The ultimate question in all of these conflicts is whether the aggressors will be held accountable (Hamas, Russia, Sudan, etc.). If not, this will be the beginning of a series of future conflicts which will make these conflicts seem quaint. It’s similar to the 1930s. Aggressors never paid the price for their initial actions and ultimately the entire world ended up at war. If that happens again, given today’s more deadly weaponry, the casualties will be in the hundreds of millions.
My thoughts exactly. I also wonder how much the threat by Russia to deploy hypersonic nuclear warhead carrying aircraft is affecting Western military decisions. As far as I understand it the West has yet to catch up with this Russian and Chinese technology. Although the Patriot system could get lucky taking out a few of these out before they strike their targets, this is by no means guaranteed. First unveiled back in 2018, it perhaps explains Trump’s supine policy regarding Russia. From a simple minded apolitical strongman’s point of view Putin is the Bigger Beast.
And Avangard missiles are even faster, hitting speeds of Mach 27 or 32,200 kilometres per hour. They can also perform rapid manoeuvres making interceptions nigh on impossible🙀🐾
I can't imagine anybody ever paying the price for initiating these conflicts, to be honest - I guess apart from Hamas' military leadership. These are all really knotty, awful conflicts that may well continue for a long time with, yes, hard-to-imagine numbers of deaths.
You can lose the hysterics on the US never having attacked Soviet troops through a proxy during the Cold War. I think you have forgotten all about Afghanistan, and in any event, had the Soviets moved in Europe outside the Warsaw Pact areas, you would have seen the same, or greater resistance. It is Putin's aggression that provoked this reaction, not greater US resistance than we witnessed in the Cold War.
Well. If Russia was involved in a war with US troops in Mexico and Russia announced that it was authorizing Mexico to shoot missiles into South Texas (but only on a limited basis) it probably would be a big deal for Americans.
Don't get me wrong, I do get the logic of what the US is doing. Ukraine has been in an excruciating situation since the start of the war, forced to fight literally with one hand tied behind its back (what kind of a war is it where you are only allowed to defend rather than attack?). My point is just to not minimize the fact that, according to the sort of accepted terms of conflict, the US' decision is an escalation.
I think you are missing my broader thought, which is that material support for Ukraine was the Rubicon that the US crossed, and an admirable one at that. Billions of dollars that can be used to kill Russians -- whether military or civilian -- is the point, not the identity of the tools used to do it. Do you think we would or should care whether Russians not only fund organizations attacking US citizens, but also actually made the weapons doing it?
Point taken. These kinds of dances, though, do seem very important for the diplomacy of the war. The Russian view at the moment is that the US is attacking Russian soil and, any way you cut it, there will be diplomatic ramifications for that. But I agree that the Rubicon was crossed in 2022 if not 2014-15.
We are dealing with Putin's views, not Russian views. Putin is not not dancing with us, has no interest in diplomacy, and has an expansive view of what Russian soil is, including Ukraine, other SSRs, Poland, and perhaps even Alaska. The Russians have been at war with us for some time; it's only ourselves who have been deluded as to his aims. Let there be diplomatic ramifications.
Big thanks for the pointer to Ahmed Fouad al-Khatib's piece; I had seen vaguely similar thoughts but none so clearly expressed, hitting all the key points, and from such a "standpoint epistemology", namely that he has substantial skin in the game, both via his family and from his pose as a Palestinian American activist (n.b. per his Wikipedia entry, which is worth reading, he only actually lived five years in Gaza, ages 10-15, though he at least had Gazan quasi-citizenship). It's interesting to see that he could be published, let alone have that particular piece published, in the unofficial UAE news.
I wonder how much subtext of the UAE jostling with Qatar, Hamas' base, we should read into the fact that it was published where it was?
Thanks Bayesian! He's obviously an interesting guy. I hadn't done any work tbh on his background. I also don't know anything about The National News. My understanding was that a free press is not a thing in UAE but maybe that's not the whole truth.
AFAIK The National is completely owned by the UAE state, although on matters where the the UAE is not deeply invested the National appears to have a certain amount of editorial independence (provided that they don't overuse that independence, of course).
Maybe a little less freedom of action than the South China Morning Post has these days?
I just took at look at the editorial pages of the Gulf News (largest circulation newspaper in the UAE - owned by the private Al Tayer Group whose chairman just happens to be the current Finance Minister of the UAE), and certainly there is nothing critical of either the UAE or Saudi governments there, and a tremendous amount of content about the just-concluded Indian elections.
On further thinking, I am doubling down :) on my hypothesis that the publication in the National should be interpreted in the context of of the UAE/KSA cold war (highly contentious frenemies?) with Qatar. Maybe it was something of a trial balloon to see how much daylight UAE could get from Hamas without dangerous blowback?
Wits in the left youtube sphere had a point when they said Why the pier? Why not inject US troops to the Rafa crossing to enable aid . Biden could do himself no bigger favor, we shy away from taking meaning at face value, so why not the preponderent circumstantial reasons to do so. To show we are not superstitious that the arrival of troops would mean Armaegeddon is one of many. To interrupt the doom narrative? I honestly have not bought products online since October 7, why contribute to a sinking ship? Except for his FTC I have no other reason than his succeeding in delivering large aid to not campaign for Ratface Mandingo, or Trump, the vote for somebodys goodtime.
Thanks for this. The kind of in depth journalism that is so lacking across corporate owned mega media. I do wonder how many of us Pax Americana babies are prepared for the postwar nuclear MAD world we have grown up in, ending.
Succinct analysis, as usual. Much appreciated.
Thank you GD!
The ultimate question in all of these conflicts is whether the aggressors will be held accountable (Hamas, Russia, Sudan, etc.). If not, this will be the beginning of a series of future conflicts which will make these conflicts seem quaint. It’s similar to the 1930s. Aggressors never paid the price for their initial actions and ultimately the entire world ended up at war. If that happens again, given today’s more deadly weaponry, the casualties will be in the hundreds of millions.
My thoughts exactly. I also wonder how much the threat by Russia to deploy hypersonic nuclear warhead carrying aircraft is affecting Western military decisions. As far as I understand it the West has yet to catch up with this Russian and Chinese technology. Although the Patriot system could get lucky taking out a few of these out before they strike their targets, this is by no means guaranteed. First unveiled back in 2018, it perhaps explains Trump’s supine policy regarding Russia. From a simple minded apolitical strongman’s point of view Putin is the Bigger Beast.
Interesting! I really know nothing about this.
A starting point ?
https://amp.dw.com/en/russias-hypersonic-missiles-what-you-need-to-know/a-61204404
And Avangard missiles are even faster, hitting speeds of Mach 27 or 32,200 kilometres per hour. They can also perform rapid manoeuvres making interceptions nigh on impossible🙀🐾
Interesting. Reminds me of the "missile gap" conversations at the height of the Cold War.
I can't imagine anybody ever paying the price for initiating these conflicts, to be honest - I guess apart from Hamas' military leadership. These are all really knotty, awful conflicts that may well continue for a long time with, yes, hard-to-imagine numbers of deaths.
Unfortunately, you probably are correct.
Excellent round up--and thanks for the mention!
You can lose the hysterics on the US never having attacked Soviet troops through a proxy during the Cold War. I think you have forgotten all about Afghanistan, and in any event, had the Soviets moved in Europe outside the Warsaw Pact areas, you would have seen the same, or greater resistance. It is Putin's aggression that provoked this reaction, not greater US resistance than we witnessed in the Cold War.
I said within Russia itself - not Russian troops. It’s a big deal, no?
Not to me. And probably not to most Russians. The second any of those weapons is used outside the theatre, Ukraine will lose its support.
Well. If Russia was involved in a war with US troops in Mexico and Russia announced that it was authorizing Mexico to shoot missiles into South Texas (but only on a limited basis) it probably would be a big deal for Americans.
Don't get me wrong, I do get the logic of what the US is doing. Ukraine has been in an excruciating situation since the start of the war, forced to fight literally with one hand tied behind its back (what kind of a war is it where you are only allowed to defend rather than attack?). My point is just to not minimize the fact that, according to the sort of accepted terms of conflict, the US' decision is an escalation.
I think you are missing my broader thought, which is that material support for Ukraine was the Rubicon that the US crossed, and an admirable one at that. Billions of dollars that can be used to kill Russians -- whether military or civilian -- is the point, not the identity of the tools used to do it. Do you think we would or should care whether Russians not only fund organizations attacking US citizens, but also actually made the weapons doing it?
Point taken. These kinds of dances, though, do seem very important for the diplomacy of the war. The Russian view at the moment is that the US is attacking Russian soil and, any way you cut it, there will be diplomatic ramifications for that. But I agree that the Rubicon was crossed in 2022 if not 2014-15.
We are dealing with Putin's views, not Russian views. Putin is not not dancing with us, has no interest in diplomacy, and has an expansive view of what Russian soil is, including Ukraine, other SSRs, Poland, and perhaps even Alaska. The Russians have been at war with us for some time; it's only ourselves who have been deluded as to his aims. Let there be diplomatic ramifications.
I think the permission is a huge deal and a huge mistake for the U.S. from a risk/reward POV.
Interesting David. It's true that the problem with escalation is always how you deescalate again.
Big thanks for the pointer to Ahmed Fouad al-Khatib's piece; I had seen vaguely similar thoughts but none so clearly expressed, hitting all the key points, and from such a "standpoint epistemology", namely that he has substantial skin in the game, both via his family and from his pose as a Palestinian American activist (n.b. per his Wikipedia entry, which is worth reading, he only actually lived five years in Gaza, ages 10-15, though he at least had Gazan quasi-citizenship). It's interesting to see that he could be published, let alone have that particular piece published, in the unofficial UAE news.
I wonder how much subtext of the UAE jostling with Qatar, Hamas' base, we should read into the fact that it was published where it was?
Thanks Bayesian! He's obviously an interesting guy. I hadn't done any work tbh on his background. I also don't know anything about The National News. My understanding was that a free press is not a thing in UAE but maybe that's not the whole truth.
AFAIK The National is completely owned by the UAE state, although on matters where the the UAE is not deeply invested the National appears to have a certain amount of editorial independence (provided that they don't overuse that independence, of course).
Maybe a little less freedom of action than the South China Morning Post has these days?
I just took at look at the editorial pages of the Gulf News (largest circulation newspaper in the UAE - owned by the private Al Tayer Group whose chairman just happens to be the current Finance Minister of the UAE), and certainly there is nothing critical of either the UAE or Saudi governments there, and a tremendous amount of content about the just-concluded Indian elections.
That seems about right. I was really surprised to see the al-Khatib piece in a magazine like that.
On further thinking, I am doubling down :) on my hypothesis that the publication in the National should be interpreted in the context of of the UAE/KSA cold war (highly contentious frenemies?) with Qatar. Maybe it was something of a trial balloon to see how much daylight UAE could get from Hamas without dangerous blowback?
Wits in the left youtube sphere had a point when they said Why the pier? Why not inject US troops to the Rafa crossing to enable aid . Biden could do himself no bigger favor, we shy away from taking meaning at face value, so why not the preponderent circumstantial reasons to do so. To show we are not superstitious that the arrival of troops would mean Armaegeddon is one of many. To interrupt the doom narrative? I honestly have not bought products online since October 7, why contribute to a sinking ship? Except for his FTC I have no other reason than his succeeding in delivering large aid to not campaign for Ratface Mandingo, or Trump, the vote for somebodys goodtime.
Hard to know what to make of the pier. Seems like it was mostly symbolic? But I do appreciate the effort I guess.
Thanks for this. The kind of in depth journalism that is so lacking across corporate owned mega media. I do wonder how many of us Pax Americana babies are prepared for the postwar nuclear MAD world we have grown up in, ending.
Thanks Monnina!