> But, it's considered taboo to express a love of the USA

American flags _everywhere_' Like seriously, I visited both liberal areas (Seattle) and conservative areas (Spokane's surrounds) and y'all patriotic as _fuck_.

> Wars used to be a way to unify a country...

Also because the US is just not threatened by anyone. I'd hope that going back to being the Arsenal of Democracy for Ukraine (and maybe Taiwan or South Korea if things go bad) would've tied the US together, but man I was wrong there.

I mean, it's not like we need to be rolling out a B-29 every minute or an aircraft carrier a week to defeat Russia there. Just cleaning out some of the stock from the 80's held them off for months. Logistically, the war in Ukraine just isn't very taxing to maintain a psuedo-stalemate. If anything, NATO+ wants to keep this ulcer open for as long as it can in Russia, bleed them white.

There were only ~2.6 million men aged 15 to 30 and another 3 million in their 30s back in 2022. Around 0.6-0.8 million Ukrainian men have left the country for the EU (18-60, but I assume it's highly skewed towards lower ages).

A significant proportion (probably the majority) of those that remain in the country are not particularly motivated, capable or otherwise keen about going to the frontline. It's hard to tell but looking at estimates > 150k have died or been severely wounded and presumably a several times more suffered lighter injuries.

This isn't WW1/2. Poorly trained and/or highly unmotivated men are not very combat effective and mobilizing such a large proportion of population as back then is not feasible (especially considering that men in their 30s and 40s have been doing most of the fighting). So how long do you think Ukraine can hold out if we extrapolate the casualties rates from the last 12-24 months or so? By the time the West fully ramps up military production it might be too late.

I wouldn't know because I don't have their numbers, and unlike you, I don't trust my offhand estimates.

However I will trust the Ukrainians to know, and it seems safe to reason that the more and better arms they have -- the farther off the potential triggering of such a limit will be.

The key consideration to keep in mind here is that for Ukraine, the fight is existential -- while for Russia (as a country, apart from its leadership) it is very much optional. So the limits for what is bearable in terms of any category of loss must be weighted very differently (apart from the what the numbers might say; and assumes we even have reliable numbers, which of course we don't).

So the flip side of your question might be:

"For how many years does Russia want to keep spending 10 percent of its GDP on this little expansionist fantasy project gone horrible wrong? And how does this math change once Putin is gone, or his lights start to dim?"

Yet you're fine with handwaving probably the biggest issue Ukraine is facing (besides the risk of losing western support/Trump winning the election and making a side-deal with Putin).

> However I will trust the Ukrainians to know,

The government probably does. Of course due to perfectly understandable reasons they will not share that information with the Ukrainian population at least until the war is over.

> while for Russia (as a country, apart from its leadership) it is very much optional

Hopefully. But underestimating the resilience of authoritarian/totalitarian regimes (compared to more free/democratic societies) isn't necessarily particularly wise. e.g. the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s was just as senseless (from the perspective of both sides) and even more bloody yet it went on for 8 years with hardly any significant dissent in either country (besides the Kurds the Iraq).

The casualties and overall cost US sustained in the Vietnam war, especially if we adjust by the duration of both conflicts were almost miniscule compared to the cost the Russian society is seemingly willing to pay.

Yet you're fine with handwaving

I'm not; I'm saying it's a question I'll trust to the Ukrainians to evaluate and decide for themselves.

That's something entirely different from what you're suggesting that I said.

[Don't underestimate resilience of dictatorships; the Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years]

That's actually an argument for why time is more on Ukraine's side.

If Russia gives up after 8 years, or even 10 or 15 -- then Ukraine will have squarely won.

The odds are very much in trumps favor... what kind of rock have you been living under?

[1]https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-20...

One can think of different ways to assess the likely outcome of an election -- but a betting market (with its gigantic built-in biases) would have to be one of the dodgiest.

Meanwhile reliable polls show a steady Harris lead.

ADDED. The secret is unlikely to leak if the Russians are careful: they could for example anonymously send technical information on ICBM design to Iranian and NK missile scientists. The recipients might suspect that Russia is the source of the information, and might share their suspicions with others, but second-hand reports of mere suspicions probably won't be considered sufficient justification for our going to war with Russia.

I don't agree. Every sporting event still plays the national anthem and often has soldiers or military involvement or mentions

I see US flags all the time, all over the place.

There are certain forms of "love" of the USA that are more politically one-sided that may be more taboo if you live in an area where most people are on the other side.

"Patriotism" as superficial brand-loyalty versus patriotism as lifelong civil-service.

one tribe likes flags and overt patriotism, the other side does not.

if i see a person with a flag sticker on their car, i can probably guess a lot of their unrelated political opinions

America has had a long history of unequal opportunity. It's kind of founded with unequal opportunity (slavery) and continued to shoot itself in the foot in order to ensure inequality (closing public schools instead of allowing integrated schools is why we have a rise of private schooling to begin with, HOAs existed primarily to ensure the community could enforce that no one could allow a black family to move in by selling their property to blacks). I think of America as a country that is constantly being challenged with the ideals it claims as having against the society it builds which falls short of those ideals. But I don't think this inequality has to do with the recent youth mental health crisis... America has endeavored to be more and more equal by the year.

Sure, it flies in the face of harsh reality quite often, but that’s not the point. And we can definitely gripe about current immigration policies. And of course, that spirit doesn’t feel like it holds true in a big chunk of the US. But to me personally, that’s why NYC feels sort of magical. It’s that whole idea solidified in flesh.

As an immigrant, I can tell you that my hypothetical future in my old country was doomed from the start. The US, with all its imperfections and flaws, let me do my own thing and carve my own path from nothing (parents working minimum wage, so basically zero connections and funds). All while making me feel more at home than my old country ever did in every single way (from interactions with people to absolutely any other aspect of my life).

Again, this isn’t to discount tons of issues that the US has (just like any other large country would). However, I just struggle to think of any other country where I could’ve ended up where I am right now, as an immigrant. And that, to me personally, is what the (idealized) spirit of the US is all about.

- Public lands. Most states have National Parks in them. Every state has state parks. These generally give enormous freedom of enjoyment to vast areas of land and are accessible to most.

- General freedom. We've all seen videos of abusive cops, but the fact is that's still rare. If you want to launch a business, you'll likely be able to find a location, understand regulations, and form the legal entity without paying off officials. We have corruption, but it's generally at high levels and invisible to the general public, so you don't feel the pervasive effects.

- Economy. Sure, I miss the 90s tech boom, but the US has the most advanced tax system in the world, and a highly effective banking system that spurs the economy. It's far from perfect, but it's better than a whole lot, and most people take it for granted.

I think we peaked in many ways between 1995 and 2012, but if we can clean up our act and make it through the new era of Robber Barons and foreign interference, we'll be in a really good place again.

Edit:

- ADA. To my knowledge, no other county has as good of regulations benefiting the handicapped and disabled. From accessible businesses and buses to readable signage to minimum doorway widths in homes.

I love the people, even though we're mostly stupid and crazy. I love the land, even though it's drenched in the blood of the people of the First Nations and of each other. I love that we fight to repudiate and destroy the evil of slavery, even though we aren't done yet.

And yeah, I even love the Federal Government. Sure it's a gnarly bureaucracy that makes mistakes, but most of the time it pretty much works. And there are so many really cool bits, like the USGS. And the vast majority of the people in the Federal workforce are decent folk just doing their best.

So yeah, we have a lot of problems, but we're doing our best and the story isn't finished yet. I love the USA. (I also love the rest of the world too. It's not an either-or thing.)

This is why I bristle when people get upset by terms like American exceptionalism. Yes, America has a unique culture. America is also objectively superlative, whether it's our wealth, military capability, longevity as a democracy, etc. Uniqueness + superlative = exceptional. When people disagree, I'm left wondering what they disagree with. Either they disagree with the superlatives, in which case, I question their grasp on reality. Or they question the uniqueness of American culture, at which point my social monkey brain tells me to shun them.

If anything, a lot of the praise of America seems to be the federation of culture; I’ve heard it said the that it is not one country, but fifty different ones.

I think the USA is amazing in that it attracts the most ambitious people in the world, provides relative stability for them to work and live, and that it has managed to create such a stable society given the heterogeneous nature of its culture. It has a lot of problems, but I'd much rather be here than in the communist former-country my mom was born in.

There are symbols which are more directly associated with the government, such as the Great Seal of the United States. You will see patriotic expressions involving that symbol rather less, although the bald eagle, our national totem, is quite popular.

Some countries have a separate state and civil flag. The United States is not among them.

If you're asking why Americans love our nation, I don't know how to answer that question.

Nearly every bullet point the article listed for what makes a strong community was basically just a descriptor for cultural homogeneity, which also touches on a rather controversial taboo. This sort of critique of diversity would be considered hate speech by some.

How wonderful that we have the diversity of thought to find someone who will object to anything, and how fortunate that we have mechanisms to overrule and ignore them.

This is why we need to pursue annexation by Mexico, so we can finally be a country with some culture.

Only in some circles.

American here. First-generation immigrant. Came from Germany at age 5.

This misses a crucial part of the problem. It is considered taboo to express a love of the USA in certain social circles. In others, it is considered taboo not to express a love of the USA. The problem is that the two sides have very different ideas of what "loving the USA" means. Among the first group (liberals) the USA is envisioned as an inclusive melting pot where all are welcome. Among the second group, the USA is envisioned as a set of values to which one is required to subscribe in order to be included; to include those who do not subscribe to these values would change the character of the nation to the point where it would not longer be the USA. These values include innocuous things like baseball and hot dogs, to abstract ideals like "freedom", less abstract ideals like capitalism, and quasi-religious ideals like "family values". Lately these have started to morph into religious ideals up to and including the (false) idea that an essential part of the national character is to be a Christian theocracy.

So it's not that expressing a love of the USA is taboo, it's that conservatives have managed to co-opt loving the USA and make it part of their brand. Expressing love for the nation, flying the flag, singing the national anthem, etc. are nowadays seen as expressing tacit support for conservatism in general, and the Republican party and Donald Trump in particular. This is the reason that liberals avoid them.

For me personally, I have always felt that some of the common rituals associated with "loving the USA" were kind of weird. Take the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. I get pledging allegiance to the nation, but to the flag? That has always struck me as bizarre. The flag is just a symbol, a token. Why would anyone pledge allegiance to a flag? But to question this, especially as a minor in a public school, turns out to be unwise.

I grew up in the US during the 9/11 era, and I was just old enough to recognize the horrible nationalism that it spread through the entire country. How am I supposed to celebrate the flag of a country that invades the wrong country under false pretenses and rallies behind dumb propaganda like "freedom fries" to support it? How am I supposed to be proud of a country that chooses someone like Donald Trump as it's leader? (and is close to doing it again!)

I do generally love the supposed ideals of the US, and I would like to call myself a patriot - but it is difficult to do when criticism of the US (which is the whole point of a democracy) is met with "love it or leave it" type responses from people who cover themselves in the flag.

Real patriots want their country to improve via constructive criticism and change. But most conservative "patriots" in this country view any criticism as "hating America". Their "patriotism" is just fetishism for the traditions and symbols - which is why they cover every item they own with the flag.

In that context, the flag and "patriotism" can be very divisive, and those who abhor the conservative culture wars here can be very reticent to create the appearance thay they stand with them.

Also, being asked to pledge allegiance to anything as a minor seems weird and wrong to me. IMHO it undermines the whole concept of pledging allegiance, which should be an informed choice, not a ritualistic indoctrination.

> The problem is that the two sides have very different ideas of what "loving the USA" means. Among the first group (liberals) the USA is envisioned as an inclusive melting pot where all are welcome.

Have you had the chance to talk with a 3rd group who believe that the US is malignant and think that the most moral action they can take is to undermine the state?

I think there is even an American tradition of that; lots of US students are assigned excerpts from Thoreau's Walden or Civil Disobedience and from one perspective, those texts are arguments that because the US permitted slavery it was malignant and should be 'starved', of our taxes, labor, and participation.

I can't and wouldn't argue that Thoreau was wrong to protest slavery by any means necessary, but I also hope that the US doesn't embrace the sort of widespread self-sabotage I see in European protest movements.

Thank you.

> Have you had the chance to talk with a 3rd group who believe that the US is malignant and think that the most moral action they can take is to undermine the state?

Yes, but I don't think those people can be said to "love the USA" under any reasonable interpretation of that phrase.