Not really. General population of Russia want peace and positive changes of their income(official statistics from gov. associated agency). And this is also what US wants - stable region with no treat to their allies.
That is what logic would dictate ... but you could say the same about a lot of wars - maybe most of them. There's no tangible benefit to the vast majority of citizens. However, we keep having wars around the world & they are often fired up by inflaming tribal/nationalist sentiments. It's what happened in the former Yugoslavia where people who had lived amicably enough with their neighbours for decades went on a murderous rampage. It's not just in Europe - look at Rwanda.
I have been interested to read very mixed reactions on the Fox News comments board. Tucker Carlson is all in on support for the "genius" Putin, but many Foxies appear to have strong misgivings. One of the underlying themes is Nationalism. Trump was a huge proponent of unilateral nationalism ... on the basis (I believe), that as the United States is the biggest, baddest nation on the planet, why should the US bother with any aspect of internationalism? This appears to be Putin's position also. Even if, by some measures, Russia is a quasi failed state, it still has a powerful military & a huge nuclear arsenal and is an overwhelming presence in Eastern Europe. Putin figures he should leverage that power to rebuild Russian hegemony on the global scene and is doing it by stoking the fires of Russian insecurity & historical grievances.
Not really. General population of Russia want peace and positive changes of their income(official statistics from gov. associated agency). And this is also what US wants - stable region with no treat to their allies.
But who are the allies depends on who you ask. The US and NATO see the entire country of Ukraine as the ally. But when you look at Ukraine's own voting statistics, nearly half the country tends to vote in pro-Russia ways, have Russian ethnicity, more use of the Russian language and religion, etc. So the Russian government - if not the Russian people - believes that the eastern and southern portions of Ukraine are their allies. Russia believes those areas are being threatened by NATO attempting to get them to join.
Frankly, I think the cultural rift through the middle of Ukraine was always going to lead to this at some point.
But when you look at Ukraine's own voting statistics, nearly half the country tends to vote in pro-Russia ways, have Russian ethnicity, more use of the Russian language and religion, etc.
That is what logic would dictate ... but you could say the same about a lot of wars - maybe most of them. There's no tangible benefit to the vast majority of citizens. However, we keep having wars around the world & they are often fired up by inflaming tribal/nationalist sentiments. It's what happened in the former Yugoslavia where people who had lived amicably enough with their neighbours for decades went on a murderous rampage. It's not just in Europe - look at Rwanda.
I have been interested to read very mixed reactions on the Fox News comments board. Tucker Carlson is all in on support for the "genius" Putin, but many Foxies appear to have strong misgivings. One of the underlying themes is Nationalism. Trump was a huge proponent of unilateral nationalism ... on the basis (I believe), that as the United States is the biggest, baddest nation on the planet, why should the US bother with any aspect of internationalism? This appears to be Putin's position also. Even if, by some measures, Russia is a quasi failed state, it still has a powerful military & a huge nuclear arsenal and is an overwhelming presence in Eastern Europe. Putin figures he should leverage that power to rebuild Russian hegemony on the global scene and is doing it by stoking the fires of Russian insecurity & historical grievances.
I feel like the alignment is a pretty simple one - an affinity for the concept of might is right. Don't win over your opponent or defeat them in a fair match (aka, democracy) - destroy them. This affinity seems to transcend actual nationalism at times leading to some pretty odd results...like people of nations in opposition to each other favoring the leadership of the other, a position that is often against their own interests.
Through this lens, it's not complicated
Mit Romney (and the like) detests Putin because Putin represents the antithesis to the concept of the USA - liberty & fairness
Donald Trump (and the like) reveres Putin because Putin has what they want - absolute power that yields to nothing, crushing enemies, etc.
I think, eventually, the political split in the USA will settle around this split with the old school GOP & Democratic party forming the former, and the more extreme sections of the GOP coalescing around the latter. Superficial issues and even nationalism aside, this seems like the deeper/fundamental world-view divide emerging, not only in the USA but in the post 9/11 world at large. I'd argue this is quite similar to the 1920s.
My girlfriend's family lives about an hour east of Kyiv. Needless to say my girlfriend is having a very worrysome period right now. There is absolutely no telling what will happen now.
In the end, Putin's vision is that Ukraine and Belarus are to be part of Russia, and I wouldn't be surprised if his plan is to take control over Kyiv and the entire East off of the Dnipro river.
I hope it won't come to that. I went to Kyiv last year, and the history of Ukraine and the entire Kiev-Rus region is staggering. I advise anyone to travel to Ukraine when the situation allows it, I thoroughly enjoyed the country.
Unfortunately it is, because international law is weak and poorly enforced. Particular in the case of countries who pick and choose which ones to follow and which ones to break (like the US and UK on many occasions throughout history). And entire countries breaking the law is very different than some rotten kid in the hood who can simply be scooped up by cops for the night and scared into learning a lesson. When entire countries learn that they can do things without repercussions, as Russia has learned since 2014, that country's audacity becomes much more powerful than any silly law.
From Russia's perspective it is and since you're not Russia your opinion - our opinion - doesn't matter. Russia and many Russian people have a fundamentally different understanding of the situation which actually does make just as much sense as our Western interpretation. I posted a video lecture about that a page or two ago. In fact I'd argue that the Western interpretation of Ukraine's status and future has been flawed the entire time and is primarily responsible for the situation we're in now.
So you're arguing that Russia's opinion should override international law and treaties to which it is a signatory? What about Ukraine's opinion on its status and future in the world, or does that not matter in regard to Russia's opinion?
Influence isn't control, and a poor attempt at a dig doesn't change that or get the rise it may have hope to illicit - I'm well aware of the rise and fall of the UK's influence and the damage it's done on the world stage.
Here's a hot take: Our interpretation of the law doesn't matter to people who don't care about it and who cannot effectively be punished for it in a civilized manner.
So what are you gonna do about? I don't think anything posted in this thread is gonna solve the issue. As an American I'm kinda feeling that we should just leave this situation to the almighty empires of Europe to sort out while we concentrate on bigger issues with our Pacific allies.
You don't need to have a solution to condemn an action.
I'm also unsure (again) quite what the 'almighty empire of Europe' dig is about, Europe has had (and still lives with and needs to address) the legacy of empire, but over recent years the US, Russia, and China seem to be the primary culprits in that regard.
So you're arguing that Russia's opinion should override international law and treaties to which it is a signatory? What about Ukraine's opinion on its status and future in the world, or does that not matter in regard to Russia's opinion?
You don't need to have a solution to condemn an action.
I'm also unsure (again) quite what the 'almighty empire of Europe' dig is about, Europe has had (and still lives with and needs to address) the legacy of empire, but over recent years the US, Russia, and China seem to be the primary culprits in that regard.
My overarching point is that laws, whether agreed to or not, don't matter if those who actually believe in the laws don't do anything to enforce the laws in a meaningful way. In particular, "condemning an action" is especially meaningless. And those who are best positioned to defend and enforce these laws - frontline European members of NATO - seem highly disinterested in actually doing anything about Russia breaking any laws. Germany in particular has found itself rife with the consequences of one of the worst decision's it's made in a very long time.
While you and I might not only believe in the rule of law, but actively follow it out of the goodness of our own hearts, and even act when we witness laws broken, the small number of decision makers dealing with this crisis thus far haven't accomplished any of those things. They've all got too much money to lose.
Basically what you're advocating for is war. You think we should start a war. I jump to that conclusion because that's exactly the conclusion Russia is going to demand - they will take what they want as they've done before, and judging by how many options have failed so far, NATO is going to have to settle for war. And in my opinion at least, by NATO I mean its European members, most of whom are close or connected to Ukraine, do business with Ukraine every day, and have been instrumental in trying to Recruit Ukraine into both NATO and the EU. Are their militaries prepared to fight the war they've been asking for? They're parked right next to a perennially belligerent, expansionist nation that is known to not give a damn what the West believes in so I would've expected a little more preparedness than what we're seeing. Hell, you can take a train from Berlin to Kyiv.
Unfortunately we don't really have any control over what these powerful people do. Hopefully they've got our best interests in mind. In my opinion, I'm not so sure that sending American soldiers to eastern Ukraine to defend a bunch of people who vote for pro-Russian politicians is in my best interest. I just want some offshore windmills in Lake Erie man, I really don't care what country the city of Donetsk is in.
Edit: Russia isn't Iraq. The US isn't just going to be able to show up and hoorah our way through the desert against a bunch of incompetents and declare a speedy and decisive victory. Defending international law that nobody else is capable of defending is not gonna help our win/loss ratio this time around. This battle was picked decades ago back when Russia was in a huge slump but that's not the case anymore and the diplomatic situation - ahem, NATO/EU's "open doors" - has not evolved to deal with it. This situation is really similar to why cops to spend too much resources in the hood. It causes more problems than it solves. In the hood, laws aren't going to be followed no matter what you do. The problem is way bigger and way deeper seeded than that. Well, currently about half of Ukraine is a hood that I don't feel like driving through at night. It's a lost cause and it has been since the early 2010s.
You can see a lot from 54,000 feet so most of that route makes sense but why are they stopping so short of the Donbas region? Are they concerned the drones will be targeted by rebels or something?
My girlfriend's family lives about an hour east of Kyiv. Needless to say my girlfriend is having a very worrysome period right now. There is absolutely no telling what will happen now.
In the end, Putin's vision is that Ukraine and Belarus are to be part of Russia, and I wouldn't be surprised if his plan is to take control over Kyiv and the entire East off of the Dnipro river.
I hope it won't come to that. I went to Kyiv last year, and the history of Ukraine and the entire Kiev-Rus region is staggering. I advise anyone to travel to Ukraine when the situation allows it, I thoroughly enjoyed the country.
That's definitely the wrong side of Kyiv to be on right now. If I were them I'd base the decision on whether they want to live in Russia or Ukraine in the future. I think it would be surprising if Russia moved that deep into Ukraine - based on public sentiment, the far east and south are the really vulnerable regions where public backlash will be minimal. If Russia actually moved on Kyiv they'd probably get an all-out war and they want to avoid that at all costs. But if it happened, obviously the Kyiv area would be a terrible place to be. Unfortunately for whatever reason, Ukraine and its neighbors don't seem capable or even interested in defending it.
You can see a lot from 54,000 feet so most of that route makes sense but why are they stopping so short of the Donbas region? Are they concerned the drones will be targeted by rebels or something?
I'm cutting the rest of your post out simply so I can focus on what is, without a doubt, one of the most fantastic misreads of a position I think I have ever seen.
Nothing, and I mean utterly nothing about my posts, or my views, make it possible to come to that conclusion.
To be 100% clear.
I am not advocating for war and I do not think we should start a war.
They could have stopped Russia when they tookover Crimea.
Instead Russia took it without a bullet. Crimea has always ended up taken over in history because of its strategic location. So many empires and kingdoms were willing to take this place even if they have to sacrifice men for it. But Russia took it without a bullet which is basically a geopolitical success and NATO became a big loser.
Nato needs to get its act together. They should have known after the debacle of Georgia in 2008 was not to allow Russia to take more stuff and creep itself into Nato borders while at the same time Russia will no way allow former countries under their sphere of influence to leave.
I mean, they're already in there, aren't they? That was the whole point of this "only the tip, and just for a minute" style of invasion. Russia isn't going to have some massive shock and awe invasion, because that would create an easy narrative for NATO to use to directly oppose them. They're going to continue to trickle troops in under ******** but ostensibly plausible justifications until their position is so set that it would be insane to attack them.
There is some suspicious activity in the region - Ukraine's Kharkiv Airport halts all flights, the cellphone network in Donetsk (reportedly) stops working... And shortly before, the US warned Ukraine about "invasion starting within 48 hours".
Is Putin's announced "decommunization" of Ukraine about to begin?
UPD: Russia closes airspace around Ukraine's northeast border. Ukraine shuts down from power grid of Russia and Belarus.
"International law" didn't help Yugoslavia not get bombed by NATO without the UN mandate, and Kosovo from being occupied and torn away from Serbia afterwards.
Let's not lie to ourselves and admit that this "international law" thing is brought up by the politicians only when it's beneficial to them. Or interpreted in a way they like.
If Trump meets Putin before the elections, he's a Russian puppet. If Zelensky phones Biden in every unexpected situation, he's a truly independent leader. Am I right?
How is one friendly President a guarantee that Russia wouldn’t occupy the Baltic states ever again? In fact, if Estonia wasn’t in NATO or the EU I bet Russia would be occupying it again by now, since the presence of a Russian-speaking population in any country seems to be enough to trigger an invasion.
You believe that Russia's agressive actions cause NATO to grow, but why don't you think vice versa - that NATO's expansion triggers Russia to respond? It started earlier.
Estonia doesn't violate the rights of their ethnic Russians as much as post-Maidan Ukraine does, and has a significantly higher standard of living than Ukraine and even Russia. So a Russian rebellion would be unlikely there.
So you agree with the illegal occupation of a sovereign nation? Because that's what recognizing these "republics" is, an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation.
Legal, illegal... Who decides that?
Separatism in general is a topic full of hypocrisy and double standards. Some territories are "legal" to become independent, some are "illegal" and there are still no known rules. But mostly they depend on who defines the "legality" and how interested are they in this land becoming independent. Don't forget that your country was born when it "illegally" broke away from the British Empire.
Also, have you wondered what caused the people in eastern Ukraine to rebel? I can explain sometime later. Spoiler: it's a bit more complicated than "Russia bad, Putin bad, they occupy and invade".
Lose Ukraine to what? The west? If you're a country in Eastern Europe who are you going to align with? The former Soviet Union that oppressed the hell out of you or a Western power that didn't? Seems like a pretty easy choice.
The politicians decide who a country aligns with, not ordinary people.
And talking about the Soviet Union, Ukraine was just another part of it, and also took part in all oppressions, occupations and other things we know the Soviets for. The eastern territories of Poland that Stalin annexed in 1939 are still occupied by Ukraine. And remembering that three of Soviet leaders (Khruschov, Brezhnev and Chernenko) were Ukrainians, it may be argued about who oppressed who...
And you seriously believe that our old man kills his own highly ranked officials just for stumbling during a speech, on a regular basis? Never knew the demonization of Putin has reached THAT extent.
What a ridiculous list. The person who made it basically included all well-known Russia-related people she could find who died of unnatural causes, even if they were not anti-Kremlin. As if people never died of cardiovascular diseases before Putin came to power. Or if Russian roads are so safe that you absolutely cannot die in a crash unless you're a Kremlin critic.
This list also includes such wonderful people as an Islamic terrorist Zelimkhan Khangoshvili - a "critic of Vladimir Putin" who's been sent to his virgins a bit later than he should have been (thus it's not suspicious, it's well known who did it and why). And, on the contrary, there are people quite opposite to Kremlin critics who were much more likely to have been assasinated by the oppostite side - especially the famous commanders of Donbass militia.
Say what you want about the West, but our leaders don't go around killing people that speak out against them. If we did, Trump's hit list would be several miles long.
It's not. It's complete, but has not been certified for use, and it's the certification process that Germany has stopped. Without it the pipeline can't be used, and despite @Rage Racer claiming it will not hurt Russia, that's simply not true. It would double the capacity of gas Russia could supply, and additionally would allow Russia to avoid existing pipelines through a number of countries, including Poland and Ukraine.
As such anyone claiming it not going live doesn't have an impact has either bought into some absurd propaganda or is unaware of the benefits it would bring to Russia and Gazprom.
Germany has suspended the approval process for Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in response to Moscow's recognition of separatist regions in Ukraine
Russia/Gazprom only loses the benefit of NS2, but doesn't lose anything related to the gas supplies compared to what's been before the construction of the new pipeline. The expenses of NS2 construction are already paid off during the period of high gas prices last year.
@Rage Racer
Your contributions to this thread are greatly appreciated. We all benefit from your perspective onto this situation. I know it takes a great deal of patience and commitment to do what you are doing right now. I hope you can bear with the occasional scorn and opprobrium that is directed towards you personally. Once again, your contributions are greatly appreciated.
Thanks. Honestly, I'd like to contribute more (I'm the one who created this thread 8 years ago, after all), but I'm a bit short on time for Intenet debates in a language that is not native to me.
I don't expect to over-persuade anyone, all people have their own view on things, and I'm here to present mine. Because a discussion is not so interesting when it's too one-sided.
I'm cutting the rest of your post out simply so I can focus on what is, without a doubt, one of the most fantastic misreads of a position I think I have ever seen.
Nothing, and I mean utterly nothing about my posts, or my views, make it possible to come to that conclusion.
To be 100% clear.
I am not advocating for war and I do not think we should start a war.
@Scaff well then what are you advocating for? Because it doesn't sound like there's much time left to enforce the law. The decision is going to be made for us here pretty soon. We can't call the cops because our neighbor is having a tantrum, we are the cops. Either action is taken to enforce the law or it isn't and there ain't much else that can be done at this point.
I mean, they're already in there, aren't they? That was the whole point of this "only the tip, and just for a minute" style of invasion. Russia isn't going to have some massive shock and awe invasion, because that would create an easy narrative for NATO to use to directly oppose them. They're going to continue to trickle troops in under ******** but ostensibly plausible justifications until their position is so set that it would be insane to attack them.
I mean a full invasion intent on taking over the country.
Just as it was very hard to confront Hitler in the 1930s, I think that the democratic West has a hard time confronting Putin now. Conflict is messy and a political nightmare for elected leaders. Putin has been able to play the long game and be belligerent because he answers to no one domestically. The USA is locked into halting 2-1/2 year (at best) windows of policy latitude (between Presidential campaigns) and Europe is not much better. Of course Germany wanted Russian gas...it was short term political wins all over domestically even if the long term prospect was obviously a nightmare. Putin, as Hitler did, knows that the west will be extremely reticent to engage militarily because of the domestic political costs - the west wants to not fight, even if the costs are high. At some point, the west will have to fight.
If you had actually discussed the question raised and then used other countries' actions as illustrative you would get away with that. You didn't you basically just when 'what about x'.
"International law" didn't help Yugoslavia not get bombed by NATO without the UN mandate, and Kosovo from being occupied and torn away from Serbia afterwards.
Let's not lie to ourselves and admit that this "international law" thing is brought up by the politicians only when it's beneficial to them. Or interpreted in a way they like.
By making digs at him you are basically regurgitating the party line. Explain to me exactly why having a part as a comedian makes someone automatically unsuitable as a politician?
If Trump meets Putin before the elections, he's a Russian puppet. If Zelensky phones Biden in every unexpected situation, he's a truly independent leader. Am I right?
@Scaff well then what are you advocating for? Because it doesn't sound like there's much time left to enforce the law. The decision is going to be made for us here pretty soon. We can't call the cops because our neighbor is having a tantrum, we are the cops. Either action is taken to enforce the law or it isn't and there ain't much else that can be done at this point.
Why do I need to advocate for something? It's perfectly possible to discuss a situation without knowing what the solution is!
I don't disagree that the situation is a mess and that both western and Chinese inaction has further emboldened Putin, nor do I think that sanctions will have the desired effect, particularly not as Putin has spent the time since Crimea building 'fortress Russia' from a sanctions perspective.
None of which means I want, advocate or desire war.
There is some suspicious activity in the region - Ukraine's Kharkiv Airport halts all flights, the cellphone network in Donetsk (reportedly) stops working... And shortly before, the US warned Ukraine about "invasion starting within 48 hours".
Is Putin's announced "decommunization" of Ukraine about to begin?
UPD: Russia closes airspace around Ukraine's northeast border. Ukraine shuts down from power grid of Russia and Belarus.
You call it whataboutism, I call it not being hypocritical.
"International law" didn't help Yugoslavia not get bombed by NATO without the UN mandate, and Kosovo from being occupied and torn away from Serbia afterwards.
Let's not lie to ourselves and admit that this "international law" thing is brought up by the politicians only when it's beneficial to them. Or interpreted in a way they like.
Putin isn't a president of Ukraine. Well, not just yet, at least...
If Trump meets Putin before the elections, he's a Russian puppet. If Zelensky phones Biden in every unexpected situation, he's a truly independent leader. Am I right?
You believe that Russia's agressive actions cause NATO to grow, but why don't you think vice versa - that NATO's expansion triggers Russia to respond? It started earlier.
Estonia doesn't violate the rights of their ethnic Russians as much as post-Maidan Ukraine does, and has a significantly higher standard of living than Ukraine and even Russia. So a Russian rebellion would be unlikely there.
Legal, illegal... Who decides that?
Separatism in general is a topic full of hypocrisy and double standards. Some territories are "legal" to become independent, some are "illegal" and there are still no known rules. But mostly they depend on who defines the "legality" and how interested are they in this land becoming independent. Don't forget that your country was born when it "illegally" broke away from the British Empire.
Also, have you wondered what caused the people in eastern Ukraine to rebel? I can explain sometime later. Spoiler: it's a bit more complicated than "Russia bad, Putin bad, they occupy and invade".
The politicians decide who a country aligns with, not ordinary people.
And talking about the Soviet Union, Ukraine was just another part of it, and also took part in all oppressions, occupations and other things we know the Soviets for. The eastern territories of Poland that Stalin annexed in 1939 are still occupied by Ukraine. And remembering that three of Soviet leaders (Khruschov, Brezhnev and Chernenko) were Ukrainians, it may be argued about who oppressed who...
And you seriously believe that our old man kills his own highly ranked officials just for stumbling during a speech, on a regular basis? Never knew the demonization of Putin has reached THAT extent.
What a ridiculous list. The person who made it basically included all well-known Russia-related people she could find who died of unnatural causes, even if they were not anti-Kremlin. As if people never died of cardiovascular diseases before Putin came to power. Or if Russian roads are so safe that you absolutely cannot die in a crash unless you're a Kremlin critic.
This list also includes such wonderful people as an Islamic terrorist Zelimkhan Khangoshvili - a "critic of Vladimir Putin" who's been sent to his virgins a bit later than he should have been (thus it's not suspicious, it's well known who did it and why). And, on the contrary, there are people quite opposite to Kremlin critics who were much more likely to have been assasinated by the oppostite side - especially the famous commanders of Donbass militia.
Yeah, I totally believe that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide.
Russia/Gazprom only loses the benefit of NS2, but doesn't lose anything related to the gas supplies compared to what's been before the construction of the new pipeline. The expenses of NS2 construction are already paid off during the period of high gas prices last year.
Thanks. Honestly, I'd like to contribute more (I'm the one who created this thread 8 years ago, after all), but I'm a bit short on time for Intenet debates in a language that is not native to me.
I don't expect to over-persuade anyone, all people have their own view on things, and I'm here to present mine. Because a discussion is not so interesting when it's too one-sided.
International law is just a ruse in trying to achieve your geopolitical goals.
Only a fool follows international law.
International law is nothing more than imposed on the weak countries so they follow the bigger powers rules.
About Kosovo I think the Serbs deserved what they got we all know they were going to do another Sebrenica.
Kosovo was under Eastern Roman Empire, Bulgarian and Ottoman rule much longer than the Serbs.
Reason why the Serbs cling onto this Kosovo myth because of the battle of Kosovo in 1389 where they lost to the Ottoman Empire. They mythologised the battle and cling onto Kosovo becoming some sacred place.
At the same time majority of the population were Albanians who did not want to live under Serbian rule because afterall both hated each other a lot I mean a lot.
4 airports of Ukraine are shut down and their landing strips are blocked by trucks.
...What can I say. Ukraine could have avoided all of this if Kiev followed the UN-approved Minsk agreements. Respect the human rights of the people in eastern regions, start negotiating, let them use their language and you can have these lands back. But there will be no more chance. Because Zelensky's regime (or whoever is pulling the strings on him) doesn't care about his people. I feel bad for the ordinary Ukrainian people who are dragged into this.
I do not support war as a method to solve problems, but I'm certain about whose side I am on. I wish good luck to the guys, and hope this ends quickly and with fewer losses to both sides as possible.
For starters, organizations that Russia belongs to. The occupation of Crimea was in violation of the charter of the Council of Europe, which Russia became a part of in 1996, and they're in violation of it again for their unjustified recognition of the bogus new "states". Russia is also in violation of the OSCE, which it's a member of as well.
Russia is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions by forcing conscription of Ukrainians in territory that Russia doesn't own.
But most of all it's in violation of UN international law, which acts as the de facto international law, and last time I checked, Russia is a part of the UN.
So then why should Putin throw a hissy fit that Ukrainian politicians want to align themselves with the west? If politicians get to choose, then let them choose.
So am I just supposed to trust you, someone who's clearly bought into the Russian propaganda, over investigative journalists? Ya, I'm going to go with investigative journalists. And even if everyone on that list didn't die by Putin's order, it's not like Putin doesn't order hits on people. Alexei Navalny is proof of that.
Officially he did commit suicide, however, I do believe he was killed by someone. However, I'm not certain it was a politician. There were hundreds, if not thousands of the people involved with Epstein, some of them far more powerful and wealthy than any politician.
Israel has refused to supply iron domes to Ukraine.
Im wondering why is it due to Syria. Because Israel is known to alert the Rusdians before striking Syrian and Iranian targets hence why they go into Syrian airspace but alert the Russians that they are not going to attack them. If Israel supplied Iron domes this could perhaps lead to Russia closing the airspace to them in Syria.
Israel has refused to supply iron domes to Ukraine.
Im wondering why is it due to Syria. Because Israel is known to alert the Rusdians before striking Syrian and Iranian targets hence why they go into Syrian airspace but alert the Russians that they are not going to attack them. If Israel supplied Iron domes this could perhaps lead to Russia closing the airspace to them in Syria.
I think the only country Israel would allow to deploy Iron Dome is the USA, and even then I don't think they would like doing so. I don't think Israel wants Iron Dome falling into Russian hands...which would undoubtedly happen if they lent them to Ukraine. Russia isn't exactly best mates with Iran, but they do have an uneasy alliance.
I think the only country Israel would allow to deploy Iron Dome is the USA, and even then I don't think they would like doing so. I don't think Israel wants Iron Dome falling into Russian hands...which would undoubtedly happen if they lent them to Ukraine. Russia isn't exactly best mates with Iran, but they do have an uneasy alliance.
Azerbaijan I think uses the Iron Dome if I remember.
Russia and Syria are allied so Russia is suppose to protect Syria but thing is Syria is also close with Iran and Russia has no problem with Israel striking Iranian or even Syrian targets as long as Russia is not targeted.
Assad getting weakened basically plays more into Russia's hand as he will be more dependant on them while at the same time Syria is getting treated like a mere proxy by Russia.
Israelis did strike Latakia which pissed off Russia. At the same time Russia went into the Golan heights with their planes even patrolled the areas.
Azerbaijan and Iran dont like each other one bit. Even if they are the same religion Shia Islam.
One is Turkic and the other is Iranic. Iran also supported Armenia in the Karabag war while at the same time it supported separatist movements in Azerbaijan.
