Thursday, March 28, 2024

Vladimir Putin says that Russia will not go to war with NATO but would shoot down donated F-16 fighter jets.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin. Reuters.

Vladimir Putin says that Russia will not go to war with NATO but would shoot down donated F-16 fighter jets. Reuters. Putin said that he had no designs on Poland, the Baltic States or Czechia, calling the idea "nonsense" and "drivel". However, he did not that his forces would destroy F-16 fighter jets, noting the jets would not change anything on the ground. But the fighters are capable of using nuclear weapons and would mean that Russia could target any bases launching them from outside of Ukraine. Ukraine claims it will receive the fighter jets in the next few months but it is unclear how F-16's, which require heavy maintenance, long airstrips and armored hangers, will operate from Ukraine. 

My Comment:

 Putin appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth here. First he is saying that he won't attack NATO countries but at the same time he says that he would destroy airbases if they are being used to host F-16's, since they can use nuclear weapons. So he's promising not to strike at the same time threatening to strike? 

So what does this mean? I think this whole thing is a fairly obvious message to the west. Keep the F-16's in Ukraine and don't use NATO bases to launch attacks on Russian troops. If they do then the consequences are that those bases will be attacked and destroyed. It's a pretty clear message. But will NATO even listen?

I have expressed skepticism that F-16 will ever actually receive F-16's and this is a major reason why. It would be difficult to operate these jets out of Ukrainian airbases and there is an open question if any of Ukraine's air bases are even operational at this point. They have been launching Storm Shadow missiles at Russian targets, so they have some air forces left, so they must have some bases still operational.

But can they handle F-16's? From what I understand F-16's are rather picky about what kind of air bases they can be operated. They have low tolerance for debris and need a lot of maintenance. And they would need armored hangers to protect them from Russian air and missile strikes. These air bases would be priority targets for Russia so would they even last after the fighters have been delivered? 

Of course, like the other wunderwaffen deployed in this war, I doubt the F-16's would do much, especially at the low numbers being offered. 1000 of them might make a difference but we are talking about a squadron or two, not enough to actually do much. And Russia now has the advantage in airpower, air defenses and military power in general. My guess is that if these fighters try to engage with Russian fighter jets, they would be destroyed easily. And if they target ground forces they would probably get shot down by Russia's air defenses. About the only use they could be for is being launchers for Storm Shadows and equivalent long range missiles, and that would have a negligible effect at best. 

Given the negligible effect F-16's and the fact that Putin gave a pretty direct warning, will NATO use bases in their territory to launch these fighters? I would certainly hope not, it would be an absolutely idiotic move in a war that is already lost. In a sane world they wouldn't even consider it. But this is not a sane world and NATO has done nothing but double down and throw good money after bad in this war. I think we might see Russian airstrikes on NATO airbases... 

Wednesday, March 27, 2024

New polling says Americans no longer support Israel in the war against Hamas.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. New York Post/AP.

New polling says Americans no longer support Israel in their war against Hamas. New York Post. Polling from Gallup says that 55% of Americans now disapprove of Israel's actions in the war with only 36% approving. This is a dramatic chance as in November, 50% approved of the war with 45% disapproving. The polling comes as relations between Israel and the United States is under pressure due to Israel planning an offensive in the dense urban city of Rafah. Biden's approval for handling of the war was only at 27%. Republicans remain more supportive of the war than Democrats but support has fallen there as well. 

My Comment:

I will never understand the pro-Hamas position on this war. It makes zero sense to me and even if you discount the actions of Hamas on October 7th, I still can't understand why anyone would ever support Palestinians. They have been murdering people and being incredibly violent despite losing every war they have fought with Israel. 

I think a large part of the problem is that Hamas is losing and losing hard. They haven't accomplished much of anything since October 7th. There have been no follow up attacks and they have not threatened Israel in a major way since the attack. And they have been largely unable to do much to prevent the invasion by the Israelis. 

The true atrocities that Hamas committed have also fallen out of the public consciousness. They raped, murdered and destroyed across Israel but they haven't done a thing since then since they are losing the war. In a way, Israel is a victim of its own success. 

Hamas has the advantage of having a major amount of propaganda in their favor. Indeed, TikTok is utterly infested with pro-Hamas shills. What is amazing to me is that a lot of people fall for it, Hamas propaganda is even more unbelievable and obvious than pro-Ukraine propaganda, and that is really saying something. But given how effective Ukraine's propaganda it's not surprising that Hamas is succeeding here as well. People just don't think anymore. 

Part of it too, is that people expect every war to be Desert Storm. They assume that because a war lasts more than a couple of months without a resolution that instead of being how war works, they assume that Israel is committing a "genocide". I haven't seen anything of the sort, if anything Israel is handling Hamas with kid gloves. I would have carpet bombed the whole country to the point not a single building was standing. 

Regardless, this is very bad news for Biden, who has failed to balance the pro-Israel and pro-Hamas factions of his party. He has also lost influence with Israel. Netanyahu obviously doesn't respect Biden and Biden will not be able to get him to back down. If Biden decided to end support for Israel, his pro-Israel supporters will abandon him, but his pro-Hamas people already have.  

I don't see the war ending anytime soon. Hamas still holds Israeli civilians as hostages and as long as that is the case there can be no end to the war. And Israel has absolutely no reason to back down, they are winning the war. Only in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, where the US Navy is finding out the limits of their abilities, has there been any success on the pro-Hamas military side. 

The entire situation reminds me of the Vietnam war. In that war America won basically every major battle against the North Vietnamese but still lost the war because all of the propaganda is the other way.  Israel is doing the same thing here, they are winning the battle but losing the war, at least in terms of support here in the United States. 

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

RFK Jr. picks Nicole Shanahan as his VP pick. Who is she?

 

Nicole Shanahan. ABC News/Getty.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has picked Nicole Shanahan as his VP pick. ABC News. Shanahan is the former wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who she divorced last year. She is also an activist who has worked mostly with medical charities and environmentalism. Shanahan describes herself as a lifelong Democrat and was upset with the way the DNC was failing to live up to its values. Kennedy had previously said he would pick Shanahan as a VP if she wasn't rich, but it is speculated that is a reason why she was picked as gaining ballot access in many states is an expensive process. Kennedy also had to pick a VP early in order to gain ballot access in some states. 

My Comment:

I was fairly critical of the rumors that RFK Jr. was considering some VP picks. I didn't think Aaron Rodgers or Jesse Ventura would be good candidates. But compared to Nicole Shanahan, they would be dramatically better. I am not a fan of this pick at all. 

First of all, Shanahan is almost totally unknown by the wider public. I guess if you were active in the healthcare or environmental activism communities you might have heard of her. And if you were very interested in the personal lives of Google co-founders you might have as well. But I would guess that Shanahan has almost zero name recognition. Indeed, the first time I had ever heard of her is when she was mentioned as a VP candidate for RFK a few days ago.  

She also is going to turn a lot of people off. With this VP pick the idea that RFK is going to draw votes from Donald Trump is pretty laughable. I can't see anyone on the GOP side that would want to vote for a woman that describes herself as a "lifelong Democrat". And has spent much of her life as an activist for healthcare and the environment, things that most Republicans don't have as a priority. 

I also don't get the idea of picking a VP candidate from a solid blue state in California. Traditionally your VP pick would be someone from a swing state so people would vote for their hometown person. It's why the Kamala Harris pick in 2020 for Biden was so head-scratching, California was always going to go for Biden regardless, it should have been someone from a swing state. Perhaps 2024 is different with RFK mostly drawing from liberals, but it's still an odd pick. 

About the only positive I can think of for RFK Jr. is that Nicole Shanahan is an attractive woman. That probably shouldn't matter but people do vote for candidates they are attracted too, and she is reasonably attractive for a politician. I certainly wouldn't vote for someone based on that, but some people might?

But I think there might be some truth to why RFK Jr. picked Shanahan, she's got deep pockets and that is an advantage. It's unclear how much money she got from her divorce, but we know she sought $1 billion. It's doubtful she got that much, but I am guessing she got quite a bit. She is independently wealthy and can help fund RFK Jr's campaign. She funded RFK's Super Bowl add, which cost $7 million, and she put up more than half. 

Will her pick move the polls at all? Probably not. A few of RFK's right wing backers might balk at voting for a lifelong Democrat, but there aren't that many of them in the first place. A few Biden voters might go with RFK Jr. now because they personally like Shanahan or her activism, but I don't see much movement in the polls from this. 

The real winner is Donald Trump. With a VP pick, RFK Jr will have ballot access in most or even all states. And this VP pick will probably convince a few of RFK Jr's supporters to come back into the Trump camp, while at the same time drawing a few more voters from Joe Biden...  

Monday, March 25, 2024

Russia is mistreating the suspects in the Moscow terror attack. Should we care?

 

The four suspects in the Moscow terror attack case. The Independent. 

The suspects in the Moscow terror attack that left at least 137 people dead have been mistreated. The Independent. Graphic video has shown the suspects being tortured by Russian authorities. One suspect had his ear cut off and was almost forced to eat it. Another suspect had a car battery hooked up to his genitals and another was beaten so badly his eye was destroyed. At a hearing the men showed obvious signs of beatings with one suspect wheeled in a wheelchair. Calls are being made for the men to face the death penalty, which Russia has had a moratorium on since the 1990's, though the law is still on the books. 

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings on the treatment of these men. On the one hand I have very little sympathy for the men themselves given their actions. They killed more than 100 people and injured even more and they didn't really do it for ideological reasons, they did it for money. They absolutely deserve to die because of what they have done. 

But their treatment is pretty bad. Torturing these men is a bit over the top. It's pretty beyond the pale to cut someone's ear off or shocking their genitals. Especially since they don't seem to be doing it for intelligence gathering purposes. The men have cooperated and likely told the Russians everything they know, which probably isn't much.

I have argued in the past that torture could be justified to prevent a serious terror attack, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Instead it's torture for the sake of punishment, which is not something I support. It's not something we should be doing at this point in history. Even if these terrorists probably do deserve it, I don't like the idea of a government deciding that they should punish people extrajudicially. Especially if they are currently involved in a war, I would hate to see Ukrainian POW's treated this way when they are following the rules of war. 

To be fair, these men aren't protected by the rules of war like Ukrainian POW's. Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva convention so this wasn't a war crime. Indeed, it was probably legal under Russia's laws, and even if it wasn't, no prosecutor was going to charge anyone for this. 

There is the idea that Russia is doing this to deter further attacks, but I don't know if it would even matter. A guy that will help kill 137 people for $5000 is not going to be deterred from a terror attack because Russia cut someone's ear off, let alone a true ISIS believer. At most it might affect the targeting as a terror cell might be more willing to attack a country that doesn't do these things. But the true ISIS believers are not going to care at all, and given that ISIS hates Russia I don't see this deterring them at all.  

As for the death penalty, I would be in support of it in this case. Surprisingly Russia has had a moratorium on the death penalty but they could absolutely bring it back for these men. And given their actions I have zero problem with them being put to death. And I think even most anti-death penalty activists would give pause in this case. Still, I don't think these men will have much of a fair trial, which is important even if the guilt of these men isn't really in doubt. 

It does seem that Russia has had enough, both with terrorism and the Ukraine war in general. Their treatment of these men is sending a clear message, don't mess with Russia. And they have absolutely stepped up their attacks in Ukraine. I'm afraid that the bear has absolutely come out of its cave and is angry as hell. 

Finally, I do think that this story is going to be about as consequential as the October 7th attacks in Israel. That attack started a huge war that is still ongoing. Though the repercussions for this attack isn't clear it does seem very likely that we will see a major wave of terrorism again. And Russia is blaming Ukraine, regardless if they have any guilt in the plot or not. I'm not sure either way, I don't trust either side to tell the truth. But I do think that things are not going to calm down for awhile.. 

Sunday, March 24, 2024

France raises its terror alert level to the highest level in the wake of the Moscow attack.

 

French soldiers on patrol. France24.

France has raised its terror alert level to the highest level in the wake of the deadly ISIS terror attack in Moscow. France24. France has three terror alert levels and the highest level allows for the deployment of armed soldiers and patrols in public areas. ISIS took credit for the deadly attack in Moscow that left at least 137 people. France has a long history of jihadist terror attacks, with the 2015 Paris attacks being the most notable. France only moves their terror level in the wake of an attack in France or in anticipation of one. 

My Comment:

This is a wise move by the French. There is a major risk of terrorism in the wake of the Moscow attack and there is a good chance that it could happen in France. ISIS has a long history of attacking France and some of their most notable attacks have occurred in the country. 

The threat is two-fold. The actual handlers in the Moscow attacks have not been tracked down and they could be funding further attacks. It's very possible that the cell responsible for funding and supplying the attack could be plotting further attacks and some of them could be in France. The Moscow attack wasn't particularly difficult to pull off, the attackers were hired for a ridiculously small amount, probably less than the firearms and Molotov's they were armed with. And they never even had to make the 2nd payment since they got caught right away!

The other threat is that this attack in Moscow is going to inspire new attacks. This has happened in the wake of other major attacks where some lone wolf attacker decides to try their own attack because they were inspired by the larger attack. These attacks will likely be incompetent, like the lone guy with a knife that tries to attack armed soldiers or police, but they could still end up killing or injuring them. Again, France, with their large and radicalized Muslim population, could be extremely vulnerable to this as well. 

Will raising the terror level help things? Probably. Unlike most countries, France puts soldiers on the streets when they have a terror alert. Those soldiers are well armed and can and have responded to terror attacks. 

I do think that the threat is well beyond just France though. ISIS has reformed in Afghanistan and are using it as a base to attack other countries and if they can hire people in Russia they can also do so in Europe. There is a real chance of a follow up attack in the next few days or weeks. 

I also think that the threat is high in the United States. Our border is completely open and I am sure that there are radicals that made it in during the massive wave of illegal immigrants. I do wonder if there are links between ISIS-K and American radicals, it's unclear how big ISIS-K is in terms of organization and funds. But we also have the aforementioned threat of home grown lone wolfs to worry about as well...