Stylistillusional

I am once again and eternally embarrassed to be Dutch. A country filled with naive, pearl-clutching, know-it-all's with a massive superiority complex.

Tbh, this sentiment about the libs being back in charge after a brief resurgence of Marxist seems like wishful thinking about China in the first place.

People can reasonably disagree on the extent to which China is committed to forming an alternative bloc to US imperialism. But it is ridiculous to make a conclusion either way based on a few years. Shit like that doesn't happen in just a few years. It takes (at minimum) decades of carefull strategic maneuvering and risk taking. It's not something you announce and then you just got to do it.

It's like people being sad about whatever BRICS summit not announcing an immediate alternative to the dollar: you basically played yourself by getting excited and then disappointed over an unrealistic wish.

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.

Maybe he should ask what he would do in that situation and then he'd have a pretty good idea of what Trump would do.

The only good ska punk artist

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.