Nukes are one option. Otherwise giving Ukraine the ability to rebuild its military and arsenal, in particular defensive weapons like Anti-Air and Anti-Missile capabilities.

Neutral Ukraine would mean a buffer between Russia and NATO. Russia claims it feels threatened by NATOs expansion to the East. While it is understandable for countries to prefer being in NATO over under Russian influence, that is how geopolitical security works. The US would never accept say Mexico to join a Russian or Chinese military pact.

There is only two ways to get Russia out of Ukraine:

Either defeat them and drive them out, or negotiate for them to withdraw.

The latter wont happen with categorically demanding Ukraine to join NATO. The first needs much more Western support, in particular more soldiers to fight the war. When you exclude negotiating, not being willing to support your demand of fighting with your own capabilities is cynical. And that also goes to show how the support so far worked. Making grand statements, but when it came to actually giving what was necessary to Ukraine to defend itself, the West always fell short. If Ukraine had gotten proper equipment right away, the war could be over with a military win of Ukraine. Now to not only hold the line, but push back Russia, Ukraine needs far far more support, that the West is clearly not willing to give.

I want a strong Ukraine with fully territorial integrity. Maybe this can be negotiated as the costs of the war for Russia keep increasing. But this needs to offer Russia an out. Denying that out means the only two options left are a military win or military defeat of Russia. Either will be incredibly costly for Ukraine.

A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.

Did you even read what i wrote?

A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.

There is a fundamental difference between arming a country and permanently integrating it into one geopolitical side. If you are so eager to fight in a war Ukraine can use every fighter. But it is always easy to call for other people to go to war isn’t it?

Which country would that be? Russia is not going for a direct confrontation with NATO as it would loose that for sure.

If they get Ukraine they would turn it into a compliant regime as a buffer zone. Using its war-economy is far more profitable in enforcing access to natural resource in Asia or Africa, rather than go to war with Poland or Finland.

Every military pact is a “defense pact”. And no country with “superpower” or “regional power” ambition accepts another power right on its doorsteps.

I think the best historical example of the 20th century is the Cuban missile crisis. NATO-Nukes in Turkey, Warsaw-Pact-Nukes in Cuba. Both sides feeling threatened. The solution was to remove both missile threats.

And Finland now sharing a border with Russia certainly is not going to make them more fine with NATO in Ukraine. That is not how geopolitics work.

Question is, what options are there?

If the outcome is Ukrainian NATO membership, Russia has no motivation to accept a negotiated peace. This leaves only two options:

1. The West abandons Ukraine and Russia conquers all of it.

2. The West extremely ramps up its effort to support Ukraine, defeating Russia.

Now option 1 still ends up with the problem, that there is a direct NATO-Russia border. This flips around the threat and motivation to move it back. So now the NATO has a motivation to reconquer Ukraine, maybe in 10, maybe in 20 years.

Option 2 could end with the collapse of Russia. Then some 10.000 nuclear warheads are unaccounted for. This creates an incentive for NATO to try and put a stabilizing force into western Russia, while China would probably move in form the East. Imagine having the instability of the Middle East, but with 10.000 nuclear warheads…

A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.

Museums should be the prime sources of knowing which is real and which is fake.

They have the tools and knowledge to analyze.

The inflated art market is a great tool for money laundering and tax evasion. There is a lot of people with a lot of money who care.

That comparison is completely out of touch. You making a bank account means entering a strictly regulated contractual relationship. And for starters banks will require you to have an address and send letters to it. Do you want every online website to first send you an activation code by post?

And that is the thinly veiled real goal here. If you need a proper age verification process on most platforms, you need an identification process on most platforms. And that conveniently allows to associate everything you do on every platform to you personally. So if the government doesn’t like what you do, they can oppress you more easily.

If a convention to pick a candidate was so bad, why did the Republicans win with it? The Republicans had proper primaries. They won.

As for the importance of Gaza, here are some early numbers analyzed

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/11/election-harris-gaza-policy

Interesting. The only source for the “Cancer Jews” is a fascist twitter channel, who has a video of attacks on a tram with that statement. However in the video such a chant cannot be heard.

https://x.com/LoneWolfRA/status/1856067780497551609/video/1?mx=2

“For justice & freedom. Seeks confrontation. #liberal #secular #economist #allochtoon #Amsterdammer Links opgevoed, Rechts ontwikkeld” The last part translates to “raised on the left, developed on the right”

Also the article seems to praise Geerd Wilders, who is known to be a fascist since over a decade.

Why is it that Zionists are always in bed with Fascists?

Lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

Scholars have perceived an ideological shift in Morris’s work starting around 2000, during the Second Intifada. Morris’s perspective has been described as having become more conservative and more negative towards Palestinians, viewing the 1948 expulsions as a justified act.

Baruch Kimmerling

In an article in HNN, Baruch Kimmerling discusses Morris’ 2004 Haaretz interview in which Morris states:>

if he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleaned the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations… Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.

Kimmerling describes Morrris’s views as “shocking” and says that Morris “has abandoned his historian’s mantle and donned the armor of a Jewish chauvinist who wants the Land of Israel completely cleansed from Arabs” He criticizes the analysis of Morris as misunderstanding the impact of the refugee problem on the current conflict, and the magnitude of an even larger refugee population.[35]

I encourage to read all of the “Praise and criticism” section in his wiki. Benny Morris is definitely not a reliable source.

problem is that behind closed doors he repeatedly said, he doesnt care. SA is de-facto a major supporter of Israel even if they don’t hold formal ties. At some point a few month back MBS said he is scared of getting assassinated over his support for Israel. Meanwhile signs of solidarity with Palestinians are banned in SA.

Until SA proves by actions that they changed course, i see these statements as lip services of a scared dictator.

Israel embracing their plans for a “greater Israel” including parts of Egypt, the Arabian peninsula, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and a bit of Turkey more and more openly might force him and the other collaborating Arab regimes to genuinely change their position. Otherwise Israel will just annex them one by one.

Well, a lot of the “centre right” in Europe also has moved to political positions that used to be exclusive to the far right. Ecological issues are only one area. Civil liberties, authoritarian surveillance and police suppression, freedom of personal choice and lifestyle…

That is just plainy wrong.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx

This is from end of March.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/01/slight-uptick-in-americans-wanting-u-s-to-help-diplomatically-resolve-israel-hamas-war/

The DNC did everything they could to demotivate and alienate their base. Everyone who cheered that on instead of demanding proper primaries didn’t just loose the elections, but also showed a moral desolace

So first it always was Biden, now other choice permitted. Then it was Harris, no other choice permitted. Now it is “Democrat”, which is a pretty broad spectrum.

And that show exactly the failure of the Harris/Biden supporters. Instead of pushing for a viable candidate that doesn’t support the genocide in Gaza, people doubled down on a center right-right pro genocide candidate. And this strategy didn’t just loose the election, it also shows the complicity of everyone who supported that campaign. Who chose a secure election loss with genocide support, over daring to bring a non genocidal candidate to the ballot.

It was always going to be Kamala or Trump. It doesn’t matter if neither one made you happy. If you thought otherwise, you didn’t think it through.

Wasn’t it “It was always going to be Biden or Trump” until three months ago?