Do you make notes when you listen? It's a good way, especially when listening to a person giving a longer response or a lecture. At work I do that, but not usually. On listening to audiobooks, simply where does one find that +14 hours to listen a book? A very good book you read far more quicker than you listen to,

But naturally while for example driving, your listening to something that you don't have to memorize or your already familiar with, like history. Driving and listening to Kant wouldn't work!

Seems like any counterargument against Tzeentch is "cherry picking". Like things like what the objectives of the Separatists were. Oh yes, if I mention the objectives of one side of the combatants, that's "cherry picking" for you. :lol:

You can no longer rely on the annexation of the four oblasts, since Russia has already proposed to return them to Ukraine in return for Ukrainian neutrality during the Istanbul negotiations, so now you retreat to an even less convincing argument. — Tzeentch

Who again is retreating to an even less convincing argument?

Istanbul negotiations happened in April 2022, when things weren't under control for Russia and the front hadn't been yet stabilized. Then it was perfect stalling tactic for the Kremlin then. Just look at all the Minsk agreements! That now it's a totally different situation doesn't matter to you, because this is the way you can defend Russia. And when those negotiations didn't come through then A HA! Tzeentch finds his Holy Grail: it's all the fault of US and the West, because they pushed Ukraine to continue. Not like the attrocities Bucha mattered. Everything would have been solved then.

Well, let's then look just WHY Istanbul negotiations failed:

According to the Charap and Radchenko account, the Istanbul deal would have been still born as it contains an obligation by the Western powers to provide real security guarantees that oblige them to commit troops in Ukraine if Ukraine was attacked again – something that Kyiv had not cleared with its Western allies during the talks and something they did not want to do.

This version of events tallies with earlier bne IntelliNews reporting, suggesting the proposed security deals the West was supposed to offer, but never actually agreed to ahead of, or during, the talks was the real dealbreaker.

“Even if Russia and Ukraine had overcome their disagreements, the framework they negotiated in Istanbul would have required buy-in from the United States and its allies. And those Western powers would have needed to take a political risk by engaging in negotiations with Russia and Ukraine and to put their credibility on the line by guaranteeing Ukraine’s security. At the time, and in the intervening two years, the willingness either to undertake high-stakes diplomacy or to truly commit to come to Ukraine’s defence in the future has been notably absent in Washington and European capitals,” the authors said.

(See Fresh evidence suggests that the April 2022 Istanbul peace deal to end the war in Ukraine was stillborn)

And how you cherry pick this story:

In the 2023 interview, Arakhamia ruffled some feathers by seeming to hold Johnson responsible for the outcome. “When we returned from Istanbul,” he said, “Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we won’t sign anything at all with [the Russians]—and let’s just keep fighting.”

This is the only thing important for you... not the story, just something what one Western politician said. That's all you need in your cherry pie along with the vague promises an US president has made for Kyiv about NATO membership (without there being any acceptance from all the member states about this, actually opposition to this). But who cares about the NATO charter.

After all, what has happened after, or what had happened before, what Putin has said about Ukraine, what he has done in Ukraine, what the Ukrainian territory means for Russia, that doesn't matter as the Istanbul negotiations are the only thing that matters here, because everything, absolutely everything is the fault of the West.

This is simply the Kremlin line that feeds on the self-criticism of the West.

Coming from the person that repeats one single reason for the war. :snicker:

In fact, it's plainly counter-intuitive and pretends that the developments of the war, amongst which a complete rejection of diplomacy by the West, did not significantly impact Russian war goals. — Tzeentch

Look, the obvious war goals were arleady there to anybody to see in 2014. Putin annexed Crimea. Annexed territory. Add there all the rhetoric of how artificial Ukraine as a state is and how it should be part of Russia. And all the focus on Novorossiya. It's mindboggling to say this wasn't obvious before 2022.

This map is from 2015:


Those "separatist" were directly controlled by Kremlin. The war aims have been there for anybody to see for years. Your denial about of this simply is laughable.

And oh yes, NATO enlargement was also a reason.

You're simply cherry-picking. — Tzeentch

Really? That I say that NATO enlargement was one reason, but so is also all the stuff the Putin has said, acted, put into law about the annexations of Ukrainian territory and Ukraine being an artificial coutry?

And I'm the one cherry picking?

You are hilarious! :rofl:

The unfortunate thing for you is that the Russians have told us exactly in word and in deed what they want for over a decade - a neutral Ukraine. — Tzeentch

As they exactly did about the lands they wanted to annex from Ukraine, Novorossiya.

I'm not pretending anything. I myself have said many times that Russia was against NATO enlargement. But that enlargement to Ukraine they had already stopped before February 2022. The major reason for the war and the objectives cannot be put more clearly than Putin did in September 30th 2022.

The fact is that you cannot deny what I say, hence you simply won't acknowledge the obvious and stick to this hallucination that conflict would have ended happily in Istanbul. All the various Minsk agreements and of course, the Budapest memorandum, have been simply peaces of papers Russia uses as toilet paper.

None of that has any meaning, @Tzeentch Face the reality what Putin wants.

You are like someone talking over and over about the Oslo Peace process, contemplating how it's going to be restarted. It cannot restart as Israel has truly changed, we are in a totally different era and the brief period when the conflict could have ended with the Oslo Peace process is over. Permanently.

And anyway, it's extremely likely that Putin simply would have used an agreement reached in Istanbul just for a time to get his military up after the initial failure in getting Blitzkrieg victory. Remember ALL the Minsk agreements? Remember them, @Tzeentch? THEY DIDN'T END THE CONFLICT!

What he has said and done tell it all so clearly. Face reality.

So annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts didn't happen in the echo chamber that @Tzeentch lives in or is somehow meaningless?

On 30 September 2022, Russia unilaterally declared its annexation of areas in and around four Ukrainian oblasts—Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, parts that Russia didn't and does not yet control.

Putin said Russia has “four new regions”, calling the residents of Ukraine’s occupied Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions “our citizens forever”.

“This is the will of millions of people,” he said in the speech before hundreds of dignitaries at the St George’s Hall of the Kremlin.

“We will defend our land with all our strength and all our means,” he added, calling on “the Kyiv regime to immediately cease hostilities and return to the negotiation table”. In one of his toughest anti-American speeches in more than 20 years in power, Putin signalled he was ready to continue what he called a battle for a “greater historical Russia”, slammed the West as neo-colonial and as out to destroy his country.

But for you this obviously didn't happen, because is worried just about NATO and at the start of the war had talks that didn't go through. Because you really simply don't listen to what Putin says and what he does. Why the denial? I have never denied that NATO enlargement was one reason, simply said that it wasn't the biggest reason and Ukraine couldn't have avoided this conflict just by not being in NATO... which it doesn't belong to. Even without NATO, Putin likely would have tried to grab parts of Ukraine back to Russia, if not all of it. Putin very clearly shows where his objectives are. Some quotes from that September 30th speech:

"We call on the Kyiv regime to immediately end hostilities, end the war that they unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table."

"We are ready for this ... But we will not discuss the choice of the people in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. That has been made. Russia will not betray them."

And the reasons, coming again back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union:

"In 1991, at Belovezh Forest, without asking the will of ordinary citizens, representatives of the then-party elites decided to destroy the USSR, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their motherland. This tore apart and dismembered our nation, becoming a national catastrophe ..."

The objective: Great historical Russia for the next generations:

"The battlefield to which fate and history have called us is the battlefield for our people, for great historical Russia, for future generations, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

Simply ludicrous to think that a leader saying all the stuff above is just thinking of NATO expansion and wouldn't have an imperialistic agenda. Seldom if ever has it been as evident as this. It's basically a Russian Reconquista.

But to repeat the line that it's all just about NATO enlargement is the disinformation that works wonders for Putin. If Trump comes with his "peace plan" and opts for there being peace with Ukraine out of NATO and the four oblasts now sacred Russian territory forever, then Putin has indeed has succeeded in the a great reconquista! Worth all those lives lost.

Well he just said he plans to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, so he probably has plans for the EU too. Personally I'd say call his bluff. He doesn't seem to know what tariffs will do and neither do his voters so they'll likely be in for a reality check if he goes through with it. Given how sensitive he is to political and market pressure he's honestly more likely to blink than anyone else if it gets really bad. — Mr Bee

Because, as you said, he and his voters don't know what tariffs and trade wars do, we are going to see a lot of damage. It's quite inevitable. Just look at the reasons given to the 25% tariffs.

Nothing will change the minds of Trump voters about this. It's like trying to talk in 2016 to Britons that Brexit won't work, that it will create huge problems for the economy, no real benefits will counter it's bad effects and btw the migration to the UK will continue, the EU migrants will just be replace with Third World migrants.

You think any Brexit supporter would have believed you? Of course not!

And the same is here true. Trump won't change. He will choose into his cabinet sycophants and totally obedient yes-men, whoever they are. There won't be any "grown ups" in this administration towing a normal US policy, it really will be at the whims of Trump. Congress simply will not put up with the most bizarre ideas, hence executive orders and foreign policy will be the

Europe has to understand the Trump is a bully for whom appeasement is weakness. He has already made up his mind of Europe and Europeans. Only a Victor Orban will do, everybody else are simply annoying Europeans that one has to be tough with... in the end they will bend over backwards and do flips as the US wants.

The consisent approach to this for Europe is to set it's own goals and stay there. Don't react to Trump's bickering. If Trump makes outrageous demands, just say no and wait for four years. Trying to negotiate as one would with a normal person doesn't work. If Europe gives in, then Trump will just ask for more. Best thing is market European objectives as huge concessions that we have made to the US thanks to Trump. That's enough for Trump.

That's a direct result of choosing the military path, and continuing on the military path will obviously extend this trend probably all the way to Ukraine's total demise. — Tzeentch

Russia chose the military path to increase it's territorial annexations. Denying this and only talking about "NATO Enlargement" as the only cause is pure denial and a huge error, because those what you continue to repeat aren't all the Russian objectives. To gain Ukraine and it's territory is an objective itself and has been absolutely central here. To argue something else is not only wrong, but dangerous.

Russia had gotten it's objective of Ukraine not joining NATO with the 2021-2022 military buildup already, if not earlier. This is totally evident, for example from Angela Merkel's memoirs that she was against NATO enlargement to Ukraine. Yet NATO never could accept a formal veto from an outside party as it would go against it's charter. But a de facto veto was obvious, not only with Hungary opposing, but Germany. And then absolutely everything changed with the large scale attack in 2022.

We hung them out to dry, drip-feeding them weapons and aid in a way that's ensuring their slow demise. — Tzeentch

I agree that the idea of giving Ukraine enough to survive and only that is the cause that makes the prospects of negotiations with Russia now so dire. It simply has been delusional to think that military aid given to Ukraine would mean that Putin would launch WW3. He isn't and the Russian leadership aren't insane and suicidal.

But this is an example where Western politicians have lost the idea of winning on the battlefield, but just to "send messages" with military aid. For them it's a minor issue, one among others. For Putin this war is existential. Once Russia is committed, only the possibility of a total fiasco will force Russia to the negotiation table. But now Putin is totally OK with hundreds of thousands of Russian soldier having been killed or wounded, so ideas that Trump could force him to do anything are whimsical. Hence the only one Trump can pressure is Ukraine.

Ukraine's best chance at independence were the Istanbul negotiations. — Tzeentch

I severely doubt that and besides, a lot has happened after that. Yearning those negotiations that didn't go anywhere is like to yearn for the time of the Oslo Peace Process at the present time in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That moment has passed, it's not turning, things have changed.

If you're still hoping for a victory you need a dosis of reality. — Tzeentch

I'm hoping that Ukraine exists as an independent state now and in the long run.

That won't happen if we stab Ukraine in the back.

What the EU should really do is to embrace for the tariffs that Trump will put on Europe. Assume a trade war that will hurt both sides will happen.

If we want to avoid WW3, we should probably look into our own role in perpetuating the conflict — Tzeentch

The defeatist attitude that will guarantee a victory for Putin.

Biden's current escalatory actions to make peace impossible when Trump has stated he intends to pursue a deal. — Tzeentch

Hoping that Trump will cut a surrender deal to Putin, just like he did with the Taleban?

Well, it's a possibility, unfortunately

Notice who did that? Vichy-France. Showed btw the anti-semitism quite well there also.

But were they bad for an isolationist? Europe's troubles were Europe's troubles. Wars and Holocausts and stuff... on the European Continent. Oh yes, der Führer declared war on you, so even pro-German Charles Lindbergh went to participate in the war and flew P-38 Lightning in the Pacific. But I guess the photo ops with Herman Göring and medals from Germany didn't fly so well afterwards.

(Göring presented Lindbergh with the Service Cross of the German Eagle for his services to world aviation. And also a nice sword as it seems... or just showing it off to a friend.)


But I'm sure Charles Lindbergh would be now rooting for Trump. After all, Lindbergh headed the "America First" committee, and spoke loudly against the war and promoted the isolationist stance as can be seen from a speech by him in 1941:

We have weakened ourselves for many months, and still worse, we have divided our own people by this dabbling in Europe’s wars. While we should have been concentrating on American defense we have been forced to argue over foreign quarrels. We must turn our eyes and our faith back to our own country before it is too late. And when we do this, a different vista opens before us. Practically every difficulty we would face in invading Europe becomes an asset to us in defending America. Our enemy, and not we, would then have the problem of transporting millions of troops across the ocean and landing them on a hostile shore. They, and not we, would have to furnish the convoys to transport guns and trucks and munitions and fuel across three thousand miles of water. Our battleships and submarines would then be fighting close to their home bases. We would then do the bombing from the air and the torpedoing at sea. And if any part of an enemy convoy should ever pass our Navy and our air force, they would still be faced with the guns of our coast artillery and behind them the divisions of our Army.

The United States is better situated from a military standpoint than any other nation in the world. Even in our present condition of unpreparedness no foreign power is in a position to invade us today. If we concentrate on our own defenses and build the strength that this nation should maintain, no foreign army will every attempt to land on American shores.

War is not inevitable for this country. Such a claim is defeatism in the true sense. No one can make us fight abroad unless we ourselves are willing to do so. No one will attempt to fight us here if we arm ourselves as a great nation should be armed. Over a hundred million people in this nation are opposed to entering the war. If the principles of democracy mean anything at all, that is reason enough for us to stay out. If we are forced into a war against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of our people, we will have proved democracy such a failure at home that there will be little use of fighting for it abroad.

The time has come when those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must band together and organize for strength. We have been led toward war by a minority of our people. This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people. During the last several years I have traveled over this country from one end to the other. I have talked to many hundreds of men and women, and I have letters from tens of thousands more, who feel the same way as you and I.

Most of these people have no influence or power. Most of them have no means of expressing their convictions, except by their vote which has always been against this war. They are the citizens who have had to work too hard at their daily jobs to organize political meetings. Hitherto, they have relied upon their vote to express their feelings; but now they find that it is hardly remembered except in the oratory of a political campaign. These people–the majority of hardworking American citizens, are with us. They are the true strength of our country. And they are beginning to realize, as you and I, that there are times when we must sacrifice our normal interests in life in order to insure the safety and the welfare of our nation. (Charles Lindbergh, address delivered at the America First Committee meeting in New York City, April 23, 1941.)

So few months from that speech the US was in a war.

Oh noooo! Not EuroDisney! It cannot be!!!

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck & Popeye bombing France:


Ah, it's so lovable when you desperately want to be a huge Canada: an important country, kinda.

You’re right, I didn’t. — T Clark

Then what kind of "going on your own" you meant?

Per Eric Cline, natural disasters including drought and earthquakes appear to have contributed to the Bronze age collapse. The other factors were warfare, and internal social upheaval that may have been the result of class struggle (but we don't really know). Cline believes it was a 'perfect storm' of events. With climate change set to increase stress in the world, we very well may be headed for another collapse. — frank

Simply to have Bronze you had to have trade as tin and copper wasn't found in the same place under one Empire. And then these ancient were basically top down command economies, which were very fragile compared to us.

Yet let's think about just how fragile our World is today. We just experienced a large pandemic that killed at least seven million world wide and about 1,2 million in the US. It was few years ago. Did the society collapse? No. How quickly did we recover? Very quickly. In our cynicism and gloom we often forget just how remarkable our societies are today.

Hence Einstein's famous quote of the next war after WW3 being fought with sticks and stones should really be given more thought. Is it really that after WW3 we literally are fighting with sticks and stones? Hardly. Let's think about if the worst happens and Russia, China and the US have a nuclear war. What happens to New Zealand or Argentina? Their cities won't be destroyed, they won't face radiactive fallout, they have agricultural production to make them self-sufficient. They naturally face a huge ecconomic depression as a large part of the global trade ceases to exist for a while. But will they forget engineering skills or the written language? No, libraries and universities in both countries will exist and so will the division of labor. Many parts in the US would survive intact too, even if large parts would become a nuclear wasteland. The World of Mad Max is an imaginary one and doesn't really portray anything else than what sells to us in movies.

In Antique times the fall was so great, that highly specialized labor had no demand anymore as the system collapsed. Technologies were forgotten. I always refer to this, but I still find it remarkable: from it's height in population, over 1 million people, Rome got to a similar population only in the 1950's. Such a large city was only sustainable during Antiquity with basically North Africa producing also food to Rome and "every road leading to Rome". Once the Vandals had North Africa, farewell large Rome.

If everything transcendently were random and utterly incoherent, then it would be impossible for your brain to intuit, judge, and cognize in a such a way as to have a sufficiently accurate and coherent stream of consciousness for survival — Bob Ross

Would it be so? What if we stumble upon something that is inherently random, but still want to make some "sense" about it and then start imagining patterns where there aren't any. Would our error be truly so bad that it would endanger our survival? Because the other way it's dangerous for our survival: when we fail to see any pattern where there is an obvious pattern, we can then walk in a trap or ambush or utterly fail to see an opportunity. If something effects us that is totally random, we just either "win" by sheer luck or we are extremely unlucky. No use of looking there for a pattern, shit happens.

Now, what these laws are, can only be conditionally mapped, or modeled, by a priori modes of cognizing reality (with mathematical equations and rules of logic being the most fundamental of them all); and so what exactly they are cannot be so described other than mathematically, logically, etc. — Bob Ross

Isn't this a tautology? If humans and animals make models of the surrounding World rationally or by logic, then naturally the only models we make are these rational and logical models. To make an illogical model of the World wouldn't be useful.

The US is relatively isolated from the rest of the world. We have a huge economy and vast amounts of natural resources. If we wanted, we could go it on our own. — T Clark

Sorry to say it, but this is quite delusional. Perhaps you didn't mean "going it on our own" to meaning being totally self sufficient in everything, but let's think about it.

What if all trade between the World and the US would immediately stop and the government would try to move everything to be self reliant:

- the US imports well over 3,8 trillion last year.
- 15% of all your overall food supply that Americans now consume is imported, so that would not be there.
- Major imports are 1) machinery, 2) vehicles and automobiles, 3) minerals, fuel and oil 4) pharmaceuticals
- US is dependent on outside production of rare earths, lithium, kobalt, platinum and nobium. The vast majority of the global mining of these minerals are outside the US in other countries.
- These would severely affect US manufacturing as the whole system of manufacturing is based on international trade and supply routes. The 100% American produced is quite dubious, when you take everything needed into account.
- When you would totally deny imports would very likely lead to similar bans on your exports, which constitutes 3,0 trillion last year.
- As the GDP is something like 29,17 trillion, stopping both imports and exports (6,8 trillion) would immediately mean a loss of -23% of GDP.
- Many millions of workers and professionals would lose their jobs as the export/import sector would cease to exist.
- As there is no trade with you, the dollar would immediately lose it's value as the reserve currency.
- All countries would frantically start altering their trade away from the US, which would at first bring a severe downturn to the global economy, but sooner or later the global economy would recover from the "disappearance" of the US from international trade.
- For investors the US wouldn't at all be a safe haven. Such lunatic economic policies would surely alter the idea of the US being a trustworthy place to invest.

To truly "go on your own" would have similar consequences of having a limited nuclear war. Yeah, it wouldn't kill every American (in fact an all out nuclear war with Russia wouldn't do that either). But the outcome would be an absolute disaster. Losing one fifth of your GDP in a year (which has never happened in US history) would have absolutely devastating consequences for your wealth, for employment and likely for the political stability of the country.

And if you argue that then you could redirect all the unemployed to "home grown" industries, that's not how it works. The economic shock would have aftershocks for a long time and in the end you would be far more poorer than now. To build up new manufacturing takes time and the fact would still be that you would have severely crippled your economy and it wouldn't recover to the level which you enjoyed earlier.

And btw, some countries have tried this, actually. Usually it has resulted the country if it earlier exported agricultural products, then to have famine. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia implemented a strict policy of self-reliance.The Khmer Rouge evacuated totally the capital and rationalized the evacuation as a matter of self-reliance. End result, by some estimates, between 500,000 and 1.5 million of the lives lost between 1975 and 1979 were due to Khmer Rouge–induced famine.

As much as we criticize globalization, a collapse of globalization has absolutely dire consequences. The Bronze Age Collapse was the first collapse of globalization. Another collapse of globalization happened when Antiquity turned into the Dark Ages.

It's totally different to have for example the capability to feed your population in a time of war if the trade routes are cut. You can have this backup, but to go for what the Khmer Rouge tried to get is sheer lunacy, a very dangerous idea. The positive aspects of global trade should be remembered.

No animal other than us can be judged for cruelty. They aren't thinking cruel thoughts when they do anything. They aren't choosing to be cruel. Only we have that capacity. — Patterner

Animals can be jerks. Yet I think the issue is that we have come up with smart the idea of ethics, which we relate only to us.

Legislation was put in place so that it would require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to leave, and that's frankly not going to happen. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Actually I didn't know that, thanks for informing me! That takes care of that.

The interests of the US and these countries are not necessarily the same. — T Clark

The interest for the US is to stay as a Superpower. Whatever Trump thinks, it's the alliances that make the US the sole Superpower.

On a Bird's-Eye View, the numerous wars waged by countries throughout history, killing numerous people, destroying, seems kind of ridiculous. Along that train of thought, deadly conflict comes through as absurd, should never be. — jorndoe

Indeed. War can be seen as ridiculous. The "isolationist" idea of not getting involved in any conflicts, but perhaps still retain a defensive force, seems rational. Yet, and unfortunately, this idea is simply naive and can have unintended consequences.

Let's assume the US as the Superpower and it's alliance gets behind the idea of isolationism. The result is that their actions dramatically lower the threshold of states to engage in wars. For example, why wouldn't Venezuela simply annex Guyana or half of it (the Essequibo territority), if nobody would lift a finger about it? Why wouldn't Peru and Equador go back to having border wars? Or Columbia finally getting that American contraption of Panama back to itself? And I took just possible conflicts in the American Continent as an example here.



There is a logic to why the idea of Westphalian sovereingty should be upheld, just as the UN charter. Both higher the cost of starting a war of annexation politically and economically. We really will go back as a civilization, when these ideas are thought to be irrelevant and we simply accept that annexations are OK to happen (or they aren't a problem for us). Classic imperialism will come back on a wider scale as there will be many more actors playing the "Great game".

As I've said, the idea that the US behind every conflict there is, makes people then to make a disastrous mistake in believing that a) the World would be a more peaceful place without US involvement or that b) it doesn't matter to America how much conflict there is in the World.

The simple fact is that if Central and South America would be economically prosperous and growing economies, why would there be an incentive for migration from those countries to the US? And if more countries in the American Continent simply collapse, what do you think that will result in the situation in the borders or coast of the US? Same thing is true for the EU. How Africa and the Middle East develop does have an effect on how many refugees try get into Europe.

The outcome we have already seen. A conflict that killed over 5 million people in Africa that had many of the Continents states involved with, is still totally absent from our knowledge as it didn't involve the US. There are several conflicts going around today that we aren't talking about, because the US and the West have taken no interest in them. Should we take interest? Interest, yes, military intervention, perhaps not. But the issue would to prevent the conflicts to happen in the first place. Rapidly economically growing countries where trade flourishes aren't usually starting wars or collapsing into civil wars.

The point about mathematics and logic also seems to be right. But it does seem that our capacity to learn all those human skills and practices has a biological basis – over-developed cortex, opposable thumb, bipedalism. — Ludwig V

The point that @Patterner also made of our brains being different might be the real difference, but even that might be smaller than we think. Bipedalism and our hands are reason why we can use so extensively tools. Also it has been studied that Homo Sapiens could have more children that lived up to adulthood than our hominid brothers. Yet the real question is hypothetical, could for example the Neanderthal been capable of creating a civilization? They could speak, at least a bit and could make fire, which obviously shows their sophistication. To dismiss the possibility outright based on biological differences we cannot do as it's now purely a hypothetical question.

And let's face the fact that if humans would have remained as hunter gatherers, there simply couldn't be so many of us and we would have molded the Earth as we have now. Without agriculture there wouldn't excess food production and hence there couldn't be division of labor, job specialization. Agriculture and trade and writing are simply crucial for our development to what we are now, especially if it has anything to do with our society or our scientific thought.

Agriculture got started just somewhere around 11000 BC and writing is even a more frequent invention, so what has made us different from the hunter gatherers (whom many of our extinct fellow hominids were too) has happened only a while ago.

Gradual escalation is more predictable and unlikely to lead to erratic behaviour from the other side, so safer. It's a tactic in and of itself. — Benkei

The erratic behaviour for Russia was to believe that they could have a Blitzkrieg victory over Ukraine because the occupation of Crimea had been so easy and bloodless. Yet from that point on, it hasn't been so erratic. After that Putin has been at least partly successful of hindering the support given to Ukraine by saber rattling. If the US would have given all the weapons it has now given from the start, the situation likely would be different.

Russia's nuclear deterrent has done it's job, NATO and the US aren't directly involved in the fighting. Without the nuclear deterrence I'm sure that NATO countries would have declared a "No Fly Zone" over Ukraine. It would have been the likeliest direct intervention that NATO would have done, just like in the Libyan Civil War. I assume that and the military aid would be it. I see no appetite for NATO countries to send their forces in and in NATO countries like Poland wouldn't go their own way.

The idea that Russia would start a nuclear war with NATO because of NATO countries giving military aid to Ukraine is crazy. We went through a Cold War and arming your opponent never was a reason for WW3. But somehow Putin's threats have worked.

I don't know about micromanaging, but for politicians to command the military is only proper.

"War is a continuation of politics by other means," as Clausewitz said. — Tzeentch

For politicians to put down the objectives for the war is proper, to decide to go to war. But politicians shouldn't then become generals themselves and decide what to do. Totalitarian states are perfect examples of where their political leader can have made things worse when not listening to their generals. But when you look at the way Vietnam war was micromanaged by the White House and compare it to WW2, there's a huge difference.

When fighting and winning the war becomes a goal of its own (as is often the type of tunnel vision military leadership suffers from), it is a recipe for disaster. — Tzeentch

And when winning isn't the real objective, then people can believe that the sole objective is just to feed money to the military industrial complex. And hence the turn to defeatism, where no war is ever worth fighting, which also means that there is absolutely no deterrence to keep the peace.

You might ask yourself first why the closest relatives to us are the chimpanzees. The simple answer is: we ourselves.

There's no Neandethals, Denisovans, Homo erectus, Homo rhodiensis, Homo naledi, Homo luzonensis, homo floriensis walking around anymore, even if there were 300 000 years ago. And all because of us, not because of climate change etc. Those that could have children with us, they now are part of our genealogical roots. It's telling when Alexander the Great made his genocidal journey of conquer to the outskirts of India, the Greeks had a brief "battle" with strange little humans that fled to the trees, until someone told them these were actually animals called monkeys and they wouldn't be a threat to them or a population to be subjugated.

Animals do use tools and for example the Neanderthal could make a fire, so the question is that would these other hominids of our tree be able to invent or copy agriculture, have the written word? Very likely, but they are no more.

Hence to your question, why wouldn't any other animal have the social and informational systems than we have, is because if they would, they would have posed a threat to us and we would have exterminated them.

Never underestimate the viciousness and utter cruelty of this species we call Homo Sapiens, mankind. Just look how cruel we can be for our own fellow man, even today. We aren't peaceful Kapybaras, you know.

I'm just saying there is a significant difference between humans and animals. I think this is evidenced by many of the things we do and manufacture. I also think we think about things no other species thinks about. Of course, I can't prove my cat isn't pondering the nature of consciousness, trying to find an easier way to locate prime numbers, or amusing himself with the thought of the cat who shaves all the cats who do not shave themselves. — Patterner

A fetus becomes conscious before being born and early self-conscious emotions appear during at age 15-24 months. Yet ask yourself, if nobody had talked about consciousness to you, you wouldn't have read about it or been taught about it, would you have come to think about the nature of consciousness?

If you answer yes or even perhaps, then how would you talk about it? What level do you think your ideas would be about it if you wouldn't have any reference to science or philosophy about the issue or the basic biological understanding we have now. Just look at this thread and notice how much people refer to biology, science and philosophy. The previous discourse about the issue.

Not only do you need a very complex language to talk about the nature of consciousness, you need a lot of information to talk about it.

Now your cat might not think about Russell's paradox, but it quite likely can count. It could be argued that it has some primitive feline mathematical system, because counting is very important for situational awareness. Logic is also quite important in situational awareness.

Hence the huge difference isn't a biological difference, but a social and informational difference.

Why would he do that, you think? — NOS4A2

I think the option of making "Trump proof" would be close. But again, this is how Biden has worked. First M1 Abrams tanks weren't an option. Too complex! Then few M1 Abrams tanks are given. Then MLRS/HIMARS weren't an option. Then they were. Then NATO states want to give F-16 aircraft. Biden rejects this. Too complex! Then after a long time, Biden accepts these transfers.

This is basically how the White House ran the Vietnam war. Just to give an example, the White House forbid to attack at some time the airbases that North Vietnamese had their few MiG aircraft. Why? Because, the idea went, if the bases were attacked, then North Vietnam might withdraw the to China, where they could be attacked and the threat of China getting involved would increase. Now it should be obvious that the short range MiGs would have a lousy time trying to intercept US fighter bombers from China, hence it would be a great turn for the Americans that the MiGs would be in China. And naturally they didn't a rats ass about what the impact on the crews were on this kind of micromanagement.

This is the absurdity when politicians are let to micromanage warfighting. Yet when you ask the President to answer something, he definitely will then answer these kind of question and then you simply are trapped in the situation where politician just decide on everything and they don't look at the war from the warfighting stance, but from their own political view. Then war becomes "sending messages", not fighting to win the war and defeating the enemy.

This scene from "Thirteen Days" depicts this problem well, even if it perhaps isn't historically accurate. Yet what in the scene McNamara describes as a "new language" between Khrushchev and JFK might have a point here, it really isn't the same issue during the Vietnam war. Yet the tendency for micromanagement of everything continued there too.

Hostile talk against China? Do you mean talk of tariffs? I don’t know; peace through strength comes off as a better principle than war — NOS4A2

Lol. If the US argues that China is a military threat, when it pivots to Asia, opens new bases, brings in new weapon systems like medium range artillery missiles into Phillipines, then that actually is quite hostile from the Chinese point of view. And you don't think 60% tariffs isn't hostile?

Of course, China's claims on the South China Sea are dubious and it put pressure on states like the Phillippines, but it hasn't gone to war with it's neighbors like Russia. Yet if it's peace through strength, then that's quite similar to the reasons for NATO enlargement.

Sure, but this escalation is a complete flip-flop from Biden’s earlier policy. Americans were lied to again, and here we are closer to nuclear war. — NOS4A2

How? I think Biden has backed up Ukraine since the start. He actually made the intel reports public that Russia was going to attack Ukraine. I remember how Biden was ridiculed even in this forum by people who didn't believe that Russia would attack Ukraine. Because why would rational Russia invade Ukraine?

Besides, the Democrat administration knows quite well that Trump would have only threatened to give the weapons system for Ukraine if Russia doesn't budge at all (and let's face it, the ATACMS isn't at all a game changer), hence Ukraine would have been in a weaker position in the peace talks.

What stands as credible critique towards Biden is the idea of giving aid to Ukraine that it wouldn't lose (collapse), but not to win (meaning it gets a victory like Poland got from the Soviets in the 1920's). I'm not sure if this was really what the administration had in mind, but sometimes the micromanagement of what weapon system is given and instructions how to use it makes many feel that this is the underlying if not spoken objective.

And if you are so afraid of WW3, why the fuck then all the hostile talk against China then?

If you want to be a weak dick, then be a weak dick. Then people will understand that you're deterrence doesn't actually mean so much. But simply staying calm shows that you have trust in your the deterrence and that you see through the empty threats of Putin.

I think it's called "spite". — unenlightened

Spite?

I think that Americans were quite unhappy with inflation, that actually was caused by deliberate policies starting with Trump, but effectively finished by Biden. Everything else was given as a reason, except the massive transfer of money to the consumer thanks to the Pandemic.

Brexit actually gives a perfect example of how voters react to bad populist policies. Brexit was said to give frictionless trade and new deals around the world. End rampant immigration. The UK would be finally in charge itself. Above all, it was anti-elitist! Spite, as @unenlightened remarked. And from outside of the country looking at it, it went something like this:

1) First enthusiasm: People won the elites, hooray! Finally somebody is doing something good.
2) Then silence but still waiting for the positive effect: Give some time for it to work!
3) Then denial: Actually, we have gotten something good. It's not so bad.
4) Then amnesia: Look at how awful everything is now. Labor's fault.

I'd bet that if Trump really goes through with kicking out millions from the country, issuing huge sales taxes, sorry, tariffs, prices will go up. Even Elon Musk, who has a brain, understands that it will cause hurt. Well, even if Trump isn't running for re-election, we know his persona.

And let's remember that a populist movement can simply believe that all the bad things have happened because of the evil a) deepstate, b) woke people or c) nasty foreigners. If a political movement transforms to a cult, it doesn't matter if the economy totally collapses. They can blame somebody else. In fact, Trump then can take the punchlines from Maduro, if everything goes to hell in a handbasket:

Supporters of Chávez and Maduro said the problems result from an "economic war" on Venezuela, falling oil prices, international sanctions, and the business elite

While the Venezuelan economy, well:





Of course Venezuela is different. But the policy choices there were populist and horrible. As I said, the impact of millions kicked out of the labor force and out of being consumers, then having trade wars with everybody can be nasty. What is the outcome of +10% tariffs for Haiti? Haiti exports over 80% of all of the meager stuff it produces to the US. Even if the society is on the verge of collapse, will this help? How will then this all show on the US border, especially if (when) other poor Latin American countries have bad economic difficulties?

If this confrontation were on the US border with rockets being launched into the US & there were hostages to rescue the situation would be completely different. — BitconnectCarlos

If hotheads like you would be given the say how to fight the war, sure. The objective would be to get pleasure from seeking revenge, which is an emotional response. Yet professional soldiers are far more logical. War is a continuation of policy and the objectives should be clear from the start. Excessive force creates resentment and one has to take into account how other actors will respond to your actions, if they seem excessive.

Here the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a perfect example of how differently the Azeris were to the Netanyahu's govenment. When the Azerbaijan overran Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azeri president declared that they had no intention of forcing the Armenians out. And Baku made it clear that it would to “reintegrate” the region and its remaining population into Azerbaijan, promising economic development. Baku talked about normalizing relations and reaching a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh did flee to Armenia proper and the actions now show just how hypocrite that talk was from the Azeris, yet the reality is that the Azeris got away with this large part because they talked about a peace and talked about upholding minority rights.

Azerbaijan says it has pledged to ensure all residents’ safety and security, regardless of national or ethnic origin, and that it has not forced ethnic Armenians to leave Karabakh.

Denial works. Yet the Israeli line has been totally different from this. Hardly anytime has somebody be ever so clear with their intent. Talking of evil cities and how every resident in Gaza is culpable because they years ago voted for Hamas is a way to keep that rage up. Then saying after some timeline everyone in Northern Gaza is considered a combatant isn't the way it goes. Simply rule based order or international agreements don't matter. At least they are totally honest in what they want to do.

I remember what a fellow student in the university said to me about the Israeli-Palestine conflict in the 1990's: There will be never peace. He was one of the smartest students and he had been a blue beret in Lebanon. And he was right. The conflict defines people: the Nakba is a crucial part of Palestinian identity as is this conflict for the Israelis too.

You won't hit the broad side of a barn with just '80s INS, — Tzeentch

Ammo dumps are far larger than a side of a barn. Or you mean top of a barn? Besides, as the solid fuel propellants of the missiles go old, old inventories aren't from the 1980's anymore. At least in the US.

We are talking of a 10-50m CEP with ATACMS. Does the job perfectly.

(Just for comparisons: 450m CEP for a SCUD B from the 60's, 4500m CEP for a V2 during WW2.)

Do note what I said: The ATACMS was developed in the 1980's. It has inertial guidance just as nearly all long range missile artillery systems have, even if it can be aided by GPS. All you need is specific coordinates of both the target and your position and some meteorological data. That's it. Even the Tochka missile that Ukraine has (or had) could hit something like a large ammo dump.

Do notice all the drone attacks done by Ukraine, btw. Far earlier Ukraine attacked Dyagilevo and Engels air bases and destroyed TU-22 Backfire and two TU-95 Bear aircraft. So that shows their capability.

Besides, Ammo dumps don't move, they can be only emptied, but that takes time. What is telling that neither side cannot hit moving targets deep inside in the other ones territory. I haven't seen one example of a moving train that has been attacked and destroyed (I may have just missed the occation). Russian aircraft don't dare to venture deep into Ukraine and attack trains and traffic.

So Bibi got a court order:

Today, on 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (‘Court’), in its composition for the Situation in the State of Palestine, unanimously issued two decisions rejecting challenges by the State of Israel (‘Israel’) brought under articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute (the ‘Statute’). It also issued warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant.

And it seems that Bibi is really willing to take Israel to a dark place. But UN, ICC and other institutions don't matter for Israel, when you have a Trump in your pocket.

As one Israeli put it: the proponents of an Apartheid have been replaced by proponents of a Genocide. Now Israel is talking about the "evacuation" of all people from Northern Gaza, so now it's really does seem that Israel is acting it's own "final solution"-type answer for the Palestinian problem. "The Generals plan" is a kind of final solution.

At the start of this conflict when the "Al-Aqsa Flood" attacked was instigated by Hamas, I was still hoping that Israel would fight like the Americans did against Al Qaeda and Isis in Iraq. Destroy the terrorists, yet try to help the civilians. The Americans had nothing against the Iraqi civilians, which showed in the way they fought the terrorists. In the case of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, it isn't so.

Again I have to say that @Benkei was right. In the present and the near future we will witness an ugly chapter in Western history, because I do see Israel being part of the West.

But hey, Azerbaijan successfully ethnically cleansed Nagorno Karabakh and now is feverishly trying to demolish everything linking or heritage to an Armenian past in the Nagorno Karabakh. So what is called a war crime and genocide worsk in the World. Yes, Israel can be angry that the Azeris seem to get a free pass in it's successful ethnic cleansing operation while they are getting flak from the World. Oh, the anti-semitism in the World!

(Meanwhile, in Nagorno Karabakh)

It requires US or British assistance for virtually every step of the deployment process. The strikes are probably completely planned by American and British operators. — Tzeentch

Again dismissive lies about the Ukrainians.

Ukrainians can use the MLRS system, and why wouldn't the US give them satellite imaginary? And they do have an intelligence service and military intelligence of their own.

Besides, the ATACMS is used by Bahrain, Greece, South Korea, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Ukraine and Taiwan besides the US and is contracted to all the Baltic States and Australia and Morocco. You think all these countries are totally incapable of use ATACMS alone, but need special help from the US? You think they would buy a system they couldn't operate themselves? Or that somehow Ukrainians are so ignorant and stupid that they cannot use them? This weapon system was from the 1980's and is thus is forty years old.

Artillery rockets are far more simple than long range air defence missiles, which have to hit very fast maneuvering targets. And Ukraine has made an equivalent to the S-300 Surface to Air weapon system (the SD-300). The Ukrainian R-360 Neptune cruise missile is famous for sinking the Moskva and also has a land variant. Hence countries like Ukraine that have the capability of creating their own missiles surely can use missile systems that are given to them with training. The idea that Ukrainian couldn't use them, that you would have to have American and British assistance for every step in the operation of the weapon system is just bullshit, simple badmouthing of Ukrainians. That Ukraine could use Soviet era platforms to fire Western weapon systems is quite telling of Ukrainian capabilities.

So Putin talk again.

The situation is totally different if an user has to use some weapons without any logistical trail of spare parts etc, like Iran found itself with American weapon systems after the Iranian revolution. And then Americans in all of their hubris declared that Iranians couldn't use their F-14 Tomcats and their advanced AIM-54 Phoenix missiles without US assistance. Wrong again: Iranians did use the systems all through the Iran-Iraq war and even later, until this day.

The gold price skyrockets to a new all-time high and probably will continue going through the roof for the next several days. — Tzeentch

Commentators always have to give a reason why something goes up and down. A standard line like "market participants try to arbitrage" won't do. In case of the gold price, it's more long term development isn't tied to wars and pandemics as the commentator says, it's that the international debt based fiat monetary system is steadily losing it's value. US is taking more debt, which creates inflation.



The short term changes in the long run don't matter. Likely when Trump leaves office in 2029 (if he survives so long), gold will be far more higher in dollar value than today. But in those four years it surely will bounce up and down.

Putin talk. Also, that Ukraine itself isn't an agent deciding it's own action is straight from the Kremlin narrative.

The manufacturer of a weapon system simply isn't the belligerent. It's the user of the weapon system who is the belligerent. Also, giving intelligence to a party isn't either an act of war. Giving arms to defend for a country to defends itself from outside aggression is quite understandable. And btw Ukraine is using many different weapon systems in Russia as it has troops inside the country.

This part of the discussion should be at the Ukraine thread, even if touches the subject. Or otherwise this presumably is moved to the lounge also.

Well, it can't get any worse than the Biden administration, which is now playing a game of nuclear chicken with Europe as their bargaining chip.

Ten weeks until Trump takes office. Lets see if Europe survives. — Tzeentch

Even if Russia fired a ICBM into Ukraine with a conventional charge (pretty expensive going there), I think that Europe survives. Even Ukraine too.

Honestly I hope he follows through on this since that was what the people voted for. He doesn't really need congress to do either mass deportations or massive tariffs anyways. If people want to flirt with these ideas then give it to them and either they'll love it or they won't. — Mr Bee

I think it's safe to bet that we haven't seen the last of inflation in the US (and the World).

Let's not insult health care workers. The care is fine just not accessible because too many people are uninsured. — Benkei

AND the insurance companies make a profit in everything. That also puts the price up.

Now some might argue that Trumps 10% tariffs on everybody else and 60% tariffs on China is just the negotiating tactic for the start as to wake up other states to notice that Trump is back in town.

But I don't get it how this would work for China. It's a totalitarian state. If Trump poses these difficulties, it's not a difficulty for the Chinese communists, because they're not elected out if the economy hits hard times. And they just can blame it as the imperialist aggression of the US. They (the Chinese) have to have noticed that Trump is a hostile partner when it comes to trade issues. Hence they just have a perfect culprit for all the economies problems with Trump. And then likely there emerges just huge trade around by third countries. Likely Trump's crownies will get exceptions, perhaps Elon can say something about stuff that hurts Tesla to Trump while he's rearranging everything better for himself and his companies in DOGE.

What I don't understand is why Trump voters are so eager to have more inflation.

Talk about the obsession of having more sales taxes and making things more costly to the consumer. I thought Americans didn't like inflation.

Feels like with Trump, assuming he can deliver, the US is up for something as wonderful as the British experienced with their Brexit. I remember how excited the Trumpist were about Brexit. Oh how they made their Island nation independent and great again, with having all the freedom in the World to make prosperous deals in the World without the bureaucratic evil EU.

But perhaps this is in the realm of things like the obsession to pay the most for health care anywhere for a mediocre health care system, something I cannot wrap my mind around.

I was replying to your comment. Of course, literally, no war is forever. But they can be very long, like Korea, which is still ongoing. — Manuel

Well, comes to mind a small curious anecdote: one of the longest conflicts happened between Sweden and San Marino. You see the tiny nation of San Marino, which was on the Catholic side, and protestant Sweden didn't make peace in treaty of Westphalia, hence the two states were technically at war until 1996. I assume that no Swede noticed this belligerent status of his or her country in the 1980's when visiting San Marino.

And even if some artillery duels or North Koreans attacking US soldiers with axes has happened on the DMZ, this has been a frozen conflict, not a conventional war as is now fought in Ukraine. So there's a huge difference between a frozen conflict and a conventional war.

Insurgencies can go far longer and literally fade away. One of the most bizarre event was when the Baltic States were opened for tourism in the Soviet era during the 1960's and Finns rushed to the countries for the cheap alcohol, the last remnants of the "Forest Brothers", the Balts fighting against the Soviet Union, were still hiding in the forests. In Estonia I think the KGB captured the last "Forest Brother" that had evaded them in the 1970's as an old man.

Winning is stopping the killing. What other winning is there? That Russia is defeated- that they go back pre-invasion days? That's not going to happen. — Manuel

Why then didn't the Ukrainians denazify themselves then?

Well, it's about the peace deal they get. Is it so difficult to understand that Russia has lost wars, even if the enemy didn't occupy the country? Russia lost to Japan. Russia (or Soviet Union) against Poland. That one has nuclear weapons doesn't mean you can lose wars.

Hence Ukraine can get / could have gotten a better deal like Japan or Poland. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why the defeatism? There'd be no Finns, we'd be basically Russians just like the Mari people or other Finno-Ugric people in Russia if we would have that kind of defeatist attitude, if we would never had fought for our independence.

I think America underestimated the tactical advantages of their enemy fighting on home turf, with all-or-nothing mentality, and with gorilla-terror tactics; and, as you mentioned, the perception from the US public also plays a huge role. — Bob Ross

To put it simply: Only American soldiers sent to a war on another continent see and feel the war. Many in civilian life in Continental US don't even know about the conflict. In the country the war is fought, usually nobody can distance themselves from the war. For these people, the conflict can surely be marketed as an existential struggle. In the US, the Foreign Policy establishment has to try to conflate everything to be an "existential struggle", which makes Americans very, very skeptical. So skeptical that they can indeed believe that all wars are just forever wars concocted by the Deep state for war profiteering of the military industrial complex.

Not to mention, Biden left billions of dollars of military-grade resources in Afghanistan for the Taliban :roll: It can’t get anymore embarrassing for the US than that. — Bob Ross

It was a double whammy. Trump made a lousy peace deal, Biden went along with it and made it even worse. I feel for the Afghan war vets: they were really betrayed.

I think the US people generally don’t want to spend billions of taxpayers dollars on foreign wars when they have so many problems at home that could be fixed with that money. I do not support sending any aid to Israel nor Ukraine: we need to fix our country first. — Bob Ross

Some thoughts: If military spending is cut, the money simply isn't put somewhere else. Likely you simply take less debt. For example the Global War on Terror was financed basically by taking more debt. You didn't see large tax increases then. Secondly, you are already paying at these interest rates (which are low) more in debt service than in defense spending. The historian Niall Ferguson has said once this happens, no country in the entire span of human history has continued to be the Great Power it was before.

This year, the debt service is higher than defense spending. Something just few years earlier was thought to happen in 2033.


And notice actually from the Soviet example: if you stop defense spending when defense has created a lot of jobs, then the economy goes south. Or in the case of the Soviet Union, simply collapses.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the US doesn’t actually have any military presence in Ukraine: all we have been doing is funding them. Let them fund their own battles—they aren’t a part of NATO. - The US doesn’t have a formal alliance with Ukraine. I would completely agree with you if they were a part of NATO. If Russia hits a NATO country, then they are going to get their shit rocked. — Bob Ross

Was South Vietnam a treaty ally of the US?
Nope. (Actually, SEATO gave protection to South Vietnam, but the country wasn't a treaty member)
Was Kuwait a treaty ally of the US?
Nope.
Was the Republic of Afghanistan a treaty ally of the US?
Nope.
Is Israel a treaty ally of the US?
Nope! (It's an one way street with Israel. The agreements: Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952); a General Security of Information Agreement (1982); a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991); and a Status of Forces Agreement (1994), all make it so that Israel doesn't have to lift a finger to help the US, but the US will surely help Israel when it is in trouble, or redrawing it's borders. Because thanks to AIPAC and the Evangelists... defending that Judeo-Christian heritage is enough!

Yes, unlike Putin is saying now, the US isn't fighting in Ukraine. It's just supporting the Ukrainians. Yet that there isn't that alliance with Ukraine doesn't make this assistance unimportant.

Just think what happens if the US stops the aid and declares: tough luck, too bad! Well, this will have many effects. Russia has just shown that it can do whatever it wants and if the US opposes it, the US will just bitch for a while and then loose interest and thus it can be defeated.

This will make a crack on NATO, which even if all it's cacophony with so many sovereign states in the alliance, has been on Ukraine quite firm and together. (Even if you have Hungary and Turkey). Everyone told that they were supporting Ukraine, but in the end... no.

Well, the little countries that are replaceable (like mine) will get the memo. Sure, they might act is nothing serious has happened... but the know in their heart just how much are the guarantees actually worth.