khokhol

What's the point of not objecting in theory, if you object to any instance in practice?

Unfortunately it appears that you're either grossly misreading what I'm saying, or (intentionally or otherwise) going through a lot of weird mental gymnastics to make it look like I'm saying things that I'm plainly not. So I'll have to bow out, and let you sort this stuff out on your own.

Irrelevant to the fact he went on to also blatantly dick the Ukrainians over in late 2023.

However, in some places it seems to be too cavalier -- in the sense that it suggests we now have a magic prism with which we can "diagnose" the candidate's shallowness or lack of candor. When really they're just saying something basically innocuous. Cause it's like, been a long and mostly boring interview process so far, has it not, and they're trying to slog their way through the canned / pre-programmed (if arguably necessary) part of the process like you are.

For example, under "Things to watch out for":

High standards: if they say there’s nothing they wish they’d done differently, this may also be lack of embarrassing honesty, or not holding themselves to a high standard

Or they had a genuinely shitty experience (with high costs to finances, relationships and/or health) that was 80 percent out of the blue and beyond their control. And they'd really rather just move on. Or if they did tell you the real context and their real reasons for doing X -- you'd very likely ding them (quite likely fatally) for doing so.

So what else are we supposed this willingness to throw huge numbers of human lives at it?

This couldn't further from the truth. The U.S. has enormous leverage over Israel, via the massive foreign assistance it has provided since 1948.

Its politicians may be too spineless, too hoodwinked by decades of extremist propaganda over all these decades -- or in the cases of evangelicals, blinded by their own religious delusions; or (in the case of most) just too self-interested and apathetic -- to make use of this leverage. But there is no question that this leverage exists.

Putin gave an "explicit warning that Russia perceived NATO's eastward expansion as a threat to its national security" as early as 2007 in his Munich speech.

And as a result (in combination with other factors) Ukraine's NATO aspirations were effectively halted by 2009. Simply put - some hawks in the U.S. wanted it, but it never got traction in Europe - not even after the initial invasion in 2014. In other words - in regard to the NATO-Ukraine question Putin had by that time already achieved a successful, non-violent containment strategy. But ultimately he opted for the full-scale invasion in 2022 anyway.

Why? Because it was never his real reason in the first place.

The Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014 with the ouster of Yanukovych, who was pro-Russia and opposed closer ties with the EU.

First, it wasn't an "ouster" - he fled to escape likely imminent charges of corruption and complicity in murder. Second - if you really believe that whatever happens in the internal politics of one country is a "reason for", or can "provoke" another country into launching a full-scale invasion -- then I don't know what to tell you.

The point is that the stated reasons are bullshit - in the sense that they are very different from the aggressor's real "reasons".

Very problematic it is to suggest that the above analysis (being limited enough in its own scope) has much, if any, extrapolation to the situation now 2 years later -- when so many things have changed (in some aspects quite categorically) in the interim, on both sides.

For starters: no, you don't just grab a 37-day window at the start of the conflict when one party temporarily enjoyed the initiative and achieved a partial breakthrough; wave a measuring stick around various places at the map, and guesstimate a "velocity"; then conclude their this their intrinsic, operational "velocity", and hence will surely kick in again at some point.

Simply put, this is just now how wars work.

Russia seems to be steadily and rapidly taking territory

Russia has made some notable gains in recent months, on top of Ukraine's vastly larger rebound across the previous year-plus.

But there is no way you can call Russia's recent gains "rapid" by the standards of the current (full-scale) phase of the conflict. They've taken months to achieve, and at very heavy cost. Including the total obliteration of most of those areas now deemed to be suitably cleansed and purified -- and now finally fit and ready for their glorious re-admission to the Russian World.

You're losing focus here. When I said "It's up to them to decide", this was clearly in reference to the question of whether worse off, by this point, for having made a decision to not simply roll over and let Putin have his way with them ("finding a peaceful solution", in your words). Which, if you don't think they're capable of evaluating for themselves -- you must think they're basically very stupid, as a people. For not being able to make heads or tails such an important matter as that.

Whereas now you're referring to an entirely different decision -- "Whether it makes sense to continue fighting".

So like, okay - you can think whatever you want about that issue. But it's entirely different from the assertion you made where I jumped in -- the assertion that "Ukraine ... is arguably worse off today by the choice they made to engage instead of finding a peaceful solution", offered with absolutely no regard to what the Ukrainians themselves might have to say about the matter.

And for Putin's idea of "peaceful", which you apparently accept without reservation.

Even outside estimates of total "excess deaths" in the entire Iraq war -- regardless of cause or party directly responsible -- don't amount to 5 percent of the population. Or even half that.

In other words -- just another random factoid you vaguely thought you remembered from somewhere. As with your synopsis of Minsk + Istanbul.

No. A better analogy would be:

You've bought a shiny new car, presented as being a major advancement over previous models -- but when you come to pick it up, you find that the transmission continually jams, the rear trunk lid just won't stay shut; and to top it off, the tell-tale visual cues (and aroma) of spillt strawberry milkshake from several days ago -- and when you have the audacity to go and blog about it, the dealership comes back with: "This is pretty much the backlash everyone said we'd be getting if we ever sold a car that wasn't literally perfect at time of sale, no?

If you fucking say so, I guess. But in no way do the operations detailed in the article amount to "complicity in starting this conflict".

This suggests a belief that diplomacy is always sufficient to prevent war. Which runs counter to all of observed human history.

I'd say that's for Ukrainians to decide. They might just have more information on the costs and risks (and infinitely more actual stake in the matter) than you would, after all.

I don't see any mention of Russia being invincible in my comment

You said "Ukraine lost the minute they refused to accept Russia's demands", which immediately implies "They lost the minute Russia invaded".

Nevermind the fact that nobody has "lost" yet by this stage. The outcome is far from clear or assured for either party, and will likely be for quite some time.

It's not, as you seem to be insinuating, the very idea of there being some kind of military response to October 7 that they take issue with.

Rather - they don't buy your contention that the current operation, the way it is being conducted, is necessary for (or even helpful towards) that goal. Or even for the safe return of the hostages.

Meanwhile, by now they find themselves forced to acknowledge certain ulterior motives at play -- based on how the current operation has been conducted on the ground, all the rather abhorrent statements by government officials and public figures, all those batshit insane TikTok videos that the IDF's best and finest have proudly broadcast to the world, etc.

Right, but that doesn't make them internationally recognized.

If you can't use valid jurisdiction names, there's nothing to talk about here.

This is a gross (and bizarre) distortion of why people are taking issue with the current operation in Gaza, of course. In a nutshell: no, they are very obviously not simply taking issue with the IDF "being there" in some form in response to October 7.

Putin's demand list at the time was clearly stated, and went well beyond simply requiring that Ukraine eschew NATO membership. And no, Russia is not simply invincible and impossible to defeat. In fact it has lost plenty of wars - and my its own leaders' telling, would have lost WW 2 had it not been for massive assistance from the United States.

So you're off way off base, and on multiple counts here.

The international community does not recognize "Judea and Samaria" as a jurisdiction. So the question is moot.

Further, what you're getting at is a question of sovereignty -- which has nothing to do with religious belief or cultural identity, per se. Which makes the question doubly moot.

Which by no means conveys any rights to Israel, as Jordan's occupation of the territory was also illegal and unrecognized from the very beginning.

*So, you say, that you oppose "universal right of self-determination"?*

No one has a right to "self-determine" themselves on land to which they hold no legal claim.

In the sense that all peoples have the right of self-determination - of course, unquestionably.

As to whether that applies to the self-determination in the sense of a viable community within the boundaries historic Palestine? You know the answer already, of course. As per the Balfour declaration, as long as it is:

clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

A very warped, and highly misleading description of events is all that time permits me to say.

Just stop pretending you haven't picked a side, please.

Look more into what public figures there have been saying, not just in the past 4 months, but for several years now -- not just on the margins, but in the mainstream -- and you'll see why I'm saying what I'm saying.

That said, they (mopsi) do seem to like to say some rather weird, and also intellectually dishonest things -- such their assertion that it was primarily the Russians, not the Germans (with the help of local collaborators) who arranged for the extermination of Baltic Jewry in the summer of 1941:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39141260

Despite all evidence to the contrary.