The Americans are making mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle? — neomac


Is that not exactly what they are doing? They've all but said that the Russians were right all along, while pinning the principal blame on Ukraine.

I never said the mea culpa had to be sincere or believable. Just that it had to happen in order for negotiations with the Russians to have any chance of success.

And despite being a precondition to peace, if the Europeans can be successfully goaded into continuing the conflict without the US, that's of course a massive new obstacle to peace. But that won't be Washington's problem after they've extricated themselves. — Tzeentch

It is exactly what they are NOT doing. Russians were right all along they say, all right, but they are blaming Ukraine, Europe, and Biden administration. Not the Americans represented by Trump. And it’s not matter of Russia being right for pro-Russian propaganda purposes but of Ukraine and Europe being blamed for the conflict, since Trump could have put all the blame on just Biden’s administration alone. By doing this Trump seems to advocate for total surrender by Ukraine to all Russia’s demands and burdening Europe of the consequences.
All this doesn’t seem to add up with things you said elsewhere. Indeed, despite belonging to the neoliberal blob (as you claimed) the foreign policy of artificially sparkle geopolitical tensions between Europeans and Russians to be more free to pivot to Asia, now it’s Trump that is doing it on steroids, the one you claimed was fighting the neoliberal blob to change American foreign policy. The problem is that Trump changed American foreign policy in ways that are not dictated by the neoliberal approach to American foreign policies (the one that Mearsheimer was bitterly criticising and you were following) but still it is against Europe (in a way that is perfectly in line with Mearsheimer’s idea of sphere of influence where Russia should ally with the US against China). So now not only Russia is threatening Europe (however it is much weaker than it used to be before starting the war) but also the US is threatening Europe. And while insisting on the Russia’s penchant to bond with Europeans just for business (with apparently no threats for Europeans worth warning people about), you have always ignored the Russian penchant for a privileged link with the US to reach a superpower status (perfectly in line with Russian imperialism) and contain China and other Asian countries’ imperial aspirations (like that of Turkey or Iran) which can both weakend Russia’s influence in the Middle East or Caucasus or north Africa or Mediterranean Sea.
What I also find rather baffling in your reasoning is that while you can so easily condemn Western provocations against Russia you do not seem to put any condamnation on Western populism which was provoking the US as you so candidly admit. And if you have predicted that Russia was threatening to wreck Ukraine as a consequence of Western provocations or Ukrainian independence, you seemed very hopeful the US (the Great Satan with plenty of lackeys in Europe, according to you) would have NOT found ways to backfire at European provocations and anti-American emancipation (by European populists whose delusional aspirations do not beed to be condemned). Not to mention that populist anti-Americanism in Europe was also supported by Russia (at least until now since Trump is openly trying to steal European far-right populism from Russian claws) as much as the US was supporting anti-Russian feelings in Ukraine.
The paradox of your reasoning is that on one side you are ready to sacrifice the Ukrainian emancipation from Russia in the name of the European emancipation from the US (so apparently self-determination for Europeans and Palestinians it’s fine but for Ukrainians and Israelis no), on the other side you keep reasoning as if Europeans or the European populism had greater chances to emancipate Europe from the US (the Great Satan which betrays all allies and has all europeans as their vassals) than the Ukrainians to emancipate Ukraine from Russia (which is just happy to have a piece of Ukraine for its existential survival and then just do business as usual with Europeans).

Europe has and has had a massive blindspot for the type of games Washington likes to play — Tzeentch

So you mean that the blob has won again and Trump turned into a blob crypto-puppet?

Flipping Ukraine pro-western has been a decades-long project of the Neocon foreign policy blob, under leadership of chief blob Nuland. — Tzeentch

Many presidents, including Trump and Obama, tried to change the course of US foreign policy, but were unable to fight 'the Blob'. — Tzeentch

The Americans are making mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle?

The Americans making a mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle is a precondition to return to stability in Eastern Europe, which the Russians have been signaling is what they are interested in ever since the war began. — Tzeentch

You said lots of things... you know

Vladimir Solovyov, a leading Putin TV propagandist, has reversed his stance on America after witnessing the Trump administration's efforts to end the war, which included dismissing Europe. Speaking to his viewers on Russian state TV, Solovyov proposed: "Why not create a military coalition of Russia and America and divide Europe to hell?" He added: "Well, who needs it? It's possible - I think it's a great idea, right? " Solovyov envisioned a scenario where Russian and American troops would assume control, thereby relieving Europe of its need for defense forces.
He continued: "Bring in Russian and American troops, and Europe won't have to defend itself from anyone. Quietly, carefully, we'll set up our bases in the usual places. Berlin, Paris, like in 1814.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-s-confident-he-s-on-brink-of-winning-war-with-europe-division-fears/ar-AA1zmoTe

From a geopolitical competition point of view a key problem is that Western democracies have open social media that anti-Western authoritarian regimes can troll and intoxicate with convenient fake news, but Western democracies can't do the same against them. Western democratic regimes are compelled to compensate this asymmetry one way or another, but unfortunately the easiest way they can do it is by turning authoritarian as their rivals. — neomac

Or then, they can try to

a) Instill social cohesion, understand the utter peril of political polarization and how cheap shots at your competing parties can backfire when the political sides don't respect them. Get the real support of their people, don't just assume that if they won some election, they don't have to think about the people until the next elections.

b) genuinely answer to the worries of the people and take these seriously on both sides of the aisle.

c) and the best thing is to tell things how they are. Don't lie. Have the ability that if the country finds itself on really tight spot, the opposition can and the administration can set differences aside and agree on the large issue, even if this naturally gives a lot of points to the ruling parties.

d) Avoid gerrymandering and avoid situations when one party can take all the power. Coalition governments are usually better than one-party governments, especially those that can pass through the representative all kinds of laws. — ssu

First of all, you are still reasoning from what is desirable not from what is feasible. All you just wrote deserves hours of universal standing ovation, sure. Unfortunately the point is that you yourself are 100% unable to do yourself what you expect politicians to do (like telling what they think to be the truth honestly, persuasively and to the best of humans’ knowledge). Not only, you are 100% unable to find politicians that do what you wish them to do. Not only, you are also 100% unable to persuade enough people to make win politicians which would do what you wish them to do. Can you prove me wrong now? Tomorrow? In one week or month or year?
I think that realistic understanding of politics and political competition and debate should start from this very basic fact. This truth should curb any temptation to assess politicians’ performance more subjectively, namely based on what we think it’s desirable independently from what they actually can do. At least in a philosophy forum.
Secondly, politicians do not move in a vacuum of pre-existing contingent cultural and historical factors that constrain and shape their options. Politicians have to work with what they have not with what they wish they had, and with what is attainable given available means and uncertainties not with what they wish they could attain. If Trump has been elected despite being a “fascist douche” and is now able to centralise power in his hands maybe as no other American president could in the past, it would be more enlightening to dig into the pre-existing historical and geopolitical circumstances which favoured his rise to power. And explore his options for achieving what he has promised to achieve to satisfy his supporters better than available alternatives. I’m afraid neither gerrymandering nor the peril of political polarization is the issue among pro-Trump supporters, lobbies and trusted advisors (like Miran or Musk).

What people may happen to disregard is that information is a strategic resource that is contended by competing political forces to aggregate consensus. It's paramount political priority for politicians to control the flux of information - no matter the type of regime or ideology or the degree of leaders' integrity - in a way that best allows politicians do their job for the bad and/or for the good. And since truth, detail and reliability are not the only params that make the information valuable but also TIME, politicians are compelled to control the timing of the information flux and engage in a informational race with their competitors (that's why discovering or knowing since ever that that politician is lying about something is not enough to discredit a piece of political propaganda and related strategic reasons).
It absolutely doesn't matter if or how much people educate themselves and wish to not be manipulated. Believing otherwise it's not only arrogant but evidently self-defeating (BTW this belief is typical of Westerners spoiled by the myth of "critical thinking" and "rights to know" and "freedom of speech"). If you know politics better than the politicians you so bitterly complain about, why don't you yourself fix politics right now? Instead of patronising political leaders, let's see if you can run for president or prime minister of your own country without manipulating or even without being accused of being manipulative by random anonymous people (like on the internet) even when you didn't have absolutely no intention to manipulate anybody or you made your BEST to not look manipulative. Anybody is instrumental to political agendas and everybody has enough blind-spots and biases, independently from their good intentions, and which politicians normally are and MUST be in condition to exploit TO WIN POLITICAL COMPETITORS OR PREVENT POLITICAL COMPETITORS FROM COUNTER-EXPLOITING. It's precisely inherent to their job. At best, ordinary people can make the intellectual effort to understand what side one could be instrumental to in a power struggle by fallible political competitors in certain historical circumstances and have the honesty to acknowledge it.
From a geopolitical competition point of view a key problem is that Western democracies have open social media that anti-Western authoritarian regimes can troll and intoxicate with convenient fake news, but Western democracies can't do the same against them. Western democratic regimes are compelled to compensate this asymmetry one way or another, but unfortunately the easiest way they can do it is by turning authoritarian as their rivals.

Apparently even the guru Mearsheimer [1] didn't expect this turn around which he was so vocally very much predicting suggesting for years: the alliance between the US and Russia against China. The irony.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5-L5pyXLZQ

More on "The Americans making a mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle"

Meanwhile, another executive order by Trump to further centralize power: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-reins-in-independent-agencies-to-restore-a-government-that-answers-to-the-american-people/
Autocracy waaaaaay much better than a deep state.

Ukrainian leaders were at fault for the war for not agreeing to surrender territory — NY Times

Perfectly matching with what the maximum expert on economy, military, propaganda, morality, geopolitical realism in thread said: "The Americans making a mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle".

BTW who could possibly be at fault for the war for not agreeing to surrender territory in Palestine? Does anybody have any clue whatsoever? The maximum expert on economy, military, propaganda, morality, geopolitical realism must know, mustn't he?

Donald Trump Keeps Teasing a Third Term. Here’s What to Know
https://time.com/7222820/trump-third-term-president-explainer-pathways-constitution-courts-legal-experts/

The Trump administration says a land expropriation law South Africa recently passed was “blatantly” discriminatory against its white Afrikaners, who are descendants of Dutch and other European colonials. The Trump administration said the South African government was allowing violent attacks against Afrikaner farming communities.
https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-trump-musk-afrikaners-0f58dfe1651671d30fcbe16d00c3d99c

The EU has a combined GDP of $22bn and Russia has around $4bn so I don't see why the countries of Europe can't band together to deter Russia. — BitconnectCarlos

1. Aggregating GDP of EU countries doesn't make much sense if one overlooks the deep divisions over security issues among European countries, especially as perceived by a spoiled and old populace ("people want peace" not justice, not freedom, not prosperity, "people do not want immigration or the EU and euro" traditionalist and ethnically pure nation states waaaaaaaaay better than technological advanced big sovra-national markets and powers).
It would be different if Europe had its own Putin who centralized federal power, wrecked all forms of national independence by destroying and butchering civilians, murdering and imprisoning reluctant economic, financial, industrial elites, independant press journalists and political activists, who could send Italians, Germans, French, Netherlands, Hungarians, Poles as cannon fodder or criminals or mercenaries and threat nuclear wars to establish red-lines. It's not primarily matter of means but of unity over long term goals. This is a PRO-RUSSIAN RUSSIAN ANALYST that makes it clear this point and which Europeans should veeeeeery carefully listen to:
Since the military conflict in Ukraine is not an all out war, the loser will not be the side who physically runs out of strength, but rather the one who loses the will to fight sooner. What is important here is a clear vision of victory and a clear strategy for achieving it.
Russia initially had problems with this: The start came as a shock to everyone and just as suddenly turned into a protracted military conflict with a series of humiliating defeats. [1]
Russian society was able to withstand the blow last year and – albeit not immediately, only towards the end of the year – pulled itself together and prepared for a long and hard struggle. The conception of our victory is clear: We still need the demilitarization of Ukraine (a radical reduction of its army), neutral status for Kiev (and a mechanism to control it) and the recognition of some form of territorial changes. The latter, by the way, will be the most difficult legally; here – for the sake of international legitimacy – Jesuitical forms such as a 99-year lease are possible. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, on this point.
Although this concept of victory has not been articulated, it is intuitively clear; the actions of the authorities at all levels do not contradict it; and society, although not very happy (only people who are not completely healthy enjoy armed conflicts), has rallied and is ready, if not to participate directly, then to support or at least tolerate it. All this will sooner or later produce results at the front – IF THE ENEMY DOES NOT RESPOND WITH THE SAME UNITY.
(source: https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/counteroffensive-is-failing/)

[1] Who remembers those idiots, pardon I meant the maximum experts on economy, military, propaganda, morality, geopolitical realism, in this thread who were spinning the pro-Russian "feint theory" raise your hands!

2. The US is not compelled to rise a fourth competitor power in the Eurasian continent as much as it is to keep competitor powers divided, which is not that difficult since their default divisions are even bigger than the ones dividing European countries. So Europeans are coerced into becoming SERVILE AS THEY WERE NEVER BEFORE to the US by Trump administration [2]: US security as a service. Europe MUST NOT build its own military-industrial complex and military for its security and perpetually pay to sustain and grow American defence industry and business all around the world (American imperialism 2.0), and no more whining. Otherwise they have to remain divided economically, politically and military, and fearful of Russia. On the other side, Russia is now weaker than it was at the beginning of the war and depleted enough of its military/naval/political assets, and Putin (being so nostalgic of the Soviet era) is so wet for Trump that it could turn into US bitch anytime now and sell it as "strategic victory" (well, to be fair, at this point this was the best they could hope for). I guess in this chess board also Israel plays a strategic role to keep Europe separated from the only option it has left for a strategic alliance to strategically emancipate itself from the US: China. [3]

[2] if they were so servile, why is Trump punishing and mistreating them so publicly in the name of Make America Great Again? The same holds for Zelensky

[3] Who remembers those idiots, pardon I meant the maximum experts on economy, military, propaganda, morality, geopolitical realism, in this thread who were spinning the propaganda that Russia and Europe will ally and grow prosperous in peace ever after because the US is doomed to fight China (and Isreal is doomed to disappear from earth thanks to the Palestinian cause) raise your hands!

I think it's more than just laziness. The entire behaviour of this US government seems to be purposefully geared to undermine collective security. You can callously throw an ally under the bus behind closer doors. But that's not what they're doing. They're putting a spotlight on how they simply do not care.

Which is in line with the domestic political policy, particularly via DOGE. The policy is not one of reform, it's one of revolution. And it's possible the people who provide the philosophical underpinnings of this revolution (who do not include Trump himself) do not actually envision rebuilding any of the things that are being torn apart. — Echarmion

It's very much in line with the Miran plan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Miran
“In December 2024, president-elect Donald Trump named Miran as his nominee for chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.”


“How can the U.S. get trading and security partners to agree to such a deal? First, there is the stick of tariffs. Second, there is the carrot of the defense umbrella and the risk of losing it. ”
https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf?bsft_eid=a30f775d-a95b-4704-ba5b-9fcd5291f465&bsft_clkid=d77202ed-6243-4868-80b3-cac2e2cc0204&bsft_uid=9cbb1a3f-fa2f-419b-b7c7-e6dd5fdc9654&bsft_mid=41525857-7d6a-4c17-8c4b-32fa072a0d0a&bsft_txnid=71ccf64d-01ad-4629-b814-d2085bc58599&bsft_utid=9cbb1a3f-fa2f-419b-b7c7-e6dd5fdc9654-Newsletter_COR_WHATEVERITTAKES&bsft_mime_type=html&bsft_ek=2025-02-17T05%3A00%3A00Z&bsft_lx=8&bsft_tv=513&bsft_aaid=72bb9dec-3452-4075-a63c-0f8d60246a1e

Remember those in this thread (but also outside) who were whining over Biden's support of the Ukrainian neo-nazis? How silent they were/are about the support of the European neo-nazis by Putin and, now, also by Trump. The irony.

I would correct that to "The American elan". — ssu

American acted as the Western leader. And no matter how blameful , ill-minded , and ominous the US look and looked to many, I would still insist that the strategic need to export "democracy", "universal human rights" and the rhetoric "the end of history" was integral part of the globalization project in which the German-led EU, China and Russia could prosper. The two sides of a coin. And we should never discount German-led EU, China and Russia agency in how things evolved.

Seems that the dividing line starts to be Russia-Trump vs Ukraine & Europe.

Because it likely is worse than I thought. — ssu

Perfectly in line with what I said 2 years ago:

Outside the EU (or some other form of federation) Europeans might go back to compete one another not only economically but also for security. And outside the US sphere of influence, we might compete not only with Russia, and China and other regional or global competitors, but also with the US. Good luck with that. — neomac

And 7 months ago:

Indeed, it’s funny to see this dude completely overlooking another hypothetical scenario which his guru Mearshaimer would likely support, and even Trump (his beloved American President) would arguably welcome: the scenario where the US reconciles with Russia to better contain China using Ukraine as a bargaining chip.

Now let’s consider a scenario where Russia:

- can be flattered by 2 great powers like China and the US,

- can experience a boost in its fuel and wheat exports (nurturing its power projection in all contended areas, including in Europe), even more so if Ukraine will completely surrender to Russia (something which is welcome because apparently Ukrainian lives matter to Trump voters! And it’s totally risk free and harmless for Europe because if Russia could blackmail EU for its fuel supply when Ukraine was NOT under its control, how could Russia blackmail EU for its fuel supply AND wheat supply when Ukraine is completely under its control ?)

- can enjoy free pass for expanding in North Africa and the Mediterranean (namely, ENCIRCLING EUROPE)

- can have UK+East Europeans locked in an anti-Russian stance due to their historical fear of Russian imperialism conveniently boosted by the US of course (Trump didn’t like North Stream 2, right? nor the German or European economy outperforming the American one, right?) and the rest of European countries with self-conceited anti-US/pro-Russian lackeys (replacing the pro-US lackeys’) as political oppositions or leaders

In this scenario, who doesn't give a fuck about Europeans to put their heads out of their ass more than Russia?

Not only Europe won’t get completely rid of the US but it would completely get split in smaller regional spheres of influence between the US and Russia (however not with the same antagonism as in the Cold War, at least as long as China remains the greatest security threat to both), and with no prospect of boosting their economy or army other than as a function of their hegemon’s interest (BTW I let you imagine how fantabulous is the prospect of experiencing an economic boost under far-right populist political elites when Russia is your hegemon, it’s enough to see the envious example of the ex-Soviet Union republics).
In a wonderful multipolar world, market/industry/technology inputs and outputs and commercial routes are under the political/military control of regional hegemonic powers, negotiating on trading conditions or imposing them for everybody else.

In short, in this hypothetical scenario, there is no way that Europeans simply chum up with Russia and economically profit from the conflict between China and the US, living in happiness, peace and bliss ever after. — neomac

The Western elan of exporting democracy and universal human rights to the Rest is transmogrifying more and more into importing authoritarianism and despise for universal human rights from the Rest. The irony.

:up:

BTW it seems to me that pro-Trump's propaganda is caught in some rhetoric conundrum: if Russia is no threat to Europe and ironically is looking forward to normalising relations with the West because the Russian red-line is just to cleanse and genocide the Ukrainians as some pro-Russian genocide apologists believe and justify ("it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests") :eyes: why do Europeans need to buy from the US defense industry or even be in charge of Ukraine sovereignty? If Trump wants to appease Russia, why can't Europeans do the same and gift whatever is left of Ukraine to Putin in exchange for resuming business? If the US can leave NATO, why Europeans can't join the BRICS?
If Russia is a threat, why should Europeans rely on the US for military assistance and weaponry which is something that can be withdrawn at some US president's whims to the point of even explicitly encouraging Russia to act more aggressively to establish its sphere of influence in Europe manu militari [1]? If Europeans have to turn into actual US bootlickers why can't they turn into Russia or Chinese bootlickers? We have plenty of anti-Americans that would rush into bootlicking Russia and China. Even in this thread.


[1] Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough (https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html). I'm sure the pro-Russian and pro-Trump idiots in this thread don't get the logic presupposition: if Russia IS NO THREAT to Europe independently from the US provocations Trumps' THREAT AGAINST Europe would make no sense.

I've been mostly pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia — BitconnectCarlos

If there is a geopolitical strategic ratio in Trump's policy toward Russia (besides taking a personal revenge on Zelensky), this is most likely to detach Russia from China and from EU and from Iran. Getting Russia to stabilize the middle east, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and curb Islamist ambitions may be worth sacrificing the Ukrainian national self-determination.

Far better is simply a loose but working coalition of countries. — ssu

Fusing defense industries would favour the rise of a military-industrial complex lobby which may be the necessary step to build a valid political and military deterrence against hostile powers. It’s also economically important to preserve a unite and dynamic market and technological development to compensate for the demographic and morale decay of spoiled Europeans.

There will be always some country like Hungary or whatever, that swims in the other direction. Far better is simply a loose but working coalition of countries. NATO countries around the Baltic and the North Sea would be a great start. — ssu

That would sound more promising. But once NATO is gone without being replaced by some comparable EU collective defence, not sure if the EU will survive. Imagine if countries like Hungary or whatever that swim in the other direction, will continue to do it also over security matters e.g. by hosting Russian military bases.

To me that sounds like being a hawk. It's like the essence of what hawks are. — Arcane Sandwich

Not sure what you are talking about. To me, "hawkishness" in foreign policy roughly refers to a tendency to favor military action or aggressive diplomacy, while "dovishness" leans towards diplomacy, negotiations, and peaceful solutions over military intervention. Claiming that the risk of having a military industrial complex is that, among others, you may have a "hawkish" lobby, is a fact. And facts as facts are neither "hawkishness" nor "dovish".

because it would create our own military industrial complex, I changed my opinion in this very thread 3 years ago — Benkei

Precisely… but you must change you opinion once more. Indeed, there are all sorts of moral hazards that are inherent to accepting a military industrial complex: like POLITICAL HAWKISHNESS, POLITICAL CORRUPTION, SELLING WEAPONS IN CONFLICTS AROUND THE WORLD, COVERT OPERATIONS, BEING EXPOSED TO AND ACCUSED OF SECURITY PROVOCATIONS, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL MILITARIZATION OF THE SOCIETY (people need to be able to sacrifice their lives if needed, and kill other lives), USING PEOPLE AS CANNON FODDER, RISK TO COMMIT OR GET INVOLVED IN ALLEGED OR ACTUAL WAR CRIMES, MAKING NUCLEAR THREATS.
Sure you can morally stomach a military industrial complex?

I've been hammering on the EU leaving NATO since then as the only reliable way forward for our security. — Benkei

A EU military/army and home nuclear deterrence are a greater risk than US-led NATO for Russia, obviously. In history Europeans have invaded Russia, the US never did. And while the US can feel safe far from Russia, shift strategic focus elsewhere or withdraw from overstretching in Europe, Europeans can not afford the same. Besides while the US strategic interests where shifting toward China and the Pacific, the NATO financing for the European security was decreasing (https://www.nato.int/docu/review/images/66d708_2_grand_nato-canada-fm-1989-to-2022e_nato_article.jpg).
If the US has no reason to support a European military and ESPECIALLY a competing European military industrial complex, even less has Russia that’s why interfering with European politics and find pro-Russian bootlickers in Europe is vital for Russia’s imperialism as much as building buffer states.

I give the UN another 10 years at most after which it will have become irrelevant in its entirety due to the continuous undermining of it. — Benkei

The UN project (which is originally an American project) was more likely to succeed if all countries turned more democratic and respectful of universal human rights standards. But it didn't happen because non-Western authoritarian regimes so decided, right?
The cheap/spoiled moralism of many Westerners accusing the American imperialism of hypocrisy and undermining International institutions can now enjoy American imperialism without hypocrisy and constraining international institutions. This is the great improvement Western moralists and idealists (and self-entitled realists) were DE FACTO "working for" so hard (with the blessing of Russia, China and Iran), precisely because Western moralists and idealists (and self-entitled realists) do not get the link between power and morality. It's much more easy to rely on hard power than to rely on soft power. Discrediting the American soft power and depicting the US as the Great Satan won't make Western self-entitled nobodies' moral wishes come true, it may actually bring about the opposite. This is a silly expectation of spoiled Westerners, especially spoiled Europeans, which they have to pay for. Bitterly.

Trump has thrown Ukraine under the bus, that much is clear. Yet many people still don’t seem to fully grasp the consequences. — Benkei

And you are among these people, because what Trump is doing is less erratic than what you think, here is why https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963479

↪neomac
I don't ban people for being dumb or having morally abject opinions. If you don't enjoy it, you're welcome to leave. — Benkei

The bad news for you is that I actually enjoy doing philosophy, unlike you. And being like 'the gadfly that pricks the old horse' fits perfectly with my philosophical disposition. So, I’ll keep pricking.

By the way, I find myself agreeing more with your post than with Tzeench. However, when it comes to negotiations, we should not confuse what’s said in public channels with what’s said behind closed doors. And public claims often serve as diplomatic maneuvers targeting the masses in one way and targeting political interlocutors in another. Ukraine needs to be stabilized and secure if the US wants to do business with it—whether that’s exploiting natural resources or building real estate and infrastructure (the famous hypercapitalist exploitation you enjoy whining about along with your self-entitled fellows). The interest in doing business with Ukraine implies that the US may have reasons to stay and protect American assets in Ukraine (which could have otherwise been fully Ukrainian or, even, European). So, Trump can exploit the benefits of this conflict, burdening the European ‘hoompa loompas’ who, according to some Western imbeciles, were serving US interests so well that Trump feels now so much the need to punish them economically, politically, and militarily. Meanwhile, he might cozy up to Putin to turn him away from China by negotiating over Ukraine. But we’ll see who is really fooling whom—Putin or Trump.
The idiots (pardon, maximum experts on "realism") will think 'the Americans making a mea culpa' (another moralistic judgment so much praised by in the “realist theory”), while Trump and Putin just blame everything on the Biden administration and the American deep state. Trump doesn’t admit mistakes easily, especially when he can shift the blame onto others. On the other hand, Ukraine will still serve to keep the rift between Russia and Europe alive, especially a divided Europe. This is what the idiotic Westerners celebrate as a 'return to stability in Eastern Europe' and 'all that really happened is that Russia made the West respect its red lines' (What about the Western red lines that Russia should respect, realists?).
These fools (pardon, maximum experts in propaganda) don’t even understand the ‘realism’ they think they’re supporting when they claim 'the Russians have been signaling what they’re interested in ever since the war began,' as if real politics or political realism are about the whims of a Russian dictator when Russia is weak and the West is WAY TOO GENEROUS toward them. Or worse, like when they dismiss 'all this nonsense about Russians coming for Berlin' and 'dictators sharpening their (nuclear) sabres,' as if nuclear threats from Russian authorities weren’t a MAJOR ARGUMENT, spun by pro-Russians with the intent to scare Western public opinion and undermine Western deterrence.
But where you continually and especially show intellectual cowardice and hypocrisy is in your refusal to dig into the relationship between moral aspirations and power, between moral justification and historical/political explanation. Instead, you just repeat it dogmatically and insult anyone who questions it, as if parroting it somehow replaces a good argument that would ground such distinctions—distinctions that you take as self-evident, like prophets take their religious visions. Questioning it would be blasphemy.

Edit: to clarify, rhetorical questions are dumb. — Benkei

Not more than your rhetorical objection

if you want me to go away, you have to ban me, Holy Benkei. I do not enjoy being part of a philosophy forum that doesn't allow me to practice philosophy as much as you enjoy littering it by showing off your moralist ego, whining over people's tragedies, blame gaming and acting as a moral tribunal (don't tell me you do not you love repeatedly accuse others of being genocide/cleansing/apartheid apologists?) .

↪neomac
Lmao. Pity? You've demonstrated to be generally incapable of the emotion so obviously I wasn't expecting it. — Benkei

Thanks for the compliment. A part from the fact that speaking one's mind can hurt feelings more than comfort them, right? Again we are in a philosophy forum, right? And to me philosophy has NOTHING to do with whining over people's tragedies, blame gaming and acting as a moral tribunal (don't tell me you do not you love repeatedly accuse others of being genocide/cleansing/apartheid apologists?) and call this emotional reaction "critical thinking" while giving for granted ones' framing assumptions about statehood, human rights, national self-determination, moral standards, political business and propaganda, original appropriation, international order as they apply to concrete cases like the Ukrainian or Palestinian conflict. ONLY if you agree with me on all I've just wrote and argue on topics even hot political topics more philosophically than politically or emotionally I can intellectually respect your posts.

I have no pity for you. Stop begging for attention.

Conflicts can be a major factor in shaping the balance of power between countries. Wishing for peace and engaging in blame games are the favorite pastimes of powerless, self-entitled nobodies who find comfort in thumb-sucking one another, apparently and unfortunately even in a philosophy forum. It’s quite disgusting to watch, as it showcases one’s intellectual and morale decay. Indeed, these nobodies contribute to the very problems the West is facing. They serve as evidence of Western decline to anti-Western leaders, making them easy to exploit and sow division. And these dimwits are celebrating like castaways lost in a sea full of ravenous big sharks which are coming for them.
Trump needs Russia on his side to counter-balance China (precisely because Russia has turned into some China's puppet, to put it bluntly, which thing even Putin must not enjoy very much). We are moving within a logic of division by sphere of influence among great powers on steroids. And for the lovers of universal human rights hypocrisy of the West, Trump will likely fully abandon the rhetoric of human rights and rely more on nationalism and religious fanatics inside and outside the US. They do not give a shit about universal human rights and they are ready to embrace arms to defend their land and their interests.
Trump may pursue peace at the price of sacrificing Western values and international justice (in Ukraine as in Palestine), at the expense of World order where Europeans have so far politically, culturally and economically prospered.

↪neomac
Right after he made it personal twice. So yes, another dimwit. You're in dumb company as usual. — Benkei

Dude, make it personal is your favorite move EVERY TIME you disagree with people on topics that trigger your dimwit moral sensitivity.

↪neomac
Stop making it personal dimwit. — Benkei

No more personal than the comments of other dimwits, right?

↪BitconnectCarlos
Grow a conscious instead of rationalising crimes all the time. — Benkei

> Hegseth just threw Ukraine under the bus. Who needs enemies when there's the USA?

Isn't that fun? That's what Europeans like you were looking forward to hearing. So you can keep blaming only/mostly/primarily the USA (who else?) and then rush back to support business with Russia. That reminds me of the infamous gypsy curse: "may you get all that you wish for”.
How about Trump throwing Palestinians under the bus? Didn't you like it as well?

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/11/europe/ukraine-russia-trump-zelensky-intl/index.html


“They (Ukraine) may make a deal, they may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday,” Trump said. He stressed that he also wanted to see a return on investment with US aid for Ukraine, again floating the idea of a trade for Kyiv’s rare earth minerals.
[...]
Trump repeated his interest in reaping a return on US assistance for Kyiv. “They have tremendously valuable land in terms of rare earth, in terms of oil and gas, in terms of other things. I want to have our money secured,” he said.
“I told them that I want the equivalent, like $500 billion of rare earth, and they’ve essentially agreed to do that, so at least we don’t feel stupid. Otherwise we’re stupid. I said to them, we have to get something. We can’t continue to pay this money,” he added.

The reality here is that Trump wants an end to the conflict, which is good — and he’s using his experience in business in an attempt at a solution[/s] — Mikie

"Lurid billionaire fascist capitalist Donald Fucking Trump wants to exploit the horrible tragedy of the Palestinian conflict for his greediness and that of other Jewish real-estate capitalists (e.g. Harey Zahav) with the pretext of bringing peace while pursuing and validating the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. That makes me sick to my stomach. I feel like wanting to crucify my own pacifist balls for that"!
There I've corrected it for you. No need to thank me.

To recapitulate the views of this bunch of hypocrites:

if Russia cleanses and genocides the Ukrainians to preserve its sphere of influence, we should blame the victims, of course. That's fucking realism, baby.

if Israel cleanses and genocides the Palestinians to not be cleansed and genocided by the Palestinians, we should blame Israel, of course. That's suprime moral standard, you scum.

So apparently countries accepting Tutsis refugees were complicit in Hutu's genocide of the Tutsis.

To put it in another way: Trump just made it plain for all to see that this is not about Hamas, but about the forced deportation of 2,000,000 Palestinians and the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. — Tzeentch

And let's not forget that also in this case certain Westerners can blame the Palestinian victims for ALL/MOST/MAIN of it as much as certain Westerners blame the Ukrainian victims for the Russian aggression, genocide and cleansing of Ukrainians.