Posted On: Thursday - June 5th 2025 10:10PM MST
In Topics: The Russians Trump The Neocons World Political Stupidity
Peak Stupidity has reported on almost nothing and personally not kept up with the Ukraine/Russia war since early on. Our opinion is that the America Government Neocons should not have instigated it 11 years ago, we should not have been involved, and that all having happened, President Trump should keep a promise and get us uninvolved.
Donald Trump's ego has had him wanting to be the peacemaker that put the whole world at peace. Take the Middle East, please! Come on! American Presidents have been trying to "solve" the problems there since, in my own memory, Jimmy Carter. He thought he had it licked. That was almost a half century ago.
Then, Jimmy Carter and the rest of them with the hubris to think they could settle things did not write The Art of the Deal. Trump has fancied himself a great dealmaker in his businesses - perhaps he was - and figured he could do some great deals as President. Really, as far as the Bully Pulpit and international diplomacy goes, that's what you want, a good dealmaker. I was pretty impressed myself seeing Trump in action, almost as if in a reality TV show, during that Zelensky press conference 3 months back.
The American President still has some pull, especially regarding wars that America pours money into. However, obviously Trump's dealmaking on the Ukraine/Russia, with all that pull he has, has gone off the rails. Peak Stupidity has gotten interested at this point because the drone attack on those Russian nuclear bombers* has even us pretty worried about ensuing escalation.
A friend sent me a short video with some discussion of this attack on the latest (can't find it on yt right now) podcast by Irishman George Galloway, who advertises his videos as MOATS, Mother Of All Talkshows. One major point his discussion hinges on is that the Ukraine could not have carried out these attacks without help from American satellites for guidance. I don't know enough to dispute this. Assuming this, Mr. Galloway summed things up pretty simply:
If President Trump actually knew about this attack beforehand, he is pretty heavily on the side of The Ukraine at this point. One couldn't expect any more diplomacy out of Vladimir Putin and Russia. Also, it'd make Trump a liar (and no longer just a bragging bullshitter). If President Trump didn't know, then he is not really in charge as Commander-in-Chief, seeing as NeoCon Senators Graham and Blumenthal and others must have helped make this attack successful behind the President's back. Whatever diplomatic efforts he's made will be meaningless if Trump's not in a position to guarantee what promises come out of his mouth.
What would one expect the Russians to do at this point? Do these NeoCons really believe we're (via the Ukraine) going to destroy this major power without any pain? By pain, I mean some real destruction. How reckless are these NeoCons? Who do they really work for?
We will see what kind of retaliation will ensue. With a significant part (40%?) of their nuclear bomber fleet destroyed, perhaps the Russians will figure they might as well use the rest of them.
With the benefit of hindsight, historians have often wondered how Europe could have blundered into the huge waste of men's lives that was World War I. Couldn't have it been prevented easily enough?
Regarding the Cold War, even in hindsight, it's not easy to figure how that 40 year stand-off in Europe and in proxy locations on other continents could have been avoided. Communists of the 2nd World** were not going to stop trying to corrupt and convert one country after another, and the non-Communist Free (1st) World worked to contain it. That there were thousand of ballistic missiles, sub-based missiles and on-alert bombers that could be used in anger very quickly made this period a time of general worry. Something really bad could happen at any time, if someone slipped up.
Thanks to President Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, the old Pope Paul II from Poland, and millions of American military men, engineers, and technicians, the Cold War was put to an end just over 35 years ago. The Soviet Union Russkies became simply Russians again. The threat of nuclear war was drastically reduced.
What has been done since then? Instead of enjoying the "peace dividend" and our fleeting Sole Superpower status, America has slowly boxed non-Communist Russia into a corner with NATO, an organization that was obsolete as soon as the Cold War ended. Now, we've got crazy NeoCons recklessly bent on destruction of Russia, seemingly not caring that Russia is still a heavily nuclear-armed nation.
You thought that Doomsday Clock and Defcon stuff is only something from old movies and the memories of older Americans? It can come back. To think that these blundering moves toward another Defcon 5, happening in front of our eyes, can be seen as stupidity even in foresight!
During these Cold War high Defcon level times, at least you figured smart people would de-escalate things. Now, where are all the smart people? I don't see ANY smart people involved.
Peak Stupidity may be the least of our worries.
Good night. Sleep tight.
* They've been exposed due to a treaty with the US to, yeah, prevent nuclear war with more visibility.
** That term wasn't used much, but it was implied that the Communist Bloc - and China - were the 2nd World, to explain why the 3rd World was called that.
Comments:
GautengVol
Saturday - June 7th 2025 12:43AM MST
PSSome good points there Alarmist. Russia has all the advantages right now, unlike at the start of WW1 and WW2, yet Russia is just relaxing there in Ukraine. When you have the advantage you are supposed to beat the living daylights out of your opponents, something the West has been doing for like forever now. But Russia can't bothered, that's Russia for you.
It was back in 2017 when I first heard that Russia was expecting war from Europe, though they weren't certain if it was going to be a Muslim Europe or a Christian Europe that was going to attack them. So they were just going to wait and see what happens. Currently Europe needs 5 more years to build itself up for war, and any weapons production pipeline needs more than green energy so European rearmament is unlikely to happen. Plus Europe is going LGBT and Sharia as well, so from a conventional weapons perspective Europe is no threat.
Russia has enough resources for an 80 year war, and can call on the human resources of the whole of East Asia if required. Already North Korea is game for this. China has happily sent troops to serve amongst North Korea troops against Western forces in the past. But Russia has either fallen for that "its better to win without fighting" Chinese nonsense, or the Russians have more interest in the vodka bottle than in war.
That Deagle report had better hurry up, its half way through 2025 already. People have retired and passed on waiting for the Deagle report to come to fruition.
It was back in 2017 when I first heard that Russia was expecting war from Europe, though they weren't certain if it was going to be a Muslim Europe or a Christian Europe that was going to attack them. So they were just going to wait and see what happens. Currently Europe needs 5 more years to build itself up for war, and any weapons production pipeline needs more than green energy so European rearmament is unlikely to happen. Plus Europe is going LGBT and Sharia as well, so from a conventional weapons perspective Europe is no threat.
Russia has enough resources for an 80 year war, and can call on the human resources of the whole of East Asia if required. Already North Korea is game for this. China has happily sent troops to serve amongst North Korea troops against Western forces in the past. But Russia has either fallen for that "its better to win without fighting" Chinese nonsense, or the Russians have more interest in the vodka bottle than in war.
That Deagle report had better hurry up, its half way through 2025 already. People have retired and passed on waiting for the Deagle report to come to fruition.
The Alarmist
Friday - June 6th 2025 11:12AM MST
PS
Back in Cold War 1.0, both sides each had roughly seven to eight times the nuclear weapons they have today, considerably more delivery systems, and considerably less ISR to keep track of where all the pieces were on the strategic chessboard.
The Russians probably figured the US would keep its client state on a shorter leash when it comes to strategic weapons and warning systems. I would imagine they’ve been disabused of that notion, though the strikes on the early warning radars a while back should have already done that.
The problem for Mr. Putin is that even a relatively weaker NATO, including the US, can still inflict substantial damage, particularly since it almost certainly will find it necessary to go nuclear early in the exchange, so he would want to ensure his defences can absorb the inevitable first-strike from the West. Forty years ago that would not be possible, but with far fewer delivery systems and weapons now facing off against S-400 and S-500 A/D systems that have proven capable of hitting hypersonic re-entry vehicles, it could well be that Russia is ready to go.
Maybe that is why Deagle predicted a few years back that there would be up to 70% population losses in NATO countries in 2025, while showing minimal losses in Russia and China.
As for “nuclear winter,” it might have been something in a world where 60k to 80k nuclear weapons were unleashed, but far less likely with only 12k being loosed.
Despite all the obvious realities, the Neocons think they can do a “Bolt out of the Blue” first-strike and walk away the winners.
FEMA (we in the business used to call them FEEBLE) can’t even handle big rain events. It would be interesting to see how they handle a smoking, radiating ruin with 65 million very pissed off survivors.
The folks in DC, London, Paris, and Berlin probably hope most of their populations are wiped out quickly so there is nobody around to fill the airshafts on their bunkers with concrete.
🕉
Back in Cold War 1.0, both sides each had roughly seven to eight times the nuclear weapons they have today, considerably more delivery systems, and considerably less ISR to keep track of where all the pieces were on the strategic chessboard.
The Russians probably figured the US would keep its client state on a shorter leash when it comes to strategic weapons and warning systems. I would imagine they’ve been disabused of that notion, though the strikes on the early warning radars a while back should have already done that.
The problem for Mr. Putin is that even a relatively weaker NATO, including the US, can still inflict substantial damage, particularly since it almost certainly will find it necessary to go nuclear early in the exchange, so he would want to ensure his defences can absorb the inevitable first-strike from the West. Forty years ago that would not be possible, but with far fewer delivery systems and weapons now facing off against S-400 and S-500 A/D systems that have proven capable of hitting hypersonic re-entry vehicles, it could well be that Russia is ready to go.
Maybe that is why Deagle predicted a few years back that there would be up to 70% population losses in NATO countries in 2025, while showing minimal losses in Russia and China.
As for “nuclear winter,” it might have been something in a world where 60k to 80k nuclear weapons were unleashed, but far less likely with only 12k being loosed.
Despite all the obvious realities, the Neocons think they can do a “Bolt out of the Blue” first-strike and walk away the winners.
FEMA (we in the business used to call them FEEBLE) can’t even handle big rain events. It would be interesting to see how they handle a smoking, radiating ruin with 65 million very pissed off survivors.
The folks in DC, London, Paris, and Berlin probably hope most of their populations are wiped out quickly so there is nobody around to fill the airshafts on their bunkers with concrete.
🕉
Moderator
Friday - June 6th 2025 8:14AM MST
PS: Interesting comment, GautengVol, but I don't know about this part: "Russia knows the longer the war takes to start the more likely it is that Russia will be facing a Muslim Europe and not a Christian Europe, ..."
That's thinking pretty long-term, at least a few decades more, and that's if the Euro's don't finally do something... serious. I wouldn't completely count that out. In the meantime, the Russians would probably want to end this damn war a lot sooner than in decades. They might have noticed the extreme money wastage and worthlessness of US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's thinking pretty long-term, at least a few decades more, and that's if the Euro's don't finally do something... serious. I wouldn't completely count that out. In the meantime, the Russians would probably want to end this damn war a lot sooner than in decades. They might have noticed the extreme money wastage and worthlessness of US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Moderator
Friday - June 6th 2025 8:11AM MST
PS: There's another side of that, SafeNow, in which both the left and right, for different reasons, made any nuclear war between the US and the USSR into the end of mankind or even the world. I remember quite well Carl Sagan, and his "Nuclear Winter" theory from the early '80s IIRC. Not too many people think it was a good model at this point.
That doesn't mean any widespread nuclear exchange won't be hellacious for all involved. Those under 40 y/o would remember almost nothing about the Cold War times and why people were worried.
Thanks for that story about the viewing of "On the Beach".
Years later, early '80s also, I believe, "The Day After" was broadcast all over TV, this in the day that there were just the 3 channels for most people, so there had to be a big audience. I didn't watch it, as already knew that the agenda on that would be left-wing. "Let's just disarm unilaterally. The Russians love their children too."
That doesn't mean any widespread nuclear exchange won't be hellacious for all involved. Those under 40 y/o would remember almost nothing about the Cold War times and why people were worried.
Thanks for that story about the viewing of "On the Beach".
Years later, early '80s also, I believe, "The Day After" was broadcast all over TV, this in the day that there were just the 3 channels for most people, so there had to be a big audience. I didn't watch it, as already knew that the agenda on that would be left-wing. "Let's just disarm unilaterally. The Russians love their children too."
GautengVol
Friday - June 6th 2025 2:11AM MST
PSRussia is stupid, the Start Treaty specifies that strategic offensive weapons like heavy bombers must be parked in the open so that they can be verified via satellite. Even though Russia suspended its participation in the Start Treaty in the last few years it did not put its bombers undercover. It was a costly mistake but will Russia learn from this costly mistake? No. Proof that Russia doesn't learn from its mistakes is the recent explosions near the Kerch bridge. They know everyone wants to blow that bridge up yet they don't defend it properly.
Russia currently enjoys a 5 year lead when it comes to the conventional weapons production pipeline, and Russia currently has more nukes and better missiles to deliver those nukes, so right now Russia can't be defeated conventionally or with nukes. Most Western nuclear missiles will not get through Russia's AD while most Russian nuclear missiles will hit their target. Good luck with your still to be developed Golden Dome Trump. Right now the only reliable way to hit Russia is with a nuclear missile strike from Turkey, there is a reason why medium and intermediate range nuclear missiles have been unbanned by the USA.
Russia knows the longer the war takes to start the more likely it is that Russia will be facing a Muslim Europe and not a Christian Europe, hence Russia's SloMO approach in Ukraine. And those Muslims, they don't aim their rifles, they just shoot confident that if Allah wills the bullet to hit its target the bullet will hit its target. Plus those Muslims, they can't do combined arms, the army can't attack while the air force strikes because the air force might bomb some generals in the army. Similarly the army can't attack while the artillery bombs because some generals in the artillery might take action against some generals in the army. Low trust barbarians. Nuff said.
Russia currently enjoys a 5 year lead when it comes to the conventional weapons production pipeline, and Russia currently has more nukes and better missiles to deliver those nukes, so right now Russia can't be defeated conventionally or with nukes. Most Western nuclear missiles will not get through Russia's AD while most Russian nuclear missiles will hit their target. Good luck with your still to be developed Golden Dome Trump. Right now the only reliable way to hit Russia is with a nuclear missile strike from Turkey, there is a reason why medium and intermediate range nuclear missiles have been unbanned by the USA.
Russia knows the longer the war takes to start the more likely it is that Russia will be facing a Muslim Europe and not a Christian Europe, hence Russia's SloMO approach in Ukraine. And those Muslims, they don't aim their rifles, they just shoot confident that if Allah wills the bullet to hit its target the bullet will hit its target. Plus those Muslims, they can't do combined arms, the army can't attack while the air force strikes because the air force might bomb some generals in the army. Similarly the army can't attack while the artillery bombs because some generals in the artillery might take action against some generals in the army. Low trust barbarians. Nuff said.
SafeNow
Thursday - June 5th 2025 11:32PM MST
PS
Stupidity about escalation risk is one kind of stupidity. But never discussed is the other way in which the not-smart people are not smart: They
do not have an accurate conception of what a nuclear exchange would be like. Not in an engineering and scientific sense, and not in visceral sense. A few years ago, the public-safet authority in New York City released a video of what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. It was preposterous. It basically told people to duck for cover inside a building, and when they all-clear sounds, exit the building, and brush yourself off. It ignored the inconvenient fact that the building, and the people ducking for cover, will have been vaporized.
Back in 1959, when the post-nuclear-war movie On the Beach was released, special showings were arranged for world leaders. This would make for a good start right now. It would convey that visceral sense of the immensity of grief and loss that awaits us. Maybe the impact upon world leaders viewing it would be, as Coleridge wrote, A sadder and a wiser man I rose the morrow morn.
Back in the Reagan years some authorities were saying if there were a nuclear exchange, everything would be back to normal in five years. One wag replied that it takes five years for an expansion franchise to become competitive.
Stupidity about escalation risk is one kind of stupidity. But never discussed is the other way in which the not-smart people are not smart: They
do not have an accurate conception of what a nuclear exchange would be like. Not in an engineering and scientific sense, and not in visceral sense. A few years ago, the public-safet authority in New York City released a video of what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. It was preposterous. It basically told people to duck for cover inside a building, and when they all-clear sounds, exit the building, and brush yourself off. It ignored the inconvenient fact that the building, and the people ducking for cover, will have been vaporized.
Back in 1959, when the post-nuclear-war movie On the Beach was released, special showings were arranged for world leaders. This would make for a good start right now. It would convey that visceral sense of the immensity of grief and loss that awaits us. Maybe the impact upon world leaders viewing it would be, as Coleridge wrote, A sadder and a wiser man I rose the morrow morn.
Back in the Reagan years some authorities were saying if there were a nuclear exchange, everything would be back to normal in five years. One wag replied that it takes five years for an expansion franchise to become competitive.
https://www.google.com/search?q=beach+1959&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:25c8de14,vid:dNNsahI49IE,st:0
At 126:40
On the Beach. “How did the war start?” scene.
Gregory Peck, Anthony Perkins, Ava Gardner, Fred Astaire.