The monolithic 'White People' and 'Black People' have entered the building. Hang on while I get the popcorn, because this is going to be a banger.

They'll deliver as little as they can get away with.

Suppose they did nothing. Would you then vote Trump? My guess would be no, so why expect anything other than lip service?

I just don't get the overly vigorous defense for what is a shit sandwich either way.

You think the establishment gives two shits about climate or pollution? :brow:

My sense is that communism lost its appeal because history has quite convincingly shown dreamy idealists to be no match for the brutal power dynamics that govern a state with such a degree of centralized control.

Today there are no more communist states that promote themselves abroad in the way the Soviet Union did. With history speaking for itself, I doubt many young people see the appeal of communism.

The people it appeals to are the people who, probably somewhere during the '70s, were swayed by the utopian imagery, and who still are unwilling to acknowledge its failures. Why would they? The modern communist seems to live in places where there is no actual threat of a communist takeover.

It's a nice ideal that in reality unfortunately clears the way for Orwellian nightmares.

When it comes to the history of Syria and Lebanon, the French have been major influencers. Just like the British had a role with Mandate Palestine played a role in the conflict this thread is about. — ssu

Historically, sure. But contemporarily I see no point in spending time talking about whatever little bit of influence they might have. It's obviously the US and Israel who have rolled the nickels in the Middle-East for decades. They are principally responsible.

You of course don't even notice that what you are promoting here, that "Israel is doomed" is a talking point of the islamofobes on the right. — ssu

Well, then the islamophobes are right.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and I have no problem in acknowledging that when it is.

Ummm... if a gun has an effective range of 2000 meters, the it can shoot 2000 meters forward and 2000 meters back. Guns, especially AAA can traverse 360 degrees. :snicker: — ssu

Anti-air range is always given in radius, not diameter, smart ass. Didn't they teach you anything in the army?

Do you have any idea of the curvature of the Earth? Have you ever been outside and measured distances? If you are next to the sea and let's say you are at 2 meter height, the horizon is then at 5 kilometers. But anything higher than on the surface of the water, you will see further. And obviously AAA are deploy in places they can see in the air. In fact, in aerial engagements it's extremely typical that targets are engaged (or could be engaged) in longer distances than 2 kilometers. By NATO standards weapon systems having only 2-3 kilometers of range are described "very short range".

And the simply fact is that drone do not huge literally the ground...only when they have wheels, but then they aren't airborne. Anyway, you have no idea what you are talking about, so just change the subject. — ssu

It's obviously you who has no idea.

I'm not talking about geographical draft. I'm talking about how geographical terrain factors make direct-fire engagements at equal elevation rarely exceed 2 kms.

That has been well-established since WW2, and hasn't changed significantly since. Most tanks are still zeroed in on ranges around 1.2km for precisely that reason, and the majority of engagements take place at ranges below even that.

The main problem with modern drones is their low flight altitude and their strong capability to use terrain masking (which is much greater than that of modern jets or cruise missiles). Hamas drones are literally loitering above Israeli troops. Where is the air defense? Why aren't they using AAA? Please, make an educated guess.

2-3km range is indeed very short in air defense terms, which is why AAA is used for close protection. This is exactly the problem with your suggestion of using that type of weaponry to cover a large area. How are you going to achieve overlap and mutual support to avoid defeat in detail? The 100km+ range systems that used to provide that are not (cost) effective against drones. Small drones they cannot even target.

Had you remotely known how modern air defense works, you would realize how absurd your suggestion even is.

And we are not talking about aerial engagements in general. We are talking about the effectiveness of AAA against drones in an area coverage role. This is what you were advocating. I understand you'd like me to change the subject, but we are not going to until you stop talking out of your ass.

Artificially kept down? Have you any knowledge of Lebanese or Syrian history and the state their in? Oh, it's just the US that has put them there (of course by your thinking). You might put the blame more on the French than the US, actually. — ssu

The French? Haha.

The US' vast amount of interventions by various means in the Middle-East had as its goal to prevent regional powers from rising, and it has been very successful at that.

This is obvious. If you're expecting me to give you page-long history lessons on every single country it invaded or otherwise destabilized you're mistaken.

How does it actually shift? — ssu

Mainly via consolidation of power and the acquisition of modern weaponry. They don't need to grow in any other regard - they have massive populations compared to Israel, and Israel is pinned down by minor players like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yeah, well, AAA or any kind of Air Defence isn't designed how you think. — ssu

You're the one advocating dotting the entire Israeli landscape with 2 km AA bubbles. Making such arguments and then holding up the pretension of understanding by referring to WW2 is not very convincing.

And btw they would be 4 km bubbles — ssu

No, they wouldn't. AAA relies on line-of-sight, and engaging targets at equal elevation rarely happens at ranges exceeding 2 kms simply because of geographical factors. (Terrain-hugging drones, remember?)

The idea that the Israelis are going to dot their entire country with 2 km AA bubbles (or even 4 km ones) is just not a serious argument. The whole principle of modern air defense is to have long-range overlapping systems to avoid defeat in detail. AAA is used for close protection of military units, and sometimes as a last line of defense for important structures. Not area coverage.

So I'll just repeat: drones aren't a miracle weapon as some hype them to be. — ssu

Every nation in the world is currently scrambling how to understand, combat and use drone technology.

No one used the term 'miracle weapon', but this is just the reality of modern warfare.

When crappy, dirt-cheap Iranian drones can defeat anti-air systems that cost billions to produce, we can speak of a revolution in warfare.

Besides, you keep referring to how effectively Iran's strike was repelled, but you ignore the context of that strike which I already told you. The Iranians were not seeking to do massive damage, but to send a message while avoiding escalation and potentially dragging the US in.

Israelis have far enough incentives to defend their country. Somehow you seem not to understand this, perhaps being yourself a citizen of a country that faces no existential threat from it's neighbors. It might hard for you to fathom this. For Israelis it isn't hard at all.

The Israeli right has convinced, unfortunately, enough of the Jewish citizens that there cannot be peace with Palestinians, that this is the reality they will endure. — ssu

I never said they wouldn't try to defend themselves. I'm saying in the long run it isn't going to matter considering their circumstances. They are geopolitically and strategically utterly compromised, as I've shown you per the list of essentially unsolvable issues that Israel has.

And actually people like you only strengthen these kind of attitudes with saying that the country is doomed, which reeks to islamofobia. — ssu

:yawn: Zzz....Baseless insinuations of racism reeks of intellectual exhaustion and doesn't bode well for whatever else you have to bring to the table.

Has anyone been able to come up with a credible explanation for Ukraine's incursion into Kursk yet?

Let us ask the simple question: "Cui bono?"

Hypothetically, what country might want Ukraine to be unable to sit down for negotiations before a certain, hypothetical election that may take place in the Autumn?

Hmmmm..... :chin:

It's objective is first to survive, which it meets. It doesn't have peace, but still it can keep it's Apartheid system up, which is far enough for the Likud party. — ssu

Sure, but geopolitically its days are numbered.

It can survive, for now. How long can it survive?

It is surrounded by Arab nations which have been artificially kept down by US power (regularly with Israel's help). The US could do that because it was the unipole, which it no longer is.

When the US is no longer able to keep regional players in the Middle-East down, and Israel has no prospects of either expanding or becoming a normal country in the region, it's just a matter of time before it's strangled geopolitically.

The problem for Israel is that it has given its neighbors every possible reason imaginable to not treat it kindly when the balance of power shifts.

A simply ZU-23-2 has an effective range to 2200 meters and larger guns usually to something like 5 kilometers. A gatling-gun type system can be far more devastating for even a swarm of drones. Let's just remember that first uses of drones were to be practice targets or tow a target sock for AAA. And altitude you ask? Well, usually AAA can shoot ground targets too, so low flying drones can fly as low as possible. — ssu

Just like tanks, AAA systems are limited by line of sight and cannot shoot through buildings, terrain or dense canopy.

Practical engagement ranges for low-flying targets will rarely exceed 2,000m, simply because geography generally doesn't allow for anything more.

And that's assuming fire-control radars are able to accurately distinguish low-flying drones from terrain features. (We see many videos of drones just loitering above Israeli troops)

Now, Israel is a tiny country, but if you have to create a defense network out of 2km bubbles I think you see the problem. This is simply not what AAA was designed for.

And your consistently failing to describe the way that somehow they would lose the ability to control the area they have taken in 1967. Or earlier. How will Israel perish you fail utterly to say, only repeat that in the long run they will lose. — ssu

- It's a tiny country with zero strategic depth
- It is beset by adversaries on all sides
- Has no hard connection to its strategic allies or foreign markets
- Half its territory belongs to other countries
- Has illegally annexed a site which is holy to some 2 billion Muslims, and repeatedly and deliberately provokes them.
- Is committing widespread atrocities
- Is governed by radical loonies
- Is occupying a people roughly equal its own population

In what world is it not obvious Israel is not going to survive the test of time?

I can't give you a detailed step-by-step, because this isn't going to happen tomorrow. I'm just following the trend that the US is losing its grip on the region and a regional power will take over.

That's all it takes for Israel's vulnerabilities to become critical, because only via complete US dominance of the region can it keep its sea and airspace uncontested.

Ironically, Israel might turn itself into a fortress. A giant Gaza 2.0, if you will. But that is no solution either. The power balance will only shift further and further against it, until eventually it caves.

Being pro-life isn't degenerate. Thinking you have a right to decide for others is. — Benkei

Doesn't anyone who engages in the democratic process think they have a right to decide for others, and are they not actively trying to get the government to impose their opinions on society?

I'd say the human right to bodily autonomy weighs quite heavily here, but by that same logic are people who advocated for vaccine mandates degenerates as well?

No I'm not. Your simply not understanding, it is as simple as that.

Israel has the ability and likely the objective to destroy an armed force that attacks it or will likely attack it (hence the pre-emption). That ideally takes those famous six days or some weeks. But not years. It cannot solve the internal problems of Lebanon and it simply cannot be a "benign occupier" that would be tolerated. In truth there are footage of Israeli tanks roaming into Lebanon with locals clapping their hands. They were doing this because they were fed up with PLO in Lebanon. But it didn't last long until Israel's tactics of fire first and ask questions later made the local population hate them.

Yet Israel has learnt from Lebanon, that it cannot stick around as an occupying force. It can destroy the weapon systems, eliminate the enemy forces, but that's it. And if you would (which you likely don't) follow the debate in Israel and with it's military (usually with retired high ranking officers making the critique), this is even what Bibi's government is actually rightly criticized now: that it doesn't have a plan after Hamas active members are destroyed in the way that they don't pose an imminent threat anymore. — ssu

This is a long-winded way of saying Israel has no way of decisively defeating its adversaries, and therefore no long-term solutions for the problems that plague its borders, which was exactly my point.

Drones are engaged with cheaper weapon systems and usually with AAA systems. A Cold War SPAAG like the Gepard can indeed shoot down drones, if it's target acquisition is programmed to pick up small targets. — ssu

Mhm. And what do you reckon is the effective engagement range of AAA firing against low-flying drones?

See the problem yet, genius?

It cannot occupy, hold the land for long of it's neighbors. That is different from going on the offensive. It does go on the offensive... basically daily. How many times Israel has made air strikes in Syria during the Syrian Civil war and even before it? Multiple times, so many times I've lost count. Hence it can indeed go on the offensive. — ssu

You've already said it yourself - it cannot go on the offensive in any way that achieves long-term solutions to its problems.

Bicker about terminology all you want, but this is obvious.

And do understand that the current Israeli leaders are perfectly OK with a forever war. — ssu

Oh, they might be ok with it. But they will also lose that war in the long-term.

It doesn't take a genius to see where it will leave Israel once US power wanes and some Arab power grows to be a regional power. It will be curtains.

And then the US Indian relations: — ssu

You don't believe all that nonsense, do you?

Those are just words.

Of course the Indians are going to play nice as long as the US is powerful.

Just because they view the US as a threat, doesn't mean they are going to pick a fight with it.

Perhaps you should look into US involvement in Pakistan and Bangladesh - the two vital trade corridors that connect India to the rest of the world. Maybe then you'll understand what the Indians really think of the US and why they've chosen to align to BRICS instead.

Hence the urge for "Pre-emptive" attacks: simply fight on your neighbors territory. As Israel has done. — ssu

You're contradicting yourself. According to your own views Israel cannot go on the offensive, thus cannot rely on pre-emptive attacks to protect itself.

Somehow it has gone past your radar that Iran attacked Israel with 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles on the evening of April 13th this year. That's over 300 stand off weapons used in one coordinated attack. Oh but for you "Israel's air defense would stand no chance".

Because why? — ssu

Because the purpose of that strike was to maintain credible deterrence while avoiding escalation.

That's why they signaled their attack far in advance, and even communicated the details of the strike with the US.

Still the Israelis required the help of various allies to stop this strike, and still the strike actually succeeded in hitting Israeli targets.


Ukraine has made it quite clear how vulnerable modern air defense systems are to modern tactics, and Israel would crumble like a crouton under the types of attacks that Ukraine is enduring.


It's simple math. Iran produces a thousand drones for the cost of a single modern anti-air missile.

The air defense system that can combat that with any degree of cost-effectiveness has yet to be invented.

We haven't even started talking about the rest of their arsenal.

The drone swarm hype is really...hype. — ssu

This is just a silly thing to say when literally every military in the world is investing in large-scale use and combatting of drones.

Drone warfare has greatly undermined lynchpins of Western air defense systems like Patriot, since the drones are too cheap and numerous to effectively combat them.

Why would it be an Afghanistan-like quagmire? — ssu

As you have said yourself, Israel cannot go on the offensive, and neither can the US. So it's a forever war.

So what is the US going to do? Sit there and hope the war ends someday while wasting billions?

You really haven't thought this through have you?


The US and cronies couldn't even get rid of the Houthi's missile threat, even though they are threatening a crucial trade bottleneck. Why?

Because they cannot commit to anything outside the Pacific that is directly related to China. The days that the US empire can "walk and chew gum at the same time" are over, even if Lloyd Austin would have you believe otherwise.

Everybody knows it. China knows it. The Russians know it. The Iranians know it. Hezbollah and Hamas know it.

And Israel knows it, which is why it is panicking and trying to lobby US Congress to commit to war with Iran. Even they see the writing on the wall.

as if Brazil, India or South Africa see the US as a military threat. — ssu

Obviously they do. Imagine not seeing the US as a military threat.

The US has invaded less important countries over nothing. You bet your ass they view the US as a threat.

Everyone in their right mind should, and that's simply based on historical awareness. Potential great/regional powers like many of the BRICS doubly so, because US strategy is principally interested in stopping such powers from rising.

Israel is the size of a post stamp. It has zero strategic depth. You also seem to acknowledge Israel has no prospects of going on the offensive, so how exactly do you envision Israel standing any chance in a prolonged war?

Hamas alone was able to drain Israel's air defense system to critical lows in a couple of days. Hamas - they're nobody on the military power scale.

Against modern swarming tactics Israel's air defense would stand no chance. At that point, it becomes a sitting duck.

How do you envision this war playing out?

Israel's tiny airspace and coastline make its supply routes chronically vulnerable. Its overall lack of size means every inch of Israel is within striking distance of the enemy - energy production, food production, everything. Not to mention it would probably have a gigantic insurgency on its hands in the Palestinian territories.


It would need a US intervention, but what is the US going to do? Stick its head into an Afghanistan-like quagmire x100? That's the BRICS wet dream - for the US to commit to the mother of all forever wars trying to protect Israel.

Israel has a nuclear deterrence [...] — ssu

So did apartheid South Africa.

[...] and enjoys military superiority over all of it's neighbors. — ssu

It probably would lose even a dragged out conventional war because of its small population and strategic depth, but in all likelihood the conflict Israel will be faced with will be unconventional, and it will have to fight a massive insurgency within its own borders at the same time.

Israel certainly does not enjoy military superiority in that area. It has suffered defeats against Hezbollah in the past, and the balance of power today is probably closer than it was back then.

The sole Superpower will also defend it, [...] — ssu

I've given you reasons as to why I believe that won't be the case. The scale of the conflict will be too large for the US to intervene, unless it wants to throw away its entire empire.

The US is not the sole superpower, by the way.

Israeli losses in this conflict, especially after the initial attack that gain total strategic surprise have been minimal. — ssu

It's fighting Hamas, whose only weapon is desperation. And they were unable to defeat Hamas, despite committing war crimes en masse.

If you believe Israel's performance in its fight against Hamas should give it any confidence for the future we must be watching two different conflicts.

Those that don't like Likud and the hardliners are much more likely to simply migrate away from Israel than create a strong opposition against the current administration. — ssu

Yes, Israelis have been leaving the country in their tens of thousands since the conflict in Gaza broke loose - more damage than Hamas could ever hope to inflict through physical violence.

It appears many Israelis are seeing the writing on the wall.

Israel not only enjoys US support, but also support from other countries in the West. — ssu

No one is going to come to Israel's aid if shit truly hits the fan. The scale of that conflict will be way too large for any western power to risk their hide on. The Europeans can't, the US won't.

There is no desire on the Arab side to join Iran and organization it has sponsored. — ssu

On the contrary, almost the entire Middle-East has a bone to pick with Israel on various grounds. It is illegally occupying territory that belongs to several other countries, including Jerusalem. It is being ran by genocidal war criminals.

Genuine reasons abound, not to mention opportunism.

Ascribing value to unborn life doesn't seem like something that could only be argued by unreasonable, illiberal or archaic people. It's not uncommon to hear such opinions from secular people for example.

And enforcing stances and opinions on others via the democratic process is (unfortunately) the normal way in which states function.

'Degenerate' is a strong term, and I think you're being unreasonable in its use.

I'm just being realistic.


What I'm seeing in Ukraine and what I'm seeing in Israel are quite similar patterns, except that every factor is even worse for Israel.

Israel has a population of roughly 7 million, and is housing a number of Palestinians roughly equal to that on the soil which it occupies.

Furthermore, it is sitting on the most hotly-contested piece of real estate in world history, and is surrounded by several hundred million Arabs who all have a bone to pick with Israel on account of historical grievances, illegal occupations of foreign land, the appalling treatment of the Palestinians and its generally belligerent attitude towards the rest of the region.


Just like with Ukraine the only question is whether the US will come to its aid to save it from destruction.


In 1991 the answer to that question could have very well been 'yes', however today we see the US is under pressure from a united bloc which includes a peer competitor (China).

If the US had to divert its resources to fending off several hundred million Arabs in a quagmire of unimaginable scale, it would be curtains for the US empire. (To be clear, this would not be a conventional war) Note that the eventuality of existential conflict between the Arab/Muslim world and Israel is probably reason the US has no formal defense agreements with Israel.


As I noted before, the US is in the process of losing its grip on the Middle-East. When that happens, Israel loses its purpose and instead becomes a liability. When geopolitical interests no longer align, any ties the US may hold to Israel become purely sentimental and those won't survive long.

Given the growing status of Israel as an international pariah state and the impopularity of US support for it, it will be easy for the US to decouple from it.


Israel will become another US "ally" that has outlived its usefulness, and may then safely die.

Regardless of my own stance on the matter, I don't think there's anything particularly degenerate about pro-life stances, which usually focus on the value/protection of the unborn child.

But if it's in the interest of Israel and also the US is fine with a policy, is it really then "Israel carrying out US policy". — ssu

Well, I don't believe it is in Israel's interests, because I don't think Israel will survive the moment the US leaves it to pay the bill.


To put it differently, I believe the US realizes fully that it has helped create an utterly unsustainable geopolitical situation for Israel, but is content to keep Israel on this course because it suits American interests.

After all, if the US cannot maintain control of the Middle-East, then why should it care about what happens to Israel afterwards?

But the US Congress is in the palm of his hand. — ssu

You may believe that - many do - but I don't see it that way.

I disagree with those who portray Israel as the beneficiary in this relationship.

While Israel is carrying out US policy in the Middle-East, it is inching itself closer and closer to the geopolitical abyss.

One day in the not-so-distant future the US will retreat to its island, and Israel will be left to pay the price of decades of belligerence by itself.

At that point it will become clear who was played by who.

Oh please. It's a rare occasion when the US faces blowback from its cynical foreign policies.

Maybe if that happened a little more often the US public wouldn't be so oblivious to the ruin their nation brings on the world, hm?

This is not the type of debate I would directly touch even with a 10-foot pole, but from a bird's eye perspective I think it's a great example of how men and women are ushered into two camps by endless feeds of "news" and fear porn that expertly play on people's inherent vulnerabilities and insecurities vis-á-vis the other sex (possibly one of our strongest weaknesses), which fuels resentment.

The result is a dehumanized view of the other, entirely black & white "All women are X, all men are Y", etc.

I've noticed online media feeds forwarding this type of mental poison without any apparent reason.

The real question here is: where is all the fear porn coming from? Who is creating it and to what end?

In Israel Netanyahu is considered a 'moderate', if you can believe that.

And when interests align he uses the loonies as a lightning rod. That's why he has his rabid ministers saying the most outrageous shit.


Essentially Washington uses the same trick, but it uses Israel. Their interests align with that of Israel, and they have Israel to say and do all the things that would be erm... 'embarassing'... to have to say and do themselves.


Netanyahu receiving 50+ standing ovations in US Congress was a bit of an eye-opener to me. Netanyahu seems to believe he has US Congress in the palm of his hand, but US Congress may as well be playing to his shitty megalomaniac/narcissistic personality.

Loonies are easy to control, much like emotionally-possessed citizens. They're irrational and delusional, so it's just a game of affirming their delusions.

It turns out one nation's looney is another nation's moderate, who has loonies of his own. :lol:

What a lovely, dysfunctional shitshow.

[...] 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'?