https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irn-Bru

lol

“Originally selling it as Iron Brew, the drink’s makers, A.G. Barr, were forced to change the name of the drink in 1946 following a change in the law that stipulated that the marketing of products be “literally true”. As the drink did not contain much iron, nor was it brewed”

“The brand also has its own tartan”

I’m not aware of any major predictions he’s gotten wrong. As near as I can tell, he’s very focused on ex-post analysis.

Ukraine is still in the fight but it’s clearly loosing. Ukraine is still rich in subjective resources like “spirit” and “determination”. When it comes to hard metrics the picture is pretty bleak; casualties, ground gained, artillery production, depth of reserves…

The “we” wasn’t a quote by Colonel Reisener. I did put it in quotation marks but I thought it would be clear from the vocabulary that I was paraphrasing him. I’m sure you already know that Austria is constitutionally obligated to remain neutral. While Austria is barred from providing military assistance it has participated in sanctions and provided humanitarian assistance. That’s earned Austria a spot on Russia’s official Unfriendly Countries List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfriendly_countries_list

I try to keep a more complete set of facts in mind when assessing the reliability of sources.

He has a lot of videos like that. One of them is him in a room full of cadets. He goes through all the drone innovations that the Russian and Ukrainians have made in the past year and passes around a (disarmed) working €321 drone.

Then he points out that Austria still has the same expensive drone they had years ago and tells the cadets they should be a bit stressed about that.

I’ve found that Colonel Maruks Reisner provides some of the best information available on the war.

https://youtu.be/IDRjughhXMg

He doesn’t update frequently but all his analysis are sober, detailed, and realistic. He states his pro-Western, pro-NATO, pro-Ukrainian bias clearly.

If I could sum up the general trend of his presentation it’s, “The status quo favors Russia. If we don’t get our heads out of our asses and step up Russia will win.”

As a multi-national, multi-ethnic, mutt, I am too.

Given that part of my mutt-makeup is Austrian, I’m offended that Austria and our northern neighbor have greatly contributed to this. Our deserved guilt over the Holocaust blinded us to decade after decade of human rights abuses by Israel.

We’ve seen this coming for a long time and, as a taxpaying contributor to the biggest funder of Israel, I’m ashamed.

Africa has a number of factors in its favor that make it a potential economic powerhouse. It has some of the largest natural resource reserves in the world, it has a huge population, it’s conveniently located on or near several important trade routes.

It’s also cursed with some pretty bad natural infrastructure. The rivers in Africa don’t provide good access between the center of the continent and the coasts.

China had about the same GDP a Sub-Saharan Africa in the early 1990’s https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=1996&locations=CN-ZG&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=1960 It’s taken China 35 years to get from there to it’s current spot as 2nd largest economy in the world. And that was for an economy that was growing at nearly 2x the rate of the rest of the world for most of that period. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=CN-1W

That’s not to say that Africa can’t become an economic powerhouse but it will take a lot of work and time. It would take sustained investment and reinvestment in Africa over several decades.

CFR has a discussion on the aid to Ukraine https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine The accounting can be a bit confusing but it’s certainly costing the US money.

That seems to be the crux of the matter. People are objecting to the implications of a proxy war rather than the actual meaning. Past treaties, and Russian aggression have nothing to do with whether or not it’s a proxy war. The intent to strategically prevent future Russian aggression, without direct involvement, is exactly what makes it a proxy war.

There also seems to be some implication that “proxy war” means that the entire purpose of the war is to satisfy the greed of some shadowy cabal. It literally just means that there’s someone who’s helping pay without being directly involved.

That makes it even more like a proxy war.

The cold war era proxy wars were all about saving Democracy and the “free world”. We funded one war after an other under the “domino theory.” Those are the same arguments we hear today except we’ve replaced USSR with Russia and Communist with Authoritarian. The message is the same; we don’t want to get involved directly but we’ll support this country as a bastion against world domination.

Some of the aid to Ukraine is structured as loans with expedited provisions to forgive the loans and some of it is outright grants. The US made a lot of money off of the lend lease program to the UK. I haven’t ready any analysis that suggests that the US expects to make any money off of Ukraine.

This is much more like our support of Afghanistan than our support of the UK.

I see. Even with that expanded, and very subjective definition, it’s still hard to see how this doesn’t qualify.

The US has obvious strategic interests in the war. Various US and EU politicians and even Zelinsky himself keeps making that point. Ukraine obviously isn’t just fighting for to support US interests but that’s the case in every proxy war. The rich, third party nation doesn’t hire mercenaries, they fund the groups who already have an interest in fighting (like defending their home).

Zelinsky would obviously like that situation to change. If the US and EU were willing to send troops it would stop being a proxy war and Zelinsky would clearly be thrilled.

If we’re using this more detailed definition of “proxy war”, which includes intent, I’d say that Russia is not a proxy for China. The difference is that isn’t providing any donations to Russia. It’s buying, selling and lending on terms that are so favorable to China that it’s better described as carpetbagging. China, and to a lesser extent India and Iran, are all raking Russia over the coals. China also trades with Ukraine. It does so at a much lower rate than with Russia (565 vs 21,800 respectively in September) but at a higher rate than the US does with Ukraine (197 in September (source: https://oec.world/).

I’m not sure why people keep saying this.

A proxy war has nothing to do with either side being “a proxy.” It only means that one of the sides is being supported by some nations that’s not part of the war. That’s very obviously the case here.

Yes. They would. There are no “free passes” on a definition.

I get that people don’t want to associate Ukraine with the US’s horrible track record with proxy wars but the term is still just a dry political definition and the Ukraine war fits it perfectly.

It would stop being a proxy war if the US (and everyone else) cut off funding or if they actually engaged in hostilities. As long as the US (or any nation) aids Russia or Ukraine without directly participating, it’s a proxy war because that’s how proxy wars are defined.

Why is “proxy war” in scare quotes?

It’s just a war where at least one of the belligerents is supported by at least one third party. Is there anyone who doubts that the Ukraine war meets any part of that definition?

Not rude at all. The original question is why certain people behave in a certain way.

The first point addresses the direct reason why some voters would refuse to vote for Harris due to her stance on Israel. When people believe they are being harmed they tend to focus all their attention on the immediate harm. It’s not a logical choice but people don’t act logically in these circumstances.

As an example of this, I’d offer our response to 9/11. The entire nation came together to pass the PATRIOT act and start a war in Afghanistan. There’s no logic in passing a bill that was so long that no one in congress could have read it before voting on it. It’s hard to argue for the logic of invading Afghanistan. There wasn’t really an objective (besides “get OBL”, who we later ended up assassinating in an other country) and in retrospect it’s certainly clear that it caused far more harm than good. But we were in an emotional state. The people watching their relatives getting bombed in Gaza are in a similarly emotional state.

The second point addresses why Democrats attempts to convince them are failing so spectacularly. Getting someone to vote for your preferred candidate is an exercise in persuasion. Much has been written about the art of persuasion and “insult your audience,” isn’t generally a recommended technique. One counterexample is “pickup artists”. They theorize that by insulting or “negging” women they can motivate the woman to counter the insult by seeking the mans approval. While this does work on some small percentage of women, the vast majority are more motivated to find their mace.

2 reasons jump to mind.

1. When I listen to people who personally identify with the people of Gaza, it goes way beyond logic. They have a completely emotional reaction. Their choices are almost completely driven by the question of, “Who is doing what, right now?” Questions of, “Who will do what 6 months from now?” take a distant back seat.

2. Every time the topic comes up, Democrats dogpile on them and call them morons. People will often respond with something like, “Yeah but that’s OK because they ARE morons.” I won’t argue if that’s true or not but it’s pretty obvious that line of reasoning won’t win a lot of converts.

That’s inherent to the idea of theft. We judge thieves based on their thefts.
It’s irrelevant if they also happen to have a bunch of stuff they didn’t steal.

A few stolen artifacts corrupt the legitimacy of the entire exhibit.

If we’re just talking math, triangles can be defined in terms of 3-element subsets of all 3 (A)ngles and 3 (S)ides:
SSS - unique
SAS - unique
ASS - may be unique depending on the lengths of the sides
ASA - unique
SAA - unique
AAA - infinite solutions

Maybe someone cleverer than me can figure out how that maps on to love and gender.

Yes and emergent behavior goes both ways. Organizations have many properties that the individuals they’re made up of don’t have and they lack many properties that individuals have. Organizations don’t have feelings. Even in the rare cases when the feelings of the people in those organizations are homogeneous, the organizations almost never manifest those feelings without significant alterations.

Are you seriously comparing Joe Rogan with NATO strategists?

There’s a bit more to it than that.

NATO is a strategic alliance lead by the US. NATO doesn’t have any feelings and isn’t pleased or displeased about anything. Instead it generally does whatever is the US believes is most strategically advantageous.

Those strategist are typically smart people who listen to all kinds of things. They’re definitely careful about what they say though and won’t go around promoting information they don’t want suppressed.

China knows that the US has a lot of economic leverage. They’ve been working very hard to change that and a lot of those efforts have flown under the radar.

BRI is pretty obvious and it’s seen as one of the major reason the ASEAN countries are pivoting towards China. But consider the whole South China Sea issue. Everyone frames it as a contest over sea resources and few people consider the strait of Malacca. It’s a potential choke point for all trade west of Southeast Asia. While China is working to be able to defend that they’re also working with Thailand to build a canal that would bypass the straight of Malacca all together. All of that is primarily to reduce US leverage and those initiatives tend to work more often than they fail.