Kieselguhr [none/use name]

  • 0 Posts
  • 156 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: September 14th, 2021
  • Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.nettonews@hexbear.net•Bulletins and News Discussion from October 28th to November 3rd, 2024 - LDP Falls Flat / Yet Neoliberalism / Rampages Onward - COTW: JapanEnglish
    60·
    1 day ago

    The Western narrative starts to shift closer to reality, maybe?

    nevermind:

    spoiler

    In return for Mr Zelensky embracing this grim truth, Western leaders need to make his overriding war aim credible by ensuring that Ukraine has the military capacity and security guarantees it needs. If Ukraine can convincingly deny Russia any prospect of advancing further on the battlefield, it will be able to demonstrate the futility of further big offensives. Whether or not a formal peace deal is signed, that is the only way to wind down the fighting and ensure the security on which Ukraine’s prosperity and democracy will ultimately rest.

    This will require greater supplies of the weaponry Mr Zelensky is asking for. Ukraine needs long-range missiles that can hit military targets deep in Russia and air defences to protect its infrastructure. Crucially, it also needs to make its own weapons. Today, the country’s arms industry has orders worth $7bn, only about a third of its potential capacity. Weapons firms from America and some European countries have been stepping in; others should, too. The supply of home-made weapons is more dependable and cheaper than Western-made ones. It can also be more innovative. Ukraine has around 250 drone companies, some of them world leaders—including makers of the long-range machines that may have been behind a recent hit on a huge arms dump in Russia’s Tver province.

    The second way to make Ukraine’s defence credible is for Mr Biden to say Ukraine must be invited to join NATO now, even if it is divided and, possibly, without a formal armistice. Mr Biden is known to be cautious about this. Such a declaration from him, endorsed by leaders in Britain, France and Germany, would go far beyond today’s open-ended words about an “irrevocable path” to membership.

    This would be controversial, because NATO’s members are expected to support each other if one of them is attacked. In opening a debate about this Article 5 guarantee, Mr Biden could make clear that it would not cover Ukrainian territory Russia occupies today, as with East Germany when West Germany joined NATO in 1955; and that Ukraine would not necessarily garrison foreign NATO troops in peacetime, as with Norway in 1949.

    NATO membership entails risks. If Russia struck Ukraine again, America could face a terrible dilemma: to back Ukraine and risk war with a nuclear foe; or refuse and weaken its alliances around the world. However, abandoning Ukraine would also weaken all of America’s alliances—one reason China, Iran and North Korea are backing Russia. Mr Putin is clear that he sees the real enemy as the West. It is deluded to think that leaving Ukraine to be defeated will bring peace.

    Indeed, a dysfunctional Ukraine could itself become a dangerous neighbour. Already, corruption and nationalism are on the rise. If Ukrainians feel betrayed, Mr Putin may radicalise battle-hardened militias against the West and NATO. He managed something similar in Donbas where, after 2014, he turned some Russian-speaking Ukrainians into partisans ready to go to war against their compatriots. For too long, the West has hidden behind the pretence that if Ukraine set the goals, it would decide what arms to supply. Yet Mr Zelensky cannot define victory without knowing the level of Western support. By contrast, the plan outlined above is self-reinforcing. A firmer promise of NATO membership would help Mr Zelensky redefine victory; a credible war aim would deter Russia; NATO would benefit from Ukraine’s revamped arms industry. Forging a new victory plan asks a lot of Mr Zelensky and Western leaders. But if they demur, they will usher in Ukraine’s defeat. And that would be much worse

  • Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.nettochat@hexbear.net•Finally got to the point where I cannot talk openly to my lib friends anymore.English
    12·
    16 days ago

    Liberals think if you actually want to get $100 for something an opening bid of $200 is a moral failing.

    Exactly this.

    We must demand true socialism from liberal politicians, so the compromise at least is somewhat acceptable on the short term. (Not that we can vote out capitalism…)

    The minimum program is non-neoliberal economics and anti-imperialism. That’s the absolute minimum. IF they are not willing to make a compromise with the left why would I vote for them? Because the other guy is a right-winger? Therefore I should vote for a different right winger with different rhetoric, because allegedly they are less corrupt?

    Same shit is happening in Europe with different team colors.

    A liberal gay friend of ours literally said to us that he’d vote for [anti-gay far right party] if they had a chance to win against [corrupt anti gay right wing party who had been in power for a a while now], but now he thinks he will vote for [centre right party with dubious credentials], only to stop the BIG BAD WOLF, even though he’s a “leftist”. It makes no sense.

    Social democracy, real social democracy is the compromise, and even that’s nowhere near enough in the age of climate cataclysm…

    Liberals say I’m not pragmatic… but hey let’s say I have 4 core political principles: who’s the politician who shares at least 2 with me? Who? Why would I vote for 0 matches? Is this the glorious democracy you speak of? For fucks sake, liberals are exhausting… in many ways more exhausting than right wingers.

  • Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.nettonews@hexbear.net•Bulletins and News Discussion from September 23rd to September 29th, 2024 - The War In The NorthEnglish
    68·
    1 month ago

    I’ve watched a couple of minutes of Aaron Máté debating hasbara on Piers Morgan, and it always amazes me how natural they try to make settler colonialism. One of the debaters was Fleur Hassan.

    Fleur Hassan-Nahoum is an Israeli politician, media expert and policy maker. She currently serves as Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem in charge of foreign relations, international economic development and tourism.

    Fleur Hassan-Nahoum was born in London and grew up in Gibraltar. She is the daughter of Sir Joshua Hassan, who served as the first Mayor of Gibraltar and, later, also served as the first Chief Minister of Gibraltar,[2] and his second wife, Lady Marcelle Bensimon,[3] both of Moroccan and Portuguese Jewish origin.

    Hassan-Nahoum grew up bilingual, speaking Spanish and English In 2001, Hassan-Nahoum emigrated to Israel.

    Imagine having to debate settlers like this during the ongoing settler colonial genocide. They condescendingly talk to you about the “generous peace deals” they offered to the Palestinians and Iran being the puppet master of Hamas and Hezbollah.

    It’s crazy. Fuckin mad world. Go back to London for fucks sake.