Appeasing Putin is not the end of it. — Amity

What proof do you have of that?

Would you rather see the war continue?

A crisis for the elites, perhaps. But they can fry in their own grease for all I care.

After the US neocon establishment got dealt a heavy blow, the equally abject European establishment is next in line. This is a good thing - the excising of a tumor that has been allowed to fester for much too long.

There is no crisis.

I believe the US should not have inserted itself in European affairs, policed the world, and it is culpable for all of which you mention. Its cultural imperialism has rendered the EU into an overtaxed woke tyranny, a state of affairs which many seek to defend. For a while Europeans were too busy enjoying their freedoms to want to defend them. Who knows where you'd be if the Americans hadn't infiltrated the European psyche? I'm not sure. All I know is it needs to end, and that time might be now. — NOS4A2

Hear, hear!

Sometimes I toy with the idea that certain cultures just ought to be vanquished — BitconnectCarlos

:eyes:

Walking back statements is indicative of the type of diplomatic tightrope the Trump administration is walking, but the fact that they're walking it at all suggests to me they are being sincere.

The point was to signal to Russia that their two preconditions to negotiations (no NATO membership for Ukraine and no return of territory) were on the table. That some poor schmuck has to walk it back infront of US allies and deal with the fallout is par for the course.

However, the US wants out while every day Ukraine's negotiating position gets worse. This means Moscow will be expecting a very favorable deal.

They have signalled they want a permanent settlement to the conflict, where they don't risk the next administration making another U-turn and things ending up in the same situation. This amounts to the US having to admit strategic defeat (in deed, if not in word).

Whether the Russians can be satisfied while also giving the US a way to save face is the big question here. Since the US isn't paying the price of failure (it is Ukraine), it is easy for them to walk away.

It's up to skilled diplomats to somehow square this circle.

The one thing that makes me hopeful is Trump's somewhat more friendly tone towards the Russians. Ironically I think the Russians are sensitive to the prospect of normal relations with the West.

A lifting of the sanctions and a resumption of the NordStream project are ideas that are being floated, and these things may be enough to get a concession out of the Russians elsewhere which would make a deal possible.

I'm not trying to morally justify Russia's actions.

Boiling it down to 'aggression was rewarded' seems to miss the fact that there was a lengthy geopolitical power struggle. It would be more apt to say that political/soft power aggression was met with military/hard power aggression and a war ensued.

Is the use of soft power better than the use of hard power? Maybe so, but when the United States is the belligerent, soft power has the capability of altering the fate of nations (and is no longer so 'soft').

Maybe 'aggression was rewarded', but the US was also shown there is indeed a limit to how far other nations let themselves be pushed around. Considering the US is the most aggressive, destructive nation on the planet, perhaps that is some good with the bad?

Aggression has just been rewarded. — Benkei

I don't think aggression is the proper term for it. The Russians initiated the use of military force, but there had been a conflict brewing for a long time before that, during which they attempted numerous times to settle it diplomatically.

If you want to call that aggression that's fine, but in that case I would argue sometimes it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests.

In the end, all that really happened is that Russia made the West respect its red lines. Like I said, I don't think the proper term for that is 'rewarding aggression'.

The loss of Ukraine would have catastrophic consequences not just for Europe but for the entire world. — Benkei

I think it's quite the opposite.

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

All of this nonsense about the Russians coming for Berlin and 'dictators sharpening their (nuclear) sabres' comes from desperate European politicians who, just like the neocons, are on the verge of being ousted together with their rotten cliques. They would love nothing more than a sense of crisis to help them cling to power.

It's almost as though the Americans are doing that thing they always do.

Whoever saw that coming?

Should I rename myself to Nostradamus?

So many questions.

Why haven't you and all the others made such a thread?

Surely if you care this much about Trump and whatever bullshit lawsuit they managed to land, then I'd expect you to be tearing the place down over the actual evil the US perpetrates and has perpetrated on a daily basis.

For all of your sakes I hope on some deeper level you realize how childish this phoney exhibition of moral indignation is. If not, then it really begs the question of what you are doing on a philosophy forum - you obviously don't have the disposition for it. Go back to Twitter or something.

I just think it’s stupid to insult people for writing about the topic of a thread. — NOS4A2

I'm not really trying to insult anyone. It's just getting embarassing.

"My man" Viktor Orban? Did I miss something or are you just exhibiting the same type of intellectual rabies as everyone else in this thread?

How is the endless list of grave moral transgressions of the US not relevant in a thread which consists almost exclusively of whinging about the moral fibre of its current president?

It just makes you look like a bunch of ignorant morons is all - pretty disappointing on a forum that's supposedly filled with intelligent people.

Of all the fucked up things the US government gets up to, which the American people blatantly ignore, up to and including genocide (Vietnam, Cambodia, East-Timor, Gaza, etc.), the hush money thing is where you suddenly draw the line?

Trump's election must have fried something in your brains or something, or maybe you were never very clever to begin with.

Every day I find it harder to take this forum seriously.

Why doesn't Israel let the Gazans leave?

How did American politics get so dumb?


Let me present you with a small exercise:

Vietnam
American people: :rage:

Cambodia
American people: :yawn:

East-Timor
American people: :yawn:

Iraq:
American people: Unfortunate. Carry on.

Afghanistan:
American people: Unfortunate. Carry on.

Libya:
American people: We came, we saw, he died! LOL!

Etc. etc.


The real question ought to be, how did the American people get so dumb?

Possibly. I've seen you posting empty messages for a while and was wondering what's up.

Right, because his long history of great ideas forces one to pause. — Mikie

But he is not fond of war.

And even the staunchest Trump critic would have to admit that the idea that the US is going to volunteer to conduct Israel's 'Endlösung' for them is virtually unimaginable.

If you are linking things, I cannot see them. Not sure if that's a problem on my end or yours.

I've said some words you didn't like so now I must not be 'speculating in good faith' and some Trumpster or something.

Whatever you say, buttercup.

Not sure why you're getting so snarky all of a sudden. Of course I am speculating, and everything depends on what happens next. :brow:

Of course not, because Biden did not have any intention besides placating the lobby in the hopes it would secure him the election.

Trump pressured Netanyahu to accept a cease-fire. For now that's the status quo, and it's the only reason I'm reserving judgement on what it is we are looking at.

To be clear, the forced displacement of 2,000,000 Palestinians at the end of an American rifle barrel is an outlandishly awful idea, which is why I am assuming Trump has a different intention.

If it's a negotiating tactic it isn't a bad one.

By threatening to give Netanyahu what we wants he's showing Netanyahu's intentions for all the world to see.

The world reacts with outrage, the Middle-East threatens to explode, international support for Israel erodes further, etc.

Trump has all the room he needs to back out, Netanyahu takes another blow, and hopefully that will be the final straw that does him under.

Let's see what happens.

Ah, so see, countries should accept Gazan refugees! — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's up to countries themselves to decide.

No country is under any obligation to make itself complicit in Israel's crimes against humanity.

You're trying to shift Israel's responsibility for its crimes to others.

Glad we agree. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We definitely don't agree.

You're claiming people have a moral obligation to pen women and children in with people attempting to genocide them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't claim any such thing.

Stop trying to deflect from the fact that you're trying to make ethnic cleansing work.

I'm not the one who is trying to make ethnic cleansing work, Mr. Abhorrent.

Gaza is not the only major urban war to produce essentially no refugees because "no one wants to leave." That assertion is ridiculous on many levels, not least because force was used to keep people in. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I never made the assertion that "no one wants to leave". It's up to you to prove that they do, uncoerced (Yea, good luck with that.), if you want this to be anything other than ethnic cleansing.

In order to even offer the possibility of refugee status you have to prove people want it? — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're not talking about 'the possibility of refugee status'. What you're talking about is opening the border and letting Gazans leave 'voluntarily' at the end of a rifle barrel, then call them refugees to disguise the fact that what is actually happening is ethnic cleansing.

Hamas isn't close to a representative body. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, you'll somehow have to prove the Gazans actually want to leave. And "I imagine that they do" is obviously not sufficient.

The first question is: who is going to drive out Hamas? Israel tried and failed. Are the Americans going to do it for them? If you put aside for a moment how completely absurd that would be, it's not even clear whether the Americans would succeed.


First you'd have to prove that the Gazans actually want to leave. The closest thing they have to a representative body is Hamas, and Hamas clearly isn't leaving voluntarily. If there were to ever be a representative body that is open to the idea, negotiations would have to follow, mutually agreed-upon terms, etc.

Until that happens, this is ethnic cleansing, and for Egypt or Jordan to open their borders to "take in refugees" would amount to nothing less than complicity in Israel's crimes against humanity.

Let's see what happens first.

The idea that Trump would send American troops to carry out 'the final solution' in Gaza sounds far-fetched to me. It would be a global diplomatic disaster. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to first push Netanyahu to a cease-fire.

If actions are undertaken to make this a reality, then we'll know. Until then I think this could just as well be Trump pandering to the Israeli extremists and the lobby.

In a way, it is good that Trump is putting it on the table. There are a lot of parties, in Europe for example, who are still trying to deny the gravity of what is happening in Gaza. With Trump openly talking about ethnic cleansing, there will be no more denials and all of these parties must openly proclaim on which side of history they wish to put themselves.

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

But not you somehow? Just, other people, but not you. No, of course not, you're simply too smart for that to have happened. It's simply impossible. Ah, the human ego. As flexible as it is frail. Willing and able to contort itself into positions previously thought unfathomable. — Outlander

I could just as easily have used 'we'. You can stop projecting now.

You've been ruled by oligarchs for decades, but now that 'your team' has temporarily lost the upper hand suddenly the world is ending?

Hysterical, hypocritical, etc.

I wish the admins would start to crack down on these low quality posts that amount to nothing more than coping over a lost election.

Grow up.

If you just watch the video I linked, you will understand why there is such a "misunderstanding" about what fascism is.

I think people could use a reminder of what fascism actually is, because this is getting a little embarrassing.

Actual realism is that Putin will accept a negotiated peace/ceasefire if he faces a real possibility of military defeat. — ssu

Only if it's a realistic possibility, which it isn't. The US and Europe are and never were going to risk WW3 over Ukraine.

The US Secretary of State just outright admitted it.

But by all means keep denying what is obvious. You've spent 582 pages being wrong, so why not add a couple more?

'Dishonest' to suggest Ukraine could have fully defeated Russia, retake Crimea, Rubio says (The Kyiv Independent, 2025)

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio denounced Moscow's aggression in Ukraine but said it was "dishonest" to claim Kyiv was capable of destroying Russia on the battlefield and returning to the pre-2014 state of affairs, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an interview published on Jan. 30.

The U.S. official acknowledged that Russian President Vladimir Putin carried out "atrocities" and "horrible things" as part of his invasion of Ukraine but voiced doubts about Kyiv's prospects for a complete military victory.

"But what the dishonesty that has existed is that we somehow led people to believe that Ukraine would be able, not just to defeat Russia, but destroy (Putin), push him all the way back to what the world looked like in 2012 or 2014 before the Russians took Crimea," Rubio said on the Megyn Kelly Show.

Rubio stopped one sentence short of finishing his thought, because of course these lies weren't propagated "somehow" - they were part of a deliberate propaganda campaign designed to instrumentalize the Ukrainian people, to have them refuse diplomacy and instead willingly throw themselves against Washington's former archrival Russia in a battle that couldn't be won.

Notice how when it is said outloud today, it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) sound controversial, even though a year ago it would have been complete and utter heresy.

Isn't propaganda a funny thing?

Team realism scores again.

All good. :up:

I never said you were brainwashed, nor did I 'play you' (whatever that means).

At most I suggested people in this thread were absorbing this information uncritically, exhibiting the reflexive, emotional response this type of media is meant to get out of them.

Apparently that must have hit a nerve, since you immediately felt the need to label me a 'conspiracy nut' - another typical reflexive response.