Before you go, please tell me why you think that Ukraine in NATO is such a bad idea

I'm done with you.

Okay, this article summarizes just how tough on Ukraine Russia has been going back two centuries. If anything it justifies Ukraine’s desire to escape Russian domination rather than justifying Russia’s invasions. Care to post something germane? And why is Ukraine in NATO such a bad idea? You haven’t come close to answering my query.

I wish you were too.

And, I've already told you that I am an idiot. ;)

I also know that you are the expert on anything that matters. ;)

Sigh.

By the way, how's life your little echo chamber.

This is how you are coming across here ... for your information. Ahem.

do you know anything about anything, beyond your own echo chamber?

What’s your source [for saying that 30 times more children killed in Gaze since October 2023 than by Russians in Ukraine in more than two years]?

The United Nations.

The United Nations.

https://www.historyhit.com/ukraine-and-russia-history-ussr/

Do you not know anything about Ukraine/Russia/USSR beyond your subjugation argument?

Israel is not committing genocide. If it were it would have simply sealed off Gaza back in October and bombed the hell out of the whole place — end of Hamas and end of two million Palestinians!

Oh yeah, why? How does Russian subjugation of Ukraine over the last three centuries make Ukrainians less eligible to join NATO? Poland and the Baltics were similarly ruled by Russia so should they not be in NATO? Frankly, my dear, this is where you sound like a Putin apologist.

SIGH.

You continue to ask the wrong questions and imply that I have asserted something that I have not.

Again and for the last time, the Ukrainian/Russian/Soviet historical relationship is about a helluva lot more than you seem to think. All of which makes Ukraine different and unique among countries who have joined NATO.

I understand the reflex to be dismissive but understanding can only be improved by way of respectful engagement without insulting the intelligence of fellow commenters.

I wish it could be that we are able to voice an opinion based on a fair amount of knowledge without being accused of simple-minded parroting of propaganda and/or being part of the "global Left", implying God knows what.

Genocide, as a legal term, does indeed have a necessary element of intent which is decided by courts. Of course, Israel and the US are under no obligation to abide by what the International Criminal Court says. However, both countries will become more isolated so long as they stay the course.

Elizabeth wrote,

WE are having a conversation - with regard to Ukraine/Russia, at least - that is akin to two ships passing in the night.

I wish it wasn't necessary to keep repeating things that should go without saying.

Oh yeah, why? How does Russian subjugation of Ukraine over the last three centuries make Ukrainians less eligible to join NATO? Poland and the Baltics were similarly ruled by Russia so should they not be in NATO?

Frankly, my dear, this is where you sound like a Putin apologist.

dsws wrote,

Even after that, the current members of the alliance will still have reason to see Ukraine more as a country that they'll have to help defend against Russian attack, rather than primarily as a country that can help defend them.

You mean that Ukraine isn’t defending Europe by defending itself?

Ukraine is both the largest non-Russian country in Europe and has the largest non-Russian military. They have more combat experience than any other European country and besides that “breadbasket of Europe” feature there have been a ton of newly discovered resources in the east and in the Sea of Azov. I’d say Europe needs Ukraine to a far greater degree than you think.

Israel's response absolutely was and is damaging to Israel itself, and beneficial to Hamas. That effect absolutely was and is foreseeable. Characterizing the absolutely foreseeable effect of Israel's actions as Israel's apparent intent is overstatement, but not sarcasm. Israel is at least willfully disregarding its own well-being, in its quest for bloody vengeance, if not actively seeking to harm itself.

It's the nature of politics: a political interaction is one wherein all of us together are stupider and more mean-spirited than any of us would be individually. The Bibi government and its core supporters benefit by harming Israel, and unless they're unfathomably stupid, they know it.

the definition of genocide includes an element of intent. the state of israel writ large is trying NOT to harm so many civilians; those who ARE harmed are numerous and not insignificant, but it's unintentional. the goal is to ELIMINATE hamas' military capability in gaza, and it's Hamas who intentionally puts civilians in harm's way as a propaganda strategy. based on the response of the global Left (liz and dan included), that strategy seems to be working.

JL

As I have said repeatedly, if not all that recently, Hamas is evil and should be destroyed. The killing that Israel is doing in its effort to recruit for Hamas is evil mainly because it’s completely unjustified large-scale killing, humiliation, and displacement of members of a disadvantaged group. But the fact that it’s being done in the service of recruiting for Hamas is a significant additional aggravating factor.

not on your life.

It sounds like you are trying very hard to dismiss what our own eyes can see and what our own ears can hear when the IDF spokesmen speak.

Are all news reports accurate? Of course, not. Are critically thinking people able to discern fact from fiction? Absolutely.

For example, when the IDF says that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, what is a thinking person supposed to do with such an assertion?

At some point, when the atrocities become sufficiently extreme, it becomes everyone's responsibility to intervene.

Indeed.

Your ideas for options are serious and good ones.

Unfortunately, the art of diplomacy has fallen by the wayside in favour of military options ... for reasons that I guess should be obvious, if disheartening.

Israel does have options.

Doesn't that also "go without saying"? Rhetorical question.

They don't have to kill or starve everybody to be secure.

Non-serious and another strawman argument, Elizabeth. Obviously, Israel has no plans to "kill or starve everybody" for any reason. Full disclosure: I'm not privy to Israel's actual plans, but these repetitive strawman arguments you favor are so outlandish as to be infinitely laughable, among other things.

Do you ever wonder what might happen if Israel had acted in ways that actually help the Palestinian people in Gaza instead of starving them to death.

I sometimes wonder why you ask a shit-ton of questions while frequently ending them with a period instead of the proper punctuation, thus making them seem more like accusations that actual questions.

What if Israel did everything in its mighty power to improve the lives of the people of Gaza and the West Bank while at the same time explaining how Hamas and other terrorist organizations are only in it for the cycle of violence and power.

What if a commenter kept repetitively asking questions that seemed more like accusations?

Israel Tells Rafah residents to evacuate to ...

Why would Israel do that if they wanted to "kill or starve everybody"? Rhetorical question.

And once again, not only does Israel not have to pursue its own destruction by recruiting for Hamas: it does not have to pursue its own destruction at all. It could have engaged with both regional powers, seeking to get Iran to stop funding and supplying Hamas, and to get Saudi to pressure Qatar (and whoever else in the region had lots of people who had already been funding Hamas) to crack down on such funding. It could have engaged with both superpowers, seeking to have them put additional pressure on the regional powers, and to put pressure on others who fund Hamas in Algeria, Turkey, Sudan, and elsewhere. It could have very effectively thwarted Hamas's main immediate goal of keeping Gazans in misery and humiliation, and thus unable to organize any meaningful political alternative to Hamas. There was an enormous amount of sympathy for Israel following 10/7, and it was entirely foreseeable that a policy of indiscriminate thousandfold vengeance would destroy that sympathy.

Israel does have options. They don't have to kill or starve everybody to be secure.

Do you ever wonder what might happen if Israel had acted in ways that actually help the Palestinian people in Gaza instead of starving them to death. What if Israel did everything in its mighty power to improve the lives of the people of Gaza and the West Bank while at the same time explaining how Hamas and other terrorist organizations are only in it for the cycle of violence and power.

Israel Tells Rafah residents to evacuate to ...

Of course it is their decision to make. That goes without saying. But, we are still allowed to voice our opinions on that decision and call it out for what it is. This is a blog, after all.

you obviously disagree with me (and around 80% of israelis) about how necessary the present war is toward the goal of israeli survival, but that's their decision to make, not ours.

JL

Quit while you're not completely lost as you are not making a lot of sense.

I have no control over the abilities of other commenters when it comes to understanding English. Therefore, if you cannot make "a lot of sense" out of my posts, then you might definitely want to reconsider who is "completely lost." Just saying.

Relax and have a great rest of the evening!

I always do... with or without your approval. :)

Oh, and enough with the panda nonsense. It's so juvenile.

It isn't "juvenile" in the sense you mean it here, but it is most definitely written so that even a juvenile can understand and recognize when someone -- for instance, you -- are spewing an argument from fallacy:

20 Logical Fallacies That Dumb People Use To Win Arguments, And How To Spot Them

The call word is "panda." :)

Quit while you're not completely lost as you are not making a lot of sense.

Relax and have a great rest of the evening!

How would we feel if Russia somehow recruited Canada into some sort of "military alliance against the U.S."??

I would "feel" like (some) Canadians have lost their damn minds. In other words, no different than I already feel. :)

I've already discussed in great detail why I think the idea of Ukraine in NATO has been a bad idea, since the break-up of the Soviet Union through to today.

I must have missed that discussion "in great detail." I recall a lot of Biden blaming and bashing but no "great detail" about why "Ukraine in NATO has been a bad idea."

Despite all the bravado surrounding Ukraine's potential membership coming from the US and NATO, there doesn't seem to be any realistic prospect of it ever happening.

What you actually posted more resembled it was never going to happen in the past and never going to happen in the future and that no other commenter here would admit that. (paraphrasing, of course)

No offense, but I would wager without hesitation that the founding fathers of the United States in 1776 would find infinite humor in the prospect that the Kingdom of Great Britain would ever be one of America's closest of friends and allies.

Ironically, Putin's unwise actions have resulted in the very thing he sought to avoid.

So wasn't it you who claimed NATO was "never" going to become part of NATO? Rhetorical question; it was you. And wasn't Putin's invasion (not for the first time) of Ukraine allegedly because he wanted to keep Ukraine out of NATO? So Ukraine is (still) out of NATO, and if Ukraine was never (your term) going to be part of NATO either in the past or in the future, why would Putin ever need to seek to avoid such a thing? I double dog dare you to (finally) connect the dots.

Of course, as I have mentioned once or twice before, Finland and Sweden might as well be in a different universe from Ukraine when it comes to NATO admitting new members.

Then you gave ridiculous reasons (my opinion) why they're so different from Ukraine where NATO is concerned when they're actually not.

I've been told this place is archived - maybe Kick can help you find my remarks addressing this subject.

You help him. I think it would be a waste of his (or anyone's time) to read it... so I'll do him a favor and not.

And, after you read what I wrote, you might consider taking a look at your responses back to me to understand why I'm a bit reticent about rehashing it all again. Ahem.

If he hasn't read it, then how did he already respond to it? Duh.

You can't spell Palestine without pie

Or please :)

You also can't spell Palestine without penalties.

No ceasefire ... Israel needs to finish the war and Hamas needs a finish to the war ... and never the 'twain shall meet.

It's just the way it is.

"Necessary" can mean two things.

First, it can refer to propositions that are not contingent, but are true in all possible worlds, like the basic statements of arithmetic. The actions in question clearly aren't "necessary" in that sense. The Israeli government could choose to turn against Hamas. Of course I don't think it will any time soon, but it could.

Second, "necessary" can mean necessary for some purpose. Often, the word is used without stating the purpose, as a way of insinuating that the purpose in question is supposed to be beyond question. In general, it shouldn't be. In this instance, it very much shouldn't be.

Likewise, it's possible that discord between Hamas and the Bibi administration could become consequential later, or between Bibi and Iran, or between Iran and Hamas. For now, though, there are two sides: people who are set on maintaining a hellscape where every day's forecast calls for a heavy rain of high explosives, versus people who want to live under conditions where they can have a reasonable expectation of surviving any particular week. Divisions within each side don't really matter.

It might be an interesting thought exercise to contemplate what an Israeli administration might do if it wanted to get rid of Hamas, instead of doing its utmost to recruit more fighters and donors for Hamas; or what Hamas would do if it wanted freedom and dignity for Palestinians. But it would be nothing more than a thought exercise.

Indeed. Now, you may be beginning to understand how I have been feeling about having every bloody thing I write here having to do with Ukraine or Gaza misconstrued due to a simple failure to put a little effort into understanding without jumping to easy conclusions.

I completely agree with that. I'm just saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat(fish) and one way could be far better the one underway now.

Oh, and enough with the panda nonsense. It's so juvenile.

Good night.

"All I am saying is that if Israel continues on its current path, even if it eliminates every vestige of Hamas, it will still have the fight of its life on its hands to ensure a democratic, secure and peaceful Jewish state ..."

that isn't even remotely all you're saying. but let's play the game; if Israel engages in a permanent ceasefire, thereby allowing Hamas to continue its leadership role in gaza, it would still have the fight of its life, plus hamas. from the Israeli perspective, after October 7 a long-term ceasefire with Hamas still in charge has no upside.

"and, then, would the ends still have justified the means?"

who said anything about justification? it's clearly unjust. it's also necessary. not easy things to reconcile, but again, that's where we are.

Another bad analogy. Where's Dan when you need him!?

I think we better call it a night. :)

All I am saying is that if Israel continues on its current path, even if it eliminates every vestige of Hamas, it will still have the fight of its life on its hands to ensure a democratic, secure and peaceful Jewish state ... and, then, would the ends still have justified the means?

do you think cancer is the only potential cause of death?

...said Neville Chamberlain and every other poor soul with a signed treaty and a promise of non-aggression.

Hardly. They are ascribing far too much capability to Russia, given how, ah, well Russia is doing in a non-NATO country.

What makes them think Russia would do better invading a NATO country!?

closer than any "deal" that leaves Hamas intact and with the capability of striking again.

not most of europe, just the historical Russian empire, circa 1894. and if they did argue that, they'd be right.

In reality, I actually regarded the unique historical connection as justifying that decision being made in Ukraine, encouraged by the US and NATO and EU. Imagine how that course of action would have positively impacted on the
sovereignty and security and prosperity of Ukraine.

Now, some people around here are convinced that Putin would have invaded Ukraine, regardless. Of course, the same people would argue that Putin has his sights on the rest of Europe, as well. Heh.

Israel would then, presumably, have a decision to make. Continue the war as they have been waging it, anyway, in order to put an end to Hamas, once and for all or change strategy and take a more surgical and clandestine approach to rooting out the rest of Hamas. But, whatever route Israel takes, so long as there is no political component to the effort of eliminating Hamas that accounts for the rights of the Palestinian people, it's hard to see how Israel can ever achieve peace and security for all of its citizens.

What happens if Hamas does not agree to stop fighting and release all of the remaining hostages and Israel continues to block aid to Gaza and flatten what is left of it? I mean, where would that leave Israel in its struggle for a democratic, secure and peaceful state of existence?

Nope, Hamas just needs to stop fighting and return whatever hundred or so hostages remain. That would be sufficient, but they do seem determined to force their constituency into death and starvation instead.

[Re. 42] Fair enough. :)

[42] The only US roles in that decision that I would support would be (1) ensuring that it doesn't give Canada any reason to feel any need for such an alliance, and (2) sharing information with Canada documenting the fact that such an alliance would foreseeably lead to outcomes that Canada wouldn't like. Of course, if Manifest Destiny were still central to US policy, then the alliance would presumably be the lesser evil for Canada.

And, I surmise you would then be in support of the US doing what it needed to do to prevent Canada from joining a military alliance with Russia ...

I agree with ALL of that, wholeheartedly.

Does that surprise you. ;)

So long as the decision of whether Ukraine will apply for NATO membership can only be made in Moscow, not Kyiv, that's Russian dominion over Ukrainian foreign policy. There's nothing about cultural similarity that can possibly provide any justification for such dominion.

WE are having a conversation - with regard to Ukraine/Russia, at least - that is akin to two ships passing in the night.

The unique nature of the totality of their relationship - geopolitically, culturally, historically, and every other which way - is what largely makes Ukraine's membership in NATO unlikely to occur and what makes Ukraine different in that regard from Sweden and even Finland.

I wish it wasn't necessary to keep repeating things that should go without saying.

And yes, the Holodomor goes beyond mere subjugation. But not in a direction that would be a point in favor of granting Moscow dominion over Ukrainian foreign policy.

How would we feel if Russia somehow recruited Canada into some sort of "military alliance against the U.S."??

Nothing.

What does the historical relationship between the USSR/Russia/Ukraine entail? A helluva lot more than subjugation and empire.

Must I define unique? :)

Must everyone be killed or starved to death or removed from the Gaza strip before this war can end?

You think Ukraine has been doing well since 2014 and only getting better through 2024? Seriously?

Yeah, because things have gone so well for Ukraine during the last decade or so.

why should Ukraine be eternally subject to the dominion of Moscow as far as its foreign policy is concerned?

That's easy ... it shouldn't be.

Sigh.

The only acceptable outcome is to force Russia into unconditional surrender.

rotflmao