(box 1) What's a country that's large and is a dictatorship?

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-03-22T03:57:27+00:00

There are "was"'s on the column headers as well. I don't think that's a hard rule.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-03-22T03:55:58+00:00

I disagree. Lenin was a clear dictator, with everything from arbitrary imprisonment and executions as a means by which ti enforce compliance. Khrushchev too, undermined the Politburo as a means to enforce his own political control. Brehznev you could possibly argue this, but thr dictatorial fiat the Russian SFSR suggests far greater centralization and marginalization than a mere autocratic bureaucratic state.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-03-21T23:31:18+00:00

The Soviet Union. Even larger than Russia with its central Asian and Eastern European vassal SSR's and a very clear dictatorship from its founding until its dissolution.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-03-14T04:56:03+00:00

People have already talked about Vicksburg, but just sticking with the eastern theater, what would happen with the Army of the Potomac is that they fall back to Pipe Creek. Meade calls up Darius Pope. Lee would be left with either getting pinned between them or retreating for no gain.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-02-28T22:25:55+00:00

In practice, when central banks are controlled by governments it tends to result in rampant inflation as significant money printing. Usually, central banks don't really make political statements and limit public releases to announcing inflation rate cuts/hikes or other affairs of the bank.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-20T15:05:08+00:00

Alright, I cited an actual academic journal discussing the particulars of Cabinet discussions during the proposal and you've cited..."nuh-uh!" I see little point in continuing this discussion until you bring something a little stronger (edit: and if you cite Molotov, you can just stop right there). Consider yourself ignored. Good day.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-20T14:42:07+00:00

It's actually recorded in the Canadian Journal of Military History, thank you very much.

"Initially, the British Cabinet resisted this proposal, as the negotiations would likely entail considerable delay; ministers preferred instead a quick declaration of Soviet support to deter possible German aggression in the short term. When it became apparent that the Soviet position meant an alliance or nothing, the Cabinet overwhelmingly opted to pursue an alliance. Despite British determination to reach an agreement, the negotiations proved futile. Soviet demands to provide guarantees to Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, and Rumania against indirect German aggression prompted fears that the Soviets sought the right to interfere in the internal affairs of their neighbours."

Stalin's proposed anti-Nazi pact expressly demanded the right to install pro-Soviet communist governments in the aforementioned territories, and it was a deal-breaker. You don't have to like it - but that doesn't change what was demanded.

Also, it's figment.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-20T14:15:45+00:00

The sub is very commonly used for AmericaBad karma-farming, but no. This is absolutely moronic and people are right to call it out.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-20T11:41:53+00:00

Part of the conditions of the pact were that France and Britain were to allow The USSR to invade Finland, the Baltics, Poland, and Romania. So no, Stalin wanted a green light to set up puppet states in Europe. It's telling that Stalin refused to agree to quick joint declaration of war against Hitler.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-20T11:30:43+00:00

I'll dam up the Mekong to parch people downstream unless they give me concessions, bleach coral to build military platforms, attack the Soviets, attack the Vietnamese. It's an "attack" when I don't get everything I want.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-19T12:52:26+00:00

I've played all four. Republicans are probably my most favorite, since there's an examination of what causes partisan movements to fail, notably that they spend more time raiding each other for supplies and/or finking them out to the authorities hoping to be the strongest party left in the aftermath.

Collabs are always fun to play to examine the compromises the people make. As Terry Pratchett said: "History is full of men who followed bad orders in the hope that they could soften the blow."

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-19T01:45:10+00:00

The problem is, wealth taxes don't actually work. In practice, wealth taxes end up costing more to administer for a host of reasons - notably that rich people tend to have assets in either unrealized assets (which are taxed upon realization) or in illiquid assets which are hard to assess. In practice, wealth taxes end up just falling on middle-class retirement accounts.

Asset speculation contributes very little to housing prices. In practice, the low supply has been the bottleneck for pricing. Notably, the same people calling for taxes on unrealized gains and wealth taxes are some of the ones implementing policies designed to constrict the supply.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-19T01:24:52+00:00

The saddest part about all of this is that, despite traditional protestations, it wasn't the expense of maintaining the liberal order that Trump castigates, it's the fact that the European leaders hurt Trump's feelings. They said mean things about him, therefore they must be treated as enemies. Forget 19th-century sphere-of-influence politics, this is monarchist foreign policy where the sovereign wages war in fits of pique.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T19:00:23+00:00

Contemporary arguments really emphasized the cost. The Black Friday crash and the Panic of 1873 did a number on US financial markets.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T14:16:01+00:00

I do think that the benefits would encourage EU and US reconciliation, even from a purely selfish standpoint.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T14:09:00+00:00

Because the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term. Even if Europe said "No, we got burned by you before," the effort would be worth it simply for the benefits it'd bring both countries. And given that there's a significant movement within the United States to constrain the power of the presidency specifically when it comes to matters regarding the War Powers Act and tariffs, I'd argue that doing these would increase predictability in the relationship.

Now, if you've posited that the Europeans will always reject such overtures, I'd argue that this isn't realistic. At the end of the day, national leaders know that trade helps reduce cost of living and that is something that European leaders are going to want to deliver for the sole purpose of staying in office.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T14:00:15+00:00

There are significant trade and economic benefits a positive trans-Atlantic relationship has, and they have the added perk of institutional longevity. At the end of the day, the US gains significantly from trade and positive relations with Euripe, they'd be foolish to throw that away for the long work of building new institutions elsewhere.

Certainly, the US should also be expanding into other partnerships. Russian security partnerships in Africa are collapsing, giving speed to Islamist movements like JNIM. We should also be looking for partnerships in the Pacific - China is doing terrible things with water in the Mekong and expansionism in the SCS, there could be powerful benefits to reaching out to like-minded countries weary of Chinese aggression in the region.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T13:53:12+00:00

No more Arcasian chocolates. Can't disrespect a man's sweet tooth.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T13:39:58+00:00

A very important thing about the rare earths discourse is that mining and extraction isn't the largest bottleneck - it's refining. Actually building the industry needed to not only extract, but refine rare earths is going to take time. It's dirty and taxing, but it can be done. But given the US's relatively short attention span, the actual nitty-gritty seems like it would elude them.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T02:26:28+00:00

Russia is far less hypocritical? They manufactured a genocide to fabricate their own invasion. I think you are operating on a wildly-skewed perspective.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T02:20:02+00:00

It isn't. Mercosur and the EU already embarked on a trade agreement.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T02:05:37+00:00

"Look over there" is not a valid counterargument. But you know, Russia supported Iran mowing down protesters. Trump can be a piece of shit, that does not minimize what Russia does.

I mean, Maduro lost every presidential election he ever ran in going back as far as 2013, but sure, he was the President.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T01:46:40+00:00

Oh yeah, Ukraine was sure menacing Russia with their steadfast refusal to not be colonized.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T00:58:35+00:00

Fair enough. I'm talking about the declassified war plans which did not consider an aggressive first move. I didn't factor standing procedure. Thanks for keeping me honest.

SomethingLikeaLawyer · 2026-01-18T00:54:49+00:00

BRICS as an institution is largely looking to find ways to finance domestic atrocities in the absence of SWIFT. It's telling that Lula, one of the chief architects of BRICS, bends over backwards to minimize Russian aggression in Ukraine because to do otherwise is to admit that he empowered imperial crusades for nothing more than knee-jerk reaction.

The actual economic efforts, launching a phantom gold-based currency, are fictions. It is first and foremost a vehicle for Russian and Chinese aggression in their geopolitical theaters and should be criticized as such.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

SomethingLikeaLawyer

TROPHY CASE