[...] his staunch support for Israel's war on Gaza, and a central pillar of his platform being that he's anti-war. The hypocrisy / opportunism combo there is audacious even for an American politician. — Baden

That's quite literally what the Biden/Harris administration is doing right now, though.

They threaten Israel with menacing finger-wagging and taps on the wrist, while literally supplying the bombs they are throwing on schools in Gaza.

Kamala mentioned something about tyrants and dictators, mimicking Joe's terminology vis-á-vis Russia and China.

Not only does this show a complete inability for diplomacy, but also a complete unwillingness - much like what we have seen during the Biden administration.

This doesn't bode well for the rest of the world.

I don't think the world is ready for Joe 2.0.

Just a former Mossad director comparing the current Israeli government to the KKK:

Ex-Mossad Chief: 'Netanyahu Allies Worse Than KKK, Overhaul is His Master Plan' (Times of Israel, 2024)

Quite in line with what I argued earlier, the idea that radical loonies are in charge of anything is just a guise (Pardo calls it an urban legend) under which these cynical political structures (similar to that of the US) try to exculpate themselves from the crimes they commit.

The radical loonies / military industrial complex / wealthy bankers / etc. made us do it!

Everything is the West's fault. All the injustices that happen in the World happen because of the West.

This naive and false idea makes them believe that they're smart as they criticize the West. — ssu

Caricatures aside, the idea that the West carries principal responsibility in this war and that the West's conduct so far has been nothing short of shameful, is an idea that is carried by a well-established group of western experts, analists and academics - a group that has done a vastly better job at predicting the course and outcome of this war than those who subscribe to the narrative that is put forward by virtually every major western media outlet. In fact, I struggle to think of a single fact that said media outlets have ever been right about.

So I'm not sure what you believe this type of posturing achieves.

You've already stated you don't wish to engage with my arguments. If you have changed your mind you may start with the post whose contents you almost fully ignored in favor of a "I'm not going to talk to you anymore!"

An isolationist America would be a godsend to the world.

But we all know that's not going to happen. The US thrives on ceaseless meddling.

I hope one of these days the American people will suffer actual blowblack under Washington's policies, and be confronted with consequences for continually exporting suffering to the rest of the world.

Maybe that's what is required to open some eyes.

The Russians don't need nuclear weapons to win, nor do they benefit from such a huge escalation. Things would have to get a lot worse first for them to consider that option.

The Ukrainians on the other hand are getting desperate and irrational enough to try something like that, and the US may just be cynical enough to give them what they want. Devastation and chaos in the region is what the US is after, and it doesn't care at all about the fate of Eastern Europe. It just wants to weaken China and escalate tensions between Russia and Europe.

Nuclear escalation which it can blame on Ukraine is right up Uncle Sam's alley.

Western audiences have become so gullible and ignorant that they would believe whatever story they try to sell it under.

On a sidenote, I think people grossly underestimate the risk this war brings to the region, with which I mean Europe as a whole, western Russia and by extension China.

If the Ukrainians have well and truly left the realm of rationality, which it increasingly appears that they have, they may be instrumentalized by the US for extreme ends.

The US wants to see the region in chaos. It has a willing, desperate proxy that will fight without regard for self-preservation and that Washington can blame everything on if things get out of hand in a nuclear way.

The real risk factor here is that US has nothing to lose and much to gain in a cataclysmic conflict in Eastern Europe which it would only be indirectly involved in. It would cripple all its potential rivals on the Eurasian mainland.

Kursk Incursion Boosts Ukrainian Morale After Grim Year (Reuters, 2024)

Lastly, and perhaps most plausibly, this was another PR stunt, just like the previous Ukrainian offensive - to show both domestic and foreign audiences that the war is not yet lost. — Tzeentch

:chin:

One wonders how an incursion into a strategically irrelevant region of Russia at the cost of vast amounts of men and materiel plus the collapse of the Donbas front would remotely bolster morale, but alas the Ukrainian side has long since passed from the realm of rationality.

Israel is ground zero in the conflict between West and Islam. If Israel falls, Europe is next. — BitconnectCarlos

Quite the contrary.

Decades of US-Israel policy is the cause of chaos, refugee crises/mass migration and radicalism, and the reason why various, formerly flourishing regions were disallowed from developing into modern states.

The sooner the US vacates the Middle-East, the better for Europe.

'Turning the other cheek' is certainly the more consistent school of thought - ergo, hurting someone in self-defense is not morally permissable.

However, I think there remains some case to be made for self-defense being a neutral act in some situations.

Perhaps the most convincing argument for this is that when one enters a real self-defense situation, one is not in a position to rationally weigh their options. A loss of control can reasonably be argued here. Panic and survival instincts take over.

Secondly, if it can reasonably be argued that the victim's intention was not to harm the assailant, but simply to protect themselves, the question arises to what degree an unintended bad side-effect can be considered fully an immoral act on the victim's part.
Obviously pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger clearly has an intent to grievously harm or even kill, but for example attempting to break free from someone's hold may not.

I think some skepticism about this particular story is warranted — boethius

I agree with Benkei's skepticism.

In fact, I would go a step further and say the WSJ story is obviously bullshit.

What amazes is me is the fact that people are even willing to entertain such a story when it's so obvious who is responsible for this.

It's like the propaganda storm is messing with people's 'bullshit filter'.

It's wait and see again. — Benkei

What are you waiting for, exactly?

The US to come out and say they did it? Wait and see what they write in the history books twenty years from now?

If what you are waiting for is conclusive evidence, that's just not how this type of thing works. Clandestine operations are set up with the express purpose of being nigh impossible to conclusively find out who did it, and thus they provide 'plausible deniability' to the perpetrator.

This 'sitting and waiting' reflex seems to be a form of intellectual paralysis, brought on by the fog of war and continuous propaganda campaigns. It's actually one of the goals of information warfare to bring the adversary into that state of mind, in which case it is called strategic paralysis. It hadn't occured to me until now that this also happens to domestic audiences.

Don't get me wrong. I get the reflex out of intellectual rigor, and usually reserving judgement is the 'correct' thing to do, but in this case it's exactly where the propagandist wants you to be.

It's interesting you keep talking about this alternate world. It's almost like your subconscious is trying to tell you something.

I heard from reliable sources he also had an American accomplice. A certain 'Joe B.' :lol:

The Germans are apparently looking for a Ukrainian diving instructor named 'Volodymyr Z.' :lol:

You couldn't make this shit up. It's like they're purposefully trying to humiliate Germany at this point.

The causes are also very clearly discernible: greenhouse gases. This is pretty basic stuff. To imply the causes aren’t discernible, the effects aren’t seen, etc — is pure climate denial. Why don’t you grow up on this subject already? — Mikie

I will "grow up" on this subject once it stops being a lightning rod that obfuscates the very real, short-term health risks that everybody ignores.

I know that's not your intention, but it's the intention of many who keep flooding the media with climate alarmism.

The real thing boomers should be feeling sorry for is the fact that their children will have to carry their economically unsustainable social security systems (which will probably be completely scrapped by the time their kids would get to enjoy them), and that the reason their kids are infertile and getting cancer and Parkinsons at the age of 30 is because they followed the ethereal 'climate change' narrative while blind to the real poisoning of the environment that have clearly discernible causes.

PS: I realize now that the melodramatic letter was probably not written by a boomer, because this type of virtue-signaling self-flagelation is not in their nature.

Do you remember this by the way?

US warned Ukraine not to sabotage Nord Stream after MIVD alert (June, 2023)

They're expecting us to believe it was the US that tried to stop Ukraine from sabotaging Nord Stream, when it obviously was the US that orchestrated the whole thing. (Having given us both their stated intent and a clear motive)

Supposedly Zaluzhny was in charge of the operation, and Zelensky was kept out of the loop.

How convenient, considering at the time of the article they were trying to replace Zaluzhny, which has now left the public arena - no accountability there.

No one in their right mind should believe this bullshit.

Whether the physical deed was done by US assets or Ukrainian assets is largely irrelevant. There's only one party that benefits from the sabotage - the United States, and all of this scapegoating of Ukraine is just 'plausible deniability' / false trail spin.

It's interesting you chose to share a picture from 1945, during which Israel had not yet been established and the United States still could be said to have reasonable leadership.

If we would rewind the clock a hundred years, maybe things could have worked out differently, but comparing then to now is apples and oranges.


Furthermore, have you taken a look at the graph you shared earlier? Who does Egypt share its spot at the top with? Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq - very typical examples of US "allies" in my opinion. I think your graph makes the opposite point of the one you're trying to make. If I were Israel or Egypt looking at that graph, I think I should be extremely worried. In fact, unless something fundamental changes for Israel, I'm convinced it will share the same fate as the rest of the countries on that list.


You're also choosing to ignore periods of recent history during which the US and Egypt could be said to be have been indirectly at war with each other (through Israel as the US proxy) and the US involvement in the turmoil that has plagued Egypt for more than a decade, which has repeatedly soured relations between the two countries. Egypt realises it's being manipulated, but up until recently it had no choice but to acquiesce in order to survive.


Saudi-Arabia is another (not all that different) story, but to make a long story short: Saudi-Arabia is/was being propped up by the US to fight against Iran, just like Iraq was before it. The recent rapprochement between Iran and Saudi-Arabia shows the Saudis have finally wisened up to the fact they were being used as basically a proxy.


So yea, who is living in .. erm... "la la land" here?


Anyone with historical awareness should be highly skeptical whenever the term 'ally' is used by the United States. Personally, unless there are formal mutual defense agreements and/or security guarantees I think the term means nothing, other than that a nation is temporarily serving US interests. There is no 'bond', there is no 'friendship' in the world of geopolitics - certainly not in that of US geopolitics.

Anyone with geopolitical awareness understands the joint US-Israeli goal has been to keep regional players down, and they are therefore at odds with virtually every other nation in the region - especially those that are powerful enough to aspire to regional dominance. The US has made clear what happens to countries that get uppity or get notions of 'independence'. They get trashed and thrown onto the junkheap of history.


Egypt and Saudi-Arabia simply saw the writing on the wall and understood their only option was voluntarily subjugation.

We see now as US power wanes that these countries have no intention of staying under the US yoke for any longer than is strictly necessary.


Personally, I find your liberal use of the world 'ally' rather misguided. But I suppose they can be said to be allies in the same sense that Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Ukraine, etc. can be said to have been 'allies'.

But stay in your la la land where Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are enemies of the US. — ssu

'Enemy' is a strong term that I haven't used, so perhaps this is a projection coming from your own 'la la land'?

Suspect. When it's the Kremlin, it's reduced to geopolitics, heck they're defending themselves (i.e. excused), and hardly otherwise mentioned ("invisible"), despite their bombing, shamming, etc. When the Ukrainians + supporters are fighting to take back parts of Ukraine, then it's another matter, be it evil US deep state theories, Kyiv to blame, ... And Hiroshima + Nagasaki ☢ 1945...not geopolitics for you? — jorndoe

If you believe I 'excuse' the Kremlin you're simply not reading my comments.

My continual point is that Washington and the Kremlin are two apples of the same shit tree.

Because you cannot handle the fact that I view Washington as the same type of cold-blooded, calculating reptile as the Kremlin, you, just like many others here, feel like you must go looking for inconsistencies where there are none.

It's all very snooze inducing. When you all are done coping and ready to make some real arguments let me know.

The country is bankrupt and in shambles. No one is going to be held to account for the coming hundred years. That's why it is the perfect patsy. It probably plays the part willingly in order to secure more aid.

, that's called bribery, not an alliance.

You may characterize this as an alliance, but I don't. Various countries in the Middle-East have been made to do Washington's bidding out of fear, and Egypt is obviously among those countries.

Why do I say that?

Egypt is the most populous country in the Middle-East and it is a geopolitically critical regeion due to the Suez canal. It is the most obvious contender for regional dominance in the Middle-East. Yet, today it is nowhere near that position and has suffered turmoil, including turmoil as a result of US meddling.

That is because the US and Israel are doing everything they can to stop regional powers from rising up in the Middle-East.

US and Egyptian interests clearly do not coincide, and this "alliance" is a product of something else.

Anyway, perhaps it's a good time to evaluate where this Ukrainian offensive is going.

Decisive results that could justify the expenditure of vast amounts of men and materiel so far seem nowhere to be found.

This lack of decisive results makes it difficult for analysts to determine what the intended goal of the operation may have been.

Possibilities include:
- 'Spreading the Russians thin', ergo a diversionary attack to relieve pressure of the Donetsk front.
- Gathering chips for negotiations
- Occupying the Kursk nuclear power plant
- PR / Propaganda purposes

Of these, I find the last two options to be the most plausible.

'Spreading the Russians thin' is questionable on several levels. First of, to spread the enemy one must also spread their own forces, which, given Ukraine's position on the battlefield, is not something they can afford. Furthermore, Russian gains in south-eastern Ukraine continue unabated.

In terms of Ukraine's negotiating position, this has probably done the opposite of strengthening it. There's virtually zero chance the Russians would even consider negotiations while the Ukrainians hold as much as a millimetre of Russian territory. Furthermore, it has given the Russians an excuse to tighten the thumbscrews and increase their war goals.


The Kursk nuclear power plant seems to be the only item of strategic value in the Kursk region which may justify an offensive. The direction at which the Ukrainians have advanced seems to imply this as its possible target. Even so, it's unclear what the plan would have been after capturing this power plant, since the chances of Ukraine holding onto it for long would have been virtually zero, unless they were prepared to use the nuclear plant as a form of blackmail.

Lastly, and perhaps most plausibly, this was another PR stunt, just like the previous Ukrainian offensive - to show both domestic and foreign audiences that the war is not yet lost.

Time will tell.


Regardless of intended goals, what are the actual consequences?

The offensive follows the modern pattern of defense-in-depth, in which the initial offensive drive is not stopped but instead allowed to penetrate until it has ran out of steam and given clues towards its intended direction. A lack of strategic significance of the Kursk region allows the Russians this option. Meanwhile, scouts, light infantry and tripwire forces focus on attriting the offensive's manoeuvre elements.

In other words, regardless of how media may try to spin this, this offensive seems to follow regular patterns of how modern armies deal with offensives. If this offensive came as a surprise, there was likely already contingency planning in place to limit the damage. It's even possible the Russians were aware that this offensive was coming. Alexander Mercouris claims an unnamed source spoke of an attack like this two weeks before it happened, though that remains uncorroborated.

This offensive does however provide the Russians with an opportunity to attrit the Ukrainian armies' manoeuvre elements that were previously held in reserve. Media reports suggest the Ukrainians indeed are suffering heavy losses in terms of manpower and materiel. That is not necessarily strange for an offensive, since they are almost always very costly affairs, but it's also precisely the reason why an offensive must achieve decisive results.


Much in line with the apparent balance of power, this offensive is unlikely to change anything in Ukraine's favor. In fact, it seems counterproductive on many levels: expending one's crack divisions and manoeuvre elements on a strategically irrelevant region while elsewhere the frontline is collapsing seems foolish.

But perhaps the main problem for Ukraine is that this offensive into Russia makes negotiations virtually impossible. This further undermines the Ukraine's/the West's credibility in peace negotiations, which has already been tarnished by the fiasco in early to mid 2022.

And personally, that's what I believe the goal of this operation was: to make peace impossible for the foreseeable future.

We must ask the age old question:"Cui bono?" and there is of course only one actor that desires perpetual war in Eastern Europe: the United States.

Calling Egypt and Saudi-Arabia US allies just turns 'ally' into a vacuous term. Of course they are not allies - certainly not today. Egypt is in BRICS, and Saudi-Arabia is openly flirting with it.

I'm sure the US likes to believe they hold some kind of non-coercive sway over these countries, but that's just fantasy on their part. History shows what happens to indepedently-minded countries in the Gulf and the Middle-East, and Egypt and Saudi-Arabia just realized at some point their fates would be the same as Iraq if they didn't dance to Uncle Sam's tune.

But times are changing now.

Why do I bother commenting your absurdities and errors? — ssu

Sounds like you're looking for a cheap way out. You didn't even respond to the meat of my response, instead trying to pretend Saudi-Arabia and Egypt are allies or even friends of the US (which they obviously are not, if ever they were).

Japan during WW2 was a fascist menace. Of course they had it coming. That doesn't mean the nuclear bombing was justified, or that civilians weren't innocent/victims. The Japanese state/government clearly was not.

Not sure what point you believe you're making here.

I guess, by such logic, Japan had Hiroshima and Nagasaki ☢ coming, some 79 years ago (with a difference of not being a land grab). "That’s geopolitics for you." — jorndoe

There's an obvious distinction between a country and its government, and its civilian population. Countries and governments are not victims, since they are seldom innocent. Kiev made a calculated gamble and it didn't work out. It should not play the victim card but take responsibility for its failed foreign policy.

Anyway, I thought you blamed the US for it all. — jorndoe

Not for it all. Just for the lion's share.

Bibi knows just what to tell the Americans and when. For him Americans aren't a problem, [...] — ssu

I think we should be open to the possibility that it is in fact Netanyahu who is being played by US Congress. US Congress seems to know exactly how to play towards his narcissistic disposition, don't they?

For decades, Israel has been pursuing policies that basically guarantee its own destruction, while carrying out US foreign policy, namely sowing chaos and exerting influence in a region the US is unable to directly control.

Meanwhile, the US can exculpate itself from principal responsibility for Israeli human rights abuses and war crimes because "the poor United States is being dragged along by Israeli ultranationalists and their psychopathic leader".

Israel does all this without having any formal security arrangements with the United States. And we know what happens with nations that presume on special relationships. (Vietnam, Ukraine, etc.)

So who is being played by who here?

Uh, both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are allies of the US. — ssu

They are really not, but there have been times during which the US attempted to placate them. Pretty much every nation in the Middle-East would be overtly hostile to the United States if it weren't for the threat of retaliation. Israel is the only real US ally in the region.

I'm not at all surprised that you think that the all the administrations from the Carter administration through Trump to Biden have behind them a "Grand Strategy"... — ssu

I'm not talking about the administrations obviously. Presidents haven't had any significant influence on foreign policy for decades. That much should have been clear from the moment a former actor became president.

In fact your idea of there being a "Grand Strategy" simply shows how little you know of how Washington works and how it goes through different agendas and strategies all the time. — ssu

Oh, sweet summer child. :lol:

It's not like US grand strategy is a secret. You can find hours upon hours of panel discussions by related thinktanks which provide a broad outline of what this strategy looks like.

Of course the US has a grand strategy. It's rather cute that people here seem to believe that formerly the most powerful empire on the planet runs on coincidence.

If we go to geopolitics, wouldn't then Egypt be a far more crucial link with it having the Suez Canal? Or simply Saudi-Arabia with it's position and oil reserves? — ssu

It's not like the US hasn't tried on both accounts.

Iran is particularly important though because it occupies the bottleneck leading to both the Middle-East, Asia Minor and Africa. That's where US and Israeli interests coincide, and there's no other power in the Middle-East that could fulfill that role.

Suez is not an unimportant bottleneck either though. And guess what we see there? Meddling by the Americans with chaos as a result, and of course decades of hostility between Israel and Egypt. After all, that which America can't control it must destroy.

Coincidence? I guess so, since apparently US grand strategy doesn't exist, and articles like 'A Geostrategy for Eurasia' by Zbigniew Brzezinski apparently don't exist either.

I'm honestly a bit shocked you would claim that US grand strategy doesn't exist, but all that means is that the US is being successful at hiding their agenda.

Don't let yourself be fooled though. It is not coincidence that keeps the evil empire afloat.


PS: Just to add, radical loonies like Netanyahu are the perfect patsies for the US. They can pretend a radical ally is 'forcing' them to be complicit in genocide, when in fact the US does and has always done these things out of pure power politics. Not the first genocide the US has funded, by the way.

↪Tzeentch, right, don't forget to blame the victims for looking to democracy rights transparency freedom (handy, so as to maintain a narrative). — jorndoe

Kiev is not a victim. It made its choices, and carries the responsibility for the consequences. It chose poorly and is now paying the price.

That's geopolitics for you. This isn't your average lefty echo chamber where terms like 'victim blaming' are used non-facetiously.

Current US grand strategy focuses on China, which is the obvious contender for global dominance (which Russia isn't), and the architects of this are the US political establishment/political elite/deep state, or whatever name you want to put on the people who run the show in the US.

The Israeli right and Netanyahu understood that for the US, the US-Israeli axis was far more than just an Cold War alliance. It wasn't the few million American Jews, but all the Evangelists who had a special place in their heart for Israel. And Bibi has been the best politician to use this totally exceptional relationship. I think he partly could be said to be also a de facto American politician. That's how well he can influence the US, even if he basically is a foreigner. — ssu

Hm. I'm honestly not one to ascribe a decisive amount of influence to interest groups and lobbies like the US Israel lobby.

I think Israel serves US grand strategy in that it gives the US a vital proxy in an economically important region. For example, Iran occupies one of three vital bottlenecks that connect China to Europe, the Middle-East and Africa overland. The other two being Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

I think it suits the US political establishment just fine that Netanyahu, the Evangelicals, etc. take the flak while no one seems to wonder how come the most powerful nation in the world is (supposedly) being commandeerd by radical loonies.

In my view, it isn't. These groups are just the patsies, while the main driver is actual US grand strategy and the interest groups we believe are somehow causing this are just the vultures flocking to the smell of fresh carrion. The MIC functions in the same way.

↪Tzeentch, alternatively, (once again) you deny Ukrainian agency, presuppose that it's not that they want democracy rights transparency freedom and wrestle free from the dominating (regressive opaque authoritarian oppressive) neighbor, — jorndoe

I'm not denying the Ukrainians anything, though it would be pretty silly to expect NATO or EU membership to magically change Ukraine into a functional state.

Anywho, the one who denied the Ukrainians agency is the Ukrainians themselves, when they made the remarkably foolish decision to put their security in the hands of Washington, crossing known Russian red lines while doing so. That was honestly pretty fucking dumb.

Incidentally, you're echoing what came out of the Kremlin. — jorndoe

Reality reflects poorly on the West. One doesn't need to be a Kremlin propagandist to deliver scathing, accurate criticism of our conduct in this conflict.

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations,(91) and the influence of oligarchs.(92) — Euromaidan

It's the same old song: the US overthrows a democratically elected government for 'reasons' and then proceeds to create a mess several times larger, leaving the country in ruins.

You'd think that clear-minded people would wisen up to the charade at some point.

Widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations and oligarchs - , does this remind you of any nation?

Because to me this sounds exactly like the United States. :lol:

It would seem the Netherlands’ whole history would have had to be radically different in the 20th century for it to have a more powerful/independent position. — schopenhauer1

I think today's loss of independence started with end of the Cold War. That's when NATO and Europe's position with regards to the US fundamentally changed and Europe failed to notice (or noticed too late).

Before the end of the Cold War, the US couldn't afford to have weak, corrupt allies in Europe. After the Cold War that became the goal. Corrupt, porous democracies are easy to influence, and militarily weak nations are needy and pliant.

In my opinion, this loss of independence is primarily a result of US soft power, and therefore is largely a psychological phenomenon. Nonetheless, it is a psychological phenomenon that is difficult to reverse.

Keep in mind, it's perfectly possible to be a part of NATO, or even a great power's sphere of influence, and still maintain a high degree of independence, but that requires a robust, non-corrupt politicial system and skilled politicians. That's the main issue in the Netherlands currently.

"True independence" is doing what Russia wants, [...] — unenlightened

You are purposefully misconstruing my argument. If a weak country wants to be and remain independent, it must play its cards right. This is just the reality of geopolitics. And yes, sometimes that means placating the gorilla next door.

The suggestion that Ukraine was a slave to Russia prior to 2014 is just patently false. Its presidents manoeuvred between both sides, and did so fairly skillfully.

The problems arose when Ukraine's skillful diplomacy no longer suited Uncle Sam's agenda.

I live in Europe/a NATO country. We're literally a vassal of the US, with our politcians being literal stooges for the US. There's nothing independent about my country.

The term 'vassal' is often used to describe exactly that: a country that is allowed to govern its own domestic politics, but is expected to fall in line with the suzerian when it comes to foreign politics.

That describes the majority of NATO countries, including mine, accurately. (Ironically, it even describes the position of the American people inside the US - you're free to bicker over gender neutral bathrooms or which clown runs the White House, but in terms of foreign politics you have no say whatsoever).

What Ukraine did up until 2014 was true independence, and true independence relies on a proper understanding of geopolitics, and more often than not on the skillful use of diplomacy.

It was you that suggested that Ukraine was supposed to be neutral. If that is not the justification for the invasion, then it can only be that Ukraine is supposed to be part of Russia. — unenlightened

That the Russians desire a neutral Ukraine is something that they've told us consistently over the course of some 15 years, and it's something they reiterated even after the invasion started.

It was part of the agreement reached between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul in March/April 2022.

So there is plenty of evidence that suggests that it indeed was the question of Ukrainian neutrality that formed Russia's principal justification to invade.

I would say that Ukraine was supposed to be independent. That is what we seem to disagree about. — unenlightened

I wouldn't disagree with that, actually.

The difference is that I don't see anything that is happening today as bringing Ukraine closer to that goal. NATO membership wouldn't constitute independence, even more so considering Ukraine is now so indebted to the West and corporations like BlackRock that it couldn't repay that debt in a hundred years.

What Ukraine had to do to remain independent is what it did up to 2014. It had to maintain good relations with both sides.

In 2014 it made the critical error of jumping in bed with the US.

And well, as I've said here before, jumping in bed with a crocodile to protect oneself from the crocodile across the border makes no sense at all.

Geopolitically they failed, and the US & Cronies ensured it would not be allowed to reverse it.

It's hard to tell whether you're being facetious or not, because these caricatures regularly present themselves as genuinely held beliefs among this forum's denizens.

The idea of invading a country to ensure its neutrality is something worthy of the British Empire. — unenlightened

The "imperialist expansion" narrative lost all its credibility literally one month into the war.

Russia spent over a decade trying to find a compromise with the West vis-á-vis Ukraine, and was continuously cold-shouldered by the West that perceived it as being weak enough to disregard. Even Minsk - an attempt at peace - was admitted by the West to have been agreed upon in bad faith and treated as an armistice to buy time for arming Ukraine.

Even after the invasion of 2022 started, the Russians were still looking to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table and showed little to no territorial ambitions.

But maybe your comment was a joke that flew over my shoulder. Such things tend to translate poorly via text.

In the long run, we are all dead. In the meantime, if one starts from the fundamental irrationality that the wasting asset of one's life is worth spending in a good cause, then one does not give up the hopeless cause, because that alternative is worse than failure and death. — unenlightened

Talks with the Russians / Ukrainian neutrality is a fate worse than death?

People who truly believe that are obviously brainwashed.

There were reasonable ways out of this conflict, and Ukrainian leadership, being so foolish as to take orders from the West and their double agenda, refused them all.

There's nothing heroic about that. It's folly. Though the deaths of so many men is tragic to be sure.

When the situation is sufficiently bleak, 'balanced' analysis just betrays an unwillingness to face reality.

Ukraine is strategically lost, and from such a position there are no tactical master strokes, unconventional military strategies or 'wunderwaffen' that can conceivably turn the tide. The worse one's situation becomes, the less options one has.

I think the problem is people watch too many movies.