What I think is at play for your reticence here is you're worried that in fact Boethius might be right all along, that cheerleading the continuation of the war and sending armaments (to "bleed the Russians" as Niall Ferguson quoted a US official), could be an immoral position. — Benkei

Why, thanks for writing clearly. The accusation that anyone is 'cheerleading' the Ukrainians is a bit odd though. I'm trying to be open minded, but it seems to me that the team on the ground is playing the game, not the pompom girls. In US sport, are cheerleaders often credited with the wins or losses of the team they cheerlead?

My personal 'support' to Ukraine is not going to change anything, it is symbolic. I am not even supporting any particular direction by the Ukrainian leadership. They are perfectly welcome to negotiate something, as far as I am concerned.. You shouldn't be worried about my guilt in all this.

The charge of cheerleading is thus bogus. Now to that of sending armaments to "bleed the Russians". Why would you see that as immoral? The Russians are on the offensive. The West is interested in beating them down. The Ukrainians are defending themselves, which is their right, and they ask for ammunition. Of course the West is going to ship some, at least countries that can afford it, if only to test them in real war conditions.

In short, because such political nihilism facilitates the work of exploiters. It leads to inaction, to 'they are all equally corrupt so why bother'. As if all powers were the same. As if it didn't matter whether you live in Europe or in North Korea.

You remember the iron curtain ? It was not symmetrical. Not many Westerners tried to flee East. That could mean something.

You are most welcome. I was responding to:

"Any insights on how the Italian and French diplomatic corps are looking at things?"

under which realistic circumstances will Russia come out worse than Ukraine? — Benkei

The future will come soon enough. I don't need to engage, and least of all solve, a dispute between rival prophecies here. I suspect you don't really need it either. Just wait and see.

Read it, it was as expected, naïve if well intended.

Just going by the destruction in various cities seems difficult to reproduce elsewhere. — Benkei

A ruin can be rebuilt, that is very easy, but a fascist regime cannot improve. It cannot be reformed into a less fascist one. Russia is now a fascist militarist petrostate, and will remain so for quite a while. This can't be good for them Russians, although of course it's good for the leaders.

If Ukraine manages to remain a democracy, it will rebound. Of course this remains to be seen.

You could have just asked for a better explanation, but ok. — Baden

I liked Frank's question to you: how do you fight power without power? Did you respond?

I'm following the French news. There's nothing particularly original there that I can see. Of course they are not gung-ho like the Daily Beast or the WSJ, or the Sun. They try to be thoughtful and informative, as they should. There's a certain sobriety in French and more generally European media as compared to the US/UK.

The French government has kept its donations to Ukraine secret, probably because they didn't give much. The French state is pretty much broke.

The one and only French aircraft carrier +other ships are operating in the Black Sea, ostensibly to help protect Romania, Poland, etc. in case the conflict escalates.

All four French strategic nuclear strike submarines are out at sea (it's usually only one out at a time).

Most French analysts are satisfied that the Germans, at long last, are seriously investing in defence and trying to be less dependent on Russian gas. That's a good evolution, the way we see it, moving away from boy scout naivety.

On NATO, the French tend to act as the one disagreeing with the US. Other members would typically be shy to oppose the US in NATO, so the way it works is the French put out their objections informally on behalf of the other Europeans. It's all a bit fake. I don't know what the French position is re. Ukraine in NATO, but it would not surprise if they had been slow and uncommitted to it.

We will probably welcome them in the EU though. Now.

I'm happy to take hits for poor explanations, but if you get absolutely nothing from what I and Street have just said, it's your loss, frankly. — Baden

Indeed, your clichés are lost on me.

A point of order: are we allowed to speak of anuses here? Because there's been a trickle of sexual terms coming from your side, re. @ssu and I "jerking off", etc. I am no prude but find such language rather disgusting when applied to people dying in war. Now, you're a mod, so if you use such sexual language, it would indicate that it is fine, right?

I can dish it out too, trust me. I'm French. Don't get me started.

We shall see.

It's pretty much axiomatic that power serves power. — Baden

It's pretty much meaningless, but thanks for saying nothing.

To add to that, I don't see this as a "winnable" war. Everyone worth a shit has already lost and can only continue losing more the longer it persists, — Baden

You are of course right that no one can possibly win this war. The question now is more about who will lose the most, who will be crippled the longest.

My point was more that the proper "side" to take is not of one powerful interest vs another when that's the very narrative that feeds their continued abuse of the powerless. — Baden

The marxist viewpoint, huh? It's another way to take some side, and often the worse one.

Another thing the article brings home is that before we go celebrating the deaths of Russian soldiers, they're just more plebeian coals been thrown into the fire along with their Ukrainian counterparts. — Baden

Of course, although they are welcome to surrender and seem to be well treated when they do. I doubt the Ukrainians are killing the Russians with joy.

I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. Were you using some automatic translation? These often need to be carefully edited.

So, it may be argued that he’s taking the right steps. — Apollodorus

He's trying, at least.

If Ukraine won, that would be a win for US-UK and their NWO agenda. — Apollodorus

BS. It would be a win for mankind.

...

Again: explain how the nation of Ukraine is going to win the war — boethius

Kill enough Russians, I suppose. How do you think Russia is going to win this war?

Ukrainians have proven that the Russian army is dumb and far weaker than it looked.
— Olivier5

We shall see. — boethius

No, this has already been seen. It's a fact. They do exist, you know?

Or, let me guess, you disagree but you feel you need not explain why. — boethius

You don't understand what's happening if you focus too much on Zelensky. Presidents don't fight wars. Armies don't win wars. Nations win and lose wars.

Mr Zelensky could be dead tomorrow; it won't change much on the battlefield. Don't confuse him with a dictator taking all decisions. He is very different from Putin from this point of view. If Mr Putin dies, this whole thing stops tomorrow.

Ukrainians are fighting for their lives, their land, their freedom; Zelensky is just giving them voice.

Ukrainians have proven that the Russian army is dumb and far weaker than it looked. That's a gain for everybody including Russia. Mr Putin now knows his army is weak and incompetent. I suppose he'll do something about it. If he had any class, he would thank the Ukrainians for the good lesson they gave him.

the mandatory PC consensus on this thread seems to be that Putin has total control over the world's news and social media. — Apollodorus

Cretins whining about social media. What else is new?

This is what we've come down to. Presidents in war-torn countries winking to their people in support.
— baker

Hmm... I thought he'd been visiting hospitals ... — jorndoe

But but but he should not have winked, you see? That was one wink too many! Now the whole universe is about to collapse, perhaps. Thank God Putin is a real man, not a winker...

By the way, do you think the fact that Zelensky is non-Slavic plays a role in the West's jihad on Russia and other Slavic nations? — Apollodorus

They always screw up their act in the end... :roll:

Steep learning curve...

I don't know why it's in their constitution, maybe ssu knows? — frank

He must know a lot more. I just checked and it was not decided under Zelensky's presidency. He became president on 20 May 2019 while the constitution of Ukraine was amended on 21 February 2019.

Before his election, I gather he was doing this:

Yes, they could have been a bit quieter about it, and not put it in the constitution. But whether that would have changed anything re. the war is impossible to tell.

Right. The error might have been to put the aspiration to membership in the constitution, perhaps hastingly. It's not technically what a constitution is for, more of a foreign policy option which ought to be open to debate and reviseable through policy change I think. Note how in your article, it is manifest that Zelensky cannot really say what he thinks about NATO, because the Ukrainian aspiration to membership is not up to him: it's in the constitution. That'd be why all the interviewed Ukrainians in the article keep saying: "it's in the constitution" like a mantra. Because they can't say anything else, otherwise they would be anti-constitutional....

following the Russian military invasion in Ukraine and parliamentary elections in October 2014, the new government made joining NATO a priority. — Wiki

Point well taken, I was not aware of that. Note that it happened after the first Russian invasion though. That a country being invaded would seek alliances is somewhat natural.

Has NATO retreated? — Isaac

As already mentioned:

Georgia and Ukraine are not in NATO and there are no current efforts to bring them in. — Olivier5

:starstruck:

They're in on it. No doubt about it. George Soros, man. It all links up. — frank

Yep. The only thing I'm still unclear about is how the 9/11 hoax and pizzagate fit in all this.

And what's really interesting is that the MOSSAD is not saying a thing... What are they hidding?

One cannot simultaneously love someone and beileve they are mad. — baker

That's an odd belief, that one cannot love a mad person.

My sister-in-law is turning mad.

She is a very nice person, mother of two, hard working, funny. Covid came; she found herself stuck in circumstances that took a toll on her mental health. She blew a gasket; invented herself an alternative world.

She has lost her job. She has attacked people in the street. Now she is a diagnosed paranoid, takes medication, is followed by a psychiatrist. It is a tragedy.

But you know what? Her kids still love her; her husband still loves her; and I still love her. So something must be wrong with your theory.

America is financing neo-nazi chemical warfare plants in Ukraine — frank

That sounds so crazy that it must be true. And as we all know, Josef Mengele was an American of Ukrainian origins, who never read Tolstoï. That should tell you something. (wink wink)

the US is just a giant killing machine. — frank

As we can see in Ukraine right now... The Americans are bombing a lot of cities there, you know?

I mean, provoking such bombing, I think... or wait, perhaps they even bomb themselves, I don't remember what my FSB handler said.

The French seemed to be friends of the Iraqi children, but they were really more like drug dealers, getting those children killed. — frank

Exactly. It's by the fault of the French that Americans and Brits had to kill so many Iraqis, including them kids. Because you see, the French tried to meddle in the US sphere of influence. Tsk tsk tsk. One million Iraqi deaths later, they still haven't learnt from their mistake.

Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation" — Former US defense secretary Bob Gates

That critique pertains to the Bush administration, right? Or Clinton? Because Georgia and Ukraine are not in NATO and there are no current efforts to bring them in. So the quote is outdated. And so are your other quotes as well.

In 2022, there wasn't any threat to Russia nor any provocation by NATO, and yet a war was started.

By whom? Nobody seems to know...

I blame the Iraq war on the French, who lacked the moral ingenuity to shoot first and think later... The French were absolutely disgusting in their defence of the right of the Iraqi people to leave in peace. Freedom fries!

I wanted those you mentioned, but now you decided to quote some other random guys...

I happen to know Jeffrey Sachs. He's a nice guy but never found a cliché he could resist, and is in part responsible for ruining post communist Russia through shock therapy. He bears some responsibility in my view.

Cohen liked Putin a lot. People make mistakes.

Matlock and Mearsheimer are I believe bright and respectable. But I don't see the "provoked" word in their quote.

It's one thing to say the US fucked up, another to say they provoked this war. The latter is a much graver accusation which implies that other players have no agency.

:lol: