Did that language imping on the interests of America’s ruling elites, its security apparatus, or the interests of a certain entity in the eastern Mediterranean? No? Then we’re talking about entirely different things.
644 karma · joined April 12, 2018
No, they are, in the words of German Chancellor Merz, perfectly happy to let Trump do their “dirty work.” All the better if it blows up in his face.
In fact, that’s the whole reason why Trump is in office and not in prison. Because after October 2023 Zionists don’t accept “no” for an answer.
You can. Just not in any way that matters. And you won’t. Because that takes organization and all existing organizations that matter are captured by the system and novel ones would quickly be.
Perfect example: The US just launched a disastrous and illegal (both in their own and the UN system) war at the behest of a foreign power/influential minority against the will of its people and against its geopolitical interest. And the “opposition” does less than nothing. There is little anti-war protest and none of consquence.
Compare it with 2003 and earlier wars: The American public has been all but neutralized as a political force. Not that it could do much even then.
> That's superior to unilateral oppression.
You prefer the illusion of power.
> The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated.
Rings a bell. Errors are spreading but “Russian” they are not.
> The date of the attempted assassination, 13 May 1981, was the 64th anniversary of the first apparition of the Virgin Mary to the children at Fátima.
Do I have to spell it out.
So the Palestinians and Arabs thought a hundred years ago. It served them badly.
It’s not that US/UK and others don’t get anything out of the relationship, as you note. But the arrows have been mostly pointing the other way for a long time. Trump and his background, as well as Epstein/Mandelson/McSweeney/Labour are just the latest, blatant examples of how this works.
WE are happily enabling Ukrainians to take such losses.
> seemingly carelessly.
They are doing what works—which evidently it does, however ugly and cynical it looks. And Ukrainians do the same when they try to recapture. This is the face of attritional warfare in the age of drones and under pervasive surveillance. But you’re probably right—WE could not sustain such for long. One hopes.
> now exceed sustainable recruitment and replacement rates,
That’s on even days. On odd days these people will tell you that the Russia army has been all but rebuilt and is about to invade the Baltics.
> Meanwhile, battlefield casualties favor Ukraine by a 2.5- or 2-to-1 ratio.
Russia is 4–5 times bigger. So, even if these numbers were true, they would be bad news. Same with materiel—just check Oryx. For extra credit, look at the trends of losses. Far from good enough and getting worse.
https://open.substack.com/pub/eventsinukraine/p/zoomer-schoo...
For the US and its friends, the UN system and international law have always been a tool. Used when beneficial, circumvented when necessary.
> Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Russia...
Yes, the US decades-long lawfare and warfare against these countries in various domains is a great examples of the above.
Now, even the USA invades foreign countries!
That wasn’t the question and you’re putting words in my mouth.
> look at Syria - they literally removed Russia from the middle east.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c201p2dd6r4o
They were warm words from two men seeking a good working relationship.
Russia wants continued access to its Tartous naval port and Hmeimim military airbase on Syria's Mediterranean coast.
Sharaa suggested he would allow this, saying Syria would "respect all agreements concluded throughout the great history" of their bilateral relations.
In turn, he wants help to consolidate his power in Syria, secure its borders and rescue a parlous economy with access to Russian energy and investment.
Plus ça change.
Including but not limited to: A Turkish supply convoy, reportedly carrying small arms, machine-guns and ammunition, was bombed by what is believed to have been Russian airstrikes in the northwestern town of Azaz, in north-western Syria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Russian_Air_Force_Al-Bab_...
The report I linked and you obviously didn’t read directly contradicts you: 574 ballistics total with no wave larger than 40.
> because they simply ran out of launchers and missiles
No evidence of the former and the latter is laughable.
> In the end…
… they murdered a bunch people, destroyed a bunch of things and achieved no strategic goal. No follow-through, no follow-up. Luckily, being the Jewel in the Crown, they are largely isolated from the consequences of such aggression and failure.
> 70% figure sounds wrong
Feelings. Wild claims online. Well, it’s quite possible Israel as well the US used even more interceptors than they care to admit. But that doesn’t help your case.
> That certainly doesn't match up to the claims of the IDF, and if it was true the Americans wouldn't stop boasting about it.
You must be new to US-Israel relations.
https://jinsa.org/jinsa_report/rising-lion-air-defense/
> almost no major hits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor
> saturation attacks
They weren’t saturation attacks; in fact many were surprised by their small size compared to preceding True Promises. Unlike Israel, which had to tap out after 12 days, with a face-saving intervention by the US, Iran was in for the long haul.
> Missing something
Israel + US + friends had the highest density air defence network with plenty of interceptors and it wasn’t enough. They had all the time and space to operate without threat and yet by the end Iranian drones were hitting Israel. Given area and supplies and proximity, it’s just hopeless for Ukraine. Also, previously claimed interception rates were exaggerated.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/17/revealed...
No. CSPRNGs can be pretty competitive these days: https://github.com/google/randen
Yes, in some cases that’s still (a bit) too slow or too much code but best to benchmark first.
Our vital interest is cheap energy and a peaceful near-abroad.
Not our vital interest: https://static.dw.com/image/17298012_1004.webp
They are free to defend themselves till the bitter end. No one is stopping them. And, theatrics aside, support isn’t ceasing either.
But they’re not winning. There’s no right to that.
Because good PR prolongs this war but doesn’t win it. Because ultimately, the interests of the nation, the regime, and its Western supporters are not aligned.
We don’t have to speculate. They’ve just presented to Ukraine and published their conditions for ceasefire or settlement.
The reaction suggests Ukraine/the West would rather continue. Of course, demands will only increase.
> Really the war started with Euromaidan
Sure it wasn’t when Ukrainian nationalists burned 42 people to death in Odessa?
>regime, pull out
Ah, but Ukraine/the West were given so many opportunities to settle this peacefully. Even the March 2023 settlement (which has been published) was dangerously generous, for said regime. But peace was not on Western leaders’ mind. They wanted something else.
(Preposterous to compare Ukraine/Russia with Afghanistan/US.)
That some other country gets over 55% of its budget from the West and almost all its materiel. Total direct “aid” over 320 billion so far. Total costs to the West much higher still.
And the result for Ukraine is more territory lost, more destruction, and hundreds of thousands of casualties. No one would and could stop them from continuing the war on their own but imagine what that would look like.
And the result for the West is a stronger, hostile Russia with deepening ties to China, North Korea etc. Strategic failure.
>Zelenski is depicted as a war criminal
No. What we saw was a noisy attempt by the US to salvage its strategic failure in Ukraine/Russia. Russians weren’t fooled. It failed.
You raise a good point, though. Why is the West, via its proxy, attacking (not for the first time, it must be said) a part of what it recognizes as Russia’s nuclear strategic assets? Sounds highly reckless and dangerous! What happened to winning?
It’s especially true for spooks of a certain entity. Also, it’s easy to confuse brazenness, being protected from consequences, and usually downplayed or secret Western complicity with competence.
>HN'ers probably don't see it
Takes a very special mind to see it.
With the windows cracked open, children's voices from a nearby kindergarten fill the room. "But don't worry," he says, "we don't show our drones to the children."
Bragging about putting a military target next to a kindergarten, among countless other civilians.