Personally, I'm getting pretty tired of people who most likely don't live in the region criticising the parties doing the most to fight back against Israel for not doing enough because of some bad news of the day.
You don't know what's going on in Iranian government circles either and you've just come to this interpretation based on personalities.
What I'm saying is that there is still value in pursuing a ceasefire even if you believe there's little chance of success.
Even if you believe war is inevitable, the Israeli position is being attrited more and more the longer all-out war doesn't break out. But history is always still contingent and it would be irresponsible towards all the people living under your governance to just jump in head first just because you believe it is inevitable. That's how fascists think.
The resistance knows better than us what is at stake and what an all-out war would look like. Although it almost certainly wouldn't entail less Palestinians dying.
What's been made clear again the last couple of days, is that it is a priority for Iran to go through the proper diplomatic channels before resorting to military means. Even if it is likely to get them nowhere (I.e. holding off on retaliation for the promise of a ceasefire).
They want to convey that they are rational and principled when they commit to violence. They give a heads-up precisely because it won't stop a retaliation. They don't want an all-out war but they have to respond.
The primary audience doesn't even have to be Israel and the US, but also the rest of the world: Iran is better because it has justice on it side. Iran holds itself to a higher standard and acts accordingly.
i don't believe Iran has avoided getting weapons out of a faith in the west or flawed understanding of what they would do to protect them, but because other priorities have been more pressing in recent years
In that regard being close to having nukes already gives you much of the leverage of having them. Countries don't build nukes because they plan on actually using them. It's about the threat, which still exists to a large extent if you are close to getting the bomb. But without the cost of maintaining nukes.
Investing in missile and nuclear technology is worth it because that tech can be used for other applications. Actual nukes just sit in a warehouse until they have to be replaced.
Thinking about it a bit more and I don't see a direct value in taking Kharkiv considering the inevitable costs of urban warfare. The only thing Russia needs to continue doing is not overextend themselves. As longs as they do that, they won't loose the initiative. Getting caught in a grinding fight in the city might be inadvisable.
Kharkiv oblast was not among those officially annexed by Russia so it is not as politically important as capturing the whole of Donbass. There is a political and military value in creating a buffer zone for the Belgorod region, but that goal does not necessitate the capture of Kharkiv city.
But ofcourse you're right that the calculation changes when there's very little resistance.
I keep hearing (in Western media) that Russia doesn't have enough reserves to take Kharkiv. I guess we'll find out if that's cope, or if Russia is just trying to spread the Ukrainians out, especially in light of new ammunition deliveries from the US. Spreading the front will make it harder for Ukraine to use that ammunition to concentrate firepower and create tactical advantages.
I will say it is funny to me how typically Dutch it is to take offence to something like not having to answer a question because it might be a sensitive topic.
The question has to be what Hezbollah going 'all in' would achieve. Will it stop the genocide of Palestinians? Or will it intensify if there's an all-out war?
At the end of the day, Israel is a nuclear state with full ideological support from the US. There is no scenario where the US stays on the sidelines if actual war breaks out. Yes, the axis of resistance could inflict massive damage to the US and Israel but the same can be said the other way around.
Imo the only way to end the genocide without spelling disaster for the whole region, is for Israeli society to become politically untenable. For the Zionist project to collapse in on itself. Atm, that goal is best pursued through anything up to, but not including, all-out war.
Yeah, I'm not going to pretend to know the daily reality of companies in China but we do have something similar in my country for companies with over 50 employees and I wouldn't say it is that significant in terms of workplace democracy. The least charitable reading would be that China is doing something similar but a bit broader.
Still all good things, but to pretend that this is basically China pressing the communism button is silly.
You can use a cotton swab to put something like a tiger balm under your nose to relieve a runny nose.
What I'll sometimes also do is take an antihistamine. It'll dry out your nose as well. It supresses the immuno response so it's probably not the best idea. But it can help with your sleep if you take one before bed.
Let me save you the disappointment: they're not going to be coming up with any substantial plan for de-dollarization. Even if they did, it would take decades to negotiate the terms between their members.
With all the things going on in the middle-east, a mostly defeated IS finds the time to attack Russia and Iran? If IS is not a US-op there is at least enough ideological overlap to work together.
There have most likely always been connections there. But imo the incentives for how to use IS changed once it became clear Iran and Russia where the big winners in the war against ISIS.
My spirit animal. My backside is also like a nuclear furnace when I've had Chinese food.
Yeah, I do agree. The EU commitment to defense is stronger than article 5 it is often said.
Besides, we know what side Sweden and Finland were on long before they joined NATO. Russia saying they don't have a problem with Ukraine joining the EU is imo something they say to attempt to drive a wedge between the EU and US.
After all, Russia's concern over the differences in tariffs between them and the EU and them and Ukraine was an important driving factor for this conflict.
Besides, everybody, including the Russians, knows Ukraine was never even close to joining NATO.
Yeah, if you repeat enough times that you're willing to send troops it becomes a matter of your own legitimacy. Whether you really wanted to actually do it in the first place, now you have to.
Which is the real danger of these statements by Macron. You're creating a red line for yourself and hoping the other side blinks first.
My new cope theory is that Macron is talking about sending troops to increase Ukrainian morale.
The Ukrainian army needs manpower but there's a lot of internal resistance to lowering the age of conscription and Zelensky dares not openly press the issue. Companies don't want to lose their younger workforce and people aren't feeling good about Ukraine's performance on the front right now. They need something to point to so they can make the population more amenable to conscription.
They can't achieve success on the front right now so Macron steps in and offers a (seemingly) strong commitment that they are willing to go all-in. Then the regime in Kiev can push through new waves of conscription. The French announce they are standing back and standing by now that the manpower issue has been resolved.
I don't know, I think the French would, out of all the European states, understand that it is not a good idea to send forces into Ukraine. I feel similar about the idea of France sending troops to how I felt before Russia invaded: I thought they wouldn't do it because it wasn't a smart idea. So I could definitely be wrong.
It is true that the European elite is loyal to the US, but more importantly they are completely dependent on the US. At the same time the Europeans are enthusiastic participants when it comes to Ukraine, moreso than the US.
The US has always held the position that the aim of military aid is to strengthen Ukraine's position at the eventual negotiation table. But the Europeans for a long time believed the goal to be a total retreat by the Russians.
Because of those fantasies, the Europeans have jumped in head first. Now the mood has soured and the Europeans are starting to realised that they have wagered the stability of their entire system on the outcome of this war. Hence those comments Macron has been making.
I hope that all this talk of sending troops to Ukraine is part of a process of Europe accepting the reality that they played themselves. Hopefully the Americans can reign their dogs in before they do anything stupid.
When it comes to Europe and Ukraine, I think it really comes down to moral indignation. They think Russia invading Ukraine is a unique moral crime. Ukraine should win because they are the good guys. Any sense of reality is almost entirely overruled by this moral indignation.
A lot of people in Europe can't even fathom that the West has any responsibility for this war. It must be Russian propaganda because the West is free and democratic and Russia is evil.
Even the people in my country that are at least sometimes better in realistically understanding this war seem to be dumbfounded by the idea that regular people show a greater willingness to protest the genocide in Palestine and not against Russia.
I truly feel it doesn't go much deeper than moral indignation for Europe. They can't conceive the possibility that anything they are doing for Ukraine could ultimately end up hurting Europe more than Russia. It is heresy to suggest that maybe if they went about sanctions a bit smarter, they could've probably helped Ukraine more.