Posts by Lisa Jackson7

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the flow of sports, and specifically that weird, modern tendency to turn every single second of a match into a chess move. I grew up watching games that felt like a continuous, breathing thing—a rhythm that you could feel in your chest. There were breaks, sure, but they were usually dictated by injury, a controversial call, or just the natural ebb and flow of the action. Lately, though, it feels like the rhythm is being systematically dismantled by people sitting on benches with clipboards, waiting for the exact moment to freeze the clock.

It’s getting to the point where the "human" element of the sport is being suffocated by tactical manipulation. We call it "strategy," and don't get me wrong, I love a smart manager. I love seeing a team outmaneuver an opponent through clever positioning or a well-timed substitution. But there’s a massive difference between tactical brilliance and what feels like cheap time-wasting or artificial stalling. When a specific player or position is allowed to basically hit a "pause" button just to reset the momentum or kill the energy of a surging opponent, it feels less like sport and more like a game of bureaucratic stalling.

I remember watching a match back in the early 2000s—it wasn't even a high-stakes game, just a local derby—where the momentum was absolutely electric. One team was pressing, the crowd was deafening, and you could feel the tension rising. Then, suddenly, the game just... died. A player held the ball, the referee hesitated, and the intensity evaporated into thin air. It was a momentum killer, plain and simple. It felt like the "vibe" of the stadium was being sucked out of the air by someone trying to manufacture a reset.

The problem is that when you introduce these little pockets of controlled stillness, you aren't just "managing the game," you're actively fighting against the natural progression of the contest. It turns the beautiful, chaotic, unpredictable nature of the sport into something sterile. If you can just stop the clock whenever the pressure gets too high or whenever you need to regroup, then the pressure itself loses its meaning. The mental fortitude required to play through a period of intense, relentless pressure is one of the most impressive things about high-level athletes. If you can just call for a tactical breather to shake off that pressure, have you really conquered it?

I worry that we are moving toward a future where "gamesmanship" becomes the primary skill. Instead of training players to be faster, stronger, or more technically proficient, we’re essentially training them to be better at managing the clock. We’re rewarding the ability to disrupt the flow rather than the ability to master it. It feels like we're slowly turning every match into a series of interrupted segments rather than a cohesive narrative.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the logic from a coaching perspective. I get why a manager would want to catch their breath or reorganize a defense that’s being shredded. But at what point does the pursuit of an edge become an affront to the fans who are paying to see the game actually *unfold*? We want the tension, the mistakes, the sudden bursts of brilliance, and the crushing weight of a losing streak. We don't want a sanitized version of the game where every time things get too intense, someone pulls the emergency brake.

I’m curious to hear what you all think about this trend toward more "managed" interruptions. Are we seeing a necessary evolution in how high-level tactics are applied, or is the soul of the game being chipped away by these little moments of artificial control?

Does the ability to strategically pause the action add to the depth of the sport, or is it just a legalized way to kill the momentum and frustrate the fans?

electricsurfer47 said:And yet, here we are again, seeing Russia holding its own during this phase where the West has been trying to help them out.
It’s basically just because nobody wants to put in the actual effort required to get rid of that narcissistic jerk in the White House.

https://www.trtrussian.com/mnenie/ka...oLl0Qj7ZiclJ74

You should have tried surviving in the Third Reich back in 1942...☕

It’s easy to play professor when you’re safely out of reach of the FBI—

Maybe a single phone call from the right people to Yeltsin 25 years ago would've been enough to kick that narcissistic punk out of the White House.

And there's more...

Before the crime—or right after?

Trying to force the market to serve human progress? That’s just an attempt to rewrite the entire playbook for global relations, trade, and finance. If we actually bought into that, the whole world economy and political landscape would flip upside down overnight. You've got liberal intellectuals rambling about whether Immanuel Kant's dream of "perpetual peace" through trade just died out in the suburbs outside Kyiv. I mean, let's get real—the stuff being traded here is raw materials controlled by state-run monopolies. In other words, this isn't exactly "free" trade. An autocrat can just ignore it when their citizens' standard of living hits the floor.

But honestly? There are still some massive questions hanging in the air. Should the West just cut ties with regimes that have already trashed the rulebook and gone totally rogue? Or can some kind of "Liz Truss doctrine" actually work as a deterrent before things hit the fan? Could we actually just kick these rule-breakers out of the global economy entirely? When do we finally see the red flags—like human rights violations, wiping out political rivals, or just straight-up flexing with heavy weaponry?

If we’re talking about applying the Liz Truss doctrine preemptively—man, Russia would've been totally sidelined by the mid-2000s.Look, this whole mess didn't just start in 2022—it traces all the way back to when Putin first seized power. We're talking about massacres during the Second Chechen War, journalists getting hunted down, independent media being shuttered, and pure political vendettas. It’s been a downward spiral since day one. So then you've got these liberal Russians and the whole Western establishment just cheering like crazy—as if they actually want Vladimir Putin stepping up as the new progressive sheriff in town.

Using the Truss-Austinov doctrine as a preventative measure basically assumes every country exists in a vacuum—which is just plain stupid. That’s just not how a modern economy is supposed to work—period. Look, getting a seat at the table in global trade and finance isn't some kind of trophy you get for being a "good boy"—nobody’s handing out participation awards for good behavior. You're in because you've got the goods and you can actually deliver. Period.

Cutting Russia out of the global economy feels like the right call morally—for now. But honestly, what happens when we turn that same energy toward China over how they're treating the Uyghurs? It gets complicated, fast. Who even gets to decide which crime is big enough to kick a country out of the global economy? Seriously—where do you even draw the line between who’s allowed to play in the market and who’s banned? It feels like we’d need some kind of tiered system just to make sense of it all.

So, is free trade officially dead?

Up until now, free societies have basically been playing both sides—buying raw materials from autocratic regimes while simultaneously selling them our latest tech, including all that dual-use gear. Free societies have basically cleaned up big time from this whole exchange.

Honestly, this thread feels more like a philosophy seminar than an economics discussion. Take Leif Wenar—he’s a professor at Stanford University and wrote *Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence, and the Rules that Run the World*—and he's arguing that we have to... Take away that resource privilege and see what happens. So he’s basically saying—get this—that any group powerful enough to muscle the population into submission has the "legal right" to sell off the territory's natural resources. Just pure, unadulterated cynicism.

Leif Wenar argues that when free societies cut fair deals with tyrants, they basically earn ownership of those goods. But—and this is the kicker—Wenar thinks the autocrats just end up stealing that stuff from their own people anyway. According to Leif Wenar, trading natural resources with autocrats is basically no different than buying stolen goods—you're just handing them the cash they need to buy weapons, surveillance tech, and whatever else helps them cling to power.

By letting corporations in developed nations grab natural resources from tyrants—and then legally protecting those companies' rights to what they stole—we’re basically handing out trophies to every potential dictator or junta on the planet, according to philosopher Thomas Pogge, a professor at Yale. Anyone who can seize control by any means necessary will suddenly have the legal standing to enforce international property rights over a nation's resources. Resource-rich countries are way more likely to end up under authoritarian rule; once some power player or junta gets their hands on that revenue stream, they can just buy their way into staying in power forever.

By controlling the rent, dictators and juntas can keep taxes low, which totally lets them dodge any accountability to their own people. Plus, these kinds of countries are much more prone to civil wars, see lower economic growth, and stay stuck in poverty. Pogge suggests that all countries should adopt constitutional changes where only nations with democratically elected governments are allowed to trade legally. Leif Wenar argues that trading with tyrants should actually be treated as a violation of property rights and national self-determination caused by the usurpation of power.

Just look at the situation with Russia— the attempt to make an authoritarian regime less likely to go to war through trade was a total failure. The whole "trade promotes peace" principle didn't work in Russia's case. If anything, democracies just became dependent on energy supplies coming out of Russia. Trade, as Paul Krugman put it, can be a "force for coercion rather than peace."

Authoritarian regimes have gotten incredibly good at weaponizing free trade for their own benefit. Now it’s time for democracies to play the same game. It won't be easy, though—autocracies currently account for 31 percent of global GDP (or 14 percent if you exclude China). Cutting off a third of the global economy is basically impossible: autocracies are economically tangled up with democracies. They are deeply embedded in the global division of labor, trade, investment, and finance.

Because of this, the world isn't just looking at higher prices for oil, gas, and wheat because of sanctions against Russia. This interdependence shows up in some pretty weird ways. For instance, metal supplies—like nickel, palladium, titanium, and scandium—that are absolutely vital for the American aerospace and defense industries, as well as renewable energy, could be at risk. If Russia starts messing with rare earth metal markets by teaming up with China, the fallout will be massive. These metals are used to make semiconductors and batteries. Russia produces nearly 38 percent of the world's palladium; meanwhile, South Africa, the other big supplier, comes with its own set of high political risks. China holds strategic metal reserves; that market is incredibly easy to manipulate or use for blackmail. So, how does the Liz Truss doctrine actually work in a scenario like this?

Basically, we should group authoritarian countries based on how aggressive they are in foreign policy and how badly they violate human rights at home. If we were going to build a system for accessing the global economy, it would need different levels of access. We’re already doing parts of this. Investment screening is already being used by the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other developed nations. To an extent, the Liz Truss doctrine is already in motion, but only when it comes to investing and importing tech.

With the WTO acting as the referee, most countries have managed to agree on rules for trading with one another. Sure, violations happen, but there's a mechanism to fix them. Now, it's time to start negotiating global rules for world politics and universal human rights. Just as the world learned how to trade by following rules, eventually, they'll agree on political codes of conduct and respect for human rights. None of this should infringe on a nation's sovereignty, but if a country wants to be part of the global community, it has to play by the shared rules.

William Miller12 said:Well, you've fragmented everything and lost the thread of the argument. Some of your comments aren't even relevant, but since you bolded your own main claim and it's the problem here, let's just go back to basics:

1. The Keystone XL pipeline, with a capacity of 800,000 barrels a day (about 0.8% of global production), was only about 8% complete when Biden banned it a few months later. Sure, Democrats were stalling and undermining it during the Trump administration, and even Obama tried to stop it, but even if everything had gone smoothly, would it really be finished? It might have still been in its early stages.
But there's no doubt that KXL definitely wouldn't be finished today if Biden hadn't blocked it in early 2021—it probably wouldn't have opened until 2026 or 2027. So, that decision doesn't have any real physical impact on today's oil supply; it's mostly just affecting market expectations.

2. Why Putin attacked Ukraine specifically on February 24, 2022, remains a mystery, and as I noted on the forums back then, "the reasons that drove Putin to such a suicidal move will likely be analyzed for decades."
However, regarding US moves that might have nudged Putin toward war, I'm certain the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and the way it was handled was far more significant than walking away from KXL.
By the way, despite my ongoing belief that it was a smart strategic move that made the US stronger—just imagine the political fallout if Americans were still stuck trying to secure exits in Afghanistan today.
We should support and fight alongside those who truly want freedom, and let everyone else face their own fate.

3. Now, regardless of what was said in point 2, most people will agree that one of the pillars of Putin's decision was that $380 billion fund, built up over years through gas and oil sales.

4. First, gas.
The main culprit here is Merkel, obviously, but there wasn't much anyone could actually do about it. She was just following the lead of the entire German establishment. We can argue about why—whether it’s rooted in Brandt's Ostpolitik, some lingering debt for reunification, or whatever else—but it was a done deal. It couldn't be changed.

Trump was right on this one. For years, Germans will be haunted by footage of Trump essentially "calling them out" over Russian gas, all while they laughed him off. I won't say I'm not enjoying watching that unfold. Hopefully, they learn to show a little more humility before they start lecturing everyone else on the supposed superiority of the German political-economic model.
Especially once they start talking about China, because their hands are pretty deep in that jam, too...

If Merkel had been the kind of statesman people were hailing her as just a year ago, she would have quietly steered Germany away from its dependence on Russian gas.
But that requires being a true statesman—someone like Roosevelt, who quietly but stubbornly pushed the US toward WWII despite most Americans being against it, simply because he knew it had to be done eventually.
(Though, a few US administrations used that exact same method regarding Vietnam with completely different results, so it’s hard to be too smart about how much a "statesman X" should ignore the will of their voters.)

Anyway, let's not forget that Putin's "gas pillar" is significantly more important than his "oil pillar."

5. Finally, oil.
Oil—the "oil pillar"—matters, but it isn't the key.
Its primary importance is as a fund filler; Russian costs sit around $37 per barrel, so any price above that goes straight into the fund.
No amount of Keystone XL, fracking, or oil sands would have managed to drive oil prices down to those levels during the 2014-2021 window. Even if they theoretically could have, the Saudis and Russians would have just cut production according to their own targets to keep the average between $80 and $100.

Those speculative spikes in oil prices prior to the Russian military adventures were just tactics—tactics that proved strategically important at times, but only until 2022.
If Europe had folded under energy blackmail and decided to abandon Ukraine immediately after the invasion, then I might agree that killing Keystone XL was a major factor, since it defined future expectations.
But since that didn't happen, the importance of that decision as a trigger for the invasion of Ukraine is realistically minor.

Regarding LNG, keep in mind that it isn't just about having LNG terminals—which aren't actually that expensive—it’s the massive issue of tanker availability and numbers, which *are* expensive.
That’s why gas—neither LNG nor pipelines—is the solution.

And as for "green policies" and their supposed guilt for everything wrong in the world...

Green policies were nothing more than an excuse, a bit of camouflage for Russia's actual goals.
The Russians set their goal clearly: use energy as a weapon. Everything else was just tactics, where green advocates were used as useful idiots. It was all shaped by targeted political lobbying where the goal was obvious: push the gas through, and then just declare gas "green," even though there’s very little "green" logic to it.
The Russians certainly had a bit of luck with Fukushima, too, but that was all just smoke and mirrors—a distraction, like a magician's trick.
Without the "green" cover, they would have had to come up with something else.
Because the goal was clear, and the Germans wanted Russian gas anyway—not because of green policies, but for the money, for easy export competitiveness, for commissions, for Ostpolitik, and a whole bunch of other reasons that have nothing to do with being eco-friendly.

In the US, these green narratives look a bit different, but it's clear to everyone that Americans were also widely influenced by Russian lobbyists—maybe just slightly less so than Germany.

___

I'm gonna build on that—basically the conclusion—by dropping this Kennan Institute article. It starts off with some deep, high-level thinking about how we could actually fix the rules to create a fairer global order... and then wraps things up with actual recommendations.

Can Trade Be Moral?, by Boris Grozovski on May 16, 2022

Democratic nations have been playing nice and trading with dictators for ages—totally ignoring whatever atrocities are happening behind closed doors. But honestly? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine might finally kill that "free trade at any cost" mindset. Now, the US and the UK want to force the big global players to either clean up their political act or lose access to our markets entirely. If we can actually pull this off long-term, maybe human rights will finally become a global standard instead of an afterthought. But let's get real—is that even possible when the entire global economy is so freaking interconnected?

"Good" policy as an entry requirement? Give me a break.

Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, the West has shown this insane level of solidarity—sending military, humanitarian, and financial aid to Kyiv like we've never seen before. The EU, Britain, and North America actually stepped up and coordinated sanctions against Russia that used to be totally unthinkable. Ukraine isn't out there fighting Russian aggression alone; half the world has their back. We definitely didn't see this kind of unity back during the first phase of the war in 2014 or when it went down in Georgia in 2008.

But then again— Sanctions are a double-edged sword—period.It’s just impossible to build a sanctions regime that only hits one side—it doesn't work like that. The harder you squeeze, the more the person pulling the trigger gets burned, too. No democracy can honestly tell its citizens and companies to just swallow economic chaos for some vague, "maybe we'll win" goal.

By the end of April, the US and Great Britain allies supporting Ukraine started laying out their long-term goals for this conflict. "We want to see Russia weakened to the point where they can't pull off what they did during the invasion of Ukraine," said US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. The National Security Council head backed this up, confirming that the United States' strategic goal is to "limit Russia's ability to do this again." And if we actually want to strip Russia of the chance to be aggressive now or later, the world has to ditch Russian oil and gas—that’s the take from US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

Cutting off Russian oil and gas might sting for Europe, but—as Estonian PM Kaja Kallas pointed out back in March—"Gas might be expensive, but freedom is priceless." A win for Ukraine is a "strategic imperative," according to British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss. In a speech late last month, she laid out a pretty blunt formula for the West's new economic doctrine: “It’s time for a reality check. Our approach to the global economy has to be based on playing by the rules.”

For years, developed nations have been sucking up energy from authoritarian kleptocracies, basically letting these elite thugs buy up real estate, yachts, and soccer clubs while hiding their loot in Western jurisdictions. Honestly, the West helped these human rights-violating regimes flourish. Now, Truss is arguing that free markets should drive human progress instead of lining the pockets of rule-breakers who commit crimes at home and abroad. The club of developed nations isn't interested in funding wars or propping up bloodthirsty autocrats anymore—even by accident. And Truss warns this isn't just about Russia; it's about China too.

Anthony Perez9 said:Cheap trolling along the lines of: "They're all the same, but the West is blah blah blah." ☕

Not trolling at all—he actually gave you a solid answer.

gentlerider7 said:Ha, give me a break. Like you can actually influence any of this? Honestly, you might as well just take a page out of C.S. Lewis's book: if a bomb is inevitably coming for us, let it happen while we're actually enjoying life, rather than spending our final moments drowning in a sea of pure panic.

Honestly, all this numbness and apathy I see from some people (not you, obviously) just bleeds into everything else they do.
Look, it's obvious we don't have any say in what's about to go down here in the States...

People really need to start respecting life more...

"Quote:"

boldotter2 said:Just for context...

1962 was the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis.... And it was also the year when the world saw a massive amount of nuclear testing, like 140 tests or so. So, we had the threat of nuclear war alongside 140 random detonations, it's just crazy! 😵

At the exact same time, 1962 was also the year The Beatles blew up and Beatlemania kicked off. It's the year Robert Zimmerman changed his name to Bob Dylan and put out his first album. Over in New York City, some new kids named Mick, Keith, and Brian are meeting up to start their own band too.

I guess I wonder how many people today actually remember that first part, versus all this other stuff?

So what exactly is "not knowing" supposed to be an argument for? Seriously?
If a nuclear war is basically just playing with slingshots—then yeah, absolutely mind-blowing stuff right there.

Just saying... maybe this guy deserves a little more credit for all that hype surrounding those famous scruffy guys from Liverpool.
Vasily Arkhipov

gentlerider7 said:The real question is, who’s actually losing their mind here and who’s just out here intentionally fueling the fire? It’s all just part of the psychological warfare, isn't it?

And then you’ve got people acting like warning us about nuclear war—or even just dropping a few "tactical" bombs—is some kind of game played with a reset button.

darkhawk30 said:I guess I’m being way too optimistic here. I actually suggested a scenario where even a devastated Ukraine could hit its targets at the exact same time as us.

I have no clue when or how that happens... anyway, forget comparing this to things back home... let's look at Poland instead.
Man, I really wish I was wrong... but honestly? We're looking at decades, not years, to catch up.
We're teetering on the edge of a global recession while everyone expects military spending to keep climbing. You can't have your cake and eat it too—it's impossible to fund tanks and butter at the same time.

Thomas Walker84 said:☕ No, the preconditions were created by Putin-like Russia, and they are the ones responsible for the suffering of Ukrainians.

If a rapist creates the circumstances, he is still the one guilty and responsible for the crime. It’s not the bartender's fault for selling him the drink, nor is it my friend's fault for harvesting the grapes used to make the wine.

There are cases where people are manipulated, specifically those with limited mental capacity. But following that logic implies you think Russians as a whole have limited mental capacity, which borders on racism. 🙂

Or perhaps you believe Vladolf and his crew are incredibly mentally impaired, which I find hard to believe. As if they were subtly nudged into attacking and invading Ukraine—as if they were "undermined" into making a move they wouldn't have thought of on their own...

The bartender definitely played a part in fueling those aggressive impulses and paranoia—stuff that allowed someone like Putin to go from being a nobody to appearing as Russia's "savior."
Just like how we don't blame "limited mental capacity" for the rise of Nazism among Germans, the same logic applies to the Russians...

darkhawk30 said:That’s where we could actually step in and be useful.
If anyone truly understands how to manage a total societal overhaul, it's us. 🙂

The thing is, that whole process isn't even finished yet, and in Ukraine, it’s barely even started... one of the biggest benchmarks would be hitting that average EU GDP per capita level... so just imagine how long that's gonna take in Ukraine.
Not to mention the state of their civil institutions, the legal system, and all that other stuff.

Thomas Nelson25 said:The real question is what the average Ukrainian actually cares about. Especially now, given all the blood and suffering they've endured.
I'm thinking the whole process is already heading West—no turning back at this point.
Once the war wraps up—if it ends anytime soon—they're looking at years of transition ahead.

Just like what the average Russian was obsessed with back in '91.

Especially in places like Moscow and St. Petersburg... we'll just have to see if they end up any less disappointed.

Linda Collins3 said:Yeah, right. Democracy is definitely their top priority...

If you're gonna equate democracy with a "free market" run by crony capitalism, then sure... they've definitely shown interest.
Putin used to be the "good guy" once upon a time. ☕

James Chavez91 said:I mean, I agree—it was more about the idea that every parent wants their child to grow old and live a healthy, happy life. So, naturally, you'd be worried about any kind of catastrophe. It's just human nature, I guess.

Thanks for finally getting it... I was really hoping someone here would see things my way. I was reacting to all the talk about whether anyone could even survive if a nuclear war actually kicked off, and let's face it—there's zero guarantee we dodge Armageddon if they start dropping "tactical" nukes.
It's got nothing to do with being soft on bullies, which is something I totally stand by.
Let's not turn serious shit into some kind of joke.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Yeah, people have been asking that for a while now (and rightfully so)—like, what is the actual state of Russia's nuclear arsenal? This new stuff they're doing is probably fine, I guess, but how much of it is actually functional? I’d bet money they have enough to cause some massive damage, but maybe not enough to end the world... more like enough to force an unconditional surrender once there's a nuclear response and Moscow, Petrograd, and Vladivostok are just... gone.

Do you actually have some insider intel on the Russian nuclear stockpile, or are you just writing this from another planet?

analogbear5 said:Someone who’s talked about nothing but sports since 2013, went ghost in 2016, and suddenly decides today is the day to pop back up.

How convenient 👍

Thanks for the insight.

So it's just a provocation... whatever, let's move on.

Arthur Miller7 said:Man, you are exhausting. Where on earth did you read that anyone wants to march on Times Square?

Right here... a decent little haiku. ☕

Sean Doyle8 said:Things are going to get worse. Unless there's a total military defeat—imagine an Abrams rolling through Times Square.

Sean Doyle8 said:Things are going to get worse. Unless there's a total military defeat—imagine an Abrams rolling through Times Square.

later, right in the middle of Times Square... glad you brought that up... 😵

bluemason3 said:The difference today is that we actually have hard data—mathematical models, economic simulations, social experiments, and historical precedents. All of it points to the same thing: giving in to outside pressure is almost always a losing strategy. That’s assuming we ignore the messy variables like the balance of power, old grudges, or existing debts that complicate the math, but the core principle remains the same.

In short, when it comes to fighting for influence, resources, or power, the eye-for-an-eye approach still seems to be the most effective long-term play.

Whether you're looking at schoolyard bullies or massive economic competitions, neither bowing to the bully nor becoming one pays off in the end.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's the perfect move in every single scenario. But since nobody has a crystal ball, it's more logical to pick the tactic that's statistically likely to work.

Even if Putin tried to wipe out Ukraine, the only sensible and proportional response right now is to take down Putin.👍

Fine, but let's hope he doesn't just get swapped out for some "reasonable" or "cooperative" version of Putin for a little while.

Matthew Young35 said:The real issue here is that we failed to isolate Putin right at the starting line.
You can actually stop dictators from causing massive amounts of chaos if you catch them while they're still just making small-scale messes.
But now? We're backed into a corner.
Figures like Orbán and Erdoğan are equally worth watching—especially Erdoğan.
If the US hadn't applied pressure on Turkey when Erdoğan first started acting out, or if there isn't some hope for leverage now, we're in trouble. If he's left unchecked, he’ll follow the exact same path as Putin.

Putin didn't just transform into this version of himself overnight or back in 2014. He has always been Putin.

Now, the shit has finally hit the fan.

👍

Facts... maybe one day we'll actually get some real answers to the big questions...