I posted this on the day of the invasion and I think it aged pretty well.
Russia is not attacking Ukraine in response to actions of the USA since then, that’s an Americocentric delusion. This is not happening because Ukraine wanted to join NATO, it’s happening because they are outside NATO, which is not the same thing at all. Russia is not driven by fear of NATO strength, it is driven by perceptions of western weakness. Russia believes the cultural, military and geopolitical balance has tipped in their favour, expecting the west will respond to their invasion of Ukraine today with nothing more than official grimaces. I hope they are not correct about that but we will soon see.
Putin is motivated by oft stated imperial ambitions to Make Russia Great Again, to ‘restore’ Russia to its imperial boundaries with Moscow as the New Rome (yes, they really say that); Ukrainian rejection of that notion and assertion of their own identity is therefore intolerable. But reject ‘the Russian world’ they did, because Ukrainians do not wish to be ruled from the Kremlin even indirectly. That is why they overthrew Russia’s favoured oligarch and sought to chart their own course in the world.
That is what this war is about.
I still see things much the same and am delighted my fears about a lack of meaningful support for Ukraine were misplaced.
Russian autocrats are iridentists. Peter the Great defeated Charles XII at Poltava and since then Finland*, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine are considered Russian provincial territory. Catherine II added more territory. Finland from a Swedish grand duchy to a Russian grand Duchy.
The Bolsheviks desperately wanted to retain Finland but lost it in the 1918 Finnish insurrection… Winter War and continuation war. Nearly the same with the Baltics.
Kaliningrad
South Ossetia – snatched during GWB’s lame duck year.
Transnistria – Snatched as the USSR failed.
Crimea – Snatched from the ~ Turks then the Khanate Tartars – Catherine II and later ..
Port Tartus (leased)
I view the taking of former territory like germany did (hitler)
he too wanted(innocently) former.
territory.
Putin wouldn’t have attacked Ukraine if Trump was still in charge. The Democrats “fortifying” of the 2020 election has directly led to the deaths of many.
Impossible to know for sure, but that may well be correct, given this all happened based on Putin’s perceptions of likely western reaction.
But all that would really mean is the war happened post-Trump, because without Ukraine joining NATO (which Germany would not allow), this was was as close to inevitable as anything in history ever is. And the Democrats did not make this war inevitable, Angela Merkle & her cronies did.
As the parable of the Buddhist monk goes “We’ll see”.
Admittedly Western action has been increasingly positive, but that’s because Russian incompetence and inaction has become hard to ignore and the idea of a weakened Russia under someone other than Putin is appealing.
The problem is that a total Russian collapse does risk desperate measures from Putin to save his own neck, not least of which is a nuclear decapitation strike on Kiev or similar.
Western allies of Ukraine might be eager for a proxy war they can win, but if it starts raising the spectre of actual use of nukes (rather than just Russian TV pantomime use of nukes), I reckon their ardour for all things Ukrainian might cool somewhat.
But it’s a balance and the Ukrainians seem to be aware of the risks. If they can push the Russians back to their 2014 borders it’s over for Putin and everybody knows it.
Mr Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was wrong – no amount of trying changing the subject,”Zelensky is a bad man” or “Western powers have been interfering in the Ukraine for many years”, can alter the basic fact that Mr Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was wrong.
As for Russian greatness – as so many Russian authors have pointed out over the centuries, true greatness is victory over the evil in one’s self. All human beings have evil within us (it is part of us) and we must struggle against it every day. It is that struggle, the struggle of Free Will (Moral Agency) against the passions (against evil) that is greatness – not external conquests.
To adapt scripture – it gains a man nothing to conquer the whole world if, by so doing, he loses his own soul.
“… can alter the basic fact that Mr Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was wrong.”
– And most sadly, the foremost national leader who disagrees with this statement ( – there are others – ) is Mr Putin.
“I still see things much the same and am delighted my fears about a lack of meaningful support for Ukraine were misplaced.”
– I’ll drink to that!
For those do not know “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his soul” is from the Gospel of Mark – 8/36.
Using the word “life” rather than “soul” (as some modern translations do) tends to lead to people missing-the-point. Nor does necessarily mean life after death – see Alexander of Aphrodisias, the great commentator on Aristotle.
Betraying the best part of yourself, in return for power or riches, is the ultimate betrayal – because you have betrayed yourself, indeed destroyed yourself.
If the Russian military had even been half of what Vlad believed it to be, he very likely would have achieved his quick victory.
For all the posturing, analysis, opinions etc etc of those here, there and everywhere (including myself of course), we none of us really have a clue.
That’s the problem with real war. This whole “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” thing.
The genie has been let out of the bottle and nobody knows where it will end up.
When it gets there, then its path will have been obvious and all the sage experts will then proceed to demonstrate how sage they were from day one.
Those whose lives have been devastated will have to try and put them back together.
And so until the next time.
Twas always thus.
Things I have learnt in the last year:
Ukraine is a nation
Freedom is not a universal value
Western military technology is superior
Western military techniques are superior
Some people distrust the Western establishment so much that they don’t believe them on the one occasion they are telling the truth.
Russia is a cesspit. Lying, incompetent, arrogant, genocidal.
If you want to know what is going on consult an Australian games blogger.
Things I am mulling over:
Was the Soviet Union a case of communism with Russian characteristics or Russia with communist characteristics?
How bad is the right’s (for want of a better term) embrace of Putinist propaganda?
I hesitate to irritate Paul Marks, especially on this subject, but this phrase shows to me that the concept of “free will” that he has is mind is very different from that of Augustine.
And Paul’s concept of “agency” is also very different from that of Reid.
I have learned something new (about Paul) today.
Reid is very clear on this. Augustine is less clear, but it seems to me the only possible coherent interpretation of (what i read of) De Libero Arbitrio.
NB: I have said nothing to which Hume is relevant 🙂
Strange but true. Of course it helps that Perun’s day job is in defence procurement 😉
A very good question!
It’s interesting that Germany had the power to block Ukraine in its hope of joining NATO. Is that because USA didn’t care either way? It’s not as if Germany brings much to the NATO table itself. Is it more to do with Germany’s influence in other forums and over issues (EU for example).
Every member nation has that power, which is how Turkey is currently squeezing Sweden re. NATO membership.
Snorri – Augustine of Hippo pushed Predestination, the doctrine that God decided (at the start of the universe) who would be saved and who would go to Hell for all eternity, and that it is no decision of ours whether or not we even seek the forgiveness of God – classic “kitten theology”, the mother cat just comes along and picks up the kitten by the scruff-of-the-neck (arbitrary power).
For political and other reasons, his very strong relationship with Bishop Ambrose and other major political figures of the 5th century, Augustine was accepted as a major theologian in spite of his lack of knowledge of Greek (let alone Hebrew) which is odd – as knowledge of Greek was still fairly common among educated Romans of the time.
The Roman Catholic Church believes (and has since the 5th century) that it can Square the Circle so one can have Free Will (moral agency – moral responsibility) and Predestination – Martin Luther disagreed and held that if one has Predestination one must reject the idea that humans are persons, one must reject the idea of free will.
I should also point out that some Protestant theologians and philosophers, such as James McCosh (who, with Noah Porter, dominated philosophy in the United States in the 19th century) also held that one can have Predestination and Free Will – that they can be reconciled. Such thinkers as John Wesley rather disagreed.
I suspect that in such works as “Bondage of the Will” Martin Luther understood the (horrific) implications of the doctrine of Augustine (Predestination) better than Augustine himself did – but, perversely, this did not lead Dr Luther to reject Predestination – on the contrary Dr Luther embraced the doctrine with passionate zeal and utterly rejected the idea that humans are persons – which led to his war of words with Erasmus (I read their exchanges from time to time). There is no effort in the philosophy of Dr Luther to reconcile Predestination with Free Will – on the contrary he utterly rejects human personhood.
For example, when Dr Luther said “here I stand, I can no other” it was not (at least when he looked back on it years later – he may have believed differently in his youth) a statement of moral conscience (as an English speaker might think) – it was meant literally. The flesh robot Martin Luther had been pre programmed (at the start of the universe – long before he was born) to stand in this place and to utter these words – no moral choice being involved, because (in Dr Luther’s moral theology) humans are incapable of choosing to overcome their evil passions and doing good – his language concerning humans compares us to savage beasts, or even excrement, with no moral agency at all – and if his theology is correct, then (yes) his philosophy and his politics (all power to the Princes) is also correct.
Thomas Hobbes and David Hume carried on this philosophical tradition – but largely without God (i.e. without the theology).
“But Paul – Pope Francis has a bust of Dr Luther in his study, and has issued stamps with Dr Luther on them – and speaks in support of him” – yes I am very much aware of that, but as I am not a Roman Catholic the problem of a, possibly, heretic Pope (who, it-is-alleged, brought in tribal idols from the Amazon into Saint Peter’s – and placed them on the High Altar) is not a problem I have to grapple with.
The Church of England has lots of horrible theological and political problems of its own. But even in the 1700s the Anglican Church had, by and large, rejected Predestination (at least the normal understanding of Predestination) and the implied denial of moral agency.
As for the Russian Orthodox Church, it is not Augustine obsessed (and so does not have to try and square his theology with Free Will) and it gloats that it has not gone down the “Woke” (Frankfurt School of Marxism) path – as both much (although far from all) of the Roman Catholic Church and much of the Anglian (and some other Western) Churches have gone down.
However, the Russian Orthodox Church has its own problems – namely financial corruption at the highest levels, and a slavish attitude to the state.
The latter is actually a theological problem – the Western Church traditionally viewed the rulers as men who should live up to high moral standards, but (alas) often failed to do so.
The Eastern Church seems to have, in part, inherited the Roman and Byzantine idea of the rulers as a source of holiness. Hence the doctrine in Roman Imperial Law that the Emperor can do no wrong and that his “will” is law – a doctrine of Roman Imperial Law that was revived by Thomas Hobbes and was one of the reasons he was detested in the 17th and 18th centuries in legal and philosophical (as well as theological) circles in England – in the 19th century the attitude towards Thomas Hobbes gradually changed in England (quite wrongly – the Old Whigs were correct, and the new Radicals utterly wrong).
Although one must not overstate the slavish attitude to the state of Eastern Orthodoxy – after all even Mr Putin (murderer though he is) was shocked to see an icon of himself in a new Orthodox Church, and requested that it be removed.
This makes a strong contrast with the “Patriotic Catholic” and “Patriotic Protestant” churches in China – where images of President Xi (and other blasphemous images) are normal.
In relation to the Catholic Church in China – these blasphemous “Patriotic Churches” are officially recognised by the Vatican, This is due to the deal negotiated by Cardinal McCarrick (a deal that betrayed the “Underground” Catholic Church in China), long time Soviet Agent-of-Influence and sex offender. Sadly Pope Francis was given very bad guidance on international relations and other matters.
Paul:
That was in De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, written 424/427 AD (according to Wikipedia).
A text in which i have zero interest.
I was talking about De Libero Arbitrio, written about 30 years earlier, and maintaining a different theory. (With internal inconsistencies btw.)
Call it Augustine mk1.
And anyway, nothing of what you say contradicts my assertion that your concept of agency/free will is completely different from the concept(s) of Reid and Augustine mk1.
Patrick – “was the Soviet Union a case of Communism with Russian characteristics or Russia with Communist characteristics?”
It was neither – the Soviet Union was a Marxist system (although it never claimed to have “achieved Communism”) – it is not good to see the old lie of some (some) Marxists that “the problem is not Marxism it is Russia” seeming to do-the-rounds again.
Mark – Mr Putin is no soldier, he is ex spook, there is no shame in that – but it is not the same thing as knowing anything about military matters.
But Mr Putin also made a terrible mistake even from the point of view of an Intelligence Officer – he assumed the Ukrainian military was about the same in 2022 as it had been in 2014.
But there had been a massive improvement in the Ukrainian military.
Only today I was listening to President Trump talking to Glenn Beck – neither man is a war monger (indeed they would be denounced round here as far too pro peace) – but President Trump boasted of the weapons and training he had given to the Ukrainian military – including those Javelin missiles that destroyed so many Russian tanks.
The British also gave vast amounts of weapons and training to the Ukrainian military.
I think, if he makes the effort to be honest with himself, Vladimir Putin would agree that for a mistake so extreme, that has cost so many lives, as assuming the Ukrainian military was much the same in 2021 as it had been in 2014, the penalty is harsh.
I remember pointing out to an Orthodox priest (and former British military person) that if Mr Putin is sincere in his Orthodoxy he should now, at the very least, renounce all power and enter a remote monastic community for the rest of his life.
The Gentleman I said this to was not pleased (to put the matter mildly) – but by the theology of his own Church, it is the truth.
By the way….
Hollywood is wrong about confession (in the Roman Catholic Church – or any other).
It is not a ritual where someone says a few words (“Our Fathers” or “Hail Marys” – and so on) and is then forgiven – the priest must see real repentance or there is no way that absolution can be granted.
And real repentance includes (must include) seeking out just punishment for one’s crimes – saying a few ritual words and then going back to committing the same crimes is no good.
Canon Law (in both Western and Eastern Churches) is very clear on this. Even if, in recent decades, the teaching of Canon Law has been neglected.
“Of course God will forgive you – when you are in prison or waiting for execution I will come to you” is something that a priest should be clear on.
Seeking out punishment for one’s crimes, crimes that one could have hidden (and escaped punishment for) is the sign of true repentance.
@Paul Marks,
I dunno. I’ve always analyzed the role of confession in Catholic culture as being a social control, in that you’re a lot less likely to go against the word of the local church representative (your priest…) who knows everything bad that you’ve ever done. You’re basically expected to hand said representative blackmail material in secret, which he’ll have to hold over you. At the least, subconsciously.
My cynical nature says that if the Church were really interested in using that confession routine as a means of reducing sin and ameliorating all of its effects, then confession would be a public thing, wherein you voice your actions, accept your punishment, and everyone in the community knows about it.
In other words, it’d look a lot more like a Maoist struggle session, with everyone chiming in to say what a nasty piece of work you are, and then embracing you after the whole thing is over. It’d be a lot more public and cathartic. Except for the people running things, that is…
The fact it doesn’t work that way makes it abundantly clear that there are other motivations for how it is organized.
As to the anniversary of the attempted rape of Ukraine, at least now more Americans can find the place on the map. I really wish they’d stop doing geography lessons like this.
As to Russia and Russian ambitions, I think that what we’re playing out here is the crash of some very delusional thinking by all the bright lights in Moscow. They’ve been running on empty since about 1970, when Breznev was in charge, wasting money on stupidities and not taking care of the basics. They’re now paying the demographic price for that, just as we will if we let the greenies take over and make our decisions for us.
Demographics is destiny. Rome fell, in no small part, because the rich bastards running the place used the citizen legionaries from the countryside completely up. They toddled along for a few centuries looting the neighbors and all that, but the root of their strength in the legions was gone. You don’t make good soldiers out of poverty-stricken urbanites or the slaves off of latifundia that you replaced all your yeoman-farmers with.
Now, how is that germane to the Russian situation? Simple; first the Communists, and now the Russian oligarchs have done exactly the same thing, hollowing out the ranks of the demographic that actually produced most of their reliable manpower. Where the Tsar could count on endless numbers of serfs to call up, the Communists thought they could, too. And, they did. For awhile. Then, the sorry conditions out in all the little cities and towns of Russia actively discouraged people from having those large families, and generation by generation, each generation got smaller and smaller. Today? All I can say is “Yikes…”, because the end of the Russian people is in sight. Unless someone smartens up and turns things around, which I doubt they will. Because having endless manpower is a part of the Russian identity, their worldview, and they apparently cannot process that they no longer have that sort of strength. It’s a mess.
You see the same sort of thing going on with regards to socialism in Europe. The elites think that they don’t need to worry about opportunity for the young, the young don’t get married and start stable families, and Hey! Presto!!, there’s nobody to enter the welfare state pyramid scheme at the bottom. Which is caused directly by the way they run things up at the top. As well, here in the US? The geniuses running things thought they’d chase all that cheap labor overseas to China, and never once considered that by taking all the industry out of the US, they’d be destroying their own market because there wouldn’t be much of a base left that could afford to buy their Chinese-made goods. China did the same sort of damn thing with their one-child policies; the base has been hollowed out, and it may not ever come back in our lifetimes.
This sort of syndrome is pretty common. It’s due mostly to the greed and utter lack of foresight on the part of the idiots running things. Nobody ever thought, in Republican Rome, that they’d run the well dry on yeoman soldiers–Yet, overseas adventure after adventure, all in the name of enriching the already-wealthy, led to just that.
Unintended second- and third-order effects are a straight-up stone-cold bitch.
I also made a prediction about a year ago on here, where I said that this war would drag on and on for years. I was assured that logistics would mean that the Russians would run out of bullets and men before long. And yet here we are. But of course Biden fixed that by sending the price of oil sky high to help fund the Russian war machine. It’ll be a decade of a grinding mess. With the US and Europe providing just enough support to keep the Ukrainians in the game, but not enough to win. And so, this war will drag out for the next decade. Bleeding tax payers dry to send money to arms manufacturers who have bought off the politicians, and the people of Ukraine and poor Russian conscripts who have no choice, will bleed and die for these dreadful, evil politicians. All the while lauding the monstrous Zelenskyy as he sets the model for all future politicians — lock up the opposition, shut down the press, close the churches, end all dissent and opposition. It is a politician’s wet dream.
Is it really not obvious that this war started almost to the day that the middle east wars ended? Is it entirely unreasonable to think that these two things are unconnected?
Daft. The West is easily strong enough in aggregate, what it has lacked was enough leaders willing to up the ante fast rather than gradually. Training Ukrainian pilots for NATO jets & providing longer range weapons should have started in the first few weeks, not just now.
So, Zelenskyy’s crime is acting like Chamberlain, Churchill, Daladier, Roosevelt, Truman by controlling information & suppressing enemy controlled civil institutions & collaborationists in a total war?
It is an oft-repeated claim of the Russia appeasers and supporters that there is some sort of moral equivalence between the governments of Russia and Ukraine, that they are just as bad as each other. This is entirely dishonest.
Apologies for OT, but . . .
Hey, Paul, we don’t have to fight and resist the evil that is in and around us in our own strength.
As a person to whom the Lord Jesus Christ has any relevance, all we have to do is simply submit everything to His will and guidance and, really, let Him take it from there.
The hard bit is simply leaving it all in His hands and seeking to be in His will and not our own. To leave our own will, whatever way that manifests, out.
It is God’s work in us.
And, indeed, may this invasion nightmare of Ukraine soon be over.
Kirk.
What Canon Law, and basic doctrine, says and what priests do is (indeed) often two different things – for example why are Marxist terrorists (atheists by definition – as Marxism is an atheist philosophy) given Church funerals in Northern Ireland and why are they buried in consecrated ground. They did NOT use to be – the change came in the 1960s, if asked “what doctrine has changed?” the answer given is “no doctrine has been changed – Vatican II was a Pastoral not a Doctrinal Council”. So why is doctrine and Canon Law not enforced? “Pastoral work, Community work” – if you can understand that Kirk then you can explain it to me because (I admit) I am totally baffled by it – and by much else.
As for Blackmail – if Confession is done properly then there can be no question of that, as to show real repentance the person must seek out (demand) just punishment from the civil authorities for their crimes.
“But Paul, Confession is not done properly – absolution is sometimes granted after nothing more than the repeating of ritual words”.
I do not deny it – but again neither Canon Law or doctrine has been changed, these is just a lot of 1960s blarney and blather about being “understanding” and so on. No apology for my harsh language – after all even child rape was covered up. And open supporters of the mass slaughter of babies are welcomed to the most sacred places – welcomed by the most senior clerics.
And if anyone thinks this is just the Catholic church, they are wrong – all (all) churches have cases of evil ignoring of basic doctrine – under the mask of “compassion” towards evil doers. It is not compassionate at all – because by, de facto, telling them that they do not seek out (demand) punishment for their crimes – they lose their soul.
It is NOT compassionate to cover up the crimes of a child rapist – not compassionate towards the victims, and NOT compassionate towards the rapist himself. If he does not seek out (demand) just punishment for his crimes, he has not repented – and he is damned.
So I stand by the words “blarney and blather” for much of what has passed for theology (it is not theology at all) since the 1960s.
JohnB – it is not off topic at all.
For example, Dr Luther held that people should submit to tyranny (no Thomas Hobbes did not invent that doctrine – it is there in the work of Dr Luther before Mr Hobbes was born, and goes back long before Dr Luther) – he was asked if this even included the Ottoman Despotism, and Dr Luther replied that it did.
If human beings are NOT created in the image of God (in the sense of having free will – moral agency), if we are just “shit” – then of course it does not matter if we are ruled by tyranny, be it the Ottoman Sultan or Mr Putin.
If moral reason is a “whore” (Dr Luther) or “is and ought to be a slave of the passions” (Mr Hume) there is no argument against Mr Putin (or any other tyrant) and Thomas Hobbes and-so-on were correct.
By the way – the Orthodox Church is also clear that repentance must be ACTIVE – saying a few ritual words does NOT save you, not if you do not truly repent.
If someone has told Mr Putin “you can have rivals murdered, and invade places – and as long as you say these ritual works, you will be fine” they are LYING to him, the Orthodox Church has never taught that.
Epistle of James – true faith is shown by what you DO (“works”), just saying the words is NOT enough.
“But Dr Luther called the Epistle of James an Epistle of Straw” – yes he did, had had to disparage the Letter of James because of his (Dr Luther’s) philosophical doctrine that people can not make a MORAL CHOICE to do other than they do.
But it does show that Dr Luther was not quite as devoted to the Bible, to Holy Scripture, as is claimed in films and so on – after all the Epistle of James is a Book of the Bible – we do not even need to go into the Books he cut out, or his odd translation (adding words) of other Books.
For those who still do not understand.
To repent – Mr Putin has to change his conduct – carrying on murdering people and then saying a few ritual words does NOT save his soul, because such a “repentance” would not be sincere, would not be REAL.
Christianity is not a magic trick – it is not about saying a few magic words to get into Heaven.
If we do not seek just punishment for our crimes and change our ways, we have NOT repented.
“But what do you do if someone will not actively repent of their crimes – but still wants to take part in the rituals of worship”.
You stand at the door and you deny them entrance – “do not return till you have truly repented of what you have done – till you have shown that you have repented”.
You do not allow a Mafia boss, or other such, into the church – not unless they have really come to repent (not just engage in ritual activity), and, if need be, you die trying to keep-them-out.
No one has to become a priest or a minister – if they are not prepared to die to try and prevent baby killers (and other such) defiling a church by their unrepentant presence, they should not have become a priest or a minister.
And it is the same for an atheist moral philosopher – if they are not prepared to die for the ethics they teach, their teaching is empty.
Lots of attention to this in the US today. This may well be true and accurate. But it was not politic of Zelensky. This is not the way to convince fence-sitters, and right now there are a lot of fence-sitters here. At least fence-sitters aren’t actively thwarting things. Statements like this get people off of fences, in one direction or the other, and the people most willing to help are already off of that particular fence.
@Paul Marks,
We’re way off-topic here, but I would submit that it is valuable to look at any institution, custom, or behavioral act with an eye towards determining an answer to the question “What function does this serve?” for the individual, the community, or the culture.
You start from instinctively defending that which has always existed simply on the basis of “It is tradition…”, and you open yourself up to people making the changes they want because tradition is old-fashioned and outmoded, indefensible because those grotty old-timers were the nasty people that came up with them, and we all know how horrible they were…
What I’ve found is that it makes a much better argument to proceed along the lines Chesterton did, with his fence. Time has a way of eroding things away that don’t work or are unnecessary, so when you run into something time-hallowed and customary, that’s been around since ferfreakinever, you might want to step back and contemplate the role that thing actually fulfills in a purely mechanistic and functional sense. Ask the “Why?” questions, and if you get the answer that it’s traditional or that some godlike being mandated it, then you need to start looking at why that thing has hung around as long as it has.
There’s always a reason. They don’t do pork across the Middle East because trichinosis and the meat going bad quickly. That’s become custom and religious dietary law; why? Because, those that didn’t follow it did worse in life than those who did, and the consequences were easily visible. Plus that, pigs take a lot of water to farm, and that’s in short supply. In purely mechanistic and functional ways, that proscription on pig makes sense… And, it makes even more sense that they glommed on to it as a dietary thing because it’s always valuable to have something to set your in-group apart from the “other”, and to give you something to feel good about when looking at them. “At least, we don’t eat those nasty pigs…”
You get to confession as a cultural feature. What’s important about it? You confess your deepest, darkest sins to the local priest, who absolves you. In practical terms, even if that guy never, ever uses that against you… That fact that he knows will always be in the back of your head. This serves as a dissuasion to commit further such sin, and it also serves to enhance that priest’s prestige and coercive power within the society of your little village. He knows everything. Who’s going to go against him?
As an effective tool of social control, I can’t really think of anything better. That’s the function of that custom, right there–Keeping people on the straight and narrow. It can be good, it can be bad; all depends on the priest and the local church. But, in a purely mechanistic sense, that’s how it works at a certain level. Forget theology, look at what it does. The theology flows from the need, and the guys who set all of this up were pretty canny observational behaviorists. There were reasons they instituted the whole idea, and they obviously work.
It’s like that with everything. Look at the close resemblance between what goes on with a gang “jumping-in” process and military basic training. It’s all there to build and reinforce male bonding between group members who will have to go risk things together. I don’t doubt but that there were similar things back when it was some hunting band getting their nuts up to go mammoth hunting. The more things change, the more they remain the same…
I have learned that it is best to gloat after you are proved right. My bet is that it will be largely over within a year. At least up to Crimea.
@Marius
It is an oft-repeated claim of the Russia appeasers and supporters that there is some sort of moral equivalence between the governments of Russia and Ukraine, that they are just as bad as each other. This is entirely dishonest.
I made no such claim, just because I think Zelenskiy is a horrible tyrant doesn’t mean I don’t think Putin is worse. I think Biden is a horrible tyrant too, but he isn’t in the same league as the other two men (I think primarily because he isn’t able to, rather than because he doesn’t desire to.)
And although you didn’t strictly say this, the implication is clear: an all too common tactic now is when one does not fall 100% in line with the mainstream view one is apparently accused of being a supporter or appeaser of Putin. Unfortunately, I am still waiting for that ten million dollar bribe from Vlad. Or perhaps you might consider an alternative interpretation of the facts that I thought about it on my own and came to a different conclusion. Demonizing rather than failing to argue the point (as, in fairness, others have argued the case here) is a standard tactic of the woke brigade.
an all too common tactic now is when one does not fall 100% in line with the mainstream view one is apparently accused of being a supporter or appeaser of Putin.
This has been the war promoter’s standard practice for a long time. When this is over and time has passed I expect the realization will set in that this was yet another misguided adventure that cost many thousands of lives and could have been avoided. It’s possible to reasonably critique the past misadventures of Vietnam, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Serbia and many other attempted color revolutions like Venezuela, but at the time those were being carried out all criticism was dismissed as sympathy for tyrants, too.
Ukraine will eventually learn that the US security state’s objectives are not Ukraine’s objectives. They will almost certainly suffer through another one of America’s forever wars, as a successful war is not America’s objective.
And if enough western support were actually given to genuinely overrun Russia’s forces and storm the Russian naval base in Sevastopol that very likely would trigger a nuclear response. Even lunatics like Nuland may consider that a good enough reason to be limit the support. But in any case the American objective is to bleed Russia, not free Ukrainian territory, so another forever war is what we are almost certain to see for now.
@Perry de Havilland (London)
Daft. The West is easily strong enough in aggregate, what it has lacked was enough leaders willing to up the ante fast rather than gradually.
Daft though it may be, I think you are kind of making my point. Certainly with enough commitment and a willingness to risk nuclear exchange the west could easily beat the Russian forces. The fact that they haven’t seems fairly strong evidence that that is not the goal. I don’t think that is the only reason, but it is certainly a significant contributing factor.
I think you are certainly acting in good faith and want to see the Russians defeated. But that is not, as far as I can see, the goal of the Americans (though other NATO countries probably have a different view.) Why should they? This war is a massive gravy train. It gives Biden cover for his utter fecklessness, adds to the whole “evil Russia” meme so that all the “White Supremacists” in America suffer the same taint, after all we all know that Trump is basically a Russian spy, since the press tells us so), and produces massive amounts of government spending and “investment” by lobbyists in all these evil politicians careers. It is a perfect war. No dead Americans, but all the political benefits of war. The only people who suffer are foreigners with funny accents, so the hell with them.
If you want proof it is the wrong policy, just consider this: almost without exception everyone in Washington, London, Berlin and Paris agree it is the right policy. If there was ever proof it was the wrong policy that is it right there.
So, Zelenskyy’s crime is acting like Chamberlain, Churchill, Daladier, Roosevelt, Truman by controlling information & suppressing enemy controlled civil institutions & collaborationists in a total war?
So throwing your political opponents in jail, shutting down opposition press, closing down churches, forcing people at gunpoint onto the front lines is OK because some other people did it? Rooosevelt also rounded up all the Japanese Americans on the west coast and put them in concentration camps. Would you be ok were Zelenskiy to round up everyone with a Russian sounding last name and lock them up too? And what about poison gas used against civilians? Here is what Churchill had to say about it:
In this “total war” justification; do you see any limits at all? Is there anything that the bad guys would do that would not prompt reciprocity from you?
Absolutely, and the risk of nuclear exchange is why USA, UK & France also have nukes. If you think a terror of nukes prevents confronting & indeed using force against Russia in Ukraine is a valid driver of policy then presumably the same is true for Russia in Estonia, Finland, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, all nations that individually cannot prevail against Russia if attacked.
That is exactly what I think.
Absurd. Now do Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia… the fact you think opposing Russian expansion with more than pearl clutching is not the right policy indicates how tribalism deranges people. The fact Biden is more or less doing the right thing twists you into mental pretzels because the idea you might unexpectedly find yourself on the same side of an issue as him or the odious Sean Penn et al has scrambled your critical faculties.
Yes, because that’s how you fight a total war. Either fight it by doing whatever is required to avoid collective annihilation or surrender, there is no reasonable middle ground.
No, no limits whatsoever when you are fighting to avoid complete national destruction. That is why some nations have nukes, the very definition of a “no limit” weapon.
So you think Russia will end the world because it loses Sevastopol? Well that’s certainly what they want people to think, but I have my doubts. If losing what they claim is a Russian city will trigger a nuclear response, why not go nuclear after losing Kherson? Ukraine has made it clear that they will continue to fight on if tactical nuclear weapons are used, so nothing short of nuking NATO supply terminals across Europe is actually going to change things -> end of the world.
I call bullshit.
I call bullshit.
Since this began we’ve been told Putin is a a madman, has multiple terminal diseases, is irrational, paranoid and is about to be killed by internal enemies, but also that NATO can confidently escalate without any consideration of Russia taking the war back to us. Nonsense.
We have AWACS planes buzzing around the Black Sea providing early warning air defence and real time targeting of Russian naval assets. By any measure these are active combat participants and legitimate military targets, especially after the sinking of the Moskva. We are counting on tremendous Russian restraint for them to resist the calls to shoot these planes down and so far they have decided it is in their interest to work around them. But at some level of NATO supplies they will absolutely decide that they are at war with all of NATO anyway so it only makes sense to respond in kind.
And where is Russia’s red line for going nuclear? I don’t know for sure and neither do you. But Sevastopol has been Russian’s primary naval base since the 1700s. Where is France or Britain’s red line for nuclear response? Would having your primary naval base overrun by Russians or Chinese count?
Kirk:
There’s always a reason. They don’t do pork across the Middle East because trichinosis and the meat going bad quickly. That’s become custom and religious dietary law; why? Because, those that didn’t follow it did worse in life than those who did, and the consequences were easily visible.
——————————
And every Asia-Pacific culture is based on pork and seafood, in stiflingly hot and humid climes… While the dates, grain, and oil in the pyramids and on Masada were still edible when discovered.
It’s so easy to just reach in and pull out a tired old slogan… these gems of anti-religious preening never made much sense, often deliberately miss the scripture’s explicit meaning, and have now been warmed over 3 or 4 times by various sophomores.
Better to remain silent and be thought a… etc.
Bishop Ambrose refused the Emperor Theodosius the Great, a man who had the power of life and death over anyone, entrance to the church in Milan – till the Emperor had repented.
If the head of the Orthodox Church in Russia refused to allow President Putin to enter a church for worship – it would have a massive effect, as Mr Putin bases the legitimacy of his regime on such things.
But the leadership of the Orthodox Church is corrupt – in the sense that they will not do this.
This is not to attack the Orthodox as especially bad – we are ALL sinners (I most certainly am) – but it would be good if the tried to make an effort.
This is my reply to Kirk.
The priests either believe (have faith) or they do not – and if they do not, they should resign.
Not in the slightest bit true, unless you think Russians are incapable of cost/benefit analysis.
If you think what a small number of HIMARS/M270s did to disrupt Russian logistics, now imagine what it would look like with NATO air superiority by day 10, air supremacy by day 30 after direct NATO involvement. The strength of NATO is its airpower. Also, they lose the Russian navy.
It’s really not that hard to figure out. Going nuclear only makes sense if you are looking at national annihilation. If you Hiroshima our cities, we Hiroshima yours. It is that simple.
Sure but I reckon if a bunch of NATO armoured corps were closing in on Moscow, they’d probably see that as a genuine no-shit existential threat too, so I think it’s a bit more complex than just Mutually Assured Destruction. But yes, they ain’t going to end the world for Sevastopol & it’s not smart to make your policies as if they might.
Not that i am an expert on the Orthodox Church, but one must distinguish between the autocephalous Russian Orthodox Church (the Moscow Patriarchate) and the rest of the Church.
There seems to be a schism looming on the horizon, between the Moscow Patriarchate and (most of?) the rest of the Church. The issue (as i understand) is whether the Ukrainian Orthodox Church should become autocephalous or remain subject to the Russian Church. Since the Russian Church has become little more than Putinist propaganda, this seems like a ‘no-brainer’ to me. (Assuming that my understanding of the issues is correct.)
The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople seems to agree with me 🙂
Which is why i think that Fraser is delusional about Zelenskyy’s “tyranny”.
I am against any Western attack on Russia – and I am against providing nuclear weapons to the Ukraine.
The Soviet Union for many years provided arms and training to “near-neighbours” of the United States – but it did NOT attack the United States itself (other than backing some terrorist groups) and it only provided nuclear weapons once – the reckless decision that led to the Cuban Missile Crises in 1962.
Western help to the Ukraine must be confined to conventional arms and training – and I am pleased to say that this is the policy of both Mr Sunak and Mr Biden (yes, for once, I am not going to attack Mr Biden – or those who control him).
As for Russia – talk of “breaking up” Russia or other such is strongly condemned by both the government of the United States and the government of the United Kingdom – and rightly so, as such talk is exactly what Mr Putin, or rather his internal propaganda people, can use. They can use such talk to present the war as a Western plot against Russia – not a reckless adventure by Mr Putin (which is what the war actually is).
One thing this war has proved is something that people should have already known – Mr Putin is in no way the tool of an “economic class” of “Oligarchs”. Marxism is just wrong in the idea that all governments serve the interests of an economic class – Dr Marx himself was asked what “economic class” the government Napoleon III of France served, and could come up with no answer other than the absurd joke answer that it served “the lumpen proletariat” (the criminals and vagrants) – this non-answer showed that Karl Marx could not seriously defend his own theory, even when asked a simple question.
Russia would be better off under the rule of “the Oligarchs” – i.e. people motivated by money (and the desire for a comfortable life) rather than someone, Mr Putin, who is motivated by dreams of greatness.
As Dr Johnson put it “a man is seldom so innocently engaged as when he is after money” – as men will do much worse things for other reasons, such as the desire for power and “immortal fame”.
For those who do not know – Mr Putin has, for many years, been murdering or throwing into a prison camps any big business type who steps out of line. The idea that Mr Putin represented an “economic class” (as the weirdly Marxist influenced West seemed obsessed with assuming) was nonsense long before the invasion of Ukraine.
Some people ask (indeed they have asked me) why academic Marxist books are written in such jargon laden prose, why they are almost unreadable.
The answer is not that Marxists are all bad writers – far from it. Nor is the answer that academic books have to be badly written and almost unreadable.
The answer is brutally simple – if modern Marxist academic books (especially Frankfurt School “Woke” Marxist “Critical Theory” works) were written in plain language, the absurdity of the doctrines would become obvious.
“But the implication of that is the writers know the doctrines are absurd”.
Yes – that is the implication.
@Perry de Havilland (London)
presumably the same is true for Russia in Estonia, Finland, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, all nations that individually cannot prevail against Russia if attacked.
These are NATO countries (except Finland, which is a more complicated special case). If Russia does attack them then they can expect legitimately to meet opposition from all NATO militaries, and in that they will certainly lose. Now will this lead to a nuclear exchange? It is certainly a possibility, but less likely that were NATO in Ukraine. See my comments below. (And FWIW, the Polish military is pretty bad ass, I think there is a fair chance they could hold off the Russians on their own.)
And, FWIW, I would NOT use American troops to defend NATO in Europe. I think it would be very much less inflammatory to use British, German, French and Polish troops. (And others of course, but those are the best militaries in Europe.)
No, no limits whatsoever when you are fighting to avoid complete national destruction. That is why some nations have nukes, the very definition of a “no limit” weapon.
So, just to be clear, to use the two examples I gave, you would feel that Ukraine was justified in setting up concentration camps and using chemical weapons against Russian cities full of civilians? OR going further into the “no limits” realm, you’d be OK with abandoning the laws of War? Perhaps crucifying Russian troops along the roads to intimidate incoming Russian troops, or kidnapping military leaders’ children and sending them videos of their kids being tortured to death? Considering, for discussion sake, only the morality rather than the potential strategic wisdom of such choices. So really, no limits? TBH, I’m not sure what to say to that. At some point you have to realize that if you lose yourself fighting for your survival, if you become the monster you are fighting, even if you find military victory you still lost everything that actually matters.
Regarding nuclear weapons, there are two views on this subject: the view that nuclear weapons means that if you are going to lose, you can guarantee the other side loses as well, and so they act as a deterrent to even starting. This, MAD strategy has been the widely held view since the 70s. However, there is a growing idea of the “winnable nuclear war”. I hear it more and more. A more reckless idea I cannot think of. It comes from the same mentality of acceptable losses as Britain threw its armies against German machine guns on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, multiplied by 10,000. A complete loss of vision of the purpose of a nation, to serve its citizens, and not to serve itself. The willingness to sacrifice millions of innocent bystanders in the name of fulfilling policy goals.
I’m afraid our moral compasses do not align.
You accuse me of pearl clutching, but that isn’t true. The solution is a negotiated settlement. That will certainly the the solution eventually, the question is when, and how much carnage to trade off for concessions.
Oh, and FWIW, I realize I’m yelling into the wind here. But I will, if you will permit, jump in occasionally to offer a contrary view. I appreciate you allowing me to express a view that you no doubt find repugnant, here in your house.
No ad hominin was done, perfectly ok with me.
No, because atrocities would have not have any positive impact whatsoever on Ukraine’s prospects for survival (indeed it would be disastrous as it would end indispensable foreign support). Fighting a total war means a nation doing whatever it has to do to survive, not doing whatever the hell some people’s baser urges move them to do. For example, striking military & logistic targets in Russian cities will cause Russian civilians to die. Tough titties. And Ukraine has indeed struck targets in Belgorod in Russia proper. Lobbing random missiles into Russian cities just to kill people (i.e. what Russia often does to Ukrainian cities)? Pointless. WW2 showed that really doesn’t achieve much & is counterproductive.
@PdH
I find the moral calculus in your response very strange. They should not commit atrocities because it would diminish public support? Or because they would not be effective? Not because it is wrong, evil and goes against every shred of decency? Not because each step in that direction makes them more and more like their enemy? Not because once one shuts down the press in war it becomes much easier to do it during peace? Not because each time one throws ones political opposition in prison due to “public emergency” it becomes very easy to find all sorts of “public emergencies” whenever one needs to.
Surely we can find some atrocities that can be kept sufficiently secret that would indeed be effective. Perhaps capturing and torturing prisoners of war to get tactical data before shooting them and incinerating their bodies to cover up the evidence. How about kidnapping the children of Russian generals and tortured them in way the generals knew but nobody else did. In such a way that it would be the word of saintly Zelenskiy against the word of the evil Russian military leaders to turn them to Ukraine’s advantage. Would that be ok, if such torture gave their army useful tactical information? If they put a little cholera in the Russian army’s water supply on the down low, would that be OK? I mean it doesn’t take much thought to come up with all sorts of terrible but effective ideas.
I’m not saying they are doing those specific things (though I very much doubt Russian PoWs are being treated in accordance with the rules of war.) The question is about “no limits”. Are there really no limits. Are the only limits expediency? And if we accept there are some limits then it becomes a question of negotiating the price.
PdH>> “Fighting a total war means a nation doing whatever it has to do to survive, not doing whatever the hell some people’s baser urges move them to do. For example, striking military & logistic targets in Russian cities will cause Russian civilians to die. Tough titties.”
So you prefer the lives of nations over the lives of people, and you seem to be content that ordinary Russian civilian people die. Shame on you.
I didn’t think that was you folk did here. It has been a lesson.
Perhaps it’s more that he prefers the lives of his friends the citizens of the invaded nation over the lives of the citizens of the invading nation? Nothing monstrous in that.
You might argue that Russian citizens have no agency over this invasion, but the invasion is being done at least in their name and with their resources, which makes them the most responsible group for stopping or controlling it. Just in a utilitarian mode, if any people ought to be taking the pain for this mess, it’s the group with the best shot at stopping it from happening again, not the invaded people. Let Russians feel the pain, which will encourage them to work harder to retake, and control, their own country and military.
Better that no one should suffer, but if some populace has to feel this pain, let it be the Russians.
As a certain general famously said, war is cruelty and you cannot refine it. War is an exercise in radical utilitarianism & to think otherwise of wishful thinking. It would be great if wars didn’t happen, it really would, but particularly when it comes to total wars against a mass murderous enemy, you either surrender & accept the consequences of placing yourself at the mercy of such people or you do whatever is required to win.
When it comes to conventional wars, that is a game of nations, there is no escaping that. To avoid being ruled by the Russian state, Ukrainians need the Ukrainian state, there is no finessing away that central fact.
And when military targets are in enemy cities during a war, are you really going to argue that this puts them off-limits? Not hard to see the perverse incentives that approach to fighting a war offers your enemy. All military & logistic targets are legitimate in a war, all of them, and that means non-combatants will be at risk. I realise decades of remote colonials wars since 1945 have given western folk some very odd ideas what inevitably happens when real peer wars happen but there you have it.
Sure, the state is not your friend, I certainly get that, and that includes the Ukrainian state. But from the perspective of the average Ukrainian (the most reflexively cynical people I ever met when it comes to expecting probity from their rulers), the alternatives are not war or peace, but war or occupation by a foreign state with mass murderous intentions. There is no handwaving that away either.
Mr Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was wrong – no amount of double talk can change that.
As for Ukraine – it should be an independent nation, neither under Moscow or Brussels (or the rest of the accursed “international community” with its Agenda 2030 and so on).
This war will end one way or the other. This year, next year. Whenever.
I think the real question going forward is how serious toytown Austria-Hungary is about ukrainian membership. I don’t doubt for a second that Ukraine wants it.
The costs of rebuilding would then fall on EU taxpayers. Look what integrating east Germany cost. That would be like a lottery win in comparison! And that doesn’t include the spectacular subsidies that those endless plains could extract.
Reason to be glad we left googolplex + one!
Was in Lviv last week. Very low on their list of “things to worry about”
@Perry de Havilland (London)
you either surrender & accept the consequences of placing yourself at the mercy of such people or you do whatever is required to win.
Or a third option is that you fight like hell but do so while retaining some shreds of decency, retaining the core values that make you better than the monsters you fight against? And I think the particular things that Zelenskiy are doing are especially bad, not because they are as evil as, for example, chemical bombing cities, but because they are less obviously necessary. Most of his worst actions have been to do with suppression of internal dissent, censoring opposition etc. Now that is certainly the way the world seems to be heading, censorship is very popular these days. But I am old fashioned enough to believe that the solution to speech you don’t like is more speech, speech advocating for your viewpoint. It’s what we do here. You might not like what I say, but you argue with it, you don’t block me off your platform.
And it is during times of crisis that this principle is far and away the most important. Here in the United States we have been suffering from accusations of Russian propaganda and influence since the election of Trump, and these almost entirely untrue accusations have been horribly destructive. Now I don’t doubt that Russian propaganda is, or was, widespread in Ukraine. But countering an onslaught of propaganda amongst a population disposed to believe you is rather easier than countering an onslaught of Russian troops.
Given my sympathies for warrior races such as the ancient Romans (up to the end of the 2nd Punic War), the Vikings, the Mongols, and the Samurai, I find Fraser’s attitude alien to me.
I remarked many years ago on this forum that terrorism (almost?) never works in the long run, because it is based on the assumption that people do not respond to incentives:
Once people realize that only collective punishment stops terrorism, the terrorist cause is lost.
Much the same could be said about the current state of Russia and its supporters.
— But i most certainly understand why Fraser is not, and should not, be censored on this forum.
Snorri:
Once people realize that only collective punishment stops terrorism, the terrorist cause is lost.
——————————-
ooooh could you come here to Israel and give a series of Public Meetings… the realization you mention is taking awfully long here… at least among the elites: the holdouts who still think we Israelis are the “white oppressors” are the same *clever* class that opposes current attempts to reform our judiciary with minimal separation of powers…
You seem to have no understanding of the sheer scale of (1) decades of Russian subversion (2) internal Ukrainian institutional corruption (& there is a non-trivial correlation between those two things, albeit not a Pearson coefficient of 1, as I am sure Hunter Biden will attest).
To paraphrase what I wrote to Paul Marks the other day, you seem to think Zelenskyy lustrating an entire district court in Kyiv, one notorious for cutting loose slam-dunk corruption cases, is like the UK, US or French govts doing the same to a court whose rulings they don’t like in London, New York or Paris. It really isn’t.
I think that holding Zelensky up as a bad guy is more than a little disingenuous. I mean, where the hell were these perfectionist critics since the independence of Ukraine back in the early 1990s? I’d wager that half of them would have had problems finding Ukraine on a map.
George Washington and half the assholes we venerate as Founding Fathers here in the US were a bunch of outright bastards. Ever see the bills Washington proffered the Continental Congress? Good Christ, the liquor bills alone were extraordinary… He owned slaves, as well. He (arguably…) started the French and Indian War…
He also turned his officers down when they offered to conduct a putsch on his behalf when Congress refused to pay them. He was offered the effective Kingship of North America; turned that down, too.
So? George Washington: Saint or sinner?
How about both? Churchill was a drunken sot whose bad ideas got a lot of people killed. He was also likely the only reason that the UK fought on after Dunkirk and Singapore, as much as he might have contributed to both.
Ain’t none of these people perfect, when you look back at them. I don’t know why assholes insist that Zelensky meet some entirely hypothetical and delusional standard that nobody in the history of this planet has ever managed. I mean, for the love of Christ, Simon Bolivar had a bunch of fiddles he was sawing away at the entire time he was “liberating” South America.
You want to wait around for the perfect saint to save your ass, you’re going to be waiting a long damn time. Mr. Perfect Hero ain’t out there; Mr. Good Enough that shows up and does something deserves a bit of respect for just being there when he’s needed.
Ben David:
🙂
It would be an honor.
Until a year ago, i thought of the Israelis as the finest warrior race after ww2; and you are still in the 1st rank in my opinion.
As for wokeness in Israel: obviously i know next to nothing about it. I used to think that Israel was unreasonably ‘soft’ because of international pressure, but i am coming to realize that there is more wokeness in Israel than is good for the nation.
— If i may hazard an opinion that will seem outrageous to most people:
If i had to give a lecture tour in Israel, i would not advise on how to fight terrorism. I would advise to eliminate seed oils from the Israeli diet.
A. Israel has one of the highest consumption rates of omega-6 fatty acids in the world.
B. Reducing the ratio of omega-6 fats (from seed oils*) to omega-3 fats (from fish*) reduces aggression, depression, and suicidal/self-harm behaviors.
* to simplify.
Putting A and B together, it seems to me that, if Israelis consumed less seed oils, they’d be less woke.
See? I told you that you would find my idea outrageous!
@Snorri,
I’d like to submit that the construct “warrior race” is a.) a bit of an insult, and b.) not applicable to the Israelis in any way, shape, or form.
Firstly, the term “warrior” is not the compliment that many seem to think. Warriors are people that professional soldiers love to fight, because they’re mostly glory-seeking idiots with precisely zero self-discipline. Pirates are “warriors”; gang-bangers are “warriors”. They’re undisciplined, quasi-criminal and out for their own benefit and self-aggrandizement more than anything else. Warriors loot; warriors rape; warriors commit war crimes and torture their prisoners.
Calling someone a “warrior” is an insult of the highest degree. You’re basically calling them a thug.
What the Israelis are would be supremely disciplined and civilized soldiers. Men under discipline, living to a code of conduct, and entirely unlikely to loot, pillage, rape, and/or burn their enemies. Which may be rather too much of a good thing, dealing with Arabs. That’s a cultural issue for another aspect of this same discussion.
The other thing to remember is that the Israelis are citizen-soldiers of a representative democracy; as such, they’re a part of one of the deadlier organizations in history, far more dangerous than some collection of half-ass glory-hound warriors. You see that time and time again with the victories they’ve achieved over the Arab forces that have attacked them, who pretty much exemplify the whole “warrior ethos” syndrome in everything they do. “Warriors” are easy to defeat; egotists that can be manipulated into utter destruction in their pursuit of glory. See, for example, the Battle of Mohi, where the professional and disciplined Mongol army utterly destroyed the “warrior” rabble of the Hungarian king.
I have to credit the Israelis as consummate soldiers, fully representational of good civilization everywhere, more than anything else. Warriors, they are not.
Which is probably why the cross-cultural conversation they’ve been having with the Arabs hasn’t been going all that well, because the Israelis keep doing things to signal to the Arabs that the Arabs haven’t actually, y’know… Been defeated.
Which is an event that takes place only in the minds of those who’ve undergone such a thing. The Israelis are too damn civilized for their own good, and by doing all the things that they think signal magnanimity in victory, they’re actually telling the Arabs that the Arabs have won… Which is why lasting peace ain’t coming to Palestine until the Israelis lose their sh*t and finally deliver the Biblical smack-down that’s going to fully convince the average Arab in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank that they’ve well and truly lost a war. It’s like the Israelis are constantly fighting a WWI against the Germans, leaving them unconvinced that they’ve lost a war, and need to rethink their entire existence. What they need to do, should they want peace, is lay down a WWII-level of beating on their opponents, and then they’ll likely decide that there are better things to do than fight Israelis.
Or, they’ll mostly be dead. One of the two, either works for lasting peace.
To lighten things up, here’s a joke.
Q. How did the Ukrainian cross the road?
A. Slowly- he’s not Russian! Russian/rushing Get it? Why do I bother?