Vladimir Putin says Ukraine War is likely to end soon

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin. Fox News/AFP. 

Vladimir Putin has said that the Ukraine War is likely coming to and end. Fox News. The statement came after a three day ceasefire was announced and a 1000 for 1000 prisoner exchange. The ceasefire mostly held, though both sides accuse the others of violating it. Russia celebrated Victory Day, marking their defeat of Nazi Germany, though celebrations were scaled back. Putin said he wanted former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to lead the negotiations. The war has largely devolved into a stalemate, with little in the way of territorial gains this year. 

My Comment:

Putin's comments here are strange. There is nothing on the battlefield that suggests either side will achieve a major battlefield breakthrough. Ukraine's recent gains have been overstated, largely because of how the conflict works with traditional front lines being rare and large "grey zones" being contested by small groups of soldiers are the norm. But it's undeniable that the war has ground to a halt in terms of territory being taken. 

It's possible that Russia has some major offensive planned but given how this conflict works, it seems pretty unlikely. Massing troops, tanks and vehicles in a modern conflict is a sure way to draw drone fire and if either side was doing so we would know about it given how many casualties they would take even before the offensive has begun. 

What seems more likely is that Putin might be considering making a deal. I don't think it has too much to do with the battlefield at all though. Instead it's about domestic pressure as the Russian people may be getting tired of the war. Russia has been willing to bear the burden of the conflict so far, but with the battlefield frozen folks might either want a breakthrough or a ceasefire. 

And it's very important to note that Russia's geopolitical situation has absolutely changed. Venezuela was a major Russian ally, but now has entirely switched sides, to the point where President Trump was floating the idea of making it the 51'st state (which isn't going to happen). Venezuela wasn't an important ally, but it was an ally and now they are absolutely not. 

But it's the Iran war that has likely disrupted things for Russia. Iran was a key ally and had been supplying Russia with arms, most notably drones. Russia replaced much of these sales, but it's also clear that Russia cannot rely on Iran as an ally. Russia didn't really need either of these allies, or Syria for that matter, but it absolutely is a factor. 

And I would also say that both conflicts were entirely one sided and might have sapped Russia's confidence that if the war did spiral out of control they could still beat NATO. While Europe remains a paper tiger, the United States demonstrated they are a lot bigger threat than Russia may have realized before, especially when demonstrating new technology. Indeed, that may have been what the recent UFO release could have been about, some of the sightings are undoubtably US military technology that hasn't been disclosed. 

With all that being said, I don't think a peace deal is likely in the short term. Neither side has budged at all from their war goals. Russia still wants the territory they haven't actually conquered yet and Ukraine still demands all of the territory Russia has conquered. With neither side willing to budge, I don't see how any kind of peace deal could happen. 

I still think that unless Ukraine has some kind of major collapse (which is very possible) the most likely end to the war is a negotiated settlement. I am guessing that Russia will have to give up the territory they claim but haven't captured and would have to exchange some land they conquered in the north, while Ukraine would have to give up their claims on the Donbas and Crimea. How we ever get both sides to agree to that is beyond me...  

Virginia Democrats propose replacing the entire Virginia Supreme Court after they ruled against their gerrymandered map.

 

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger. New York Times.

Democrats in Virginia have proposed replacing the entire Virginia Supreme Court after they ruled against their gerrymandered map.  New York Times. Democrats in the state are described as "desperate" after the Virginia Supreme Court overturned their latest gerrymandered map that would give Democrats four new house seats. The scheme would require lowering the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 54 or younger, which is the age of the youngest member of the court. A new Court could be installed then and they would then rule that the current maps were unconstitutional for the same reason why the gerrymandered districts were. The vote to amend the constitution requires a notice to be placed at courthouses and neither redistricting move did so. However, such a scheme is seen as an extreme longshot, as they only have until May 12th to change the maps in Virginia without it affecting the election. With the Supreme Court of the United States unlikely to intervene, Virginia's current maps will likely remain in place for 2026.

My Comment:

The Virginia gerrymander will go down as one of the biggest own goals in history. The Democrats spent $70 million on the vote, which barely passed at 51%, and considerable political capital on it. Indeed, Governor Spanberger bet her political future on the vote and at this point she's essentially a lame duck. 

I do understand why the Democrats are so desperate. They have pretty convincingly screwed themselves over. Conventional wisdom says that the Democrats are going to win the House in 2026 but the path is extremely narrow. Indeed, some projections have the Republicans at 217 seats that are at least "lean" Republican. If that's the case then they would only have to win one more House district they need to keep control of the house. 

I actually think that this is more likely than the media likes to report. Indeed, the only real issue holding down the Republicans is the Iran conflict and though the conflict drags on without a resolution, I can't imagine it won't be anything but a memory by November. Democrats probably know this, which is why they tried this gerrymander in the first place. 

However, I do have to think that the effort to gerrymander itself has done a lot of damage to the Democrats in general. The maps were so blatantly partisan that even folks supporting the Republican gerrymanders thought it was crazy. The maps were made to dilute the votes of the folks in Western Virginia by forcing tentacle-like districts extending from Washington DC, all the way to the borders with West Virginia. 

This particular plot though, is even more beyond the pale and it's insane to me that it leaked that they were even considering this. Indeed, I almost think the New York Times report was put out to put a kibosh on this effort. Not only does the plan have an almost zero percent chance of working, actually doing it would enrage just about everyone. It would be the most naked partisan powergrab in recent history and would permanently tarnish the Democratic Party. Given that fact and the fact that they only have two days to get new maps in play, I don't think any of this is going to happen. 

I have been wanting to write a post about the vibe shift in the Republican Party, and this is as good as any. Republicans have been stacking up the wins this week and the political headwinds they have been facing seem to have evaporated. Even the groypers/America First/woke right have been put into their place with Vivek Ramaswamy beating Casey Pustch in Ohio. It just seems like a lot of the hope and optimism that was seen on the right during the first year of Trump's term has returned now in his second year. 

Department of Justice sues the city of Denver over gun laws.

 

File photo of a Bushmaster AR-15. Fox News/Getty.

The Department of Justice has sued the city of Denver over gun laws. Fox News. Denver has had a law that banned magazines larger than 15 rounds since 1989. The ban affects most AR-15's which have 20 or 30 round magazines as standard capacity.  Denver argues that those weapons are "assault weapons" but the DOJ filing says that assault weapon is a political term, not a legal one. They also argue that AR-15's are in common use and thus are protected by the 2nd amendment and Supreme Court rulings including DC v Heller and NYSRPA v Bruen. Denver has vowed to fight the lawsuit. 

The DOJ filed a similar lawsuit against the State of Colorado as well, which has a similar magazine ban. The Hill. The law is extremely similar to Denver's law and is being fought on the same grounds. 

My Comment:

The NYSRPA v Bruen case set a pretty clear standard. When a gun is in common use, it cannot be banned. AR-15's are the most popular rifles in America today and they are mostly only sold with 20 to 30 round magazines. There also isn't a historical precedent, the Bruen test, for any laws that restrict the right to own these weapons or restrict magazine size. 

However, the lower courts have fairly consistently ruled in favor of these gun bans even though these laws clearly fail the standard set my Bruen. There is starting to be some cases where it is going the other direction, DC's magazine ban was struck down and the New Jersey ban could be struck down by the 3rd Circuit Court. If this case against Denver and Colorado succeeds it will be another court sticking down a magazine/assault weapons ban. 

The split is the important factor. The Supreme Court does not like to issue rulings on cases that have agreement and until very recently the lower courts absolutely said these bans were legal. But if there are three cases going the other way, SCOTUS could be forced to make a ruling. This is the DOJ forcing the issue. 

The conventional view is that SCOTUS would slap down these kind of assault weapons bans. The court is 6-3 conservative and there are at least four justices that are very strong on gun rights. My fear is that the court would either punt again, like they have with other recent cases, or, somehow, the two wishy-washy conservative justices, Roberts and Barrett, could join with the liberal justices in a 5-4 ruling, which is the absolute worse case scenario. And it's very possible that even with a SCOTUS ruling, that the lower courts will continue to ignore the court and keep these unconstitutional  laws. However, that's the pessimistic take, and I think the more likely outcome is that the case will be brought to the Supreme Court and the law will be overturned. 

I do have to say that I am happy that the Trump administration has changed course on gun rights. A lot of people, myself included, were upset that he wasn't doing these kinds of things in the first year of his 2nd term. Trump's always been a bit shaky on gun rights, so folks were disappointed to say the least. 

But the last few weeks? Something has obviously changed. First there was the new ATF rules where 34 Biden era rules were revoked, including things like pistol brace regulations, FFL restrictions and expanded background checks, which was widely praised by the gun rights community. Now there is this major lawsuit against these laws in Colorado. 

Why the big change? I am guessing it has to do with the midterms. The GOP's chances in the midterms are better than the media thinks, especially after the SCOTUS ruling on racially drawn congressional districts, but Trump does need to shore up support. Throwing a bone to the gun rights community is a zero cost way to do that, as some of those folks were saying they weren't going to show up because Trump wasn't acting on gun rights. Now though? They should be happy. 

I know I am. I know I didn't expect much from Trump on gun rights in his 2nd term. Indeed, I though at best that he wouldn't do much of anything on the issue at all, just like his first term. I mostly voted for him for immigration and foreign policy, not gun rights, with the hope that JD Vance would at least temper Trump's weaker instincts on this issue. Instead it looks like we are getting restored gun rights as a bonus that more than justifies my vote for Republicans. 

The New York Times has been sued for discrimination against a white male.

 

File photo of the New York Times. New York Post/AFP.

The New York Times is being sued for discrimination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) after they hired a less qualified multiracial woman over a qualified white male. New York Post. The role was for an assistant to the real estate editor and the white male candidate had relevant experience in the field. However, the paper went with a candidate that had no relevant experience in real estate, which was a requirement for the job. The incident occurred while the paper was pushing for DEI in their newsrooms and said that too many white males were in leadership. The Times says that race and gender had no role in the hiring and that they conducted it on merit. 

My Comment:

A good test to see if this is discrimination would be to flip the races and genders. If a multiracial woman was not hired for a job she was easily qualified for, but a less qualified white man was hired instead it would absolutely raise some eyebrows. But if it happened at a employer that just said that there were too many women/non-white supervisors? There is zero question that their would be a similar case filed by the EEOC. 

This case seems fairly open and shut. The woman that was hired had experience as a journalist but none in the real estate field. And she made it to the final round, along with a Black Male, a White Woman and an Asian Woman, while the white male didn't even get that far, despite being very qualified for the role. 

The problem with the case is that the New York Times DEI policy was for management, and this wasn't a management position. They could argue that the two things were separate and that their lower ranking jobs were color-blind. Unless there is a smoking gun where someone at the times was saying "don't hire white guys" it might be hard to prove the case. 

But I doubt this will go to trial. My guess is that the New York Times will quickly settle the case. Even if there isn't a smoking gun, it does seem clear that they were discriminating against the male and it's very possible a jury would rule against them. 

The bigger threat though is discovery. No big company wants discovery as it threatens to expose other problems they have and it could very well lead to a smoking gun. Plus, they don't want their DEI practices to become public as it is obviously bad publicity. Though the Times obviously has a left wing bias, they don't want regular readers to think that they hate white people. A settlement will prevent any of that from happening. 

I am happy that the EEOC is filing this lawsuit though. Hiring should be done on merit and if that means that a company ends up entirely white or without any whites whatsoever then so be it. Doing otherwise is discrimination, even if leftists don't want to believe it. 

Regardless, I do think there is systemic discrimination against white males in modern businesses, and it's not like it is even hidden. The New York Times was saying there were "too many" white mangers and that's pretty obvious discrimination. And the Times is hardly the only one doing this, though in many cases it's less about DEI and more about hiring an H1B instead of an American of any color. 

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is being courted to leave the Democratic Party.

 

Senator John Fetterman. Politico. 

Senator John Fetterman is being courted by Republicans to leave the Democratic Party. Politico. Reports suggest President Trump promised to support Fetterman with an endorsement and money for the 2028 campaign. Fetterman also is friends with Republicans in the Senate, including Dave McCormick and Katie Britt and often spends more time with Republicans than Democrats. Fetterman has a mixed voting record despite mostly voting for Democrat bills, but his support for Israel and frequent criticism of the Democrats and support for President Trump have left him on the outs. For his party, Fetterman says he will remain a Democrat and that he would be a "shitty Republican". 

My Comment:

It's really crazy how much the parties have switched when it comes to John Fetterman. Back in 2022 when he beat Dr. Oz he was one of the more hated Democrats in the Republican Party. The general consensus was that Fetterman was a brain damaged idiot who only one because Dr. Oz was a terrible candidate. His dressed down looks, wearing hoodies and not suits, was seen as insulting. Democrats instead were jubilant that they picked up a senate seat in a swing state and loved him. 

Fast forward four years and everything has flipped. Fetterman has quickly become the Republican's favorite Democrat while Democrats see him as a Democrat in Name Only. Democrats absolutely hate him now and he's the only Democrat that I know that has a higher approval rating with Republicans than his own party.

Indeed, Democrats are so unhappy with Fetterman that none of the Congress members in the state have endorsed him and there's an active effort to primary him in 2028. It's an effort that has a very good chance of success given how on the outs Fetterman is in the party. This is not the old generation of Democrats, it's a party that has purged all the Blue Dog Democrats and no longer tolerates anyone that isn't 100% on board. 

Should the switch happen, I don't think we could expect that Fetterman would suddenly become a right wing Republican. I would see him more like Senators Susan Colins and Lisa Murkowski, centrists that occasionally vote for the Democrats priorities when it comes to their own special interests. Republicans would not be getting a pro-life, pro-gun guy that would vote for them on every issue, but they would be gaining another seat and would get support on other issues, like immigration. 

I do think there is a place for someone like Fetterman in the party. The Republicans are the "big tent" party now (which is why we have been seeing so much internal sniping right now, it's all these factions trying to fight for supremacy with the groyper faction losing out) and he would join people like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard as more left wing Republicans. 

The only problem I see is that is Fetterman the best Republicans can do in Pennsylvania? There is an argument to be made that Fetterman is better in the party he is for Republicans. We occasionally get votes for him and when he gets replaced by some left wing nutjob, it's possible that Republicans could get someone more reliably Republican after Fetterman loses in 2028. And he will lose in 2028 without Republican support, his own party won't vote for him in the primary and even if he goes independent, I can't see him winning. 

Still, all of this is academic at this point. Fetterman himself says he is not going to change parties and even though the offer is on the table, he might not take it. Fetterman also knows that going independent or switching parties is a recipe for disaster as it risks alienating both parties. The original party will view you as a traitor and the new party might not trust you and will view you as an interloper. Right now, I don't think Fetterman changing parties is too likely, but we will probably have to revisit the conversation again in 2028.