I rather feel this needs a translation! Bound to be smileworthy, I suspect.
Thanks for your response. While I donât share your certainty, your well-argued optimism is quite convincing.
I still need to point out that I donât believe that the current situation is âaccording to planâ.
Nope, I tried to discuss this as a thought experiment using some arguements I can come up with from the tip of my head without being an expert on any of the matters I brought up.
True, and I want to emphasize that I do really not assume Putin or his cronies to be Bond-style villains.
However, I would want some truly knowledgeable analysts doing their best assuming that Russia has plans, including contingency plans, which allow them to to feel (or just to claim, if thatâs more digestible for you guys) that their âlong gameâ is working out.
I think this could help to anticipate not only future propaganda, but also consider secondary effects which may otherwise catch everyone unaware.
I wouldnât want to be unaware of either, and especially not if everyone doesnât include the Russian government (because they might have had analysts playing the same game I am suggesting).
Remember that they have a bought and paid for fifth column in the west
Yeah, comparable archives in western countries donât have the money or manpower to do that. What makes you think they did in Ukraine? Weâre probably talking about shelf kilometres of documents.
Putin wanted the evidence to burn?
Terminology differences, but I think theyâre important.
Long term doesnât need a plan if it has a grand strategy. Russiaâs grand strategy is probably to separate and destabilize democracies, especially in the West. The power of a grand strategy is that any action you take that is likely to contribute to it is assumed to be beneficial. This lets you take action without knowing (or even particularly caring) how it exactly works out. You know that youâll be better off (net) and can reassess the situation as needed, spending your planning efforts on short-term tasks with more certainty.
On the flip side, having a well-known (or suspected) grand strategy can make it easier for your opponents to block you. Your opponents donât need a highly detailed long-term plan either. They know that if they deny you your strategic objectives, thatâs a long term net gain, even if itâs not immediately clear how to take advantage of that benefit.
Russia could have invaded Ukraine with few concrete goals other than âdestabilize and separate Western powers.â Failing at that objective would be a strategic loss. Actually stabilizing and securing Western democracies as a result is a multiplicative loss, essentially doing their opponentsâ work for them while losing power and influence in the process.
Salvaging anything out of the operation that would separate and destabilize the West would at least mitigate losses. But they could achieve that without having initially planned it by virtue of having a grand strategy.
Edit: itâs kind of like writing for TV. Season arcs are rarely written out in any detail before filming starts. A good writer will leave enough âhooksâ to provide places to develop the story. When they do it well, it looks like everything was written according to some clever plan. But really, they just made it up as they went along.
Stop trying to make everything about YOU SeanâŠ
Definitely⊠but, a local âinsiderâ **acquaintance in the past assured us that AMPAS members are, by and large, power-mad, âso fucking sure of themselvesâ, and proudly reverent of what they do. Thatâs got me thinking that melting down an Oscar would be something akin to pissing on a blessed crucifix in front of the Pope. Perhaps Pennâs little show will work. Weâll see.
**It is impossible in SoCal to throw a rock and not hit someone with past and present ties to the film industry.
Sure⊠but not every member of the Academy goes around acting like they are saving the world by showing up at scenes of disaster and centering themselves as the important part of the narrative.
Just, FYI, I donât a problem in general with actors or other celebrities using their platform to promote particular issues. My problem with Penn is that he acts like heâs fixing everything just by being there. Compare that with, say, Patrick Stewart, who uses his platform to highlight issues and drive funding to organizations that he feels does good work in those issues - in his case, itâs about spousal abuse and PTSD, which speaks to his childhood and the struggles that his parents had. Itâs not about HIM, other than drawing on his own experiences as a child in a home that had abuse it in. Itâs about the women, children, and men who suffer because of these issues. Itâs more an act of solidarity than it is about glorifying him.
Now erase the blue part and weâll talk.
But seriously, this is a good reminder that not all Russians are those Russians.
I canât find the entire performance outside Crooks and Liars so youâll have to watch it there.
Itâs a modification of a Russian cartoon, the lyrics are from the original - the tractor is asking kids to guess what animal itâs got in the trailer. Here, obviously, the trailer is changed into a tank, and the ram keeps interjecting âdonâ between its bleats, which is a verbal tick that Kadyrov is famous for.
