afaik every European country).
Is that not true for the US?

I don't understand what LennStar is saying here. If "racist views are higher where there are lower amounts of foreigners", then wouldn't "the lower the amount of foreigners" produce "racist views are higher"? And doesn't "higher amount of AfD voters" represent "racist views are higher"? It seems like LennStar is saying two things that conflict with each other.

Re the US - once the first paragraph is clarified, the US question might be answerable.

[rocketpj]

Again if you have a link to where racism rises as immigrants decrease, I'd be interested in seeing it.

If you're saying immigration is only a supposed problem, why are German political parties all proposing tighter immigration controls?  If there's no "problem", why are most politicians trying to solve it?

You got that wrong.
It's not that racism rises as foreigners decrease, it's that racist views are higher where there are lower amounts of foreigners. (Or the lower the amount fo foreigners, the higher the amount of AfD voters in the last election.)
As always with sociological phenomenon, there is a myriad of factors, but the correletion is very strong (in, afaik every European country).
Is that not true for the US?

North-central Arkansas, an area I am familiar with, is an almost all-white area and hosts the national headquarters of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups in the 88%-white town of Harrison. When driving through these hills, one notices scenery including numerous Confederate flags, and monuments in town centers to Confederate (but not Union) veterans. Trump support is at fanatical levels.

In this case, the racism drove out and continues to drive out minorities. Race riots and lynchings in the early 20th century set a pattern that continues to this day. Many of the area's inhabitants have ancestors who fled places like Tulsa, Little Rock, Kansas City, or Memphis after schools were desegregated in the 1950s to 1970s.

In the case of north-central Arkansas, that racism ran out the minorities and also attracted racist migrants into the area. Of course, the area is relatively impoverished. Racism is generally at odds with academic achievement or self-accountability, so it's not exactly a hotbed of industry, intellectualism, or technological development. An hour or two's drive west, in the Fayetteville-Bentonville corridor, things are somewhat better due to the university and a more business-oriented focus. The people resisting the economic pull of cities, and living in run-down trailers at the ends of dirt roads, are there for a reason that is important to them. Not being around the type of people they blame for all the world's ills is their concept of paradise.

That tracks with my experience.  The less diverse the locale, the more racism.  At least the more it is expressed openly.  My hometown was mayonnaise on wonder bread, and the racists were thick on the ground. 

[PhilB]

Again if you have a link to where racism rises as immigrants decrease, I'd be interested in seeing it.

If you're saying immigration is only a supposed problem, why are German political parties all proposing tighter immigration controls?  If there's no "problem", why are most politicians trying to solve it?

You got that wrong.
It's not that racism rises as foreigners decrease, it's that racist views are higher where there are lower amounts of foreigners. (Or the lower the amount fo foreigners, the higher the amount of AfD voters in the last election.)
As always with sociological phenomenon, there is a myriad of factors, but the correletion is very strong (in, afaik every European country).
Is that not true for the US?

I don't understand what LennStar is saying here. If "racist views are higher where there are lower amounts of foreigners", then wouldn't "the lower the amount of foreigners" produce "racist views are higher"? And doesn't "higher amount of AfD voters" represent "racist views are higher"? It seems like LennStar is saying two things that conflict with each other.

Re the US - once the first paragraph is clarified, the US question might be answerable.

I think LennStar was trying to clarify was that he wasn't saying there is a direct causal relationship 'racism rises as foreigners decrease', but there is a very strong correlation between low levels of diversity and high levels of racism - for a whole range of reasons.

[LennStar]

That, basically.
Also I can't say anything about numbers of foreigners going down, because that hasn't happened since  WWII. (Even if there are numbers from 100 years ago I would argue it would be stupid to assume the same results now.)

What has been found is that in the majority of cases if foreigner % rises, racist views go down, albeit slowly. Probably the "growing up with it" thing.
At the same time a huge influx of foreigners (like in 2015 Syria) results in a (temporary?) rise of racist views.
Which, feeligns aside, makes even sense objectivly. Because integration needs time and a large number overwhelms the institutions, which happened in 2015. Places to house, language courses, schools (surprise, not every teacher in Germany speaks arabic especially in the East where there were no arabic immigrants prior to 1990 - there weren't even enough French language teachers when I was in school).

[Ron Scott]

At the same time a huge influx of foreigners (like in 2015 Syria) results in a (temporary?) rise of racist views.

I wouldn’t say “temporary” as a good case can be made that the current rise of the far right in the EU and UK was fueled by the 2015 migration of Syrians to Europe. I also think the influx of immigrants to the US during the past few years begat Trump 2.0.

Large migrations can be catalysts for long-term political upheaval with many years of racist overtones.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

That, basically.
Also I can't say anything about numbers of foreigners going down, because that hasn't happened since  WWII. (Even if there are numbers from 100 years ago I would argue it would be stupid to assume the same results now.)

What has been found is that in the majority of cases if foreigner % rises, racist views go down, albeit slowly. Probably the "growing up with it" thing.
At the same time a huge influx of foreigners (like in 2015 Syria) results in a (temporary?) rise of racist views.
Which, feeligns aside, makes even sense objectivly. Because integration needs time and a large number overwhelms the institutions, which happened in 2015. Places to house, language courses, schools (surprise, not every teacher in Germany speaks arabic especially in the East where there were no arabic immigrants prior to 1990 - there weren't even enough French language teachers when I was in school).

That makes more sense, thanks for clarifying.  Cities are more diverse than rural areas.  Seeing people of other races for yourself tends to reduce the hyperbolic beliefs about those races.  I think there are other factors at play, like people who take low skill work are most easily displaced by immigrants, and are probably more anti-immigrant.  Those who can do high-skill work tend to move out of rural areas and into cities, where they get paid more.

I wish integration kept pace with immigration.  In Sweden, a school with a high percentage of immigrants was shut down.  It was chaotic and nobody was learning anything.  When those same immigrant students were spread out among other schools, the teachers could provide more focused help, and those immigrant students did much better, getting higher grades.

Back to Germany, the AfD is stronger in the areas that used to be East Germany.  I could be wrong, but I think on average those areas have more low-skill labor than elsewhere in Germany.  Maybe it compares to rural areas of the United States?

The threat to Ukraine is that nationalist parties aren't interested in aiding other countries.  Trump is the most significant, if he is able to stop U.S. military aid to Ukraine.  But Germany (AfD) and France (Id) have their own parties as well.  I'm not familiar with Poland, which has been contributing a lot (per capita) to Ukraine, so I don't know the nationalist party there or its level of support.

[cerat0n1a]

I'm not familiar with Poland, which has been contributing a lot (per capita) to Ukraine, so I don't know the nationalist party there or its level of support.

The right-wing populist party Law and Justice was in government from 2015 - 2023. They brought in many anti-immigrant measures, clamped down on free speech, removed judicial independence took control of state media, packed the civil service with party members and adopted a fairly soft anti-EU (and anti Euro) stance. Since losing the election, they have splintered somewhat. Very little support for Putin though, particularly given they have a direct border with Russia's Kalingrad exclave. Support for Ukraine somewhat tempered by the effects of cheap Ukrainian grain exports on local farmers.

[Ron Scott]

The threat to Ukraine is that nationalist parties aren't interested in aiding other countries.

Not true.

Nationalist governments will provide aid to other countries for military purposes if they believe it is in their own best interests.

Both Poland and the United Kingdom, for example, when under nationalist leaderships, provided direct military aid to Ukraine following Russia’s invasion.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The threat to Ukraine is that nationalist parties aren't interested in aiding other countries.

Not true.

Nationalist governments will provide aid to other countries for military purposes if they believe it is in their own best interests.

Both Poland and the United Kingdom, for example, when under nationalist leaderships, provided direct military aid to Ukraine following Russia’s invasion.

You're picking the moment in time when support for Ukraine was highest.  That isn't an accurate predictor of what far right parties will support after 2 years of war (articles below are from months ago).

"Russia's best friends in Germany: AfD and BSW

The far-right Alternative for Germany and the left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance both won substantial gains in Sunday's state elections. Both parties have close ties with Russia and oppose support for Ukraine."
https://www.dw.com/en/russias-best-friends-in-germany-afd-and-bsw/a-70072663


"Polish far-right protesters accuse government of ‘treason’ over support for Ukraine

Activists from the far-right Confederation party on Thursday morning protested in front of the parliament building in Warsaw, accusing the Polish government of supporting Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia, saying it is Kyiv's war, not theirs."
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/polish-far-right-protesters-accuse-government-of-treason-over-support-for-ukraine/3285343

[Ron Scott]

The threat to Ukraine is that nationalist parties aren't interested in aiding other countries.

Not true.

Nationalist governments will provide aid to other countries for military purposes if they believe it is in their own best interests.

Both Poland and the United Kingdom, for example, when under nationalist leaderships, provided direct military aid to Ukraine following Russia’s invasion.

You're picking the moment in time when support for Ukraine was highest.  That isn't an accurate predictor of what far right parties will support after 2 years of war (articles below are from months ago).

"Russia's best friends in Germany: AfD and BSW

The far-right Alternative for Germany and the left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance both won substantial gains in Sunday's state elections. Both parties have close ties with Russia and oppose support for Ukraine."
https://www.dw.com/en/russias-best-friends-in-germany-afd-and-bsw/a-70072663


"Polish far-right protesters accuse government of ‘treason’ over support for Ukraine

Activists from the far-right Confederation party on Thursday morning protested in front of the parliament building in Warsaw, accusing the Polish government of supporting Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia, saying it is Kyiv's war, not theirs."
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/polish-far-right-protesters-accuse-government-of-treason-over-support-for-ukraine/3285343

I stand by my assertion (bolded above) and reject your blanket statement that “nationalist parties aren't interested in aiding other countries”.

Your statement suffers from a logical fallacy often called a hasty generalization, like: “John is happy. John is a male. Therefore all males are happy.”

More example of nationalist governments “aiding other countries”:

1. Franco, in Spain, a fascist dictatorship, provided material and logistical support to Nazi Germany.
2. Libya, under Gadaffi (populist/nationalist), supported revolutionaries across Africa and the Middle East with financial/military aid.
3. Cuba's nationalist government sent troops and military advisors to support the MPLA during the Angolan Civil War.

When national governments believe supporting another country at war is in their interest they will often do so.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The threat to Ukraine is that nationalist parties aren't interested in aiding other countries.

Not true.

Nationalist governments will provide aid to other countries for military purposes if they believe it is in their own best interests.

Both Poland and the United Kingdom, for example, when under nationalist leaderships, provided direct military aid to Ukraine following Russia’s invasion.

You're picking the moment in time when support for Ukraine was highest.  That isn't an accurate predictor of what far right parties will support after 2 years of war (articles below are from months ago).

"Russia's best friends in Germany: AfD and BSW

The far-right Alternative for Germany and the left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance both won substantial gains in Sunday's state elections. Both parties have close ties with Russia and oppose support for Ukraine."
https://www.dw.com/en/russias-best-friends-in-germany-afd-and-bsw/a-70072663


"Polish far-right protesters accuse government of ‘treason’ over support for Ukraine

Activists from the far-right Confederation party on Thursday morning protested in front of the parliament building in Warsaw, accusing the Polish government of supporting Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia, saying it is Kyiv's war, not theirs."
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/polish-far-right-protesters-accuse-government-of-treason-over-support-for-ukraine/3285343

I stand by my assertion (bolded above) and reject your blanket statement that “nationalist parties aren't interested in aiding other countries”.

Your statement suffers from a logical fallacy often called a hasty generalization, like: “John is happy. John is a male. Therefore all males are happy.”

More example of nationalist governments “aiding other countries”:

1. Franco, in Spain, a fascist dictatorship, provided material and logistical support to Nazi Germany.
2. Libya, under Gadaffi (populist/nationalist), supported revolutionaries across Africa and the Middle East with financial/military aid.
3. Cuba's nationalist government sent troops and military advisors to support the MPLA during the Angolan Civil War.

When national governments believe supporting another country at war is in their interest they will often do so.

Oh, I see, you're nitpicking part of my sentence, while ignoring "The threat to Ukraine".  The context of my sentence was Ukraine, which is why I started my sentence "The threat to Ukraine".  I don't follow why you're nitpicking part of a sentence, while ignoring context like that.

And since you're nitpicking, I did not say "nationalist governments", I said "nationalist parties".  I used that term to avoid calling Trump's Republicans a far right party.  The theme is political parties who put their country first (AfD is "Germany for Germans"), and have stated they do not want to aid Ukraine.  That is the risk to Ukraine, not nitpicking the following paragraph I wrote earlier.

The threat to Ukraine is that nationalist parties aren't interested in aiding other countries.  Trump is the most significant, if he is able to stop U.S. military aid to Ukraine.  But Germany (AfD) and France (Id) have their own parties as well.  I'm not familiar with Poland, which has been contributing a lot (per capita) to Ukraine, so I don't know the nationalist party there or its level of support.

[LennStar]

In case you haven't heard of it, we had another world's first. A Maguro sea drone shot down a helicopter with an anti-air-missile. That is a step up even from the machine gun. Those defenses wont be on any drone, but it will make defending against them a LOT harder, because now you can't just go out there with a heli and shoot at them point blank. And even fighter jets going brrrrrrt are a bad idea.

I guess Ukrainians are going for a drone swarm of one or two recon drones, several ram drones with explosives and one or two AAA drones. I am sure Taiwan is looking very closely, too.


Meanwhile on land it seems we have reached localized exhaustion points of Russia, with Ukraine being able to take back a little bit of land here and there (but maybe it's just weather that helps the attacker, as it does elsewhere for Russia).
This coincides (?) with more and more reports of purely civilian transport vehicles of all kinds being used at the front.
That goes hand in hand with the last counting that there are only 2500 tanks left in Russian storage. Keep in mind we are talking about what is likely the worst condition. 10%, maybe 20% are (from satellites images) in workable condition, a good third needs an overhaul and half of them are only spare parts donors. Real condition is likely worse due to internal damage not visible from satellite. And probably none of them has technology that is younger than 50 years. As predicted a year ago, Russia is in serious heavyl vehicle problem now and will run out in another year (assuming similar loss rates).

However in other places Ukraine is still losing ground relativly fast. There has also been a scandal about a new western tank batallion getting a bloody nose. It seems it was send in totally green after training, after it already lost a lot of manpower due to desertions (personal was force-recruited).
There is also a nightvision video that claims to be 6 HIMARS lauchers in one place getting attacked, but I heavly doubt those were real ones. Putting aside the idiocy of parking them all on the same road in 100m, which could be explained with incompetence or bribes, but I doubt there is any place in Ukraine that has 6 of the (afaik) remaining 37 HIMARS.
None of the alleged HIMARS launchers was visibly destroyed, though the Iskander hit 20m away must have done some damage.

Ukraine also did a series of long-range strikes with a diverse set of means, striking train logistics and officers.

[Loren Ver]

Looks like Ukraine shut off the Russian gas going to Europe through Ukraine.  It is going to cost Ukraine a lot (up to $1 billion a year in transit fees) so we will have to see if it is worth it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/02/ukraine-stopped-russian-gas-reaching-europe-heres-whos-most-at-risk.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

[zolotiyeruki]

I imagine it hurts Russia more than it hurts Ukraine, and maybe it'll put pressure on Europe to put pressure on Russia.

[LennStar]

I wonder what you are wondering. The contract ran out and Ukraine didn't want to renew it. Free market and such.

[Ron Scott]

Looks like Ukraine shut off the Russian gas going to Europe through Ukraine.  It is going to cost Ukraine a lot (up to $1 billion a year in transit fees) so we will have to see if it is worth it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/02/ukraine-stopped-russian-gas-reaching-europe-heres-whos-most-at-risk.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

A Faustian deal from the get go—call it naive to give them the benefit of doubt—the EU’s reliance on Russia for key energy has finally been dramatically reduced.

Now both their energy and defense costs are increasing. Where does this money come from over the next decade? Raising corporate taxes could make them less competitive with the US et al. And how are the growing far right locals gonna handle cuts to their famed social welfare system?

Nice mess, huh?