SL Xpress

I know I'm Debbie Downer, and the team deserves our full support, but this is at the heart of my mixed feelings regarding their every success. It's not fair to the team. Heck, it's not fair to the staff, up to and including Rodney Terry. But I'm really unexcited about that guy being the next head coach. I know who that guy is. He's not changing. Expecting him to be better is not realistic, and won't happen. It doesn't mean he'll be bad, but he won't be great, and after not being great for 5 years we'll give someone else a crack at it. But it's not like there would be any guarantee if someone else got the job. I'd just prefer to roll the coach hiring dice with another option and see how it goes. I guess I just hope it ends up being enough of a magical season so the next five years of somewhat disappointing results ends up being worth it.

If I'm trying to spin Russia's efforts in the best way possible, I'd say that they've taken over a significant portion of Ukraine. Ukraine no longer has a presence on the Sea of Azov. Russia now has a land bridge across occupied territory from Rostov-on-Don to Crimea. Their forces abut the left bank of the Dnipro River, which is extremely defensible. They've built extensive fortifications across the front lines, including north of Melitopol. Of a pre invasion population of around 44 million, they've forced out 8 million refugees, many of whom will never return home. They've significantly degraded Ukraine's infrastructure. Beyond that, it's tough. Russia is in a much worse situation than they were by almost any measure prior to prosecuting this war. Their biggest hope is that the West fails to sustain its collective support for Ukraine in a push to take better care of people at home, rather than sending off billions to Eastern Europe - in the US's case, hundreds of billions. Without that Russia is doomed to fail. I don't mean they're doomed in accomplishing their war aims of demilitarizing Ukraine, setting up a puppet state, and taking over the whole of the Donbas and keeping the land bridge to Crimea, possibly even locking out Ukraine from the Black Sea by taking Odessa. I mean at best if the West continues to up the ante they'll be able to keep the smallest sliver of the Donbas that shares a border with Russia, and that's it. If there's some kind of transition at the top, chances are they abandon that to shift military resources elsewhere for the new leadership to secure power. If this was a pre atomic war, Russia would be in severe danger of losing some of its territory to other states. I don't think that's the echo chamber speaking. I think that's a realistic appraisal for how this war has gone for them.

The good news is he’ll only be here 4 to 5 years at the most.

Here's an article from France 24 that has the first mentions in print and photographs of a new defensive line being built behind Bakhmut for when it falls. There's also an interesting part about Ukrainian helicopter pilots. I've honestly never seen quotes from a Ukrainian helicopter pilot until now. "The manual says to fly no lower than 20 meters above the ground. Because of manpad radars I fly no higher than 5 meters above the ground." A lot of comments about the need for western equipment and ammunition. https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230216-we-have-to-take-more-risks-ukrainian-forces-hold-the-line-as-battle-for-donbas-heats-up

So weird that a people used to an autocracy throughout their history, who suddenly live in a struggling democracy where the economy is completely wrecked, then end up gravitating towards a ruthless dictator. I can't think of anything similar happening in the last 100 years. BTW, the person bemoaning the loss of the Politburo was a minister from Finland. I believe she stated something along the lines of, "I can't believe I miss the Politburo."

I regret coming to this thread, but I enjoyed this bit thoroughly. Thank you for posting it.

Let's say you're a betting man, jimmyjazz. What are the chances of that happening? Forget Texas fans. Any fan base.

Almost every great conflict seems like an exaggeration. Sometimes they're so one sided they're not considered a great conflict. I still think the greatest risk to Ukraine is the West losing the political will to support them at this level. And in fact, I believe they'll need to support them at an even higher level to achieve a successful prosecution of this war, which I think of as the return of Crimea and at least a limit to how much of the Donbas Russia controls. But we're a long ways from that. But war is about resources. By itself, Ukraine simply doesn't have the resources to match up. But with the West, they have a massive advantage. It's just fun to see the current Russian winter offensive look so completely inept, and I'd like to see that part continue.

I keep getting worried that things aren't going to go the way I want them to, and then Russia comes through in the clutch and fucks everything up. It makes no sense to massively deploy the air force if they didn't previously. I've posted about the reports that they've amassed a considerable part of their fixed and rotary wing aircraft closer to the border. But I have no confidence in Russia's ability to coordinate effective air strikes, either alongside their ground forces or simply with their other attack craft. About the only thing I get concerned about is a lack of ammunition for whatever S-300s and other anti air systems Ukraine possesses, before the Western anti air come on line. At this point there's a part of me that even questions how much of the air force they actually deploy. The official soundtrack for the Russian military is the Benny Hill theme.

I absolutely agree, but there's still some nuance. For example, I don't think it makes sense for the US to start firing missiles into Russian forces around Belgorod. That seems like a dumb risk. I don't think it makes sense to send in NATO pilots to create a no fly zone. I don't think it makes sense to blockade shipping traffic and Russian naval ships from entering and exiting ports. The big one right now, as evidenced by Blinken's recent comments, is Ukraine's ability to retake Crimea, which I hope we support. Sevastopol is the single biggest asset in the entire occupied area, with very real and historic/mythical meaning for both sides. That was the primary reason for the taking of Crimea in the first place, and when that was successfully prosecuted with no shots fired and no real consequences from the west, led to the Russian special forces helping to create the separation of the Donbas region. It's unclear to me if Ukraine can take Melitopol, but if it can, and then hold it, it will put tremendous pressure on all Russian forces in Crimea and the Dnipro River's left bank. I'd love to see that happen, and for it to succeed to the point Crimea is surrendered to Ukraine. But does the US stop supporting Ukraine under those conditions in fear of a nuclear war? Does Putin finally blow a gasket and do something stupid and rash because he's dying anyway? I mean, in truth, I want to find out - specifically because of your reasoning - but I'd really really really prefer the answer be Putin gets sulky and pouty...or dead...rather than he gets angry enough to unleash a nuclear attack.

I'm absolutely sure that's true, but there's more to it than that. You can be unwaveringly loyal but if a rival manages to undercut you in a successful way, you can still find yourself hoisted out a window. Simply chalking it up to unwavering loyalty IMO discounts the man. He's around a lot of ambitious, ruthless men who understand one misstep in the game they're playing means they go from extreme wealth and power to dead in an instant. You can't seem too smart, or too ambitious, or you're dead. You can't seem too incompetent, or you're dead. You have to figure out who to trust, who to scapegoat, and when. It's not actually simple by any means. The problem is, being successful in that dynamic is not actually about running an effective department. In fact, it could very well be that a key to Shiogu's life span is that he's looked down upon by other military leaders, which makes him less of a threat to Putin. The last thing they want is Shiogu in charge, and so Putin has Shiogu's loyalty, but he also indirectly has other people's loyalty as well. Which means that Shiogu has to be careful who he makes friends with, as much as who he makes his enemy. That was Putin's key to his early political success. He didn't eliminate all his political opponents. He made sure he got rid of the effective ones, so only the ones who wouldn't be taken seriously were left. It doesn't really matter. The guy is terrible at his job. Good. But I can't help but be fascinated by the dynamics. My Dad had a phrase he got from W.E. Deming which I then stole from him, "What gets measured gets done." Which is true in the productive sense, but also in the unproductive sense. If you're measuring the wrong things, then that's still what people are going to tend to do. Russia as a country measures the wrong things to be effective in their war against Ukraine. In any case, there's a part of me that's impressed by Shiogu. He's got something figured out in a way people around him don't.

I think it was one of Perun's slideshows that talked about how we measure Shoigu with some of the wrong metrics. Since he's in charge of the military, we measure him by his effectiveness at running the military, when in many ways he should be measured by his effectiveness in staying in power with no real military experience while his rivals exit out windows. In other words, people keep screaming about his incompetence, but he's plenty competent. The problem is that the Russian system rewards competence in areas that are not actually reflected in productivity or effectiveness.

Charges dropped. Contriteness. That's how it was always going to go down. I mean, we'll hear it a lot more over the years. He'll probably lead in with it if he's ever coaching against UT again, which he likely will.

I can't get the sound to come on, much to my chagrin. But she's adorable.

I loved the article. Thanks for posting. That said, "...and some Russian regions bordering Ukraine are coming under almost daily shelling." Wut?

On that note, here's a plaintive cry from PMC Wagner artillery men begging for ammunition. You hate to see it:

Well, I'd respond that every hire is Russian Roulette to some extent. Also, the events of that night didn't occur because everything in that relationship was going swimmingly. Disregarding the obvious accusations of domestic abuse, simply the scene painted prior to those alleged occurrences didn't paint a rosy picture for the two of them staying together. And in the end, he's the one who chose to be with her and stick with her for all this time. Who is to say his judgment is better with the next one, if they do break up? At the end of the day the guy knows how to put together a winning basketball team. It's amazing how much that can overshadow any other perceived or real character flaws. I'll say this, though. I'm rooting for some kind of implosion at his next stop, as long as no one gets hurt. I know that much.

"The biggest mistake the Russian army made was sending tanks to Ukraine, they should've sent their windows instead, far more deadly."

Yes. Nightmares about bugs pouring out of a cut in my lip are fine, too. It’s all fine. It’sFine.jpg

I was doing it from memory and I got some things wrong. You're correct. It was the spring of 2005, not the fall of 2004. He also didn't flunk out. He was ruled ineligible. He practiced with the team and went to class at UT, but he could not participate in games. I remember being shocked at Aldridge returning for his sophomore season. I'm sure you're correct it was an injury related reason. He made a wise financial decision in terms of his first contract to come back for another year. Thanks for the correction.

But that one person is the critical factor. He's using language and a message that is compelling enough he's not overthrown. There aren't mass protests. Protests, sure, but they're extremely isolated. Compare what is happening in Russia to what happened in Ukraine in 2004 or 2014. Compare it to what has happened in Iran that started with the hijab enforcement. Turkiye had bigger demonstrations regarding a park in Istanbul. The 2020-21 protests in Belarus were way larger than anything that's gone on in Russia, in a population 1/14th the size. Look at the surveys and watch the interviews. Listen to the audio recordings. This is not a people that think what they're doing is wrong. They think they're fully justified, and that the invasion and the subsequent battle for Ukraine is an existential battle against the West. Sure, the whole thing is being run incompetently because Russia. It's a kleptocracy with no value for competence on virtually any level. Survival and upward mobility is based on a tricky navigation between being important, but not too important, being loyal, being seen as not a threat, but still bringing value. None of that screams effective leadership. Oh, and a certain ruthlessness and a disregard for human life. You're talking about precision artillery and HIMARS, which Ukraine did not have prior to the invasion, and does not have the ability to produce themselves. You said: "Quantity no longer has a quality all its own if you are facing off against a modern army with masses of manpower or 1960s tanks." That's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Quantity absolutely had a quality of its own in that war. If you mean the addition of precision artillery and HIMARS, and the ammunition to shoot them, that's a different story. As long as the West keeps supplying Ukraine, they'll be able to hold their own. My supposition - and I feel like I'm right - is that politically that won't last forever. In the US, not with an attritional war where another $100 billion is spent. If Ukraine gains the offensive like they did in the fall, that helps to change the narrative. To me personally the war and recovery is a bargain at $1 to 2 trillion. It sends a clear message to an evil empire and anyone who would emulate it, fuck around and find out. It helps a people I consider among the bravest on this planet to preserve their culture, their history, and their language, and to finally be integrated into the West in a way that very few countries have earned more. But there should still be a sense of urgency among the nations of the West in ways that representative governments aren't always terrific about.

I can't tell you how indifferent I am to it. I've been posting on this thread for almost a year now, and the reactions to me - as they so often are - are mixed. If you want a dialogue say something you disagree with me on. Just to warn anyone, you're likely to get way more of a dialogue on my end than you ever wanted, but so it goes. He didn't do that, so I assume he wasn't interested in a dialogue. Which is fine by me. No hard feelings. I don't care.

Tucker played three years at Texas. 2003-4. 2004-5. 2005-6. Prior to his sophomore season he was ruled academically ineligible for the fall semester, and had to go to Austin CC to get back in. One of the reasons Tucker was not recruited by any schools in North Carolina is because of his horrible grades/test score. One of the things the Texas staff was amazing at was helping get players qualified who were at risk. Part of the strategy was to convince the parents to get their child classified learning disabled in some way so their standardized tests could be taken with an individual proctor as an untimed test. That also helped them get qualified for special attention at their high school. For many parents this was a stigma they weren't excited about, so part of the sales pitch was that Rick Barnes was classified learning disabled himself. I think from dyslexia, but not completely sure. In any case, they got Tucker qualified, but school never was his favorite aspect of college. That said, he was contrite for letting down his team that one semester, worked hard to get qualified again, and then did well the next semester, too. But his distaste for school work absolutely played a part in deciding to go pro after his junior season. So yes, he flunked out, but it was the previous year, and he got back in.

Let's talk about all the ways Russia in Ukraine is different than the US in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a war of vengeance, plain and simple. The US fucked up the occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq so badly, it's hard to know where to begin. But what I'd start with is implementing a representative government. That's only the beginning, though. Not enough soldiers to fulfill an occupation. More weight given to what contractors wanted to provide than what communities actually needed. No holistic understanding of tribal conflicts and historic grievances. Not that everyone was ignorant of them, but many of the decision makers didn't care. Frankly, shunting resources to prosecute the war in Iraq wasn't a huge help, either. In any case, the US didn't want to actually take over either country. They certainly didn't give a shit about the resources in Afghanistan. Compare that to Ukraine. Russia is implementing a war of conquest, plain and simple. Even now they are in the process of attempting to eradicate the Ukrainian culture and identity in the occupied areas. The destruction of any written material in Ukrainian. The elimination of any cultural iconography that's not related to Russia, Russian, or the Russian Orthodox Church. The school system is being subsumed as an element of the state and cultural brainwashing even more overtly than is usually the case. Ukraine is considered a historic mistake. That's the Russian position. Did the US consider Afghanistan or Afghani people a mistake? I don't believe they even considered the Taliban a mistake, as much as they didn't want them taking power. As long as the West keeps providing arms, I'm sure Ukraine will hold out just fine for the reasons you're stating. But if the west had given Ukraine the same amount of support they did after Russia took over Crimea and instigated the takeover in the Donbas, Ukraine would be positively fucked right now. I don't agree that quantity no longer has quality, especially considering if not for the West, Russia would have quality and quantity. In everything. With a much greater means of producing more. I'll also point out that Iran fought Iraq to a standstill and by many measures actually won that war by doing exactly what you're suggesting can't be done any more. This is the equivalent of a religious war for Russia. Plain and simple. Sure, it's being driven by the man at the top, but the message resonates with a significant part of the populace. Certainly way more than a simple majority. If Putin lives and the West stops helping Ukraine to a significant degree, Russia would make significantly more progress than they're currently experiencing. I'm not predicting that's what will happen. I will say, however, that it's important the West has some kind of sense of urgency about Ukraine's success. For a variety of reasons.

I don't believe that. There's also a chance the case doesn't get dismissed. You simply can't take that chance. There's a reason there's such a lack of contrition shown when the legal system could get involved. People don't want to say they're sorry in a meaningful way when it can indicate guilt in a court of law. It's part of the price of living in a litigious society. In any case, I feel like he was gone the moment he was arrested for felony assault. Misdemeanor would have been a challenge, but survivable. But we'll hear more about it over the course of his career. He's never escaping it. He's amazing at giving non answers, and I'm sure he'll have a pat answer he repeats ad nauseum on this one. But he will always be asked questions about this on a regular basis.