[noemon]

Indeed, although the situations are not the same.

If Russia needs to talk to Ukraine, it deals with its government. Russia knows that the government of Ukraine exercises control over its population and any violence against Russia will be authorized by it.

In Palestine's case, this is just not how things work. The Palestinian government has no way to stop Hamas and other armed groups. It it had, I think there would have been a peace treaty in the 1990s.

No, that is not the case. Ukraine's elected government which was pro-Russian was changed unconstitutionally according to Ukraine's constitution and noone trust that Zelensky is capable of controlling the Ukranian nazis who run rampant in corruption and violence. Fatah is probably a more reliable interlocutor and a less aggressive one too.

Moreover, Russia is the one who is open to talks while Ukraine is the one playing difficult which is what actually matters when makign international agreements. In the I/P case, it is Israel and not the Palestinian authority that is the difficult one to get it to sit in a table.

Again you are trying to find moral high ground for Israel obstinancy as compared to Russia when it is simply not there as Russia is not obstinate to peace with Ukraine, Israel is obstinate to peace with the Palestinian Authority.

As I said, nobody wants to hand Jerusalem to the UN. This includes Jerusalemites. The Palestinians in Jerusalem don't want to be under UN rule, they want to be under Palestinian rule. Same applies to the Jews with regards to Israel. And, of course, this also applies to Israelis and Palestinians in general.

Jerusalemite refers to both Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem. Palestine however has no control over Jerusalem, Israel does. And the State of Israel is the one who signed that Jerusalem must be administered by the UN. So again it is Israel that is not doing its legal duty, not someone else.

If they wanted to

It's not a matter of "want", Israel is obliged by Treaty to hand over Jerusalem to UN administration with or without Palestinian consent.

I disagree. Russia definitely doesn't want Ukraine to join the EU, let alone NATO, and considers it dangerous for its national security (not without reason, by the way).

Facts are not up for disagreement. Opinion does not create alternative dimensions. Russia did not prevent Ukraine applying in the EU nor being accepted by the EU as an EU candidate country. It's a fact that has already passed regardless of your agreement or disagreement. It just is. Russia could have used force to prevent the EU from accepting Ukraine but it didn't, the EU accepted its application and is only up to Ukraine now to accede by fulfilling the conditions for membership.

And I still wonder - why can't Russia just get along with the West? I would think it's in its long term interest to do so, given the impending rise of China.

Putin listed an enire list of US and German heads of state as well as CIA Heads where he asked numerous times to be included in western defense infrastructure either in NATO or in the missile defense system or as a partner/ally akin to Israel, Saudi, unofficially but starting a process of common defense architecture as it has been for centuries in fact. The Concert of Europe would not work without Russia, nor would have Napoleon or Hitler been defeated without it either.

So the question is reverse. Why can't the west accept Russia as a friend/partner/ally? Even after it unilaterally demilitarised all of Eastern Europe including East Germany and also after it rid itself of Communism?

Putin even came and addressed NATO directly.

Why?

[Rugoz]

NATO doesn't want to attack targets in Russia because it would escalate the conflict.

How does that rhyme with NATO being a threat?

What's happening now is more like a "Cold War", or war by proxy, similar to the Korean and Vietnam wars.

It's somewhat similar. NATO is a threat to the Russian "sphere of influence", certainly, but it is not a threat to Russia itself.

There is a real danger to the type of mentality people like you have. You think the solution is to step up the conflict rather than try to temper it down and keep it from escalating.

Russia has been bombing Ukraine for 2 years. Returning the favor is not escalation, but tit-for-that. There's a real danger to being meek. It invites aggression. Especially if people like Putin are around.

[wat0n]

No, that is not the case. Ukraine's elected government which was pro-Russian was changed unconstitutionally according to Ukraine's constitution and noone trust that Zelensky is capable of controlling the Ukranian nazis who run rampant in corruption and violence. Fatah is probably a more reliable interlocutor and a less aggressive one too.

Moreover, Russia is the one who is open to talks while Ukraine is the one playing difficult which is what actually matters when makign international agreements. In the I/P case, it is Israel and not the Palestinian authority that is the difficult one to get it to sit in a table.

Again you are trying to find moral high ground for Israel obstinancy as compared to Russia when it is simply not there as Russia is not obstinate to peace with Ukraine, Israel is obstinate to peace with the Palestinian Authority.

Fatah is not Palestine, though. Fatah is a very important faction, but even today it's far from clear it's stronger than Hamas.

As for Ukraine, I don't see why couldn't Zelensky control Ukrainian neonazis. Unless you mean to say he doesn't want to, which is not the same as saying he can't. That's the difference, Fatah can't rein Hamas, no matter how much it wants to - but I'm fairly sure the Ukrainian government can rein in neonazis. I also think it wants to, at least in the areas that are under its control.

Jerusalemite refers to both Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem. Palestine however has no control over Jerusalem, Israel does. And the State of Israel is the one who signed that Jerusalem must be administered by the UN. So again it is Israel that is not doing its legal duty, not someone else.

It's not a matter of "want", Israel is obliged by Treaty to hand over Jerusalem to UN administration with or without Palestinian consent.

UNGA resolutions are not treaties, they aren't even binding.

There are also UNGA resolutions calling on Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, those are also not binding or treaties. Here's an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... on_ES-11/4

But more importantly, why don't the desires of those who live in Jerusalem matter but the desires of inhabitants matter for places like Sebastopol, Luhansk or Donetsk?

Facts are not up for disagreement. Opinion does not create alternative dimensions. Russia did not prevent Ukraine applying in the EU nor being accepted by the EU as an EU candidate country. It's a fact that has already passed regardless of your agreement or disagreement. It just is. Russia could have used force to prevent the EU from accepting Ukraine but it didn't, the EU accepted its application and is only up to Ukraine now to accede by fulfilling the conditions for membership.

How could have Russia done that when it is still unable to defeat Ukraine?

Putin listed an enire list of US and German heads of state as well as CIA Heads where he asked numerous times to be included in western defense infrastructure either in NATO or in the missile defense system or as a partner/ally akin to Israel, Saudi, unofficially but starting a process of common defense architecture as it has been for centuries in fact. The Concert of Europe would not work without Russia, nor would have Napoleon or Hitler been defeated without it either.

So the question is reverse. Why can't the west accept Russia as a friend/partner/ally? Even after it unilaterally demilitarised all of Eastern Europe including East Germany and also after it rid itself of Communism?

Putin even came and addressed NATO directly.

Why?

Fair question.

Would you agree then that both Russia and NATO could and should take steps for fostering mutual trust?

Perhaps this war could help with that? As in, if a treaty ended it and was effectively implemented, it would help with the trust issue.

I am asking because it is possible to argue this may happen as China becomes more powerful and starts asserting its presence in Asia more openly than it is now, including in Russia's sphere of influence there.

[Rich]

The EU isn't even a military alliance, so security shouldn't be a Russian concern.

I have been quite critical of the American founders, but they had 2 principles, military union and a common market. They got those basics right. If the British government had just let the American colonies leave without a war there would have been no military union and almost certainly no United States. Post WW2 western Europe has tried to have a common market without military union and what a mess it has produced.

So of course the Ukraine joining the EU was a massive concern for Russia. A large part of the purpose of an army is to defend your common market. Its also why Donald Trump is quite right to ask what in God's name is America paying for by funneling these tens even hundreds of billions of dollars into European subsidies. Exactly what vital trade interests does the US have in the Donbas?

Its difficult to decide what is the most moronic thing the liberals say, they say so many, but up there must be the liberals attempt to equate defending Taiwan with recapturing Crimea. Taiwan and South Korea are vital American economic interests, an American Naval Base in Sevastopol was Joe Biden's vanity project,

[Rugoz]

@Rich You realize you're constantly fighting your own straw men, do you?

[KurtFF8]

I have been quite critical of the American founders, but they had 2 principles, military union and a common market. They got those basics right. If the British government had just let the American colonies leave without a war there would have been no military union and almost certainly no United States. Post WW2 western Europe has tried to have a common market without military union and what a mess it has produced.

So of course the Ukraine joining the EU was a massive concern for Russia. A large part of the purpose of an army is to defend your common market. Its also why Donald Trump is quite right to ask what in God's name is America paying for by funneling these tens even hundreds of billions of dollars into European subsidies. Exactly what vital trade interests does the US have in the Donbas?

Its difficult to decide what is the most moronic thing the liberals say, they say so many, but up there must be the liberals attempt to equate defending Taiwan with recapturing Crimea. Taiwan and South Korea are vital American economic interests, an American Naval Base in Sevastopol was Joe Biden's vanity project,

There's quite a big overlap between EU countries and NATO. So the idea that Europe doesn't operate under a sort of military union isn't really all that accurate.

It's also not clear how the lack of a military union under the EU banner has led to any sort of "mess." If anything they've been quite involved in the Ukraine war to a fault.

[Rich]

@Rich You realize you're constantly fighting your own straw men, do you?

In recent years Biden has been a dove not a hawk.I think that's both good and bad, because I don't think either doveishness or hawkishness are always right, or always wrong. Biden to his credit had little time for Obama's "right war" Afghanistan surge nonsense. Obama was clearly an intelligent thoughtful man, but this is a clear example of how modern "liberal" ideology can make otherwise intelligent people belive the most stupid of things. The 20 year Afghanistan occupation was a real thing. To create new Switzerland in the Hindu Kush was a real project. This total cretinism really happened. I don't have to strawman western liberal ideology.

However Biden did make one hawkish statement with his threat to Nord Stream. Then in 2022, somehow in 2 months we went from Russia is probably going to overrun Ukraine but they'll probably be a guerilla war, to we're going to make Russia collapse. Putin is Hitler, the Russians are like the Nazified Germans, but we're still going to carry on buying Russian energy in bulk. Oh but because we're angry with Russia, we expect our enemies to supply us at a discount.

The cretinism of western foreign policy just beggars belief. In way it doesn't even matter if Putin is Hitler. It doesn't even matter if he is Hitler reincarnated, Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons, Hitler didn't control vast amounts of primary resources, and after he attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler could be blockaded and cut off from the world market. We had an ultra moralistic, super hypocritical, maximalist war aims, with an absolute minimal willingness to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve these ends.

[wat0n]

At least for Cyprus, EU membership hasn't felt that much like a military alliance.

[Rugoz]

We had an ultra moralistic, super hypocritical, maximalist war aims, with an absolute minimal willingness to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve these ends.

I presume you're talking about Ukraine and not WW2.

Note how Scholz for example never says "Ukraine must win". He says "Russia must not win" and "Ukraine must not lose".

That's not a maximalist war aim.

[Tainari88]

► Show Spoiler

In recent years Biden has been a dove not a hawk.I think that's both good and bad, because I don't think either doveishness or hawkishness are always right, or always wrong. Biden to his credit had little time for Obama's "right war" Afghanistan surge nonsense. Obama was clearly an intelligent thoughtful man, but this is a clear example of how modern "liberal" ideology can make otherwise intelligent people belive the most stupid of things. The 20 year Afghanistan occupation was a real thing. To create new Switzerland in the Hindu Kush was a real project. This total cretinism really happened. I don't have to strawman western liberal ideology.

However Biden did make one hawkish statement with his threat to Nord Stream. Then in 2022, somehow in 2 months we went from Russia is probably going to overrun Ukraine but they'll probably be a guerilla war, to we're going to make Russia collapse. Putin is Hitler, the Russians are like the Nazified Germans, but we're still going to carry on buying Russian energy in bulk. Oh but because we're angry with Russia, we expect our enemies to supply us at a discount.

The cretinism of western foreign policy just beggars belief. In way it doesn't even matter if Putin is Hitler. It doesn't even matter if he is Hitler reincarnated, Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons, Hitler didn't control vast amounts of primary resources, and after he attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler could be blockaded and cut off from the world market. We had an ultra moralistic, super hypocritical, maximalist war aims, with an absolute minimal willingness to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve these ends.

@Rich wrote:

The cretinism of western foreign policy just beggars belief. In way it doesn't even matter if Putin is Hitler. It doesn't even matter if he is Hitler reincarnated, Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons, Hitler didn't control vast amounts of primary resources, and after he attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler could be blockaded and cut off from the world market. We had an ultra moralistic, super hypocritical, maximalist war aims, with an absolute minimal willingness to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve these ends.

This boggles my mind as well. The mentality of the highlighted part most.

If you want to achieve a goal in foreign policy, you really have to weigh what the sacrifices are there...present to achieve it. They never do. They talk shit mostly and rarely even give a thought to what it takes to achieve it. Then something unpredictable happens, like it always does, and they throw back their hands and say, 'I can't understand how that happened.' It happened because you were unrealistic thinking about glory and gains, and your magical ego powers that have no bearing on actually knowing how something works.

I remember some Karate lesson a kid had and the instructor was telling him to prepare for a tournament in some city. The kid was used to practices on dummies and he broke pieces of wood. He got to the tournament and he lost his set to another kid. He was shocked, dismayed. He cried to the instructor, 'why didn't you prepare me for this? Why did he win?! I was supposed to win!! You lied to me about my victory!' And the instructor said, 'I prepared you for being able to learn the technique. You have been fighting boards and dummies. A live human being that is trained to defend himself against you is a totally different situation. The important thing is for you to gain experience. Do not expect victory over another human being with the same creative power, and physical power and thoughts that you have and also the ones with more real world experience than you have. Plan for a real ability to fight back.'

You would think in these conquer the world games adult men in positions of power engage in all day they might not be acting like that defeated kid in a karate tournament. You would be wrong. LOL. Son niños.

[KurtFF8]

At least for Cyprus, EU membership hasn't felt that much like a military alliance.

Cyprus is being used as a base to language the aggression against Yemen by the West.

[wat0n]

Cyprus is being used as a base to language the aggression against Yemen by the West.

You mean as a defense of trade routes against islamists.

But even that hasn't been as beneficial for Cyprus. Turkey, after all, still occupies the northern side of the island.

[KurtFF8]

You mean as a defense of trade routes against islamists.

But even that hasn't been as beneficial for Cyprus. Turkey, after all, still occupies the northern side of the island.

It's not "defense," it's an aggressive war against Yemen.

And who said that being in a military alliance with the West is inherently "beneficial"?

[late]

It's not "defense," it's an aggressive war against Yemen.

And who said that being in a military alliance with the West is inherently "beneficial"?

International law allows countries to protect their interests.

So while it is violent conflict, it's intent is to dissuade. Which means it's defensive in intent.

If we go to war against Yemen, it won't be pretty..

[noemon]

And who said that being in a military alliance with the West is inherently "beneficial"?

You said that NATO and EU overlap. They don't in Cyprus. The US has had an arms embargo against Cyprus for decades to "satisfy" Turkey.

Only recently the embargo was lifted from Cyprus and placed on Turkey instead by Pompeo I believe, and even more recently the embargo on Turkey was lifted by Biden who used Cypriot and Greek national security as carrots for Sweden's NATO membership. Carrots should be American carrots and not undermine the national security of others.

Another very naughty thing to do.

[wat0n]

Indeed, and it is also why EU membership for Ukraine might be more acceptable for Russia. Who knows.

Ultimately, a quid pro quo arrangement where Russia keeps the pro-Russia majority territories in exchange for accepting Ukraine is out of its sphere of influence is the only way to go. Perhaps, EU membership is enough to implement the latter... Any takes on this?

[Verv]

Indeed, and it is also why EU membership for Ukraine might be more acceptable for Russia. Who knows.

Ultimately, a quid pro quo arrangement where Russia keeps the pro-Russia majority territories in exchange for accepting Ukraine is out of its sphere of influence is the only way to go. Perhaps, EU membership is enough to implement the latter... Any takes on this?

It's certainly interesting to think of post-war relations between Ukraine & Russia - of course, they will be completely soured. Why wouldn't they be...

And thus losing them as being part of their sphere of influence seems completely logical...

But let us imagine that Russia does not, at any point, take Odessa or Kharkov - as I understand it, these are two places that were firmly Yanukovich supporters and also have very substantial Russian speaking populations. There will always be some interest in the region from Moscow due to the fact that it will feel an obligation to protect ethnic Russians - whether this is done for authentic, genuine reasons (few will agree) or pessimistic ones of desiring further expansion.

It's very easy to imagine Russia giving up its sphere of influence, but its hard to imagine Russia ever being able to relinquish a casus belli unless a very substantial swathe of the Ukraine is completely broken off... Which would be an injustice.

[wat0n]

It's certainly interesting to think of post-war relations between Ukraine & Russia - of course, they will be completely soured. Why wouldn't they be...

And thus losing them as being part of their sphere of influence seems completely logical...

But let us imagine that Russia does not, at any point, take Odessa or Kharkov - as I understand it, these are two places that were firmly Yanukovich supporters and also have very substantial Russian speaking populations. There will always be some interest in the region from Moscow due to the fact that it will feel an obligation to protect ethnic Russians - whether this is done for authentic, genuine reasons (few will agree) or pessimistic ones of desiring further expansion.

It's very easy to imagine Russia giving up its sphere of influence, but its hard to imagine Russia ever being able to relinquish a casus belli unless a very substantial swathe of the Ukraine is completely broken off... Which would be an injustice.

It seems that, although there are major Russian-speaking populations in both cities, the majority of the population of Odessa and Kharkov want to remain under Ukrainian rule - which is partly why Russia has been unable to take them. Why should Russian-speakers who don't want to live under Russian rule be forced to?

[Verv]

It seems that, although there are major Russian-speaking populations in both cities, the majority of the population of Odessa and Kharkov want to remain under Ukrainian rule - which is partly why Russia has been unable to take them. Why should Russian-speakers who don't want to live under Russian rule be forced to?

You are completely right, but it still remains a potential flashpoint because we know that there are potentialities for them to be subjected to violence from thugs - like what happened at the Odessa trade union, and what also is happening at some of the churches that remain in line with the Moscow Patriarchate.

Even if the majority still want that, it will not matter if the rights of the minority are infringed upon - I think many people right now even say that Crimea and Luhansk & Donetsk never actually wanted separation from Ukraine and it is Russian propaganda that they want to be Russian, yet the Russians still used the existing friction points to acquire them.

[Potemkin]

You said that NATO and EU overlap. They don't in Cyprus. The US has had an arms embargo against Cyprus for decades to "satisfy" Turkey.

Only recently the embargo was lifted from Cyprus and placed on Turkey instead by Pompeo I believe, and even more recently the embargo on Turkey was lifted by Biden who used Cypriot and Greek national security as carrots for Sweden's NATO membership. Carrots should be American carrots and not undermine the national security of others.

Another very naughty thing to do.

Neo-colonialism means treating other nations’ property, resources and interests as though they are one’s own, to be stolen, exploited or bargained away. What’s that you say, @noemon? You thought Greece was an equal partner with the US…? Hmm….