Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Hindsight was 2020]

So after all the ranting and raving about Western hypocrisy via Israel you’re self admitting to being a bad faith and give Russia a pass on its awful conduct that you won’t give Israel’s because one is more of an ally than the other. Also spare me this “oh what could we do?” routine both your country and South Africa (whom you also rooted on still trading with Russia) threatening with cutting off trade would go a long on Russia’s ability to continue this war

Not at all, as I’ve never pretended to treat these matters through only the eyes of “Morals and Principles”, I always take the “Geopolitical” factor into equal and important consideration.

Otherwise you end up turning into Gabriel Boric or like you! That’s the burden YOU choose to carry by forcing yourself to always be morally consistent.

“Morals and Principles” are an universal truth while “Geopolitics” are way more subjective but you cannot simply act like they are complete separate entities. Countries should follow their self-interest without compromising their morals in the best possible way they can.

I don’t believe in either “Moral” purists and false saints that are shallow and overly-idealistic (Like you, inevitably bound to contradiction because that’s an impossible standard to follow) or “Geopolitics realists truthers” that are overly-pragmatic and are capable of the worst possible stuff for self-interest only (the OSR types). There is a possible way of finding the best balance, which is inherently different for each reality.

That is an absolute load of horse dung. You clearly make “morally and principal” FP positions or your attitudes towards Palestine makes no sense as they serve no great geopolitical benefit to Brazil, if you were the actual cynical geopolitical thinker you claim to be then you wouldn’t be so hostile to the US or the West because new flash the West is still the big dogs by a mile and being economically tied with US would benefit Brazil more than this BRICS simping bit you got going.

[Red Velvet]

So after all the ranting and raving about Western hypocrisy via Israel you’re self admitting to being a bad faith and give Russia a pass on its awful conduct that you won’t give Israel’s because one is more of an ally than the other. Also spare me this “oh what could we do?” routine both your country and South Africa (whom you also rooted on still trading with Russia) threatening with cutting off trade would go a long on Russia’s ability to continue this war

Not at all, as I’ve never pretended to treat these matters through only the eyes of “Morals and Principles”, I always take the “Geopolitical” factor into equal and important consideration.

Otherwise you end up turning into Gabriel Boric or like you! That’s the burden YOU choose to carry by forcing yourself to always be morally consistent.

“Morals and Principles” are an universal truth while “Geopolitics” are way more subjective but you cannot simply act like they are complete separate entities. Countries should follow their self-interest without compromising their morals in the best possible way they can.

I don’t believe in either “Moral” purists and false saints that are shallow and overly-idealistic (Like you, inevitably bound to contradiction because that’s an impossible standard to follow) or “Geopolitics realists truthers” that are overly-pragmatic and are capable of the worst possible stuff for self-interest only (the OSR types). There is a possible way of finding the best balance, which is inherently different for each reality.

That is an absolute load of horse dung. You clearly make “morally and principal” FP positions or your attitudes towards Palestine makes no sense as they serve no great geopolitical benefit to Brazil, if you were the actual cynical geopolitical thinker you claim to be then you wouldn’t be so hostile to the US or the West because new flash the West is still the big dogs by a mile and being economically tied with US would benefit Brazil more than this BRICS simping bit you got going.

You see, that’s why it’s great to be a man of word because you can go back to your previous words that they alone will support your response today:

I don’t believe in either “Moral” purists and false saints that are shallow and overly-idealistic (Like you, inevitably bound to contradiction because that’s an impossible standard to follow) or “Geopolitics realists truthers” that are overly-pragmatic and are capable of the worst possible stuff for self-interest only (the OSR types). There is a possible way of finding the best balance, which is inherently different for each reality.

I clearly already said that I don’t believe in your purism and absolutist notions of reality, be it on a “full moral idealism” OR a “full cynical realism”. That’s not a good way to approach or understand people’s positions, as nobody works under absolutisms.

You seem to force the weird notion that people can only be 100% idealists or 100% realists but these things simply don’t EXIST in the real world where every people naturally act balancing these two elements, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Even a self-proclaimed idealist like you who believes they will always pick the “moral consistent” position is bound to eventually enter in contradiction because that’s impossible to sustain while always being successful and effective.

People putting their self-interests into consideration on some matters don’t mean they don’t have ANY moral concerns, just like having moral standings also don’t mean people necessarily have to be stupid and naive either.

The reason I know I bother you so much is that I DO take MY self-interest into consideration while still having moral standards just like Americans here do for theirs, which is something people like you are conditioned to believe it doesn’t exist or that it simply doesn’t matter in terms of 3rd world self-interest.

Only White Western countries were “allowed” to play geopolitics and ever be realists and cynical when it concerns global affairs and THAT’S how they got a larger share of the pie, under the validation that slavery and white supremacism gave to them in justifying their entitlement to that position.

Can you see how that the “superior” liberal democracy values that you hold as important are necessarily tied to that kind of historical privilege? Which means that MORE places fighting their self-interests STRENGTHENS liberal democracy over time in a way that’s much more distributed and fair.

Many places in global south for instance would’ve been more advanced as liberal democracies as western countries are if they HAD the privilege of not having to fight anti-democratic foreign enforcement or  colonialism. So the increasing emergence of the Global South as a player that puts their interests on the front is a WONDERFUL development for Real Liberalism actually, it’s just not for White Liberalism (which is only concerned about it existing within white borders).

So if it’s minimal cynicism coming from the Global South that bothers you, you better get used to it because they won’t be just cheerleaders to give moral validation to the West only when it’s convenient for Western interests. If it bothers too much then the West can start reflecting on how more useful it can be on attending Global South interests under a true mutual cooperative logic in order to shift the current logic of self-interest that it exists.

About your last point, I agree that it would be good for Brazil self-interests to have US at its side but you need to ask US if it WANTS to have Brazil (or Latin America or the whole South for that matter) on its side more often because what we see from US foreign policy these days is a massive disinterest on showing itself as useful.

China economically is still taking up more and more space for example and US position instead of giving counter economic opportunities to compete with them, resorts itself to this same crying you do about being inherently better to side with US in exchange of nothing. Which shows how entitled and tired you’ve grown in the last decades after WW2.

That interest simply doesn’t exist, US is focused on what worked in the past and has its eyes only at White Europe + neighbors to its current main rival, China.

Ukraine is completely irrelevant to US on a practical level and it receives endless billions and more billions of US dollars to be put in weaponry, guns, deaths, etc. US Democrats talk so much about the importance of environmental preservation and send less than 0.1% of that money to Brazil in order to help protect the Amazon from illegal advances. So that benefit of “siding with US” that you talk about simply doesn’t exist if US doesn’t want to side with us.

[axiomsofdominion]

So after all the ranting and raving about Western hypocrisy via Israel you’re self admitting to being a bad faith and give Russia a pass on its awful conduct that you won’t give Israel’s because one is more of an ally than the other. Also spare me this “oh what could we do?” routine both your country and South Africa (whom you also rooted on still trading with Russia) threatening with cutting off trade would go a long on Russia’s ability to continue this war

Not at all, as I’ve never pretended to treat these matters through only the eyes of “Morals and Principles”, I always take the “Geopolitical” factor into equal and important consideration.

Otherwise you end up turning into Gabriel Boric or like you! That’s the burden YOU choose to carry by forcing yourself to always be morally consistent.

“Morals and Principles” are an universal truth while “Geopolitics” are way more subjective but you cannot simply act like they are complete separate entities. Countries should follow their self-interest without compromising their morals in the best possible way they can.

I don’t believe in either “Moral” purists and false saints that are shallow and overly-idealistic (Like you, inevitably bound to contradiction because that’s an impossible standard to follow) or “Geopolitics realists truthers” that are overly-pragmatic and are capable of the worst possible stuff for self-interest only (the OSR types). There is a possible way of finding the best balance, which is inherently different for each reality.

That is an absolute load of horse dung. You clearly make “morally and principal” FP positions or your attitudes towards Palestine makes no sense as they serve no great geopolitical benefit to Brazil, if you were the actual cynical geopolitical thinker you claim to be then you wouldn’t be so hostile to the US or the West because new flash the West is still the big dogs by a mile and being economically tied with US would benefit Brazil more than this BRICS simping bit you got going.

You see, that’s why it’s great to be a man of word because you can go back to your previous words that they alone will support your response today:

I don’t believe in either “Moral” purists and false saints that are shallow and overly-idealistic (Like you, inevitably bound to contradiction because that’s an impossible standard to follow) or “Geopolitics realists truthers” that are overly-pragmatic and are capable of the worst possible stuff for self-interest only (the OSR types). There is a possible way of finding the best balance, which is inherently different for each reality.

I clearly already said that I don’t believe in your purism and absolutist notions of reality, be it on a “full moral idealism” OR a “full cynical realism”. That’s not a good way to approach or understand people’s positions, as nobody works under absolutisms.

You seem to force the weird notion that people can only be 100% idealists or 100% realists but these things simply don’t EXIST in the real world where every people naturally act balancing these two elements, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Even a self-proclaimed idealist like you who believes they will always pick the “moral consistent” position is bound to eventually enter in contradiction because that’s impossible to sustain while always being successful and effective.

People putting their self-interests into consideration on some matters don’t mean they don’t have ANY moral concerns, just like having moral standings also don’t mean people necessarily have to be stupid and naive either.

The reason I know I bother you so much is that I DO take MY self-interest into consideration while still having moral standards just like Americans here do for theirs, which is something people like you are conditioned to believe it doesn’t exist or that it simply doesn’t matter in terms of 3rd world self-interest.

Only White Western countries were “allowed” to play geopolitics and ever be realists and cynical when it concerns global affairs and THAT’S how they got a larger share of the pie, under the validation that slavery and white supremacism gave to them in justifying their entitlement to that position.

Can you see how that the “superior” liberal democracy values that you hold as important are necessarily tied to that kind of historical privilege? Which means that MORE places fighting their self-interests STRENGTHENS liberal democracy over time in a way that’s much more distributed and fair.

Many places in global south for instance would’ve been more advanced as liberal democracies as western countries are if they HAD the privilege of not having to fight anti-democratic foreign enforcement or  colonialism. So the increasing emergence of the Global South as a player that puts their interests on the front is a WONDERFUL development for Real Liberalism actually, it’s just not for White Liberalism (which is only concerned about it existing within white borders).

So if it’s minimal cynicism coming from the Global South that bothers you, you better get used to it because they won’t be just cheerleaders to give moral validation to the West only when it’s convenient for Western interests. If it bothers too much then the West can start reflecting on how more useful it can be on attending Global South interests under a true mutual cooperative logic in order to shift the current logic of self-interest that it exists.

About your last point, I agree that it would be good for Brazil self-interests to have US at its side but you need to ask US if it WANTS to have Brazil (or Latin America or the whole South for that matter) on its side more often because what we see from US foreign policy these days is a massive disinterest on showing itself as useful.

China economically is still taking up more and more space for example and US position instead of giving counter economic opportunities to compete with them, resorts itself to this same crying you do about being inherently better to side with US in exchange of nothing. Which shows how entitled and tired you’ve grown in the last decades after WW2.

That interest simply doesn’t exist, US is focused on what worked in the past and has its eyes only at White Europe + neighbors to its current main rival, China.

Ukraine is completely irrelevant to US on a practical and it receives billions and more billions of US dollars to be put in weaponry, guns, deaths, etc. US Democrats talk so much about the importance of environmental preservation and send less than 0.1% of that money to Brazil in order to help protect the Amazon from illegal advances. So that benefit of “siding with US” that you talk about simply doesn’t exist if US doesn’t want to side with us.

The fact that you think Ukraine is irrelevant to the US shows that you have nothing of value to contribute. That's a ridiculous position. Preventing Russia from controlling/conquering Ukraine has enormous value to the US. Now if Russia could keep to itself maybe Ukraine wouldn't be so important.

[Red Velvet]

The fact that you think Ukraine is irrelevant to the US shows that you have nothing of value to contribute. That's a ridiculous position. Preventing Russia from controlling/conquering Ukraine has enormous value to the US. Now if Russia could keep to itself maybe Ukraine wouldn't be so important.

No it doesn’t, otherwise it would be an establishment CONSENSUS partisan position from US politicians exactly like Israel is also treated. You know that well.

The fact that many Republicans are open or even enthusiastic about dropping US participation on this conflict to focus on other ones they find more critical or even on US domestic matters shows how Ukraine War in US is more of an ideological distraction than a real existential matter for US interests.

Obama himself said once that war with Russia about Ukraine would be futile based simply on the fact that Russians have more stake in it than Americans.

Democrats changed this understanding partially motivated on anger at Putin based on their own 2016 election grievances. But the matter itself clearly has limited (at most very little) importance to US practical interests.

Israel matters a lot to US interests and that’s reflected on the bipartisan support. Taiwan would be same thing, with both parties positioning against China on the matter. Iran will be an adversary to both parties because of US interests.

The divide on Ukraine is possible to exist from within exactly because of the low relevance to USA. USSR was never as powerful as China is today and Russia is already a much more decadent power than USSR, trying to reach to old glory.

If Russia WERE to fully occupy Ukraine, it would change s*** for the US or its interests. Which is exactly why you’re not REALLY helping Ukraine as much as you could, as it wouldn’t be on your self-interest to take the risk of sending your men to the war or entering an unnecessary direct conflict with Russia for something that isn’t as important to you.

You just need to analyze your own actions to understand where they come from and why they happen. If you really wanted the war to end and more favorably towards Ukraine, you could make Russia back down. You just don’t think what’s in play is worth the risk.

[axiomsofdominion]

The fact that you think Ukraine is irrelevant to the US shows that you have nothing of value to contribute. That's a ridiculous position. Preventing Russia from controlling/conquering Ukraine has enormous value to the US. Now if Russia could keep to itself maybe Ukraine wouldn't be so important.

No it doesn’t, otherwise it would be an establishment CONSENSUS partisan position from US politicians exactly like Israel is also treated. You know that well.

The fact that many Republicans are open or even enthusiastic about dropping US participation on this conflict to focus on other ones they find more critical or even on US domestic matters shows how Ukraine War in US is more of an ideological distraction than a real existential matter for US interests.

Obama himself said once that war with Russia about Ukraine would be futile based simply on the fact that Russians have more stake in it than Americans.

Democrats changed this understanding partially motivated on anger at Putin based on their own 2016 election grievances. But the matter itself clearly has limited (at most very little) importance to US practical interests.

Israel matters a lot to US interests and that’s reflected on the bipartisan support. Taiwan would be same thing, with both parties positioning against China on the matter. Iran will be an adversary to both parties because of US interests.

The divide on Ukraine is possible to exist from within exactly because of the low relevance to USA. USSR was never as powerful as China is today and Russia is already a much more decadent power than USSR, trying to reach to old glory.

If Russia WERE to fully occupy Ukraine, it would change s*** for the US or its interests. Which is exactly why you’re not REALLY helping Ukraine as much as you could, as it wouldn’t be on your self-interest to take the risk of sending your men to the war or entering an unnecessary direct conflict with Russia for something that isn’t as important to you.

You just need to analyze your own actions to understand where they come from and why they happen. If you really wanted the war to end and more favorably towards Ukraine, you could make Russia back down. You just don’t think what’s in play is worth the risk.

The people opposed to Ukraine support have always been MAGA russian shills and lefty tankies. Mike Johnson even opposed support till he got read in by the military.

Russia and China are both on the decline sure, but they are still dangerous and anti-western. Putin dreams of retaking the USSR territory even if he is not an atheist vanguardist communist.

In any case China is no more relevant than Russia. Their economy is failing, their population is declining, etc.

The average American has zero understanding of US foreign policy. Whether or not you agree with specific decisions by the US, which I generally don't, the fact is that voters are insulated from the problems of the world because America is so powerful. Could we have made better choices? Absolutely. Doesn't make normie Americans not coddled and ignorant.

The government has to weigh the importance of foreign policy situations against voters whining.

[Hindsight was 2020]

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

You see, that’s why it’s great to be a man of word because you can go back to your previous words that they alone will support your response today:

I don’t believe in either “Moral” purists and false saints that are shallow and overly-idealistic (Like you, inevitably bound to contradiction because that’s an impossible standard to follow) or “Geopolitics realists truthers” that are overly-pragmatic and are capable of the worst possible stuff for self-interest only (the OSR types). There is a possible way of finding the best balance, which is inherently different for each reality.

I clearly already said that I don’t believe in your purism and absolutist notions of reality, be it on a “full moral idealism” OR a “full cynical realism”. That’s not a good way to approach or understand people’s positions, as nobody works under absolutisms.

You seem to force the weird notion that people can only be 100% idealists or 100% realists but these things simply don’t EXIST in the real world where every people naturally act balancing these two elements, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Even a self-proclaimed idealist like you who believes they will always pick the “moral consistent” position is bound to eventually enter in contradiction because that’s impossible to sustain while always being successful and effective.

People putting their self-interests into consideration on some matters don’t mean they don’t have ANY moral concerns, just like having moral standings also don’t mean people necessarily have to be stupid and naive either.

The reason I know I bother you so much is that I DO take MY self-interest into consideration while still having moral standards just like Americans here do for theirs, which is something people like you are conditioned to believe it doesn’t exist or that it simply doesn’t matter in terms of 3rd world self-interest.

Only White Western countries were “allowed” to play geopolitics and ever be realists and cynical when it concerns global affairs and THAT’S how they got a larger share of the pie, under the validation that slavery and white supremacism gave to them in justifying their entitlement to that position.

Can you see how that the “superior” liberal democracy values that you hold as important are necessarily tied to that kind of historical privilege? Which means that MORE places fighting their self-interests STRENGTHENS liberal democracy over time in a way that’s much more distributed and fair.

Many places in global south for instance would’ve been more advanced as liberal democracies as western countries are if they HAD the privilege of not having to fight anti-democratic foreign enforcement or  colonialism. So the increasing emergence of the Global South as a player that puts their interests on the front is a WONDERFUL development for Real Liberalism actually, it’s just not for White Liberalism (which is only concerned about it existing within white borders).

So if it’s minimal cynicism coming from the Global South that bothers you, you better get used to it because they won’t be just cheerleaders to give moral validation to the West only when it’s convenient for Western interests. If it bothers too much then the West can start reflecting on how more useful it can be on attending Global South interests under a true mutual cooperative logic in order to shift the current logic of self-interest that it exists.

About your last point, I agree that it would be good for Brazil self-interests to have US at its side but you need to ask US if it WANTS to have Brazil (or Latin America or the whole South for that matter) on its side more often because what we see from US foreign policy these days is a massive disinterest on showing itself as useful.

China economically is still taking up more and more space for example and US position instead of giving counter economic opportunities to compete with them, resorts itself to this same crying you do about being inherently better to side with US in exchange of nothing. Which shows how entitled and tired you’ve grown in the last decades after WW2.

That interest simply doesn’t exist, US is focused on what worked in the past and has its eyes only at White Europe + neighbors to its current main rival, China.

Ukraine is completely irrelevant to US on a practical level and it receives endless billions and more billions of US dollars to be put in weaponry, guns, deaths, etc. US Democrats talk so much about the importance of environmental preservation and send less than 0.1% of that money to Brazil in order to help protect the Amazon from illegal advances. So that benefit of “siding with US” that you talk about simply doesn’t exist if US doesn’t want to side with us.

Oh please holding a morally consistent view on Ukraine/Palestine isn’t a difficult thing to do seeing as most red avatars on this site do it with no problem you don’t have to be a embodiment of morality to think two ethnic cleansing conflicts are bad. Also fwi my beef with you has nothing to do with you taking “ self-interest into consideration” it’s the same beef I have with Woody, Bilaps, OSR, GMac, and jaichind, you are actively rooting on a genocide. The only thing unique about you vs the other vatniks here or the IDF simps is you got this whole condescending and in love with the smell of your own farts arrogance routine

[2952-0-0]

If Russia WERE to fully occupy Ukraine, it would change s*** for the US or its interests. Which is exactly why you’re not REALLY helping Ukraine as much as you could, as it wouldn’t be on your self-interest to take the risk of sending your men to the war or entering an unnecessary direct conflict with Russia for something that isn’t as important to you.

You just need to analyze your own actions to understand where they come from and why they happen. If you really wanted the war to end and more favorably towards Ukraine, you could make Russia back down. You just don’t think what’s in play is worth the risk.

Putin has been very clear that he won't stop at Ukraine. If he takes all of it, the rest of Eastern Europe would be next.

Yes, US support towards Ukraine has been half-hearted, so that even the Germans have become more aggressive. But, remember that US support towards Britain in 1940 was even more half-hearted, and that FDR had to coax and coddle Congress, and find loopholes, to allow meaningful support. Domestic partisanship interfering with foreign policy isn't new.

And BTW, referring to Russia as being outside "White Europe" is ludicrous, since Putin intentionally targets Muslim and Mongol ethnic minorities for conscription to be his cannon fodder. So many young men from some of these ethnic minority groups have died that the survival of these groups is in question. And that's before the reports of young men from Africa and South Asia being lured with promises of jobs or education in Russia, into the Russian army. Putin has proven himself to be the white supremacist racist in this war, and not anyone in Washington or Kyiv.

The people opposed to Ukraine support have always been MAGA russian shills and lefty tankies. Mike Johnson even opposed support till he got read in by the military.

Russia and China are both on the decline sure, but they are still dangerous and anti-western. Putin dreams of retaking the USSR territory even if he is not an atheist vanguardist communist.

In any case China is no more relevant than Russia. Their economy is failing, their population is declining, etc.

The average American has zero understanding of US foreign policy. Whether or not you agree with specific decisions by the US, which I generally don't, the fact is that voters are insulated from the problems of the world because America is so powerful. Could we have made better choices? Absolutely. Doesn't make normie Americans not coddled and ignorant.

The government has to weigh the importance of foreign policy situations against voters whining.

Correction: China even with its currently struggling economy is still extremely powerful, simply due to its sheer industrial might. More than 50% of the world's steel production, over 40% of the world's shipbuilding capacity, 30% of the world's manufacturing sector. Its technology might not be the best, but Stalin said that quantity is a quality of its own.

As for US foreign policy in general, so much of it is based on pandering to an extremely narrow domestic constituency at the expense of the overall national interest. There's zero explanation for the sanctions against Cuba - which has caused tremendous damage to US influence in Latin America - other than Florida's status as a swing state, and everyone knows that. The policy towards Israel...well, the less that's mentioned, the better.

[axiomsofdominion]

If Russia WERE to fully occupy Ukraine, it would change s*** for the US or its interests. Which is exactly why you’re not REALLY helping Ukraine as much as you could, as it wouldn’t be on your self-interest to take the risk of sending your men to the war or entering an unnecessary direct conflict with Russia for something that isn’t as important to you.

You just need to analyze your own actions to understand where they come from and why they happen. If you really wanted the war to end and more favorably towards Ukraine, you could make Russia back down. You just don’t think what’s in play is worth the risk.

Putin has been very clear that he won't stop at Ukraine. If he takes all of it, the rest of Eastern Europe would be next.

Yes, US support towards Ukraine has been half-hearted, so that even the Germans have become more aggressive. But, remember that US support towards Britain in 1940 was even more half-hearted, and that FDR had to coax and coddle Congress, and find loopholes, to allow meaningful support. Domestic partisanship interfering with foreign policy isn't new.

And BTW, referring to Russia as being outside "White Europe" is ludicrous, since Putin intentionally targets Muslim and Mongol ethnic minorities for conscription to be his cannon fodder. So many young men from some of these ethnic minority groups have died that the survival of these groups is in question. And that's before the reports of young men from Africa and South Asia being lured with promises of jobs or education in Russia, into the Russian army. Putin has proven himself to be the white supremacist racist in this war, and not anyone in Washington or Kyiv.

The people opposed to Ukraine support have always been MAGA russian shills and lefty tankies. Mike Johnson even opposed support till he got read in by the military.

Russia and China are both on the decline sure, but they are still dangerous and anti-western. Putin dreams of retaking the USSR territory even if he is not an atheist vanguardist communist.

In any case China is no more relevant than Russia. Their economy is failing, their population is declining, etc.

The average American has zero understanding of US foreign policy. Whether or not you agree with specific decisions by the US, which I generally don't, the fact is that voters are insulated from the problems of the world because America is so powerful. Could we have made better choices? Absolutely. Doesn't make normie Americans not coddled and ignorant.

The government has to weigh the importance of foreign policy situations against voters whining.

Correction: China even with its currently struggling economy is still extremely powerful, simply due to its sheer industrial might. More than 50% of the world's steel production, over 40% of the world's shipbuilding capacity, 30% of the world's manufacturing sector. Its technology might not be the best, but Stalin said that quantity is a quality of its own.

As for US foreign policy in general, so much of it is based on pandering to an extremely narrow domestic constituency at the expense of the overall national interest. There's zero explanation for the sanctions against Cuba - which has caused tremendous damage to US influence in Latin America - other than Florida's status as a swing state, and everyone knows that. The policy towards Israel...well, the less that's mentioned, the better.

Our policy on Israel makes sense given our broader middle eastern policy. Cuba of course makes no sense. It's just pandering as you say.

[Red Velvet]

As for US foreign policy in general, so much of it is based on pandering to an extremely narrow domestic constituency at the expense of the overall national interest. There's zero explanation for the sanctions against Cuba - which has caused tremendous damage to US influence in Latin America - other than Florida's status as a swing state, and everyone knows that. The policy towards Israel...well, the less that's mentioned, the better.

It’s waaaay more serious than just that in reality. US simply doesn’t seem interested in Latin America. Democrats don’t remember it even exists but appear from time to time to assure that business with China is dangerous and Republicans only talk about it in order to address domestic concerns such as Border immigration or about socialism in Venezuela/Cuba/Nicaragua.

I would argue to you that the USA currently has NO foreign policy in regards to Latin America. Which is why China looks much more interesting even for the more traditional US allies in the region such as Mexico or Ecuador or Peru. US can claim “China Bad” but they don’t have anything interesting to offer themselves.

And it’s not because of lack of capabilities, it’s pure lack of geopolitical will. As I said currently to USA only White Europe and China exist in the world. And to a disproportional and unhealthy level of obsession even, with people seriously acting like Ukraine matters a lot to US simply because it’s white and against Russia.

Russia IS included in White Europe btw, which is precisely why the US talks so much about it and sends billions to Ukraine, as it’s something that matters to them.

Then they suddenly see Latin America opposing them on something and question “OMG how did Latin America got so distant from us?” Gee, I wonder why!

Bill Clinton was probably the last US president that had real interest in LatAm. Bush somewhat had it too but to a smaller degree. Obama; Trump and Biden = Zero other than the exceptions I mentioned for both parties.

[jaichind]

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/why-are-arms-dealers-hiking-prices-for-ukraine-92hqdtlx2

"Ukraine: arms prices are soaring, we need £800 billion to beat Putin"

According to information from Ukrainian sources who provided the newspaper with a list, the cost of some types of weapons has increased sixfold which of course is a function of supply and demand.  Given that the financial needs Ukraine has to continue the war has risen and will continue to rise.

[jaichind]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/ukraine-bondholder-group-unable-reach-deal-formal-20-bln-debt-talks-2024-06-17/

"Ukraine's international bond rework derailed as deadline nears"

Ukraine has until 8/1 to avoid a default unless it can come to a deal with its  $20 billion bondholders.  An agreement with international bondholders allowed Ukraine to suspend payments after the outbreak of armed conflict expires on 8/1.  Ukraine wants to continue to suspend such payments and the bondholders are not willing to budge after 2 years of no coupon payments.

[Storr]

"Putin appoints his niece, billionaire Anna Tsivileva as Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister."

https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1802709197936591251

[Hindsight was 2020]

"Putin appoints his niece, billionaire Anna Tsivileva as Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister."

https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1802709197936591251

😬

[axiomsofdominion]

"Putin appoints his niece, billionaire Anna Tsivileva as Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister."

https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1802709197936591251

"Billionaire". Yeah cause she's his niece.

[MyLifeIsYours]

Hope for a real peaceful resolution soon. Working class men lives on both sides of the aisle are being taken away through this conflict. We need somebody to do real negotiating to halt the fighting and have the two sides come to an agreement that is satisfactory.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Putin has been very clear that he won't stop at Ukraine. If he takes all of it, the rest of Eastern Europe would be next.

Could the Russians even take all of Ukraine, let alone the rest of Eastern Europe? Sure, they've had more success on the battlefield over the past year--in some parts of eastern Ukraine. But I don't see any evidence that they are even capable of taking all of Ukraine, let alone all of Eastern Europe in general.

Remember, most Russians don't want this war (or "special military operation to de-Nazify Ukraine")---at least, certainly not enough to fight in it themselves. And Putin has shown a great reluctance to fully mobilize, because he knows that it would cause massive political problems for him within Russia. You cannot underestimate the amount of propaganda being pumped at the Russian people not only about the "Nazis" who control Ukraine, but also propaganda along the lines of "we are winning, you don't have to worry about anything." Obviously that's in addition the to all the usual narratives about the decadent evil West desperately trying to destroy Russia with "gender ideology" or whatever.

The point is, Putin would need a hell of a lot more manpower---read, conscripted manpower---and a true willingness to gamble with Article V of NATO for expanding the war to all of Eastern Europe. I do not think he's anywhere near that suicidally reckless.

[2952-0-0]

Yes, perhaps Putin would never have been able to conquer more of Eastern Europe. But, he could very well have started with salami slicing at Estonia (or another smaller nation) in order to destabilize NATO. Like sending little green men to seize some tiny Russian-speaking village near the border. And that alone would shake US security commitments to its core. It would immediately turn the mood in Europe back to the 1930s, with the unpredictable consequences.

The way things are currently going, it's clear that Russia's industrial base is already collapsing, and that this war will wipe out the remnants of the mighty Soviet industrial juggernaut. But Putin is a master at amplifying the perceptions of his actual might, and he will still cause plenty of actual damage.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Putin has been very clear that he won't stop at Ukraine. If he takes all of it, the rest of Eastern Europe would be next.

He's not going to invade a NATO country. Maybe Moldova or Georgia.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hope for a real peaceful resolution soon. Working class men lives on both sides of the aisle are being taken away through this conflict. We need somebody to do real negotiating to halt the fighting and have the two sides come to an agreement that is satisfactory.

The only obstacle to peace is Putin. He alone is responsible for this mindless slaughter, and unfortunately he won't stop until he's either removed (unlikely but not impossible) or otherwise put in a position where he has no choice but to stop. The only way toward a just and lasting peace is to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, and anyone who opposes it is ultimately working to prolong the suffering on both sides.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Lol the Russians are going into cope mode
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1802974588726358487?t=_5cDfPqE084ecn5_u...

[CumbrianLefty]

But.....weren't Ukraine on the brink of total collapse barely a month ago?

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

But.....weren't Ukraine on the brink of total collapse barely a month ago?

We do this every time Russia launches a new attack. They capture a couple villages in the first 2 days, the pro-Russian trolls lose their minds saying that Ukraine has finally broken and the war will soon be over, and then things go back to normal and they pretend they never said anything.

The capture of a few nearly uninhabited border towns in this latest offensive towards Kharkov are a perfect example of this. In the last year the capture of both Bakhmut and Avdiivka were accompanied by predictions that Ukrainian collapse was imminent and that the whole "Donbass Cauldron" would collapse. This didn't happen. Hell, there are even posts in this thread from the beginning of the war when compucomp and co were predicting a total Ukrainian collapse and the capture of Kyiv within a week because the Russians had advanced the 20 miles to the suburbs already.

[Storr]

Lol the Russians are going into cope mode
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1802974588726358487?t=_5cDfPqE084ecn5_u...

It seems significant Zelensky is talking pushing out Russian troops, as opposed to defending (like we heard when the Russian Kharkiv offensive began):

"⚡️ Ukraine gradually pushing Russian troops out of Kharkiv Oblast, Zelensky says."

"Our forces are gradually pushing the occupier out of Kharkiv Oblast. And I thank every warrior and every unit for this, who are clearly fulfilling their tasks, including those who are also replenishing our (prisoner) 'exchange fund' with Russian soldiers,"

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1802958439175295133

[Woody]

Zelensky also said Avdiivka and Bakhmut would hold, so who knows what this is supposed to mean.

Russians are not withdrawing from Kharkov. They are going to take Vovchansk.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Zelensky also said Avdiivka and Bakhmut would hold, so who knows what this is supposed to mean.

Russians are not withdrawing from Kharkov. They are going to take Vovchansk.