They should also quantify how many of the books that people are reading are trash fiction and self-help books. Not many people that read are actually reading substantive, educational works.
The entire point that Zelensky was making to Vance is that every instance of diplomacy Ukraine has had with Russia has been discarded when it's convenient by Russia. Trump wants what looks good on TV, which is a peace deal, but without any plan or security assurances Russia will simply invade again when they rebuild their army.
Ukraine needs to rebuild its army too, and would benefit more relative to Russia from a ceasefire, even if Russia reinvaded. You people are so wildly irrational.
That's just not true, Russia is short on tanks, Ukraine is reaching artillery parity, and Ukraine has a permenant manpower crisis whereas Russia has deep reserves it can pull from for training if given time. Western countries would stop aid flows to Ukraine during a ceasefire while Russia would be free to rearm. A temp. ceasefire would not help Ukraine.
Moreover, why would Ukraine want to negotiate a temp ceasefire? If they can snag security guarantees they have better odds of a long term peace.
Fair and I agree with you, but do you agree that the only ways out of stalemate are ceasefire or west entering the conflict? Are you advocating for the west to enter the conflict?
No, I think the US should negotiate a ceasefire, signal more weapons aid to increase leverage on the peace deal terms, and then find a way to get Europe or the US to signal they will guarantee Ukraine's security. I don't think a transactional deal like the mineral deal is a bad idea, because it gives the US a stake and increases the credibility of their security deal, but Trump does not seem to care about actual lasting peace here.
Coming from the people who spent $2.5 trillion fighting goat herders with ak47s for over 20 years, and lost, that's a good one...
Either way it's not a reason to publicly humiliate Zelensky, to announce he's a dictator, to repeat Russian propaganda talking points, &c.
If your version of peace is to unconditionally accept all of the aggressor's demands, shit on the country being invaded and steal their resources don't be surprised if people don't clap
I think the question most others in Europe are concerned about is "How far west does Russia stop?", and given that they held Berlin only about 35 years ago, and they're openly talking about Paris on state TV, the answer is "they don't, unless we stop them in Ukraine already". That whole perspective makes that question somewhat redundant and too narrow in scope given all the context around it.
This is insanity. You have lost your mind. Europe is covered by a nuclear umbrella and is thus in no danger from Russian invasion.
And you still haven't answered the question, which indicates that you don't see any Ukrainian path to victory - rather your intention is to throw all of Ukraine into the meat grinder in order to make yourself slightly safer from a completely hypothetical Russian invasion, which is profoundly unethical.
Your premise and any assumptions that build on that are invalid.
The Soviet Union and China had a war. When they both had a nuclear umbrella, the Soviet Union having twice as many nuclear weapons as they do now. What else... India and Pakistan? The Korean war? mjfl, here's some news... did you know there's _two_ Koreas? Russia is in other European states right now - Moldova, Georgia. Never mind the hybrid warfare, I feel at best the need to only vaguely point in that direction. Just as much as I'll vaguely point out that that nuclear umbrella just shrunk to a quarter of its previous size. And how can you say "Europe is covered by a nuclear umbrella" when the largest nation by area entirely in Europe is not covered by it.
Can you do us a favour and at least make a list of Wikipedia articles or historical events or entire nations we're supposed to pretend don't exist, including, paradoxically, Russia?
Yes? Any response. I agree with you, let's not glorify meat grinders.
In fact, let's stand diametrically opposed to those who would.
I'll just type 'meat grinder' and 'battle' into Google. Here's the top result: "Battles of Rzhev". Let's go to the Wikipedia page for it and Ctrl-F 'glory'. "[...] Military Glory by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin [...]".
There you go. We should stand diametrically opposed to a certain "President of Russia Vladimir Putin". Gee, I wonder if that's the same guy as the current "President of Russia Vladimir Putin"... do you think?
So... any examples of that Quisling, Vichy, Chamberlain approach - roll over and plead for mercy while exposing your belly - that resulted in a permanent peace in Europe? I mean we want to avoid a meat grinder don't we, so given all that history you'll have plenty of proof that this time, this exact situation, will somehow be magically different.
This place has become a real echo chamber lately. I'm seeing radically unexamined opinions stream past like a firehose and can't respond to all of them. But to the anti-peace "pro-Ukranian" people here:
1. Do you see a path to victory? If so, how many Ukranians have will have to die before Crimea is retaken? Conditioned on your answer - do you really care about Ukrainians?
2. Do you really believe that the West stands for the 'rules based international order' while it unconditionally supports the ethnostate of Israel holocausting it's indigenous population inside of a concentration camp?
3. Do you really consider Ukraine to be a democracy given that Zelensky has suspended elections and has repressed his political opposition?
Russia has ambitions beyond Ukraine. How anyone could forget that when only about 35 years ago they controlled regimes that consist of 40% of Germany in addition to all of Eastern Europe is beyond me. We're not talking about Crimea here, we're talking about Kharkiv, Tallinn, Helsinki. We're talking about the time they marched, with tanks, into Budapest and Prague. We're talking about the time Hitler annexed the Sudetenland. There is but one proven answer that stops people from dying in the long run over the past hundred years. I care about the Polish and Czech people who had their territory split up and who decided to fight and now have their nations back. Same with Ukraine. Whether that means Crimea or not is up to them, but it seems obvious which side one would rather support for lasting, permanent, peace. The one that united the old enemies of Germany, France, and the UK who had fought amongst each other but are now on the same side. The same side that Poland, and Spain are on, despite these five nations having fought again and again over a thousand years. Russia is the odd one out, despite some support for the minor players like Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. I don't see Poland forming a military alliance with France against Germany or vice versa. It's all, in a nutshell, against Russia, but it's also without any designs for an invasion of Russia.
Now that's peace. For the first time in history (except maybe for a few years after 1815) the nations of Europe haven't torn themselves into pieces for decades now, with one single perpetrator, Russia, being the exception. And Russia already has more than enough land, being the biggest country on the planet, and resources beyond imagination. You blame Russia is what you ought to do, you support a peaceful, prosperous Russia that stays within its borders.
As for point 3:
Article 83
> In the event that the term of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine expires while martial law or a state of emergency is in effect, its authority is extended until the day of the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine , elected after the cancellation of martial law or of the state of emergency.
Article 157
> The Constitution of Ukraine shall not be amended in conditions of martial law or a state of emergency.
No, it's not a democracy. _Because_ of the invasion by a hostile foreign power.
Just wondering, during WW2 would you have been critical of the "pro-UK people here", listing it above anything Nazi Germany, Vichy France or Soviet Union did, because the UK didn't have an election between 1935 and 1945?
Because being a whataboutism makes it not relevant.
Implictly making solving the Russia/Ukraine situation (which, again, is basically as simple as Russians just going home) require peace in the Middle East first seems like you just want to delay it for the next just about 5000 years?
On #3: The elections are suspended under well understood rules of martial law.
On how many Ukranians have will have to die before Crimea is retaken?
How much of this is about Crimea? Russia already annexed it, and the world accepted that.
On anti-peace "pro-Ukranian" people
That is an inflammatory strawman that pretty much sums up that your commentary should be ignored. Zelenskyy's point is that Russia / Putin has not honoured past attempts at diplomacy, which rings true for me.
How much of your own land would you hand over if you were invaded and slaughtered? I hope you sleep well, because a lot of Ukrainians haven't for three years.
It looks like a bunch of billionaires are establishing exactly what they purport to end, cresting that swamp they said they would dry. Makes you wonder how much of those allegations were true in the first place.
As I’ve said in the Penn thread: this is likely a temporary move, intended to be used for rhetoric. Eventually the faculty will complain, because they rely on large pyramids of postdocs and grad students for almost all labor. There’s simply no way to continue the work of university research without a strong supply of grad students. Once this is realized, and the NIH doesn’t bend, then grad admissions will increase again, and admin cuts will start, as they should.
This is likely a temporary move, intended to be used for rhetoric. Eventually the faculty will complain, because they rely on large pyramids of postdocs and grad students for almost all labor. There’s simply no way to continue the work of university research without a strong supply of grad students. Once this is realized, and the NIH doesn’t bend, then grad admissions will increase again, and admin cuts will start, as they should.
> this is likely a temporary move, intended to be used for rhetoric
It's a rational move given the U.S. governments word on payments and commitments is no longer credible. If your employer started bouncing paycheques, your cutting back on expenses wouldn't be "intended to be used for rhetoric." It's simple self preservation.
Amazing commenters here -- for them people are like cattle. "Temporary move". Graduate students without an offered position -- it's nothing, they'll just wait a bit. Cut one funding one day, maybe release later.
Didn't the NIH freeze the review meetings in this year's proposal review process, putting all grant funding that would start next fiscal year in question? This is separate from the change to the overhead rate.
