Wars of this sort where territory & people are annexed, normally does not end in an 'Ugly Victory' UNLESS a mass guerrilla network spawns partisans & saboteurs across the defeated & annexed segments of the nation. However, it is unlikely that once the Americans go 'belly up' with the looming implosion of the Petrodollar... that Ukraine would organically spawn such movements.
More likely scenario: it will go the way of Chechnya, post the Second Russo-Chechen War, & large parts of the former Ukrainian nation will be incorporated with little friction into the New Russia.
One point I’d like to make: you say that Russia will achieve an “ugly victory” because the U.S. will continue to be aggressive towards Russia in other spheres including leftover Ukraine.
Assuming Russia’s posture of indivisible security and its strategic interests remain the same, what do you think might deter the U.S. or induce a change in its intentions?
I only see a significant reduction in capabilities - economic, financial, and military. This can be achieved with a clear and significant military defeat, in addition to continued and accelerating dedollarization and a growth in parallel non USD based financial systems.
Basically intentions will follow a drop in capability and not out of rational thought.
Do you see any other realistic way? (I hope you do)
Yes, I think intentions may follow a drop in capability and can also be a product of rational thought: for instance, if the expected cost of an action exceeds its benefits.
Sure, but we are nowhere close to that. I agree with the Professor that the West has the resources to continue to assist the Ukrainians without much difficulty. Where we might disagree is that it would be wrong to abandon them. I also disagree with him that the US pressured them to fight on; I cannot say I'm right with 100% certainty, but that is what I think and it is supported by the fact that the West did not provide a whole lot of material prior to the war. Since then, we've provided more and there is some line, we should communicate to Ukrainians we won't cross. I don't know where the line exists and I greatly regret that fact.
The instant they want to stop fighting, I'd support the decision and if we think they are making awful decisions I hope we'd tell them but ultimately, it should, and I believe is, their decision to make.
If you watched the 2015 lecture by the prof you will know that the US supported the fringe elements in their coup and installed them in government. Since then the US helped them with weapons and in mass propaganda campaign they unleashed on their population.
The voting patterns from 2010 prove this.
But for a more recent example, the now fully acknowledged role of the U.S./UK in destroying the negotiations and preliminary agreement to end in the war in March 2022 is all the proof you need that if it wasn’t for US meddling this human disaster wouldn’t have happened.
It’s a little late, and frankly disingenuous, to suddenly assign full agency to Ukraine now.
All I remember was feeling disgust in 2014 at how Ukrainians did not fight the Russians. I wasn't really paying attention and thought if they were not willing to put up some resistance, I don't care. I talked to one and only one Ukrainian citizen in early 2022 who provided explanation that I "bought" which came down to extreme uncertainty at the time. I am not familiar with all the things that took place but I am 100% positive of one thing and that the US had minimal involvement in any changes that took place.
Remember Russian efforts to influence US election in 2016? I laughed at what I saw, which I regarded as pathetically ineffective. If the little bit of whatever the West did, which I am reasonably sure was dwarfed by Russian efforts in the US in 2016 tipped Ukrainians over the edge I'd say the Russian's position in Ukraine was pretty weak as they were making a significant effort.
I'm a spectator; not a participant. I employ my President and representatives as well as the professionals such as Alexander Vindman, who, I thought was disgusting to make decisions and take actions. Whatever they decide will be fine with me from a US perspective, as of the current date, but it is the Ukraine's decision and it always has been. They have to live with the paranoid people in their neighborhood; not me, but I'm pulling for them.
I'm kind of pulling for Putin and the Russian people too who I feel bad for too. Not in war against Ukraine but for dignity and hope they will become more liberal as that is what I think is necessary to live in peace.
>I also disagree with him that the US pressured them to fight on
The US and NATO promised they will support Ukraine if they fight. There is a line. The US told Ukraine not to attack Russia beyond its borders. US and NATO do not want an escalation with Russia because Russia knows it’s a proxy war. The US’s goal is to prevent Ukraine from falling into Russia’s hands and in the future make it a NATO member.
Not quite. They said cutoff all negotiations with Russia, don’t sign a neutrality agreement and we will provide you weapons to fight Russia.
The war could have ended with Ukraine neutrality and security guarantees from all sides.
Then they took over military planning and pushed them into the disastrous summer counter offensive. All the while U.S. politicians (Graham and others) stating this is the best investment because for a fraction of the defense budget they lose no personnel to kill Russians while Ukraine gets hollowed out.
"War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means"
I'm Nemanja Plotan, the creator behind WorldWatch Weekly, a newsletter dedicated to exploring topics such as Global Political Economy, Geopolitics, Geoeconomics, History, and Monetary and Fiscal policies.
Subscribers, both free and paid, will receive a warm welcome from me, complete with a treasure trove of free gifts in their inbox. Expect to find a complimentary short Handbook on International Relations, along with additional documents designed to enrich your understanding of our complex world.
Join me on this enlightening journey by subscribing today!
How is this any different then what we have experienced during the whole of the 21st century. At the beginning people spoke of the neocon agenda that looked to secure US dominance through out the world. Before we headed for Afghanistan after 9/11 we already had an agenda in place to go to war with 7 countries and Iraq was first on our hit list. Biden was pushing for a war with Iraq during his time in the Clinton administration, and used his position in the Senate to push his fellow democrats into the war with Iraq. The coup in Ukraine under the Obama administration set the ground work for what is and has happened in Ukraine, which was to establish a proxy war with Russia and oust Putin. As Merkel said the Minsk accords were never for real, and that reality bespeaks of our intentions from the outset. To me Trump was an interlude of no wars, but I expected nothing different with a Biden win which means a continuation of our aggressive neocon agenda, although they always speak about as if it is a thing of the past. Neocons like Kristol pushed for a Biden win, and neocons like V. Nuland and Blinken are in the Biden administration helping to dictate foreign policy. Biden gets in but doesn't renew the Iran deal, of course not, no neocon supported that, and interesting that Netanyahu thought he could come to the US address, or dictate the political establishment in the US and persuade them to make it a no deal.
P. S. I really like Mearsheimer but why does he always have the giggles?
I disagree that the goal was to secure US dominance throughout the world. The goal was, in a sense kind of like what FDR said at the beginning of US involvement in WW2, to make the world safe for democracy. There is a limit to how much the US should do and it was crossed in Iraq.
The goal following WW2 was to establish a set of rules that would be followed in the future. Those rules are not as well defined as one would hope but they are there and have have been incredibly successful. The period of time since the end of WW2 has been the best in the entire history that man has existed. The US deserves some credit for that along with other countries who played a role. That does not mean mistakes, some terrible, did not occur but did pretty well all things considered.
Please, no BS. You don't make the world a safer place by having multiple wars based on lies, like Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and while we're fighting that war lets set up some black sites and Guantanomo Bay, so we can beat the hell out of people. Millions of people killed and displaced and their countries in shambles. Go sell that to an idiot. Did you forget the Korean war, and how about the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin that was the prelude to the war in Vietnam to stop those Commies? Of course the CIA killed some 6 million people by the end of the 20 century, and it began a little more then a half century before. They killed off leaders of states, or instigated wars which was all to benefit us in one way or another. Maybe you think implementing death and destruction brings peace, but most sane people would disagree. You're delusional as to what and who we are as a country. Now we're feeding Neyanyahu bombs to implement a genocide, and no doubt will be followed by a regional war, and who knows where it goes from there!
Funny thing. I refused to tell my son who was capable of understanding such things that Santa Claus was real. I remember him arguing with me in, I think, Kindergarten. I questioned the wisdom of my earlier decision and did not engage with him further on the topic but I know he was eventually proud to be one of the first kids in his class to deny his existence.
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I'm here to convince myself and engaging with others, to an extent, can bring out insights I would not otherwise have. I do not have the answers and would suggest that you do not either. Hopefully some people who do, will pop out of the woodwork but until then, everyone will have to muddle along and I appreciate those willing to put their lives on the line to do what they believe is right.
Korean War was a terrible thing and a great success at the same time. FDR more or less picked the fight with Germany and Japan that led to US involvement in WW2 and I would say he lied in 1940 election regarding his intentions. Tough decisions are made and risks are taken all the time. No way around it that I am aware of.
Don't compare WWII with just any war, like our 21st century Middle East wars. Or our Vietnam war which caused so much death and destruction and people of Nam suffered for years as a result. You read a few lines then spew them out without looking at things in depth.
I'm pretty sure my knowledge regarding the Vietnam war dwarfs yours. The strange thing is, that even an uninformed person can be right. There are trade-offs, cost-benefit decisions and one does not know how things will work out. US support for fight against USSR in Afghanistan ultimately yielded OBL. Does that mean the US was wrong to arm the fighters? I don't know, but I'm still glad it was done but maybe in 100 years people will look back and say it was the turning point that led to some disaster for Western Civilization and liberalism.
Why would you think your knowledge of the war in Vietnam dwarfs mine? . You still don't get the fact that many of our wars, like Vietnam was cast based on a lie, the Gulf of Tonkin BS, and it served no good purpose other then to help end the draft. I just watched Farha, a real like story of a young girl caught up in the the violent displacement the Palestinian people, along with the destruction of their society, and everything else. Try to white wash that one, and lend it any credibility, or justify the actions starting with Balfour who gave away Arab land to a people who hadn't live there for a couple of thousands of years and were integrated into a world wide community.
Some of us are willingly laughing/giggling, even though we want to cry. It may be a way to avoid the feeling of intense emotion.
Look at US history. According to historians Christopher Kelly and Stuart Laycock, the United States has been "militarily involved" with every country on the globe but three: Andorra, Bhutan, and Liechtenstein.
What a dynamic trio of geo-political analysts: Professors Mearsheimer and Diesen and Alexander Mercouris. It made my Sunday listening to this discussion.
How do your ideas of Nation Realism realize the reality of Republicanism? Nations can create a political creation beyond the Nation; to share in the responsibilities of power. You have argued against supporting Ukraine or NATO, but this support is political freedom. If Ukraine’s freedom threatens the Russian Political, does that not make it even more of a real interest? To live in an international community where one’s freedom is an existential threat to another is accepting political defeat, or accepting some do not have the same freedom as others. Republicanism seems the offspring of Liberalism; based on the natural freedom of action and political creation.
If I understand your argument correctly, The Phoenix, you are focusing more on the invidiual elite's perceptions and values rather than highlighting balance of power politics and a systemic view of international relations. I can see using that level of analysis as a heuristic device to demonstrate the hubris, cognitive blocks, and distortions of reality to which the neo-cons ascribe.
Thank you for this great discussion. Lot of insights
1. One point about the Arctic which I felt which could have been covered is that of Russia using nuclear powered ice breakers to create a new trade route
2. I see that the narrative told by western politicians/leaders or heads of unions and alliances classifying the other side as pure enemy or evil has been carried forward by the mainstream media which is then impressed on regular majority of people who don’t find the time to investigate deeply into what’s happening and thus believe the “convention wisdom”.
3. I’m starting to understand that such narratives as in point 2 were used in earlier times and support garnered to fight the enemy. Today alternative media and individual journalism is providing content for each individual to judge and get a better picture of underlying geopolitics although still delayed compared to events on the ground.
4. The way the senior leadership of US and UK, certain business leaders at Davos WEF and NATO head are presenting to the world about Ukraine and also is so disturbing. In some sense from the perspective of the West they are trying to save face? Or not let go of their power? They seem to put forth a picture to the world that we are still in an era where similar to the world war eras instead of accepting a new reality where technology has brought substantial prosperity to a good part of the world and will do so going forward.
5. I wonder how much of misinformation is spread by taking advantage of the language differences wrt Russia and China or any other state by western media. Because most of the general population will not enquire to understand the position of leaders speaking in a different language like listening to translated versions or subtitles
6. What are the general thoughts about Kaliningrad being a territorially separate from mainland Russia? The very fact that a part of the land is disconnected with the mainland and surrounded by other states creates an environment for securing independence from mainland?
7. Similar to point 6, does a similar effect (not the independence part but of territory discontinuity) arise in the case of Palestine where a part of the state is in Gaza Strip and a part in West Bank. Should the two state solution if implemented be such that there is no discontinuity in the territory of either state?
8. If Iran does develop into a nuclear state, how does it change the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East?
9. Although the democratic way of political system may have its flaws but is it still the way going forward? More evolved but democratic. In some sense a “democratic force” which imbibes in itself the idea of freedom and thus moves across the world? Like say if China goes ahead with Taiwan, in reality that force comes to Mainland China
Would like interested audience to share their thoughts on any of my points in comments below
That's a nice document and perhaps Ukraine should agree to it; I don't know.
I know it is "off the deep-end" for a person in my position to say but I wouldn't agree to it. I'd lease Russia Savastapol in return for some outrageous rental fees and reparations and, of course, let people speak Russian and take pride in it if they like but some control of curriculum in schools is entirely appropriate. Can't be telling fifth graders they are being ruled by a Nazi-like central government.
Request to Professor Mearsheimer: Write an article about Belarus.
It looks forward to a possible issue in the future which is better than looking back at possible mistakes in the past which cannot be undone and kind of gets old hearing about. I agreed, that expansion of NATO was wrong (aside from Poland where I felt moral obligation) but I've since changed my mind as Russia showed that they are willing to invade other countries and I would not be willing to accept re-establishment of Russian domination of Eastern Europe without providing them with means to fight even if they might ultimately lose.
He talked about the US engineering a possible color revolution Belarus after Lukashenko dies. I don't know how he defines "color revolution" but the desire is not being engineered by the West. It is coming from the Bellarussians. I can see the US making it clear that we will not aid them and if Russian tanks roll, you are on your own but if the people say we're gonna anyway, there is absolutely no requirement to support the Russia. It could be exactly like the Prague Spring. We express moral outrage, impose sanctions (if more can be imposed). Now if we think it empowers China, maybe we should make the decision to not impose sanctions but to not condemn it, is just further than I could go as it is a moral issue I can't cross.
So what is our plan on Belarus Professor? I'd like to hear.
Oh Jesus, I can't believe Alexander Mercouris said that the ICJ found that there was "strong" evidence. "What a moroon" - (Bugs Bunny reference).
One point John made that was really good was that statements by Israeli politicians led to the decision. Don't think one can disagree with that. I don't agree it is a real problem (based on securities litigation cases) that the statements of politicians are to be taken literally. CEO's in litigation basically are allowed to "puff" and statements about the future cannot be taken literally. It is no different for politicians who in my opinion lie all the time. No reasonable person takes statements literally. Now it was enough to reach the plausibility standard. Judges were not as cynical as me and at this stage I don't think they should have been.
One thing that both panelists almost got right is that the court couldn't require a cease fire as Hamas was not a party to litigation. I think that is a very reasonable statement but wish John would have said that before the decision. Maybe I'm wrong, but I sure got the impression that he thought the Isareli's were going to go down in flames in the court which I don't think they did. I do disagree that the court couldn't have agreed with South Africa that a cease fire couldn't be called for. I think it would have been the wrong decision but courts make outrageous rulings sometimes as they are imperfect.
Some off the cuff remarks.
I do disagree with John that there are no real plans to settle issues although I agree they will likely fail. The US is trying. They are "kind of" laying the ground-work against the Israeli west bank settlements which might (as in small probability) allow a settlement over time. I think having the West Bank (only part of Jeruseleum) and Gaza would be a really good settlement for Palestinians. Only problem is that a material number of Palestenians (and a fair number of ultra-Orthodox Jews) won't stop fighting. In the end, that makes it nearly impossible but it should be tried.
Oh, Christ. Number 999,999 "great discussion on another fucking podcast.
Bizarre. As the world burns, as the billionaires own the data, food, weapons, media, education, even platforms almost like Substack, all the links to satellites, and here we are, three years of killing fields in UkroNaziLandia and PutinLandia, and the Jews have the cards, as the White House Wailing Wall Minyan steers almost all ships.
Enjoying the BlackRockStoneVanguard show?
Is that Mercouris still laughing away in his bedroom? Whew. I've been off that channel for months, and what nothing burgers I've missed.
But if you have to tap dance with Mearsheimer, have at it. Get young and radical voices on that bloody show.
Does Israel really have the “right to defend itself” against people it occupies? What about Palestinians, don’t they have a right to defend themselves from their occupiers? How serious is South Africa’s case charging Israel with genocide at the International Court of Justice? Is there even any meaning to international law anymore?
Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, joined Rania Khalek on Dispatches to discuss this and more.
If some group in North Dakota tunneled under homes in Bismark and came out to kill citizens in Fargo and shoot rockets at Fargo afterward, the North Dakota police should go in and try to arrest every member of that group. If they said no to arrest, were heavily armed and continued to shoot rockets at Fargo, I would not expect US policemen to go in an clear them out without assistance of military. I would expect the US military to bomb those tunnels. with heavy ordinance. If the mothers and children stayed in the homes after being warned to move, I'm sorry but I do not think the US military has an obligation to leave them alone. If there was some reasonable way of arresting those people in Bismark, then sure, they shouldn't bomb them but if there is a way of doing it, I'm sure not aware of it.
The women and children who made the decision to stay are innocent victims (well the children; the mothers are accessories to the crimes). If they die, it is a shame but there was no way around it.
Is there anything wrong with my statements? I think they are right but I'm ready to be convinced otherwise.
Devoid of brains, Boyd Jeff. Tunnels? It's their fucking land, and alas, most tunnels were also built by Israel years before.
The Women are murdering their children for staying in their apartment buildings?
Are you just a fucking whimp on a keyboard? You missed out on some brain matter.
The US military is obligated by many rules of fucking war, and measured and balanced response. But what the fuck, US MILITARY has always been a mercenary murdering force. EVERYWHERE, Devoid Boyd.
So, the women, old, weak, and young men and women who are sisters and aunts, not mothers, are also responsible for Israel dropping 30,000 bombs?
Are you just finding sun from the rock you crawled out of?
Bismark? Is that Gaza? Are you just sucking Kool Aide sticks from breakfast, lunch and dinner?
Just another AmeriKKKan on the wrong side of history:
For 16 years, Israel’s illegal blockade has made Gaza the world’s biggest open-air prison – the international community must act now to prevent it becoming a giant graveyard.
+--+
Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza
As Israeli forces continue to intensify their cataclysmic assault on the occupied Gaza Strip, Amnesty International has documented unlawful Israeli attacks, including indiscriminate attacks, which caused mass civilian casualties and must be investigated as war crimes.
For 16 years, Israel’s illegal blockade has made Gaza the world’s biggest open-air prison – the international community must act now to prevent it becoming a giant graveyard.
Gaza’s civilians pay the price.
+--+
Israeli authorities to:
Immediately end unlawful attacks and abide by international humanitarian law; including by ensuring they take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and damage to civilian objects and refraining from direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks.
Immediately allow unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza’s civilians.
Urgently lift its illegal blockade on Gaza, which amounts to collective punishment and is a war crime, in the face of the current devastation and humanitarian imperatives.
Rescind their appalling “evacuation” order, which has left more than one million people displaced.
Grant immediate access to the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory to carry out investigations, including collecting time sensitive evidence and testimonies.
The international community and particularly Israel’s allies, including EU member states, the US and the UK, to:
Take concrete measures to protect Gaza’s civilian population from unlawful attacks.
Impose a comprehensive arms embargo on all parties to the conflict given that serious violations amounting to crimes under international law are being committed. States must refrain from supplying Israel with arms and military materiel, including related technologies, parts and components, technical assistance, training, financial or other assistance. They should also call on states supplying arms to Palestinian armed groups to refrain from doing so.
Refrain from any statement or action that would, even indirectly, legitimize Israel’s crimes and violations in Gaza.
Pressure Israel to lift its illegal 16-year blockade of the Gaza strip which amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s population, is a war crime and is a key aspect of Israel’s apartheid system.
Ensure the International Criminal Court’s ongoing investigatio
n into the situation of Palestine receives full support and all necessary resources.
The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to:
Urgently expedite its ongoing investigation in the situation of Palestine, examining alleged crimes by all parties, and including the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians.
Oh, Boyd is Goyim for Room Temperature IQ. Perfect Choice for the Wailing Wall White House Thugs in Shitty Suits, Pockmarked motherfucking Soulless Blinken their daddy.
Does anyone get tired of the endless mothball commentary of the Duran Pukes and this Juan Mearsheimer dude?
Christ, this stuff on Substack just goes round and round and round like moldy underpants in a broken Maytag washer.
Read fire, man, fucking profane fire. Have some fun with words. The washer machines of these so-called "chosen" Substackers and Podcasts just never spin dry. Or rinse and stop. Repeat repeat repeat.
Wars of this sort where territory & people are annexed, normally does not end in an 'Ugly Victory' UNLESS a mass guerrilla network spawns partisans & saboteurs across the defeated & annexed segments of the nation. However, it is unlikely that once the Americans go 'belly up' with the looming implosion of the Petrodollar... that Ukraine would organically spawn such movements.
More likely scenario: it will go the way of Chechnya, post the Second Russo-Chechen War, & large parts of the former Ukrainian nation will be incorporated with little friction into the New Russia.
(For those interested)
If you wish to read (& listen!) to more of My commentary, here is my Main Stack:
https://thefallofthewest.substack.com
Thank You Kindly to everyone!
I watched it and it was excellent.
One point I’d like to make: you say that Russia will achieve an “ugly victory” because the U.S. will continue to be aggressive towards Russia in other spheres including leftover Ukraine.
Assuming Russia’s posture of indivisible security and its strategic interests remain the same, what do you think might deter the U.S. or induce a change in its intentions?
I only see a significant reduction in capabilities - economic, financial, and military. This can be achieved with a clear and significant military defeat, in addition to continued and accelerating dedollarization and a growth in parallel non USD based financial systems.
Basically intentions will follow a drop in capability and not out of rational thought.
Do you see any other realistic way? (I hope you do)
Yes, I think intentions may follow a drop in capability and can also be a product of rational thought: for instance, if the expected cost of an action exceeds its benefits.
Expected cost or realistic assessment of long term outcomes is not how the neocons operate.
Reason is they don’t care about America or what happens to it. For them, it’s just a tool.
So until and unless the majority of leadership and permanent state is removed rational national self interest will be absent.
Sure, but we are nowhere close to that. I agree with the Professor that the West has the resources to continue to assist the Ukrainians without much difficulty. Where we might disagree is that it would be wrong to abandon them. I also disagree with him that the US pressured them to fight on; I cannot say I'm right with 100% certainty, but that is what I think and it is supported by the fact that the West did not provide a whole lot of material prior to the war. Since then, we've provided more and there is some line, we should communicate to Ukrainians we won't cross. I don't know where the line exists and I greatly regret that fact.
The instant they want to stop fighting, I'd support the decision and if we think they are making awful decisions I hope we'd tell them but ultimately, it should, and I believe is, their decision to make.
If you watched the 2015 lecture by the prof you will know that the US supported the fringe elements in their coup and installed them in government. Since then the US helped them with weapons and in mass propaganda campaign they unleashed on their population.
The voting patterns from 2010 prove this.
But for a more recent example, the now fully acknowledged role of the U.S./UK in destroying the negotiations and preliminary agreement to end in the war in March 2022 is all the proof you need that if it wasn’t for US meddling this human disaster wouldn’t have happened.
It’s a little late, and frankly disingenuous, to suddenly assign full agency to Ukraine now.
All I remember was feeling disgust in 2014 at how Ukrainians did not fight the Russians. I wasn't really paying attention and thought if they were not willing to put up some resistance, I don't care. I talked to one and only one Ukrainian citizen in early 2022 who provided explanation that I "bought" which came down to extreme uncertainty at the time. I am not familiar with all the things that took place but I am 100% positive of one thing and that the US had minimal involvement in any changes that took place.
Remember Russian efforts to influence US election in 2016? I laughed at what I saw, which I regarded as pathetically ineffective. If the little bit of whatever the West did, which I am reasonably sure was dwarfed by Russian efforts in the US in 2016 tipped Ukrainians over the edge I'd say the Russian's position in Ukraine was pretty weak as they were making a significant effort.
I'm a spectator; not a participant. I employ my President and representatives as well as the professionals such as Alexander Vindman, who, I thought was disgusting to make decisions and take actions. Whatever they decide will be fine with me from a US perspective, as of the current date, but it is the Ukraine's decision and it always has been. They have to live with the paranoid people in their neighborhood; not me, but I'm pulling for them.
I'm kind of pulling for Putin and the Russian people too who I feel bad for too. Not in war against Ukraine but for dignity and hope they will become more liberal as that is what I think is necessary to live in peace.
Sorry I stopped reading at “Remember Russian efforts to influence US election in 2016”
If you’re still stuck there I can’t help you …
Your loss.
>I also disagree with him that the US pressured them to fight on
The US and NATO promised they will support Ukraine if they fight. There is a line. The US told Ukraine not to attack Russia beyond its borders. US and NATO do not want an escalation with Russia because Russia knows it’s a proxy war. The US’s goal is to prevent Ukraine from falling into Russia’s hands and in the future make it a NATO member.
Not quite. They said cutoff all negotiations with Russia, don’t sign a neutrality agreement and we will provide you weapons to fight Russia.
The war could have ended with Ukraine neutrality and security guarantees from all sides.
Then they took over military planning and pushed them into the disastrous summer counter offensive. All the while U.S. politicians (Graham and others) stating this is the best investment because for a fraction of the defense budget they lose no personnel to kill Russians while Ukraine gets hollowed out.
How is that in ANY WAY good for Ukraine?
It isn’t.
It is immoral and pure evil.
Not quite? Going to war pretty much means cutoff all negotiations.
"War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means"
Carl von Clausewitz, (On War (1943), pp. 280).
Hello there,
I'm Nemanja Plotan, the creator behind WorldWatch Weekly, a newsletter dedicated to exploring topics such as Global Political Economy, Geopolitics, Geoeconomics, History, and Monetary and Fiscal policies.
Subscribers, both free and paid, will receive a warm welcome from me, complete with a treasure trove of free gifts in their inbox. Expect to find a complimentary short Handbook on International Relations, along with additional documents designed to enrich your understanding of our complex world.
Join me on this enlightening journey by subscribing today!
Warm regards,
Nemanja Plotan
WorldWatch Weekly
Thank you so much for sharing another exceptional program, and excellent discussion with Glenn Diesen and Alexander Mercouris.
How is this any different then what we have experienced during the whole of the 21st century. At the beginning people spoke of the neocon agenda that looked to secure US dominance through out the world. Before we headed for Afghanistan after 9/11 we already had an agenda in place to go to war with 7 countries and Iraq was first on our hit list. Biden was pushing for a war with Iraq during his time in the Clinton administration, and used his position in the Senate to push his fellow democrats into the war with Iraq. The coup in Ukraine under the Obama administration set the ground work for what is and has happened in Ukraine, which was to establish a proxy war with Russia and oust Putin. As Merkel said the Minsk accords were never for real, and that reality bespeaks of our intentions from the outset. To me Trump was an interlude of no wars, but I expected nothing different with a Biden win which means a continuation of our aggressive neocon agenda, although they always speak about as if it is a thing of the past. Neocons like Kristol pushed for a Biden win, and neocons like V. Nuland and Blinken are in the Biden administration helping to dictate foreign policy. Biden gets in but doesn't renew the Iran deal, of course not, no neocon supported that, and interesting that Netanyahu thought he could come to the US address, or dictate the political establishment in the US and persuade them to make it a no deal.
P. S. I really like Mearsheimer but why does he always have the giggles?
I disagree that the goal was to secure US dominance throughout the world. The goal was, in a sense kind of like what FDR said at the beginning of US involvement in WW2, to make the world safe for democracy. There is a limit to how much the US should do and it was crossed in Iraq.
The goal following WW2 was to establish a set of rules that would be followed in the future. Those rules are not as well defined as one would hope but they are there and have have been incredibly successful. The period of time since the end of WW2 has been the best in the entire history that man has existed. The US deserves some credit for that along with other countries who played a role. That does not mean mistakes, some terrible, did not occur but did pretty well all things considered.
Please, no BS. You don't make the world a safer place by having multiple wars based on lies, like Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and while we're fighting that war lets set up some black sites and Guantanomo Bay, so we can beat the hell out of people. Millions of people killed and displaced and their countries in shambles. Go sell that to an idiot. Did you forget the Korean war, and how about the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin that was the prelude to the war in Vietnam to stop those Commies? Of course the CIA killed some 6 million people by the end of the 20 century, and it began a little more then a half century before. They killed off leaders of states, or instigated wars which was all to benefit us in one way or another. Maybe you think implementing death and destruction brings peace, but most sane people would disagree. You're delusional as to what and who we are as a country. Now we're feeding Neyanyahu bombs to implement a genocide, and no doubt will be followed by a regional war, and who knows where it goes from there!
>Please, no BS.
It’s BS when the US and West mainstream media say it. It’s naïveté when someone believes it. 😂
I'm willing to bet that Jeff still believes in Santa Claus. He's been on my case with his BS. for a while now, and he fails to convince.
Funny thing. I refused to tell my son who was capable of understanding such things that Santa Claus was real. I remember him arguing with me in, I think, Kindergarten. I questioned the wisdom of my earlier decision and did not engage with him further on the topic but I know he was eventually proud to be one of the first kids in his class to deny his existence.
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I'm here to convince myself and engaging with others, to an extent, can bring out insights I would not otherwise have. I do not have the answers and would suggest that you do not either. Hopefully some people who do, will pop out of the woodwork but until then, everyone will have to muddle along and I appreciate those willing to put their lives on the line to do what they believe is right.
Korean War was a terrible thing and a great success at the same time. FDR more or less picked the fight with Germany and Japan that led to US involvement in WW2 and I would say he lied in 1940 election regarding his intentions. Tough decisions are made and risks are taken all the time. No way around it that I am aware of.
Don't compare WWII with just any war, like our 21st century Middle East wars. Or our Vietnam war which caused so much death and destruction and people of Nam suffered for years as a result. You read a few lines then spew them out without looking at things in depth.
I'm pretty sure my knowledge regarding the Vietnam war dwarfs yours. The strange thing is, that even an uninformed person can be right. There are trade-offs, cost-benefit decisions and one does not know how things will work out. US support for fight against USSR in Afghanistan ultimately yielded OBL. Does that mean the US was wrong to arm the fighters? I don't know, but I'm still glad it was done but maybe in 100 years people will look back and say it was the turning point that led to some disaster for Western Civilization and liberalism.
That's life. I accept it.
Why would you think your knowledge of the war in Vietnam dwarfs mine? . You still don't get the fact that many of our wars, like Vietnam was cast based on a lie, the Gulf of Tonkin BS, and it served no good purpose other then to help end the draft. I just watched Farha, a real like story of a young girl caught up in the the violent displacement the Palestinian people, along with the destruction of their society, and everything else. Try to white wash that one, and lend it any credibility, or justify the actions starting with Balfour who gave away Arab land to a people who hadn't live there for a couple of thousands of years and were integrated into a world wide community.
Some of us are willingly laughing/giggling, even though we want to cry. It may be a way to avoid the feeling of intense emotion.
Look at US history. According to historians Christopher Kelly and Stuart Laycock, the United States has been "militarily involved" with every country on the globe but three: Andorra, Bhutan, and Liechtenstein.
What a dynamic trio of geo-political analysts: Professors Mearsheimer and Diesen and Alexander Mercouris. It made my Sunday listening to this discussion.
How do your ideas of Nation Realism realize the reality of Republicanism? Nations can create a political creation beyond the Nation; to share in the responsibilities of power. You have argued against supporting Ukraine or NATO, but this support is political freedom. If Ukraine’s freedom threatens the Russian Political, does that not make it even more of a real interest? To live in an international community where one’s freedom is an existential threat to another is accepting political defeat, or accepting some do not have the same freedom as others. Republicanism seems the offspring of Liberalism; based on the natural freedom of action and political creation.
Good article that is worth reading. They frequently allow non-subscribers to read a limited number of articles.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-netanyahu-self-destruction?utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=fatoday&utm_campaign=Israel%E2%80%99s%20Self-Destruction&utm_content=20240207&utm_term=FA%20Today%20-%20112017
If I understand your argument correctly, The Phoenix, you are focusing more on the invidiual elite's perceptions and values rather than highlighting balance of power politics and a systemic view of international relations. I can see using that level of analysis as a heuristic device to demonstrate the hubris, cognitive blocks, and distortions of reality to which the neo-cons ascribe.
Thank you for this great discussion. Lot of insights
1. One point about the Arctic which I felt which could have been covered is that of Russia using nuclear powered ice breakers to create a new trade route
2. I see that the narrative told by western politicians/leaders or heads of unions and alliances classifying the other side as pure enemy or evil has been carried forward by the mainstream media which is then impressed on regular majority of people who don’t find the time to investigate deeply into what’s happening and thus believe the “convention wisdom”.
3. I’m starting to understand that such narratives as in point 2 were used in earlier times and support garnered to fight the enemy. Today alternative media and individual journalism is providing content for each individual to judge and get a better picture of underlying geopolitics although still delayed compared to events on the ground.
4. The way the senior leadership of US and UK, certain business leaders at Davos WEF and NATO head are presenting to the world about Ukraine and also is so disturbing. In some sense from the perspective of the West they are trying to save face? Or not let go of their power? They seem to put forth a picture to the world that we are still in an era where similar to the world war eras instead of accepting a new reality where technology has brought substantial prosperity to a good part of the world and will do so going forward.
5. I wonder how much of misinformation is spread by taking advantage of the language differences wrt Russia and China or any other state by western media. Because most of the general population will not enquire to understand the position of leaders speaking in a different language like listening to translated versions or subtitles
6. What are the general thoughts about Kaliningrad being a territorially separate from mainland Russia? The very fact that a part of the land is disconnected with the mainland and surrounded by other states creates an environment for securing independence from mainland?
7. Similar to point 6, does a similar effect (not the independence part but of territory discontinuity) arise in the case of Palestine where a part of the state is in Gaza Strip and a part in West Bank. Should the two state solution if implemented be such that there is no discontinuity in the territory of either state?
8. If Iran does develop into a nuclear state, how does it change the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East?
9. Although the democratic way of political system may have its flaws but is it still the way going forward? More evolved but democratic. In some sense a “democratic force” which imbibes in itself the idea of freedom and thus moves across the world? Like say if China goes ahead with Taiwan, in reality that force comes to Mainland China
Would like interested audience to share their thoughts on any of my points in comments below
I haven't yet put online my Israeli Palestinian peace proposal, but here is my Ujraine peace proposal i did over a year ago but still relevant and practical.. https://ending-nuclear-weapons.org/Peace-Proposal_for_Ukraine-Russia.html
That's a nice document and perhaps Ukraine should agree to it; I don't know.
I know it is "off the deep-end" for a person in my position to say but I wouldn't agree to it. I'd lease Russia Savastapol in return for some outrageous rental fees and reparations and, of course, let people speak Russian and take pride in it if they like but some control of curriculum in schools is entirely appropriate. Can't be telling fifth graders they are being ruled by a Nazi-like central government.
Always smart intelligent thinking from Mearsheimer and Alex from Duran
Request to Professor Mearsheimer: Write an article about Belarus.
It looks forward to a possible issue in the future which is better than looking back at possible mistakes in the past which cannot be undone and kind of gets old hearing about. I agreed, that expansion of NATO was wrong (aside from Poland where I felt moral obligation) but I've since changed my mind as Russia showed that they are willing to invade other countries and I would not be willing to accept re-establishment of Russian domination of Eastern Europe without providing them with means to fight even if they might ultimately lose.
He talked about the US engineering a possible color revolution Belarus after Lukashenko dies. I don't know how he defines "color revolution" but the desire is not being engineered by the West. It is coming from the Bellarussians. I can see the US making it clear that we will not aid them and if Russian tanks roll, you are on your own but if the people say we're gonna anyway, there is absolutely no requirement to support the Russia. It could be exactly like the Prague Spring. We express moral outrage, impose sanctions (if more can be imposed). Now if we think it empowers China, maybe we should make the decision to not impose sanctions but to not condemn it, is just further than I could go as it is a moral issue I can't cross.
So what is our plan on Belarus Professor? I'd like to hear.
Oh Jesus, I can't believe Alexander Mercouris said that the ICJ found that there was "strong" evidence. "What a moroon" - (Bugs Bunny reference).
One point John made that was really good was that statements by Israeli politicians led to the decision. Don't think one can disagree with that. I don't agree it is a real problem (based on securities litigation cases) that the statements of politicians are to be taken literally. CEO's in litigation basically are allowed to "puff" and statements about the future cannot be taken literally. It is no different for politicians who in my opinion lie all the time. No reasonable person takes statements literally. Now it was enough to reach the plausibility standard. Judges were not as cynical as me and at this stage I don't think they should have been.
One thing that both panelists almost got right is that the court couldn't require a cease fire as Hamas was not a party to litigation. I think that is a very reasonable statement but wish John would have said that before the decision. Maybe I'm wrong, but I sure got the impression that he thought the Isareli's were going to go down in flames in the court which I don't think they did. I do disagree that the court couldn't have agreed with South Africa that a cease fire couldn't be called for. I think it would have been the wrong decision but courts make outrageous rulings sometimes as they are imperfect.
Some off the cuff remarks.
I do disagree with John that there are no real plans to settle issues although I agree they will likely fail. The US is trying. They are "kind of" laying the ground-work against the Israeli west bank settlements which might (as in small probability) allow a settlement over time. I think having the West Bank (only part of Jeruseleum) and Gaza would be a really good settlement for Palestinians. Only problem is that a material number of Palestenians (and a fair number of ultra-Orthodox Jews) won't stop fighting. In the end, that makes it nearly impossible but it should be tried.
Oh, Christ. Number 999,999 "great discussion on another fucking podcast.
Bizarre. As the world burns, as the billionaires own the data, food, weapons, media, education, even platforms almost like Substack, all the links to satellites, and here we are, three years of killing fields in UkroNaziLandia and PutinLandia, and the Jews have the cards, as the White House Wailing Wall Minyan steers almost all ships.
Enjoying the BlackRockStoneVanguard show?
Is that Mercouris still laughing away in his bedroom? Whew. I've been off that channel for months, and what nothing burgers I've missed.
But if you have to tap dance with Mearsheimer, have at it. Get young and radical voices on that bloody show.
https://paulokirk.substack.com/p/subsonic-hearing-the-amazing-life
+--+
Does Israel really have the “right to defend itself” against people it occupies? What about Palestinians, don’t they have a right to defend themselves from their occupiers? How serious is South Africa’s case charging Israel with genocide at the International Court of Justice? Is there even any meaning to international law anymore?
Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, joined Rania Khalek on Dispatches to discuss this and more.
https://youtu.be/25SZ6L_oQPQ?si=OI-nwskGn9wAOuy_
+--+
Enjoy the Angllo-American-Euro fun.
I saw her statement. She is crazy.
If some group in North Dakota tunneled under homes in Bismark and came out to kill citizens in Fargo and shoot rockets at Fargo afterward, the North Dakota police should go in and try to arrest every member of that group. If they said no to arrest, were heavily armed and continued to shoot rockets at Fargo, I would not expect US policemen to go in an clear them out without assistance of military. I would expect the US military to bomb those tunnels. with heavy ordinance. If the mothers and children stayed in the homes after being warned to move, I'm sorry but I do not think the US military has an obligation to leave them alone. If there was some reasonable way of arresting those people in Bismark, then sure, they shouldn't bomb them but if there is a way of doing it, I'm sure not aware of it.
The women and children who made the decision to stay are innocent victims (well the children; the mothers are accessories to the crimes). If they die, it is a shame but there was no way around it.
Is there anything wrong with my statements? I think they are right but I'm ready to be convinced otherwise.
Devoid of brains, Boyd Jeff. Tunnels? It's their fucking land, and alas, most tunnels were also built by Israel years before.
The Women are murdering their children for staying in their apartment buildings?
Are you just a fucking whimp on a keyboard? You missed out on some brain matter.
The US military is obligated by many rules of fucking war, and measured and balanced response. But what the fuck, US MILITARY has always been a mercenary murdering force. EVERYWHERE, Devoid Boyd.
So, the women, old, weak, and young men and women who are sisters and aunts, not mothers, are also responsible for Israel dropping 30,000 bombs?
Are you just finding sun from the rock you crawled out of?
Bismark? Is that Gaza? Are you just sucking Kool Aide sticks from breakfast, lunch and dinner?
Just another AmeriKKKan on the wrong side of history:
For 16 years, Israel’s illegal blockade has made Gaza the world’s biggest open-air prison – the international community must act now to prevent it becoming a giant graveyard.
+--+
Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza
As Israeli forces continue to intensify their cataclysmic assault on the occupied Gaza Strip, Amnesty International has documented unlawful Israeli attacks, including indiscriminate attacks, which caused mass civilian casualties and must be investigated as war crimes.
For 16 years, Israel’s illegal blockade has made Gaza the world’s biggest open-air prison – the international community must act now to prevent it becoming a giant graveyard.
Gaza’s civilians pay the price.
+--+
Israeli authorities to:
Immediately end unlawful attacks and abide by international humanitarian law; including by ensuring they take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and damage to civilian objects and refraining from direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks.
Immediately allow unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza’s civilians.
Urgently lift its illegal blockade on Gaza, which amounts to collective punishment and is a war crime, in the face of the current devastation and humanitarian imperatives.
Rescind their appalling “evacuation” order, which has left more than one million people displaced.
Grant immediate access to the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory to carry out investigations, including collecting time sensitive evidence and testimonies.
The international community and particularly Israel’s allies, including EU member states, the US and the UK, to:
Take concrete measures to protect Gaza’s civilian population from unlawful attacks.
Impose a comprehensive arms embargo on all parties to the conflict given that serious violations amounting to crimes under international law are being committed. States must refrain from supplying Israel with arms and military materiel, including related technologies, parts and components, technical assistance, training, financial or other assistance. They should also call on states supplying arms to Palestinian armed groups to refrain from doing so.
Refrain from any statement or action that would, even indirectly, legitimize Israel’s crimes and violations in Gaza.
Pressure Israel to lift its illegal 16-year blockade of the Gaza strip which amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s population, is a war crime and is a key aspect of Israel’s apartheid system.
Ensure the International Criminal Court’s ongoing investigatio
n into the situation of Palestine receives full support and all necessary resources.
The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to:
Urgently expedite its ongoing investigation in the situation of Palestine, examining alleged crimes by all parties, and including the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians.
>Devoid of brains, Boyd Jeff.
I called him naive in another post. @Fran said he believes in Santa Claus. LOL.
Oh, Boyd is Goyim for Room Temperature IQ. Perfect Choice for the Wailing Wall White House Thugs in Shitty Suits, Pockmarked motherfucking Soulless Blinken their daddy.
Does anyone get tired of the endless mothball commentary of the Duran Pukes and this Juan Mearsheimer dude?
Christ, this stuff on Substack just goes round and round and round like moldy underpants in a broken Maytag washer.
Read fire, man, fucking profane fire. Have some fun with words. The washer machines of these so-called "chosen" Substackers and Podcasts just never spin dry. Or rinse and stop. Repeat repeat repeat.
https://paulokirk.substack.com/p/war-criminal-bride-obama-wins-sic