It's a damn shame that Europe isn't standing up more in this fight against Russia to put its finger on the scale more in negotiations.
Ukraine
- Thread starter Silvanus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, well, turns out Europe's about as much use as a sack of wet shit.
It's a load of critically weak governments with struggling economies and unhappy populations petrified that if they mess with the USA or China, it's going to knock the 0.5% GDP off their economies that will slip them into recession and guarantee they lose the next election to the far right.
What Europe actually needs to do is become a lot more self-reliant - wean itself off Chinese manufacturing and American arms and tech industries. But in the decade or two it will take to do that (assuming it even gets round to that) it's going to play it incredibly safe and do whatever it's told by USA/China (or of course try to pick the best course when China and the USA demands contradict each other).
Fundamentally, Europe will not do what it needs to demand a seat at the table. No wonder that Trump keeps bypassing it.
I personally don't want the US involved in this conflict but even I have to give pause. I don't want Iran getting nukes. Iran is a client state of Russia. With Russia pre-occupied with Ukraine, they were of scant help in stopping Israel from smashing Iran's nuclear capabilities. Am I reading this wrong?
Yes. By seemingly reading Iran as the bigger danger than Russia you are indeed reading it wrong.
I wouldn't say I see Iran as the bigger danger but more immediate. Russia has a huge nuclear capability. So large, the only purpose for its size is to "make the rubble bounce". Iran, to date, has no such nuclear capability. If they did, would they immediately use it on perceived enemies? Possibly yes.
Not so, if it comes to a nuclear war against someone else with nuclear weapons, you want to have enough to A) guarantee that you destroy all important enemy targets right away, of which there will be a lot. Some of you're devices wont get through, you won't know which ones immediately, so you've have to assign multiple attacks to the same target to ensure it receives at least one, which is very inefficient and uses a lot of your relatively rare weapons and B) look like you'll have some left after someone does the same to you so they expect you to b able to make them regret it if they do that.
Possibly, yes, start giving people nuclear devices and sooner or later someone uses one, I guess. But Iran's geopolitical position would not be improved by using nuclear devices on its enemies, those currently in power (and lots of random civilians) would suddenly be rather more dead than they'd like. OTOH, if they had nuclear devices, places like Israel would immediately rethink bombing Iran. By extension, getting Iran to feel like Israel et al isn't going to bomb them is a good way of getting Iran to not particularly want to pursue nuclear devices.
Of course they wouldn't, for exactly the same reason no-one uses nuclear weapons*: it would invite reprisals and their almost immediate devastation.
Don't get me wrong, the fewer countries have nukes the better. But there are numerous highly belligerent and/or relatively unstable countries - North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, USA, and of course Israel, which have nukes and don't fire them.
* Of course, one country has used nuclear weapons in anger: the USA. Which kind of proves the above point that no-one will use nukes: it used them because no-one could stop it or retaliate. We're not in that world anymore.
The argument I read is that unlike, say, North Korea, which is at least grounded in the idea that they want to do well in this life, Iran is controlled by religious zealots that might appreciate the nuclear reprisal as it will send them to their version of Heaven.
Kinda off topic, but I've been binging these videos on Youtube about WW1 and 2 and, from my safety and security, I find it difficult to use "presentism" to judge the US decision to drop 2 nuclear bombs. Lot of options and differences if we didn't such as, if we had not, but rather accepted a very conditional surrender, would that have left Japan very militant, biding its time and when ready, returning to a rampage of death, misery, tyranny, exploitation and abuse on its neighbors? I dunno but do not dismiss the idea and it is terrifying.
But if you and @Thaluikhain are right and this Iranian action unnecessary, one less reason I have to think Ukraine worth our time, money, attention and danger we face possibly getting dragged into the thing.
Iran has long been an enemy of the West and a lot of the media on it is correspondingly hyperbolic and hysterical.
It's supreme council is, like most ruling councils, boringly pragmatic. A simple measure of this is that Iran is actually a pretty stable country (as middle-income countries go, and even compared to some wealthy ones). Also contextually, Iran is a very old country with a long and proud tradition of civilisation, it has well established institutions of government and society, creates some beautiful art and culture. It's not some postcolonial banana state.
What this religious stuff is about is that Iran has some relatively oppressive religious laws (albeit substantially less strict than the likes of Saudi Arabia) and is certainly authoritarian. But we need to understand that there's very, very long way from wanting strict controls on alcohol and women wearing headscarves to killing everyone including themselves in mass slaughter.
I'm honestly not going to give the USA a hard time over it - it's a war, and there is at least some justification.
However, I also think we have to be incredibly naive to think that the USA - dreaming of being the major power in the postwar order and considering the tensions with the USSR - would not have been motivated by sending the whole world a clear message that it had sole possession of the biggest, meanest weapon even invented.
Particularly an enemy of Britain, the US and Israel. It's pretty neutral regarding the rest of the West. It only has no good relation to them because the US sabotaged every single cooperation attempt. And the rest of "the West" lacks a spine.
I wouldn't call it that stable. It has had years of protests, issues with trust in elections, corruption is endemic, the economy in shambles, air pollution particularly in the capital seriously dangerous and it has water issues severy enough that evacuation of said mission-inhabitants-city is seriously discussed.
That's bad, even for middle-income-countries. Though one could argue which countries count towards this group.
I agree with the rest of your assessment though. They are less likely to actually use a nuke if they had one than Israel.
Firstly, it's economic problems are significantly Western-made. We, mostly through US initiatives, are hampering it every single day by restricting access to forms of technology and imposing major financial restrictions. I have a hard time criticising countries for having problems that my own is helping inflict.
Secondly, let's start thinking about a lot of other countries. How stable is Brazil, given the last president has been convicted of attempting a coup, pollution, police brutality? What about Mexico, all sorts of stuff going on there, problems with drugs cartels. Pakistan (arguably unfair as it's perhaps low income not middle, but it does have nukes), where the military occasionally depose the president. Even relatively wealthy Argentina - how's that doing? These countries nearly all have major issues with pollution, corruption, etc. Even if we look at the West, how well are we doing on corruption (e.g. Trump), protests (Gilets Jaune, BLM), etc.?
So yeah, I don't think Iran actually comes off that badly at all.
Iran was bombed by a country they werent at war with. Can you imagine what would happen if the US was bombed by someone they werent at war with?
Of course you can. It would lead to invasion.
This does not make the Iranian government good. Iran is more level headed than the US government. Thats not saying much. The US picks fights with penguins. Considering everything, Iran is more level headed than NK
So could any of that flow to Russia? Because that would be an example of the Russians being inept and psychotically disregarding of their citizens as always.
It's not that serious. It'll be better if it's repaired obviously, but it's not actually going to leak that much radiation to be a major and widespread health hazard.
That's exactly what an Russian communist scum would say! /s
In all seriousness, it's the question of how soon it gets repaired. Because I feel it may lead to a bigger problem if nothing is done
I mean, we have two examples of that occurring in the past hundred years to the US. The result each time was a pretty serious event in world history.
Sure. If nothing else, exposure to the elements (especially in winter with rain, snow and ice) are likely to cause wider deterioration of the structure and lead to more extensive repairs being required.
* * *
Read a report that says Russia's economy is potentially in trouble. It had fared better than expected after the invasion because Putin had prepared the economy for war in the years beforehand, and that sanctions were applied quite inconsistently and weakly earlier on. However, apparently, Russia's beginning to run out of room. Inflation is high, production is slowing, oil and gas revenues are declining, it's on the verge of recession. And even if the war ends, it might find it is nursing vast losses because the West will have appropriated a lot of its assets and handed them to Ukraine.
This is why I don't trust the French left. Le Pen is a Putin lapdog who probably had her bills paid by the Kremlin, but the left in France is also pro Russia. That Melenchon clown was kind enough to remind everyone that he's a traitor with quotes as this.
We shouldn’t declare war against Russians; we should come to an understanding with them, because they are a European state. And if we are capable of getting along with everyone else, then we must also get along with them. And then they can do as they please. Because we're not so brilliant, so let’s not go and lecture others."
www.bfmtv.com
The problem is that its either going to be the far right or the french lapdog who will come to power after Macron. It doesn't mean who wins. After Macron France and Europe will lose by default and Russia will win the French election.
We shouldn’t declare war against Russians; we should come to an understanding with them, because they are a European state. And if we are capable of getting along with everyone else, then we must also get along with them. And then they can do as they please. Because we're not so brilliant, so let’s not go and lecture others."
"Il ne faut pas faire la guerre aux Russes", affirme Jean-Luc Mélenchon, chef de file de la France insoumise
VIDÉO - Le leader de la France insoumise Jean-Luc Mélenchon s'exprime lors d'un meeting à Charleville-Mézière dans les Ardennes ce jeudi 4 décembre.
The problem is that its either going to be the far right or the french lapdog who will come to power after Macron. It doesn't mean who wins. After Macron France and Europe will lose by default and Russia will win the French election.
While in reality it isn't whether we declare war against Russia, it's whether we acknowledge that we're already at war with Russia.