> I'm no fan of the party in power in the US, but I can campaign and speak out against them. I can raise money to oppose them. I can band together with like minded individuals to protest.
You can. Just not in any way that matters. And you won’t. Because that takes organization and all existing organizations that matter are captured by the system and novel ones would quickly be.
Perfect example: The US just launched a disastrous and illegal (both in their own and the UN system) war at the behest of a foreign power/influential minority against the will of its people and against its geopolitical interest. And the “opposition” does less than nothing. There is little anti-war protest and none of consquence.
Compare it with 2003 and earlier wars: The American public has been all but neutralized as a political force. Not that it could do much even then.
> You can. Just not in any way that matters. And you won’t.
I’ve gotten language I wrote passed into state and federal law. The bottom line is a lot of people are too busy, lazy or nihilistic to call their electeds and show up to create political pressure. That’s unfortunate. But it also means that the payoff for relatively small amounts of effort are huge.
Did that language imping on the interests of America’s ruling elites, its security apparatus, or the interests of a certain entity in the eastern Mediterranean? No? Then we’re talking about entirely different things.
The “opposition” attempted to assert the congressional authority the branch is supposed over war powers, and were defeated because the American public gave majority power to the current majority whom rejected that authority to the executive branch to do whatever.
So the Palestinians and Arabs thought a hundred years ago. It served them badly.
It’s not that US/UK and others don’t get anything out of the relationship, as you note. But the arrows have been mostly pointing the other way for a long time. Trump and his background, as well as Epstein/Mandelson/McSweeney/Labour are just the latest, blatant examples of how this works.
> Maybe WE can't imagine taking losses like this, but in Russia they seem more than willing.
WE are happily enabling Ukrainians to take such losses.
> seemingly carelessly.
They are doing what works—which evidently it does, however ugly and cynical it looks. And Ukrainians do the same when they try to recapture. This is the face of attritional warfare in the age of drones and under pervasive surveillance. But you’re probably right—WE could not sustain such for long. One hopes.
> now exceed sustainable recruitment and replacement rates,
That’s on even days. On odd days these people will tell you that the Russia army has been all but rebuilt and is about to invade the Baltics.
> Meanwhile, battlefield casualties favor Ukraine by a 2.5- or 2-to-1 ratio.
Russia is 4–5 times bigger. So, even if these numbers were true, they would be bad news. Same with materiel—just check Oryx. For extra credit, look at the trends of losses. Far from good enough and getting worse.
It's not new, it's been the prevalent way of being for thousands of years - we had a brief moment of piece with the creation of the UN.
But apparently there are a lot of countries that think the UN and international law is cumbersome, and are in the way of securing their "sovereignty" (more like securing regimes) - it was obvious this was going to be outcome.
Funny enough, some of those have collapsed or are in the verge of collapsing: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Russia...
Let's hope Europe doesn't flip to far right and start their own campaign, history shows they can be quite effective and destructive.
The best outcome is that this is just the final breath of those old regimes, and this is temporary.
Including but not limited to: A Turkish supply convoy, reportedly carrying small arms, machine-guns and ammunition, was bombed by what is believed to have been Russian airstrikes in the northwestern town of Azaz, in north-western Syria.
I've seen this rhetoric of "Russia made Turkey pay just two short years later!" on reddit as well, and it sounded just as farfetched there as it does here.
And what makes you think Russia didn't pay a price for that? Look at the Turkish support in Ukraine, or look at Syria - they literally removed Russia from the middle east.
They were warm words from two men seeking a good working relationship.
Russia wants continued access to its Tartous naval port and Hmeimim military airbase on Syria's Mediterranean coast.
Sharaa suggested he would allow this, saying Syria would "respect all agreements concluded throughout the great history" of their bilateral relations.
In turn, he wants help to consolidate his power in Syria, secure its borders and rescue a parlous economy with access to Russian energy and investment.
Where are the concrete actions? Is Russia going to surrender their puppet and the stolen assets? Is Russia going to pay for the reparations of their destruction?
Those words mean nothing.
Do I need to grab the quote from Putin stating that no one will interfere in Syria or they will have to face Russia? (I'm paraphrasing but you get the point)
At this level of diplomacy it's actions that matter, not words. You have these guys say one thing one day, and do the opposite the other day.
It’s just the latest implementation of a winning formula.
reply