Like all those other countries existing under crushing debt and corrupt governments. I hope you're right but this is very unlikely in my view. — Benkei

East European countries have improved their situation after joining the EU. And after a war you literally have rebuild nearly everything in the society. The Baltic States are a prime example of what ex-Soviet countries can do.

Of course there are many obstacles before we even get there. Starting from the possibility that one will have a long exhausting war that will take down more than Ukraine. The help that Ukraine is getting now won't go on perpetually.

Indeed.

I think after this war is over (and hope we will see it in months, not years), Ukraine has a perfect opportunity for a national rebirth. It has now achieved unity against a common enemy and if it then joins the EU, I truly wish Ukraine will change it's old ways of corrupt oligarchs. The war party leading the country has been a centrist party. Ukrainian patriotism really is not some "right-wing" cause now, it's obvious to everyone and Ukrainians can make this their finest hour.

Of course everything can be fucked up, as people can mess things up. The huge influx of money to rebuild Ukraine can create even more corruption and if then the EU and the West just closes it's eyes from this fact as in Afghanistan, the outcome can be bad. The EU has to stick to it's bureaucratic details and it insistence on things like minority rights and so on when it comes to Ukraine. In fact Ukrainians actually want that. What better thing than to join exclusive club of EU members that all the time bitch about Brussels when the alternative is to be under the rule of Putin either directly or indirectly.

I could be wrong but if Putin plans to attack any country that helps Ukraine, then it is a given that we have to help Ukraine any way we can. — dclements

Which luckily both NATO and the EU have understood to do.

IMHO it is all just naked aggression and Russian (Putin and those that support him) merely want to turn modern Russia back into the old USSR again however they can. — dclements

Indeed. Except without the marxist-leninist ideology. That they don't have.

One failure that Ukraine did do was no to do general mobilization prior to the Russian attack. It was meaningless and simply an error to abstain from doing this as to "not to provoke" Russia. Putin will provoke himself to do what he wants with or without provocations from the other side. Yet still some seem to think that Putin is somehow reasonable. Attacking a large country as Ukraine isn't reasonable.

Point being, Russia might soon be at a significant firepower disadvantage, so it's unclear why they are continuing with the ineffective attacks and sending conscripts to their deaths. They seem to be making it more likely they lose land they've held since 2014. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Just to emphasize how much aid Ukraine is actually getting is the example that the US has sent about 1/3 of it's Javelin ATGMs to Ukraine. Usually countries have like under 50 launchers in their inventory or at most a hundred launchers. Ukraine has now over 2000 launchers. For the US to replace this expenditure of ATGMs, which won't cost actually so much for the US, it still will take a year to produce replacement equipment for US Army. There simply aren't any additional factories to make them.

With the Russians the issue can be that they finally are going to follow their own doctrine and manuals and concentrate their forces, but the fact is they cannot suddenly replace the used and lost material. And they don't have the reserves. And the fact is that they don't have reserves. To form up new ones or rearm reinforce older ones with reservists would take actually months.

Yet defense is easier than attack. And do notice the ease that Russian forces could withdrew from the Kyiv front. No large Russian formations were pocketed and destroyed altogether, hence the Ukrainian counterattacks were mainly local. What we haven't seen is Ukraine making a counterattack with several brigade size units. Something that isn't easy when you don't enjoy air superiority. Large counterattacks might indeed carry with them huge risks the Ukrainians don't want to make at least now.

I think the days of the armored division are done though. After this, many nations are probably going to switch to something like the Armored Brigade Combat Team, realizing that tanks need to move with interceptor assets, recon assets, and indirect fire assistance. — Count Timothy von Icarus

With great fanfare Russia few years ago re-created the formation of the 1st Tank Army, which now has seen actually operation with other Combined Arms Armies of the Russia Army. The idea was that the brigade hasn't gotten enough of firepower. Hence larger formations. It's interesting to see just what lessons Russia does learn from this. Especially now when it is focusing on the Donbas and understands that Ukrainians will fight, because the earlier multi-pronged attack and the attempt to seize Kyiv was clearly made thinking that the Ukrainians wouldn't defend and fight.

I thinking in area defense will be proved right again. The assumption that you can have a quick capture of the enemy country and hence have a splendid short war has now been shown just how perilous it can be.

But it's hurting his economy. That can't be right. — frank

Economy isn't as important as it is in American or Western politics.

You think there's any now? — Isaac

Just look at what you can do with martial law in Russia:

Evacuation of important objects and people;
Strengthening the protection of public order, critical infrastructure and other important facilities;
Restriction of entry, exit and freedom of movement, search, restriction of choice of place of residence;
Curfew;
Military censorship in the field of communications;
Increased secrecy in state and local authorities;
Restriction of the sale of weapons, dangerous substances, drugs, drugs and alcohol, their temporary withdrawal from citizens;
Ban on rallies and strikes;
Prohibition of public, international or foreign organizations that undermine the country's security;
Forced labor for defense needs, to restore destroyed facilities and fight fires and epidemics;
Seizure of private property with subsequent compensation;
Internment of unreliable citizens and citizens of aggressor countries (applies only directly in case of aggression and in order to prevent riots).
Restriction of economic activity, including property turnover;
Restriction of search and distribution of information;
Change of ownership of organizations;
Change in working hours. The abolition of the system of voluntary employment and the introduction of conscription labor obligation (mandatory for all citizens over 14 years old)

Of course many of the above you can already see happening in Russia.

Yet if you have problems either because of the Western embargo or for other matters in getting defense production up or in something else, above you can find a toolbox to use. But of course then you have to admit that the issue is larger than just a "special military operation".

I don't understand what they're doing. — frank

The only thing understandable is that this is some kind of power play from the leader Xi Jingping.

It looks absolutely crazy:



I don't think this has now anything to do with the pandemic. This is simply riot police clothed in hazmat suits. I think this the Chinese leader using the old pandemic now as a political tool when otherwise the economy would already be wobbling under the global inflation etc. Actually when people here protest about what totalitarian system Covid has brought to us, perhaps a good reality check is to look at what's that actual totalitarian response like.



Here on the other hand, even the official line is that Covid (especially the omicron variant) is not a problem anymore. If you get Covid, stay home for 5 days and if you don't have serious symptoms, it's fine to go to work. And after 10 days, go to work even if you still are sneezing.

What the fuck did anyone expect to happen? — Isaac

I think they're softening people up for the idea to have martial law. And then there isn't any fig leaves left to disguise Putin's Russia from the authoritarian system it is.

By the question on the application, according to you, asks for the gender, not the sex. — jamalrob

Technically they ask for both.

To get a library card? I think it has more to do with the author(s) of the application are simply virtue signaling. — Harry Hindu

I don't know what the objective is, but this kind of virtue signalling is beyond me.

In fact it's actually good that you never have here any questions about race or ethnicity. I find them usually quite dubious. It's something that we really, really shouldn't mimic from the US (or the UK).

Finally it has reached even this place. The postmodern woke sillyness.

My daughter asked for a library card and as under age, she had to get the permission of her parents. The application asked for gender (only for statistical purposes).

The alternatives were:

1) Male
2) Female
3) Other
4) I decline to comment

I wonder really, what they need that kinds of statistics. Of course the utter hypocrisy is that they also ask for the whole social security number in the same application, which actually tells the sex of the person (at birth, at least) quite clearly, if you just know how to read the numbers. So guess the statistics they want to know is about how many don't think the sex at birth doesn't represent them, have had a sex change or something.

On Russian state TV: host (and modern day Goebbels wannabe) Vladimir Solovyov threatens Europe and all NATO countries, as not only Ukraine has to be denazified:

Got no takers on the "is this the end of the main battle tank era?" question I see, but I'm starting to think the bigger lesson learned will be the reemergence of artillery as a much larger part of operations. Guided artillery shells seem to be doing much more damage as the war goes on. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Even if several days ago, this is an interesting subject.

I don't think the era of the MBT is over. It's still quite useful, although it has to be protected and be used carefully in the modern battlefield. It's like cavalry. Once you had hand held firearms, one could have anticipated the use of the cavalry to diminish. Not so. In fact, cavalry shed it's armour once firearms became so deadly that armour wasn't effective anymore. And with rapid fire rifles then all cavalry changed to being dragoons: mounted infantry that would fight on foot, but move on horseback. Cavalry died out only when it was replaced by mechanization last century. And still some horses (or donkeys) are used mountain units or by fighters in Africa.

The simple fact is that there does exist a crucial role for the armoured mobile gun. The tank gun is versatile and the tank is still the most protected vehicle in the battlefield. It's interesting to see that when the USMC decided to ditch it's tank fleet and go with other systems, there is now huge debate in the USMC if this was the right call to do.

When it comes to artillery, drones and smart munitions are just the enabler of this ancient arm of the military. In fact I assume that easiness of drones as forward observers, just few mouse clicks and you have sent the coordinates to the artillery for a fire mission, is this "revolution" that drones have given us. Far easier if the other option is for you to have the forward observer hiding somewhere and seeing the target, then who has to inspect a map, then get the coordinates correctly and send them by a voice radio to somewhere in the organization. Yet the only thing what needs to happen is for air defence systems to adapt to kill small slow vehicles the Cold War era systems weren't designed to defeat.

Ukraine also has to think about offense rather than defense. The risk of a long period of war is greater if a smaller region has concentrated battles and the rest of the nation is spared. Russia can maintain battles if the entire military isn't diluted to just this one war and therefore can keep rotating its military. — Christoffer

Starting large counterattacks will be more costly to Ukraine, and lets face it, even the official numbers of Ukrainian soldiers now killed is higher than US killed during the war in Iraq. Hence as modern field medical treatment has gone forward, the total casualty figures are many times of those that have been killed. What rather easily can happen is that both sides simply fight each other to exhaustion and we have already seen examples of fighting taking a lull in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. We have to understand that these two countries have de facto been at war for 8 years.

Another notable thing is that they have had prisoner swaps. In many wars there aren't these or they are done only after the war ends. Hence the the formations on the field can also negotiate these.

But if Ukraine gets more offensively aggressive and tries to take back regions and cities now that the Russian army is at its lowest point in terms of morale, resources as well as the sanctions keeping their war chest down, then Ukraine has a good chance to push back Russia even further, making it almost impossible for them to win the coastal region corridor to Crimea, which seems to be the point Russia aims for as the end of this war. — Christoffer

If Mariupol falls (as Putin says it has done), the Russians do have their landbridge.

If Ukraine does this before May 9th, then there's very little "win" that Putin can show off and it would be an extreme failure on his part. It could save Ukraine and even dismantle the Russian elite, throwing Russia into internal chaos that will require more attention from Russia than any war, effectively ending the war completely. These new weapons need to be used for offensive efforts to kill off supply lines and groups of Russian troops. — Christoffer

I think the date of May 9th is overemphasized. It will come and go. Either Putin will truly want to end this war, but the likely thing is that he will have to take the breather. Now he actually ddn't take one as the forces from the Kyiv front really had no time to reorganize and train before the next attack happened. These things simply take a long time.

The simple timetable of a longer war might come in. If Putin decides to use reservists, it will take months to train and form new units. And thanks to the embargo, Putin's military industry will only replace the equipment in limited numbers. And so it is with Ukraine. Forming new units, deploying new weapon systems into service will take months also. We have already seen absolutely horrible numbers of deaths in this war compared to other modern wars. If the Russian numbers are from 7000 to 15 000 and the Ukrainian 4 000 in two months (without including the number of civilians) these are huge losses for the deployed forces that on both sides are far less that half a million soldiers.

What we see in this war is that area defense works and modern war is always a mix of new things and old where there hasn't been a "revolution in military affairs", just some new systems that one has to take into account, yet many things are the way they were earlier.

The next batch US aid to Ukraine comes now in the form of 75 155mm howitzers, vehicles and 100 tactical drones. With the howitzers one can equip four artillery battalions. Which is a similar or even more than many smaller NATO countries have artillery. What is obvious from this is that now the conflict is anticipated to continue as an conventional war and Ukraine is now getting those 'offensive' weapons that previously they weren't given (in order not to "escalate" the conflict). Also finally are spare parts coming through to the Ukrainian air force.

For until now the emphasis has been on Soviet legacy systems as Ukraine operates those as a stop gap measure, but now with the Western 155mm howitzers the country is getting new weapon systems, and training and the service delivery of these happen in weeks, not days. Hence it can be sign that the war will go on for months.

Guess you gotta make a bigger army of Nazis to fight the smaller army of Nazis? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Russia will use happily any extremist group they can get their hands on. And it's quite notable how they have been giving money and assistance to extreme-right groups, yet then talk of denazification. Of course, there is absolutely no actual ideology behind Putins rule... other than for him to stay in power.

As the extreme-right did play a part in Maidan revolution and the volunteer battalions played a major part in 2014 (as the Ukrainian armed forces could in reality field only 6 000 troops back then to put down the armed rebellions), likely the Ukrainians have had this kind of balancing act with these groups and they have been trying to integrate them to the national guard as obviously going after them and trying or to abolish them likely would just create demoralization, huge feeling of treachery and make at least part to join the side of Putin. The country has enough of armed groups running around with Russian support even before this invasion.

Notice it's not only that neo-nazis are fighting on both sides, so are the Chechens too. Both sides have their groups of Chechens fighting on their side. In fact, looking at the Ukrainian volunteer brigades shows just how complex the situation could be (Chechens, Belarussians, Georgians). Comes to my mind the Russian Civil War and all the various groups involved. At least (and luckily) the situation isn't as fragmented as then.

At least Ukrainian voters haven't supported the extreme-right much since 2014, but what post-conflict Ukraine will be like remains to be seen. Hopefully they can rebuild more than their cities after this war.

Do people feel the same as during the Cuban missile crisis? — Haglund

That was a bit different.

Besides, the real danger during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was that the US has a large superiority in the numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. nuclear stockpile in 1962 included more than 25,500 warheads (mostly in battlefield weapons). The Soviet Union had about 3,350 and only a few off them in ICBMs (if I remember correctly, there were 8).

This was the reason why US generals were so keen to invade Cuba. Also they didn't know that the Russians had also tactical nuclear weapons, which at least Castro wanted to be used, if the US would try to invade Cuba. Had it been the 1980's and I think even general LeMay would have had different ideas.

Today, you have a country with the largest nuclear weapons stockpile attack a country that has given away it's nuclear deterrence and a West that has made it clear it won't put it's troops into Ukraine. There should be dramatic escallation to make this to be like the Cuban crisis.

Lol imagine thinking the US even gives an iota of a shit about 'human rights, free press, and fair elections'. Jfc you post literal propaganda and expect to the taken seriously. — StreetlightX

I'm not an American.

I do give a shit about 'human rights, free press, and fair elections'. They've worked just fine in my country.

The problem I'm having is that every single comment you make seels to exculpate the US, NATO and Europe. — Isaac

You have a fixation on the US. As everything has to be about the US, it is you are the one exculpating Russia here because everything has to be about the US.

The mistake that the US did, or US/NATO, is that it made a promise it then didn't deliver. You don't answer that a country get "perhaps in the future" NATO membership. Fine.

We might try to have a reasonable conversation about what you really meant, but at the end of the day, I can't ignore the fact that there's a glaringly obvious agenda uniting your comments, a common thread running through them of exculpating the West. — Isaac

Because you are making this all to be in your mind a US lead thing. And you simply blatantly disregard everything else. You just simply stack up things that are later responses to events that have happened as to be somehow the causes. The US is one actor, but so is Russia and so is Ukraine.

And your later comment shows this perfectly:

1. A major legitimate nuclear power among America's major emerging competitors (the BRIC countries) has turned itself into a pariah, meaning the others can no longer rely on its legitimate nuclear opposition to America. Thus diminishing America's competition for influence in the far East. — Isaac

Yes, why? Answer honestly why has Russia turned itself into a pariah? Or how has the US turned Russia into a pariah state? Because it's crucial to the whole narrative here.

2. America, the main alternative supplier of gas to Europe (as LNG), gets to increase it's share of the market — Isaac

The main supplier was long QATAR, actually. The US became only in 2019 a major player in LNG as earlier it simply didn't have the means to transfer it's LNG to Europe.

U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity has grown rapidly since the Lower 48 states first began exporting LNG in February 2016. In 2019, the United States became the world’s third-largest LNG exporter, behind Australia and Qatar.

So the first exports of American LNG happened TWO YEARS AFTER the war started between Russia and Ukraine. And of course Norway has increasing it's production of LNG, but we should remember the agenda to go off from fossil fuel energy because of the Climate Change, which has hindered all such investments. If you favor non-fossil fuel energy production, the first thing isn't to start thinking about LNG.

Yet we all remember how President Trump did lecture Germany about the issue of the Nordstream pipelines, but then Germany didn't budge. But Putin massing two hundred thousand troops on the Ukrainian border and making an all out attack on Ukraine changed that. Only after that Germany did budge.

But somehow that "minor detail" isn't any kind of reason for you, it seems. And when Russia starts from proposals like NATO has to withdraw from all of it's Eastern member states and isn't interested in continuing the Minsk argeement or the Normandy Format, this wasn't an action from Putin to seek a settlement by the negotiation table without a war.

5. The lucrative markets of the world's bread basket get resoundingly secured as Ukraine will never again consider looking East for aid and trade deals. — Isaac

I don't know where this comes from.

The Russian navy has deployed a naval blockade on Ukrainian ports that will likely leave a huge amount of Ukrainian harvest to rot because you don't replace ship transport in months with land based transport, as the war continues.

And what is there for Ukraine not to trade with the East, with China? China is the biggest trade partner with Ukraine. Germany is something like half of that.

So you just make this assumption that Ukraine won't trade with China. Out of nowhere.

3. American arms manufacturers make a fortune from both direct sales and the increased militarisation of Europe. — Isaac

And so do European arms manufacturers. Yes, and why has that happened? Why are the countries increasing their military budgets?

6. The IMF get to fully control the economy of this new market to suit its needs because Ukraine will be so heavily in debt (and so bereft of alternatives) that it will have no choice. — Isaac

And here you conveniently forget totally forgets where the actual assistance will come for Ukraine to rebuild it's economy, from the EU.

Von der Leyen said she intended to, "present Ukraine's application to the [European] Council this summer."

During the joint press conference von der Leyen said: "Russia will descend in economic, financial and technological decay while Ukraine is marching towards a European future."

That's the actual game plan. Luckily EU membership is far more tougher for the whole society than NATO membership. The EU will likely assist Ukraine as it already assisting it with weapons deliveries. Here actually is a danger, as loose money invites corruption, and if the Ukrainians don't finally change their ways all that EU assistance will make things worse. Actually the Ukrainians do want to for their corrupt system to end, but don't realize how annoying the EU system is.

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. — Isaac

Nobody has said that. Developments that you have described quite inaccurately are results of Putin's actions. Responses to those action.

The West didn't force him to annex Crimea. The West didn't force him to attack Ukraine. It's Putin that has made everything possible. Large scale invasion of Ukraine was a very stupid move for Russia. Nobody has actually furthered the agenda of US hawks than Putin, that is true. But then one should ask who has responsibility for this: US hawks or Putin?

Of course we shouldn't discuss Russia or the Russian agenda. Even to talk about that is US propaganda. Well, here's one Ukrainian meme, which is quite apt for that discussion:

...the key being the bolded 'only'. The idea that it was entirely within Ukraine's power to determine that they would mount this great a defence, or that Russia's offence would be so poor as to render it effective. To hold that belief, one would have to hold the corollary - that in cases where the defenders lost, they simply weren't themselves courageous enough to do the job. — Isaac

Evidently you didn't get my point at all. So I'll try to explain.

Deterrence comes up from many issues. That the army will fight is only one, but that is crucial. Because if it won't, not much else will help. Then come obviously the weapons the armed forces has. Starting from the obvious like nuclear weapons, but here are also those Javelin and NLAW ATGMs are important building that deterrence. Without them stopping Russian tanks isn't so easy. Ukraine was also lacking so-called modern 'offensive' weapons, like modern artillery systems. Especially modern aircraft Ukraine lacked and it didn't have modern air defense systems, but largely legacy systems from the Soviet era. Offensive weapon systems was something that wasn't keenly given to them as prior to the Russian invasion, the West didn't want to escalate the situation. And of course Ukraine isn't the richest countries, hence it couldn't go on an arms buying spree like Saudi Arabia.

So in this case, what would be Ukraine's deterrent?

It didn't have much modern weapons. It didn't have security guarantees from the West. What could be it's deterrence in this case? Well, the only thing available to it is that it would put up a fight that would be costly to Russia. And that is what I meant.

More likely before fighting wars across the other side of the planet does not work very well as a logistics excercise. — StreetlightX

Why? Colonial wars have been fought now for hundreds of years.

What do you mean about logistics?

It's been said actually that many of the kamikaze pilots weren't so eager to die. And you have very ugly examples of just how "voluntary" some suicide bombers can be. But I guess the majority were quite willing volunteers.

To be fair, since WWII the US has more or less given up on winning wars. — StreetlightX

Sometimes, even if quite rarely, you may say something rather smart that I agree with. (One exception that proves the point: Gulf war and it's limited objective of liberating Kuwait.)

I think the reason is that whole society has been separated from being at war. You don't see it anywhere. Once the military is made up of volunteers, the military is just a service provided by the government. I guess the last years in Afghanistan Americans didn't even remember that Americans were still there.

Or that even now today there are American troops still fighting the "War on Terror".

Meanwhile I imagine most people who are not in kindergarden will probably lean a bit more into the material support of almost the entire Anglo-continental world as a preponderant factor of Ukranian action. — StreetlightX

Well, I do have noticed the absolutely huge arms shipments made to Ukraine. The numbers are quite astonishing. Even my country sent there some stuff, first time in history. So did Sweden, second time in it's history. So did puny Estonia. So did many other countries, so it's not only an American action.

All that stuff wouldn't matter if nobody would be willing to use them.

Which is why I asked my original question. What was wrong with the Afghans? Lacked 'the will'? — Isaac

Well, let's see.

I think those who fought for the previous regime, the Emirate of Afghanistan, surely didn't lack 'the will'. If your weapons are 60's era light arms and fertilizer, then I guess you have to have something else too.

So the question is about the will of the ANA, Afghan National Army and the government of Afghanistan. If you would be an Afghan soldier, what would you fight for? The pay? Good if you got it. Those who prosper from have "dead souls" in the unit roster whose salaries the put into their pockets are everywhere. Those who run away and leave you in the field to handle your fellow Afghans who happen to be the enemy. That's your leadership.

Or then look at the marvelous surrender peace deal that US President Trump did leaving out your government in the cold? Would that instill you some reason to fight? Especially when US President after President have always declared that they will leave you, ship out tomorrow? And you know the other side will just wait. How much does that instill in you a fighting spirit?

Especially in civil wars, there has to be reasons for the fight. And that's why the bloody and long civil wars tend to divide between lines of religion and ethnicity.

This is because most weapons do not yet fire themselves, thanks be to God. — unenlightened

That's why precision guided weapons like cruise missiles are so popular. They don't disengage from the attack if there's a lot of tracers around them. A human pilot might do that.

Now I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

There is absolutely nothing metaphysical about it.

If you would be given all the best military arms there are, given to carry a Javelin and someone even would show how to use it, you think that it would matter that it's a Javelin? Hell no, a man of peace like you would not use anything for some war you don't care about. The only thing perhaps you would be thinking would be how to escape from the madmen trying to train you. And if you would have the entrepreneurial spirit, why not try to sell the high priced tube after the next corner?

Will to fight is important. It isn't the only thing of course, but it isn't some myth. You don't see columns of American Abrams tanks being captured after their crews has run away. You do see those Abrams tanks in Yemen after the Saudi crews have ran away.

That in Ukraine you did see a lot of deserted vehicles tells actually a lot. Starting from the obvious fact that the crew didn't even try to destroy them.

According to you, saying "not only leadership" but referring to will to fight means that "the only difference must be the "the will".

Irrelevant strawman argumentation.

Amazing how quickly people will aver to literal metaphysical bullshit like 'the will', rather than say, the material support of the world's most brtually armed empire. — StreetlightX

Note the facts. The government of Afghanistan got far more military aid from the US than Ukraine. And it had a tiny lightly armed enemy compared to the Russian army opposing Ukraine.

And do note that the Emirate of Afghanistan won. After twenty years. So if you think the will to fight is metaphysical bullshit, you are simply wrong.

That something about the Ukrainian defense was unexpected. So that pretty much rules out geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, all of which were known beforehand. Culture too, but perhaps less so. Not exactly a mystery though. That leaves...

Leadership - of course, but are leaders born or made? If the latter, then by whom? — Isaac

Not only leadership.

I think the role of leadership may easily be overemphasized. Zelensky can rally his people and the West for the Ukrainian cause, but he doesn't sink missile cruisers or destroy columns of tanks.

The will to fight is simply essential. Shows everywhere. Also or especially in Afghanistan. In fact, there isn't a better example of the importance of will as in Afghanistan.

In 1939 the Finnish leadership had no illusions about the ability to stand against the Soviet Union alone. What surprised both the Finnish political and military leadership was not only how incompetent the Soviets were (largest reason were Stalin's purges), but how the army fought and didn't run away. The will to fight of the people actually surprised the leadership itself.

As I said, I haven't denied them.

I'll end too.

Ah right, because the Russians said something it can't be true. — StreetlightX

Oh it's true. There are ultra-right people in the Azov battalion. I'm not denying it. That's the brilliance of Russian propaganda in 2014, the whole "but their all neonazis!" trick worked well.

Then again, in Mariupol the mayor has estimated that 21000 have been killed. Many corpses on the streets. What the actual figures are, likely history will tell us. Somehow I won't believe it will end up being 210 killed or 2100 killed.

At least I can unequivocally call the Russian attack murderous and unjustified. — StreetlightX

And that's why I respect you and answer you. It's not all futile to talk to you as you can use your own head in these issues.

You on the other hand will literally spread Nazi PR for them by pretending they don't exist. — StreetlightX

That's false. I haven't said they don't exist. But give the examples then.

Anyway, hey look, Israel gives weapons to neo-Nazis - the same neo-Nazi's ssu likes to pretend don't exist: — StreetlightX

Again outright lie from you, but please do continue with neonazi theme! After all, I mentioned Mariupol and where other place is the National Guard regiment (not battalion anymore, FYI) than in Mariupol!

There's a ton of Russian propaganda about captured Azov fighters. After all, the purpose of the special military operation was denazification!!! So go with that.

But do then change the thread before you continue your ad hominem attacks. Because that's what responding to your comments is: volunteering oneself as the target of your critique, as you aptly put it yourself.

:up:

So I'll go to my original position, that it is incompetence combined with unhelpful demands from IMF and others. — Banno

I would add that the present global economic situation as a cause that is making the countries in the worst state (as Sri Lanka) now to drop in the towel. Oil prices are globally extremely high and so are many other raw materials.

Now take into account that both Ukraine and Russia have "problems" in the next harvest, Ukraine even more.

Last time we had these kind of oil prices, we had food riots later all over the world.

I have no idea what you're referring to here. — StreetlightX

It's the issue of not having the US to be seen as this White Knight in the Ukraine crisis. It's so obvious that even people have in that thread openly say it is their goal.

But enough of your typical ad hominems.

You're the one who seem to volunteer yourself as the target of my critique despite me not mentioning you at all. Guily conscience maybe? — StreetlightX

My point is that the war in Ukraine is obviously in the center of attention. And that those that shed tears for Ukraine wouldn't care about what happens in Palestine. It isn't a sign that people are OK with Israel's Apartheid policies.

But if responding that to your comments is "volunteering to be the target of my critique", it tells a lot more about you than me, StreetlightX.

I've just gotten used to the ad hominems on the forum. Like, "Yes yes, you, like every other liberal shill pays lip service to things when it suits you."

I think some have this problem that if they are against the US, anything the US condemns they cannot similarly be condemned as it gives credibility to the US. It is wrong, stupid reasoning, because it doesn't go like that.

What does a stupid intervention started by MBS suit me?

A strawman.

But at least your open to thoughts and sometimes do read what others write, have to give credit for that.

Isaac you see has this real fear that the US might seem to be good when it's Russia attacking Ukraine. Hence any support for Ukraine...is support of the US. So anything else discussed than that NATO enlargement caused the war in the Ukraine thread is bad.

Nothing to do with the fact that people like you simply parrot US talking points as and when they come out. — StreetlightX

Is that so?

So what was the latest US talking point? Was it this:

Israel has opted for perpetual war with the Palestinians. The founders of Israel thought that in some time peace should be made with the Palestinians. Present Israel doesn't think so. It's happy with the prevailing Apartheid system and low-intensity war that only sporadically intensifies. — ssu

Or perhaps it was that I referred to the mayor of Mariupol estimating that 21 000 have died. Oh, those "pluck" Ukrainians as Isaac says. It's not even Ukrainian propaganda, it's US propaganda.

Like the pregnant woman in the Maternity ward bombing being an actress? Right?

Yeah wonder what they could be. 'For some reason'. Not because the US and the West basically give a free pass to Israeli apartheid while hypocritically heaping focus on issues which are in their material interest. — StreetlightX

Well, I'm still not sure about that "radio silence" you refer to.

At least it's in the news. Like for example here:



So why is Ukraine more in the forefront?

How about:

a) The conflict is new. Started 50 days ago. Compared to something that actually is soon an one hundred years conflict because the Palestinian-Israeli conflict didn't start in 1948.

Ever heard about Occam's razor?

Yes. 17 or 20 people were hurt in the clashes with the police. Yet I think it's better to look at this from a larger context:

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has been tracking deaths in the conflict since 2008 and its data shows that 5,600 Palestinians died up to 2020 while 115,000 were injured. 250 Israelis died during the same period while 5,600 were injured.

Of course, then on the other hand the mayor of Mariupol estimates that just in his city 21 000 have been killed since the war started. Some 50 days ago.

Yet human suffering isn't a numbers game and of course the attention now (for some reason) is in Ukraine. But I'm not so sure it is because people everybody accepts Israel's policies.

As I've said in this thread in the start, Israel has opted for perpetual war with the Palestinians. The founders of Israel thought that in some time peace should be made with the Palestinians. Present Israel doesn't think so. It's happy with the prevailing Apartheid system and low-intensity war that only sporadically intensifies.

And just to make it clear, Israel's actions and policies are utterly wrong in my opinion.

?

You think it's racial? Or what would that wrongness be? Or you think others think so?

Of course knowing you...that's your ideas how you portray anyone disagreeing with you being a racist. Or something.

Perhaps a country that's budget is 2/3 based on international aid and only 1/3 actual domestic revenues simply creates an environment of rampant corruption. The US created the real ponzi government, basically. And when those benefactors, those who pay the majority of the governments expenses, who also have picked your president (because he's made a stellar career in the US and in international organizations) actually not only declare that they are leaving and won't be around, but also make a deal with the enemy your fighting with that for them it's totally OK to attack you, but not them, what do you think will happen?

What do you think an Afghan soldier would think about when he understands that a) everybody is just cashing in on the system, b) the US has sold them out to the Taliban and has declared it will leave and won't assist in the fight. So isn't it then reasonable to say "fuck this" and take the deal with the Taliban that they'll spare you and you can go home if you stop fighting? Knowing the Afghan way of war, this would be reasonable. What would you be giving up your life for?

The Afghans could defend themselves from invaders and with the clusterfuck of actions made by the US, it was sure that it would all collapse.

So no Isaac, there's nothing wrong with Afghans.

From their viewpoint (now onwards), Afghans have fought the British, the Russians, the Americans and kicked all of them out. What's wrong with that?