Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[Hongbit]

Wow that Biden speech was not good. He looked like an actor struggling to read a teleprompter.  The Q&A after was even worse.    He did not shine in the moment.   Maybe the worst non-Trump presidential speech that I’ve heard since the early days of GWB.  

[Tiger337]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Your mental state is marginally better off for that.

Yes, my life was better when I was ignorant of politics.  I should get back to that.  

[Tiger337]

Just now, Hongbit said:

Wow that Biden speech was not good. He looked like an actor struggling to read a teleprompter.  The Q&A after was even worse.    He did not shine in the moment.   Maybe the worst non-Trump presidential speech that I’ve heard since the early days of GWB.  

Biden is a terrible speaker.  They say a lot of untrue stuff about him, but that part is true. Obviously Trump was terrible too.    

[gehringer_2]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

Yes, my life was better when I was ignorant of politics.  I should get back to that.  

personally, I don't care if Soto's income potential is effectively capped closer to $30M/yr than $40M/yr. If more salary money has to go into the pot, it does at least needs to go the young players like Soto who are producing, not the Cabreras and Pujols

[mtutiger]

One of the surprises in this has been the Russian people... more opposition than one would have expected, even at the risk of jail.

[romad1]

 

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Wow that Biden speech was not good. He looked like an actor struggling to read a teleprompter.  The Q&A after was even worse.    He did not shine in the moment.   Maybe the worst non-Trump presidential speech that I’ve heard since the early days of GWB.  

It's true. And it is also only barely relevant to his job performance. Americans spend so much time watching actors that they have forgotten that what you do is more important than your elocution. In my book, only Clinton and Obama have been particularly gifted at a podium going all the way back to JFK. Even Reagan really wasn't all that great either when speaking off the cuff. 

The other thing is that it's time for a President to demand adulthood from the press. No shouting, one question - stated in 15 second or less with no attached essay. Make those the rules and stick to them.

Edited February 24, 2022 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

It's true. And it is also only barely relevant to his job performance. Americans spend so much time watching actors that they have forgotten that what you do is more important than your elocution. In my book, only Clinton and Obama have been particularly gifted at a podium going all the way back to JFL. Even Reagan really wasn't all that great either when speaking off the cuff. 

This was definitely a speech where I was more interested in the details than the presentation.

The only real mistake that I saw in it is that it could have did more to make the case as to why this is important... I suspect that it's breaking through to the normie-type person somewhat because it's getting covered extensively on all the networks and is the lead story, but the average person may not understand the importance of this conflict. That becomes even more important when you factor in prices, as well as the possibility in the future that Putin does expand his footprint into other countries (particularly NATO).

He didn't really make the sell as to our level of involvement or why we need to pursue sanctions, unfortunately.

Edited February 24, 2022 by mtutiger

[ewsieg]

10 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Wow that Biden speech was not good. He looked like an actor struggling to read a teleprompter.  The Q&A after was even worse.    He did not shine in the moment.   Maybe the worst non-Trump presidential speech that I’ve heard since the early days of GWB.  

I didn't find the speech that bad, but yes, the Q&A was not good.  Not even just the dazed and confused look when trying to select who to call on, but he didn't seem to confident in some of his answers.   Would have loved to have heard more about SWIFT.  In looking online right after that question, it looks like there are some concerns that could backfire where just yesterday I was hearing that was the 'nuclear option' in terms of sanctions.  

[romad1]

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

This was definitely a speech where I was more interested in the details than the presentation.

The only real mistake that I saw in it is that it could have did more to make the case as to why this is important... I suspect that it's breaking through to the normie-type person somewhat because it's getting covered extensively on all the networks and is the lead story, but the average person may not understand the importance of this conflict. That becomes even more important when you factor in prices, as well as the possibility in the future that Putin does expand his footprint into other countries (particularly NATO).

He didn't really make the sell as to our level of involvement or why we need to pursue sanctions, unfortunately.

if you saw the Community Episode where they did the Fincher spoof for the Ass Crack Bandit.  They have a ridiculous press conference scene.  I was starting to think the Biden presser was like that.   The press and the American public are shocked that WWIII has started.  Hence the chaos of that presser.   And Peter Doocy...um.  What the actual hell? 

Edited February 24, 2022 by romad1

[mtutiger]

One thing that I came away with after his speech is the use of "empire" and "pariah", and his comment that there was a "rupture" in relations right now.

There's been a lot of speculation about waiting out sanctions and such (especially WRT Nord Stream 2), but idk.... it's gonna be really hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one. Granted it's contingent on the US/UK/EU staying rock solid on this.

[ewsieg]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

He didn't really make the sell, unfortunately.

He was clear in what he was going after with these sanctions:

- Russian banks, freezing assets not only in the US but sounds like quite a few other countries.  Also prohibiting them from using a multitude of currencies.

- Oligarchs

- Russian state run companies

- Tech imports

He also followed that up with confirmation of full NATO support and went into describing article 4 a bit and indicated this isn't necessarily the end of our actions.

So the high level view of our actions was there.  I'm definitely interested in details as to what those sanctions look like specifically still though.

[romad1]

3 minutes ago, romad1 said:

if you saw the Community Episode where they did the Fincher spoof for the Ass Crack Bandit.  They have a ridiculous press conference scene.  I was starting to think the Biden presser was like that.   The press and the American public are shocked that WWIII has started.  Hence the chaos of that presser.   And Peter Doocy...um.  What the actual hell? 

visual aid

[mtutiger]

10 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

He was clear in what he was going after with these sanctions:

- Russian banks, freezing assets not only in the US but sounds like quite a few other countries.  Also prohibiting them from using a multitude of currencies.

- Oligarchs

- Russian state run companies

- Tech imports

He also followed that up with confirmation of full NATO support and went into describing article 4 a bit and indicated this isn't necessarily the end of our actions.

So the high level view of our actions was there.  I'm definitely interested in details as to what those sanctions look like specifically still though.

Also that he doesn't think Putin's done.

Considering that our intelligence has been pretty accurate so far, that's grim.

[Jim Cowan]

I think that the US govt response is very good so far, with the possibility of more moves to come.  But he is not a good presenter, that is for sure.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

One thing that I came away with after his speech is the use of "empire" and "pariah", and his comment that there was a "rupture" in relations right now.

There's been a lot of speculation about waiting out sanctions and such (especially WRT Nord Stream 2), but idk.... it's gonna be really hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one. Granted it's contingent on the US/UK/EU staying rock solid on this.

The Germans are, as always, the key. It seems like in the last hundred years they can’t find the Goldilocks stance toward the rest of the world between being crazy bellicose and gazing at their navels while their house is being ransacked. Scholz just last week said Germany’s past still precludes it increasing its defense posture. Well maybe its future demands it. 
 

and the thing is, it’s not like their position doesn’t echo through the rest of the EU. Nobody wants to put themselves at an economic disadvantage by committing more to defense than Germany will. 

Edited February 24, 2022 by gehringer_2

[ewsieg]

 

[romad1]

Oh interesting...if bravado...fine

 

[mtutiger]

26 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

 

That seems like a big deal.... 

[romad1]

3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

That seems like a big deal.... 

There are a couple sources which say they beat the Spetznatz unit with the Ukrainian Spetznatz unit. 

 

[mtutiger]

Here's what I don't understand:

In terms of their stated objectives, clearly Russia has the resources to take out the government in Kyiv and install a puppet. But we're talking about a country of 43 million and, while early, there is little to no indication of Ukraine soldiers laying down arms. 

How does this work without a long counterinsurgency that will result in a lot of loss of life for the Russians? And does that counterinsurgency, seeing the tepid response by the oligarchs and the much larger-than-expected protests, cause additional domestic problems?

The whole thing kinda looks like an overreach, but he may not care.

Edited February 24, 2022 by mtutiger

[romad1]

THIS needs to be part of the sanctions

 

[romad1]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Here's what I don't understand:

In terms of their stated objectives, clearly Russia has the resources to take out the government in Kyiv and install a puppet. But we're talking about a country of 43 million and, while early, there is little to no indication of Ukraine soldiers laying down arms. 

How does this work without a long insurgency that will result in a lot of loss of life for the Russians? And can Putin handle that domestically?

The whole thing kinda looks like an overreach, but he may not care.

The war.  The entire center of gravity of the war depends on the will of the Ukrainian people.   If Zelensky or whoever survives him if Russia kills him, can keep the battle going then Russia loses.  Long and bloody works.  It means Putin loses power and it means he does not attack NATO.

Edited February 24, 2022 by romad1

[gehringer_2]

12 minutes ago, romad1 said:

The war.  The entire center of gravity of the war depends on the will of the Ukrainian people.   If Zelensky or whoever survives him if Russia kills him, can keep the battle going then Russia loses.  Long and bloody works.  It means Putin loses power and it means he does not attack NATO.

which depend on the Ukrainians maintaining some kind of corridor or protected airfields for resupply. That's what could be hardest. It's not like they'll have the jungle of the Ho Chi Minh trail to hide in. The other criticality is if they stay together long enough to receive Stingers. The Russian helo air superiority goes down the drain if the west can(will) supply man held ground to air in numbers.

Edited February 24, 2022 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

JFC