There's nothing bipartisan about the US' forever wars in the Middle-East — Tzeentch

Is it only the democrat administrations or only the Republican administrations that are fault here? — ssu

Both sides have been elected on platforms of stopping the forever wars, yet they never managed to change anything, because there's nothing 'bipartisan' about them.

Calling it 'bipartisan' imples these wars are fought on the basis of some agreement between the two sides, when they are in fact fought on a basis that's completely disconnected from the democratic process.

The only role domestic politics plays in it, is the question of whether the American people can be kept docile and ignorant enough to accept that the American government keeps going to war without any proper basis for it.

Yet to be a hegemon, it ought to have then a lot of influence over the Gulf States. It hasn't. — ssu

It should be obvious that I am talking about potential, and not the present day.

Even in the present day it would be foolish to understate Iran's influence in the region. It is quite massive, but is mostly targeting players other than the Gulf States - that will change as soon as US power in the region is broken.

Perhaps after (or if) the US withdraws from Iraq. — ssu

The US either goes to war with Iran in the near-future, to prevent exactly what I am talking about, or it will vacate the region in the near-future, which would open the door for Iran to take things over.

The smaller Gulf States aren't really worth mentioning. They only exist by virtue of US presence in the region, and will be absorbed by the bigger Gulf States (Iran and Saudi-Arabia), however between Saudi-Arabia and Iran, Iran is clearly the one with more potential.

Not to mention the fact that Saudi-Arabia's aligning with BRICS will cause it to be diplomatically isolated in the long run, because BRICS will favor Iran over Saudi-Arabia when it comes to blows (which will be inevitable, unless the US goes to war against Iran).

This is a bipartisan cause. And it's not simply the 7 million Jewish-American votes (of whom many don't like the present right-wing government in Israel), it's the Evangelicals which there are tens of millions, who want to support Israel. It's simply a domestic issue, not something chosen because of foreign policy realities. — ssu

US foreign policy isn't guided by domestic opinion.

The only thing 'the Blob' is interested in domestically, is keeping the American populace docile and ignorant - something they've been quite successful at.

There's nothing bipartisan about the US' forever wars in the Middle-East - all directly linked to Israel and the Israel lobby.

Iran is set to become regional hegemon if left unchecked (based on population, there is no question). — Tzeentch

How? — ssu

That's obviously a big topic, but geographically, geopolitically, economically and demographically it is simply the only country that can make a reasonable bid for becoming regional hegemon on the Persian Gulf. It is also in prime position to profit off Iraq's power vacuum.

The only other contender is Saudi-Arabia, which is much smaller than Iran and economically less stable.

Furthermore, Saudi-Arabia is currently in the process of aligning to BRICS, which is probably a long-term mistake for them that will eventually leave them diplomatically isolated and an easy target.

If it wasn't for the Americans/Israelis playing successful divide & conquer and sowing chaos in the region for over half a century, Iran would have already become a regional hegemon.

Why do you think Israel has treated Iran as public enemy #1 for all this time?

Jeffrey Sachs providing us with a brutally honest take on the sorry state of US, UK and Israeli foreign policy.

The only point I disagree with him on, is the fact that US foreign policy isn't guided solely by Biden's desperate attempt to salvage his election. Biden's re-election chances are only one of many perverse incentives that rear their ugly heads during this perfect shitstorm.

The US is still guided by its age-old strategy of divide & conquer on the Eurasian mainland, for which it needs conflict and a lot of it.

Iran is set to become regional hegemon if left unchecked (based on population, there is no question). The US can't have that. It just so happens that Israel wouldn't like that either, and that Israel holds a lot of sway in US domestic politics, and that's how we come full shitcircle.

Oh, how interesting.

I thought he represented the report splendidly.

Are you predicting Biden will go to war with Iran before the election? Are you also predicting this would help his chances of getting elected? — Relativist

↪Relativist Sure, why not. — Tzeentch

Looks like we're still on.

The US may appear reprehensive about a war with Iran on the surface, but the truth is that they have been planning for such a war since at least 2009.

It wouldn't be the first time Israel drags the US into a war, and I can assure you that Israel has a lot more reason to want to do so today than it had back in 2003.

It should start by ceasing the apartheid regime. As long as Israel is committing crimes against humanity there will be no peace with its neighbors either.

And I believe Israel should be prepared to make the first move in that regard. Concessions should have made decades ago, because Israel should have foreseen that it was creating an unsustainable situation for itself.

When Israel can foster some form of rapprochement within its own borders, that can be used as a basis to improve relations with its neighbors.

And no, brutalizing the Palestinians in the hopes they will be the ones to come with concessions is not a valid tactic for actual rapprochement. Israel should acknowledge it has been on the wrong side of history in this regard, and that it needs to change on a fundamental level.

It seems entirely reasonable that if one is damaged or damages themselves to a great enough extent, they lose that connection with their higher self, no?

Lapid: Netanyahu government ‘an existential threat to Israel’

Good to see Israeli politicians are starting to wisen up to the large problem Israel is creating for itself.

As I have been stating here numerous times, Israel is in a strategically vulnerable position, and the ultranationalists' inability to make peace with both its neighbors and its own population have set Israel on the road to a gigantic disaster - a disaster which is indeed existential in nature.

The only thing that can avert disaster is for the Israeli population to demand a course change, and make a sincere attempt at creating a sustainable position for Israel in the Middle-East.

The longer it waits, and the more atrocities it commits, the harder this will be.


The US is openly flirting with regime change in Israel, Lapid being the second major opposition leader to be invited to Washington.

How Netanyahu and his hardliners will respond to this remains to be seen.

We know what they are capable of.

When people argue over who "rightfully" owns the land, they are indirectly suggesting the other side may "rightfully" be oppressed, expelled, put under an apartheid regime, ethnically cleansed, etc.

In other words, these types of arguments aren't really worth taking seriously, whichever side they are coming from, since they betray a lack of basic humanity.

Personally I am not religious, yet the concept of sin makes intuitive sense to me.

It is to go against one's conscience, which I would interpret as going against one's higher self (God).

Iran says it gave warning before attacking Israel. US says that's not true

Take note, children.

This is how propaganda works.

The US is, as usual, clearly lying, by the way.

Ohhh Israel strong! Iran weak!

Am I doing it right?

Also, the situation just became extremely worrying.

Israel was clearly trying to provoke Iran into doing something like this in the hopes of dragging the US into a war with Iran. It succeeded in the first part, the second remains to be seen.

However, Iran probably understood this and went ahead with the attack anyway, basically showing it doesn't fear escalation either.

A handful of outdated nukes that may not even be there are no guarantee for anything.

October 7th was a blessing for Likud. It finally provided them with a reaction that was hideous enough to use as pretext for their long-desired ethnic cleansing. So it goes. — Mikie

On October 7th Bibi realised he lost the game: Israel will become a target in the great power struggle between 'the West' and BRICS, there will be no rapprochement in the Middle-East, and it's a matter of time until US power wanes and Arab / BRICS takes over the region, at which point Israel will be at the mercy of its historical enemies.

I think that's why Bibi's initial reaction to the attack was so extreme. This was certainly no blessing.

If you want to replace "murder" with "killing", be my guest. The point stays the same.

This isn't a claim.

This is what happened, and everybody who cares about the truth more than cheerleading for team America has acknowledged it.

From neutral observers, to direct participants, to members of the Zelensky government itself - all sources which could impossibly be argued to be lying in favor of Russia - all have confirmed it.

Do murder and torture belong in the behavior pattern of the morally upright?

I think not.

Would murdering someone in an act of self-defense irredeemably stain your soul forever and condemn you to eternal hellfire in the hereafter?

Maybe not. But that doesn't make it moral.

There seems to be confusion about the meaning of the word.

It's downright painful to watch Netanyahu dig Israel's grave with the West's tacit approval.

So you are whining over about spilled milk. — ssu

"Whining", haha.


The problem for you is that unless you want to deny the goings-on surrounding the negotiations, they directly contradict pretty much your entire narrative.

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. It's the West who blocked that deal. The Ukrainian delegation put its signature under it, whether you like it or not.

The "Russian territorial greed" narrative is swept off the table, and so is the narrative that the West is preoccupied in any way with the well-being of Ukraine.


I can still remember how people tried to deny the peace talks ever took place, and that we only had "unreliable" accounts like those of Sachs. Now that those sad refuges have been taken away, you're left pleading that these events were insignificant, which clearly they weren't.


Your narrative made some sense on February 24th of 2022, and stopped making sense literally a month into the war. You're living several years in the past.

It didn't happen, [...] — ssu

Are you serious?

It's the typical idea that Russia would have (somehow) accepted a negotiated peace... but it was the West that fumbled it by "standing firm". — ssu

We have various neutral sources telling us that. Even the Ukrainians themselves have come forward with this, because they are starting to understand the degree to which they're being used by the Americans.

What's your grounds for simply ignoring these accounts?

It's like every bit of reality that doesn't fit your preconceived notions is conveniently voided out.

The nonchalance with which you speak of accepting Russian demands as a solution to get "peace" shows how naive your thinking is. — ssu

When have I ever mentioned accepting Russian demands?

This is another example of how skewed your view is.

In your eyes, proposing to negotiate for a diplomatic solution is "accepting Russian demands", "appeasement", etc.

To you, the only option seems to be war.

History teaches us that such a stance does not protect one from conflict, but instead brings conflict closer.

Also, you speak of realpolitik, but as far as I'm concerned there's nothing realistic about volunteering as cannon fodder for team America. There is only one power in the West that is conducting realpolitik, and that's the US.

The Ukrainians see the US abandon their "close allies" and "deal friends" in Afghanistan, watch Afghanis literally fall off the last airplanes, and then tell themselves: hmmm, I want me some of that. — boethius

Looks like the Finns are in similar spirits. :lol:

One would think the Americans eventually run out of sacrificial lambs to throw on the pyre, but alas.

It's not about the justification, it's about what the real objectives here are. — ssu

Hence the motive for the invasion lies somewhere else. — ssu

Exactly. You believe the Russians were lying about their security concerns. That's precisely my point.

This is how you invite war to your doorstep.

Wrong. I've answered it. My grandfathers fought the Russians and so would I, even if I'm quite old. Their generation lost a lot more killed than the this Ukrainian generation has seen. Finland lost in WW2 2,5% of the total population. 96 000 soldiers died from 3,8 million people. Civilian losses were surprisingly small.

Now ask yourself: has yet 2,5% from the Ukrainian people (or basically 5% of the men) yet been killed?

And I think you don't understand Finnish mentality on the subject. They have made consistently polls about the attitudes towards the defense of the country by asking the same question again and again for decades: "Would you defend your country in war, even if the outcome would be questionable". Hence would you defend your country, even if there's a real possibility of losing the war. The vast majority of Finns have said yes, they would. I would also.

And if Russia nukes all the cities in Finland and ethnically cleanses out the rest surviving Finns, then take as many of them out with you and good luck with that barren nuclear wasteland then. And when likely it wouldn't come to that, defend your country to get then a better deal... like staying independent. — ssu

At least you are consistent insofar as you would happily cast your own country into the same abyss.

Well, Finland is sitting on the front row. You might just get exactly what you wish for.

The nonchalance with which you speak about turning your own country into a nuclear wasteland to deny it to the Russians, one would think you were a Ukrainian rather than a Finn. It's downright uncanny how eager you already appear to be for war.

You understand this is exactly the type of sentiment an actor like the US will use to put you infront of its wagon?

That's how crazy your argumentation is. — ssu

Except that none of this is actually part of my argument.


I'm not making any arguments about whether Russia's security concerns are justified, which is what you are doing.

I'm making the argument that when Russia speaks about existential security concerns and red lines for a decade-and-a-half, one should take it seriously.


That's contrary to what you are proposing. What you are saying is that, since you are unable to understand why the Russians would see Ukraine entering NATO as a security threat, they must be lying and their warnings can safely be ignored.

Well, we have seen what comes of that: the destruction of Ukraine.


That's why I have asked you whether you would be similarly careless if it were Finland paying the price of war. You have yet to answer that question.

Besides, please give us the reference where Putin has said himself before 2022 that Ukraine itself poses a threat to Russia. — ssu

No idea why I would have to give a reference for that, since that is obviously not part of my argument. :chin:

And then just strawman about ignoring them and assume they are lying. — ssu

This is not a strawman.

This is what you're proposing: that we assume Russia is lying about the security concerns it voiced for over 15 years, and that they can therefore safely be ignored and antagonized.


So, back to my question which you failed to answer: let's suppose Russia voiced security concerns over Finland for fifteen years, red lines and all. Just ignore it?

I guess the question isn't so easily answered in the affirmative when it is your own country that's cast into the abyss, hm?

They might be unhappy of NATO enlargement, but as you should notice that the enlargement of Sweden and Finland didn't actually get much if ANY response. The whole thing was a non-event. Why? Because it's a minor point, just like humanitarian issues and democracy is a minor issue to the US, but it still talks a lot about those issues in it's foreign policy discourse.

Hence to think that the reason to attack Ukraine was to avoid NATO enlargement is simply false. That (to deter Ukraine from becoming a NATO partner) was already done actually by the show of forces with large military exercises on the Ukrainian border. Besides, the whimsical idea here is to think that what countries the US Presidents says to become members would really become members de facto laughable. That it took two years for Sweden to get into NATO should tell that. No, the real reason to invade Ukraine was to gain territory, create that landbridge to Crimea, create that Novorossiya. This is not speculation, it's a fact: Russia has annexed more territories, some that it even doesn't have control. This, plus the russification efforts done in the occupied territories, should make this really clear.

What is now becoming very clear that Putin was lead to think that the invasion would be quick and similar to what happened with Crimea. And the West wouldn't be a problem... just as earlier in 2014 it hadn't been — ssu

In other words, when a former, nuclear-armed great power talks about existential security threats and red lines for fifteen years, ignore them and assume they are lying.

Genius.

If Russia makes territorial claims then yes, ... — ssu

This conflict didn't start over territorial claims. It started over NATO membership for Ukraine.

Lets suppose Russia would have voiced security concerns over Finland entering NATO over the course of 15 years.

Ignore them and assume they are lying?

There's nothing odd with that. Russian imperialists see Ukraine as the existential part of the to make them a great Power. — ssu

In other words, you're saying the Russians lied to us for 15 years and their warnings should have been ignored, as they were?

Another question; suppose Finland is next on the chopping block. Would you also favor this strongman attitude of no negotiations or diplomacy with the Russians? Fight on till the last Finn, as it were?

Ukraine didn't threaten Russia, [...] — ssu

Oh... How odd then that the Russians insisted for over fifteen years that it was an existential security threat and marked it as a red line.

And what a genius plan to ignore such warnings!

How strange that Ukraine ended up in the position that it did.

How very odd, indeed.

What mistakes had been done by the West, it simply doesn't erase the fact that Putin decided to escalate a frozen conflict to a full scale conventional war with the objective of continuing the land grab it started over in 2014. — ssu

European leaders themselves have admitted they treated the Minsk accords as a temporary armistice during which Ukraine could be armed and prepared for war.

You're completely ignoring the West's provocative role in all of this.

The real critique of the US could be the too little too late doctrine in supporting Ukraine, as the US didn't from the start think Ukraine would have a chance to defend itself so successfully. — ssu

The US doesn't care about Ukraine, or whether Ukraine is able to defend itself.

This isn't about Ukraine. This is about geopolitics.

Ukraine was simply a mechanism by which the US could sow instability in Eastern Europe, which is clearly the reason it sought to change Ukraine's neutral status - the key to stability between Russia and Europe - because it's the only reason the US would pursue such a policy in a geopolitically sensitive region.

So why criticise the US over a job well done?

They got exactly what they wanted, and the Europeans are utterly oblivious and lapping it all up.

The Americans have got you worried about the alligator next door, yet you're completely oblivious to the alligator you've gotten into bed with.

Do you even realize that if the Americans are successful in stirring up trouble between Europe and Russia, you're sitting in the front row to receive the blows?

↪Tzeentch, so, using the thread to air other grievances? — jorndoe

No one here is arguing that Russia is right in what it does.

This is what you can't seem to understand: my argument is not that we ought to look more favorably on Russia's actions, but that we ought to look more critically at the United States'

Obviously, the latter is something you seem chronically incapable of doing, and you, along with some others, are trying to project that bias onto me by framing me as "pro-Russian", "Kremlin-blind", etc.

Maybe I'll call failure to recognize such like ↑ "Kremlin-blindness". — jorndoe

None of the things you named there, regrettable they may be, can hold a candle to the damage the United States has wreaked upon the world.

When I say Russia and the US operate on roughly the same principles I'm being generous to the US. One could easily make the point the US is way, way worse.

Need me to refresh your memory about US history?

The problem with these people is that they've fallen hook, line and sinker for a story of American exceptionalism.

They view Russia through a lens of unending cynicism (and I would argue that is reasonably appropriate), but fail to realise America functions in exactly the same way.

Anyone who points it out is then labeled as 'pro-Russian', which is some sad coping behavior not really worth taking seriously.

Neoliberalism takes away formal instruments with which the democratic system can influence socio-economic matters, but does nothing to counteract the informal instruments with which 'big business' influences matters through lobbying.

It takes power away from the citizens and puts it in the hands of big business, and as such is a blueprint for widespread corruption.

Once the system is well and truly rotten, the ground is ripe for populism. It is corruption that is the catalyst for populism. So while populism in ways is a problematic phenomenon, it is a reaction to a problematic status quo. This insight is what almost always lacks in discussions about how bad populism is.


This has, in my opinion, nothing to do with solidarity, and the article I found rather uninspiring.

In the Netherlands, the left failed to be a counterbalance against neoliberalism, and failed to provide a suitable alternative. (And obviously we needn't even mention a 'left' in the US...)

In fact, the largest left-wing party GroenLinks/PvdA consists of two parties which have basically appeased neoliberal (VVD) dominance for over a decade in the hopes they would be allowed some scraps. They staunchly supported and continue support the relinquishment of sovereignty to the EU, which is entirely ran by lobbyists.

Meanwhile, the left-wing party that did take its job seriously and helped to break neoliberal dominance is almost completely ignored by the left and ended up with a measly 5 seats.


So this article comes across as somewhat detached whinging about an imaginary moral high ground. If I'm honest, it's rather typical from dusty academics, who are repeatedly shown to be some of the most detached people in Dutch society.

↪Tzeentch
, so, back to the inquiry, what the heck was the Kremlin to do with that, with what UA wanted? — jorndoe

They told us Ukraine joining NATO was an existential security threat to them, and a red line, meaning they were prepared to enter into full-scale, perhaps even nuclear war over this issue.

That's the story they told us for some 15 years.

So obviously the Kremlin believed it was their business, and whether you agree with that or not, if you do not take warnings like these seriously, you're a fool, or you're the United States preparing to sacrifice a pawn.

The United States knew the Russian position, and desired instability and conflict in Eastern Europe. That's why it ignored these warnings. Ukraine was the pawn to be sacrificed, and Europe is next, if Uncle Sam gets his way.

cherry-picked — jorndoe

You can stop now jorn.

No clear-minded person would doubt the US is the most-likely culprit in the Nord Stream bombing, and you're simply making yourself look like a brainwashed idiot.

Sorry to put it so bluntly.

You departed therefrom again once having mentioned the Vietnamese — a comment I took to mean that what UA wanted was real enough, as opposed to a US plot (I suppose we might have enquired into both possibilities, but no matter).
So, implications of what they wanted, what to do with that (by the Kremlin)? — jorndoe

In the world of international politics, and in life in general, one doesn't always get what they want, and blindly pursuing what one wants is a recipe for disaster.

The Ukrainians foolishly let themselves be seduced into thinking they wouldn't be sacrificed like a pawn by the US, which is of course exactly what is happening.

On the Nord Stream thing, Sy + Rose = your (sole) source...? — jorndoe

What about US officials, including Nuland and the US president himself? :rofl:

It's not settled. — jorndoe

Maybe to those who have their head so far in the sand that they wouldn't recognize reality if it were to hit them smack in the face.

My point is that the US deliberately sought to change Ukraine's neutral status in order to create instability in Eastern Europe - that has been its goal from 2008 onward, and it succeeded.

Ukraine was foolish enough to go along with it. How a nation could think it a good idea to ignore a neighboring great power talking about existential security concerns and red lines is beyond me. It was obvious from the get-go that it would lead to Ukraine's destruction and that the US had no intention of starting WW3 for Ukraine, ergo was always going to hang Ukraine out to dry.

But this is how the US has always operated. It has interests, and simply manipulates countries into believing their interests align with the US. Just like Vietnam, just like various countries in the Middle-East, etc.

And it always leaves behind the same result: a smoldering pile of rubble, thousands dead, chaos.

It's an all-too-familiar pattern in US foreign policy.


Also, under what rock are you living?

Wait, you still claim having the scoop on the Nord Stream thing? — jorndoe

Biden's Blackout: How America & Norway Blew up the Nord Stream Pipelines

The worst thing is that you have morally upright American journalists trying to teach you what your rotten government gets up to, but you refuse to listen.

But there's another factor in respect of religious traditions, and that is the idea of revealed truth or spiritual illumination which provides the liberating understanding that is being sought by the disciple. — Wayfarer

True.

Personally, I regard wisdom as a synthesis of rationality, intuition and experience, and therefore as having an element to it that is revealed or essentially esoteric.

I think most of us experience this as we grow older. There are many things that I was taught as a child and never took particularly seriously, until I grew older and those things started to make a lot more sense.


The rational part I had already been told, but the rational part alone was not enough to produce wisdom or understanding.

Therefore, while it may be unsatisfactory to some, it is apparent that one cannot expect to attain spiritual wisdom by relying on rational explanations alone.


All of this is to say, I think wisdom is in essence revealed truth and esoteric in nature.

Sometimes the answer is: "You don't understand, because you're not ready to understand it." - highly unsatisfactory, but nonetheless true sometimes?

I'd love to engage with your posts, but I find them impossible to make sense of, and am always left guessing what point you are trying to make.


If your point is that the Ukrainians went into this voluntarily; yes, and so did for example the Vietnamese.

And, just like the Vietnamese, the Ukrainians were and are completely clueless about the fact they're being used as a pawn to further US interests.


We're now at a point where Ukraine has given away all its sovereignty, since the country runs completely on foreign aid.

Furthermore, Ukraine will be the ultimate patsy upon which everything can be pinned, because the country is in shambles and will never be held to account anyway.

That's what we saw with the Nord Stream bombing, for example - the US tried to pin it on Ukraine, because they know things can't get any worse for Ukraine anyway.


In a nutshell, the Ukrainians were naive enough to play along, and now they're essentially incapable of changing course because their country is in shambles and runs completely on foreign aid.