Is Facebook in trouble?

 

Mark Zuckerberg. Vice/Getty.

Facebook may be losing its status as a big tech monopoly after many failed ventures. Vice. Facebook remains one of the largest tech companies but it has shed $800 billion in market capitalization in the past year. Much of this is due to the failure of Metaverse, Facebook's 3d effort. The effort has hemorrhaged money for little gain, costing over $21 billion between 2019 and 2021. Facebook is also facing problems from another tech giant, Apple, which will charge Facebook for advertising made via the Facebook app. Facebook has also largely failed to compete with competitors like Amazon and TikTok.

My Comment:

In the interest of full disclosure, I have bought advertisement from Facebook in the past. I probably spent less than $50 and have not done so since Facebook changed their terms of service for advertisement. I was not comfortable giving Facebook my drivers license so I was unable to purchase anymore advertisement, even though they were semi-effective in driving traffic to my blog. I also should disclose that Facebook recently gave me a 30-day ban from purchasing advertising, which I haven't done in more than five years, for making a reference to a classic Simpsons bit. So don't expect me to be completely unbiased in this post. 

In short, Facebook's decisions have been baffling to say the least. At the top of the list is the Metaverse, Zuckerberg's VR dream. I never really understood who the Metaverse was going to appeal to. There were already VR chat programs out there and they are all much better than Metaverse. Indeed, it seemed like Facebook ripped off VR chat and tried to expand on it. 

The other problem is that very few people have PC's powerful enough to actually run and support the Metaverse. I know my gaming laptop cannot run it because it does not have a powerful enough graphics card to do so. And even if I did, I would have to buy an expensive VR headset as well. And given the shortage of graphics cards and semiconductors there is a hard limit of how many people can actually get into VR right now. I know I have been looking to upgrade my gaming laptop but most online stores do not have many affordable gaming PC's right now. 

And even if you did have a PC capable of running Metaverse, there is apparently very little to do there. There isn't a high end gaming experience, good shopping or even a community to chat with. From what I understand it's mostly a ghost town. 

Facebook has a multitude of other problems. Like I mentioned, censorship is a huge problem. I don't feel comfortable buying advertising there because I'm afraid the extra scrutiny will result in my personal account being banned along with my blog's page. Given that other social media outlets, like Twitter, Parler and Gab, are moving towards lower levels of censorship there isn't much reason to stay on Facebook if you are concerned about censorship. 

I also have to say that the app is basically unusable. Instead of photos and updates from my friends, every time I use the app all I see are reels, sponsored stories and advertisement. It's a lot better on my PC where I have UBlock Origin and Facebook Purity installed, but even then there isn't as much content compared to what it used to be. Facebook was a lot more fun in my college days where all you would see is people's drunk photos from the weekend. 

Facebook also is just not seen as cool anymore. Part of it is the perception that people are just on there to argue politics. This is probably true, and I know that I have gotten on some major arguments up there. Other apps, like TikTok, for all their flaws, offer something positive, like funny videos or sexy women dancing. Facebook doesn't seem to have that anymore for the most part. 

Apple messing with them is a big problem as well. Given the absurd number of ads and sponsored stories I see whenever I use my iPhone to use the Facebook app, Facebook must be making bank off of them. Apple taking a 30% cut will probably end up being worth millions, if not billions, of dollars. 

With all that being said, I do think that Facebook has some advantages. Instagram remains extremely popular and so is WhatsApp. And it's not like Facebook isn't making billions of dollars all the time. Just because they have mad some boneheaded decisions does not mean that they are on the way out. 

 

Al-Shabaab kills at least 100 people in massive twin car bombings in Mogadishu.

 

Somali civilians survey the damage from the bombings. Fox News/Reuters. 

Al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliate, has taken credit for a pair of car bombings in Mogadishu Somalia that has killed at least 100 people. Fox News. 300 people were also wounded by the attack that targeted the Ministry of Education. The Pentagon says that al-Shabaab is the most active of al-Qaeda's affiliates. Somalia's new President, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, has declared "total war" on al-Shabaab. The attack is the most deadly in Somalia since a 2017 bombing in the same location killed 500 people. The United States has been bombing the terror group but the group persists. 

My Comment:

Somalia has a long history of terrible bombings like this and this attack is just another one. Indeed, Somalia has been a mess for pretty much all of my life. It's one of the most dangerous countries in the world and al-Shabaab is one of the main reasons, but far from the only one. 

Al-Shabaab is indeed the most dangerous al-Qaeda affiliate, and probably the only relevant one. AQAP isn't really that relevant anymore, despite the war in Yemen and AQIM is still somewhat active in Africa, but not as much as they used to be. And core al-Qaeda? They are pretty much a joke now with most of their leadership dead or imprisoned. 

But al-Shabaab? They are a major terror group that has many of these huge attacks under their belt. And not only in Somalia, they have also hit Kenya as well. They are a powerful and effective terror group and it is lucky that they are not a major threat to Europe right now. They could become such a threat at some point but it would probably take awhile to do so. 

I know that Somalia's president has declared total war against al-Shabaab but I don't expect too much to come from it. Somalia does not have a large or effective military and simply aren't competent enough to destroy a major terror group like this. Plus, Somalia has so many other problems to deal with I don't know if they can deal with a major war at the same time. 

The Biden administration has attempted to combat al-Shabaab but it does not seem to have done much. We have some 500 troops in Somalia in a training mission and we regularly bomb and drone strike al-Shabaab but so far we haven't been able to destroy them. And I don't see us doing so. Even with this terrible bombing we simply don't have the will or the resources to do so. 

Why? Because Ukraine has become such a massive distraction we aren't doing much else. Imagine if we had given even a fraction of those weapons we have given to Ukraine to Somalia instead. Sure, they wouldn't need to heavy arms but they could be doing something with the artillery and small arms we have given Ukraine. And unlike the Russians, al-Shabaab could indeed become a threat to America. If Somalia were to fall entirely, which isn't likely, al-Shabaab could use the country as a base to launch attacks outside of Somalia. 

Tens of thousands of Czech protesters demand negotiation with Russia over fuel prices

 

Czech protesters in Prague. Reuters. 

Tens of thousands of Czech protesters took to the streets to demand a negotiation with Russia over fuel prices. Reuters. The protesters demanded the resignation of Czechia's center-right government. The protests were made up of both the far-right and the far-left and were made up of anti-NATO and anti-EU groups. They also want Czechia to me a neutral country. The Czech government has been very pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia since the outbreak of the war and has imposed harsh fuel sanctions on Russia. Those sanctions have dramatically increased fuel prices and it is causing people to begin to pressure the government. The protesters want a direct negotiation with Russia over fuel prices, bypassing EU and NATO sanctions. 

My Comment:

I was shocked to see coverage of this event in Western Media. As the article said, this is not the first protest against NATO and the EU and their actions in regards to the Ukraine war. But it is the first one I remember seeing widespread media coverage for. Much like the Dutch Famer Protests, these large protests have been mostly memory-holed. 

I have been thinking for a long time that whatever happens on the battlefield of Ukraine is irrelevant. Why? Because Russia has already won the economic war. The western governments very foolishly sanctioned Russia and it has crippled their economies, at least in Europe. The United States has largely weathered the storm due to our own energy reserves, but even we have started to feel the pinch, with fuel oil being rationed in the Northeast. Russia, meanwhile, is mostly weathering their sanctions and is indeed making money of off the massive increase in oil and gas prices. 

People are getting sick of the costs of the war. Europeans are looking at a long cold winter without much in the way of heat. They are also seeing factories shut down and people losing jobs. And they are seeing very little for their massive efforts. Sure Ukraine has had some minor success on the battlefield, largely because Russia deployed far too few troops, but nothing that justifies the massive expenditure of money that Europe has used. 

It makes a lot of sense for people in Czechia, to be opposed to helping Ukraine. Ukraine is not their ally and they have little strategic interest in providing for their defense. And if the war does escalate into a greater conflict, they could eat a nuke or two, which would obviously be a bad thing. The war is also not helping their economy at all and I think it makes sense that people would be against continuing these sanctions. 

What is surprising is that the far-right and far-left are teaming up there to protest these sanctions. That couldn't happen in the United States. Indeed, after progressives sent a letter asking for diplomacy, they were pretty much forced to withdraw it by the Democrats because being anti-war is now seen as something only the "far right" does. Of course Czechia does not have the same political dynamics as we do here in America so I guess it's possible for the left and right to join up against the center there. 

Will these protests work? I am not sure. Right now I don't know if the normal people are angry enough to join the protesters. It will depend how bad winter gets in Europe this year. If it's a cold winter than people will probably be angry enough to demand change. But if it's a mild one? Who knows? All I know is that it is good to see people speak up against prolonging a war that has very little reason to continue. 

Elon Musk fires top Twitter brass after $44 billion deal to acquire the company goes through.

 

File photo of Elon Musk. Fox Business/Getty.

Elon Musk has fired the top leaders of Twitter after the $44 billion deal to acquire the social media company. Fox Business. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, and Vijaya Gadde, head of legal policy, trust, and safety were fired after Musk accused them of misleading him about the number of the bots on the platform. They were escorted from the building after being fired. The number of the bots on the platform had almost torpedoed the deal but Musk eventually went through with the sale. Musk cited the increasing polarization of the United States as a reason to purchase the platform and but warned that the platform would not become a free-for-all. Instead he hopes that it will be a platform where both sides can come together to discuss the issue. 

Dear Twitter Advertisers pic.twitter.com/GMwHmInPAS

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 27, 2022

My Comment:

So far on Twitter I have noticed no actual changes, but, to be fair, I haven't been on much today. It's also very early to expect everything to just change. It will take time for Musk to hire new people, fire the incompetents and then change what Twitter is doing. I am not expecting major changes in the short term. 

I do think the Agrawal, Segal and Gadde did deserve to be fired. They did in fact lie about the number of bots on Twitter to Elon Musk and that kind of personal insult was never going to work out for them. And of course, they were the ones responsible for the banning practices that motivated Musk to buy out Twitter in the first place. Many people say it was the banning of The Babylon Bee, a Christian parody news site, that convinced Musk that things had to change in Twitter.  

I don't think that this is the end of the firings at Twitter. Musk has already said he might fire up to 75% of the people working at Twitter. Twitter has always seemed fairly bloated and top heavy and it seems like it has a lot of dead weight. I am guessing the fat-trimming process will continue in the days and weeks ahead. 

It's unclear exactly what happens next. I think the people that think that Musk is going to turn Twitter into the new version of Gab where you can freely use the N-word and rant about Jewish people are going to be very disappointed. That never seemed that realistic in the first place, after all, Gab doesn't worry that much about advertisers since they are largely donation and merchandise funded. Musk has to worry about advertisers and I bet he finds that kind of outright bigotry to be distasteful at best. 

But I do think that some accounts that have been banned will be allowed back on while many of the algorithms will no longer be used to censor stories. This is a major win regardless. If the Hunter Biden story in 2020 had been allowed to trend there is a good chance that Donald Trump is president now instead of Joe Biden. The effect Twitter had on the 2020 election was so powerful that the 2024 election might go the other way just because of Musk not censoring right wing views. 

Speaking of Donald Trump, I don't see him coming back. He's got a lot of money invested in Truth Social so I can't see him coming back to Twitter unless that venture fails. Right now Musk is his competitor. Same thing with Kanye West. 

As for me personally, this is relief. Many of my views for this blog come from Twitter and I have eaten a suspension there before, for saying that Kyle Rittenhouse was a hero (which he was) before he was acquitted of all charges against him. I don't think the bot that caught me saying that will be there now and I think unless I do something really out of character or stupid, I won't be banned from Twitter now. 

Finally, though I am happy Musk has bought Twitter, I don't think it will make him much in the way of money. Twitter has never really been profitable and unlike Facebook they have never really figured out how to monetize their content. I don't see how Musk changes this so I am guessing this venture will probably bleed him money, which will probably have to paid for from his other ventures. 

ISIS attack in Iran leaves 15 people dead

 

Bloodstains at the site of the attack in Iran. AP. 

An attack against a shrine in Iran has left 15 people dead and many more wounded with ISIS claiming responsibility. AP. The attack does not appear to be related to the major protest movement in Iran. The attack involved three gunman, two of which have been captured with the third still on the run as of this writing. Iran claims the attackers were foreign nationals. Islamist attacks in Iran are rare but have happened before and Sunni ISIS has a presence in the Shiite dominated country.

My Comment:

This post will be pretty short as I am low on time, but I thought a major terror attack deserved some coverage. The story is largely being overshadowed by other stories and even the AP article only had a few paragraphs about the attack itself and spent most of the article talking about the current wave of protests rocking Iran. 

I generally think ISIS making a comeback is more important than the protests since they will eventually be put down. Iran is very good at dealing with civil disorder, and we have seen waves of protests there put down many, many times before. Iran's government is not going to fall, but the media would sure like it if they did. 

This attack is a fairly disturbing development. It shows that ISIS has regained the ability to launch terror attacks against foreign targets after mostly being destroyed during the Trump presidency. Does this mean they are making a comeback? It's very possible. ISIS is so low on everyone's priority list right now that they could indeed have reorganized and recovered. 

This wasn't a simple attack either. Iran is claiming the attackers were foreigners so ISIS had to be organized enough to smuggle these people in and then find weapons for them, which they could have smuggled in as well or had the attackers buy on the local black market. This was not a "lone wolf" style attack, it was a full scale terror attack with a large amount of training and expenses. It's not something an unorganized terror group could pull off. 

The attack is just another example of ISIS attacking Shiites. The Sunni ISIS group considers Shiite Islam to be a heresy and have spent quite a few attacks on Shiite targets. The terror group will likely gain some more recruits and funding from this attack. There are a lot of people in the Sunni Muslim world that hate Shiite Muslims and will celebrate this attack.   

Darrell Brooks convicted of killing six people in Waukesha ramming attack.

 

Darrell Brooks. NPR/AP.

Darrell Brooks has been convicted of a car ramming attack that killed six people and wounded 62 others in Waukesha Wisconsin. NPR. Brooks drove his Ford Escape into a Christmas Parade last year in November after fleeing from a domestic dispute. The jury only deliberated for three hours and fifteen minutes before finding him guilty on all counts. Brooks inexplicably withdrew his insanity defense and fired his public defenders, representing himself during the trial. Brooks was erratic and disruptive during the trial and had to be removed from the courtroom several times. During his closing statements Brooks said that the throttle on his SUV malfunctioned and that he hasn't been able to see his kids since the trial began. Prosecutors countered that Brooks SUV was in good working order and that he deliberately ran into people. 

My Comment:

I did not watch the trial but I was reading up on this case as it the trial was going on. This was a semi-local case for me since I live in Wisconsin and I know people that live in that area of the state. It's pretty  personal compared to a lot of stories I cover on this blog. I simply didn't have time to watch the entire trial though. 

Darrell Brooks made an utter mockery of this trial. He was erratic and disturbing even at his best behavior but for most of the trial he was not anywhere near his best behavior. He was insulting to the judge, angry with witnesses and in general, behaved like an absolute idiot. I can't imagine that the people that were on the jury were impressed. 

He made several huge mistakes that are simply baffling. His only real chance of decent outcome was an insanity defense and though that is hard to get in any state, including Wisconsin, it was his only option to avoid a life sentence. He probably would have spent most of his days in a mental hospital but at least he would have had a chance at getting out at some point. Instead, barring some kind of miraculous and inexplicable appeal, he will spend the rest of his life in prison. 

Firing his lawyers was another huge mistake and one that probably cost him whatever small chance he had. Brooks did very poorly as his own defense attorney and his constant arguments with the judge probably did not endear him to the jury. Though people have a right to defend themselves without a lawyer, it's almost always considered a bad idea, especially if you don't have a law license, and even more so when you behave like Brooks did. He could have kept them on to at least help him with his case but he didn't even do that. 

Indeed, many people wonder if Brooks wasn't intentionally tanking his trial so he could raise these issues on appeal. The idea being that the trial was biased because he antagonized the judge and he didn't have adequate legal representation. If that was the plan I doubt it would work because any appeals judge will have seen his behavior during his trial and rightly conclude that this was what he was trying to do. 

Darrell Brooks also tried to pull the "sovereign citizen" crap at his trial. I think the stereotype of  sovereign citizens is a white guy, but quite a few black people are into it as well. Their legal arguments pretty much always rejected in court. This case was no exception. Brooks even tried to bring up jury nullification, which courts utterly hate, even though he's right that juries should be allowed to consider it. Not like the jury would do so in this case. 

What we didn't get was a reason why Brooks would drive into a parade. It does not seem to be politically motivated and I certainly don't buy his excuses about being panicked or his vehicle failing. This was a deliberate attack and I don't think we will really properly understand Brooks motivation for the attack as it doesn't appear that Brooks understands it himself. 

Though the trial was a circus, I am glad that it, at the very least, brought the attack back into the public consciousness. The Christmas ramming attack was one of the worst crimes in Wisconsin and I think it was well on the way of being memory-holed and if it wasn't for Brooks and his bizarre behavior, I think we would have never heard about it again. 

Progressive Democrats call for a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine war and then, in an act of utter cowardice, walk it back.

 

US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. Politico/Getty.

Members of the House Progressive Caucus released a letter saying that Joe Biden should negotiate the end to the war in Ukraine with Russia before walking it back almost immediately. Politico. The letter was written in June and was released this week. The letter caused a backlash among Democrats who have been in lockstep in support of the war, which may spiral into a nuclear conflict. Pramila Jayapal retracted the letter under pressure saying it was a "distraction" and that she didn't want to be compared to Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, who said that funding for the war could be pulled under a Republican congress. Many of the people who signed the letter also walked back their support of it. 

The original letter can be found here.

My Comment:

The letter released by the progressives in Congress was one of the few sensible things that anyone has put out about the war in Ukraine. Indeed, I was surprised that something so sensible and obvious that came from them. Of course, with this being the Democrats, the second someone said something sensible they had to walk it back...

I have been saying since Russia withdrew from the Kiev front that the war would most likely end in a negotiated settlement. Neither side is strong enough to utterly destroy the other and though I think Russia is doing much better than the West is willing to recognize or admit, I still don't think they can take all of Ukraine. And even with major support, Ukraine cannot possibly take back all the territory Russia has taken. It's just not possible baring some kind of unprecedented total collapse of one of the sides. 

The risks of not stopping the war are extreme. The longer the war goes on and the longer it goes on without a major breakthrough the better the chances of things spiraling out of control. There are already rumors of a false flag dirty bomb attack being planned by somebody (both sides accuse each other). And there is always the chance that the Ukrainians pull of some major terror attack or Russia decides to use nukes and then everything gets very bad very fast. 

And I think we are reaching the limits of what Americans and Europeans are willing to accept in terms of economic damage. It's going to be an extremely cold winter in Europe without Russian energy and rationing has even begun for fuel oil in the Northeastern United States. We have been giving Ukraine a blank check, depleting our stock of arms and for what? A few dead Russians and miles of regained territory, all of which may be lost when Russia starts their new offensive in the North? It's not worth it. 

I do think that the Democrats do have a point that a settlement will be difficult to arrange. Putin isn't likely to accept a negotiated settlement at the moment as, like I said, he's expecting a major new offensive which may be backed by Belarus. And Zelenskyy? I can't see him backing down as I think he's basically insane now. None of his actions make even a lick of sense. 

With that being said, wars have been stopped by diplomats before and even an attempt might reduce tensions quite a bit even if it doesn't end the war quickly. Anything that reduces the temperature is a good thing. And I do think that the war could end this way. From what I understand the initial talks between Russia and Ukraine were making progress but were torpedoed by former UK Prime Minster Boris Johnson on behalf of the United States. If an actual effort was made for peace I think it's very possible that the war will end. 

I don't think anything will happen until after the November elections here in the United States. With the Democrats looking to everyone that they will be wiped out, I think that they will be forced to rethink pretty much all of their policies. And the Republicans seem to be sick and tired of unlimited spending on Ukraine. When that happens I think that there will be intense pressure on Biden to send in the diplomats... 

Government air strike on separatist music festival may have killed as many as 60 people in Myanmar

 

File photo of the military of Myanmar. Sky News. 

A government airstrike on a separatist music festival may have killed as many as 60 people in Myanmar. Sky News. Singers and musicians were killed at the festival, which was put on by the Kachin ethnic group. The Kachin Independence organization has clashed with the government of Myanmar for decades. Between 300 and 500 people were at the event and reports say that in addition to performers, officers, soldiers, and business leaders were killed as well. If the death toll is confirmed it would be the most casualties caused by an airstrike in the conflict between the Kachin and the government. 

Aftermath of a bombing raid by the Myanmar Air Force against a concert being held by the Kachin Independence Organization near the village of Kansi. Among at least 50 believed killed were 4 popular Kachin singers including Galau Yaw Lwi and Aurali. pic.twitter.com/AtA60hF2ke

— Jonathan Head (@pakhead) October 24, 2022

My Comment:

I am far from an expert on the conflict in Myanmar, but this attack was large enough that I thought I should cover it. It's not every day that a government bombs a music festival, of all things. And it seems like it was a very deadly attack, with reports of 60 people dying. 

This did not appear to be a legitimate military target. There were military members of the KIO in attendance but given the large numbers of civilians and non-combatants, including children, you can't argue that this was a legitimate target. Indeed, I think this pretty obviously counts as a war crime. Sending in two jets to attack a music festival is not something good people do. 

I do wonder why the KIO decided to put this festival on. I guess they didn't think that the government of Myanmar would attack like they did. That seems fairly naïve on their part given how many atrocities the government is accused of and how vulnerable a target a music festival would be. Still, I can't really blame them for not thinking that the government would attack them, this kind of thing is fairly unprecedented. 

I don't expect much to happen to the government for this attack. Myanmar is already somewhat of a pariah state as it is so there is not much more that can happen there. I don't think anyone wants to get involved with their war so I guess if anything happens it will be sanctions. I also think that the government there is more than aware that they are barely on the radar these days, even foreign policy wonks aren't focused on them while the war in Ukraine rages. Even Yemen, the Middle East's forgotten war, gets more attention than Myanmar does. 

Strangely enough, this incident might affect me directly. We actually have quite a few Burmese people at work, most of them came into the country as refugees. With this attack more folks could be trying to enter the country. I actually think that they have a case for refugee status given how badly Myanmar is acting these days and I don't oppose them coming here for work. They have a stronger claim of oppression than many of the people let in based on refugee status. 

Is Ukraine planning a dirty bomb false flag? Is Russia?

 

Russia's Defense Minster Sergei Shoigu. Fox News/Reuters. 

Russia and the United States have had high level phone calls to discuss rumors of a false flag dirty bombing in Ukraine. Fox News. Russian Defense Minster Sergei Shoigu called Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin twice in the past three days to discuss the issue. Shoigu also contacted his counterparts in France, the United Kingdom and Turkey as well. Most governments denied claims of a dirty bomb attack, with Ukraine saying that if an explosion were to happen, Russia would be responsible for it. 

My Comment:

This is a fairly disturbing accusation and one that would have extreme consequences if it were to come to pass. If a dirty bomb attack were to occur it would probably justify the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. That, of course, is an extremely bad thing, even if it doesn't end up with a full nuclear exchange between the West and Russia. 

I mostly want to dismiss this out of hand. I can't imagine that Ukraine would use a dirty bomb on their own people. I think they are evil enough to do so, obviously, but they would gain almost nothing from it. First of all, I don't think that Ukraine has access to nuclear materials. They would need to secure that first before they even had a chance to use a dirty bomb. And if they did have the weapon, why would they use it on their own people instead of Russia? It doesn't make much sense. It's not like they can get any more sympathy from the Western press, who are already fully committed to them. 

Of course, Russia doing it doesn't make any sense either. I think the idea is that they want this to happen so they can use tactical nukes to blunt the Kherson offensive. That doesn't make sense to me because Russia is preparing for a huge offensive in the north. Plus winter is coming soon, so that will probably slow or stop the Kherson offensive. Tactical nukes seem fairly unnecessary in that case. 

And it makes zero sense for either side to do this due to the possibility of the entire situation spiraling into a full scale nuclear war. Indeed, it makes little difference who is responsible for a dirty bomb attack if it results in a major nuclear exchange, or even just the use of tactical nuclear weapons. At that point all bets are off. 

Of course, this analysis depends on everyone involved being a rational actor. I don't think that is the case. Zelenskyy is unhinged enough to try something like this, and I also think most of the West's leaders are certifiably insane as well, with Biden being the worst of all. Putin seems more rational, but that's a comparative thing. If this story is based on nothing it does not speak well to the paranoia of the leadership of Russia. 

If there is any good news about this it's that the leadership of the West and Russia is at least trying to talk to each other. A couple of phone calls won't do much to end the war but it was better than the previous status quo where neither side was talking to each other. The circumstances aren't great but talking is better than fighting. 

Still, I think the war in Ukraine has gone on far too long and for this very reason. Neither side has gotten the quick victory they assumed they were getting in the first place. And despite the insistence of radicals on both sides, the war is mostly a stalemate, despite the money, equipment and people thrown into the meatgrinder. The longer it goes on, the more possible it is that one or both sides do something stupid to try and break the stalemate... 

Are mass drone attacks the way of the future?

 

Ukrainian police shooting at Iran supplied Russian drones. Al-Jazeera/Reuters. 

Russia's use of mass drone strikes in Ukraine may be a portend of future warfare. Al-Jazeera. Though drones have been used in the Ukraine war for some time now, Russia's use of mass waves of suicide drones is new. They have used those Shahed-136 drones, which have been supplied by Iran, to strike at Ukrainian power systems. The drones are small, cheap and carry 80 to 90 pounds of explosives. The drones are hard to take down by traditional air defenses due to how small they are and how low they fly, which makes them hard to detect by radar. Small arms fire can take the drones down but doing so is dangerous as they often explode. The drones only cost around $20,000 allowing them to be deployed in massive waves.

National Police officers shooting down an Iranian drone.

WE NEED AIR DEFENSE! pic.twitter.com/AvdviH6RhE

— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) October 17, 2022

 

My Comment:

I have to admit that I was originally skeptical that Russia was even buying these drones as I thought they had this ability already. But I was pretty wrong there as these drones have proven to have a major impact on the battlefield. They have been an absolute pain for the Ukrainians to deal with and so far they have not found an answer. 

The problem is that these drones are small enough and fly low enough that traditional anti-air weapons don't really work for them. They don't show up on radar and larger air defenses can't really target them. That leaves machine guns and small arms, which are effective enough if you can hit them, but even then it's not great because then the drone just blows up randomly, which can end up causing damage to the objective, or the defensive troops, or even civilians if they are unlucky. 

The real gamebreaker here is the cost. These drones cost essentially nothing. $20,000 is almost nothing in terms of military accusation and they are a hell of a lot cheaper than missiles or bombs. And those missiles and bombs are more vulnerable to air defenses. 

How effective are these drones? It depends on what you are asking them to do. I don't think that these drones could blunt an infantry assault and armor would probably be able to resist them fairly easily. But for softer targets they are effective enough. They seem great for targets like barracks, trucks, bridges and other "soft" targets. 

The lack of use against infantry and vehicles means that this isn't going to be a wunderwaffe for the Russians. They are using them effectively but their problem is a lack of troops, not a lack of weapons. Mobilization will have a lot more to do with any success they have than their use of drones. 

I do think that Russia's targeting of energy infrastructure, using these drones and other weapons, is a winning strategy. I never understood why the Russians didn't do this from the start of the war. Doing so will hurt the ability of Ukrainians to move troops and weapons and cutting off Ukrainian civilians from heat and water might encourage them to petition their government to sue for peace. They absolutely could have done this without drones, but I think the drones made it a lot cheaper in terms of money, supplies and lives. 

I do think that people will learn from these attacks and in future wars these drone swarms will be a lot more common. Why wouldn't they? These kamikaze drones are cheap and effective and pretty much any military can operate them. 

What scares me about this is the fact that terror groups could gain access to this technology. Indeed, ISIS used drones in the war in Syria, though their efforts were pretty amateurish, dropping hand grenades from drones and such. But if they were to get their hands on a dozen or so of these drones or similar technology, they could inflict a huge amount of damage without much cost. Indeed, it would probably be a lot easier to inflict heavy casualties with a small drone swarm than it would be to do so with gunmen. 

I also think that people are studying how to defeat these drones. Right now I think that the answer is probably electronic warfare. If these drones could be jammed they could simply fall out of the sky. You would still have to problem of a lot of drones laden with explosives crashing out of the sky, but it would be a lot better than the targets being hit. The problem there is that the US has fallen behind on electronic warfare, unlike the Russians who are pretty good at it. It's something they need to focus on right now because eventually we are going to face these kinds of drones in combat. 

Nearly 60% of voters say that the mass media is a threat to democracy

 Nearly 60% of voters say that the mass media is a threat to Democracy. The Hill. A poll by the New York Times and Siena College found 59% of voters say that the the mass media is a major threat to Democracy while 25% said that they are a minor threat. Only 15% said it poses no threat. The opinions were divided on partisan lines with 87% of Trump voters saying that the media was a major threat while only 33% of Biden voters said it was. Only 34% of voters say that the major news organizations report on news stories fairly and accurately. 

The New York Times/Siena College poll can be found here, though it is paywalled. 

My Comment:

Just a quick post tonight, sorry about not having an image. There wasn't much else to write about so I thought covering how badly people trust the media these days was appropriate. 

First a note on "Democracy". I hate how the term has taken over the discourse. If you have read the founding fathers they consider the term a four letter word. We live in a Republic, not a democracy and it's silly that people keep saying that Democracy is the end-all be-all for America. It's a joke and I personally am sick and tired of it. 

As for the results of the poll, I am surprised that the numbers are high as they are. I can't believe that anyone thinks that the media isn't a threat. They have utterly given up about being fair in their coverage and haven't done so for years.

It's also clear that they are totally all-in when it comes to the Democratic Party. I mean, they pretty openly colluded with them with the Hunter Biden story. That story would have utterly destroyed Biden if it had been allowed outside of conservative media, but it wasn't and that's how Biden got in.

I also think that the media caused problems by the stories that they just don't cover. I was saying on Twitter today that had the media covered foreign policy at all in 2020 we might have found out that Biden was willing to risk a nuclear war in Ukraine against Russia. Would voters have gone for him if they knew that? Probably not, but the question was never asked. 

UN considering intervening in Haiti by sanctioning gang leaders and sending a multi-national force.

 

Protesters flee from tear gas. CBS News/AFP.

The UN will consider intervening in Haiti by sanctioning gang leaders and sending in peacekeepers. CBS News. The country has fallen into chaos due to the actions of gang leaders, one of which, Jimmy "Barbeque" Cherizier has cut of supplies of fuel, water and fuel. The UN has considered two actions to end the situation in Haiti. The first was to sanction the criminal gangs that are causing the problems. The second was to deploy an international force to improve the security situation and resume the flow of international aid. The first resolution will likely be passed this week, but it will take time to work out the details of the second proposal. Some members of the UN, most notably Russia, expressed concern about deploying troops to Haiti. The chaos in Haiti has resulted in many people trying to enter the United States illegally. 

My Comment:

Haiti is a mess right now and has been since the country has been created. Things now are a bit worse than usual as the gangs in the country basically rule it now. The government has limited power and is unpopular due to coming into power after the assassination of the country's President in 2021.

The gang leaders are pretty terrible people. They are using food, fuel and water as a weapon and so far it seems to be working. From what I understand they have as much power as the government, or even more. They are basically deciding who lives and who dies. The situation is now worse than Mexico, which is really saying something. 

But I don't think that an UN intervention will do much. The sanctions will be less than useless, just like the ones against Russia. Indeed, I rarely think sanctions do much of anything. What are they going to do with these criminals? Keep them from using banks? Stop them from buying products from the rest of the world? It won't do a thing. 

And deploying troops? Given that I doubt these troops will be engaged in offensive operations to kill and destroy these criminal gangs, I don't think much will be accomplished. Perhaps some humanitarian supplies might be delivered, but the deployment of these troops won't do much. The problem is that at most the troops will be in a defensive war and that's not a way to protect the people of Haiti. 

I personally oppose sending any support to Haiti at all. The country has proven itself to be ungovernable again and again. You could deploy the entire US Army and stay there for 50 years and I don't think you would see much in the way of improvement. And by doing so you would be wasting that money that could be better spent on other things. 

Democrats are admitting that their midterm hopes are failing, with a red wave possible.

 

The US House. Politico/Getty. 

The Democrats are now admitting that their midterm hopes are failing with a red wave possible. Politico. Recent polling has Republicans beating Democrats on generic polling by 2-5 points as Joe Biden's approval rating has dropped as well. Voters cite high gas prices, out of control prices and a stagnant economy as high importance issues. The Democrats had hoped that the overturn of Roe v Wade would help but only 5 percent of voters cited that as their most important issue. Most Democrats have written off the House and consider a 50/50 split at the Senate the best possible outcome. 

My Comment:

The media and the Democrats themselves are now saying that the Democrats are in deep trouble for 2022. The party will almost certainly lose the House and I would not be surprised if they lost the Senate as well. I never believed that the summer jump in polling was anywhere close to being a real thing. 

Why? Much of it is the Economy. Obviously, things aren't going well right now in the United States to say the least. Everyone is reminded of high gas prices and inflation every time they leave the house and many of us have seen our investments take a hit as well. And I know at my work they are cracking down on overtime and there is even talk of cutting hours to 32 hours a week, which our competitor across town has already done. 

I do have to say that gas prices have actually gone down again after a recent spike. A few weeks ago it was close to $4 a gallon again, but now it has gone back to around $3.50. Wisconsin might be an outlier here and it's not like $3.50 gas is exactly cheap. 

Abortion was never the motivator that the Democrats thought it was. The problem is that the people that were most motivated about it live in solid blue areas. People in red states are actually happy it's gone away and many of them will vote for Republicans to reward them for actually getting Roe v Wade repealed. And I think that the vast majority of people who aren't hardcore pro-life or pro-choice don't actually care about the issue at all. 

I do think that the Politico piece downplayed a few things. The first is the very obvious and incredibly impactful problem that is Joe Biden. Biden is a deeply unpopular president who many people simply can't stand. Even people who approve of his polices, who aren't that common, are turned off by his behavior and it seems as though some of his scandals are finally getting coverage. But even if they weren't the Democrats would still have a major problem with Biden as his approval rate is absolutely terrible. 

I also think that the Democrats are focusing on deeply unpopular things. Much of their woke policies are incredibly divisive at best and some are so far beyond the pale (like pushing trans ideology on school children) that people are getting to be utterly disgusted with them. 

And I can't imagine that spending so much time on January 6th has done them any favors. It seems like one of those classic things that the politicians care about deeply but everyone else is either indifferent on or completely disagree with the conclusions that the Democrats made. I know I have had talks with people and they are either sick and tired of hearing about it or actively wish that the incident was an actual insurrection and wish it had succeeded. 

Of course, historically, the ruling party has had massive problems during midterms. Presidents usually lose seats in the House and Senate during midterms and I doubt this year will be any different. And that's under normal circumstances, 2022 is anything but normal. 

The elephant in the room though is election security. There has been some efforts in red states to try and prevent the idiocy that happened in 2020 so some of the worst abuses may no longer be possible. And the thing to remember with voter fraud and other forms of election interference is that they only really work in a close election. That's why Trump won in 2016, the election wasn't close enough for fraud to work without it being extremely obvious and I think we are heading towards a similar outcome in 2022. 

Finally, I think the real question isn't whether the Democrats lose the House and Senate, but by how much. There is a limit on how many seats in the Senate the Republicans can pick up but the House has all members up for grabs and it could end up with a major upset there. I think a narrow win in the Senate is the most likely scenario, but I would not be surprised if the GOP takes more seats in the house. 

Kanye West agrees to buy conservative Twitter alternative Parler.

 

Kanye West, legally Ye. CNBC/AP.

Kanye West has agreed to buy conservative Twitter alternative Parler in the midst of continued controversy from the troubled star. CNBC. West, who legally changed his name to Ye, said “In a world where conservative opinions are considered to be controversial we have to make sure we have the right to freely express ourselves,”. West has been locked out of his Twitter and Instagram accounts due to accusations of antisemitism. West has the money to buy Parler as his net worth is estimated at $2 billion. Parler emerged as one of many conservative alternatives to Twitter but was briefly banned by Apple and Google Play. 

My Comment:

In interests of disclosure I have an account at Parler. It is not very active. I also have accounts on Twitter and Gab and both of those accounts have a lot more interactions, views and link clicks than I have ever gotten from Parler. Indeed, Parler was so dead that I almost considered closing my account (or simply no longer posting there) and moving to Donald Trump's Truth Social, but I have mostly been too lazy to do so. 

This move might be a good one from Parler's perspective. Kanye West obviously has some deep pockets and this is the first time they have been in the news for quite some time. The move by Apple and Google Play to ban the app pretty much killed the user base and the advent of Truth Social and Gettr have hurt the brand. With West they will be getting some much needed capital and attention. 

But for West it makes very little sense. It seems like he thinks that his legion of fans will follow him to Parler, and I don't know if that is true. Indeed, Parler is so dead that I don't even know if this move will help things. Social media is largely dependent on existing networks so I don't know if people will want to give up Twitter just for him. Indeed, some people might be upset with this enough that they could quit Parler in response. 

Of course the elephant in the room is that West is currently undergoing what appears to be a mental breakdown. He has been accused of anti-Semitism, and some of those accusations actually seem legitimate. He also is pushing the buttons of the far left, even daring to criticize the George Floyd case, which was his latest controversy before the Parler news was announced. West has always been erratic, but he usually had good sense to not hurt his brand, and his most recent comments absolutely have. 

Kanye's comments on Jews that got him suspended on Twitter. 

It really does seem that West just wants a place where he can post about the Jews without getting banned and he is buying Parler to do it. If that's not what he is doing than I would be surprised at this point, but I do have to concede that he is a billionaire and has amassed a huge fortune. Total idiots can't do that. But then again, total idiots also don't bash the Jews on American social media either. I support his right to free speech, but man, he's not making friends here. 

What really gets me is that if he wanted a place to trash Jewish people, he could have easily joined Gab. Gab doesn't really censor anything other than actual illegal content (and pornography, strangely enough,) so if he made an account there he probably could say whatever he wanted without it being an issue. Parler isn't anywhere near as free speech as Gab is and I would think before he bought the company he would have been banned for what he posted about the Jews. Of course, I don't think Gab is actually up for sale though. 

As for conservative social media right now, I think it's a mess and that this probably isn't going to help. There are just too many networks running at once and they all compete with each other. Plus, conservatives are still present in huge numbers on Twitter itself. The presence of four major social networks, Gab, Parler, Gettr and Truth Social, all competing with each other and with Twitter itself, means that everything is pretty damn disorganized. 

Finally, I have to point out that this could just be some kind of stunt. Kanye West is saying a lot of crazy things lately and it's costing him financially, but it could all be in service of something bigger. What that could be is beyond me, but he has done this in the past. Though it is also possible that his bipolar disorder has finally gotten the better of him. Regardless, it's always strange writing about the man, as I have no appreciation of his music whatsoever. He just keeps making the news, and sometimes it's affecting the world in fairly interesting and impactful ways. 

Attack on a Russian Army training session leaves 11 dead and 15 wounded.

 

Russian soldiers. EPA/BBC.

An attack on a Russian Army training session left 11 people dead and 15 wounded. BBC. The two armed men opened fire on a group of recruits that had volunteered to fight in Ukraine. The recruits were being trained on firearms when the attack occurred. The attackers were shot dead during the incident. The Russians have not identified the attackers, only noting that they had came from a former Soviet country and not Russia. It is unclear how the attackers were able to enter Russia and how they gained access to firearms and the training site. Russia is describing the incident as a terror attack. 

My Comment:

Information on this story is fairly scarce which tells me that Russia is pretty embarrassed by it. And for good reason. There was a major breakdown somewhere that allowed these men to not only get into the country, but also to find weapons and gain access to the training field. That is not something that should have happened and it does not speak well of the Russian military that it was allowed to happen. 

I am not surprised that the victims in this attack weren't able to put up a defense. Having been to gun ranges myself, the one thing you expect to hear there is weapons fire. And these were new recruits, not trained soldiers. My guess is that they were not prepared to be thrown into combat so early. On the other hand, the attackers were shot dead in this incident. 

It's very unclear who was responsible for this attack. All the news is saying is that they were from a former Soviet republic, which is a lot of countries. Ukraine is the most obvious suspect and the only country I think that fits that description with people willing to die just to kill some Russian recruits. Given that there is a state of war between Russia and Ukraine, it's absurd that two attackers were able to infiltrate into Russia, if that is indeed what happened. 

I do disagree with the idea that this was a terror attack. After all, a military training facility is pretty obviously a military target. I guess it depends on who pulled off the attack though. If the attackers were members of the Ukraine military then it's legitimate, but if they violated the rules of war or weren't affiliated with the military then it could count as a terror attack. 

I have to say that I have not been that impressed with the Russian military. I'm even less impressed by Ukraine's, so don't get me wrong here. But I can't see this kind of thing happening in America. Sure, there have been mass shootings at military bases before, but I can't see a foreign attacker smuggling in weapons into one of our larger training bases like this. Russia really needs to step up their game if they want to prevent attacks like this in the future. 

I count this at the third major recent failure by Russia's armed forces against unconventional warfare. First there was the Nord Stream pipeline attacks, which, to be far, were fairly difficult to defend against. The second attack was the Kerch Bridge bombing, which could have been prevented with better security. And now there is this attack, which again, could have been prevented or at least mitigated with better security. I think the Russians need to realize that the Ukrainians and their NATO allies are willing to use unconventional warfare against them and they need to take steps to prevent these attacks. 

France says they would not use nuclear weapons against Russia if they use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

 

Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron. Business Insider/Reuters.

French leader Emmanuel Macron has said that France would not use nuclear weapons against Russia in retaliation for any nuclear strike against Ukraine. Business Insider. Macron said that France's nuclear doctrine would not allow a strike under those circumstances. The tone is dramatically different than the United States and the United Kingdom who have not made their nuclear stance clear and have vowed "severe consequences" if Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Macron also said he did not want a nuclear war on Twitter. 

We do not want a World War.

— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) October 13, 2022

My Comment:

Finally, a tiny bit of sanity from a world leader over Ukraine. At the very least this means that France won't be the ones that start World War III. I posted yesterday that I was concerned about a full scale nuclear war between Russia and the west, and though I don't find it extremely likely, I said we are closer to it than we have been at anytime since the Cuban Missile crisis. 

Macron stated the obvious, France has a defensive policy and would not launch nukes because Ukraine got attacked. Supposedly the only countries with a no first use policy are India and China, but France's nuclear forces are defensive. They also have no treaty obligation to defend Ukraine, which is extremely obvious. 

Of course, in a full scale nuclear exchange between Russia and France, I don't think France would do well. France only has a few nukes, mostly based on submarines or aircraft. Russia has them massively outnumbered and outgunned. I know people like to downplay Russia's strength, but they have ICBM's and France does not. 

France also has little at stake when it comes to Ukraine. Even if Ukraine were to fall and Russian divisions were to steamroll over Europe, they still have all of eastern Europe and Germany in the way of the Russians. And that scenario is pretty unlikely to say the least. They also haven't given as much as other countries in Europe to Ukraine. They don't seem skeptical but they do seem to realize they are in financial difficulties and that it doesn't make sense to mortgage their future just in order to mildly inconvenience Russia. 

That doesn't mean that I don't think there is a scenario where France and Russia nuke each other. We don't know what the United States or the United Kingdom would do if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine and if they decide to use them in response than France might tag along for the ride, whether they want to or not. That's the problem with being a junior partner in an alliance like NATO, the US can do whatever they want and they kind of have to follow them. 

I do have to say it's somewhat refreshing to hear a world leader say something sane about Ukraine. I don't have to say how poorly I think of Joe Biden's Ukraine policy and most of Europe is just as bad. In short, Ukraine is not and will never be worth risking a nuclear war with Russia. I just wish that the rest of the world leaders would say the same thing Macron has said today. 

Are we heading to a nuclear war with Russia?

 

Own work. 

In the past few days a few prominent US politicians have raised the specter of nuclear war with Russia. I will post the comments made by Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump below, but are they right? Are we on a path to a nuclear war?

 

Trump on Ukraine: "We must demand the immediate negotiation of a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine or we will end up in World War Three. And there will be nothing left of our planet -- all because stupid people didn't have a clue... They don't understand the power of nuclear." pic.twitter.com/sCAqUVhQQl

— Phil Stewart (@phildstewart) October 9, 2022

I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are… pic.twitter.com/oAuTnxZldf

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 11, 2022

Biden, for his part, disagrees. He says he doesn't think Vladimir Putin would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. He says that Putin is a rational actor and that implies that it would be irrational for Putin to use these weapons. For once, I do agree with Biden here, I don't see Putin using nukes in the short term. 

Why? Because the war isn't going that badly for Russia. Indeed, they appear to be preparing for a major attack and opening up a 2nd major front. This attack from Belarus, which potentially will include troops from Russia's ally, will likely end Ukraine's offensives and may even force them to withdraw. I don't think that the move will lead to a total victory for Russia, but I do think that it will change the momentum in the war. 

I can only see Russia using nuclear weapons if they are losing and right now they are far from that. Crimea is not under threat and Russian forces are stable and not in danger of a route. If both of those things were not true I could see Russia using tactical nukes to beat back the Ukrainians. But as of right now neither of them are even close to being true. 

And it's important to note that a nuclear strike in Ukraine does not necessarily mean a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia. Indeed, there is nothing that says the United States has to respond to that at all, though Biden would be under pressure to do so. And if it does happen, the response would likely be conventional. 

But I think the people that say that Russia would not respond to a conventional attack on their forces by American troops with all out nuclear war are pretty much completely disconnected from reality. If America does attack Russian forces, Russia would risk being totally defenseless and getting routed in Ukraine. I think they would have to respond with their nuclear weapons. And then it's World War III. 

I also think that the chances of nuclear war are higher because of these high tensions. There is always a chance of a random unlucky incident happening. There is always a chance of an air-to-air collision or some other kind of random skirmish that results in all out war. 

Leadership is a big problem now. If something does happen I have zero faith in Joe Biden to do the right thing. Indeed, I think he would fail where previous presidents would have succeeded. Remember, Barack Obama allegedly said "never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up" and I think it's totally true. Biden just isn't capable enough to navigate such a conflict. 

In the past I have said we were closer to nuclear war than we were at anytime since the Able Archer crisis back in 1983. I think we may have surpassed it now, simply because Biden is so incompetent and our diplomats are so out to lunch. I don't think we are at Cuban Missile Crisis levels yet, but we are getting closer everyday. 

Of course there is an obvious off ramp and it's so simple that it's infuriating that it isn't being tried. We have an entire State Department full of diplomats that could be used right now to not only reduce tensions with Russia, but also end the war in Ukraine. They could do it today if they simply organized a cease fire and decided to give Russia some of their demands. But they won't because they are fools... 

Still, though tensions are high and war is more likely than it has been in a long time, I still don't think it will happen in the short term. Like I said, the war in Ukraine would have to be going way worse for the Russians before they would even consider a nuclear strike and even then it might not lead to a full nuclear exchange. I am not happy that the chances are as high as they are, but I am also not too concerned in the short term. But long term? Who knows? 

Biden administration will "reevaluate" relationship with Saudi Arabia.

 

Joe Biden. Reuters. 

The Biden administration says they will "reevaluate" the United States relationship with Saudi Arabia, after the oil producing country decided to cut production. Reuters. Saudi Arabia, along with OPEC, decided to cut production considerably to keep oil prices high. The Biden administration said the Saudis were "in league" with Russia, who supported the decisions. Some Democrats, including Senator Bob Menendez, argued for a complete end to all cooperation with the Saudis, including arms sales. Biden does not have a good personal leadership with the Saudi government and has attacked them for the death of Jamal Khashoggi. It is unclear what actions Biden can even take since Saudi Arabia is a key ally against the threat that Iran poses. 

My Comment:

Though there is much to criticize about Joe Biden, I think it is his foreign policy that has been the biggest failure. Of course most of the attention has gone to Afghanistan and Russia, for obvious reasons, but it's important to note that he has single handedly destroyed the relationship we had with Saudi Arabia, one of our most important and strategic allies. 

And he did it for basically no reason. For some reason, Biden decided to throw away our relationship with a critical ally over Jamal Khashoggi. Though I am sure that Khashoggi was killed by the Saudis, I never understood why we should ever have cared. The Saudis have done way worse stuff than killing some idiot that wrote for the Washington Post. 

It's an utter shame because we were closer to Saudi Arabia than ever when Trump was President. He got them to agree to normalization with Israel, which was utterly amazing. The Saudis had a close relationship Trump and they trusted him. 

But it's clear that they absolutely hate Biden. This was not about Russia at all, it was about how much they are disgusted with Biden. They want prices to remain high so his party gets slammed in the midterms. I don't blame them for it, Biden has been nothing but a thorn in their sides. 

I don't know what Biden could actually do to hurt the Saudis back for hurting his party's chances in November. My guess is that they will probably cut off some support for the war in Yemen, where a ceasefire recently end. The Yemen war is fairly unpopular and it's an open secret that the Americans have been helping the Saudis under the table. 

But I don't think much else will be done. The Saudis really do hold all the cards here. They are the ones that can cut us off from fuel supplies and make our current crisis a hundred times worse. They also know that they are the lynchpin in any US plan for a war with Iran, without Saudi support, the Iranians could probably do what they want. I am guessing that Biden will release a strongly worded statement and nothing much else would happen. 

Russia launches major missile strikes against Ukraine, Belarus may be signaling that they will join the war.

 

A civilian runs in the aftermath of one of the strikes. The Daily Mail/Reuters. 

Russia has launched a major missile and drone strike against Ukraine. The Daily Mail. Russia said the attack was "revenge" for the attack on the Kerch Bridge, which left three people dead and caused a parietal collapse. Russia launched 83 missiles at various infrastructure targets in multiple cities, including the capitol. Kiev claims to have shot down half the missiles, while the others hit in various areas. Casualties were light, with Kiev claiming 11 dead and more wounded. Russia's ally, Belarus, appears to be getting close to joining the war, announcing joint cooperation with Russia and claiming Ukraine was looking to attack them. Belarus has been used as a staging area for Russian troops but have not joined the war so far. Russia says that the attacks, which involved missiles, airplanes and drones, will continue. 

My Comment:

I'm usually fairly critical of the Daily Mail but I have to say that this was a good, even handed report, that explained both sides of the issue without taking sides. I had difficulty finding a source that wasn't either shrilly pro-Ukraine or shrilly pro-Russia. It also had a large series of photos and videos from this attack, so I highly recommend checking the article out. 

The shrillness largely seems to be about this being an attack on civilians. But I think the answer is more about Russia not being all that competent with their long range weapons. Attacking something like the pedestrian bridge makes zero sense as it has little to no military value and isn't even effective as a terror weapon. Instead it just seems like they were shooting at something else and missed. I do think that they weren't particularly worried about hitting civilians, and given the fact that their civilian infrastructure was just hit, I understand why(the Kerch Bridge was a military target given the supplies moving across it, but Nord Stream was absolutely not). 

The Russians were aiming at Ukrainian infrastructure, which is an escalation to the war. In the past Russia only rarely targeted things like power plants and rail lines. I have been fairly critical of this as it hasn't really advanced the Russian cause to hold back like that. Whether that decision was due to incompetence, pragmatism or even a genuine desire to reduce civilian casualties, it has now been reversed in response to the Kerch Bridge bombing. 

The attacks did not seem all that effective in this round. I don't buy Ukrainian claims that they shot down half the missiles, but it does seem that the Russians didn't hit everything they wanted to hit. Indeed, many of the missiles seemed to hit totally randomly, blowing up random buildings and parks. They also seemed to not be using that much of their air power, which is baffling to me. I think they are afraid of SAM sites, but you would think they could try and take those out. Plus they could use their heavy bombers to destroy these targets, even though that would probably lead to more casualties. 

Belarus possibly joining the war is a bigger news story than the strikes though. Belarus has been a major ally to Russia and allowed them to use their country as a staging area in the initial stage of the war, and it looks like they are going to do the same thing again. From what I understand a large number of the Russian reserves are crossing into the country and are preparing for an offensive. 

I don't buy Aleksandr Lukashenko's arguments about Ukraine threatening Belarus. Though they probably would love to shut down the country and force them to stop helping Russia, I don't see how they can. Ukraine does not want to draw Belarus into the war, for reason I will explain below, so I can't imagine them doing anything to provoke Belarus. Then again, I consider Ukraine's leadership to be utterly insane at this point, calling for nukes to be used and other bizarre demands, so I guess anything is possible. 

Belarus is not much of a threat on their own. Their military is fairly small for the size of their country and their weapons are outdated Soviet tech. In a straight up war against Ukraine without Russian help, they would lose, even in Ukraine's degraded state now. And I can't imagine that the quality of the mostly conscripted force. But they are going to have a lot of help from Russia and their troops will act as a force multiplier for them. Indeed, I think the Belarusians will be nothing more than auxiliaries to the main Russian force.   

The main issue is that Ukraine will again face a 2nd front. Assuming these new forces attack in the North, they should be able to easily threaten Kiev, like the Russians did in the early stage of the war, before they retreated. Again, I don't think the objective would be to take and hold Kiev, it would be to draw forces away from the Donbas region and halt the advances the Ukrainians have had in the south and east. 

Will the attack be effective, with the addition of Belarusian troops? Possibly. The Russians should be able to threaten Kiev again easily and that will force the redeployment of troops. Given how committed the Ukrainians were to the offensives they have launched, they may be in serious trouble. But then again, we have seen this before and though I think it allowed the Russians some success in the end the offensive had to be abandoned. Time will tell if the new stage of war will change things fundamentally, or if the current stalemate will continue. 

Gas worker strike in France leads to gasoline shortage.

 

Striking workers start a fire. The Guardian/Reuters.

A gas worker strike in France has lead to a major gasoline shortage. The Guardian. Workers for Exxon Mobil and TotalEnergies are being led by their left wing unions, demanding higher wages. The workers argue that the companies need to raise wages due to higher costs and the fact that they are making a massive amount of money due to higher fuel costs. Three refineries have been blockaded, as well as a fuel depot. The strike have lead to fuel shortages and long lines at gas stations. Formal negotiations are ongoing between the workers and fuel companies. 

My Comment:

This story hasn't gotten much in the way of coverage in western media. But it's a fairly important one given the major impact it is having on France. It also shows what happens when people don't have fuel. Nothing good. The Guardian piece showed how a  man got stabbed for jumping in a fuel line, and if things don't improve that will continue. 

I've got mixed feelings on the strike. I do think that the workers have a point. These oil companies are making record profit and they should share some of that wealth with their workers. After all, if it wasn't for them they wouldn't be making anywhere near as much money. And their strike shows what happens when they don't go to work. 

But I can see the oil companies side of it as well. Energy is a very unstable market, with booms and busts, and I think the energy companies know that an economic downturn is inevitable at this point. Higher wages could be a major liability for them if the economy crashes and demand for fuel collapses. And given the current state of the world, a major recession or even depression seems a lot more likely than continued economic prosperity. 

Regardless, I don't really approve of the way the workers are protesting. They could have simply gone on strike, but they have instead decided to blockade refineries. That's a move that probably does put a lot of pressure on, but it also screws over their countrymen. It's not a good thing when people run out of fuel to run their cars and I wish these workers found a way to protest that didn't involve that. 

I do think that this kind of thing will become more common. Workers are suffering and many of them feel, rightly or wrongly, that their companies are holding back on raising wages. And as prices rise and costs go out of control people are going to demand higher wages. Sometimes they will get it and sometimes they won't and then there will be these kinds of strikes.  

Ukraine damages critical bridge supplying Crimea...

 

A train fuel tanker burns on the rail portion of the bridge. Politico/AFP/Getty.

A truck bomb exploded on the critical Kerch Bridge, which supplied Russian troops and civilians in Crimea. Politico. The bomb killed three people and caused a span of the vehicle portion of the bridge to collapse. It also caused a train fuel tanker to burst into flames. Russia has already reopened the undamaged section of the bridge and will be sending trains through soon as well. Kiev hasn't taken responsibility for the attack but Russia is blaming them for it. The bridge is a critical pipeline for supplying both Russian troops in southern Ukraine as well as the many civilians who live in Crimea. The attack is a major escalation in the course of the war. 

WATCH: Moment of massive explosion on Crimea's Kerch bridge. This is the only bridge to connect Russia to Crimea

pic.twitter.com/o7Vyzgn3lR

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) October 8, 2022

My Comment:

This is the 2nd major attack on Russian infrastructure in recent memory and one that could be even more significant than the bombing of Nordstream. The Kerch bridge is Russia's main supply route, not only to Crimea, but to the front in Ukraine. The attempt to destroy it means that the gloves are probably going to come off from the Russian side now. 

What is surprising to me is that the bombing appears to be a suicide bombing. At the very least the driver of the truck did not survive, and neither did the people in the vehicles that were unlucky enough to be close to it. It's not clear if the driver was even in on the operation, it's possible that he was an innocent person that just happened to be unlucky enough to pick up the wrong load. But if he was aware of what was happening it's a major concern that Ukraine is now resorting to ISIS style suicide attacks. 

Was the bridge a military target? Kind of. It certainly was being used to transport weapons and troops over. But it was also a major civilian road too and it's clear that the Russians in Crimea would have been screwed had the bombing destroyed the whole bridge. But given the fact that Russia was using the bridge to transport troops, it was probably fair game, ignoring the horrible way they pulled off the attack. 

Of course just because a target is fair game does not mean it is wise to make an attack there. The Kerch Bridge has huge symbolic importance to the Russians as well, and Russia will be furious that there was an attempt to cut of civilians from the supplies they need from Russia. It's also important to note that even the Biden White House thought attacking the Kerch Bridge was a bad idea, that's why they didn't allow Ukraine to use the HIMARS MLRS against it. 

I also have to point out that this attack failed in its objective. Traffic is still going through the bridge, both on the vehicle portion and the rail portion. Only a span or two collapsed and it shouldn't be that difficult to replace it. Given the blowback I would say that this attack was not worth it for that reason alone. 

Russia is sure to respond against this, my guess by targeting Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. Russia has been fighting this war with their hands tied behind their back and I think that due to this attack and the attack against the Nord Stream pipelines, that is going to change. I wouldn't be surprised if Ukrainian bridges, pipelines, railways and highways will be attacked in return. 

Regardless, the Ukraine conflict is spiraling out of control. Russia is playing for keeps and once they get their troops organized, I am expecting a rather large offensive, and one where the Russians will no longer be screwing around. Once the troops they mobilized reach the front lines, they will likely finally outnumber the Ukrainians, which was a huge reason why the Ukrainians have have success in taking back territory. 

Given the chance of a nuclear conflict in this war, I think it's high time that the diplomats are again allowed to do their work. It's clear that things are not going well there in general and the longer the war goes on the worse it would be. But other than Elon Musk, nobody seems to be trying to make this happen. And honestly, I am so pessimistic about it, it's the reason I didn't even bother to write a post up yesterday. I'm afraid that this is all going to get so much worse before it gets better...