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.

A neutral Ukraine was the key to stability in eastern Europe and everybody knew it. The US deliberately sought to remove Ukraine as a neutral buffer in 2008.

Therefore it's clear the Americans desired instability.

It's just too obvious and simple to ignore. Occam's razor at work.

The US intentionally sought to create instability in eastern Europe, which is why it sought to change Ukraine's neutral status, which was the key to peace.

Then, as the Russians protested and drew their red lines, the Americans knew exactly what to do to get a violent reaction out of the Russians and bring instability closer.

The reason for this is simple: both Europe and Russia stand to gain when the US inevitably gets sucked into large-scale security competition with China. Furthermore, if Europe and Russia are in chaos, it deprives China of markets which will be critical once China's sea lines of communication get cut off during said security competition.


However, unfortunately for the Americans the Russians have been holding back in an effort not to escalate. They've essentially been trying to direct things back to the status quo since the first month of the war.

The Europeans are oblivious to anything and everything, but they don't have the stomach nor capability for war. European leaders who strongly support Ukraine probably have until the end of their terms until they'll be swept aside by some right-wing populists which are popping up all over Europe.


However, that is only the short-term picture.


The long-term picture is that Europe and Russia will lose their neutral buffer Ukraine, and both will likely become fully remilitarized, creating fertile soil for future conflict.

Very good point, Tzeentch. But, sadly, the teachings, values and ethics of Jesus only appear in the Gospels, which were twisted and even invented by the apostles... — javi2541997

From what I understand there is quite a debate within Christian theological circles about the original teachings of Jesus Christ, which I think is the result of people wanting to return to the source material for essentially the reasons we're discussing here.

Anyway, to come back to your original problem;

I think religious faith is not necessary for those who are able to retrace the footsteps of the sage and understand their teachings.

The problem is that due to the profoundity of such teachings, many lack the capability, will or time to fully understand them. Religious faith and religion is the next best thing to actual understanding, or so some may argue.

I'd consider it very natural for the philosophically inclined to find religious faith problematic and to desire the actual understanding.

It seems to me that religion often results in a watering down (or obfuscation) of the original teachings of the sage, therefore I have found very little use for it.

If I want to know about Christianity, I want to know what Christ - the sage - had to say. His followers I'm not so interested in.

Sometimes within a religion new people arise who might rightfully be called a sage in their own right, but sages are rare, 'once-in-a-century' type people.

Religion poses a big problem of whose thoughts and additions on the original source material one ought to take seriously, not in the least because the original material often is already of a profound nature and easily misunderstood.

My response to that has been to return to the source material, at which point, what is the point of religion?

Even though the nature of the Moscow terror attack remains ambiguous, it appears now that Turkey is throwing the US under the bus.

Two of the terrorists had visited Istanbul prior to the attack, and it seems Turkey may be looking to exonerate itself by cooperating with the Russian investigation.

Senior Turkish official Ömer Çelik stated the terror attack could have only been carried out with help of a foreign nation, by which he is clearly suggesting that a nation other than Turkey was involved, and well, there aren't many candidates to choose from.

If it turns out the US was involved in this attack, and I honestly find that quite plausible (even though it's far from certain what happened), we are looking at a new low in western foreign politics - an all-time low, perhaps - and it would be further evidence that the United States is looking to escalate the conflict.


I would stress that given Turkey's relatively neutral position between NATO and Russia, it would be very hard to imagine Turkey having been involved, or trying to falsely accuse its military allies. Therefore I think there is some weight to this statement by the senior Turkish official.

Personally, I think the military balance has changed significantly.

The Arab nations are no longer completely clueless when it comes to military matters, and recent history is filled with examples of how to counter the traditional western way of war (even carried out by the Arabs themselves).

In addition, Israel has a tiny population compared to its neighbors, and it would simply crumble under the weight of a long war like the one we see in Ukraine. Not to mention the fact that if it ever were to be under a serious attack, the Palestinian population may rise up against it, which would be an uprising roughly equal to that of Israel's entire Jewish population.

This is bleak to say the least.

The Arab nations are all aligned to the BRICS, which means they have access to military knowledge and resources from capable states like China and Russia, further diminishing any power imbalance.


Yes, Israel possibly has nuclear weapons. The truth is, we don't know, and we don't know how many.

My sense is that a handful of (potentially outdated) nuclear weapons aren't going to change the power balance in a meaningful way, since nuclear use by Israel will likely mean they have to nuke their own territory, which is why they have always referred to it as 'the Samson option'.


There are no good outcomes for Israel is it ever comes to blows with its neighbors.

It's not so severe as you make it to sound, because once the operation ends and we have some kind of a cease-fire, then the people will forget the issue. Out of sight, out of mind. — ssu

I don't think this is true, with an eye on the changing geopolitical reality in the Middle-East.

The West can "forget the issue", but the geopolitical shift with Arab nations aligning to BRICS and taking a bigger role cannot simply be ignored. Or rather one may ignore it at their own peril.

And that goes double for Israel, because all of these Arab nations have a bone to pick with Israel over the question of Palestine specifically.

Israel is a small island in a sea of historical and potential enemies, and it is cultivating the seeds of a gigantic disaster within and without its own borders.


I honestly think you don't fully understand what is at stake here.

The only reason Israel still exists is because of its "special relationship" with the United States and basically the promise that the United States will come to Israel's rescue if it were ever in real trouble.

When the United States gets embroiled in intense security competition with China in the Pacific, which is essentially guaranteed to happen at some point in the near future, the United States will no longer be able to make good on that promise.

If Israel sours its relation with the United States significantly, the United States may want to cut off Israel entirely, since Israel right now is clearly the United States' Achilles heel. It can't afford to drop Israel, nor can it afford to get bogged down in the Middle-East trying to protect it. It's clear that America's enemies are leveraging this bind.

Lastly, the true nature of the US-Israel 'special relationship' remains somewhat of a mystery to me. I have never heard a truly satisfactory explanation why the Israel lobby is so powerful in the United States, but my suspicion is that its roots lie in the US financial system.

That financial system is under heavy pressure, and basically headed for a giant crash in the near future as well, further compounding the geopolitical issues I have already laid out.

When that system crashes, it may fundamentally change the US-Israel relation to Israel's detriment.

Right, in other words:

"It's not me who is crazy. It's the whole world that is crazy."

You realize how rare it is for almost literally the entire world to agree on something in the UNSC and UNGA?

I agree, the lobby is extremely powerful, and I think that's why Biden dared not bypass Netanyahu (who is heavily favored by the lobby). It's also worth mentioning that Obama was in a much, much stronger position than Biden is today, which allowed him to take a tougher stance on Israel.

Right now, it appears as though Netanyahu is trying to leverage Biden's weak position, but he's nearing the end of the rope.

US support for Israel is tanking US credibility pretty much across the globe. Arab nations are an especially important factor in this, because US influence in the region is rapidly waning and basically all Arab nations are aligning themselves with the BRICS, threatening to cut the US out.

I think soon the Israeli government and the lobby will realise that there are in fact things more important to the United States than US-Israel relations, and that overplaying their hand is going to fundamentally hamstring their position in the future.

As for the Israeli policy vis-á-vis Gaza and the West Bank, it's becoming painfully clear what that is:

UN expert says Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, calls for arms embargo

Note: not "potential" genocide - actual genocide.

Just look at how desperately the US is trying to play both sides:

US says ceasfire resolution non-binding

Suddenly UNSC resolutions are non-binding. Even an IR freshman could tell you UNSC resolutions are legally binding.

This would be hilarious if it weren't for the 'aiding and abetting genocide' part.

The only reason would be if Trump's base would be upset about Israel. It's not. It's the leftist students in the university campuses and the Arab Americans who are upset about the treatment of Palestinians. — ssu

You don't think there are many normal people looking at what is happening in Gaza and drawing their conclusions? Where I live we call this "the silent majority".

At any rate, I'm not an American so I couldn't tell you exactly why people are favoring Trump over Biden, or why Americans believe Trump might be able to change things.

I think the whole slew of failed policies Biden is responsible for plays a big role, and that includes their failure to stop Israel from crossing the line.

Maybe it's just a matter of Biden having been so atrocious that any alternative, including Trump, is considered better.

Biden has been stooging for the Israeli government in the hopes of securing support from the Israel lobby, which could in turn make the difference in the upcoming election.

However, Biden's popularity is tanking, and a big reason for that is his unconditional support for Israel and the extension of a blank cheque to Netanyahu after the October attacks. A blank cheque which the Israelis happily cashed in as they went all-in on a punitive campaign against a trapped civilian population.

In addition, there are many other things that make Biden unpopular. Project Ukraine is a neocon endeavor that Biden has long been a part of, and it is widely regarded as being in the process of failling. His age is also an obvious problem.

There are two things that could save his election: A) Trump being unable to run, or B) a war breaking out.

In other words, the Israel lobby's importance in the upcoming election is diminishing, and as such the US may take a harder stance on Israel, since Israel is estranging itself from the entire world with its genocidal behavior, and its dragging the US down with it, destroying what little credibility the US had left.

With a second Trump presidency looking more likely, perhaps the United States may come to its senses.

If Biden is going to lose anyway, the US might as well stop making itself complicit in genocide and accept Israel and the Israel lobby are going to throw a fit.

IDF general: US official accused IDF of sexually abusing Palestinian women, general says

Normally I would treat articles like this as likely spin, but it comes from the Jerusalem Post, and the intelligence comes from Israel's best friend, Uncle Sam himself.

Odd.

For the first time, a demand for an immediate ceasefire has passed a UN Security Council vote. The US abstained.

It seems like supporting genocide is no longer in US interests, or rather, tanking Joe's chances at re-election.

It remains to be seen whether this will be anything more than a symbolic victory, since even if the US reprimands Israel in word, it likely will continue to support the genocide through its actions, as it has.

It seems ol' Joe is between a rock and a hard place. Support genocide, invite Trump. Condemn genocide, get dragged through the mud by the Israel lobby.

Yes, it could be argued that Hamas committed genocide on October 7th. — Punshhh

Despite the barbarity of the act, anyone who argues that isn't worth taking seriously.

And that policy has to start with the real situation. — ssu

The relatively stable and friendly relationship between Russia and the West in 2008? :chin:

Make no mistake; while there are many perverse incentives at play in this conflict, and the MIC is certainly one of them, it is US grand strategy that has primacy.


The US succeeded in:
- driving a wedge between Europe and Russia
- tanking the German economy (a geopolitical rival)
- changing the nature of European energy dependency
- creating fertile ground for further conflict in eastern Europe

And,
- is in the process of remilitarizing Europe, which will further increase the chance of escalated conflict between Europe and Russia in the future.


This is the ultimate goal: to prevent both Europe and Russia from becoming the laughing third once the US gets sucked into large-scale security competition in the Pacific, by embroiling the two in a war with each other.

That's why Ukraine matters to the US - it's a geopolitical pivot area and the key to stability in eastern Europe, thus the key to stability between Europe and Russia.

Thus by controlling Ukraine, the US got to decide when conflict would break loose. After all, the Russians made it clear over the course of some 15 years that Ukraine was a red line for them: if the US wanted conflict, which they did, they knew exactly what they had to do to get it.

Russia and Europe also represent a gigantic market that the Chinese will have to rely on once the conflict between the US and China starts. The US will block Chinese overseas trade; that's why the Chinese started their Belt & Road Initiative - to create an alternative to sea trade, to keep their economy going when conflict erupts. If Europe and Russia are in shambles, it will negatively impact the Chinese economy and deny them the market that they need to keep their economy going.

It's a classic strategy of divide and conquer, and, if all else fails, of sowing maximum chaos on the Eurasian mainland, which is the only way the US can maintain its primacy with its relatively small population of 300 million.


Don't let the MIC or BlackRock play the patsy here. Again, it's US grand strategy that is driving this conflict and US decision making. Corporate interests are just the vultures flocking to the smell of fresh corpses.

Maybe the period of US history you're referring to is an exception, where the political elite can be said to have gone against the will of the people with a moral justification. That's hardly the case today, though. Then again, wasn't the Democratic party complicit in the whole affair? I can't say I know a ton about that part of US history.

Many times it can be the politician that falls out from the "in-crowd", messes up or gets his hand in the cookie jar. You won't find a better person to tell how crooked the elites are!

The real issue is, what really to do then! — ssu

Whoever leads the crowd probably doesn't matter all that much. They are just a vessel for the discontent. That's why they're so often demagogues and other types of uncouth individuals as you suggest.

In the end it doesn't matter. Populism is a symptom of corruption and thereby that the system is nearing its expiry date. It will be refreshed the easy way or the hard way.

Yet are these individuals? Or is this a class or something vague? — ssu

Corruption is an ugly beast that affects individuals as well as entire systems, so it's hard to say. For populism to take root, I would have to assume the majority of the political class to be corrupt, because if it weren't there would be counter-forces in the system that would make populism unnecessary.

The real question is if targeting people is the answer in the first place. — ssu

Corruption is a human phenomenon, so yes, I think it is.

However, when populism takes hold the system is probably already so rotten that targeting individuals is no longer a feasible option, and thus the anger is directed at the political elite as a whole.

The alternative would be fighting corruption one rotten individual at a time, which is obviously unfeasible and would play into the hands of the corrupt elite.

And one thing is how do you define someone to be the culprit. Is trying, but making mistakes wrong? Or not doing anything about some issue when believing it's not your responsibility in the first place. — ssu

That's the 'force of nature' element I'm trying to get at. When shit starts flying, nobody cares about the details anymore and people who are genuinely innocent would probably do well to get out of the way instead of trying to plead their innocence to an angry mob.