Syria is going through all the motions of a country that is doomed, and I expect it will fall apart completely in the long-term, probably after large-scale crimes against humanity are perpetrated against minority communities there - we already see the beginnings of that.

But that's none of Iran's concern. Its involvement in the Levant is purely linked to countering Israeli influence. There's no better outcome for Iran than if Turkyie (or perhaps somewhere down the line, Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia) were to voluntarily take over that task.

Iran is in the driver's seat, enjoying strong alliances and a massive power vacuum in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which is all it needs to expand its power to that of regional hegemon.

Pretty much the only thing that can throw a wrench in the wheel is Israel (and the accompanying threat of a US invasion). If Israel is preoccupied with threats nearer to its borders, such as IS-like entities in Syria or an expanding Turkyie, Iran wins.

I think Iran is primarily concerned with keeping itself out of the crosshairs of the West. Israel has plenty of enemies already, and Iran's involvement is hardly required at this point in time. Iran can just sit and wait, project to the world that it is not the instigator of the Middle-East's many problems, etc.

It’s not simply relegated to buying things — though that may be its primary goal, the secondary psychological processes involved in achieving that goal, on philosophical outlook — on beliefs and values — is more insidious than often credited. — Mikie

And the things that are omitted, thus never taken seriously by the public at large, because if it was important, it would be on the news.

The scale of this problem is truly uncomfortable to think about.

If few want to control many, they have to control perception. And they certainly have us firmly by the perception.

I think discussions like these are largely a waste of time, and I explained why I believe that. I don't intend on expanding my participation much beyond that.

But who are these 'insidious women' you were talking about earlier?

Where to even start?

In threads such as these, the terms 'masculinity' and 'femininity' just become a fig leaf used to slap the most ridiculous generalizations onto people.

The only distinction that is made is apparently whether they agree with you politically.

What I am pointing out is that the power grab of the far right can be considered as solely a result of a backlash of some sort of patriarchy against equal rights, but may be more fruitfully considered as both the result of anxious masculinity and other more insidious feminine forms of control through which the self image of masculinity is becoming perilous. — Tobias

What do you expect me to make of this?

Surely when you say 'anxious masculinity' and 'insidious femininity' you are simply talking about anxious men and 'insidious' women (whatever that means), and how they voted for the other candidate?

How dare they. There must be something wrong with them.

You accuse me of psychologizing, but what is your argument if not one giant exercise in psychologizing?

Who has given Ukraine's autonomy away? Surely, if the Ukrainians were autonomous the only ones who could have done so is they themselves.

I'm not sure whether Russia is categorically against peacekeeping forces. I don't think they are. They're against a NATO peacekeeping force, for reasons which should be obvious. They do not want Minsk 3.

All parties to the conflict should have a say in the peacekeeping process, and ideally a potential peacekeeping force consists of combined force of all involved parties, or a party which all agree is neutral - possibly Turkiye.

Unless that is Trump finds some cajonas and forces Russia into a much weaker position.
Do you think he will go there? — Punshhh

He won't, because he can't. I recall seeing your mention in other posts that the Russians are militarily in a weak spot and can be pressured. I think the opposite is true.

Whether the Russians can be trusted is a completely different topic.

When two countries have been at war, there is no trust. It needs to be built step by step after a cease-fire is agreed. First by small, non-commital actions, then larger actions, etc.

This is a basic principle of peace negotiations.

Indeed. It's precisely because Western society failed to produce any meaningful male role models that enabled scam artists like Tate to prey on lost young men.

People flocked to idiots like Tate because what society offered them was even worse. Let that sink in.

One thing is certain, this problem cannot be solved by the same people who fell for the radical feminist spiel.

With threads like these, I honestly have to squint to find anything I find vaguely agreeable. It's like you all are living in a different world or something.

Problematizing 'masculinity' and men in general is no different than what certain cultures have done to women historically. It's just as archaic. Just as damaging.

It feeds off the primal insecurities many people harbor for the opposite sex (those being an understandable result of unrequited desires) - it's just the pendulum swinging to the other side of the spectrum.

Seldom do I see more dehumanizing, less compassionate takes on what healthy societal relations between men and women would look like.

You may want to watch that entire interview.

Looks like our guy is starting to get to work:

Syrian security forces accused of killing hundreds of civilians

Remember when the western news outlets were trying to white-wash the image of whatever jihadi lowlife has taken over control of the country with our help?

The most likely candidate is still Ukraine, but possibly a non-state pro-Ukraine actor. — Benkei

If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Did you watch the interview with Oleksandr Chalyi, where he literally states he believes the Russians were serious and ready for a negotiated settlement during the Istanbul agreements?

The negotiations took place in the first months of the invasion. And yes, if an agreement had been signed, in all likelihood we would not be where we are today.

But I urge you to look up information on these accounts yourself. Jeffrey Sachs gives clear accounts, which he bases on information he received directly from the mediators and diplomats involved.

If you want first-hand accounts by the Ukrainian negotiators, try this interview by Oleksandr Chalyi, or interviews by David Arakhamia.

Or try interviews by Oleksiy Arestovych - Zelensky's former spokesperson and possible Ukrainian political candidate.

The information is out there, just not in the mainstream media.

You can find various neutral accounts of what transpired during the March/April 2022 Istanbul negotiations, including first-hand accounts of the Ukrainian negotiators themselves.

They speak for themselves.

Trump doesn't quite get it, because he cannot quite say publicly why Zelensky is insisting on fighting on: the US and UK urged him to fight on in March/April 2022, when a reasonable deal was about to signed concerning the neutral status of Ukraine.

Do you accept then that NATO, by your own logic, declared war on Russia when it bombed Nord Stream?

Honestly, it was quite obvious that Zelensky was set up.

Either he was going to accept the deal, say thanks and bugger off, or, if he got uppity, they'd pull this scene to have an excuse to cut him off.

But where does this idea come from that Trump wants to 'ally Russia'?

That's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Anyway, none of this matters.

There will be peace in Ukraine, and Europe won't be going to war with Russia, no matter how hard some disgruntled intellectuals might find it to swallow their words.

If you're eager for more blood, go volunteer for the Ukrainian Foreign Legion while you still can.

Or Europe would really get it's act together. And they might, even if you don't want them to do that. — ssu

I would prefer Europe to get its act together without getting lured into a cataclysmic war with Russia, thank you very much.

Unelected Queen Ursula and the Trans-Atlantic clique are the morons who got us here in the first place. They know their political lives will be cut short if they have to make a 180 on Ukraine. That's why they're so eager for more crisis.

Why would you point to a technicality to consider Europe and Russia to be at war, when clearly in practical terms we are not at war?

Foregoing practical realities in favor of a 'legal' technicality over a matter of this gravity is something that I'm sure most international law scholars would scoff at. It's so contrived that it almost seems you want us to be at war with Russia. Do you have any idea what the consequences of that would be? You'll be the first to volunteer for the trenches, I presume?

Besides, do you then believe NATO declared war on Russia when they bombed Nord Stream?

How is that beyond the scope of what is expected? Did you expect the Russians to sit there quietly while we arm Ukraine to the teeth and encourage them to tread their red lines, attempt to enact regime change, inflict a strategic defeat, weaken it permanently, break it apart, etc. ?

It's the type of war rhetoric that's repeated ad nauseam by the Trans-Atlantic clique that permeates the top of European politics. Propaganda, in other words.

I don't think so.

You named cyber attacks and election meddling earlier as an indication that we are, but that's nothing we haven't done before, and little more than a tit-for-tat for our involvement in the Ukraine war.

Consider that the Poles have definitively said they will not put boots on the ground in Ukraine. They're arguably the nation that stands to lose most as a result of a mismanagement of the Ukraine conflict. They don't want to put boots on the ground because they know that all it will do is move Europe closer to war.

Well, it puts Europe on war footing with Russia, for one. Right when Europe is at the weakest point it has ever been since the end of WW2, in the process of being abandoned by its principal strategic ally, and Russia having the most practically experienced military in the world and strong alliance partners.

Meanwhile, the US is obviously reconsidering its stance towards Europe, which could very well mean that its interests are becoming diametrically opposed to those of Europe. (In the sense that if they cannot control Europe, they will seek to weaken it or even break it up).

Ukraine becoming a giant blackhole for money and military hardware, war between a weak Europe and a strong Russia that could potentially go nuclear? Add Uncle Sam's capricious meddling into the mix, and who knows where that might end.

To top it off, we don't even know what will happen to Ukraine when the Americans leave. Who knows who will be pulling the strings a year from now? It could be FSB agents for all we know.


I fully agree that Europe should start moving towards a situation where its security vis-á-vis Russia is safeguarded, but Europe is way too weak currently to start pretending like that is already a reality.

Europe is too geopolitically ignorant at this point in time to get itself into that type of trouble.

European boots on the ground at this stage of the war is courting disaster.

Without the Americans, the Europeans will have to reinvent the wheel in virtually every domain and reboot their entire military industry. Meanwhile, Ukraine will be a crumbling, porous husk.

I don't disagree with the general direction you're thinking in, but to try and do so while also preserving Ukraine is not feasible.

Ukraine would likely not survive long enough for the Europeans to get their things in order, and it would put Europe on a war footing with Russia. The Russians have their allies backing them, while the Europeans will probably lose their principal strategic ally.

Personally, I think the fact that the Russians are willing to settle for a deal under the current circumstances is a clear indicator that they have no interests in needlessly antagonizing Europe.

If they wanted a larger part or even all of Ukraine, now would be the time to press their advantage.

When you say 'supporting Ukraine unwaveringly', you mean to prolong the war?

If so, I think you grossly underestimate how dire the situation will become in Ukraine if the Americans pull the plug. The country has been hollowed out in every way, and there's no way of telling what will happen to it after the Americans leave, or who will be in charge.

"Things aren't perfect, and it's all men's fault!"

Oh please.

What happened after women joined the work force? The people in power raised prices to match a double income. — DifferentiatingEgg

This was indeed a very crafty trick they pulled on us. Double the labor force, halve the price of labor.

But the people in power are men, and so it is men's fault.

I suspect there is Kompromat on Trump [...] — Punshhh

Nonsense. You're just being presented with the same Janus-faced nature the US has always shown, but people keep forgetting about.

Trump is being used as a patsy to carry through some harsh but necessary foreign policy decisions. An exit from Ukraine is one of them, just like Trump facilitated the ugly but much-needed exit from Afghanistan.

I see a lot of Americans putting all the blame on Trump, and then on Putin who must have blackmailed him, trying to exculpate their country from this utterly blatant act of Machiavallianism.

The next president will be able to claim "it was all Trump" and "things are back to normal again", after which the next lamb will be led to the slaughter.

When will it get through to you that what you're seeing now is the true face of the United States?

I think this mineral deal is no longer about the war, but a way for Ukraine to barter for continued US involvement in the post-war rebuilding.

It's hard to predict what will happen to Ukraine if the US pulls the plug, even after a peace is signed, but it probably won't be pretty.

I do not question that you may be more convinced in one case than the other, but I’ll repeat that the criteria you are repeating seem rather arbitrary. — neomac

Good.

My criteria don't seem arbitrary to me at all.

So what is it you expect from me? Convince you somehow? To try and 'win the argument'?

If you're not even willing to believe I'm being honest about my credentials, then what possible point would there be to carry on conversation?

Out of courtesy I did read your entire post, but I will not be getting into a repetition of moves where we write entire essays about what has already been said.

I'll only answer those questions where I think my position may require clarification.

Could you provide criteria that would make such difference so much morally grey in one case over the other? — neomac

In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict:
- +/-70 years of thorough documentation
- Mountains of reports by human rights organisations, including those within Israel itself
- Mountains of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions
- Near-unanimous global condemnation
- Condemnation within Israel itself
- Admissions by Israeli politicians
- Having studied the conflict in-depth as part of my academic education, and having visited the region as part of a research tour.

Concerning genocidal intentions and war crimes, can you articulate a bit more your moral views on that? — neomac

War crimes are an unfortunate reality of war. They happen in every war, and criminals ought to be punished.

Things take on a different guise when war crimes are carried out intentionally on a large scale, at a governmental level.

I don't believe Russia has genocidal intentions in Ukraine. Ukrainians are returning to Russian-occupied territories every day.

Well written.

Funnily enough, for some reason I mistakenly read the title and assumed you were arguing that Nietzsche was misogynist. I had that "Oh brother, here we go..." moment and as I was reading I was thinking to myself, "How can any of this possibly be interpreted as misogynist?", until eventually I understood I had misread the title. :sweat:

Some of these excerpts of Nietzsche show he was a visionary in many ways. Aren't we now living in the culmination of what he warned us of?

Many "modern" societies reject femininity, especially in women, and implicitly and explicitly tell women to be more like men. Men are subjected to a similar treatment but the other way around.

One can only wonder what strange pathos spawned this soft-boiled 'modernity', but I do know that Nietzsche would be turning in his grave.

Your arguments are too ridiculous to waste time on. Subtle difference there.

Wow, seems you are definitely on Putin appeaser. Quite a Pro-Putinist there! — ssu

You're a clown, mate.

Why wouldn't you put them into the same ballpark? — ssu

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not.

Morally equating the two is perhaps the most childish thing I've seen you do on this forum.

It's not. Above all, Russia is an existential threat under Putin's attempt on an imperial Reconquista. A Russia under someone else would have made things totally different. But now Putin will continue his aggressive policies, they simply won't end with Ukraine. He will go after NATO countries, this is for sure.

For the majority of Europeans, thankfully this a black and white issue and only those falling to Russian propaganda will see it as grey. — ssu

I simply cannot take you seriously if you consider the Ukraine conflict and Israel-Palestine conflict in the same moral ballpark.

I don't even believe that you sincerely believe that yourself.

1) In some posts you stress the fact that you are explaining not justifying (e.g. when you talk about Russia strategic interests), in other posts you seem condemning more than explaining (e.g. when you talk about the Palestinian genocide by Israel), in some others you seem to mix the two (e.g. when you talk about the US provocations and engage in blame talking). However you do it in ways that look to me somehow inconsistent. Here is a more concrete example: believing that the Ukrainian emancipation from Russian hegemony and the Ukrainian chumming up with the US was perceived as a “provocation” by Russians sounds to me as plausible as claiming that the European emancipation from the US hegemony (especially under the form of anti-American or anti-Washington populism) and chumming up with Russia (especially under the form of anti-American or anti-Washington populism) was perceived as a “provocation” by the US. If Russia’s reaction was justifiable in imposing its will over Ukraine, even brutally, because Russians felt provoked, then also the US’s reaction was justifiable in imposing its will over EU, even brutally, because the US felt provoked. And if US/Ukraine are to be blamed for provoking Russia and Russia’s consequent reaction, then also EU/Russia (even more so the anti-American or anti-Washington populist) are to be blamed for provoking the US and US’s consequent reaction. In other words, the symmetry in attributing “hegemonic aspirations”, “emancipation aspirations” and “provocations” between Russia vs Ukraine and the US vs the EU is such that justification/condamnetion and blame can be equally distributed on both sides. So they can NOT ground the asymmetry you seem to believe in: namely, that the US’s reaction was less justifiable than the Russians’, and that the US/Ukraine are more to be blamed than European populism/Russia for this conflict. And since you mostly insist on the US hegemonic aspirations, US provocations against Russia, and European (especially populist) aspirations to emancipation from the US, my point is precisely that “hegemonic aspirations”, “emancipation aspirations” and “provocations” can be symmetrically distributed so they do not explain the asymmetry of judgement. Other premises must be invoked to ground the asymmetry in judgement and blaming: something like the US provocations against Russia were significantly worse than Russia provocations against the US, or it was the US which started all of it, or the US is more evil than Russia, or I don’t care about Ukrainian emancipation as much as I care about European countries emancipation, and the like. Whatever premises ground your blame attribution and condemnation, I think they would deserve more focus than the US “hegemonic aspirations”, European “emancipation aspirations” and Western “provocations” against Russia. — neomac

The Ukraine conflict is not comparable to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ukraine is much more morally grey.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, it is not morally grey at all. It is perfectly clear to me what has gone on over the past 70 years, and the world as represented in the UN General Assembly agrees almost unanimously, just like virtually every human rights organisation imaginable, including Israeli human rights organisations.


Second, when geopolitical actors meddle in ways that are misleading and exploitative, I have no qualms with making moral statements about that.

Russia is clearly a wolf and widely perceived as a calculating geopolitical actor. The US on the other hand is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and therefore much more dangerous because people are ignorant to its true nature.


In neither case is there a double standard, since the two things being compared are simply not the same.

I support Ukrainian independence. What I do not support is incompetent nations like the EU, or exploitative nations like the US leading it down the prim rose path by feeding it fake promises of security.

2) In your “realist” explanations, you often brought up Mearsheimer’s arguments mostly to back up your own views, however I’m not sure how committed you are toward his arguments or where your views diverge from his (the fact that you think there is more strategy than incompetence per se doesn’t improve understanding over the strategy, nor does the idea that the blob hiddenly pushing Trump now is the same crew pushing Clinton/Bush). One related example is when you talk about “the blob”: indeed, one of Mearsheimer’s arguments is that American antagonism with Russia (and exporting democracy) was driven by neoliberal agenda while Mearsheimer’s ideas were more open to accepting a division of sphere of influence to avoid American overstretching and ally with a weaker/declining Russia to contain the rising China. So Trump’s approach seems very much in line with what Mearsheimer’s was suggesting. Yet the problem for the European emancipation from the US hegemony is that the change in strategy from neoliberal to Trump’s (and Mearsheimer’s) doesn’t look less worrisome, on the contrary it looks more worrisome because it’s openly humiliating and threatening European “allies” down to obedience to avoid nasty retaliations. And given Trump-Musk support for European far-right populism (like AfD), I’m not sure if European populism is still the right horse to bet on for European emancipation. So not only changing strategy by the US doesn’t look more promising for European emancipation neither European populism does. Your belief that that the same hidden crew of Washington is frustrating European emancipation aspirations or serving American imperialist aspirations or abandoning allies, before or under Trump’s administration, besides looking unverifiable to me, it doesn’t change the fact that the strategy looks pretty different, the prospects for the European emancipation look rather compromised now, in spite of (or maybe even thanks to) rising far-right populism, and the pattern of American abandoning allies can not be explained via neoliberal hypocrisies because they are grounded on Mearsheimer-style reasoning over foreign politics. — neomac

Yes, I think Mearsheimer is too quick to assume incompetence rather than deliberate strategy on the part of the US.

Considering the US is objectively the most powerful, and most dangerous, nation on earth, at the very least the idea of deliberate strategy should be exhausted before assuming incompetence. Currently, it remains conspicuously absent from the discussion.

Mearsheimer himself has argued that the influence of US presidents on foreign affairs is limited at best, and whether Trump is truly acting independently from 'the Blob' is unclear. I never said I had definitive thoughts about that.

About European 'emancipation' I have little to say. Europe is a lost cause. It will take decades for it to undo the damage of post-Cold War soft power US colonialism. But for the US to leave is obviously a prerequisite for things to get better.

Said that, here are two major differences between my and your views (among others): while you were warning and still keep warning about provoking Russia, Russia’s security concerns and the danger of servile pro-US European elites. I was warning about provoking the US, Russian aggressive imperialism (which goes way beyond than just not having Ukraine inside NATO) and the dangers of servile pro-Russian (and now tempted to turn pro-US) populist movements.
And while, prior to this conflict, the Europeans under the neoliberal agenda (the one you despise so much) grew prosperous and relatively safe, and had the best opportunity to develop a collective European military-industrial complex for their own security (but I suspect you are against a collective European military-industrial complex) without risking the kind of retaliations that a “victorious” Russia and “angry” US are capable of, as of now. You seem/seemed to believe that precisely this Ukrainian conflict was the best chance for Europe to emancipate itself from the US without risking Russia’s retaliations by making political choices that would have anyways led to a “victorious” Russia and “angry” US (and without a collective European military-industrial complex). — neomac

What's the US going to do? Leave? Conquer Greenland?

Let them. The sooner they show their true face, the better.
The principal threat is not an 'angry' US - the US is thousands of miles away across an ocean - but European 'Trans-Atlanticists' prostituting Europe to the American agenda.

I don't believe in the narrative that the Russians are coming for Berlin. The Ukraine war neither suggests they have the intention nor the capacity to threaten Europe.

Europe's population is roughly four times that of Russia. It's GDP is roughly ten times that of Russia.
Even if Europe organises its defense inefficiently on a country-by-country basis there ought to be no Russian threat.

The only reason Europe is vulnerable is because American interests have infiltrated its every institution like a Trojan horse, disallowing it from making sensible decisions.

It's Schrödinger's war machine. — boethius

:up: :lol: