By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent analysis, it’s been argued that Russia’s pursuit of Ukrainian territory is financially unsustainable. The costs of such an endeavor, including military operations, occupation, and reconstruction, would be crippling for the Russian economy. Therefore, the international community must ensure that any territorial gains are not achieved without significant financial repercussions for Russia. This means holding Russia accountable for its actions and denying it the opportunity to seize land without bearing the full economic burden.
Read the original article here
Attacking Zohran Mamdani is only making him more powerful. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the more criticism aimed at Zohran Mamdani, the more his support base grows. The attempts to discredit him seem to be backfiring spectacularly, inadvertently boosting his visibility and solidifying his position. It’s like watching a political version of the Streisand Effect, where the very act of trying to suppress or diminish someone amplifies their influence.
The strategy of attacking Mamdani is flawed. Instead of weakening him, it appears to be galvanizing his supporters. The attacks, often perceived as petty or out of touch, inadvertently make him seem more relatable and in tune with the desires of many voters. For instance, critiques based on his apartment situation come across as particularly tone-deaf and out of touch. This echoes the experiences of others, where the more they are attacked, the stronger their support becomes.
The opposition appears to be out of touch with the needs of their voters. Their attacks are not landing because they don’t seem to recognize that the political landscape has shifted. It’s a situation where the establishment, in an effort to maintain the status quo, is inadvertently creating a narrative that validates Mamdani’s outsider status. This status, in today’s political climate, is more often a strength than a weakness, allowing him to connect with voters who are disillusioned with the current system.
Is this type of response similar to the reaction to Trump’s rise? While direct comparisons may be complex, the pattern seems to be the same. An increasingly vocal group of voters are expressing a desire to punish corruption. The attacks are being perceived as an attempt to maintain the status quo, rather than address the real issues that concern so many people. It’s a narrative that taps into the widespread frustration with economic inequality and a perceived lack of social safety nets.
Mamdani’s rise is a natural response to the current economic and political climate. It’s the pendulum swinging back against an extreme form of capitalism. Those who oppose him risk fueling the very movement they are trying to stop. The criticism is not coming from a place of valid points or a desire to serve the people, but rather a desire to maintain power.
The more he is criticized, the more his base seems to grow, and the attacks appear to be doing more harm than good for the establishment. There is a growing need for a more moderate approach to address income inequality, and the absence of meaningful social safety nets. It creates a sense of inevitability, a feeling that the very efforts to stop Mamdani are, in fact, propelling him forward.