Good thing we’re on a service fighting back against algorithmic control in the service of greater profits, where more nuanced takes are not buried by algorithm-served emotional sound-bites.

It’s a legit argument. Though I would counter by saying it was hamas’ goal to further strengthen the right-leaning elements in Israeli society, and it was successful in that regard.

Netanyahu was in a very ugly position, and it was looking like he might finally be succumbing to his own corruption, which would open things up for his leftist opposition. The leftist opposition wanted peace, while Palestinian militants did not want peace, they wanted a continuation of violence. The best way to secure the continuation of violence and halt any peace progress was to empower the Israeli far-right towards ultra-violence, to further inflame the whole region towards a future of war.

So that’s what they did, to wild success.

Regardless, blaming all of Israel is unproductive. The real blame should fall on the Israeli Netanyahu government, and far-right settler movement.

Before Netanyahu took over, the Israeli military was evicting their own settlers, which Netanyahu put a stop to, if memory serves:

https://youtu.be/ZSGjBr_c_QM

Pandaplomacy is absolutely a thing. That said, much like in the Cold War, it’s good for nuclear superpowers with big armies to have a certain degree of open communication and, if not warm, at least cordial relations. Helps defuse potential problems early, before they turn into news articles.

So, I welcome the move on that basis alone.

On top of that, the move does have symbolic power, as the panda occupies a similar place in China as bald eagles do here in the US. Anything that warms feelings between Chinese and American citizens themselves is probably a good thing.

Which is why diplomatic tools should be attempted first, then escalation to economic tools. Military deterrence is too big a jump, currently.

I agree, it’s a very big deal. I never said it was nothing and we shouldn’t respond. I said we should respond in kind, as we can.

I merely draw a distinction between these kinds of attacks, and the actual invasions of places like Gaza or Ukraine. Information warfare has a culpable deniability to it, similar to espionage, that makes it inherently harder to tackle.

It’s just not so simple as bomb the people that fuck with us or something like that. That would not fix the problem. It’s trickier.

Fair arguments. I would say, though, that none of these rise to the level of military hostility, they’re still forms of economic and social contest, with a healthy dose of espionage. Thus, we can respond in kind. This will not prevent their rise, nor the return of some kind of Cold War mentality. But it will still allow us to protect ourselves as an alternative to authoritarianism, which is what is most important.

Nothing wrong with self defense, or defense of ones allies, or responding to subtle hostilities with other subtle hostilities. The key is to understand how different these are from outright, full-blown warfare, and to maintain that distinction for the sake of planetary stability and not all dying in a hot war, potentially going a little extra-hot.

The trickiest part is the information warfare, since we can’t always respond in a similar way due to intense authoritarian controls of their local information spaces. We’re largely on the defense in that arena, though we should counter as best we can while we build up our own defenses. Economic counters like Trump’s trade war are an option, but need to be more carefully calculated at strategic “chokepoints” than just broadly slapping down a bunch of tariffs and calling it a day. The microchip restrictions were a good move in this direction.

An important thing to remember is we can’t control everything. There is zero possibility of success for a ground invasion of the Chinese mainland, for instance, so we do need to work within what is realistic and able to be accomplished.

In India’s case, I think careful diplomacy can still accomplish our goals to the satisfaction of both parties. I would expect any rising power to “test the waters”, so to speak, they’re not supposed to just cower before our might or something. But we can handle this in a more civil manner, so far.

edit: Didn’t expect the complex middle-ground position to be popular, but nobody wants to actually respond?

To be fair, a multipolar world is fine. It’s not in our, or anyone else’s really, interests to try to dictate to other overseas peoples how they should structure their lives and governments. We did give it a shot, make no mistake, but it doesn’t tend to work out all that well.

We have no ability to stop the rise of places like China and India though, so fine, rise. We’ll only run into problems if this whole “spheres of influence” thing makes them think they can attack someone we have a security treaty with. That would be a problem.

You want to use economic or social power instead of military power though? Try to convince people instead of force them at gunpoint? Fine. No big deal. These methods honor their freedom. That’s a multipolar world we can work with.

Tucker is our most famous right-winger. That’s basically it. He can say whatever the hell he wants, due to our first amendment, which protects both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This includes a freedom to willfully lie, unfortunately, unless one has been placed under oath.

They’re pretty unpredictable when it comes to sides.

I think Germany and Japan are going to have to re-militarize and conquer everyone back into a civil democracy.

No one wants this war, or wishes it on anyone,” said Tal Beeri of the Alma Research and Education Center

Bit naive imo. Netanyahu is a bit of a strongman that catastrophically failed to keep his people safe, which betrays the most foundational appeal of such a figure. His approval rating demonstrates this, and he’s facing criminal charges to boot.

He has one route forward for personal preservation–more war.

If our government is too paralyzed to help fund their defense, there are ways to bypass that.

A lot of the pro-Ukrainian youtube celebrities, guys like Artur Rehi, organize nonprofit fundraisers to buy necessary military equipment for them, and then dude goes and drives it there himself from his home in Estonia. And videos the whole thing and publishes it on his youtube, so people can see what their donations bought. Transparently.

What they need most is drones capable of carrying a weaponized payload, and those don’t require a full-on military-industrial complex to supply. A person can just buy 50 from normal commercial suppliers and send them, and that is very directly helpful assistance.

We may need Uncle Sam to help out with the Bradleys and F-16s and such, but so much of this war has been and continues to be waged by light infantry using whatever they can get their hands on.

Although the report did not give a reason for the firing of Alexander Kudryavtsev, the influential Russian Orthodox Church called it religious discrimination.

Yeah, I don’t think they care.

Anyone else find it funny how the values bleed over in both directions? It’s westerners that would complain about discrimination, in Russia, that’s just life. Life is hard, so no whining, more or less. Off to the front lines with you.

It’s regional. Your experiences wherever you live are not reflective of the experiences of people that live nearby to Amish communities, where they are not a rare or amusing curiosity. They’re just the people down the highway a bit.

were identified by their neighbors as members of a different ethnic group.

There’s simply nothing good that comes from this, except a comforting sense of superiority from any majority group, that is not necessarily deserved.

We have Amish here in the US, that have lived cloistered lives for centuries now, keeping to their own culture. But when you meet one out-and-about, you don’t necessarily immediately jump to “Amish”, even though they are pretty recognizable. They’re just accepted, as a normal part of American society in this area, that belongs. Their Amish identity is simply not very important, nothing important comes from focusing on it. Since they’re common, you just get used to them.

I am well aware that much of the work occurs behind the scenes. However, that does not excuse numerous failures. I am not willing to simply give them the benefit of the doubt and my trust, a position that I simply find prudent. They are an agency of my democratic government, and we should pay attention and be critical.

Fair point. Though I still do not think their “counter-intel is fine”. Ukrainian counter-intel appears strong, but ours is lacking, unless you count the work of journalists. The work of civilians like Christo Grozev should not be necessary though.

Like I said, their intelligence gathering is fine, I was not complaining about that.

Counter-intelligence work does not require one to move to China or Russia when the targets that need detection are not operating in China or Russia.

I’m saying that very few of our institutions have the resources and experience necessary to fight back against any form of espionage. Our intelligence agencies do, so I would appreciate a pivot from intelligence-gathering and destabilization operations, which are a part of their mission, to counter-intelligence against our rivals, which is also part of their mission. This seems to have been neglected, given how Russian spies have managed to perform assassinations in the west, become Italian admirals and German fintech CEOs, and do on-the-ground surveillance in Ukraine in support of their invasion.

I am deeply disappointed in our CIA these days. Their intelligence gathering is fine, but they should be protecting us as well.