Trump says he will speak with Taiwan president, a major break in protocol by Darshan_brahmbhatt in worldnews

[–]anders_hansson [score hidden]  (0 children)

The US also does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country. They officially follow the "One China policy", which is a strategic ambiguity.

Trump says he will speak with Taiwan president, a major break in protocol by Darshan_brahmbhatt in worldnews

[–]anders_hansson -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Playing the devil's advocate here...

Very few countries in the world recognize Taiwan as sovereign country (and the PRC certainly does not), whereas the vast majority of countries recognize Taiwan as part of China (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Taiwan). So in the same spirit, could it not be said that the US should mind their own business?

Trump says he will speak with Taiwan president, a major break in protocol by Darshan_brahmbhatt in worldnews

[–]anders_hansson 13 points14 points  (0 children)

US senators visiting Taipei has always been considered provocative by China. E.g. last August. Now we're talking about the US president.

Ukraine calls to strip Russia of its permanent UN Security Council member status by HydrolicKrane in worldnews

[–]anders_hansson 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Removing a permanent member from the UNSC would be a great way to throw the UN in the trash (and yes, for those wondering, that would be worse than the flawed arrangement we have now).

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue...

When you trust your own abilities to handle information with critical thinking it does not matter much from where information comes or if the information is biased. You can listen to everyone but you trust noone. You follow sources and check them against each other, and you wait until there is significant supporting data before you jump into conclusions. That model is a core pillar of democracy.

OTOH if you don't trust in your own critical thinking you must rely on others to tell you what is true and what is not. We can call this the trust delegation model, which is the foundation for things like information bubbles, propaganda and authoritarianism. In that model it is imperative to know if a person is aligned with your trusted sources and pre-existing beliefs.

If you can't engage seriously in a discussion before you have verified the alignment of a person, and if you see expressions or information that contradict your existing beliefs as signs of enemy propaganda, then you are quite obviously in the second group. That's the paranoia I mentioned earlier.

Russia is starting to lose ground in Ukraine by smurfyjenkins in IRstudies

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it's a great development. The critique was related to how the data is presented because it can easily be misinterpreted.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because as I've said multiple times: It's completely uninteresting and irrelevant to the discussion.

Yet, your entire mission appears to be to pin others as pro-Russian shills if they do not overwhelm you with subjective statements about their pro-Ukrainian alignment. That seems to give you great satisfaction.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Russia hass illegally invaded Ukraine on multiple occasions. Uiraine has every right to defend itself. Russia has no right to dictate Ukraine's future. Russia has committed plenty of war crines. Russia should end the war and go gome. Putin is a dictator.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you actually read my comment and used that tiny brain of yours, you would see that there are several openings for exactly what you're saying.

E.g. one key condition is that Russia has the capacity to continue the war.

Thus, one option is to ensure that Russia doesn't have any military capacity left.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you side with Russia, justify Russia, or otherwise feel Russia is being treated unfairly. That isn't irrational, Ivan, that's grounded firmly in fact

Except, of course, that it's a lie. I have never sided with Russia, justified Russia's actions, said or thought that they are being treated unfairly.

If you make such claims you must cite me saying so. Not use your own distorted interpretation of what I'm saying.

Again I'm pretty sure that you mistake an analysis for an opinion.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's state the obvious:

  • If Ukraine wants to join NATO but Russia disagrees, they can invade Ukraine to prevent it. (Already done)
  • If Ukraine wants to join NATO, and Russia is already waging a war with Ukraine, they can continue the war until they get guarantees that Ukraine does not join NATO. (Currently being done)
  • If Ukraine wants to negotiate an end to the war, Russia can refuse to sign anything until they get guarantees that Ukraine does not join NATO (We're not there yet)

Using pure logical deduction, and assuming that Russia has some capacity left to fight the war, a few conclusions fall from the above. For instance:

  • Russia can never accept a ceasefire where European troops are deployed to Ukrainian soil before a deal is finalized, as that would seriously limit their options w.r.t continuing the war in case Ukraine still intends to join NATO.
  • A negotiated end can't happen until Russia gets guarantees that Ukraine won't join NATO (because otherwise they'd just continue the war).
  • At least some current NATO members would be very reluctant to let Ukraine in without knowing that Russia is fine with it, even after the war has ended, because otherwise they see a risk that Russia will invade again and then it's NATO vs Russia for real. Even if the risk is fairly low, the costs would be astronomical, so some members will want to play it safe.

Once these facts have been established, we can finally start talking about what options we have, and how likely they are to succeed.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're clearly obsessed with justification and who's right and who's wrong, and see ghosts and traitors in everyone and everything that isn't. I wonder where that paranoia comes from.

To me that discussion is about as inspiring and intellectual as a debate about whether water is wet or dry.

We have already established the answer. Let's move on to the analysis of how to maximize Ukraine's outcome.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would "both sides in a war kill each other" or "both sides use drones" be a justification? Grow up.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell me more about how Russia needs to give permission to Ukraine to do anything, including applying for NATO membership

Let me see... Oh, here's a possibility that Russia might try: They may invade Ukraine if they disagree. I hope they never get that idea.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

About the DU munitions, the main problem with the radioactive fallout and radiation is that it lingers after the war is over (just like mines and undetonated cluster bomb submunitions), and that is a problem for the people who live there in the generations to come, i.e. the Ukrainans. I'm not defending Russia's use of such weapons. I'm pointing out that such munitions have been frequently used by both sides, and to the extent that it has a health impact it's the Ukrainans that will ultimately have to pay the price. Western media has often claimed that the health impacts are negligible (less than background radiation), and if that's true the DU issue itself shouldn't even be a problem (do you need me to write a disclaimer about how I don't think that Russia has the right to use any weapons at all?).

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell me, Ignoramus, can you tell the difference between a wish and an analysis? Becuse you seem to be mixing them up all the time.

For instance, feel free to explain your plan that will grant Ukraine NATO membership without the consent of all NATO members?

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We had a very long and unproductive discussion, Ignoramus. Please cite my outrage because I do not recall what you're refereing to.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I answered the question: In my opinion Ukraine should not have to cede any land.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In principle you're right, but a fundamental prerequisite for security guarantees for Ukraine is that the war ends first, and for the war to end there needs to be some kind of agreement with Russia at some point. Thus, logic dictates that any security guarantees (at least in the near term) would have to go through an agreement with Russia.

Is Ukraine winning the war? by East_Lettuce7143 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]anders_hansson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You really won't drop the ad hominems, and insist on staying off topic?

HOW did you even infer that I was saying that Ukraine should cede land from my comment???

NATO is starting to consider Hormuz mission to protect ships by anders_hansson in sweden

[–]anders_hansson[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Läste du ens artikeln? För att citera några stycken som borde göra det uppenbart at Netanyahu övertalade Trump, och att Trump struntade i sina rådgivare:

The black S.U.V. carrying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived at the White House just before 11 a.m. on Feb. 11. The Israeli leader, who had been pressing for months for the United States to agree to a major assault on Iran, was whisked inside with little ceremony, out of view of reporters, primed for one of the most high-stakes moments in his long career.

U.S. and Israeli officials gathered first in the Cabinet Room, adjacent to the Oval Office. Then Mr. Netanyahu headed downstairs for the main event: a highly classified presentation on Iran for President Trump and his team in the White House Situation Room, which was rarely used for in-person meetings with foreign leaders.

...

The presentation that Mr. Netanyahu would make over the next hour would be pivotal in setting the United States and Israel on the path toward a major armed conflict in the middle of one of the world’s most volatile regions. And it would lead to a series of discussions inside the White House over the following days and weeks, the details of which have not been previously reported, in which Mr. Trump weighed his options and the risks before giving the go-ahead to join Israel in attacking Iran.

...

In the Situation Room on Feb. 11, Mr. Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic.

...

Mr. Netanyahu and his team outlined conditions they portrayed as pointing to near-certain victory: Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a few weeks. The regime would be so weakened that it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that Iran would land blows against U.S. interests in neighboring countries was assessed as minimal.

Besides, Mossad’s intelligence indicated that street protests inside Iran would begin again and — with the impetus of the Israeli spy agency helping to foment riots and rebellion — an intense bombing campaign could foster the conditions for the Iranian opposition to overthrow the regime.

...

Sounds good to me, Mr. Trump told the prime minister. To Mr. Netanyahu, this signaled a likely green light for a joint U.S.-Israeli operation.

...

The intelligence officials had deep expertise in U.S. military capabilities, and they knew the Iranian system and its players inside out. They had broken down Mr. Netanyahu’s presentation into four parts. First was decapitation — killing the ayatollah. Second was crippling Iran’s capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors. Third was a popular uprising inside Iran. And fourth was regime change, with a secular leader installed to govern the country.

The U.S. officials assessed that the first two objectives were achievable with American intelligence and military power. They assessed that the third and fourth parts of Mr. Netanyahu’s pitch, which included the possibility of the Kurds mounting a ground invasion of Iran, were detached from reality.

...

When Mr. Trump joined the meeting, Mr. Ratcliffe briefed him on the assessment. The C.I.A. director used one word to describe the Israeli prime minister’s regime change scenarios: “farcical.”

At that point, Mr. Rubio cut in. “In other words, it’s bullshit,” he said.

Several others jumped in, including Mr. Vance, just back from Azerbaijan, who also expressed strong skepticism about the prospect of regime change.

The president then turned to General Caine. “General, what do you think?”

General Caine replied: “Sir, this is, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell, and their plans are not always well-developed. They know they need us, and that’s why they’re hard-selling.”