I think a military incursion, even if ultimately successful, would be a serious struggle. We can reasonably assume Hamas is prepared for Israeli retaliations, especially since these were the bloodiest attacks in decades.

But in the end where will it leave Israel? Rapprochement with the Muslim world will be impossible if the civilian death toll is high, and it probably will be. The situation on the West Bank will become further inflamed, quite possibly resulting in extreme violence there as well. What of other Arab nations like Lebanon and Iran, who might not sit idly by while this happens?

If this powder keg blows, what is the US going to do? It's got its hands full with Russia and China.

Mobilizing 300,000 troops is quite an extreme reaction - perhaps exactly the type which Hamas sought to provoke. I'm not sure what Israel plans to do with those 300,000 reservists. Some news reports have stated that it is sending most its troops to the Lebanese border. Given the global geopolitical situation with the US occupied elsewhere and looking weak, they might be fearing a serious attack by another party.

If they use massive military force to once again attack Lebanon or to occupy Gaza, I think it will be a grave mistake on their part. A new occupation of Gaza would turn into an absolute bloodbath that would probably haunt them for the rest of their existence. But I'm not sure if the current geopolitical situation allows Israel to go on the offensive like that.

It's clear Hamas and Hezbollah, and other actors like Iran, are capable of learning from past and contemporary conflicts and know how to target Israel's weak points. I'm inclined to believe the military balance of power is skewed less in Israel's favor than it has in the past, and given Israel's precarious position in the region we may be looking at genuine fear.

Anyone has any ideas about Hamas' goals?

One would have to assume they expected harsh retaliation by Israel, but what do they stand to gain?

Keeping their cause alive could be one reason, but at the same time that's a very limited goal that maybe doesn't warrant such a large attack.

A theory I've heard is that Iran was involved, and that this may have to do with sabotaging Saudi-Israel rapprochement. It's an interesting thought, but at the same time the question is whether such a goal would warrant this type of an attack. Especially considering Iran and Saudi-Arabia have reached their own form of rapprochement recently, and one would assume that countries in BRICS have more subtle ways of settling such matters among themselves.

Anyway, I haven't heard something that makes total sense yet. So any takers?

What did you think of Stradner's post (Sep 30, 2023)? — jorndoe

I think she's right that these conflicts are related to the war in Ukraine, and perhaps more directly with the shifting geopolitical landscape in a wider sense.

However, it would be too easy to label this as 'a thing evil Russia does', because the US / The West seems to be doing the same, for example in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

I agree with you that from a humanist perspective it is a crazy strategy. But I guess close to a century of oppression changed some people's view of what is rational.

My belief is that the Israelis want peace and their enemies do not. — tim wood

There are extremist elements within both sides.

Certain zionist and nationalist elements such as ones found in Netanyahu's party Likud, view Israel as a strictly Jewish nation state, and see little to no place for the millions of Palestinians that live in Israel. Aggressive settlement policies and discriminatory laws are clear examples of that.

Note for example that on the West Bank Palestinians aren't allowed to move freely through Israeli settlements or areas under Israeli control, and thus Israeli settlements have over time cut off entire Palestinian communities or made life impossible and driven them from their homes by settling near them.

West Bank Map

In the West Bank you will literally find lone Palestinian homes amidst Jewish streets, completely boarded up. These are people who refuse to leave. They're not even allowed to do groceries freely. They're policed by the army, while Israelis are policed by regular police forces.

One could argue that Israel adopted these policies with the express purpose of bullying the Palestinians until they would leave.

Did you take my post as finger wagging? — Echarmion

It wasn't aimed specifically at you. It's just a thing that comes up with some regularity.

↪Tzeentch, say, there are some marked differences between Kennedy (1917-1963) and Litvinenko (1962-2006). — jorndoe

I'm sure there are. I just sought to point out that the US isn't a stranger to political killings, and wagging the finger at Russia is rather hypocritical.

Anything further on those NATO and coup things, by the way? — jorndoe

I'm not sure what else you expect me to say. I have responded to your questions. If you think something is lacking in my response, it would really help if you would state your questions a bit more clearly.

[...] but because it has this nihilistic and delusional vision where this will provoke Israel into the "final, apocalyptic, battle," they are fated to lose. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's perhaps not as delusional as you may think.

Israel is a tiny country surrounded by historical enemies that have attempted to gang up on it several times in the past. Each time it was saved by its professional military, without which it wouldn't have existed today - it would have literally been erased from the map.

Pretty much the whole Muslim world has a bone to pick with Israel, and even if relations with some Muslim neighbours appear stable now, it's entirely unclear if that hatchet is truly buried.

When one considers that Israel's population is less than 10 million people (for reference, Egypt alone has a population of 109 million), one realizes Israel's dominant (albeit precarious) position in the region is entirely unnatural and cannot last forever. When another nation or nations take over that role, will they be merciful towards Israel? I highly doubt it, and Israel owes that in part to its own conduct and failure to find a modus vivendi with the Palestinians.

I visited Israel and the West Bank in 2019 as part of a research tour. The problems there are complicated and many, and solutions are all but impossible, so don't interpret this as though I am taking sides.

The atmosphere there is fearful and tense, in both Israel and the West Bank. It is a police state. I left with exactly the feeling that, unless it can accomplish some kind of rapprochement with the Palestinians and the Muslim world at large, Israel is doomed when that pendulum swings the other way. The question is when that happens.

Just don't live in a building where you could accidentally fall out the window to your death. — Echarmion

In Russia political opponents fall out of windows. In the US they get shot in broad daylight.

Pick your poison, I suppose.

Hezbollah seems to have bombarded a farm in the north of Israel with rockets and artillery, and the Israelis are retaliating with airstrikes. Certainly a worrying situation.

Given the shifting geopolitical situation and rapprochement between Iran and Saudi-Arabia, I understand the fear.

What hangs as a shadow over these conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah, is the question of whether this will be the time Israel's historical rivals may come to settle old scores.

With international politics being what they are, this is an incredibly tricky situation.

One can only hope that this powder keg doesn't finally blow, but even so I don't think it's a matter of 'if' but a matter of 'when'.

Similar to what's come up before, suppose that Ukraine had ... ▸ declared neutrality with respect to international military alliance memberships, formally on paper / constitutionally; ▸ retained right to self-defense, e.g. from invaders (shouldn't be controversial), including foreign training and/or weaponry as the case may be; ▸ explicitly stated that others respect sovereignty, self-determination, freedom to seek own path (shouldn't be controversial); ▸ actively pursued EU membership, and perhaps sought other such cooperation ... Something along those lines.

The question is what might we then have expected from the Kremlin. Seems like they covered their bases, but what might have transpired then? — jorndoe

I gave a pretty elaborate response to this question, by the way:

Pre-2014, some sort of commitment to neutrality backed up by action could have probably avoided this war.

War became virtually inevitable when Washington expressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and then backed up that intention by supporting a coup and by starting to train and arm the Ukrainians.

Even if NATO membership was being held off, the Russians feared Washington would create a fait accompli when it started arming the Ukrainians to such an extent that in time the Russians wouldn't be able to object.

The importance of Ukraine is especially tied to Crimea and Sevastopol. Ukraine entering a rival military alliance would mean Russian access to the Black Sea and its strategic partners could be cut off at any point in time. It had a long-term lend lease deal, which Ukraine could simply cancel and then it would be up to Russia to invade, which would at that point be completely unfeasible.

Everybody involved at the political level is (or should be) aware of this, which is why Washington's attempt to change Ukraine's neutral status in 2008 and 2014 should be seen as a deliberate attempt at escalation.

EU membership may be a difficult point. The EU isn't a military alliance, but the Europhiles in Brussel certainly fantasize about turning the EU into a 'United States of Europe', with a European army, etc., which would essentially create the same situation as if Ukraine would join NATO. One could argue that such a situation is far away, but the nature of geopolitics is long-term.


Right now it will be very difficult to come to a peace agreement, since trust between Russia and the West has been completely shattered (it should be attempted regardless).

Russia is not going to return the territories it now occupies, simply because the trust isn't there to leave Crimea in the same vulnerable situation that it was in. That was the point of their invasion. And it is unlikely Ukraine (and Washington) would agree to a peace deal that doesn't return territory.

The harsh truth is that the rest of Ukraine is only of marginal importance to Russia and Washington, and it will likely end up being the pawn in the geopolitical game for years to come. I only see things getting worse for Ukraine. — Tzeentch

Regardless of NATO (and the US) — jorndoe

The way that you phrased your hypothetical, those other countries would be forming a bloc that would function essentially the same as NATO.

So in that sense it doesn't matter which military bloc or hegemon takes the role of NATO and US respectively, assuming of course there's a credible threat of Russia being kicked out of Ukraine permanently.

A move to democracy against corruption etc — jorndoe

That's a bit of a rose-coloured way of imagining things.

Having the US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs design the government hardly seems democratic to me. I also wonder how much of that 5 billion was spent on bribes. :sweat:

I was called 'Pro-Putin' for just defending Dostoevsky... *sigh* — javi2541997

My suggestion would be, don't waste your time replying to forum members that try to frame you as being partisan. They're not worth your time and effort.

For me, it is clear that Washington is so interested in degrading Russia and pushing EU members against them. A terrible situation for both Europeans and Russians, but not for Americans. Yikes! — javi2541997

Exactly. European and American interests diverge at key points, and the current European leadership is completely incapable of safeguarding those lines.

You calling it a "victory" for the Russians, tells more about you than about the Russians. — neomac

Damn. I extend an olive branch and gave a serious response to your question, and you give me this? How sad.

Enough with the sass. If you want a straightforward answer, just ask a straightforward question. Unclear, loaded or passive aggressive questions I don't care to respond to.

Anyway, you've been mostly polite thus far:

What might we then have expected from the Kremlin? — jorndoe

If Ukraine's neutral status were threatened in some other way, we might expect the very same behavior from the Kremlin, especially if no meaningful dialogue takes place.

What's up with the repeated misrepresentation anyways? — jorndoe

I never said the Maidan coup was "just a US thing", so I'm not sure what misrepresentation you're talking about.

What does winning the war mean exactly? — neomac

Obviously I cannot look into the minds of the Kremlin, but if I had to make an educated guess:

- Either force a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine problem that involves a neutral Ukraine.

- In the absence of a diplomatic solution, Russia would annex those parts of Ukraine that it deems vitally important (unclear if this includes more than what it already holds), and turn the rest of Ukraine into a ruin.

What inquiries? I'll happily answer your questions, but you have a rather unclear way of asking them.

On an added note, the Russians seem to be getting rather boisterous as of late.

I take that as a clear sign they believe the West is out of aces and they are winning the war. Any takers?

I didn't talk about 'forcing'. The US was aware of and crossed the Kremlin's red lines despite over a decade of warnings, and now Ukraine is paying the bill while Western political figures are gushing about how this war is a cheap way of keeping Russia occupied.

What do you think about that?

And what do you make of the fact that Washington was deeply aware of the Kremlin's red lines, crossed them anyway and is now having Ukraine pay the bill?

These oompa loompas keep saying the quiet part out loud:



This time some cringy quotes from the Minister of Defence from my very own home country. In Dutch we say, "plaatsvervangende schaamte".

It is very much in our interest to support Ukraine, because they are fighting this war. We're not fighting it. — Kasja Ollongren

In a way of course supporting Ukraine is a very cheap way to make sure Russia with this regime is not a threat to the NATO alliance. — Kasja Ollongren

Ukraine's fight is being instrumentalized by the West. Occupying Russia in Ukraine is a great way of keeping NATO safe.

Let's ignore the fact that that very same NATO dangled the promise of safety infront of the Ukrainians and goaded them into playing hardball with the Russians.

NATO security at Ukraine's expense? It's what I and many others have been saying here for a while.

What's worse is that this "plan" is fucking stupid, excuse my French. It's probably what the Americans are whispering in the ears of our dimwitted European "leadership" to foster support for a war that's not in Europe's interest.

How is NATO going to be secure by essentially degrading European-Russian relations and remilitarizing Russia while DEmilitarizing Europe?

But hey, folks like Kasja get to play pretend with the big boys in Washington, so all is well.

They even named the money, the amount of money that was spent on this coup. Everything is possible. — Putin

Well, he is not wrong:

Victoria Nuland: Ukrainians Deserve Respect From Their Government

We've invested over 5 billion dollars to assist Ukraine in these and other goals, that will ensure a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine. — Victoria Nuland

This was posted on December 19th, 2013. Months before the coup take place.

Did they make good on their promises to ensure a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine? I think not, but you be the judge.

A & B are in a war with each other. Both A & B claim that they - and they alone - have the right to rule / govern / control a particular piece of real estate. — EricH

This doesn't describe the war in Ukraine, though. Russia doesn't claim any such rights.

And that expression of concerns has been generally understood to require world domination by force. — tim wood

The Russians are after world domination by force? You'll have to explain that one.

As to refusing dialogue, that is simply a lie, and the speaker of it either a liar, ignorant, or stupid. Take your pick, combinations allowed. — tim wood

The US has never over the course of some 20+ years veered from its course to do exactly what the Russians were warning them about.

Even diplomatic negotiations like Minsk were used as a tool of conflict.

So yes, I maintain that no (meaningful) dialogue has taken place.

There's an argument to be made that it is the Russians themselves who have "no interest...". That it is the Russians themselves who choose, have long chosen, to live as enemies in a world that instead wants friends. That it is the Russians themselves who have been their own worst enemy. — tim wood

Well, the Russians have never made a secret of what they believe their security concerns are. It is the West (primarily the US) that has refused dialogue of any sort for as long as this conflict has existed.

With your remarks about the Russian constitution, you seem to imply you don't view these things as matters that should be discussed, but rather taken at face value and dismissed if it doesn't appeal. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, if you have no interest in other countries' views and their security concerns, what situation do you believe you'll end up with other than endless war?

Ok, then. Have fun going to war until the only side that's right is the only side that's left, I suppose.

To be honest, Brzezinski deserves to be taken seriously.

In 1997 he wrote an influential book called 'The Grand Chessboard' in which he detailed American geopolitical strategy post-Cold War.

Here's a post I wrote months ago with some juicy quotes from Brzezinski's book that will give a glimpse into the mindset of the Washington elite. It paints a rather bleak picture.

Why someone would refer to Brzezinski to deny Washington's culpability remains a mystery.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. — wonderer1

Nah. What you're suggesting is a joke, really.

The depths at which the pipeline was damaged are within technical scuba diving range. — wonderer1

The depths of the pipeline (80m - 110m) are well within what is considered 'technical diving' range (60m+). Things like oxygen toxicity and decompression sickness become life hazards, and these dives are only to be undertaken by trained, experienced and well-equipped divers. It will be hard for civilians to even find training for dives below 100m, but it is possible.

The pipeline is likely easy to spot on a modern 'fish finder'. — wonderer1

No - at least not with something you can simply strap to a small sailing yacht. Again, the depths of the pipelines is between 80m - 110m. You would need something sizable to reach that deep.

Furthermore, sound doesn't travel in straight lines underwater, so "spotting" is easy. Pinpointing to the degree of accuracy required for an operation like this is a whole other ballgame that would require extensive surveillance.

GPS controlled autopilot makes holding a position relatively simple... — wonderer1

On the type of sailing yacht purported to have carried out the operation? Nah.

You may be confused by measurements in meters instead of feet. Or maybe you don't understand the technical implications of dangling a few hundred tons of explosives from a wire and having people work on it at a depth of a 100m.

That's all based on a hunch though [...] — Benkei

That the US is responsible is certainly just an educated guess of mine. But I tried to focus more on the absurdity of the theory that's being presented.

The estimates was hundreds of pounds of TNT btw, so not at impossible as you might think, [...] — Benkei

The issue here is that there's no way to get hundreds of pounds of explosives to the seafloor without specialized equipment. I think we can agree that they didn't just kick a few hundred pounds of C4 overboard and hoped for the best, so there's an explanation lacking of how they did this off the back of a yacht.

Handling these types of weights underwater (let alone explosives) is a delicate task that requires absolute precision, but let me get to the next point:

I don't know what your list of equipment is based on. — Benkei

- The precise location of these pipelines isn't public knowledge, so some form of seabed scanning equipment is required to locate the pipelines before the operation can take place. Trial and error is not realistic. It's possible they got the information from a third party.

- Ships don't lie still in the water (and neither do explosive packages for that matter). They drift. And when one is lowering hundreds of pounds worth of explosives into the water that people have to handle at a 100m depth, a vessel is required that can maintain its position with a high degree of accuracy.

- I don't know how one would handle hundreds of pounds of explosives without atleast a crane.

- And diving equipment is self-explanatory. Presumably the divers had to carry out some actions at the bottom, so decompression would be a time-consuming process that could take several hours. Communication equipment, safety equipment, bare necessities unless you're suicidal.

Without some kind of explanation of how they worked, it's hard to take the yacht story seriously.

I gave the documentary a watch.

Honestly, the idea that an operation of this magnitude was carried out from a sailing yacht I find unlikely, bordering on the impossible.

Performing underwater demolitions is obviously a highly specialized job. Precision navigation equipment, seabed scanning equipment, diving equipment, a crane of some sort - these are things I would expect a vessel to be capable of to be used in for this type of operation.

The documentary tackles some of the criticism, but in my opinion doesn't go into enough detail to make this unlikely story any more likely. A 100m dive is something that experienced, civilian divers can do, but the diving depth is not the extraordinary part.

The documentary also claims that the demolitions could have been done using a small amount of explosives, but the Nordstream explosions measured between 2.1 - 2.3 on the Richter Scale. So yea, obviously not a small explosion. Quite a massive one, in fact. 2.0 on the Richter Scale is equivalent to one ton of TNT.

Personally I don't believe it.

Lastly, the documentary says no one takes Hersh's story seriously. That statement reeks, because it's by far the most logical scenario to have taken place, and it is obviously SOP to have a cover story in place if the US did do it. To say 'no one takes it seriously' is typical deflection.

It sounds to me like this story was made up to deflect blame from the US. Ukraine is not a NATO ally, so Ukraine bombing Nordstream would be slightly less outrageous than the US bombing its allies' infrastructure. Maybe it was carried out by Ukrainian divers, but if that's the case it wasn't without US involvement. No way.

A while back people linked a Swedish documentary with all sorts of experts insinuating Russia was the likely culprit. So yea, I take these documentaries with a grain of salt to begin with, especially if the 'experts' are people I never heard of and will probably never hear from again.

It's quite possible the US had a Ukrainian team carry out (a part of) the operation. This would provide the US with plausible deniability. Considering the scale of the operation, I find it unlikely the Ukrainians did this completely on their own, though. Considering the impact geopolitically and the implications of bombing allied (German) infrastructure, it's almost unthinkable they did this without consulting the US.

Given that we have Seymour Hersh's story, the US incriminating a 'Ukrainian group', and of course the US incriminating itself by constantly threatening to end Nordstream if war were to break out, I think the picture is starting to come together.

I'll give that documentary a watch later. Thanks!

You've really got nothing, do you? :rofl:

The tape surfaced on February 6th 2014. Yanukovych didn't cede power until February 21st, and the worst of the violence happened on February 20th.

But nice try, I guess.

Is this all you have? Blowing smoke in the hopes people aren't well-informed enough to see through it?

Let me remind you why the Euromaidan happened - it was a reaction of Ukrainians to Russia forcing Yanukovych to renege on his promises for trade integration with the EU - this had nothing to do with NATO. — Jabberwock

Except that NATO's big daddy, the US, was directly involved in the coup.

We've even got Nuland on tape, designing the new Ukrainian government before the coup happened. :lol:

Given that it was only six years in between and NATO did not really do anything to change that perception, ... — Jabberwock

'Not really anything', except for expanding NATO by another 7 countries, and planning another 2 - Ukraine and Georgia.

NATO was fully aware what the Russians thought of this. Everybody had been since the fall of the Soviet Union. It's just revisionism that tries to sweep this away into the creases of history.

NATO expansionism had received wide-spread criticism, even from people within the administrations that carried out the policy. You can read the memoires of people like Madeline Albright or Robert Gates.

George Kennan termed NATO expansion as 'starting a new Cold War' back in 1998!

And here you are arguing the 'Russians acted unexpected and irrational'.

What can I say? It's a joke.

Maybe next time just read what you comment on. Then you would not have to complain about your own poor reading skills. Or ask what is the argument about after you comment on it. — Jabberwock

Very impressive, kiddo. :rofl:

What even is your argument? :chin:

The bottomline is your assertions are objectively untrue. We've got Washington officials going on record saying the exact opposite of what you're saying.

It is Russia's reaction that is unexpected and somewhat irrational — Jabberwock

Russia's position on Ukraine / Georgia NATO membership was known well before the 2008 Bucharest Summit, and not 'unexpected' at all. The Russian view is discussed at length in several leaked memos written by former CIA director William Burns, one of which is titled 'Nyet Means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines'.

Here's are two memos from the lead up to the 2008 Summit:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW748_a.html
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html


It's honestly quite stunning how poorly read people here are after 511 pages of discussion.