Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-05-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/orb-ns-party-boycotts-session-143458159.html

So now it appears there is a p****** contest going on between Orbán and Sweden. Hungary will not ratify Sweden's membership before Orbán meets with the Swedish prime minister. If we are lucky, it will be just to finalize a "good deal" on the fighter lease, including more fighters. Unfortunately, all these people criticizing Orbán's actions are creating a scenario where he won't just take his "winnings" and sign. His domestic political situation may require his "macho" rejection of outside pressure. It will be a month, more or less, best case. It could well be more.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-05-2024

(02-04-2024, 12:31 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(02-04-2024, 11:50 AM)Goose Wrote:  Similarly, Iran so far has been able to do whatever it wants through it's proxy forces in much of the middle east. Eventually, they will go "too far" and either Israel or the US will take military action. We need a way to let Iran know this can't go on. We don't have that AFAIK. That is the danger. Starting a war and occupying Iran is possible. Then what?

If the deaths of American military personnel isn't "too far", and the ongoing attacks by Houthis and others isn't "too far", then...what would constitute "too far"?

I obviously don't know exactly what constitutes a "red line" for the administration, but I think the correlation of forces is something like the following: The Iranians will respond to any killing of ethnic Iranian forces (e.g. the Quds force) in other countries (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.) with like actions in the same area. The US does the same. That means that both Iranian and US personnel die in the middle east and no war is declared as a result. If the US attacks the territory of Iran, that will start a war. If a terrorist attack happens on US soil that can be traced to Iran, IMO that will result in the US striking Iran heavily and that will start a war. Anything else of lower magnitude is tit for tat.

Iranian proxies are not directly controlled by Iran. The Houthis may well be "doing their own thing". In any case, that is how Iran plays it. They can't control their proxy. Similar, from the Iranian point of view, Israel is a US proxy. Indeed, nobody can argue we control Israel's actions in Gaza. We have influence, but not control. Tit for tat.

Neither the US nor Iran actually want an armed conflict between each other. Both sides have real good reasons to avoid such an outcome. So far, this has resulted in both sides responding in a measured way to "obvious provocations". Direct attacks on each other's soil makes war unavoidable (IMO). Anything less is going to be "managed" by both sides. If, for example, a US warship is actually hit by a missile, that will mandate a serious response by the US. If that response is against Iran, not the Houthis, that will probably start a war. IMO, that could happen.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-06-2024

(02-05-2024, 04:10 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-04-2024, 12:31 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(02-04-2024, 11:50 AM)Goose Wrote:  Similarly, Iran so far has been able to do whatever it wants through it's proxy forces in much of the middle east. Eventually, they will go "too far" and either Israel or the US will take military action. We need a way to let Iran know this can't go on. We don't have that AFAIK. That is the danger. Starting a war and occupying Iran is possible. Then what?

If the deaths of American military personnel isn't "too far", and the ongoing attacks by Houthis and others isn't "too far", then...what would constitute "too far"?

I obviously don't know exactly what constitutes a "red line" for the administration, but I think the correlation of forces is something like the following: The Iranians will respond to any killing of ethnic Iranian forces (e.g. the Quds force) in other countries (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.) with like actions in the same area. The US does the same. That means that both Iranian and US personnel die in the middle east and no war is declared as a result. If the US attacks the territory of Iran, that will start a war. If a terrorist attack happens on US soil that can be traced to Iran, IMO that will result in the US striking Iran heavily and that will start a war. Anything else of lower magnitude is tit for tat.

Iranian proxies are not directly controlled by Iran. The Houthis may well be "doing their own thing". In any case, that is how Iran plays it. They can't control their proxy. Similar, from the Iranian point of view, Israel is a US proxy. Indeed, nobody can argue we control Israel's actions in Gaza. We have influence, but not control. Tit for tat.

Neither the US nor Iran actually want an armed conflict between each other. Both sides have real good reasons to avoid such an outcome. So far, this has resulted in both sides responding in a measured way to "obvious provocations". Direct attacks on each other's soil makes war unavoidable (IMO). Anything less is going to be "managed" by both sides. If, for example, a US warship is actually hit by a missile, that will mandate a serious response by the US. If that response is against Iran, not the Houthis, that will probably start a war. IMO, that could happen.

I think your last paragraph is important to consider. Lots of non state actors involved here who could really cause things to go to the next stage. If Iran had control of its non state actors I would feel much better.  
Another possible problem is that we can only hit the non state actors so hard.  I don't think we want to start another ground operation in Yemen, Syria, or Lebanon but if as you say they hit a Navy ship and do major damage with resulting casualties, direct strikes against Iran would probably result.  I am not a big fan of making a statement as to what we will not do, because if the event is catastrophic we would probably do what we said we wouldn't do. The whole thing makes me wonder if peace as we have known it will ever be possible in that part of the world. Should it ever appear that peace might happen, all one of the non state actors has to do is make a major attack on Israel and they would probably repeat what is now happening.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-06-2024

I agree with your concern, but I’d ask when exactly was there peace in the region. Western Asia has been controlled by remote empires multiple times. The Greeks, the Romans, the Turks, the Persians, the British, etc. When the locals have been in control, power has been fragmented and wars have been common. Maybe things will change, but if not, I’d just say it’s the same as it ever was.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-06-2024

(02-06-2024, 08:47 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  I agree with your concern, but I’d ask when exactly was there peace in the region. Western Asia has been controlled by remote empires multiple times. The Greeks, the Romans, the Turks, the Persians, the British, etc. When the locals have been in control, power has been fragmented and wars have been common. Maybe things will change, but if not, I’d just say it’s the same as it ever was.

Your historical references are correct IMO, and in many ways the history is even more chaotic than a summary suggests. Unfortunately today we have lots of revisionist history (by both Israel and the Palestinians) motivating hatreds/biases that have lasted over a period of 75 years or so. Mix that in with many political and individual entities acting in what they believe is their own self-interest and achieving "peace" is impossible.

Almost everybody is either in zugzwang or believe they are. That state is a great description of why peace isn't happening. Unlike chess, the actors here have the option of doing nothing (not moving) in any given situation. Unfortunately doing nothing is actually a "move" and zugzwang continues. IMO the outlook is indeed bleak for everybody involved.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-06-2024

(02-06-2024, 10:50 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-06-2024, 08:47 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  I agree with your concern, but I’d ask when exactly was there peace in the region. Western Asia has been controlled by remote empires multiple times. The Greeks, the Romans, the Turks, the Persians, the British, etc. When the locals have been in control, power has been fragmented and wars have been common. Maybe things will change, but if not, I’d just say it’s the same as it ever was.

Your historical references are correct IMO, and in many ways the history is even more chaotic than a summary suggests. Unfortunately today we have lots of revisionist history (by both Israel and the Palestinians) motivating hatreds/biases that have lasted over a period of 75 years or so. Mix that in with many political and individual entities acting in what they believe is their own self-interest and achieving "peace" is impossible.

Almost everybody is either in zugzwang or believe they are. That state is a great description of why peace isn't happening. Unlike chess, the actors here have the option of doing nothing (not moving) in any given situation. Unfortunately doing nothing is actually a "move" and zugzwang continues. IMO the outlook is indeed bleak for everybody involved.

Zugzwang is a great description of the where the main players are? Like in chess you can sit down and go over a past game an analyze what happened and what the alternatives are. What if Israel had supported a Palestinian State? What if the current Prime Minister of Israel had not given millions to Hamas to try and avoid the creation of a Palestinian State?
So now we are where we are in the great game of the Middle East In the great game of chess, a mistake in the middle game often results in losing the end game.
 I think it is dangerous for Israel to always assume someone will bail them out The entire process that created Israel was fraught with probable problems. If you are in the middle of a bunch of people who don't like you, why piss them off?  If you want others to keep you in existence, some rational approach to the problem is required, Relying on the USA to always to always come to rescue is dangerous. 
It is an extremely complex and dangerous situation.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-06-2024

(02-06-2024, 07:37 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Zugzwang is a great description of the where the main players are? Like in chess you can sit down and go over a past game an analyze what happened and what the alternatives are. What if Israel had supported a Palestinian State?

Twice in history Israel has at least formally agreed to the existence of a Palestinian state. One can argue they did look at the results of those attempts and concluded that a third such offer would meet the same fate. IMO that is a reasonable conclusion. It may be that neither side was "serious" in the previous two attempts, but the attempts were made.

Quote:What if the current Prime Minister of Israel had not given millions to Hamas to try and avoid the creation of a Palestinian State?

Please post a reference to this event (or PM me if that is more appropriate). It may have happened, but I am unfamiliar with the details.

Quote:So now we are where we are in the great game of the Middle East In the great game of chess, a mistake in the middle game often results in losing the end game.
 I think it is dangerous for Israel to always assume someone will bail them out

Israel doesn't assume anybody is going to bail them out. They take advantage of what help they can get, but if necessary, they "do their own thing". That is why the US can't control them. Granted, Israel probably figures that "in the end" the US will provide weapons and logistics to aid them. They do realize they can't absolutely count on that, and they also realize the US doesn't do this because we love them, but rather because in the Zugzwang of the situation we regard this action as the least bad choice. They also know we aren't sending troops to save them. Israel has acted in their own interests in ways that directly opposed the US interests. The assault on the Liberty is certainly one. The Suez crisis was another. Jonathan Pollard was yet another big one. Israel did these things for their own reasons, calculating that the US in the end would put up with it. They were correct.

Quote:The entire process that created Israel was fraught with probable problems.

You bet it was. The ultimate Zugzwang. It was so bad that after years of trying to get a solution, the UK just threw up their hands and left. The UN then proposed a partition of Palestine. The Zionists accepted it, reluctantly. The Palestinians did not. The rest is history.

Quote:If you are in the middle of a bunch of people who don't like you, why piss them off?  

Unfortunately a plurality of those people who "don't like Israel" publicly state the only satisfactory solution is the elimination of Israel. It isn't necessary to "piss off" these people, because they of their own accord simply want Israel to cease to be.

Quote:If you want others to keep you in existence, some rational approach to the problem is required, Relying on the USA to always to always come to rescue is dangerous. It is an extremely complex and dangerous situation.

Indeed it is a complex and dangerous situation. The problem is that everybody involved know what their interests are and in many cases these interests are diametrically opposed to other participants. No "rational" approach to a settlement is possible as long as some of the players believe such a solution is not in their interest. That has unfortunately been the case for a very long time.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-07-2024

An example of the “Bibi propped up Hamas” articles:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-07-2024

(02-07-2024, 12:43 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  An example of the “Bibi propped up Hamas” articles:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

There is an old adage that says something to the effect that if you don't learn from history, you are destined to repeat it, and from my perspective we are repeating it.  Israel is ill served in my opinion by not having term limits. While I have no known Jewish ancestors, I have family members who have married into the Faith.  One, whose family fled Russia and eventually reached the United States was always concerned that the leaders of Israel would always assume that the United States would bail them out of any mess they couldn't handle.  I don't think he ever considered this kind of "mess". Sadly, he is no longer with us. 
There are many more references to Bibi's support of Hamas to avoid a two state solution. 
As we have very clearly shown, it is easy to attack the attacker, but it is far more difficult to create an environment where the attacker can no longer recruit more attackers.
For those who haven't read it, I suggest reading Mao's treatise on Guerilla Warfare.  Written as a result of his conflict with Japan, much of what he says applies now, at least from my perspective  and experience in the 1960's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Guerrilla_Warfare#:~:text=Mao%20states%20that%20guerrilla%20warfare,a%20political%20and%20military%20style.

The following Foreign Affairs article is worth a read.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-netanyahu-self-destruction?utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=editorial_special&utm_campaign=pre_release_israel_self_destruction_prospects&utm_content=20240207&utm_term=ESPAZ004F1

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-07-2024

(02-07-2024, 07:08 AM)GK3 Wrote:  

(02-07-2024, 12:43 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  An example of the “Bibi propped up Hamas” articles:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

There is an old adage that says something to the effect that if you don't learn from history, you are destined to repeat it, and from my perspective we are repeating it.  Israel is ill served in my opinion by not having term limits. While I have no known Jewish ancestors, I have family members who have married into the Faith.  One, whose family fled Russia and eventually reached the United States was always concerned that the leaders of Israel would always assume that the United States would bail them out of any mess they couldn't handle.  I don't think he ever considered this kind of "mess". Sadly, he is no longer with us. 
There are many more references to Bibi's support of Hamas to avoid a two state solution. 
As we have very clearly shown, it is easy to attack the attacker, but it is far more difficult to create an environment where the attacker can no longer recruit more attackers.
For those who haven't read it, I suggest reading Mao's treatise on Guerilla Warfare.  Written as a result of his conflict with Japan, much of what he says applies now, at least from my perspective  and experience in the 1960's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Guerrilla_Warfare#:~:text=Mao%20states%20that%20guerrilla%20warfare,a%20political%20and%20military%20style.

The following Foreign Affairs article is worth a read.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-netanyahu-self-destruction?utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=editorial_special&utm_campaign=pre_release_israel_self_destruction_prospects&utm_content=20240207&utm_term=ESPAZ004F1

I'm not a fan of Bibi for reasons that are way, way beyond the scope of a thread on "Ukraine."  But the anti-Bibi crowd should decide on one narrative and stick with it.  Did he cause Oct 7 by humiliating the Palestinians?  Or did he cause Oct 7 by allowing foreign aid to flow to Gaza that was supposed to be used for humanitarian purposes?  It can't really be both.  In reality, I think it's neither.  Bibi pursued policies that a majority of Israelis supported.  Bibi has done things that were corrupt, and he probably shouldn't be PM anymore for that reason.  But he's still PM because he's doing what his people want him to do.  Anyway, Hamas caused Oct 7.  Hamas stole the foreign aid meant to feed and house its population.  Hamas used the funds to build tunnels, pay fighters, and purchase military equipment.  Hamas radicalized its population by blaming Israel for the condition of the population, even though Hamas was to blame for stealing the money that was supposed to help them.  It's really time that highly educated Westerners look past Hamas' propaganda and see the events of the last 4 months for what they really are.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 02-07-2024

Let's be careful not to state opinions here that might get this thread locked.  If I say that I like the Sneetches with Stars on Thars, that will encourage someone with a different opinion to want to express that.  Then the temperature rises...

This thread has been very useful. I'd like to see it remain open.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-07-2024

(02-07-2024, 11:45 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(02-07-2024, 07:08 AM)GK3 Wrote:  

(02-07-2024, 12:43 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  An example of the “Bibi propped up Hamas” articles:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

There is an old adage that says something to the effect that if you don't learn from history, you are destined to repeat it, and from my perspective we are repeating it.  Israel is ill served in my opinion by not having term limits. While I have no known Jewish ancestors, I have family members who have married into the Faith.  One, whose family fled Russia and eventually reached the United States was always concerned that the leaders of Israel would always assume that the United States would bail them out of any mess they couldn't handle.  I don't think he ever considered this kind of "mess". Sadly, he is no longer with us. 
There are many more references to Bibi's support of Hamas to avoid a two state solution. 
As we have very clearly shown, it is easy to attack the attacker, but it is far more difficult to create an environment where the attacker can no longer recruit more attackers.
For those who haven't read it, I suggest reading Mao's treatise on Guerilla Warfare.  Written as a result of his conflict with Japan, much of what he says applies now, at least from my perspective  and experience in the 1960's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Guerrilla_Warfare#:~:text=Mao%20states%20that%20guerrilla%20warfare,a%20political%20and%20military%20style.

The following Foreign Affairs article is worth a read.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-netanyahu-self-destruction?utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=editorial_special&utm_campaign=pre_release_israel_self_destruction_prospects&utm_content=20240207&utm_term=ESPAZ004F1

I'm not a fan of Bibi for reasons that are way, way beyond the scope of a thread on "Ukraine."  But the anti-Bibi crowd should decide on one narrative and stick with it.  Did he cause Oct 7 by humiliating the Palestinians?  Or did he cause Oct 7 by allowing foreign aid to flow to Gaza that was supposed to be used for humanitarian purposes?  It can't really be both.  In reality, I think it's neither.  Bibi pursued policies that a majority of Israelis supported.  Bibi has done things that were corrupt, and he probably shouldn't be PM anymore for that reason.  But he's still PM because he's doing what his people want him to do.  Anyway, Hamas caused Oct 7.  Hamas stole the foreign aid meant to feed and house its population.  Hamas used the funds to build tunnels, pay fighters, and purchase military equipment.  Hamas radicalized its population by blaming Israel for the condition of the population, even though Hamas was to blame for stealing the money that was supposed to help them.  It's really time that highly educated Westerners look past Hamas' propaganda and see the events of the last 4 months for what they really are.

I agree with your points but also am of the opinion that giving any money to Hamas with no controls was asking for it to be used other than as intended which it was and  now we have what we have.

The Israeli Newspaper Haaretz has had many interesting articles on this issue and is I think worth reading, not that it's position is correct, it is simply one side of a extremely complicated problem that begs solution.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/2019-04-07/ty-article/netanyahu-says-will-annex-west-bank-in-next-term/0000017f-da73-d718-a5ff-faf7614a0000

The NY Times also had an interesting article found here, but probably behind a pay wall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
 
There were many articles after 9/11 about how our intelligence services failed to properly read the tea leaves and the same applies to Israel in this situation.  

If there will ever be peace in the Middle East, a solution to this issue needs to be found, but is it even rational to think one can be found?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-07-2024

(02-07-2024, 12:46 PM)M T Wrote:  Let's be careful not to state opinions here that might get this thread locked.  If I say that I like the Sneetches with Stars on Thars, that will encourage someone with a different opinion to want to express that.  Then the temperature rises...

This thread has been very useful. I'd like to see it remain open.

Agreed.  No further comment on this tangent.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-07-2024

(02-07-2024, 07:08 AM)GK3 Wrote:  The following Foreign Affairs article is worth a read.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-netanyahu-self-destruction?utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=editorial_special&utm_campaign=pre_release_israel_self_destruction_prospects&utm_content=20240207&utm_term=ESPAZ004F1

I agree it is worth a read, but their interpretation of what Dyan was saying is 180 degrees incorrect.

Quote:But as framed in the 1950s, his speech was remarkably sympathetic toward the perpetrators. “Let us not cast blame on the murderers,’’ Dayan said. “For eight years, they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and the villages where they and their fathers dwelt into our estate.”

What he, as a soldier, was telling the listeners is that these murders are engaged in a war. In war, wise soldiers respect their enemies and try to understand them. He pointed out that the "murders" had a very strong (and possibly justifiable) motivation to redress their expulsion. This wasn't a random attack. These people are dangerous and will remain dangerous for the foreseeable future. Do not blame them for fighting for their cause. Israel does the same. Israel must understand these people are not to be cast as "outlaws". They see themselves as soldiers, and are therefore much more dangerous. Not at all a "generous" evaluation, but rather a pragmatic soldier's view.
The conclusion of the article states:

Quote:This is the lesson the country should have learned from Dayan’s age-old warning. Israel must reach out to Palestinians and to each other if they want a livable and respectful coexistence.

That is not at all what he said. He said "These people have reason to want to destroy us and they will do what is necessary to make it happen". In the 1950s it was reasonable to assume that as the "older generation" died out, the intensity of the conflict might go down. Dayan’s "warning" was in fact that as things stood, that will not happen anytime soon and Israel must be ready for whatever comes.

(02-07-2024, 12:52 PM)GK3 Wrote:  If there will ever be peace in the Middle East, a solution to this issue needs to be found, but is it even rational to think one can be found?

IMO, no. Unlike Japan in China or the US in Vietnam, Israel doesn't have the option of quitting  the war and going home. They need a strategy that will continue their existence, hopefully in a condition that allows them to thrive. They can't accept any outcome that risks this goal. The Palestinians OTOH want "their" land back, all of it. They have shown no signs of actually willingness to compromise on that goal. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. All the outside influences that use this conflict to their own ends exacerbates the situation, but IMO they aren't "causing" it. The two-state solution suffers from the fact the Israelis fear (with good reason) that a gerrymandered Israel would be indefensible (and perhaps not economically viable). The Palestinians realize that a two-state solution requires them to give up their goal of getting all "their" land back. It doesn't solve the problem of the incompatible goals. It didn't in 1948 and it still doesn't, unfortunately.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-07-2024

(02-07-2024, 05:04 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-07-2024, 07:08 AM)GK3 Wrote:  The following Foreign Affairs article is worth a read.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-netanyahu-self-destruction?utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=editorial_special&utm_campaign=pre_release_israel_self_destruction_prospects&utm_content=20240207&utm_term=ESPAZ004F1

I agree it is worth a read, but their interpretation of what Dyan was saying is 180 degrees incorrect.

Quote:But as framed in the 1950s, his speech was remarkably sympathetic toward the perpetrators. “Let us not cast blame on the murderers,’’ Dayan said. “For eight years, they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and the villages where they and their fathers dwelt into our estate.”

What he, as a soldier, was telling the listeners is that these murders are engaged in a war. In war, wise soldiers respect their enemies and try to understand them. He pointed out that the "murders" had a very strong (and possibly justifiable) motivation to redress their expulsion. This wasn't a random attack. These people are dangerous and will remain dangerous for the foreseeable future. Do not blame them for fighting for their cause. Israel does the same. Israel must understand these people are not to be cast as "outlaws". They see themselves as soldiers, and are therefore much more dangerous. Not at all a "generous" evaluation, but rather a pragmatic soldier's view.
The conclusion of the article states:

Quote:This is the lesson the country should have learned from Dayan’s age-old warning. Israel must reach out to Palestinians and to each other if they want a livable and respectful coexistence.

That is not at all what he said. He said "These people have reason to want to destroy us and they will do what is necessary to make it happen". In the 1950s it was reasonable to assume that as the "older generation" died out, the intensity of the conflict might go down. Dayan’s "warning" was in fact that as things stood, that will not happen anytime soon and Israel must be ready for whatever comes.

(02-07-2024, 12:52 PM)GK3 Wrote:  If there will ever be peace in the Middle East, a solution to this issue needs to be found, but is it even rational to think one can be found?

IMO, no. Unlike Japan in China or the US in Vietnam, Israel doesn't have the option of quitting  the war and going home. They need a strategy that will continue their existence, hopefully in a condition that allows them to thrive. They can't accept any outcome that risks this goal. The Palestinians OTOH want "their" land back, all of it. They have shown no signs of actually willingness to compromise on that goal. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. All the outside influences that use this conflict to their own ends exacerbates the situation, but IMO they aren't "causing" it. The two-state solution suffers from the fact the Israelis fear (with good reason) that a gerrymandered Israel would be indefensible (and perhaps not economically viable). The Palestinians realize that a two-state solution requires them to give up their goal of getting all "their" land back. It doesn't solve the problem of the incompatible goals. It didn't in 1948 and it still doesn't, unfortunately.

I agree that there appears to be no solution that works for both sides.  Continual fighting doesn't solve the problem either.  It always seemed to me that if Israel allowed the Palestinians living in Israel to become citizens of Israel with the rights and privileges a two state might have worked but that seems to be a pipe dream at the moment. This NYT article on the various decisions underlying Netanyahu's policy is interesting. It is unclear to what extent his intelligence people either agreed with him over were over ridden. Better intelligence might have helped, but better intelligence is only better if the people getting it accept it and act on it appropriately. People at the top also tend to be given the intelligence that they are known to want, and not just the facts as they are. Bureaucrats want to survive too

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html

 We seem to have arrived at a position where we are required to be the country that will guarantee Israel's survival as no one else seems willing to step up in any major way. How long will the majority of our voters agree with that approach?  Can things reach the point in the future where we say make peace or else?

I realize that all this is probably out of bounds as it is really politics at its worst, but it is the world we have to live in. Thank you for the feed back on the Foreign Affairs article.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-07-2024

https://www.twz.com/ukraine-situation-report-greek-s-300-sams-may-be-headed-to-ukraine

Important. With dwindling air defense stocks of all kinds, this is welcome even if it is no replacement for more Patriots that a new US aid package would bring.

Quote:Reports in the Greek media suggest that the country is preparing to transfer to Ukraine much-needed S-300 long-range surface-to-air missile systems. Unusually for a NATO member, Greece has fairly significant stocks of Soviet-era and Russian-made air defense systems, some of which it has now apparently agreed to hand over to Kyiv.

The Greek newspaper Kathimerini reported the news of the apparent transfer, which could also eventually include other old Soviet-made equipment from Greek stocks, including examples of the Tor and Osa short-range mobile air defense systems, and potentially also ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns.

The newspaper reports that Greece gave the go-ahead for the S-300 transfer as a condition of the United States approving the sale of F-35A stealth fighters to Athens. Last Friday, it was confirmed that the U.S. State Department had approved the possible Foreign Military Sale to Greece of 40 F-35s plus related equipment for an estimated cost of $8.6 billion.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-08-2024

GK3, I respectfully request that you stop with this tangent.  In another forum, I would respond, but it's banned, so I will leave your post as the last word, even though I think it's misguided.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-08-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-zelenskiy-says-time-come-161631621.html

The long rumored change has now come to pass. We will see what it means as it plays out. There are lots of possible good reasons to replace General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi. It may be that Zelenskiyy just thought Zaluzhnyi was "burned out" and that new thinking was needed. There are also obviously many not-so-good reasons to make the change. We can only hope that none of those played too big a role. General Oleksander Syrskyi is certainly qualified for the role. He has a big task ahead to keep everybody "inside the tent". Lets hope he can.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 81alum - 02-08-2024

Goose,

How long can Ukraine survive if the US Congress fails to provide additional aid?  Can Ukraine defend itself until after the next American election, or will its defenses collapse before then if the spigot is not turned back on?

I know the President has found various ways to continue to get some aid to Ukraine, but I presume the work-around solutions are running out.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-08-2024

(02-08-2024, 06:04 PM)81alum Wrote:  Goose,

How long can Ukraine survive if the US Congress fails to provide additional aid?  Can Ukraine defend itself until after the next American election, or will its defenses collapse before then if the spigot is not turned back on?

I know the President has found various ways to continue to get some aid to Ukraine, but I presume the work-around solutions are running out.

There are two very different factors that control how long Ukraine will continue organized national resistance to Russia. One is the physical ability to keep fighting. If the US cannot deliver things like Patriot missiles and other air defense material, the Russian missile strikes will take an increasing toll on their infrastructure. No bombs and missiles from the US will limit the effectiveness of any F-16s they get. They won't be able to use their HIMARS either because they will eventually be flat out of missiles.  Most important, no 155 mm shells means that Ukraine's counter-battery operations will be limited to what they can get from the EU, which we already know is grossly inadequate to allow Ukraine to hold the line everywhere. The EU may be able to increase it's aid to Ukraine, but even best case they can't deliver anything near to what would be required for Ukraine to hold their current lines for another year. They will get pushed back by the Russians in some areas. I don't know how much and how fast it will be, but it will happen.

I don't think the "work-arounds" are running out. In fact, I expect the administration to become even more creative in making them work. The problem is some big-ticket items can't be hidden that way. Germany can supply more Patriots from their stocks in return for some promises from the administration, for example. Those promises will become public pretty quickly. How much heat will that generate? Will the administration risk adverse publicity and if so how much? Will other nations accept promises from an administration that may not be around in a year to "pay up"?

The second, and much more serious (IMO) problem is the effect that the loss of US support is having (and will have going forward) on Ukrainian military and civil morale. Ukraine is in dire straits even WITH the US support that is currently being held up. Their soldiers need to believe they can win, hopefully sooner but at least later. Without US aid, that won't happen. They know that. Delays are hard to accept, but can be rationalized. At some point the delays become too long, or worse still it becomes clear no more US aid is coming in 2024. That will cause a significant number of Ukrainian troops to simply quit. When that happens the rate at which it spreads will control how much longer Ukraine can hold on. They could easily be done by May if no US aid is forthcoming because their troops quit in mass. Ukraine will always continue to resist, but it may degenerate into guerilla warfare by a die-hard core. I don't know how long the civil government can keep organized military resistance together, but history tells us when morale reaches the breaking point, things fall apart fast. IMO Ukraine will for certain be "done" before the next administration is sworn in if nothing comes out of the Congress before that.

Obviously, I could be wrong. Ukraine may manage to sustain morale longer than I predict above. I would however say that counting on that would be at best very, very risky. That is why I have previously faulted the administration for not keeping the American public fully in the loop. It needed to be politically unpopular to oppose aid to Ukraine. It may not have been possible to maintain a consensus on that, but the administration didn't really try, IMO. It may be too late, but that message needs to get out loud and clear now. It may have been a "bad idea" to get involved in Ukraine, but we are there now. The consequences of us "abandoning" them will obviously destroy any credibility we have in the world.  Our military alliances will take a massive blow. The message it sends to other nations regarding China would be "make a deal now, because the US will leave you in the lurch if they feel like it".

---