So going back to my main point, if one was to be indifferent or "that's what Israel gets" regarding this latest round of killings/barbarism, then especially when it comes to this war, we can no longer really discuss in terms of morality, but in terms of power. — schopenhauer1

That's what I've been doing.

I've given you reasons for why Israel is not acting in its own self-interest. For 75 years their policies have failed, utterly, to produce a security situation that Israel can build on for the future.

It can whinge all day about how others are responsible for that failure, but the end result is that Israel is in an extremely precarious position and its own actions are making it evermore precarious.

Further, it has been in a priviledged position where through US hegemony it can get away with much of its misbehavior. That situation will inevitably change some day, and Israel will have to rely on its own diplomatic ties with its neighbors, who are now utterly estranged from it through Israel's decades-long belligerence, and the only reason they aren't on overtly hostile footing is due to American 'gun boat diplomacy'.

And again, if Israel believes it can solve its security problem by apartheid, ethnic cleansing or worse, then it is missing the forest for the trees. Such actions will alienate it from the rest of the world, including, importantly, it's immediate neighbors.

Israel cannot be secure without normal relations with its neighbors, which requires it to find an acceptable solution to the Palestinian problem.


You use Genghis Khan as an example, but, unlike Israel, the Mongolian Empire actually had extreme amounts of power. Israel might have power over the Palestinian territories and Hamas, but compared to its neighbors Israel is not strong at all. For one, because of simple metrics like population and geographics, and secondly because Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people is giving its neighbors common cause against it.

If you think Israel can go around 'acting like Genghis Khan' you are sadly mistaken. Hamas is a small fish compared to Israel's regional rivals. Israel would much sooner find itself on the receiving end of a new 'Genghis Khan' when a Middle-East fractured by the US reunites under a new regional hegemon.


It might be worth emphasizing that a realist approach (which focuses on power) does not mean one can go around ignoring other nations' opinions when those opinions are in fact extremely important to one's own security. Realism is about security as much as it is about power, and clearly from a realist approach Israel is not doing well.

I'd say the significance of this ruling lies in the fact that the ICJ has not dismissed the case and is essentially acknowledging there is a present risk of genocide being committed by Israel.

Oleksandr Chalyi Interview / Panel (Former Ukrainian ambassador and diplomat, partook in the March/April negotiations)

Arestovych Interview (Zelensky's former spokesperson)

________________________

That's a big "if" when Putin hadn't accepted the terms. — ssu

Chalyi said this about it:

To my mind, this is my personal view, Putin within one week of the start of his aggression on 24th February very quickly understood he had made a mistake, and tried to do everything possible to conclude an agreement with Ukraine.

It was his personal decision to accept the text of the Istanbul communiqué. — Oleksandr Chalyi

The idea that Russia was open for something else as "peace" than all it's objectives accepted: puppet regime, eastern Ukraine with land corridor to Crimea and perhaps also Odessa is questionable. — ssu

I've linked you the Ukrainian former officials, one of whom was part of the Ukrainian delegation involved with the negotiations, telling us that the agreement as per the Istanbul communiqué was genuine, and to quote Chalyi, was a "very real compromise." Furthermore, the Ukrainians themselves confirm that NATO and Ukrainian neutrality was Russia's main concern.

You'll have to come to terms with the fact that this happened - Russia and Ukraine were ready for peace, but the US and the UK pushed for war.

And you can view the terms of the communiqué yourself, and see that it doesn't match up with your view.

Whatever fig leaf you are clinging on, [...] — ssu

The only ones clinging onto fig leaves are those who, understandably, have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that the West (read: the US and UK) rejected peace and chose prolonged war over the backs of the Ukrainians.

Yet the fact is that the US Middle East policy is a train wreck. Likely sooner or later US is forced out of Iraq, perhaps as with low media coverage like France left the Sahel. If nobody makes a big issue about it in the media, perhaps people won't notice. — ssu

Yep, and unlike the US, Israel cannot retreat across an ocean and pretend nothing ever happened. It will be stuck in the middle of said trainwreck.

I think people grossly underestimate how dire this situation can become.

When I point out the realities of a situation, that doesn't mean nihilism, that means realism.

You can believe Hamas should not do what it does, but it will. We have thousands of years of history that is full with situations like these, and they all transpire in the same way.

The problem for Israel is that the majority of the world (as evidenced by not-so irrelevant UNGA resolutions) is no longer on its side, and that Israel - not Hamas - stands to lose most.

If Israel wants to use Hamas' behavior to excuse its own brutality it can, but it is missing the forest for the trees. It will end up alienating the rest of the region, perhaps even the rest of the world, and allow an endless breeding ground for extremism.

I'll ask again, what happens when the US retreats to its island, and another regional power takes over the dominant role in the Middle-East? You think they will be impressed by a meek "tu quoque" when Israel will be finally held to account for its decades-long oppression?

I don’t want to play a sport with you, if raping, cutting heads off people and ransoming it back to relatives, praising children for butchering x nimber of Jews and burning people is resistance, I’ll pass on your idea of competition. — schopenhauer1

Of course that's resistance. It's hardly anything new in terms of what resistance movements have gotten up to historically.

You can argue for a moral high ground, but it won't make any difference. The reality is that Hamas and the Palestinian problem exists, and that it is not going away through any of Israel's current actions.

The UN is irrelevant and is used as whatever X person's cudgel is against the US/Israel. — schopenhauer1

Even if you truly believe that, UN votings clearly show opinion on Israel is shifting, and that it and the US are increasingly more isolated. That is not irrelevant. That is the writing on the wall.

Having Palestinian complete control over the hill-country of the West Bank IS a strategic concern, and having a 15 mile corridor between two (obviously hostile) regions IS a security concern. Besides just that Benkei thinks this is how it should work, how would Israel know that Palestine would simply cease all hostilities if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza? What if instead of what you suggest (that Palestine is now whole, so has no reason to fight), it keeps fighting, but now from a much more forward position? — schopenhauer1

Nothing Israel is doing and has been doing is changing its strategic position. In fact, it's actually worsening its position in the region significantly.

Israel should hedge its bets while the West is still relatively in control.

What do you think will happen when the US retreats to its island and the Middle-East falls out of its control? We are rapidly approaching that point.

In a way, I view the conflict as a system. Hamas has to give back the prisoners. They have to think of the lives of their own citizens. If Israel is going to fully go after Hamas, no matter the cost to the Palestinian side, and they have the ability to do this... If Palestinian leadership cared about their citizens, they would give up the fight, give back the prisoners, to prevent further destruction of their people.

Then, the US, has to essentially give Israel an ultimatum (once Hamas leadership is defeated), that they must have an international coalition along with a reformed PA rule Gaza (with the understanding that indeed the Gazans will have to de-radicalize and stop the cycle), or aid is halted, as Israel cannot indefinitely rule Gaza without it contributing to the further dissolution of a two-state solution and continue the world outcry against the occupation.

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be.

So this being a system, they have to de-escalate by looking at it from the two sides.. Like when there are two people who have to turn a key to launch a nuke, the two sides have to play their part. Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn. — schopenhauer1

Right.

Hamas has to stop its resistance, and then the US has to impose an ultimatum to force Israel to adopt the two-state solutoin?

First, Hamas isn't going to stop its resistance until Israel shows willingness. Until then, resistance is the only leverage Hamas has.

Second, the US can't impose anything on Israel, let alone a decision so large as the two-state solution. Even if the US managed it politically, Israel would simply refuse to carry it out, just as Israel refused to carry out the long list of UNSC resolutions.

Third, Israel made a two-state solution utterly impossible through its settlement policy, probably intentionally so.


Bottomline, this isn't dealing with reality. This is a blueprint for never solving the conflict, which is exactly what Israel has foolishly done for the past 60-or-so years.

How long can Israel continue to ignore reality? Ten, twenty years maybe? Some time in the near future Israel will no longer be the dominant force in the Middle-East, and conditions will be imposed upon Israel which it can only hope are a little more merciful than its own methods.

Well, I disagree, obviously.

I believe Palestinian radicalism is created by Israel's behavior, much in the same line argues.

But ultimately where it comes from doesn't matter. The fact is that it's there, and somehow, with that as a given, you will have to find a solution for Israel's fundamental security problem, which is what I'm asking you about.

If you believe that Palestinians are inherently radical, what are you suggesting? That there is no burden on Israel to find a solution? That any amount of cruelty can be exacted on the Palestinians because, after all, "they are the problem"?

As I've pointed out, these roads lead to nowhere. Israel stands to lose the most, and that's a reality you seem unwilling to accept.

It doesn't matter where you believe Palestinian radicalism comes from.

The reality of the situation is that roughly as many Palestinians as Israelis live in the land Israel now occupies, which fundamentally compromises Israeli security.


Let me ask it simply:

You seem to believe Palestinians are somehow inherently radical.

So what?

Moral arguments aside, it should be obvious that Israel is creating radicalism through its oppression.

Israel can argue for the moral high ground until the cows come home, but at the end of the day Israeli security will be fundamentally compromised unless and until they actually solve the Palestinian issue, and that is going to involve dealing with reality rather than fantasy.


Today, Israel is still in a position to pursue a solution that favors Israeli long-term interests. In ten or twenty years from now, that likely won't be the case anymore.


I've said this before and I'll say it again: there will be a time when Israel is no longer the dominant player in the Middle-East. This is simply inevitable.

How do you suppose Israel would fare in such a situation?

Yes, I saw that. Two-state solutions over the years were shot down by the Palestinians. To my eyes, looking at the maps, they all seem absurd on their face. What Levy is about is one state with equal rights for all. — tim wood

He points towards the fact that every Israeli government since 1967 has supported the Israeli settlement policy and thereby intentionally sought to make a two-state solution impossible. This exact fact is also reiterated time and time again in the relevant UNSC resolutions, like the one I have already linked.

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967
lines,

[...]

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps,
consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed
in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground,
which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State
reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and
for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the
Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal
validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major
obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and
comprehensive peace;

[...]

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential
for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken
immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the
two-State solution; — United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

etc. etc.

This idea that the Palestinians are the ones to blame for the failure of the two-state solution is not really a serious one.

[...] how do the Israelis protect themselves from anything and everything from rocket and terrorist attacks to invasions? — tim wood

The behavior that attracts the harshest criticism has nothing to do with Israel protecting itself. (occupation, apartheid, settlements, etc.)

Like any state, Israel must follow international law.

But the history suggests that not only will the Palestinians not agree, but will act to subvert any possible agreement. — tim wood

I don't think history suggests that at all.

This is what Gideon Levy, a well-known Israeli journalist and author, has to say about it.

As to population, if ultimately the Jews in Israel cannot sustain their own population, then indeed they will eventually disappear. — tim wood

I don't think Israeli Jews will disappear under a 'one-state solution' - it is not quite that grave.

However it would require certain political groups in Israel to relinquish the idea of Israel as a Jewish nation state, because when (more than) half its constituency is Muslim and is given equal rights, obviously Israel would cease to be a Jewish state.

This is anathema to a large portion of Israelis, and somewhat understandably so. However, the price of holding on to this Jewish nation state ideal is painfully clear.

It appears that ownership of the West Bank falls to Israel — tim wood

Israel is considered a belligerent occupier of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and the Golan Heights since 1967 under international law. A whole slew of UNSC resolutions have been adopted to that end, each of which has reaffirmed the occupied status of the relevant areas and the illegality of the occupation.

___________________________________

I hold it is at least debatable as to who is creating unlivable conditions in Gaza - maybe the Palestinians have something to do with that? — tim wood

Israel controls everything and everyone that goes in and out of Gaza. So no, the Palestinians aren't the ones turning Gaza into an open air prison.

Israel’s sweeping restrictions on leaving Gaza deprive its more than two million residents of opportunities to better their lives, Human Rights Watch said today on the fifteenth anniversary of the 2007 closure. The closure has devastated the economy in Gaza, contributed to fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and forms part of Israeli authorities’ crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against millions of Palestinians.

[...]

This policy has reduced travel to a fraction of what it was two decades ago, Human Rights Watch said. Israeli authorities have instituted a formal “policy of separation” between Gaza and the West Bank, despite international consensus that these two parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory form a “single territorial unit.” Israel accepted that principle in the 1995 Oslo Accords, signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israeli authorities restrict all travel between Gaza and the West Bank, even when the travel takes place via the circuitous route through Egypt and Jordan rather than through Israeli territory. — Human Rights Watch

_________________________________________

As to the West Bank, I agree. If the Israelis are creating unlivable conditions on the West Bank, then they should both stop and reverse those actions. — tim wood

That's not an "if".

West Bank Access Restrictions (June, 2020)

___________________________________________

Please make your case for "ethnic cleansing." — tim wood

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, — United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

___________________________________________

Flagrant? — tim wood

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace; — United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

___________________________________________

And a joint Israeli-Palestinian state so that the Palestinians have a fast track to being equal stakeholders. — tim wood

Well, at least we are in agreement there. But do you understand that if Palestinians were to be given equal rights, there would be more Palestinians living in Israel than Jews, and Israel would subsequently cease to be a Jewish state?

This is why Israel's hard line political class has done everything in its power to avoid that from happening, and it has had to resort to apartheid.

2) what should the Israelis do? — tim wood

They should start with carrying out the dozens of (legally binding) UNSC resolutions calling them, among other things, to stop settling the West Bank, to stop creating unlivable living conditions on the West Bank and Gaza, end it's illegal occupation of the OPT and work towards a two-state solution, etc. as agreed upon in relevant resolutions.

They should probably also stop skirting the line of genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, and Israeli officials should probably also stop openly stating that they wish to commit these crimes against humanity in Gaza and the OPT.

Maybe if the state of Israel stops its flagrant breaches of IHL and human rights, its neighbors would change their disposition towards them.


I mean, this is obvious. Things get a lot more complicated if what you're actually asking is what Israel should do if it wants to continue everything listed above and suffer no consequences for it.

The peace talks in March/April 2022 which were blocked by the West.

The contents of that peace talk were already known to us via the accounts of, for example, Jeffrey Sachs and Naftali Bennett.

Now we have first-hand accounts from the people directly involved on the Ukrainian side, like former Ukrainian ambassador and diplomat Oleksandr Chalyi, which I discussed here.

It is also confirmed by Zelensky's former spokesperson Oleksiy Arestovych, who gave an interview recently where he called for a more realistic and less emotional approach to the conflict.

Poland Is ‘Next’ After Russia Wins Ukraine War, Putin Ally Says (Aleksey Zhuravlyov)
— Carley Welch · The Messenger · Jan 14, 2024 — jorndoe

If the Russians were really interested in conquest, why would they negotiate a peace in the opening stages of their invasion where they gave back occupied territory and WE were the ones to block the deal?

There's no way you can square that circle, and articles like these are warmongering in its purest form.

Don't think of it as alternative terminology, but using accurate language, and demand from others also that they use accurate language.

Don't allow a Netanyahu to pretend to speak for all Jews, when in fact he speaks only for Israelis, and only a (ever-shrinking) portion of them.

So to an extent, using the phrase anti-semite is counterproductive and deepens the rift between Jews and everyone else. — Punshhh

What I think is important most of all, is to stop talking about "the Jews" as though it is some monolithic entity.

Actors like the Netanyahu government or uncouth lobby groups like AIPAC try to foster this intentionally, acting as though they represent "the Jews", when in fact they represent very narrow, (and in these cases quite problematic) agendas.

The ultimate result of this, is that these actors and groups present an image of undue legitimacy, whereas the people that are involuntarily associated with them ("the Jews") unduly suffer in the blowback.

Calling out these specific interests, what they stand for and who they represent exposes them and denies them the use of these labels as a shield against criticism.

Part of me says that the world deserves Trump. — Hanover

In terms of foreign policy he can hardly do worse than the Biden administration.

An isolationist America might actually produce a peaceful putting asleep of the American empire, rather than a world war which is what the US is coursing straight towards under this clownshow of an administration.

I like how you turned that one around. :lol:

Russia looking to start WW3 against a power bloc that has a GDP roughly 20 times greater than it, ...

... or simply the MIC pushing propaganda to start the largest arms build-up since WW2 so it can profit exorbitantly and probably bring WW3 closer than it actually is now?

The US is probably also in on this, hoping to militarize Europe and provoke a wider war between it and Russia, to avoid either from profiting too much when the US will be inevitably crippled by conflicts with China and North Korea in the Pacific, and other conflicts elsewhere.

Indian media sharing footage of the attack that took place on a Greek-owned cargo ship that took place today.

This might give people an idea of the type of ordnance the Houthi are using.

Obviously, these aren't Taliban-style IEDs strapped together with duct tape, but actual weapons of war that pose a serious threat to civilian and military shipping.

Military vessels are generally able to withstand multiple impacts of this kind. For frigate/destroyer-sized vessels, three impacts would be a conservative estimate. Civilian ships, depending on size and age, may perish to fire and flooding after even one.

This is a very interesting subject, but perhaps a little off-topic for the thread. Lets continue this discussion in the future. :pray:

What's wrong with the UK? They are good fighters and they have a great armed forces. Also, they are still committed to European safety, even if they are on an Island. — ssu

Ukrainian official: Johnson Forced Kyiv to Refuse Russian Peace Deal (The European Conservative)

This is the reason.

The UK belongs to the Anglosphere, and together with other countries from the Anglosphere follows foreign policy that is heavily aligned to the US. The Anglosphere consists of exclusively island nations. (The US and Canada being essentially an 'island' in every practical sense)

These nations do not share the same security concerns as the European mainland, so should not be permitted to have this kind of influence over European (mainland) security.

And with the EU there's one thing that I've learnt to be true: the more you know about how it really operates, the more angry you become. — ssu

Quite so. It's an abomination, sadly. I think if Europe wants to remain functional and sovereign, it needs to replace the EU with an entirely different structure. I estimate the chances of that happening to be very low, so for the foreseeable future we're stuck with this mess.

But anyway, I'm for a loose union that still gives a lot of power to the individual countries because let's face it: the EU has done a really poor job on creating an universal European identity. Only the English have succeeded in creating an unifying identity with being British. But to be an European, well, it's like being an Asian or African... — ssu

Personally, I think a military alliance structure like NATO, but without the US and the UK, would be perfect. European nations economies function in vastly different ways, and the idea of an economic union has caused serious issues all over and I don't think was ever feasible.

Other elements like open borders (but with protected outer borders) I think would be fine as well.

I'm not sure about a "European identity" - attempts at trying to force something like that are silly, heavy-handed and probably doomed to fail (also reeks of communism) - but I do genuinely feel like I have a lot in common with other Europeans. We share a lot of history, and have reconciled the good and the bad. I also find war between two European nations pretty much unthinkable.

There is a lot of commonality which could be the basis for a more functional union that also respects the differences.

Yes, and Poles voted for him. — ssu

And somewhat predictably so. The Law & Justice Party pursued many foolish policies. This I don't have an issue with.

Well, if you have some articles or references about this, I would genuinely be interested... — ssu

Tens of thousands protest in Poland against ex-ministers' imprisonment (Reuters)

Pro-EU fanatics are silent on Poland's new illiberal turn (The Telegraph)

All of this is taking place as we speak, so we'll have to wait until later for some more brainy stuff.

Taking over the media and throwing the opposition in jail literally within weeks of taking office is probably the most blatant power grab I have ever seen in a western "democracy".

Who here are "they". — ssu

The Brussels elite, which is pursuing its own agendas that, predictably, never involve "less EU" but always "more EU".

Let me ask you, who does Von Der Leyen represent? Certainly not the European people, so who? Personally, I couldn't tell you, and that's what worries me to no end.

How is it an undemocratic abomination? — ssu

For one, we don't get to vote for the leader of the European Union - in this case Von Der Leyen - or other EU organs like the European Central Bank. There's also virtually zero transparency and control with regards to what these people get up to (and who they're working for).

Meanwhile, countries, including my own, are being completely hamstrung in certain fields by European legislation (see Dutch farmers' protests, for example), which, despite never being talked about in Dutch elections and there being no domestic support for much of this legislation, seem to be ever-expanding.


Tusk served as president of the European Council and as president of a transnational organisation known as 'the European People's Party' (an ominous name to be sure, though I'm not sure if it sounds commie or fascist - two branches from the same rotten tree anyway).

Who knows what uncouth, Europhilic lobbies this man is controlled by, but he was clearly sent in response to Poland's anti-EU trend, and indeed was successful in getting elected.

But it's the way he is now cleaning house like some dictator, without any criticism from European legislative organs whatsoever, that should be the canary in the coal mine. Clearly this man was given cart blanche to "get Poland back on track."


They tried the same in the Netherlands, where now a decidedly anti-EU party has become the largest.

Not that long before the elections, two parties on the left conspiciously merged into one, even though these parties did not have all that much in common and this merger will likely bite them in the end. However, together they did have a chance at winning upcoming the election.

Then, notorious Europhile Frans Timmermans was summoned out of nowhere to lead this questionable alliance. Timmermans had been working for the EU in relatively major positions for some 10 years, and architected the European Green Deal (which has been a total disaster for the Netherlands, by the way).

Long before the elections the propaganda machine was already churning, extolling him and labeling him possible 'future Dutch prime minister', etc., even though it is now clear that the anti-EU party probably won specifically because so many people did not want Timmermans as PM.


What this should tell you, is that the EU is not some impartial legislative body that follows the will of the European nations, but in fact is trying to influence the European nations' democratic processes towards a ever more EU, and often 'slipping in the cracks' to do so.

It's an undemocratic, untransparent abomination.

Yet that credible deterrent can be viewed always by the Kremlin as a threat that is out to get them. It needs an enemy to justify it's authoritarian grip. — ssu

Hmm. Maybe, but what enemy would that be? In the period between 1999 - 2013 Putin tried very hard to have good relations with the West. To a large extent he succeeded, and ties between Europe and Russia were good.

In my opinion, that was a perfect template for long-term stability, and it's hard to see why the Russians would have wanted to break that status quo by arbitrarily warmongering.

Lithuania surely will ask for defense assistance of article 5. The real issue is how treaty members will react to this. How will their populations far from Lithuania respond?

Is this a reason to go to a conflict which can lead to full scale nuclear war? — ssu

The thing I would worry about most in this scenario, once again, is Uncle Sam who basically has the power to send Europe into a nuclear war while it sits thousands of miles across the pond.

I've said this before, but the Americans don't share in the cost of large-scale war on the European mainland, in fact have historically benefitted from it. It is extremely foolish of us to put our fate in their hands.

In your scenario, what happens when the Americans decide large-scale, potentially nuclear, war between Europe and Russia is in its interest because it wants to "weaken Russia"?

The Yankees can and will climb the escalation ladder as far as they want and there's nothing Europe can do about it. Well, Europeans can whinge, maybe. I'm sure there will be plenty of whinging.

If, in reaction to your scenario, the Europeans want de-escalation, but the Americans covertly fire a 10kt nuclear weapon from an SSBN in the Baltic, what do you suppose will happen?

How so?

So far the Houthi don't appear to be backing down.

Honestly, I get the feeling the US and allies are falling for a trap here. Bombing campaigns are the NATO's bread and butter, and it was the predictable reaction to the Houthi attacks.

Since US diplomacy has completely failed, the "hammer" is the only tool in the West's tool box. Simultaneously the US is spread so thin that it can't afford to commit anywhere, greatly diminishing the impact of said hammer and making it almost bound to end in a dud.

Meanwhile, judging by the way Hamas has managed to mitigate the damage done by Israeli bombing strikes it appears that such actors aren't as vulnerable to this type of warfare as they once were.

For a closer example of what looming fascism might look like, I would look at what is happening in Poland right now under Donald Tusk.

Unsurprisingly, it comes from the undemocratic abomination that is the European Union.

This is nothing other than the EU sending out its agents to quell anti-EU movements from taking root, which must now be a growing worry to the Brussels elite. In the Netherlands they tried the same with Frans Timmermans, but they failed. In Poland they succeeded.

There should be antagonism towards that. There was towards the Third Reich. Was and is towards apartheid. — jorndoe

Speaking of apartheid and genocide, this is currently taking place in Israel with either "unconditional support" or tacit approval of virtually every western government.

The West should get its own house in order before it starts lecturing and antagonizing other countries, because currently it has zero credibility.

But you know, if Americans want to go to war with Russia over democratic principles that would be a nice joke. Fight that battle without us Europeans, though. Will you be volunteering for the frontlines?

In my opinion, this complacency and decadence we see within the EU is a post-Cold War thing. During the Cold War we had proper armies - way larger than what would be required today to provide a deterrent against Russia. So I believe we can do better.

Though, it is important to stress that even though I believe we should have a credible deterrent, we should not combine an arms build-up with antagonism towards Russia. A deterrent should have as its purpose stable relations between east and west.

The reason it won't happen until Europe shakes the US yoke is because the US does not want stable relations between Europe and Russia.

In fact, sowing discord on the European mainland is a strategy written down by Mackinder in his famous article 'The Geographical Pivot of History', and echoed by people like Brzezinski in 'The Grand Chessboard'.

Mackinder was British, by the way. It stems from a time when the British still had illusions of empire and world domination, but it appears they have not forgotten their old tricks.

It is no coincidence it was the US and UK who sought to block peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Both are island nations who do not share in the cost of war on the European mainland but have historically benefitted from it.

The EU has a combined GDP rougly equal to the US, and roughly ten times greater than Russia.

If Europe were even to remotely get its act together, there'd be no Russian threat whatsoever.

So why doesn't it? The enemy is at the gates after all!

My sense is that the US is and has been pulling strings in the background in order to keep Europe nice and docile, instead turning into the peer competitor that it could be and potentially shaking the US yoke.

And therein lies the problem. We share an "alliance" (though vassalage would be a better term) with a belligerent hegemon that lives across the pond. It doesn't share our security concerns, in fact being an island nation it benefits from sowing discord on the Eurasian mainland - divide & conquer.

This relationship we have with the US won't keep Europe safe, rather the opposite is true. The US is a dangerous ally.

Again, if Europe tried even a little bit there would be no conceivable Russian threat and we could enjoy stable relations with our eastern neighbor backed up by healthy deterrence.

That would not be in American interests though, which, I suspect, is why it doesn't happen.

Lack of leadership, I say. — ssu

I'll agree. The Biden administration looks like a set of children playing with fire, and where I had sort of expected some foreign policy veterans to show up to avoid utter disaster, nothing of the sort seems to be happening.

lol, what? — Count Timothy von Icarus

LOL

Fascism: Idolatry of the State

This is a pretty interesting take on fascism .

The Biden administration has gotten itself into one giant mess, and seems to have no clue how to get out of it nor possesses the diplomatic credibility to ameliorate the damage.

However, even though on the surface the participation of NATO / EU / Trading nations seems sort of obvious, I'm not sure if it actually is.

The current attacks on shipping are a direct result of the Israel-Gaza war. Many in Europe and even India are critical of both Israel's and the US policy vis-á-vis Gaza and the Palestinians.

My sense is that their willingness to put sailors and vessels at risk to clean up the mess the United States and Israel created is probably quite low, especially considering US-EU relations of late.

There is even some indication that the Houthis are avoiding targeting anything that isn't related to the US or Israel, which means the EU may have more to lose by getting involved.

Furthermore, whereas Somalia was an isolated, failed state and Somali piracy was limited in both scale and weaponry, the Houthis and the interests they represent (Iran / wider Muslim world / perhaps even the Iran-Russia-China "alliance") carry much more gravity.

Just think of France's rapidly dwindling position in Africa right now. If they piss off the wrong people, they will lose their entire former empire (or what was left of it). It would be for the better if you ask me, but the French elite probably disagree.

In other words, the Houthi have friends in high places, and anyone who gets involved on the US or Israel's behalf can expect retaliation that targets their weak points.

Lastly, as we've discussed earlier, the weaponry the Houthi are using is extremely dangerous to a navy that isn't prepared for this (new) generation of warfare. Nations will think twice about putting themselves in the crosshairs.

Even navies that are capable of dealing with this type of threat will face the monetary cost of sending a taskforce that can defend itself 24/7.

With the Somalis it was completely different. A navy vessel operating alone would be perfectly fine. The piracy was carried out by armed men in small boats who intended to board merchant vessels. What the Houthi are doing today is completely different.

Consider perhaps also the risk of getting dragged into a war with the Houthi / Yemen or even Iran by operating under US-led task forces