Hi Stanley Wilkin . Thanks for notifying me about this forum. But I must ask, what about the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian war of vastly great danger and proportion of immediate concern; where millions of innocent civilians face death, destruction and genocide by a well-armed army and denied their right of existence? In addition to mass demonstrations in UK cities against this war crime aided and abetted by the "democratic" Western Governments; please see what some artists from UK has to say: https://artistsforpalestine.org.uk/2023/10/17/tilda-swinton-among-2000-artists-calling-for-gaza-ceasefire/

Best regards,

Abdul

Abdul,

this question is not about the response to the war, or wars, but what understanding strategically can we gain from it. But how do you see the best outcome here?

How do you think Israel should react to Hamas attack?

Over the last 6 0r 7 decades, the wars were fought without a goal od winning, but just consuming the opponents resources (attrition). The growth of humanity has come to nearly a halt. Bretton-Woods has outlasted its usefulness but the US continues to waste resources supporting others, much to the detriment and long collapse of the US. The lessor efficient socialism/communism of the USSR collapsed and its remains (Russia) is attempting to stop the slow takeover aggression from the EU heading toward its borders with the loss of Poland and perhaps the grain of the Ukraine. The mode of the aggression in Ukraine and in Gaza is the weaker party hits and seeks seeks the left's pity for the people when the major military power hits back. Both Russia and Israel have held their total power while the lesser party seeks and gets `international ' sympathy and social pressure to let the aggressors (Hamas and Ukraine with the EU) live to hit again, and again.

So, it will stop when humanity finds a way for all parties (nations) to have `skin in the game'. We have to recognize the nation that can construct a very powerful military is the more advanced. The weaker first strikers are only causing destruction and the people who elected the violent rulers are as guilty as fighter. Judge nations not the people. So, let Israel treat Gaza as Jericho of Bible fame. Let Russia have the land it has taken. Replace the UN.

John, I cannot possibly agree with your interpretation of events as declared above. It is a specific viewpoint based solely, from what I can see, on Putin's speeches and TV appearances. Putin carefully constructs a narrative, demonising victims and substantiating his own aggression. His propaganda presents blanket engagement within repeated narratives and the constant failure to understand his criminal nature. He declared that the Russian army was protecting Russian speakers from the Ukrainian government and while there was no evidence for that, it was nevertheless a difficult situation. Since, Russian forces have killed more Russian speakers in Ukraine than either Hitler and Stalin managed. Putin certainly has academic ambitions but lacks the intelligence to develop sound viewpoints. For him, language and ethnicity are the same but not quite the same when Russian speakers identify with the other side.

Your viewpoint on this has emerged from conspiracy theory, deliberate misinformation, and an anti-Western stance that has in other ways merit. But, unfortunately, the above stance gives leeway to one of the most criminal governments I have witnessed.

I have papers on here (and elsewhere) that back up this criminality, known to everyone but you, John. My next one you can read and push back on Donbass, concerning actual events there and in Crimea. The involvement of FSB officers led by Igor Girkin, assassinations and deliberate provocation by FSB officers and GRU. The appearance of the Russian army as separatist rebels.

On academic sites you must dispense with fantasy, and return to research. If there is no genuine evidence, it is a lie. Chomsky for one has much to answer for. I have listened to and read his thoughts on these matters and there is one constant in his writings and videoed appearances: He lies. He lies to prove one or another piece of paranoia.

I remain shocked by your belief that Russia should keep the 'land it has taken.' And your belief that the weaker party is the attacked party, as your use of the word claims merely tolerance rather than justification for say Ukraine's fight back (Gaza now?), seeing public support as for victims only, certainly in the former case, of a criminal group.

Stanley Wilkin>"How do you think Israel should react to Hamas attack?"

Please see the following report from The Guardian (UK):

[Harriet Sherwood

A statement signed by more than 800 legal scholars, including experts in international law and Holocaust and genocide studies, has warned that Israel is at risk of committing genocide in Gaza.

Their statement said: “We are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. We do not do so lightly, recognising the weight of this crime, but the gravity of the current situation demands it.”

It added: “Israel’s current military offensive on the Gaza Strip … is unprecedented in scale and severity, and consequently in its ramifications for the population of Gaza. Following the incursion by Palestinian armed groups on 7 October 2023, including criminal attacks against Israeli civilians, the Gaza Strip has been subjected to incessant and indiscriminate bombardment by Israeli forces.”

The signatories “urgently appeal to states to take concrete and meaningful steps to individually and collectively prevent genocidal acts, in line with their legal duty to prevent the crime of genocide. They must protect the Palestinian population, and ensure that Israel refrains from any further incitement to genocide and from the perpetration of conduct prohibited by article II of the genocide convention.”

Meanwhile, some of the UK’s leading Jewish lawyers have warned Israel of its obligations under international law in its war with Hamas.

Lord Neuberger, Philippe Sands and six other prominent UK Jewishlawyers condemned atrocities committed by Hamas as crimes against humanity and war crimes, but added “there are laws that we must all live by”.

In a letter to the FT, they said: “There are some aspects of Israel’s response that already cause significant concern. International law forbids sieges of civilian populations … collective punishment is prohibited by the laws of war. Equally, international law requires combatants to ensure minimum destruction to civilian life and infrastructure.”

They add: “In these early days when emotions are so understandably raw, many might be reluctant to remind Israel of its international law obligations, considering to do so insensitive or inappropriate. However, we disagree.” ]

if human values can only be achieved through violent force, and if liberal ideas hide illiberal realities, how is just political action to be decided?

Maurice Mearleau-Ponty

His work on Communism, but a position that fits the present day.

Abdul,

I have no problem with the declaration you placed above but I see a problem with assigning aggression to one agent and blocking off, as if not real, the aggression of the other agency in a tit-for tat situation. Why? Because thereby no solution can be found if the inhumanity of one is quickly forgotten, and guilt placed on the one responding.

Israel overreacts but the provocation cannot simply be thrust into the back of the mind and forgotten. This is what always happens and why no solution is found or is ever likely to be found. While polarisation exists, more will die needlessly.

Not admitting that Iran (and Arab states) funds terrorism does not help and will simply produce another ISIS in the hands of power politics in the Middle East. If rather than admit this fingers are pointed towards USA, etc, on a 'look what they do' premiss then nothing, absolutely nothing is solved and emotion takes the place of reason.

Stanley Wilkin

Stanley, If you want to draw an equivalence between a militarized state power armed to the teeth with state-of-art arsenals, supplied and supported by the self-seeking leaders of the "civilized" West on one hand, and a subjugated, dehumanized population confined and imprisoned in open-sky prisons only to facilitate indiscriminate bombing for decades, facing death at any instant with no hope for their future but only act in a prison revolt, on the other; then I have nothing more to say on this issue.

Regards,

Abdul

Stanley

Again aa ad hominin attack. I know little of Putin's comments, you seem to listen to him. I observe the events and THINK. I understand the Allies invasion of Normandy in WW2. The bombings killed 10s of thousands of French civilians - human shields. The US WON that war and ended it with Brenton-Woods rather than subjugation and reparations. . We've gone a whole generation without a European war. The non-war that followed in Europe was a major change for Europe. What I point out is a history lesson for non-war (sometimes called `peace') for the rest of the world (including the new basis for the failed UN). So, let Israel WIN - not just continue the the war for some later time as has been done since WW2.

Or, perhaps you want the wars to continue. You advocate the policy that would certainly continue the wars as has been shown over the last 7 decades.

Stanley,

The following is another report from the Guardian (UK). Please read it and compare with what the American President Mr. Biden and other Western Government leaders are saying: Please note: This will be my last contribution in this forum.

[Emma Graham-Harrison

Our senior international affairs correspondent Emma Graham-Harrison reports:

The main force of the explosion at the al-Ahli al-Arabi hospital hit a courtyard and car park at the centre of the medical complex, packed with families taking refuge from airstrikes in surrounding neighbourhoods, the Anglican bishop responsible for the compound said.

Hosam Naoum, Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, also told journalists that in the days before a Gaza hospital was hit by a devastating explosion, Israeli forces had issued three evacuation warnings to its directors, and struck it twice with missiles.

Israel has denied hitting the hospital on Tuesday, saying that the blast was caused by the warhead and propellant of a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket.

Naoum declined to attribute responsibility for the blast, saying that priests were not military investigators, but he condemned the war and called for a ceasefire.

It was crowds fleeing Israeli airstrikes elsewhere in Gaza city who bore the brunt of the blast, he said. “Two of our employees were injured, but the rest there were operations taking place when the blast (hit).”

“At that point in time (of the blast), we know there were thousands of people there,” he said. “They received a warning, there were some bombing and air strikes around the hospital and they fled in (to the hospital compound).”

On Saturday, Sunday and Monday the Israeli authorities contacted hospital staff, mostly by phone, telling them to leave.

“They have the phone numbers of all the directors of the hospitals. So they can either send message or (use) whatever means they have to notify them,” he said.

“We received the two missiles that hit the hospital. We could see and tell that they are from an Israeli strike at the hospital. And then we received the warnings,” he said.]

Staff told refugees who crowded into its courtyard about those warnings, but they apparently judged the hospital safer than other options in a city under attack. In the afternoon before hundreds were killed and maimed, they had been singing peace songs to keep up their spirits, Naoum said.

Hospital administrators had warned them about the evacuation notices. “We had a moral obligation,” Naoum said. “We told them it is important you know what is taking place, but they have nowhere to go.”

A crowd of around 5,000 people almost all left after the first warning. But many returned when airstrikes pummelled the neighbourhood, hoping the hospital compound might be a relative haven amid Israel’s blanket evacuation order, that effectively turned all of Gaza city into a potential target.]

Stanley Wilkin

``if human values can only be achieved through violent force, and if liberal ideas hide illiberal realities, how is just political action to be decided?

Maurice Mearleau-Ponty''

At last - the point. Liberal realities are the cause of the continuing wars.

But history has shown humanity something else. Nations have become larger. A nation brings more and more people under a non-war type of competition. It's competition nature wants and will have. So, the challenge is to have a world order that allows competition of moralities, religions, etc. without war. Note: nature's response to the weak, the failures. The mercy nature has for them is a quick death.

If humanity doesn't form such a world order, nature will continue the wars as a form of competition. Nature is judging the current world order harshly.

David,

These things are indeed interesting. I must add, not to your exploration, because many have claimed that the 'lacks' you mention are as much to do with Russia's kleptocracy as with straight forward lack of proper training. I think certainly this reflects Putin's rule for he has ruled through mirages. He has claimed that new weapons had been developed including a super tank but it seems to have all been on paper and perhaps only prototypes developed, the money assigned in various welcoming pockets.

In essence these are pre-conflict logistics, an army ill-prepared to fight a war. Putin, it seems, was not told this and its likely that no one knew. In Crimea and Donbass the Russians were led by the FSB, which proved successful at the beginning.

The serendipitous provision of modern tactical weapons to the Ukrainians is interesting as they arrived at specific points in the conflict. The use of atacams (I know, not correct) came at the point when the Russian forces had clearly failed with their new attack, opening up a degradation of helicopters elsewhere on the conflict sector. I suggest this was thought through and not a case of 'now we have them, we will use them.'

DÁ PARA VER QUE 1) NÃO SE USA BOMBA ATÔMICA HOJE, NO CASO DE PUTIN, 2) QUEM TEM MENOS PODER BÉLICO SOFRE EM NÚMERO DE MORTES E MORALMENTE MAIS, NO CASO DA UCRÂNIA, 3) A ONU E AS SANÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS NÃO PODEM TANTO QUANTO O MUNDO ACHAVA, 4) O HOMEM MAIS RICO DO MUNDO QUER DEMONSTRAR QUE É O HOMEM MAIS PODEROSO MUNDO, E QUE NÃO OBEDECE NEM PROTOCOLOS DA ONU E NEM RESPEITA A NENHUM OUTRO PRESIDENTE PODEROSO DE NENHUM PAÍS, OS EUA AÍ INCLUÍDOS.

Andre,

Your contention that Putin does not need to listen to anyone, that he can do whatever he wants is sound. But he is mistaken in believing Russia is a superpower, also I believe he is being told what he wants to hear by those around him. His advantage at present is not in tanks, etc, as they are being routinely destroyed but the number of foolish/stupid Russians willing to die for him. If by chance, the Russian army continues to be degraded it will reach a tipping point and just as after Bukmut it will struggle to mount further attacks for a while.

The problem with dictators, but of course there is more than one, is the psychological trap they stumble into, exaggerating their own abilities, which I suggest in Putin's case never really amounted to much except the ability to gain power. If you heard him talking about economics recently, you will understand what I mean. In the present attacks, he clearly was told that Ukraine is on its last legs, especially given the problems in Congress. But even with better soldiers (China when it entered the Korean war sent hundreds of thousands of poorly armed men against the better armed and better trained US army) Ukraine can crumble if overwhelmed although I suspect the Ukrainian Generals will cut their losses rather than lose too many men.

But why do Russians not care about dying?

Andre,

I do not understand why they die so willingly but it must be considered a different kind of culture. I have put out the idea that in the 12th century north east kyiv rus changed (Muscovy\Vladimir) culturally drew away from the rest of kyiv, developing a kipchak political system based on single rule. They grew rich under the mongols and powerful but were no longer attached to kyiv, which was still attached to Europe or parts of Europe. When they pushed the Mongols out they experienced an identity crisis. In the 16th century Moscow was half tartar. This is an identity crisis the russians cannot solve. Interaction with Europe has been mainly through warfare.

My understanding? Although Russia is not necessarily Eastern it is not European either. Europe does not deal with Russia well because they deal with it as if it is a European country, but it isn't.

Andre,

Its not just charisma but the need to worship it in citizens. The Russians see Putin, or many do, certainly the ones on here, as almost godlike (kipchak) or with a connection to the god or gods. They project onto Putin a variety of absurd attributes in the same way they did and do Stalin. Absurdly, both are seen as super clever. Stalin killed any citizen who put their head above the parapet, that is got noticed, which he saw as competition and made him insecure. Russia's best people were killed. In the defence of Moscow from the Germans he ordered some of the most intelligent people, with no training to defend the city. All were destroyed. One reason Putin is the way he is concerns his own inadequacy as he could see by 2007 he wasn't up to running Russia. Most of his rule he actually did nothing except accumulate money and power for himself. His grasp of economics is that of a 10 year old child. Although merely a criminal, a murderess one, having others killed gave and gives him a psychological lift. A drug! He feels powerful, big.

I must add this: so many intelligent and talented people were killed in WW2, and by Stalin, so given Russians in the present did it affect the gene pool and are the consequences with us today? Watch Russian TV!!!!!

The Russian/ Ukraine war has proven how devastating and effective the use of drones can be. It has shown that drones if properly deployed could replace the use of soldiers in future wars thereby reducing human casualties to the barest minimum. It also a proof of will over power .

Herbert,

I totally agree added to this is Ukraine's use of robots. But we also have massed troops indifferent to death on the Russian side, which returns to kipchak fighting, and was used by Peter the Great against the Swedes. Russia's strategic incompetence is reflected in its unchanging behaviour on the battlefield but also in the kleptocracy that stole the money meant for weaponry.

Still, the last I heard masses of Russian troops were making inroads. This is a method China would likely employ against western countries, knowing their greater respect for human life. Worth pointing out Iran also used this against Iraq.

It's also important to note that this is a test of long-range logistic capabilities. Including resupply from pre-at-capacity military industries. These industries have moved on to other/ newer forms of technologically advanced weapons. The retooling capabilities will stress that particular logistical chain, especially with the growing tensions in the Middle East. While the E-ring wants to see what we can do with the tools at hand, the battalion and regimental commanders are quietly sounding off about depleted stockpiles. Readiness is being jeopardized in the short term.

I will point out that Russia has tended to pick on much smaller countries and this affects the success or lack of success of Russian strategies and as with Chechnya and Georgia this is largely a large army against a small one or in effect citizen armies. Realistically, Russia should roll over these much smaller armies and economies but it doesn't. The same could be said of the USA, so looking at this on a military level are these vaunted modern armies less capable in reality than on paper. Russia won against Chechnya by destroying the country (literally) and buying the assistance of a traitorous warlord, a country of less than 2 million. A true David and Goliath event where Goliath fell on and crushed David rather than strategically outfought him. They lost huge numbers there too. In Ukraine, another much smaller country, they are using mass armies and losing an enormous number of soldiers, a traditional means of Russian combat that can be seen in the early years of the state and which has been, in the past, effective against European armies which take a largely different view of losses. Although in WW2 the Germans came close they still relied on modern weaponry rather than bodies to soak up bullets. Unfortunately, Russia is not really a European country and thinks differently. Russia, here, is a large but poor state using its larger acquiescent population but the long term effects on the country may be massive.

The matter of torture to quell occupied areas needs to be taken into account, a method being used on its own soldiers as well. Ukraine has a greater motive knowing that a Russian victory will unleash terror, so I imagine will fight to the last so victory, in the event of military failure of Ukraine, will reach an end point long into the future. But the consequences on the USA on winning the Iraqi war were severe, and the area destabilised, proving a further boon to terrorism and its funding by Iran. All these factors will affect the development of wars worldwide, that to win a war affects the state itself and the surrounding regions creating a greater instability.

Should Russia win, its reputation in tatters, its economy ruined, will it be the biggest loser? Wars degrade but it also degrades the winner certainly if the reason for the war is later known to be a lie and the end result more riches for the ruling elite.

Peace has one long term result. It creates wealth. War today creates poverty.

of course- that Russia has Kinzhals.

What is Kinzhals?

The Kh-47M2 Kinzhal is a Russian hypersonic air-launched ballistic missile. It has a reported range of 1,500–2,000 km and speed up to Mach 10. It can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads and can be launched by Tu-22M3 bombers or MiG-31K interceptors.

Cody, I haven't noticed them on the battlefields or attacking cities.

I haven't either. I was just responding to what they were. I still do not know what Pehar was alluding.

Cody, Russia has a habit of claiming fantastic weapons they don't possess. At the beginning of this war they reeled out a fantastic futuristic ship and told all they were manufacturing dozens. I queried this as I did not think they had the money to produce them.

That was the only evidence. No more appeared and the example shown may not have been real. Part of this was due to corruption as the money for development disappeared and therefore construction never happened.

I agree 100% Stanley. We are seeing the downstream effects of what's on paper and what's on paper and actually works. Their new destroyer was a scrap heap before it could turn to port.

Cody,

Yes, this was at the beginning of the war, so it did not bode well. The cynical waste of life, purely to preserve the lives, power and extreme wealth of a relatively small elite, is a direct result of corruption but even worse is that although 300,000 Russian army deaths is the figure being used, a Russian priest reckoned that there are a million injured which would back up the previous figure, they are not all Russians, in fact maybe only a third are. Many are Ukrainians from the Donbass. And Crimean men have been drafted into the Russian army.

The cynicism is on a par with the Germans in WW2.