Can Elon Musk's Starlink Keep Ukraine Online?
There are technical and logistical hurdles, but satellite internet could one day offer an uncensored alternative for people living in war zones and authoritarian countries around the world.
HD DownloadSince the Russian invasion began, Ukrainians have shared recipes for making Molotov cocktails and instructions for driving abandoned troop carriers.
They've used encrypted apps to coordinate tactics and to ask Russians to stand up to their government, who in turn have staged protests in Moscow and other cities.
Though it may end up losing on the battlefield, Ukraine has been able to show the world the brutality and folly of the Russian attack, which is only possible because everyday citizens have retained access to the internet.
But maybe not for long: In areas with the heaviest fighting, internet outages are becoming common, and since information is power on the battlefield, there's a danger that Russia will find a way to knock the country fully offline.
This is why Ukraine's Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Transformation tweeted a plea to Elon Musk, "We ask you to provide Ukraine with Starlink stations and to address sane Russians to stand."
"Starlink service is now active in Ukraine." Musk tweeted back later that day, collapsing a regulatory process that can take months or years into under 280 characters.
Starlink service is now active in Ukraine. More terminals en route.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 26, 2022
Starlink, which has been up and running since 2021, is a global satellite internet provider owned by Musk's company SpaceX, which aims to provide low latency, high-speed internet to areas that are less densely populated and where fast reliable internet may be lacking.
The first obstacle is that Ukrainians can't just connect directly to Starlink satellites: First, they need ground terminals.
"…terminals en route," was how Musk finished his tweet, and less than 48 hours later, Fedorov replied with a picture showing a truckload of them in Ukraine, "Starlink — here. Thanks, @elonmusk"
Starlink — here. Thanks, @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/dZbaYqWYCf
— Mykhailo Fedorov (@FedorovMykhailo) February 28, 2022
Those terminals will need to be brought into cities under siege and connected to wi-fi, which will allow Ukrainians to connect their devices. That presents a challenge in the middle of a war.
And if terminals lose power, they'll need batteries or generators to stay online.
Important warning: Starlink is the only non-Russian communications system still working in some parts of Ukraine, so probability of being targeted is high. Please use with caution.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 3, 2022
Radio signals could also be triangulated, and Musk has also warned that terminals could be targeted by Russian forces, cautioning users to keep terminals, "as far away from people as possible."
Turn on Starlink only when needed and place antenna away as far away from people as possible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 3, 2022
But if the terminals can be installed and maintained, Starlink could provide a digital lifeline to some Ukrainians.
Divorcing the online world from geography and placing it outside state control is in keeping with the internet's original promise.
"The dream of the internet was one of complete deterritorialization," says Eli Dourado, a senior research fellow at the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University. "Internet was supposed to mean that it doesn't matter where you live. You are connected to all of humanity through this completely transparent network where geography is irrelevant. We've seen how far short of that we have fallen. We've seen some governments censor the internet. I think a great outcome for the internet would have been for us to be able to export the First Amendment to the entire planet."
Can Starlink help make good on the internet's original promise to be a tool of liberation? Imagine if Putin had to answer to a populace with immutable internet access that could see the unvarnished reality of war. How might that change the way a conflict plays out?
One of Starlink's key innovations is that the signal can be relayed laterally a number of times, across country borders, time zones, and even oceans before beaming back down to a ground station. That could make it harder for any one country to censor or track what its citizens access online. But this is only if Starlink first turns on service in those places and then routes internet traffic through ground stations in neighboring countries.
While the technology would allow for it, Starlink may not turn out to serve that grand purpose. Dourado cautions that "Starlink is, of course, a commercial offering from an American company that's launching frequently into space. Under the outer space treaty, the United States government is ultimately responsible for what SpaceX does when it's in space." So far, Starlink is only available in countries that welcome its presence.
But the technology holds promise. Satellite internet might one day offer an uncensored alternative for people living in North Korea, China, or Cuba.
Using the power of the internet, everyday Ukrainians are coordinating their defense, appealing directly to Russian kinship and common humanity, rallying people to their cause, and showing the devastating cost of war. Starlink could help them to prevail in this battle.
Written and produced by Isaac Reese
Photos: Vlad Karkov/SOPA Images via ZUMA Press Wire; Paul Hennessy/NurPhoto via ZUMA Press; Jill Bazeley (CC BY-NC 2.0); Connie Zhou/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Connie Zhou/Google/ZUMAPRESS.com; Sergei Fadeichev/TASS; Raphael Lafargue/Abaca/Sipa USA; Gene Blevins/Polaris Images; Raphael Lafargue/Abaca/Sipa; Gene Blevins/Polaris/Newscom; Rafael Henrique / SOPA Images/Si/Newscom; Hennadii Minchenkoukrinform/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; KARLINER/VOT TAK TV/SIPA/Newscom; Vitaliy Smolnikov/Kommersant Photo / Polaris/Newscom; Gavriil Grigorov/TASS/Newscom; Sergei Savostyanov/TASS/Newscom; Sergei Savostyanov/TASS/Newscom
Music: "X" by Angel Salazar; "The City of Hope" by Borrtex; "Move Quickly" by Nick Kelly; "3 Hours" by Michael Vignola; "Fighter" by Tristan Barton
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
As long as Russia doesn't shoot his satellites down.
Under the Outer Space Treaty I believe that would be considered an act of war against the US, no different than if Russia had launched a missile at Musk's house in Texas
China just bombed the moon.
Look it up
So did we, the same way.
Look it up
I will bomb you with the moon
I will moon you with aplomb.
...
I surrender!
[JOIN NOW] I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($200 to $300 / hr.) online from my laptop. Last month I got cheek of nearly 50,000$. this online work is simple and straightforward. Don’t have to go office. fbg Its home online job. You become independent after joining this job. I really thanks to my friend who refer me this:-
..
SITE….., http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/
That assumes Putin gives a shit.
Its pretty clear he doesn't want a conflict with NATO, otherwise he wouldn't have given a shit if Ukraine had joined
hell get his ass wiped totally.
Ukraines kicking it now.
Invading the Ukraine and taking it over just moves Russia closer to NATO
Says the man with the intellectual depth of a two week old mud puddle. Stick to your "block" dude. Anything farther then that is out of your intellectual wheelhouse.
The Phucko Knows
Conspiracy theory: What if Putin is terminally ill?
SpaceX has put up more starlink satellites than all previous satellite launches by the entire world combined. Shooting even a significant percentage of them down would be nigh impossible, even for the three superpower governments.
Attempting to do so would make one hell of a mess in low Earth orbit though.
Musk can "shoot down" Russian satellites too. And Musk's satellites are much cheaper and easier to replace than Russia's. This would not be an escalation that Russia would win at.
They may be cheering publicly, but other governments, including Western ones, aren't going to like this.
No, they're not. There's probably not a national government in the world that would welcome unregulated international telecommunication.
There’s a reason Biden won’t mention Musk when hyping electric cars.
Musk is such an enigma. He's in many instances a grifter, but he also appears to be outside the establishment circle.
He speaks well on freedom and pushes back against the progressive orthodoxy somewhat, but also has the premier electric car- the tech it's pioneering can most definitely take away your control and turn it over to some centralized locus.
Personally, the latter renders the enigma moot. Musk may not personally be making all the decisions that are going into building the Tesla ecosystem but there's enough evidence that he is and, regardless, it renders his enigmatic persona moot. What Biden's actually thinking, if anything, at any given moment is an enigma too.
But he's also pushing oil and gas.
He tweeted this yesterday:
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately.
Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499907549746937860
He also said he refuses to censor websites, including Russian, on starlink.
Starting to like him as a person.
Yeah I saw that. Gonna have to go back and watch him on The Evil Joe Rogan show now.
I liked him for telling Newsom to fuck off about shutting down for COVID.
Just because you are not always right is no reason to reject the fact that you are usually right, and usually much more right than other people.
On subsidies, We were going to pay them out either way. I'm glad we subsidized a couple of winners. I don't know if the overall track record is, but I would be willing to bet that it is much worse than the track record of betting on this guy.
I like him. He pisses the right people off and has a personality.
I'm out on the vacuum tunnels idea though. Makes no sense.
In the United States, Facebook bans president.
In Soviet Russia, President bans Facebook.
In Communist China, "President" steals intellectual property, releases special CCP version of Facebook, and mandates that everyone use it.
https://twitter.com/ChickenGate/status/1499905860193116161?t=2eJr5NC8rDmtVmKIzY7INg&s=19
You know how the world is cutting off everything to Russia? This is a great example of what a one world govt could & would do to any country it wanted anytime it wanted. I think that’s what we are being shown.
One world government?! You're not gonna start linking to Revelation 13 to support this are you?
Sanctions are by no means ideal, but they make a lot of sense compared to the alternative--which is typically war. Even those who want to go to war usually think we should try sanctions first. That's what the Weinberger-Powell doctrine is about.
Meanwhile, why are you pushing the Kremlin's position again?
You're just a science denier!
Sanctions are by no means ideal, but they make a lot of sense compared to the alternative--which is typically war.
Better to live a slave then die free, Ken?
Go on, Ken, embrace the hate. Tell me Putin is a threat to democracy here in the States.
Than die free that is.
Ken. Are you in denial of WEF and the push to globalism?
"The push to globalism"? That ship sailed decades ago. And the world is better for it.
The free flow of capital throughout the world is a good thing.
For some people.
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1500035050137653251?t=KduMnLpTupNcl2NsPcU7QQ&s=19
An interesting exchange from May 10, 1995. Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin are discussing the political implications of NATO expansion. Clinton confides his belief that he needs to take a hard line on the issue in order to win Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ohio in the 1996 election
Even as the US was touting Yeltsin as a valiant liberal reformer, he warned Clinton he could never acquiesce to any expansion of NATO to the East, as this would constitute a "betrayal" of the Russian people. "I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you proceed," Yeltsin said
[Links]
Why is this of interest to anybody?
Apparently it interests you.
Why are you so desperate to silence those who don't fall in line with the official, top down narrative, neokeNN?
Why are you filling the threads of a libertarian website with pro-Kremlin propaganda?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I think it's because you're getting it from third parties and you['re too stupid to realize what you're doing.
Time to come down off the AA gun, Hanoi Jane.
Ken, I will beat the ever loving fuck out of you if we ever meet.
I'm in Jacksonville, so let me know if you want to put it to the test.
For fuck's sake. You two are becoming more cancerous than sarcasmic.
Both of you need to take a break for a day or something and get your heads back on straight.
And no, it isn't just the other guys fault.
They both have resorted to sarcasmic strawman arguments.
One can support neither side. One can admit there is propaganda on both sides, like all wars. One can admit global governments are picking and choosing their moral battles on who to sanction, why not slavery in Russia or the ME?
Not sure why ken is so pro Ukraine. It seems an isolated moral selection to me. But I'm fairly agnostic. I support retaliatory tariffs and sanctions, just wish they were more universally used in moral arguments if they are used even once.
I've never seen two people so blind to the fact that they're both doing exactly what they accuse the other of.
I really respected both of them, so this is a tremendous disappointment for me.
Except only one of them is following the other around trolling every comment they make.
Meant China not Russia for slavery.
You're the infamous Florida Man?
You're kinda admitting you can't beat him in a battle of wits, with this statement. Good luck, internet big man.
Not exactly, since I've been doing so all week, but thanks for your opinion.
Ken isn't battling wits. He's attacking Nardz as a person.
Like you just did?
Ideas!
Why are you filling the threads of a libertarian website with pro Ukraine propaganda?
From a libertarian point of view, there is only one answer on Ukraine: it’s none of our business.
From a practical point of view, any outcome that humiliates or destabilizes Russia is going to be very bad.
So, Ken, what are your objectives here?
So if Russia makes the result of opposing them bad enough, we should just ket them do whatever they want? There is no problem with one country invading another?
Libertarianism isn't apathy. There is no equivalence between Russia and Ukraine, from a moral perspective.
Nardz is one of only three people I have muted because of his regular habit of ad hominem attacks, so I don't know what he's actually saying, but if he's like some of the other apologists he probably thinks that there is some justification or moral equivalence for Russia. There is not.
Isolationism and appeasement of a global bad actor has been shown, throughout history, to be a bad approach. There is a very real possibility of Russia starting World War III. Not in Ukraine, but wherever they attack next. Because if Chechnya and Georgia and Ukraine haven't convinced you that Russia is a violently aggressive threat to the region (if not the world), what will?
We should have given Russia what they want years ago and this war would not have happened. NATO should never have expanded at all, and NATO should probably have been dissolved. The West should have engaged and helped Russia and treated it as a partner instead of repeatedly pissing on then and their concerns.
Westerns elites thought they could dictate to the rest of the world hire it was supposed to operate, and they are finding out that they are wrong. As it turns out, they can’t even run their own countries.
You’re not a libertarian, you’re a progressive war monger. You echo their justifications for war and their unipolar world view. You have no idea of how we even got here.
Worth noting that the opposition to NATO expansion in the region extends beyond just Putin. Not really relevatory to anyone dimly aware of history but we have people cheering for involvement in the Ukraine who can't remember Rawanda or South Sudan.
"Not really relevatory to anyone dimly aware of history but we have people cheering for involvement in the Ukraine who can't remember Rawanda or South Sudan."
It's an excellent observation, and it's an old problem with an old solution. I'm old enough to remember when the argument was about whether we should invade Rwanda and South Sudan, and it's the same argument not to get involved in the Ukraine that it was back then.
I opposed a U.S. invasion of Rwanda because it wasn't in our best interests, and I oppose a U.S. invasion of Ukraine for the same reason. An excellent way to harm the credibility of the anti-Rwandan war argument was to falsely deny that the there was a genocide happening. Yes, there was a genocide happening, and I opposed U.S. involvement because it wasn't in the best interests of the United States to wade into the middle of that quagmire. We don't need to hurt our credibility by pretending things that aren't true.
An excellent way to harm the credibility of the anti-Ukrainian war argument is to spout all sorts of bullshit that isn't true. The Ukrainian people would want to be subjugated by Putin if it wasn't for the CIA--that's an excellent example. The suggestion that Putin isn't the enemy of the United States--when he's threatening us with nuclear weapons--is another example. Even if the fact is that Putin is our enemy and even if the fact is that it would be better for the United States if Putin fails in the Ukraine, we can and should continue to hold the position that going to war with Putin over the Ukraine is not in the best interests of the United States.
Because we opposed invading and occupying Syria did not require us to pretend that Assad didn't use chemical weapons. The fact was that invading and occupying Syria wasn't in the best interests of the United State--because of the hellhole quagmire--regardless of whether Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.
When we limit ourselves to only going to war when it's in America's best interests, we're probably confining ourselves to only acting in self-defense. When we're fighting a war of self-defense, it's certainly always in our best interests. Outside of that, we're talking about very rare occurrences. Can't really think of any off the top of my head. Vietnam wasn't in the best interests of the United States. Iraq wasn't in the best interests of the United States. And going to war over the Ukraine isn't in the best interests of the United States--not even if the Ukrainians are the good guys and Putin is the bad guy.
I think a lot of people have swallowed a tremendous amount of progressive bullshit over the years, and on the one hand, they know it's bullshit, but on the other hand, they've internalized some of the basic assumptions. In the progressives mindset, the purpose of government is to use the coercive power of government to protect victims from whatever predator. For progressives, who the victims are is all that matters. Once the victims are identified, progressives want to use the full force and power of the government to do whatever it takes to protect them--and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about BLM and domestic policy or Ukrainians and foreign policy to them. The progressive narrative is basically the same.
I am not a progressive. My primary interest is the best interests of the United States. If the Ukrainians were the bad guys, and it was in the best interests of the United States to send them military hardware, I'd support doing it for that reason. If it's in the best interests of the United States to make friends with Stalin while we work together to chase the Japanese Imperial Army out of China and destroy them as a threat, then I'm all in favor of making friends with Stalin for the time being. I don't need to pretend Stalin isn't evil. I don't need to pretend the Kuomintang are the good guys either. I just need to understand that it's in the best interests of the United States.
A lot of people throw around the term, "America first", but they don't seem to understand what it really means.
There are areas where America's best interests really shouldn't matter. They generally follow the contours of the appropriate purview of democracy. The First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law" because questions of speech, association, religion, etc. really shouldn't depend on whether they're in America's best interests. If Scientology, unions, and Twitter trolls are not in the best interests of America, the government should be forced to tolerate them anyway. The enumerated powers, on the other hand, should be subject to a popularity contest--and considering America's best interests when it comes to trade treaties, naturalization rules, tax hikes, spending, and foreign policy really should be decided on the basis of America first.
I'm not saying this about anybody in this thread specifically, but I think there are a lot of Americans who have been traumatized by progressivism, have internalized progressive ideals, whether they realize it or not, and it makes them behave as if they were progressives--even when they're taking the other side. Progressives are notorious about lying about what's right in front of our faces when they think it will make us support their policies.
Once we decide to use America's best interests as our standard, we give ourselves a huge advantage over progressives and neocons in that regard. We don't need "noble lies". Reasonable and honest libertarians can disagree about what's in our best interests, but once we decide that our best interests should be the standard, the rest of it isn't about who's the victim or who to believe anymore. It's just an argument about what our best interests are given the available data. Every well run business uses the same criteria.
"In the progressives mindset, the purpose of government is to use the coercive power of government to protect victims from whatever predator."
Also the conservative mindset. Also the libertarian mindset. The only difference is you think the only predators are poor people and the only prey are rich people and their corporations.
So basically your definition of progressive except sociopathic.
The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights. The legitimate purpose of the police is to protect our rights from criminals. The legitimate purpose the criminal courts is to protect our rights from the police. The legitimate purpose of the military is to protect our rights from foreign threats.
Progressives believe that the legitimate purpose of the government is to force us to make sacrifices for the greater good--regardless of whether anyone's rights are being violated. Progressives believe that using the government to violate people's rights in the name of protecting "victims" is a perfectly appropriate use of the government's coercive powers.
Perverting the legitimate purpose of government into violating people's rights is another reason why progressives are America's most horrible people.
Are you lying to yourself when you say this bullshit or just us?
The Progressives first have to turn folks into victims.., so as to help them. Like with Black Americans.... The Progressive "helping hand" ALWAYS turns into a fist upside the head.
The Phucko Knows
Some people, unlike you, look at different points of view instead of dismissing them and calling people names.
https://twitter.com/AtlRey/status/1499919393651924997?t=lMiUzFWj7c07Nm-bQq9Lfg&s=19
China just issued a televised warning to the US, saying that if we continue to send ships through the Taiwan Strait, and encourage Taiwan Independence, our ships "will be turned into scrap iron."
[Video]
We've seen some governments censor the internet.
No, it’s PrIvAtE CoMpANiEs.
Theyve censored some applications, not the entire internet.
https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1500107930552737798?t=D8oFdqAimarAE5qh9IB9Yw&s=19
Breaking: Denis Kireev, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team, was murdered in Kiev.
This is a developing story out of Ukrainian media. He was suspected of “treason”
[Link]
Just for the record, Nardz is a useful idiot for Putin, and the "developing story" is that Denis Kireev appears to have been executed as a Russian spy.
"According to media reports, the SBU had evidence of Denis Kireev's treason, including telephone conversations, UNIAN reported."
https://www.socialnews.xyz/2022/03/05/member-of-ukraine-delegation-executed-for-being-russian-spy/
Are we supposed to want Putin to win because the Ukrainians execute Russian spies? What's the moral of the story supposed to be?
The moral is they executed someone alleged to be a spy. He may or may not have been, but unlike you I can admit both are possible.
If the truth is on your side, why the growing hysteria?
You're a broken joke, ken, and your levels of projection are getting progressively worse.
Just for the record, Ken, you’re the kind of person who will end up driving us into WWIII over virtue signaling on Ukraine and your susceptibility to propaganda.
Ukraine isn’t our business, period. And Russia losing this would likely be a very bad outcome, just like Germany’s humiliating defeat in WWI. Observing that doesn’t mean one supports Putin, it’s just being realistic.
"Ukraine isn’t our business, period."
Because it isn't in our interests to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine, doesn't mean we don't have any interest in the outcome. One is clearly better for American security, and the other is clearly worse.
How so? Under Obama we refused to arm them for ages, moving and shifting forces to northern Europe instead. Indont agree woth Russia, but the outcome doesn't change America's security stance in any way. In fact it probably strengthens it more with Ukraine losing as Germany and others are finally increasing their defense budgets.
See my arguments below about why it's in the best interests of the United States for Putin to lose in the Ukraine.
I did. They are not persuasive.
You don't think Russia failing in the Ukraine will make launching a larger attack against our allies in the Baltics or Poland less likely?!
That seems willfully something or other to me.
In the long run? No, it won’t make it less likely.
And the Baltics aren’t our allies.
The Blatics aren't our allies? They are NATO countries. We have allies that we aren't in formal treaty arrangements (like Finland). Countries that we have treaties with are DEFINITELY our allies. And all 3 of the Baltic countries are in NATO.
Gosh, do you think that I don’t know that they are in NATO?
What I am telling you is that while we have a formal treaty with them, they are not actually “allies” in the sense of having shared interests and contributing usefully to our defense and security. To the contrary.
Expanding NATO was a bad mistake, leading directly to today. That’s one of the root causes of what’s happening today. Putin isn’t a singularly bad actor, any Russian leader would have reacted the same way.
I dont think them attacking NATO is likely either way.
God forbid Europe has to fight it’s own wars.
Yes, an independent Ukraine in NATO and the EU is clearly worse for our security because no Russian leader can accept that.
Staying in NATO is clearly worse for our security because of the moral hazard that creates in European decision making.
Reality may be that the Ukrainian people will no longer accept being subjugated to Putin.
I doubt we could stop the Baltics and Poland from arming a Ukrainian insurgency--even if we wanted to stop them.
If reality is more than Putin can accept--with our support for the Ukraine or without it--that may be too bad for Vladimir Putin.
I have no problem with European mains doing what they feel they must. The US should stay out of it, directly out through treaties.
Realistically, without US backing and without NATO, Europeans will have to accommodate Putin’s wishes substantially.
And that's a good thing? Aquiescing to warmongers is a smart strategy?
How did that work with Hitler? In your world, Neville Chamberlain was a hero.
Chamberlain had to stall for as long as possible to allow the UK to build up its armed forces.
So, in your world, the UK should have just started bombing Germany out of the blue? Or what? What exactly would not negotiating the Munich agreement have accomplished?
But there is an analogy here: the root cause of WWII was the Treaty of Versailles decades earlier, just like the root cause of Ukraine is the way the West chose to act after the fall of the USSR. By 1938, it was too late to do anything about it. But that's pretty much where the analogy ends. Putin isn't an ideology-driven madman, he is a rational dictator of a failing nation.
And while you can hold him morally responsible for the immediate attack on Ukraine, the root cause of the situation we are in is again progressives drunk on power for decades and seeking to remake the entire world--and running headlong into reality.
When WWIII starts, it will be people like Bill Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, and their ideology who will ultimately be historically and morally responsible. And the adversary will probably not be Putin but Xi, because Xi isn't putting up with Western b.s. any longer either.
U do remember that there's been a civil war going on for 8-yrs in Ukraine. Whoops sorry... I forgot the MSM hadn't TOLD u. Care to guess WHICH citizens of Ukraine were being attacked and rounded up? Your lack of knowledge of the world is embarrassing.
The Phucko Knows
Are we supposed to want Putin to win because the Ukrainians execute Russian spies? What's the moral of the story supposed to be?
Ask Snowden.
Good thread if you're interested in the military dynamic of how the war is going in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/ClintEhrlich/status/1500029926765780993?t=lmHWs24VqaXsGRxVDIEBrw&s=19
Are you still claiming not to be rooting for Russia to win? Because your boner for this tweet contradicts that.
It's a good analysis that counters what your msm masters have been saying. Some people want concrete coverage rather than unabated propaganda, and this is a resource for them.
If the linked map makes Ken Schultz look like a fucking moron (and it does), that's a Ken Schultz problem, not "Kremlin propaganda".
You want everyone to understand that the Ukrainians are surrounded and losing--because you don't care if Putin wins--is that what you're maintaining?
Trump was wrong on immigration. Trump was wrong on trade with China, and Trump was wrong on Section 230. I supported him in 2020 anyway because of several upsides. Don't think I've ever seen you make those kinds of balanced arguments before--on any topic.
You want everyone to believe that the Ukrainians are losing, but you don't want Putin to win. That requires a mindset I don't think you've ever demonstrated before. Can you tell us three things you like about illegal immigration? Can you tell us two things you like about gun control? Can you tell us three things you don't like about Trump? Can you tell us some good things about trade with China?
I can do all of that. I don't think you're any more capable of that than you are capable of wanting people to think that the Ukrainians are surrounded and losing without wanting Putin to win.
MSM: "The Bears are one of the best teams in football, they're going to win the division!"
Me: "The Bears are 3-7, and 6 games behind the 9-1 Packers in the division."
Ken Scultz: "YoU'rE rOoTiNg FoR tHe PaCkErS!"
You neglected to tell us three things you like about illegal immigration, two things you like about gun control, three things you don't like about Trump, or some things we should like about trade with China.
And?
You aren't entitled to a damn thing, neokeNN.
I am enjoying watching your breakdown though.
I'm not. :-/
I'm trying to keep my participation in it minimal for the rest of yall's sake
You’re entitled to your opinions, of course. But basically, it looks to me like you’re just a stooge for war mongering progressives and corporations.
I can’t speak for Nardz, but personally, I simply don’t care. I think the US should stay out of Ukraine, out of Europe, and leave NATO. That’s the libertarian position. Let the chips fall where they may. Most likely, Putin will win, and that’s OK. He may go on to the Baltic states, and that’s OK as well. It’s not our government’s business.
If you want to donate your own money and put your own life at risk, be my guest.
Being able to see the upsides of arguments I disagree with objectively doesn't make me a warmonger or a stooge, and Nardz has never demonstrated the objectivity necessary to want the American people to believe the Ukraine is losing without wanting Putin to win.
LOL
You've turned into collectivistjeff.
Ken, your views are supportive of the progressive agenda and will drag America into wars. Whether you realize that or not really is immaterial.
Your problem starts with the fact that you even care whether Putin wins or not. Putin is irrelevant to American interests as long as he doesn’t aim ICBMs at America.
If I can see the upside of positions I don't hold, that doesn't make me anything but objective.
If you have to pretend true things aren't true in order to support a position, you're a phony.
Because I opposed invading Rwanda because it isn't in the best interests of the United States, I didn't need to pretend there wasn't a genocide going on.
George Orwell made some excellent criticisms of communism, and I can see that--even though I disagreed with him because he was a socialist.
Being a rational libertarian capitalist in the real world means seeing the upside of things you disagree with. Shutting your eyes to truths you don't like doesn't ,make you principled or libertarian. It just makes you willfully blind.
Ken, your problem isn’t your open mindedness, your problem is that you are simply wrong on the political and strategic facts.
You have swallowed the propaganda that Putin is some kind of Hitler-like madman bent on world domination. In reality, Putin is a ruthless but predictable strongman who has clearly articulated what are boundaries that no Russian leader will tolerate getting crossed.
I'd love to hear the "rational libertarian capitalist" argument for NATO, for seizing private property based on citizenship, for the government to interfere in banking and commercial transactions, for the government to interfere in free speech, for governments to restrict freedom of movement of people who have committed no crimes. All of those are things the US and European governments have done.
I mean, "rational libertarian capitalists" can acknowledge that our progressive leaders are doing these things; but rational libertarian capitalists should be screaming at the top of their lungs that these policies are wrong and should be ended immediately.
Instead, you use NATO as a justification to drag us even further into a quagmire of European wars.
You seem to be mistaking libertarianism and isolationism. Putting your head in the sand and hoping that bad things will only happen to other countries is doomed to fail.
Trump wasn't wrong on immigration. In face of a welfare state unabated immigration is idiotic. We've discussed this.
How can you be idealistic on immigration but not idealistic on free markets or non interventionism?
The argument against welfare does not depend on immigration. We can and should slash welfare regardless of what we do about immigration. There isn't anything about being robbed by a lazy American citizen that makes me feel better about being robbed.
Meanwhile, the system that ties welfare benefits to citizenship isn't capitalism. The system that says you're entitled to an apartment, food, utilities, and the rest because you're a citizen is communism. I'm a capitalist. I want to kill welfare completely for citizens and non-citizens alike.
We could exclude foreign citizens from welfare in a treaty with Mexico. American citizens can't jump across the border for free surgery in Canada. Why is it any different in the United States?
Meanwhile, cheap labor is good for the economy like cheap oil. If the cheap labor were bad for the economy, then the slowest growing economy over the last 20 years would be China's. Americans who can't compete for jobs with unskilled labor that can't speak English should have avoided committing felonies, should have finished high school, should move elsewhere in the country to look for work, or should stop doing meth.
Trump was right about border security, but the immigration system we have isn't making the border secure at all. Even if Trump had built his wall, it's the immigration system itself that needs to change. Because it should be illegal for Mexican citizens to receive welfare in the United States simply does not mean that it should be against the law for them to come here and compete for jobs.
The argument against immigration is dependent on welfare. Why did you try to change my comment?
"The argument against immigration is dependent on welfare."
That is factually incorrect.
We can slash welfare spending any time we want without addressing immigration at all.
Here's Trump heroically fighting to cut $772 billion from Medicaid.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849
No mention of immigration anywhere in that bill. Just cutting Medicaid across the board. There isn't anything in the Constitution that says you can't cut funding for EBT or rental assistance unless you cut immigration. We could cut funding for EBT and rental assistance and increase the amount of immigration at the same time. Cutting welfare spending simply does not depend cutting immigration.
It isnnot factually incorrect Ken. You are just fucking wrong. Without the welfare state, immigration can be more free. Are you drunk? Offering generous welfare and easy migration leads to overspending of tax moneys taken from others. See fuckinh San Francisco.
Your argument is just wrong.
Oh, cheap labor is certainly good for "the economy". What cheap labor is absolutely horrible for is the prosperity, self determination, and liberty of American citizens. Economic and social progress is driven by a scarcity of cheap, unskilled labor.
China also has massive social, economic, and political problems that go along with its reliance on unskilled and slave labor. And that's the historical norm: societies relying on cheap, unskilled labor self-destruct.
That's the future you are advocating for the US.
So, Ken, you’re rooting for Russia to lose ? You want Russia to be a humiliated and destabilized nuclear power, saddled with reparations and international ostracism? Because that’s what we’re heading for and it’s bad.
The West could have avoided this crap but not ignoring Russia’s repeated warnings against NATO on its borders. But arrogant Western diplomats and governments ignored it decades after decades.
I want that. I want a precedent set that if you break it, you bought it. I want all the world united against any aggressor so the cost of war becomes untenable, and not in the MAD way that kept the peace during the cold war. An economic atom bomb against any aggressor, even the US. Maybe then we can end all the pointless wars that cost so much blood and treasure. It is time to end Bismarck's iron and blood diplomacy.
And then what? Plutocracy forever? Punishing an entire nation for the actions of a few?
How well will that work when turned on the proxy warmongering US, or the aggressions of the defensive NATO?
The situation Ukraine is, A) none of our business B) largely precipitated by US meddling, and C) it's not worth going to nuclear war over protecting WEF crony assets. Quite the opposite.
Ken, can you explain what you think the aftermath of a Russian loss would actually look like and how that would be good in any way for the US?
Putin is attempting to reconstitute the USSR in Europe, with all the old Russian satellites in tow, and that includes Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland--all of which are now full fledged members of NATO. We are bound by a constitutional treaty, ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, to protect them if Putin attacks.
If Putin succeeds in the Ukraine, we should expect to see Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--with their large Russian minorities--next on Putin's hit list. In fact, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are fully invested in the Ukraine--sending them all the weapons and support they can--because they fully expect to be the next item on Putin's shopping list.
If Putin fails in the Ukraine and exhausts his resources there, however, the chances of him committing further resources to invade and occupy our NATO allies will be much lower for all sorts of reasons. In short, I don't want the United States to go to war with Russia because it isn't in the best interests of the United States to go to war with Russia, and that's why I want Putin to fall on his face in the Ukraine.
If Putin fails in the Ukraine and exhausts his resources there, however, the chances of him committing further resources to invade and occupy our NATO allies will be much lower for all sorts of reasons.
I don't see the logic that says Putin defeats the Ukraine and suddenly gains the military might to go on to Estonia et al. The Ukraine isn't Wakanda and there's plenty of evidence he's sewing internal dissent even among the Russians without throwing Ukrainians into the domestic situation.
I think you make a good point too: “winning” in Ukraine will likely keep Putin busy for years with separatists and dissent.
Do you see the logic that Putin failing likely stymies his plans for further expansion?
Hitler waltzing into Austria and Czechoslovakia only served to increase the size of his territorial ambitions. The United States getting bogged down in Iraq did not lead to a U.S. occupation of Syria. Russia's failure in Afghanistan did not make it look elsewhere for expansion. It exhausted them.
If you don't buy the suggestion that Russia succeeding in the Ukraine will necessarily translate into a full scale confrontation with our NATO allies in the Baltics and Poland, you should buy the suggestion that Putin failing miserably in the Ukraine will make it even less likely that he tries to expand into the Baltics and Poland.
If we don't want to go to war with Russia over our NATO allies, we should hope that Putin fails in the Ukraine.
Sie, if Putin fails, he can’t immediately attack the Baltic states. You think that’s the end of it? Hitler only came to power because of Germans humiliating defeat in WWI. That’s what happens of Russia loses.
Strategically, Russia cannot accept Ukraine in NATO or the EU. Even the Baltics really are not acceptable strategically. That’s never going to change. If you incorporate those nations into the West, you’ll have to effectively take over Russia as well. I don’t think the Russian people will take kindly to a western puppet government installed in their country.
The only way i see to resolve this is to give Putin what he wants: kick the Baltics out of NATO or dissolve NATO; split off parts of Ukraine and keep the rest neutral.
In any case, none of this matters to America. Let Putin take over all of Europe if he wants to.
Appeasement has not been a historically successful foreign policy.
Neither has provocative saber rattling next door, but here we are.
Yes, Putin has clearly seen that. For years, Russia has appeased the West by tolerating NATO expansion and other intrusions into its sphere of influence, intrusions that increasingly threatened Russia's security. And the West just became more and more brazen, treating Russia as irrelevant and finally starting discussions about admitting Ukraine to NATO. That was just too much.
If Russia had threatened an immediate and devastating military response to the admission of Poland and the Baltics to NATO, we wouldn't be where we are today.
That's what you meant, right?
If you don't buy the suggestion that Russia succeeding in the Ukraine will necessarily translate into a full scale confrontation with our NATO allies in the Baltics and Poland, you should buy the suggestion that Putin failing miserably in the Ukraine will make it even less likely that he tries to expand into the Baltics and Poland.
If we don't want to go to war with Russia over our NATO allies, we should hope that Putin fails in the Ukraine.
IDK. 'Failing' is vague and amorphous. According to Putin's own demands, he could 'win' and Ukraine would still exist and never join NATO. If you assume his goal isn't to 'win' in the Ukraine but antagonize NATO/EU then he's already won either way.
And you think Russia losing in Ukraine is the end of it? Don’t be naive. Russians are proud and have vast resources.
As for NATO, it was idiotic to expand it to the Baltic states. Let’s not compound that idiocy. In fact, the US needs to leave NATO, the sooner the better. It serves no purpose. The other nations in it are militarily useless. NATO creates a moral hazard, we can’t afford it, and it is likely to trigger WWIII sooner or later if we stay.
Your NATO argument is also weak because we are already bound by treaty to defend Ukraine, something Biden seems to have no trouble ignoring. Well, we can ignore our NATO “obligations” the same way because nobody in their right mind trusts our commitments anyway and because for practical purposes, we are NATO.
Whether Putin manages to reconstitute the old USSR or not is entirely Europe’s problem and responsibility. I immigrated from Europe and I couldn’t care less what those morons do. Maybe a few decades under a Putin dictatorship would finally help them find their spines.
"And you think Russia losing in Ukraine is the end of it? Don’t be naive. Russians are proud and have vast resources."
Unfortunately, I think Putin's ambitions surpass the resources he has available. Putin is 70 years old. He probably has eight to ten years left. I don't know what the future holds, but failing in Ukraine won't make succeeding in the Baltics and Poland more likely before he's enfeebled by old age.
Meanwhile a coup is always a possibility before then--a possibility that increases if and when Putin fails in the Ukraine. Any way yhou slice it, America's interest remains in seeing Putin fail in the Ukraine--even though it isn't in America's best interests to get into a war with Russia over the Ukraine directly.
Americas no interests in Europe. European defense is the responsibility of Europeans. If they don’t give a fck, and they don’t, let them live with their choices.
No matter who runs Russia, the Baltics and Ukraine being in NATO will never be acceptable to them. Putin had been both clear and persistent on this point for decades. That’s just geography. If you want those states in NATO, you have to turn Russia into a western puppet; good luck with that. Otherwise, any future Russian leader is likely going to be far worse.
"European defense is the responsibility of Europeans.
Actually, we're obligated by a constitutionally ratified treaty to come to the defense of our NATO allies if they're attacked, and pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.
Furthermore, even if it weren't for NATO, wars of aggression against the Europeans eventually dragged the United States into World War II before NATO existed, and I don't see any good reason to believe that the American people are more isolationist now than we were in 1941.
In any case, if we want to avoid going to war with Russia, it's in our best interests for Putin to fail in the Ukraine before he starts coming after our allies.
Some people seem to think that we won't go to war with Russia in the future because we shouldn't, but I've seen us go to war with other countries when it wasn't in our best interests to do so. People support doing things we shouldn't do all the time. We invaded Iraq. That was a terrible idea. Point being, even if it weren't for NATO, if and when Russia attacks the Baltics or Poland, we should probably expect the American people to support military action--even if they shouldn't.
The American people don't give a f*ck about the Baltics or Ukraine, nor should they. Most of them couldn't even find them on a map.
The only way the American people "support military action" is if they are propagandized into it.
Trust me as someone who immigrated from Europe: America has a pretty good thing going; it really doesn't have to get involved in Europe at all. The only reason the US does is because it is in the interest of the MIC and war mongering politicians, and they are propagandizing the heck out of you.
I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying that defending Europe isn't our responsibility. It is currently our treaty obligation, and the way to resolve that contradiction is to abrogate the treaty, the sooner the better.
The American people didn't want to enter WWII, they were propagandized into it, just like pretty much every other war. The US entered WWII under the rule of a proto-fascist president, and the outcome was decades of cold war, the threat of nuclear annihilation, the genocide happening anyway, and the destruction of liberties in the US under a wartime regime that just kept going.
Furthermore, while Hitler was a genocidal madman with an all-encompassing ideology, Putin is not; Putin is just a dictator running a country precariously balanced on the edge of chaos.
If we want to avoid going to war with Russia we need to stop pushing them into a corner. Among other things, that means jettisoning our "allies", countries that have done nothing for us and never will.
See, "constitutionally ratified treaties" can be abrogated, removing all your concerns.
"I'm saying that defending Europe isn't our responsibility."
This is probably the kind of willful blindness we're talking about upthread.
Defending our NATO allies is our responsibility according to a constitutionally ratified mutual defense treaty, and it doesn't matter whether we like it or whether we want to believe it.
Meanwhile, a fat slice of the American people already say they want a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and if Putin did the same thing again against one of our NATO allies, the American people would probably demand that we do something about it--regardless of whether we like it and regardless of whether you want to believe it.
Reality is what it is regardless of whether you want to pretend it's something else.
Look, if you want to play word games about the meanings of "treaty obligation" and "responsibility", that's your business. It doesn't change the fact: we can, and we should, abrogate that treaty.
Furthermore, your characterization of NATO is actually false. We aren't obligated to defend Europe, NATO is a mutual defense pact. Our so-called allies aren't paying what they are supposed to pay. They are doing shit in Ukraine. They are incapable of imposing a no-fly zone. Clearly, the other members of that supposed "mutual defense pact" aren't living up to their obligations.
Yes, propaganda works. And this is headed for war with US military involvement, and it gets progressively worse from there.
Correct: reality is that you and the majority of Americans are easily led by propaganda, that NATO is increasingly a threat to peace and security in Europe, that the US will likely be dragged into a massively destructive war with Russia, and that the US will become more statist and authoritarian as a result. Reality is that even if Putin loses, geography dictates that this problem remains unresolved and that Russia either will attack again or the West will have to install a puppet government in Russia (good luck with that). Those are the realities. You just don't want to face them.
Reality is also that while you may fancy yourself a libertarian, you really aren't, because a libertarian would be fundamentally opposed to a construct like NATO or any US involvement in European conflicts.
And they are bound by the agreement to spend a percent amount of gdp on their own defense. Something they've only done due to Ukraine being attacked. That action spurred their obligations. Loss of Ukraine will probably make it even more obligated from their side.
The Baltic states and Poland have been spending their NATO required 2%--and were doing so since long before Trump started complaining about it. Along with the UK, they're our strongest allies.
The Baltics and Poland can spend whatever they want, they are useless as defense partners. The only reason to take them into NATO is to be able to get territory where we can deploy troops closer to Russia, and that is precisely the reason why it was so idiotic to admit them into NATO in the first place and why we need to leave NATO.
If Europe wants to, let them continue NATO without the US.
To claim to be a libertarian and support NATO is an absurdity.
> wars of aggression against the Europeans eventually dragged the United States into World War II before NATO existed
Only because we were fucktarded enough to stick our dicks in the hornet's nest of WW I.
Correct
> European defense is the responsibility of Europeans. If they don’t give a fck, and they don’t, let them live with their choices.
Concur.
Russia's economy is roughly the size of New Jersey. They don't have "vast resources". Short of their mikitary, they are not an econimically relevant country.
They have sunk a lot into Ukraine. If they lose, they will have no resources to try somewhere else. Especially with the collapsing of their economy due to economic sanctions.
Expanding to the Baltics was brilliant. Supporting and reinforcing democratic countries is beneficial to America (and the world as a whole). Autocracies and tyrants are a threat to those who wish to cooperate for mutual prosperity.
There is a well-documented and concerning expansion of illiberalism and autocrats in the world. Those countries are dangerous, not only to their own populations, but their neighbors as well. Even democracies are being undermined by people like Viktor Orban.
Standing up to tyranny is in our best interest. Because tyrants never get enough. They always want more.
The other nations in it are militarily useless.
And hell bent on confounding their own usefulness and expanding their own uselessness.
Putin leaves tomorrow. Is the EU really gonna ship more AKs to the Ukraine to hand out to their citizens in a time of crisis and then turn around and welcome them into the fold? Should the US continue shipping weapons into the Ukraine?
R u still claiming your nothing more then a deep state shill?
The Phucko Knows
On that map, the red blob on the bottom left is part of Moldova and is not theoretically involved in the war. It's just Russian "peacekeeping" troops making sure Moldova behaves and doesn't sneak behind Russia's back to unite with Romania, but technically these troops are not involved in Ukraine.
"Divorcing the online world from geography and placing it outside state control is in keeping with the internet's original promise."
Outside state control? That's just crazy talk. Let's hope that Musk gets woke and agrees to comprehensive restrictions of fake news on Starlink.
Starlink is nice, but it's not invincible. Musk just lost a bunch of satellites to a solar flare (or something). If the powers that be are motivated enough, satellite internet will be disabled.
They're in pretty low orbit so they can probably be shot down.
But they're also pretty small, there are tens of thousands of them and they act like a hive. If one goes down, two others pick up the slack.
So they'll have to take out a couple of hundred to really impact a medium sized nation.
Heil Hydra!
In what fantasy world is a highly government regulated, highly centralized service like satellite Internet going to be “uncensored”?
Hey, guess what? Americans are now in favor of a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine.
"Some 74% of Americans – including solid majorities of Republicans and Democrats – said the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should impose a no-fly zone in Ukraine, the poll found."
Also:
"However, some 62% of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said paying more for fuel and gas because of the crisis was worthwhile to defend another democratic country."
Biden's approval on Ukraine is also at 45% in the poll, up from 34% last week.
Buckle up, kids. We'll be at war with Russia before you know it. All we need now is for an American to die in Ukraine, and that's a sacrifice the Biden admin is willing to make.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-americans-broadly-support-ukraine-no-fly-zone-russia-oil-ban-poll-2022-03-04/
NATO refuses Ukraine's request for a no-fly zone.
"All the people who will die starting from this day will also die because of you. Because of your weakness, because of your disunity," a furious Mr Zelensky added
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60629175
(Copy-paste due to inadvertent flag)
"NATO refuses Ukraine's request for a no-fly zone.
"All the people who will die starting from this day will also die because of you. Because of your weakness, because of your disunity," a furious Mr Zelensky added
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60629175"
It's good that NATO keeps shooting down the no fly zone option, but part of me worries that'll be one of those "we didn't want to do it but we have to now - look at all the times we said no as proof!"
Also: fuck Zelensky.
Of course he's furious, he got gamed by NATO. He has a right to be mad.
"Gamed by NATO"? Zelensky has been trying to manipulate NATO and the West from the beginning, trying to drag them into this war. That's because he knows it's the only way he can win in the long term.
The problem is that even if NATO or the West gets involved, it will resolve nothing. A Western-friendly Ukraine, or worse yet, a Ukraine in the EU and NATO is unacceptable to Russia. That's not because Putin is some kind of madman, it simply does not work given geography.
And NATO gave him the whole idea to begin with. Time and time again Boris, Macron and Justin did the whole "Wouldn't it be nice" bit with the Ukrainians.
Zelensky didn't come up with the idea on his own.
Who gave him the ideas doesn’t matter.
What matters is that Americans should stop listening to the guy and so listening to NATO representatives. They both are itching for dragging the US into this.
It definitely matters, but yeah to your second point.
"Buckle up, kids. We'll be at war with Russia before you know it. All we need now is for an American to die in Ukraine, and that's a sacrifice the Biden admin is willing to make."
Remember all those "warnings" about how Russia was going to do a false flag as an excuse to invade?
Always projection with these assholes.
Gas at the corner went up another 20 cents overnight. That's 40 cents in 24 hours or so. From $3.59 Thursday night to $3.99 Saturday morning.
Maybe some people should've been a bit more forceful on the election fraud claims...
What do you mean? There was no provocation to invade. Yet Putin claimed that he needed to invade to stop genocide.
He literally cited Nazis as a causus belli.
I am not sure why he bothered. It could have been for internal consumption, I suppose. Or maybe for satellite countries like the Baltics?
Whatever. It isn't like the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is pretend and the Ukrainians are faking the whole thing to get the West involved.
I'm not sure why he bothered.
Of course there was provocation to invade, and it's been going on for a couple of decades: NATO, the EU, and the West have been pushing our influence closer and closer to Russia. Admitting the Baltic states into NATO was already a massive provocation. Putin made it crystal clear that NATO membership for Ukraine was unacceptable. Yet NATO, US, and European officials not just kept ignoring that, they were to tell Russia that it was irrelevant.
That's a typical false dichotomy.
The invasion of Ukraine is real, the consequence of decades of US and European policies.
Ukrainians aren't "faking the whole thing"; the fighting is bloody and horrific. But Zelensky is also trying to manipulate the West to his side.
"NATO, the EU, and the West have been pushing our influence closer and closer to Russia."
That isn't a justification to invade. Nor is their "Nazi" bullshit. Foreign nations don't get veto power over sovereign nations' policy decisions.
There is not a justification for what Russia is doing.
Zelenskyy doesn't have to "manipulate" the West to his side. Putin has done that all by himself. And much of the rest of the world, for that matter.
Oh, I agree, Putin's invasion of Ukraine wasn't justified. And the West is perfectly justified imposing a no-fly zone and even deploying ground troops. When the northern hemisphere has been reduced to radioactive rubble, we can all rest peacefully in the knowledge that the West was perfectly justified in its actions and that Putin is to blame!
You know, just like the Treaty of Versailles was perfectly justified, damn the consequences!
He didn't bother. There was no false flag that he based the invasion on, he just invaded. We've debated the merits of Russia's position well enough.
My point in bringing it up is that OUR government was talking up false flags. OUR government, who has a history of doing them. Now a majority supports a no fly zone, thanks to the covid+ style propaganda blitz, and I am worried that OUR government will come up with a false flag to justify escalation and direct combat.
The Nazi thing in Ukraine is probably not as big an issue as Putin makes it out to be, but it's definitely a bigger issue than we're being told. I don't know how much of a role and influence literal-neonazis have in Ukraine's current government, but it does have a role and influence. How significant is impossible to tell from here with the state of our governments and media.
You are so addled by internet conspiracy rabbit holes you don't even know what line you're trying to push.
Same nazi slurs US Democrats hurled at Trump.
Meaning Commie Russias in bed with US Democrats.
I would like to see "would you send your sons off to support a no-fly-zone over Ukrainian airspace" poll results.
Yeah, Americans are also in favor of getting a free car. Tell them how much they have to pay for it, and that support goes out the window. It's the same thing with the cost of energy. The environmentalists evaporate by the millions when the average price of gas goes over $5.00 a gallon nationally.
If you poll people in the checkout line at Walmart on how they feel about trade with China, you get one answer. Look in their shopping carts for Chinese made products, and you'll see the truth--because that accounts for cost.
Talk is cheap. Answering polls doesn't cost a thing. Elections are only slightly better than polls that way. And the true voice of the American people can only be found in market signals.
That free car thing didn't work so well with the cash for clunkers. No amount of explaining it stopped people from going along.
Thinking beyond the surface level is not really the strong suit of any democracy, but in a Twitter and corporate media world I don't even know if it's possible.
> The environmentalists evaporate by the millions when the average price of gas goes over $5.00 a gallon nationally.
The best thing about $10 gas will be a lot of people getting religion about drilling for oil.
Or buying hybrids or electric cars. I've driven a Prius for the last 18 year. When you get over 50 miles a gallon (500+ miles a tank), fluctuations in gas prices aren't nearly as important.
That's because your Prius was heavily subsidized to begin with.
Public opinion polling is important because we are in a mid-term year, and this is a must-win election. The democrats are using Ukraine to neutralize the very issues that make them vulnerable, by making it about "defending freedom for Ukraine." A month ago, economic conditions made the midterms pretty much a lock for Republicans, and Biden was toxic to democrat candidates. The stronger his public image, the stronger the democrats are. If Biden can be positioned as a brave defender of freedom, he can campaign for democrats in vulnerable seats. All they need to do to keep Biden strong, is keep this Ukraine situation on the front page every day.
There are clear and easy solutions that will directly impact Putin's ability to continue his war- cut off Russian oil, open Keystone, get American oil on the market. But they're not doing them. They're boycotting Russian vodka (which isn't even Russian), and banning Russian sports teams from international competition. That means they are not serious about ending this crisis, and that they intend to prolong it as long as they can to make his numbers better, and neutralize Republican advantage in the midterm.
If they get the midterms, BBB will pass. HR1 will pass. The court will be stacked, and there's no point in worrying about 2024, because by then, they'll have cemented one-party rule with no meaningful opposition, and even if a republican does win the white house, it'll be a democrat-approved Republican like Romney or Liz Cheney, and them damage will be done already.
I want Putin to lose as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of the future of this country. If the democrats are allowed to castrate America, the world is left at the mercy of China.
That was an embarrassing read. All that Bullshit just to show the world what an ignorant human u be. Were u even around the last two years? The Neoliberals and NeoCons don't believe in personal freedoms. Joe Biden as a POTUS exudes "confidence"?‽? That may be the stupidest thing anyone has ever said out loud. U really REALLY need to turn off that TV.
The Phucko Knows
...and daughters. Equity baby, equity.
A no-fly zone over Ukraine would be an act of war. If Americans are ok with engaging in an act of war in Ukraine, then it is what it is. I'm just glad I'm too old to be drafted.
American's are dumn sheep and have no idea of the consequnces. There is non-stop stumping for a non fly zone. Some dim bulb suggested the UN can do it to prevent WWIII. How well did that work out in Korea? WWIII is coming and the MIC does not care how many dead it takes, they will get their 30 pieces of silver.
I think that we should do everything we can to make Russia suffer for their brutality, both in bodies and in their economy. But not in any way that would lead to direct combat between Russia and NATO.
So no boots on the ground and no no-fly zone. Way too much chance for disaster.
What u r suggesting IS the disaster.
The Phucko Knows
"Radio signals could also be triangulated, and Musk has also warned that terminals could be targeted by Russian forces, cautioning users to keep terminals, "as far away from people as possible."
This sounds like wildlife biologists putting radio collars on bears, and poachers using them to hunt bears down with excellent efficiency. This reminds me of that excellent book, "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom", which came out in 2011--just ahead of the Arab Spring. When everyone else was talking about how the liberating power of social media was letting people organize protests like never before, Morozov was arguing that social media also allows vicious dictatorships to identify dissidents and trace their relationships with other people like never before.
"As Evgeny Morozov demonstrates in “The Net Delusion,” his brilliant and courageous book, the Internet’s contradictions and confusions are just becoming visible through the fading mist of Internet euphoria. Morozov is interested in the Internet’s political ramifications. “What if the liberating potential of the Internet also contains the seeds of depoliticization and thus dedemocratization?” he asks. The Net delusion of his title is just that. Contrary to the “cyberutopians,” as he calls them, who consider the Internet a powerful tool of political emancipation, Morozov convincingly argues that, in freedom’s name, the Internet more often than not constricts or even abolishes freedom.
"Twitter Can’t Save You"
----The New York Times, February 4, 2011
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/books/review/Siegel-t.html
Morozov saw the problems we're having with social media ten years before they became obvious to everyone--mostly due to his experience as a dissident in Belarus. It's basically C S Lewis' argument in "Men Without Chests" and "The Abolition of Man".
Radio could be used to inform people like never before, or it could be used to propagandize a population, which is what Hitler did. Nuclear power can be used to create low carbon electricity, or it can be used to nuke London. Knives can be used to chop carrots or by serial killers on their victims. Technology, by itself, is never good nor evil. It just depends on how people choose to use it.
Technology isn't a substitute for ethics, accountability, justice, or reason, and people who think that technology will always make us freer now have a really hard argument to make considering the way we've seen social media used by everyone from Emperor Xi to Joe Biden. Look at poor little Nardz, wandering around from tweet to tweet, looking for someone to trust--rather than critical thinking.
Anyway, yeah, it doesn't surprise me that there are downsides to using Starlink under occupation. Everyone should be free to use whatever technologies they please so long as they don't use them to violate people's rights, but we should always be aware that that the core principles never change. We will never become so technologically advanced that we'll no longer need to worry about whether the government or others are violating our rights. Rather, as we become more technologically advanced, the opportunities to violate our rights will proliferate.
The reason the NSA was tracking our phone calls and sifting through our emails wasn't because we abolished the Fourth Amendment. It's because it became technologically possible for the NSA to track our phone calls and sift through our emails.
Tracking radio sources would be a basic capability of any modern armed force. From our high level anti-radiation missile capability that we use to decapitate enemy forces and eliminate their air defenses all the way down to the ability to find the radio operator from a squadron.
Starlink's groundlink station is a radio. It is a sophisticated phased array beam forming antenna, but a radio nonetheless. As such, lobbing artillery at it is a trivial exercise for an armed forces contingent as sophisticated as the Russians.
""Radio signals could also be triangulated, and Musk has also warned that terminals could be targeted by Russian forces, cautioning users to keep terminals, "as far away from people as possible."
BULLSHIT.
Vague generalization applied to microwave signals that bounce all over hell and back = someone made that up...
So r saying that the "advancement" makes it all ok?
The Phucko Knows
Internet access that can't be shut down or sabotaged would be good.
Creating personal sanctions for megalomaniacs who start wars would be better. Why is using one type of bomb considered a war crime, but sending thousands of armed men into a neighboring country to shoot people and occasionally blow up apartment buildings okay?
Putin (or others of his ilk who start wars) should be held personally criminally liable for the murders committed by his goons. Set a substantial cash/crypto reward for bringing him in alive, then charge him with however many thousand counts of murder and arson. It's time for the "right of conquest" to die.
"Right of conquest" will never die because it's natural law. You condemn physics all you want, but it's just physics and it's inescapable.
Who punishes the conqueror?
Whoever conquers the conqueror.
Efron Monsanto ????????????????
@realmonsanto
Trudeau: "we see a bit of a slippage in our democracies. Countries turning towards slightly more authoritarian leaders. Countries allowing increasing misinformation and disinformation to be shared on social media"
Last I checked it was authoritarian governments that wanted to shut down unapproved discourse, not democracies.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
You know how it goes.
Wow! Has Trudeau looked in the mirror lately?
Chrystia Freeland doesn't want him to notice she's holding his strings.
Adam Townsend @adamscrabble
????Watch this: are these the good guys or the bad guys?
https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1499981065091485697
The coming narrative from back in 2011:
Could A Small Nuclear War Reverse Global Warming?
No need for a Small Nuclear War to reverse Global Warming. Global Warming peaked about 7 years ago and has stopped and drifted slightly down since then, according to NOAA. I don't know what IPCC thinks since their data on the global temperature is somewhat different from NOAA and is ordinarily slightly higher. And their reports only go out only to about 2015, before the pause.
https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1500163117774520330?t=DMq8SDrsM07fghXNMZ2gwA&s=19
I have read, watched and assembled thousands of eye-opening discoveries, but this video is the single biggest and most jaw dropping direct evidence I have ever seen.
The video contains is the apex of the COVID-19 manipulation fraud. It is THAT big a deal.
[Video]
Ivermectin is off-patent and costs pennies a pill. It's also one of the safest medications ever made.
A Pfizer mRNA injection plus two boosters costs $60. That's not including what governments have poured into development.
And it's no secret that every single elected official involved in the commissioning bought Pfizer and J&J stock, and that kickbacks were being paid.
This was overt graft, and if there was ever reason to call for a death penalty, the people who suppressed Ivermectin for mRNA injection $$$ deserve it.
Interesting fact. The Queen was given Ivermectin in her recent Covid bout. Of course Politifact's "fact checkers" lied about it in the stupidest way possible.
covid isnt about ivermectin...
Its "Ivaprofitmargin"
Except ivernectin doesn't do anything to treat Covid. It's doing a great job of separating willful idiots from their money, though. And is a great litmus test to target credulous rubes for further exploitation.
If you believe ivermectin cures (or prevents) Covid, you'll believe anything. Even that an election with a .01% fraud rate was stolen.
Ivermectin is a protease inhibitor indicated to reduce or stop viral replication in a wide variety of viruses, including Zika, HIV, SARS 1&2, West Nile and a host of others.
It has low toxicity to humans and other animals, is used widely around the world and won a Nobel prize. It's also dirt cheap and manufactured worldwide.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
Nelson’s an extra low IQ fifty center. I think they only send him in when someone else goes on vacation.
Yeah, all $1 for a course of treatment (or $50 at marked up US prices)! Bernie Madoff couldn't have come up with a grander fraud scheme!
Meanwhile, mRNA vaccines are, of course, delivered by selfless pharmaceutical companies, free of liability and with billions in government subsidies.
You should ask Hillary and Abrams about that!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221009887#
"Treatment with Ivermectin Is Associated with Decreased Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: Analysis of a National Federated Database"
"Conclusion
Ivermectin use was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to remdesivir. To our knowledge, this is the largest association study of patients with COVID-19, mortality and ivermectin. "
https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching
"Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching"
"Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates."
Do you never tire of being the guy who thinks everything on the news is a conspiracy against you and your people?
Sometimes people are just failures in life, and it's not a conspiracy. You can usually tell because, like the random tweeters you keep pasting here, they all have a certain disheveled hoarder look.
c0nSPirAcy thEoRY
If they're actually bragging about it, it's kind of retarded to squeal that it's a conspiracy theory.
That you haven't dismissed your hypotheses on the grounds that the conspiracy would have to be so vast and global that there would be literally no way to bring it down short of the apocalypse suggests to me that you haven't ever really thought about how big and complicated the world is. I doubt you've even begun to reckon with the scale of the universe.
Says the guy who sucks dicks for free dinner.
Anyway to link the video sans Twitter?
Try this
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/03/04/dr-andrew-hill-the-man-who-killed-millions/
Thanks
Though it may end up losing on the battlefield
*looks at watch*
15 minutes ago we were being treated to stories of the "fierce resistance" that the Ukraine military and militia were putting up, keeping the entirety of the Red Army stumbling backwards. Plus Ukraine flags on twitter bio pics.
Oh shit, now Ken knows you're rooting for Putin!
https://twitter.com/ChristopherHahn/status/1500106901438271505?t=8c5UE__6zIC7Qd2zWhsVDw&s=19
Trump would have left NATO in a second term and hand Eastern Europe to Putin.
That was their plan.
That may have been Putin's plan. Trump doesn't plan. He does whatever he needs in order to receive flattery.
Like the Abraham Accords, the USMCA and the First Step Act?
The Abraham Accords have had exactly zero impact (which is why no one knows whatbthey are), the USMCA is NAFTA repackaged sonit seems like Trumo did something, and the First Step Act was a bipartisan law that Ttumo had nothing to do with passing.
If you could actually find some substantive and successful things that Trymp accomplished it wpuld help your cause immemsely.
Low effort Nelson.
Read the replies
https://twitter.com/KimIversenShow/status/1500113922069655558?t=eHEJuAKH2v861BoICEu4Ng&s=19
Where can I read about the Russian side of the war? The telegram channel I follow has been cut off. Everything I’m reading is distorted and only showcasing the Ukrainian side. Some of it is obviously false. We need to hear both sides to get to the truth.
Not looking for analysis. Looking for pure reports of what’s happening on the ground and what the leadership from both sides is saying.
https://twitter.com/DailyMonitor/status/1499753678730895360?t=1VJ4KsybC_tfznHHse3f5A&s=19
PHOTOS: Children learn how to use an AK-47 assault rifle during a civilians self-defence course in the outskirts of Lviv, western Ukraine, on March 4, 2022.
#MonitorUpdates
[Link]
Elon Musk is such a dumb internet bro. He's zipping to the rescue of both Ukraine and Russia!
"Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint. Sorry to be a free speech absolutist."
"Free speech absolutist." Apparently that means free speech to government-run propaganda factories, even in a time of war. See how far that "absolutist" flex takes you, in the end. It took me to about 9th grade, but I have no problem believing I'm smarter than Elon Musk, who, let's be clear, did not make billions by being a political philosopher.
He probably shouldn't have decisive power over entire countries' worth of people's lives, not having been elected to any such position. The same would be true for the smartest, bestest zillionaire ever.
The success of an engineer is generally proportionate to the amount of information he or she considers in the solving of difficult problems. That's just the nature of reality and our attempts to bend it to our desires. An engineer who doesn't strictly adhere to principles that have been teased out of nature is doomed to fail. Musk understands principles and the consequences of not following them better than you do.
I did study things like political science, but I don't go around to engineers telling them how to build a bridge or whatever.
Knowledge is not about taking what you studied in math class and making it into a metaphor about life. It's about actually studying the shit, same as in every single field. What is it with engineers? They need to swap their charm school of smug superiority with remedial philosophy or something.
I said something totally uncontroversial: that, even taking into account his expertise and career, Elon Musk has no more valuable an opinion on free speech than you, I, or a homeless crackhead does. That's logic.
Anyone's opinion on free speech is more valuable than yours, you totalitarian douche.
""Free speech absolutist." Apparently that means free speech to government-run propaganda factories, even in a time of war"
Well that's a full on fascist take. And I mean that literally, without resorting to hyperbole.
Who are you to determine what people can and cannot hear, and why do you hate libertarianism so much, Tony?
"It took me to about 9th grade"
I figured that's where you dropped out.
but I have no problem believing I'm smarter than Elon Musk
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... Whew lad!
You're a fifty-centing, inner-city faggot who thinks you can pump gas right into your car from the ground, and Elon's a rocket engineer and the world's richest man.
who are the morons enabling Tonys bs by responding?
This is just two trolls having a love fest
Trolls are people too!
Usually.
yes. china and russians.
"And I mean that literally, without resorting to hyperbole."
Why stop now?
"Who. are you to determine what people can and cannot hear?"
A concerned citizen. Propaganda is a tool of war. Every war. That it overlaps with free speech in that some people do engage in the act of speaking, it's a bit more than that. The Russian government neither has nor affords free speech rights.
"You're a fifty-centing, inner-city faggot"
I really miss your hyperbole. =(
Tony the totally-not-fascist paper tiger is upset about the lack of censorship again.
I'm a fascist for not wanting to enable a dictator to poison the world's minds with his propaganda? Do you think we won WWII by handing out Oscars to Leni Riefenstahl?
Who decides? You never answer that bit - just unicorn farts and rainbows if we let the gov't handle everything for you.
Its no problem to beam microwave into Ukraine from nearby. Sideways.
That has disadvantages in range but its something that can be compensated for by high power that sats dont have.
The return trip is more problematic.
The more important point is to jam the hell out of anything and everything to the North.
The last time I plugged into social media the proggies in my sphere were saying Musk is a Nazi. Musk just did more for Ukraine than these troglodytes ever will.
I will reluctantly admit Elon Musk is looking less punchable these days, but he's still a grifter who has taken way too much money from the gov't to be trustworthy.
We'll see how long the neutrality and free speech schtick last - somewhere around the next renewable fuels panel invitation maybe...
This tiff of his with the Democrats is likely transient.
Neutrality on free speech. I'm laser-focused now. I'll be here the moment he complains, sues, or tweets about any speech that he doesn't like.
Putin has all the speech he can dream of. What he also has, apparently, is a network of communications satellites that belong to an American. Let him shout have his free speech and shout it into the wind.
Putin has all the speech... Really? When is he broadcast on CNN to explain his objections to NATO encroachment?
Doesn't have to be live, he's been complaining for years. Plenty of stock footage to rummage through.
Fuck off, fascist cunt. Drown in the Kool-Aid.
elon musk is anagram of "money we wont get back"
Talk about unintended consequences. How about ending dollarization? I knew Jews aren’t smart but…
“As it stands, the strategic stupidity of the EU beggars belief. China is ready to grab all Russian natural resources – with Europe left as a pitiful hostage of the oceans and of wild speculators. It looks like a total EU-Russia split is ahead – with little trade left and zero diplomacy.”
Follow your leader, Nazi fuckwit.
Who do you think that is Najewzi?
Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. Check out this! consulting engineers dublin
Isn't dish internet available in the Ukraine? I thought you could get it anywhere reasonably far enough away from the poles. It goes to the geosynchronous satellites so it's kind of slow and low bandwidth. Is it being jammed somehow?