hahaha OMG do you know what Hamas stand for? Sorry that was utter nonsense. When Israel funded Hamas it was pretty clear they were FAR more militant then Fatah or PLO or whatever you wanna call them. Yes Hamas refused to negotiate, that is why they were funded by Israel, to end the peace process. As for annexation, more horseshit: https://www.newarab.com/opinion/israels-annexation-drive-behind-west-bank-escalations
For those of you that want to fight to the last Ukranian
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Who touched off a war on Oct 7. Or in the Ukraine. All that up there is just noise. And if it helps a bit more. Who touched off the 6 day war too?
Or Vietnam
Or Korea.
They all have their emotional reasons/ justifications aka noise, but who touched them off.
Last edited:
Ukraine is being occupied by Russia - that is wrong
Palestine is being occupied by Israel - that is wrong
Same standards.
The idea of total Ukrainian victory is delusional
ANDREW LATHAM
02/15/24
The Book of Proverbs, Chapter 26, contains this invaluable insight: “As dogs return to their vomit, so fools repeat their folly. You see those who are wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for fools than for them.” Invaluable because, in connection with the Russia-Ukraine War, the passage powerfully illuminates the current debate about Ukraine’s future strategic prospects.
The past few months have witnessed the dog returning to its vomit in the form of any number of efforts to once again make the case that Ukraine still has a path to total victory in its war against Russia. In professional journals, on influential websites and across the full spectrum of media outlets, observers, analysts and pundits alike continue to inform us that, yes, there is a way for Ukraine to prevail over Russia, expelling the latter from all of its territory, including Crimea.
One might claim that these arguments are being advanced because the facts on the ground warrant them; because the shifting geopolitical and battlefield realities clearly indicate that the military balance is tipping in Ukraine’s favor. As Ukraine acquires more weapons (and more sophisticated weapons), it will inevitably achieve the kind of tactical advantages that will propel it first to operational and then to strategic breakthroughs, culminating in total victory. All that’s required is one more mobilization of Ukrainian youth, one more tranche of Western financial aid, one more delivery of American, French or British wonder weapons.
But the strategic, operational and tactical realities of the war simply don’t support any version of this argument. Ukraine is not prevailing at the tactical level — if anything, Russia’s advantage at there is growing rather than diminishing, as Russia outpaces Ukraine in adapting to the evolving realities of the battlefield. The net result? Russia not only remains capable of sustaining the kind of defense-in-depth that has completely frustrated all Ukrainian offensive efforts, but is increasingly able to mount successful offensives in places like Avdiivka.
In short, Russia is winning the war and there is little to suggest that any foreseeable political, economic, tactical or technological developments are likely to alter that fundamental reality. So why are we seeing arguments about an ultimate Ukrainian battlefield triumph, in the face of all the devastatingly contradictory evidence?
Well, applying Occam’s razor — the principle that “other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones” — I would suggest that the delusional belief that there is a pathway to total victory for Ukraine is based less on evolving military or geopolitical realities than on a simple psychological dynamic, one best summed up in the concept of “commitment escalation.”
According to this concept, individuals or groups sometimes exhibit a tendency to persist with a failing argument, even as that argument becomes increasingly untenable in light of the facts. This behavior is marked above all by an adherence to prior commitments — sunk costs, as the economists might put it — regardless of their present plausibility or rationality. It is a psychological dysfunction.
Applying this concept to Ukraine explains the delusional belief that despite all of Ukraine’s devastating defeats and strategic setbacks, victory is just around the corner. Those who committed publicly to the view that Ukraine was destined to inflict a decisive defeat on Russia during the much-heralded but ultimately failed spring/summer “counteroffensive” in 2023 have irrationally doubled down on that public commitment. They have, in other words, escalated their commitment even as the facts on the ground dictate that this faith in Ukraine’s ultimate total victory is simply baseless, and that a rational person would adjust their views in light of those facts.
Put slightly differently, the more dire Ukraine’s strategic prospects have become, the more these true believers have felt compelled to concoct imagined pathways to total Ukrainian victory — despite the increasingly incontrovertible evidence that no such pathway exists.
And so, like the proverbial dog returning to its vomit, those observers who originally committed to the “Ukraine will prevail” thesis continue to return to their delusion — ever more manically expressed — that there is a pathway to total victory for Kyiv. But there isn’t. And the sooner policymakers and influencers on both sides of the Atlantic grasp this, the sooner we can get to a negotiated cessation of hostilities that stems, at least for the moment, the obscene carnage that has come to define this war.
And, as Romans 4:18 of the Christian Scripture would have it, we must “hope against hope” that this epiphany comes sooner rather than later.
thehill.com
ANDREW LATHAM
02/15/24
The Book of Proverbs, Chapter 26, contains this invaluable insight: “As dogs return to their vomit, so fools repeat their folly. You see those who are wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for fools than for them.” Invaluable because, in connection with the Russia-Ukraine War, the passage powerfully illuminates the current debate about Ukraine’s future strategic prospects.
The past few months have witnessed the dog returning to its vomit in the form of any number of efforts to once again make the case that Ukraine still has a path to total victory in its war against Russia. In professional journals, on influential websites and across the full spectrum of media outlets, observers, analysts and pundits alike continue to inform us that, yes, there is a way for Ukraine to prevail over Russia, expelling the latter from all of its territory, including Crimea.
One might claim that these arguments are being advanced because the facts on the ground warrant them; because the shifting geopolitical and battlefield realities clearly indicate that the military balance is tipping in Ukraine’s favor. As Ukraine acquires more weapons (and more sophisticated weapons), it will inevitably achieve the kind of tactical advantages that will propel it first to operational and then to strategic breakthroughs, culminating in total victory. All that’s required is one more mobilization of Ukrainian youth, one more tranche of Western financial aid, one more delivery of American, French or British wonder weapons.
But the strategic, operational and tactical realities of the war simply don’t support any version of this argument. Ukraine is not prevailing at the tactical level — if anything, Russia’s advantage at there is growing rather than diminishing, as Russia outpaces Ukraine in adapting to the evolving realities of the battlefield. The net result? Russia not only remains capable of sustaining the kind of defense-in-depth that has completely frustrated all Ukrainian offensive efforts, but is increasingly able to mount successful offensives in places like Avdiivka.
In short, Russia is winning the war and there is little to suggest that any foreseeable political, economic, tactical or technological developments are likely to alter that fundamental reality. So why are we seeing arguments about an ultimate Ukrainian battlefield triumph, in the face of all the devastatingly contradictory evidence?
Well, applying Occam’s razor — the principle that “other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones” — I would suggest that the delusional belief that there is a pathway to total victory for Ukraine is based less on evolving military or geopolitical realities than on a simple psychological dynamic, one best summed up in the concept of “commitment escalation.”
According to this concept, individuals or groups sometimes exhibit a tendency to persist with a failing argument, even as that argument becomes increasingly untenable in light of the facts. This behavior is marked above all by an adherence to prior commitments — sunk costs, as the economists might put it — regardless of their present plausibility or rationality. It is a psychological dysfunction.
Applying this concept to Ukraine explains the delusional belief that despite all of Ukraine’s devastating defeats and strategic setbacks, victory is just around the corner. Those who committed publicly to the view that Ukraine was destined to inflict a decisive defeat on Russia during the much-heralded but ultimately failed spring/summer “counteroffensive” in 2023 have irrationally doubled down on that public commitment. They have, in other words, escalated their commitment even as the facts on the ground dictate that this faith in Ukraine’s ultimate total victory is simply baseless, and that a rational person would adjust their views in light of those facts.
Put slightly differently, the more dire Ukraine’s strategic prospects have become, the more these true believers have felt compelled to concoct imagined pathways to total Ukrainian victory — despite the increasingly incontrovertible evidence that no such pathway exists.
And so, like the proverbial dog returning to its vomit, those observers who originally committed to the “Ukraine will prevail” thesis continue to return to their delusion — ever more manically expressed — that there is a pathway to total victory for Kyiv. But there isn’t. And the sooner policymakers and influencers on both sides of the Atlantic grasp this, the sooner we can get to a negotiated cessation of hostilities that stems, at least for the moment, the obscene carnage that has come to define this war.
And, as Romans 4:18 of the Christian Scripture would have it, we must “hope against hope” that this epiphany comes sooner rather than later.
The idea of total Ukrainian victory is delusional
Russia is winning the war and there is little to suggest that any foreseeable political, economic, tactical or technological developments are likely to alter that fundamental reality.
thehill.com
The start of hostilities is just another stage of diplomacy. Its not noise. When leaders just consider it noise you get war.
New poll: Nearly 70% of Americans want talks to end war in Ukraine
The survey suggests Biden administration policy toward Russia is increasingly out of step with public opinion
Feb 16, 2024
Roughly 70% of Americans want the Biden administration to push Ukraine toward a negotiated peace with Russia as soon as possible, according to a new survey from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft.
Support for negotiations remained high when respondents were told such a move would include compromises by all parties, with two out of three respondents saying the U.S. should still pursue talks despite potential downsides. The survey shows a nine-point jump from a poll in late 2022 that surveyed likely voters. In that poll, 57% of respondents said they backed talks that would involve compromises.
The new data suggests that U.S. government policy toward the Ukraine war is increasingly out of step with public opinion on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
“Americans’ strong support for U.S. diplomatic efforts to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine stands in stark contrast to Washington’s reluctance to use its considerable leverage to get Kyiv and Moscow to the negotiating table and end this war,” said George Beebe, the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute.
The Biden administration has publicly rejected the idea of negotiating an end to the war with Russia, with U.S. officials saying that they are prepared to back Ukraine “as long as it takes” to achieve the country’s goal of ejecting Russian troops from all of its territory, including Crimea.
Just this week, Russian sources told Reuters that the U.S. declined a Kremlin offer to pursue a ceasefire along the current frontlines in conversations held in late 2023 and early 2024, including a round of unofficial talks in Turkey.
U.S. officials denied the claim, saying there was no “official contact” between Moscow and Washington on the issue and that the U.S. would only agree to negotiations involving Ukraine. Reuters’ Russian sources claimed that American officials said they did not want to pressure Kyiv into talks.
The Harris/Quincy Institute poll involved an online survey of 2,090 American adults from Feb. 8 to 12. The results are weighted to ensure a representative sample of the U.S. population. The margin of error is 2.5% using a 95% confidence level.
As the House weighs whether to approve new aid for Ukraine, 48% of respondents said they support new funding as long as it is conditioned on progress toward a diplomatic solution to the war. Others disagreed over whether the U.S. should halt all aid (30%) or continue funding without specific conditions (22%).
This question revealed a sharp partisan divide on whether to continue Ukraine funding in any form. Fully 46% of Republicans favor an immediate shutoff of the aid spigot, as compared to 17% of Democrats.
Meanwhile, 54% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans favored conditioning aid on diplomatic talks. “The American people seem more clear-eyed than Washington in recognizing the urgent need to pair aid for Ukraine’s defense with a diplomatic offensive,” Beebe argued.
The poll also showed that most Americans expect the war to drag into at least 2025. Only 16% of respondents thought the war would end this year. Others were evenly split on how long the war might last, with 46% expecting it to be resolved before the end of 2026 and 38% saying there is no end in sight.
responsiblestatecraft.org
The survey suggests Biden administration policy toward Russia is increasingly out of step with public opinion
Feb 16, 2024
Roughly 70% of Americans want the Biden administration to push Ukraine toward a negotiated peace with Russia as soon as possible, according to a new survey from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft.
Support for negotiations remained high when respondents were told such a move would include compromises by all parties, with two out of three respondents saying the U.S. should still pursue talks despite potential downsides. The survey shows a nine-point jump from a poll in late 2022 that surveyed likely voters. In that poll, 57% of respondents said they backed talks that would involve compromises.
The new data suggests that U.S. government policy toward the Ukraine war is increasingly out of step with public opinion on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
“Americans’ strong support for U.S. diplomatic efforts to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine stands in stark contrast to Washington’s reluctance to use its considerable leverage to get Kyiv and Moscow to the negotiating table and end this war,” said George Beebe, the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute.
The Biden administration has publicly rejected the idea of negotiating an end to the war with Russia, with U.S. officials saying that they are prepared to back Ukraine “as long as it takes” to achieve the country’s goal of ejecting Russian troops from all of its territory, including Crimea.
Just this week, Russian sources told Reuters that the U.S. declined a Kremlin offer to pursue a ceasefire along the current frontlines in conversations held in late 2023 and early 2024, including a round of unofficial talks in Turkey.
U.S. officials denied the claim, saying there was no “official contact” between Moscow and Washington on the issue and that the U.S. would only agree to negotiations involving Ukraine. Reuters’ Russian sources claimed that American officials said they did not want to pressure Kyiv into talks.
The Harris/Quincy Institute poll involved an online survey of 2,090 American adults from Feb. 8 to 12. The results are weighted to ensure a representative sample of the U.S. population. The margin of error is 2.5% using a 95% confidence level.
As the House weighs whether to approve new aid for Ukraine, 48% of respondents said they support new funding as long as it is conditioned on progress toward a diplomatic solution to the war. Others disagreed over whether the U.S. should halt all aid (30%) or continue funding without specific conditions (22%).
This question revealed a sharp partisan divide on whether to continue Ukraine funding in any form. Fully 46% of Republicans favor an immediate shutoff of the aid spigot, as compared to 17% of Democrats.
Meanwhile, 54% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans favored conditioning aid on diplomatic talks. “The American people seem more clear-eyed than Washington in recognizing the urgent need to pair aid for Ukraine’s defense with a diplomatic offensive,” Beebe argued.
The poll also showed that most Americans expect the war to drag into at least 2025. Only 16% of respondents thought the war would end this year. Others were evenly split on how long the war might last, with 46% expecting it to be resolved before the end of 2026 and 38% saying there is no end in sight.
New poll: Nearly 70% of Americans want talks to end war in Ukraine
The survey suggests Biden administration policy toward Russia is increasingly out of step with public opinion
responsiblestatecraft.org
I’m hearing it’s some kind of electromagnetic weapon. Russia lost a bunch of planes in the last few days.
Except the final solution as one might say for the Palestine situation is to exterminate the Jews or at the leave drive them out, as Hamas and pals have said over and over again. You know River to Sea, Death to Israel. Protocols of Zion and all that bullshit you lie about.
OTOH, Israel gives it's Arab population the right to vote, also there is that whole not killing their gays thing.
Israel has shown that it can live with Arabs as long as they don't get all murdery. They have done so even with all the wars and other bullshittery. Hamas and their crew of murderhobos have shown the utter opposite.
At least Russia doesn't actually have that goal. Gradual Russification yeah, much like in the Potato Union with their Russian hold overs. Poutine is still a cunt, but it isn't the same situation.
Was it a dick move to create Israel, sure probably. However they are there now and they ain't going anywhere unless they are murdered or drove off. Much like the Russians in the Potato Union, in Konesigburg and the former Finnish clay, they are there now, they have been there for a while now and it's kinda too late to do anything.
Last edited:
Once again you have NO idea what you are talking about.
F-35s are being sold as fast as they are being made, and the F-16 is still more than able to fuck the shit up of anything the Russians have. You think it's hard to ramp up modern artillery shell production, how hard do you think it would be for the F-35 FFS.
Just saw a poll today, something like 70 to 75% of 'mericans want Ukraine, 4% want Russian to win and the rest don't know, or care.
There are people who seem to want Ukraine to win, but are willing to do what it takes to prevent this from happening.
I wonder what the stats are of 'mericans who believe in angels or astrology or that New Zealand exists.
There are people who seem to want Ukraine to win, but are willing to do what it takes to prevent this from happening.
I wonder what the stats are of 'mericans who believe in angels or astrology or that New Zealand exists.
I just think there is room for Europe to spend more money on arms sent to
Ukraine as well as for their own defense.
Prospect of Trump 2.0 Has Europe Scrambling on Military Spending
Amid criticism from the Republican presidential front-runner, NATO members who boosted defense budgets are urging laggards to do more
Putin wants all of Ukraine.
Israel wants all of Palestine.
Palestine should be Palestine.
how about.
Putin and Hamas committed acts of war and touched off wars. And do you not know the civilized world considers war immoral and that’s there no justification, no matter how emotional the noise, or the body count.
Last edited:
Funny it is the more civilized parts of the world that committed the
worse acts of war and oppression in the last 5 centuries:
i) Eradication of natives in the new world.
ii) Enslavement of Africans
iii) European wars of religion
iv) Napoleonic wars
v) WWI and WWII
vi) Holocaust
vii) Vietnam war (B-52 bombing, use of agent orange and massacre of innocents)
viii) Support of Israel
And now that backward Russia and Hamas are catching up it is
the more civilized west who is escalating the conflicts while the
less civilized east are content to be onlookers.
Last edited:
The occupation of Palestine is way older than Hamas.
They had nothing to do with it, that was zionists and zionism.
Zionism is the source of all the violence in Israel/Palestine.
Why would you defend genocide?
