If you really wanna go - alive or dead my friend

[Low Down Low]

If this true (with all the usual caveats of truth being the first casualty in war and so forth), this would seem to be a massive development:


If Russians are genuinely worried about Crimea, then the war is going worse for Russia than I think anyone (except Ukrainians, I guess) imagined at the outset of the war. Conventional wisdom was always that Ukraine didn't stand a chance of even credibly threatening to take back Crimea.

I'll avoid rampant speculation, that's easy enough to find anywhere and I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about, but it's not hard to start connecting dots between the last few days of news coming out of Ukraine and Russia if you want to.

Whatever the validity of that story, this war has been a complete disaster for Russia because it has been exposed as far from a significant military power. The expectation was that this would be a quick romp. That illusion has been smashed—a Potemkin army. And they can’t even blame it on battlefield conditions, like the US in Vietnam.

I was reading a bit about Gorbachev last week and one of the things cropped up was how slow, apparently, he'd been to disengage with Afghanistan. The explanation given was that Gorby simply didn't know how truly bad things were or how much general decline had set in across all areas of the USSR because nobody informed it. Mostly because they were too afraid to tell the truth lest they get blamed for it or they were simply reactionary zealots who refused to believe it themselves. Anyway, i don't know if that's comparable to now, impossible to think Putin could be similarly ignorant of his side's weaknesses, but a pretty spectacular miscalculation either way you'd have to say.

[Dr. Medulla]

If this true (with all the usual caveats of truth being the first casualty in war and so forth), this would seem to be a massive development:


If Russians are genuinely worried about Crimea, then the war is going worse for Russia than I think anyone (except Ukrainians, I guess) imagined at the outset of the war. Conventional wisdom was always that Ukraine didn't stand a chance of even credibly threatening to take back Crimea.

I'll avoid rampant speculation, that's easy enough to find anywhere and I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about, but it's not hard to start connecting dots between the last few days of news coming out of Ukraine and Russia if you want to.

Whatever the validity of that story, this war has been a complete disaster for Russia because it has been exposed as far from a significant military power. The expectation was that this would be a quick romp. That illusion has been smashed—a Potemkin army. And they can’t even blame it on battlefield conditions, like the US in Vietnam.

I was reading a bit about Gorbachev last week and one of the things cropped up was how slow, apparently, he'd been to disengage with Afghanistan. The explanation given was that Gorby simply didn't know how truly bad things were or how much general decline had set in across all areas of the USSR because nobody informed it. Mostly because they were too afraid to tell the truth lest they get blamed for it or they were simply reactionary zealots who refused to believe it themselves. Anyway, i don't know if that's comparable to now, impossible to think Putin could be similarly ignorant of his side's weaknesses, but a pretty spectacular miscalculation either way you'd have to say.

Yeah, it's hard to say how bad the rot has set in, as it was when Gorbachev took control, so the degree that Putin might not be aware of conditions is hard to say. He's been portrayed as being all-knowing, all-deciding, but how much of that is to maintain his image as the unchallengeable strongman?

[Low Down Low]

If this true (with all the usual caveats of truth being the first casualty in war and so forth), this would seem to be a massive development:


If Russians are genuinely worried about Crimea, then the war is going worse for Russia than I think anyone (except Ukrainians, I guess) imagined at the outset of the war. Conventional wisdom was always that Ukraine didn't stand a chance of even credibly threatening to take back Crimea.

I'll avoid rampant speculation, that's easy enough to find anywhere and I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about, but it's not hard to start connecting dots between the last few days of news coming out of Ukraine and Russia if you want to.

Whatever the validity of that story, this war has been a complete disaster for Russia because it has been exposed as far from a significant military power. The expectation was that this would be a quick romp. That illusion has been smashed—a Potemkin army. And they can’t even blame it on battlefield conditions, like the US in Vietnam.

I was reading a bit about Gorbachev last week and one of the things cropped up was how slow, apparently, he'd been to disengage with Afghanistan. The explanation given was that Gorby simply didn't know how truly bad things were or how much general decline had set in across all areas of the USSR because nobody informed it. Mostly because they were too afraid to tell the truth lest they get blamed for it or they were simply reactionary zealots who refused to believe it themselves. Anyway, i don't know if that's comparable to now, impossible to think Putin could be similarly ignorant of his side's weaknesses, but a pretty spectacular miscalculation either way you'd have to say.

Yeah, it's hard to say how bad the rot has set in, as it was when Gorbachev took control, so the degree that Putin might not be aware of conditions is hard to say. He's been portrayed as being all-knowing, all-deciding, but how much of that is to maintain his image as the unchallengeable strongman?

It seems confusing i think because on the one hand he's portrayed as a strong man who rules with an iron grip and on the other as a bit of a weirdo who virtually lives in a bunker surrounded by sycophants like Medvedev who seems to be fulfilling the Comical Ali role to a tee. Fuck knows where the truth lies and there's the gargantuan levels of hubris to throw in the mix as well.

[Flex]

It seems confusing i think because on the one hand he's portrayed as a strong man who rules with an iron grip and on the other as a bit of a weirdo who virtually lives in a bunker surrounded by sycophants like Medvedev who seems to be fulfilling the Comical Ali role to a tee. Fuck knows where the truth lies and there's the gargantuan levels of hubris to throw in the mix as well.

Yeah, between Russian and Western propaganda both going in both directions it's hard to say for sure. I think I said something like this above, but I think generally authoritarian, and strongman authoritarian specifically, regimes are broadly strong but deeply weak. As in, there's a lot of ability to project strength on the surface, but since there's not really much institutional commitment to you as one person there isn't a deep reservoir of support, loyalty or institutional resilience to draw from when things go bad. Which makes clusterfucks like this war particularly dangerous for a leader like Putin (and then factor in stuff like the recent aziri/Armenian flare-up which further undermines Russia's status on their own backyard). If your power is derived only from the surface-level projection of power you're capable of, it seems like you would get vulnerable real fast in a crisis.

[BostonBeaneater]

It seems confusing i think because on the one hand he's portrayed as a strong man who rules with an iron grip and on the other as a bit of a weirdo who virtually lives in a bunker surrounded by sycophants like Medvedev who seems to be fulfilling the Comical Ali role to a tee. Fuck knows where the truth lies and there's the gargantuan levels of hubris to throw in the mix as well.

Yeah, between Russian and Western propaganda both going in both directions it's hard to say for sure. I think I said something like this above, but I think generally authoritarian, and strongman authoritarian specifically, regimes are broadly strong but deeply weak. As in, there's a lot of ability to project strength on the surface, but since there's not really much institutional commitment to you as one person there isn't a deep reservoir of support, loyalty or institutional resilience to draw from when things go bad. Which makes clusterfucks like this war particularly dangerous for a leader like Putin (and then factor in stuff like the recent aziri/Armenian flare-up which further undermines Russia's status on their own backyard). If your power is derived only from the surface-level projection of power you're capable of, it seems like you would get vulnerable real fast in a crisis.

I think this is similar to the fool idea that a good CEO makes a good governor. It seems a good mob boss is equally ill suited to be a steward of government. You can only keep ‘em all in line if they have full bellies. They always forgets this and it really does bite you in the ass at some point.

[Dr. Medulla]

It seems confusing i think because on the one hand he's portrayed as a strong man who rules with an iron grip and on the other as a bit of a weirdo who virtually lives in a bunker surrounded by sycophants like Medvedev who seems to be fulfilling the Comical Ali role to a tee. Fuck knows where the truth lies and there's the gargantuan levels of hubris to throw in the mix as well.

Yeah, between Russian and Western propaganda both going in both directions it's hard to say for sure. I think I said something like this above, but I think generally authoritarian, and strongman authoritarian specifically, regimes are broadly strong but deeply weak. As in, there's a lot of ability to project strength on the surface, but since there's not really much institutional commitment to you as one person there isn't a deep reservoir of support, loyalty or institutional resilience to draw from when things go bad. Which makes clusterfucks like this war particularly dangerous for a leader like Putin (and then factor in stuff like the recent aziri/Armenian flare-up which further undermines Russia's status on their own backyard). If your power is derived only from the surface-level projection of power you're capable of, it seems like you would get vulnerable real fast in a crisis.

I think this is similar to the fool idea that a good CEO makes a good governor. It seems a good mob boss is equally ill suited to be a steward of government. You can only keep ‘em all in line if they have full bellies. They always forgets this and it really does bite you in the ass at some point.

An old prof of mine called this "roast beef or revolution."

[BostonBeaneater]

It seems confusing i think because on the one hand he's portrayed as a strong man who rules with an iron grip and on the other as a bit of a weirdo who virtually lives in a bunker surrounded by sycophants like Medvedev who seems to be fulfilling the Comical Ali role to a tee. Fuck knows where the truth lies and there's the gargantuan levels of hubris to throw in the mix as well.

Yeah, between Russian and Western propaganda both going in both directions it's hard to say for sure. I think I said something like this above, but I think generally authoritarian, and strongman authoritarian specifically, regimes are broadly strong but deeply weak. As in, there's a lot of ability to project strength on the surface, but since there's not really much institutional commitment to you as one person there isn't a deep reservoir of support, loyalty or institutional resilience to draw from when things go bad. Which makes clusterfucks like this war particularly dangerous for a leader like Putin (and then factor in stuff like the recent aziri/Armenian flare-up which further undermines Russia's status on their own backyard). If your power is derived only from the surface-level projection of power you're capable of, it seems like you would get vulnerable real fast in a crisis.

I think this is similar to the fool idea that a good CEO makes a good governor. It seems a good mob boss is equally ill suited to be a steward of government. You can only keep ‘em all in line if they have full bellies. They always forgets this and it really does bite you in the ass at some point.

An old prof of mine called this "roast beef or revolution."

I haven't had any red meat in months. I'm ready to abandon the revolution for a roast beef sandwich.

[Dr. Medulla]

It seems confusing i think because on the one hand he's portrayed as a strong man who rules with an iron grip and on the other as a bit of a weirdo who virtually lives in a bunker surrounded by sycophants like Medvedev who seems to be fulfilling the Comical Ali role to a tee. Fuck knows where the truth lies and there's the gargantuan levels of hubris to throw in the mix as well.

Yeah, between Russian and Western propaganda both going in both directions it's hard to say for sure. I think I said something like this above, but I think generally authoritarian, and strongman authoritarian specifically, regimes are broadly strong but deeply weak. As in, there's a lot of ability to project strength on the surface, but since there's not really much institutional commitment to you as one person there isn't a deep reservoir of support, loyalty or institutional resilience to draw from when things go bad. Which makes clusterfucks like this war particularly dangerous for a leader like Putin (and then factor in stuff like the recent aziri/Armenian flare-up which further undermines Russia's status on their own backyard). If your power is derived only from the surface-level projection of power you're capable of, it seems like you would get vulnerable real fast in a crisis.

I think this is similar to the fool idea that a good CEO makes a good governor. It seems a good mob boss is equally ill suited to be a steward of government. You can only keep ‘em all in line if they have full bellies. They always forgets this and it really does bite you in the ass at some point.

An old prof of mine called this "roast beef or revolution."

I haven't had any red meat in months. I'm ready to abandon the revolution for a roast beef sandwich.

Traitor!

[BostonBeaneater]

Yeah, between Russian and Western propaganda both going in both directions it's hard to say for sure. I think I said something like this above, but I think generally authoritarian, and strongman authoritarian specifically, regimes are broadly strong but deeply weak. As in, there's a lot of ability to project strength on the surface, but since there's not really much institutional commitment to you as one person there isn't a deep reservoir of support, loyalty or institutional resilience to draw from when things go bad. Which makes clusterfucks like this war particularly dangerous for a leader like Putin (and then factor in stuff like the recent aziri/Armenian flare-up which further undermines Russia's status on their own backyard). If your power is derived only from the surface-level projection of power you're capable of, it seems like you would get vulnerable real fast in a crisis.

I think this is similar to the fool idea that a good CEO makes a good governor. It seems a good mob boss is equally ill suited to be a steward of government. You can only keep ‘em all in line if they have full bellies. They always forgets this and it really does bite you in the ass at some point.

An old prof of mine called this "roast beef or revolution."

I haven't had any red meat in months. I'm ready to abandon the revolution for a roast beef sandwich.

Traitor!

No, I'll eat it. I want to eat it. I will eat it again.

[revbob]

I think this is similar to the fool idea that a good CEO makes a good governor. It seems a good mob boss is equally ill suited to be a steward of government. You can only keep ‘em all in line if they have full bellies. They always forgets this and it really does bite you in the ass at some point.

An old prof of mine called this "roast beef or revolution."

I haven't had any red meat in months. I'm ready to abandon the revolution for a roast beef sandwich.

Traitor!

No, I'll eat it. I want to eat it. I will eat it again.

What's that fucking sauce oozing out of it? Is that an Arby's sandwich or something?

[Dr. Medulla]

I think this is similar to the fool idea that a good CEO makes a good governor. It seems a good mob boss is equally ill suited to be a steward of government. You can only keep ‘em all in line if they have full bellies. They always forgets this and it really does bite you in the ass at some point.

An old prof of mine called this "roast beef or revolution."

I haven't had any red meat in months. I'm ready to abandon the revolution for a roast beef sandwich.

Traitor!

No, I'll eat it. I want to eat it. I will eat it again.

And we will eat you for the pleasure of shitting you out!

[BostonBeaneater]

An old prof of mine called this "roast beef or revolution."

I haven't had any red meat in months. I'm ready to abandon the revolution for a roast beef sandwich.

Traitor!

No, I'll eat it. I want to eat it. I will eat it again.

And we will eat you for the pleasure of shitting you out!

I am fibrous!

[Dr. Medulla]

I haven't had any red meat in months. I'm ready to abandon the revolution for a roast beef sandwich.

Traitor!

No, I'll eat it. I want to eat it. I will eat it again.

And we will eat you for the pleasure of shitting you out!

I am fibrous!

You will spend eternity in an outhouse pit.

[BostonBeaneater]

Traitor!

No, I'll eat it. I want to eat it. I will eat it again.

And we will eat you for the pleasure of shitting you out!

I am fibrous!

You will spend eternity in an outhouse pit.

I can't tell you how titillating this is for me. Coprophilia is my kink.

[Dr. Medulla]

No, I'll eat it. I want to eat it. I will eat it again.

And we will eat you for the pleasure of shitting you out!

I am fibrous!

You will spend eternity in an outhouse pit.

I can't tell you how titillating this is for me. Coprophilia is my kink.

Supposedly Hitler liked to have prostitutes piss and shit on him.