“The Russian preparedness to take significant casualties in support of major, long-term political objectives has caused variously fear, disbelief and incomprehension in the West.”
I have to ask why this is? I understand that the goal of the EU and the United States was to cause another collapse of Russia, break it apart, and then loot it wholesale. I can’t think of any country that would not be willing and able to take heavy casualties to defend itself from actual destruction. People are often willing to let the ruling government fall, but their country not so much.
I imagine Aurelian has been reading western accounts of Russian casualties, which are mostly derived from Ukranian government output. Russia has of course taken casualties, many more than they would have wanted, but the ratio of Russian to Ukrainian is somewhere between 1 to 6 and 1 to 12, depending on when and where the action was.
Regardless of the sourcing of Russian casualty numbers, they are very significant. Easily on par or over that of US losses in Vietnam.
But this is irrelevant. Aurelien completely misses the boat on this subject, as he does on military industry, because he is projecting Western (in) capabilities onto Russia. Western governments have zero tolerance for military casualties because Western populations have zero tolerance for military casualties in service of the stupid and pointless conflicts that Western leaders repeatedly embark on.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is very clearly agreed upon by almost all Russians as an existential issue. The Russian people are willing to fight and if necessary, to die to protect this specific national interest. And they have the military industry to back it up.
Fair enough, although the lack of understanding of military industry/logistics and corresponding lack of capability in comparison to peer opponents - specifically Russia and China - is not a failure of imagination.
Perhaps because not many people in the West believe that this is the goal. I don't think many people in Russia do, and frankly I doubt it myself. Sure, European and American elites have made some signals in this direction, but it is not something they can realistically achieve and if they have done anything significant that may help them accomplish this outcome (as opposed to simply keeping a non-threatening local war going), I have not noticed it. I think there may be some ambitious/delusional individuals in the Western elites who may really think this is achievable and worth pursuing, but I don't think it's the subject of consensus as anything other than wishful thinking. That being the case, I'd be surprised if a lot of people in the West took the idea that we have been cornered into this conflict seriously.
It shoudl be obvious that the destruction and dismemberment of Russia was the goal. Witness, for example, Syria, Iraq and Libya. Or, for that matte,r Yugoslavia.
Hell, take away Russia and Ukraine would go from The Lighthouse of Muh Democracy, the country so democratic, it need not bother with pesky elections or bothersome terms of office, to a corrupt, nazi-infested shithole.
There is a consensus in the West regarding Russia. I hardly find anything neutral about Russia in the Western media. All articles and reports are sharply negative.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) conflict is often called "Africa's World War" and has been one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II, with estimates of 5-6 million deaths since the late 1990s through direct violence, disease, and starvation.
The essay touches on this disparity when mentioning that "conflict around the world in the thirty years that followed 1990, was essentially low-technology, generally involving militias or poorly-trained forces" and briefly references the DRC in 2013, but doesn't acknowledge the enormous human toll.
This highlights a significant media and public attention bias. Conflicts that don't involve Western powers directly often receive dramatically less coverage, analysis, and international response, despite their devastating humanitarian impact. The DRC conflict involves multiple countries, rebel groups, and resource exploitation, yet receives a fraction of the attention given to conflicts where Western interests or personnel are directly involved.
This speaks to a deeper issue about how we collectively define what "matters" in global conflicts. The essay discusses legal and technical definitions of war, but doesn't address this moral inconsistency in how different conflicts are prioritised in international discourse.
It raises important questions about whose lives are implicitly valued in our global conversation about war and peace, and how this selective attention affects international response to humanitarian crises.
Trie, but there's a limit to what I can cover in one essay. And you will probably be aware of the furious controversy about how to measure deaths in the DRC conflict or how even to conceptualise the problem. It all depends, in essence on the reliability of mortality statistics in distant parts of the DRC before 1996/98.
Your point is well taken. There are imbalance in the priorities when it comes to define “what” is important or “who” is dying. Moreover, we westerners trigger wars but do not accept “our own” casualties. This is the basis for the bias you mention.
I see another possible reason for a the existence of bias. Allow me this silly example:
I live in a country in which a big amount of tax money collected by the central state is re-distributed to regions with less ressources. Regions also collect their own taxes. Say I live in a “wealthy” region and I know, from reading the annual tax report, that “my” region subsidies other “poorer” regions. I could be against, and shout. It turns out that the vast majority of citizens accept this system. It is a complex discussion every legislature, but it holds. Somehow we all “see” the benefit of this re-distribution scheme.
When I discussed this with a friend in another country - a much larger one - in which some similar financing mechanism exists, he explains to me that in his country people are against. Strictly speaking; “why should we pay something to theses lazy people down there”. It follows that tax solidarity is weaker.
History of these two countries differ, local details and governance as well, but they share a common christian background and are neighbors. There has to be something else than greed.
My hint: DISTANCE and SIZE.
In a two to three hours long train ride I can “see” the effect of the re-distributed taxes in my country. When I travel further the country of my friend after four to five hours I distinguish where regions get less attention. There are, however, no lazy people !
How much you care about others and “how far” you accept to do something against potential differences depends on your ability to project yourself (travel by plane is notoriously not sufficient !) to more distant places.
Having said that, I don’t know the true impact of media coverage. Do you have the impression that the uniform, undifferentiated and biased reports available about problems in Somalia, Yemen, Gaza, or Ukraine for example have an impact ?
Thank you for engaging with my critique. While I appreciate your thoughtfulness about distance and size as factors, I find your theory inadequate when faced with real-world examples.
The UK, despite being geographically distant (and small in size) from the USA, receives significant global attention. Both countries command worldwide notice regardless of proximity, suggesting physical distance isn't the determining factor in whose suffering matters.
More tellingly, consider how "Everyone Stands with Ukraine" became an immediate global rallying cry, while the Palestinians, Congolese, Sudanese, and Somalis, experiencing comparable or greater suffering, generate fraction of the solidarity despite being equally distant from Western observers.
My time in the USA revealed how domestically focused their news environment is. The world effectively begins at the Canadian border and ends at the Mexican one, creating a profound knowledge gap about global affairs unless they directly impact American interests.
What emerges is a troubling reality: Westerners operate with a blind spot born of racial hierarchy where some lives inherently matter more than others. The DRC conflict, with its devastating toll of 5-6 million deaths, receives minimal coverage compared to conflicts involving Western interests or predominantly white populations.
This selective attention isn't merely about information gaps or physical distance, it reflects deeper structural biases about whose suffering merits urgent action. These hierarchies manifest in coverage patterns, policy priorities, humanitarian funding, and public empathy.
The question isn't simply about distance or size, it's about whose lives we've been conditioned to value, whose deaths we've been taught to mourn, and whose suffering we've learned to overlook.
Rubio stated that the US was in a proxy war with Russia. Does that statement given his role in the US administration mean there is a declared state of war between US and Russia?
Putin always refers to the armed conflict as a Special Military Operation, not a war. However the attritional aspect of the armed conflict which affects all of the territory of Ukraine through missile and drone attacks, and increasing parts of Russia through drone attacks may consititute a state of war even if not declared?
Direct NATO involvement in planning, directing and firing missiles into Russia , does this constitute an undeclared state of war?
Is it not an issue of the perception of the viewer? If I was Russian seeing US, UK and French missiles landing in my nation I would find it difficult to believe my enemies were not conducting war. Does it require Russia to send a missile onto a German or Polish base rather than a Ukrainian one to have a similar impression on a NATO country citizen? As long as it's just Slavs killing each other is it just a localised armed conflict?
Forgive my naivity if I consider this a war between NATO and Russia with Ukrainians used by one side as disposable human resources willingly donated by their fascist leaders.
They are sociopathic all right, but stupid too. It is obvious that they are going to be humiliated by losing the SMO, but they are doing nothing to avoid the humiliation. It's almost as if they are all masochistic Eton educated 'thrash-me-harder-mistress, please' types
I am always amazed at how easily people from the USA appear to think it is their right or their duty to talk about USA attacking orher countries to protect some other countries.Dont they ever think to themselves hang on nobody attacks us so why should we attack anyone else ? Its as if people in the USA really do beleive they are in charge of the whole world and have to punish any country that they think is not doing what they think they should be doing.
I like looking at maps , maps of the world , if you take a look at where the USA have fought wars / attacked other countries its across the whole planet they show no restraint they interfere in every country everywhere the USA have really declared themselves to be the policemen of the world and made their own rules about who and when they will attack , they even threaten countries they dont attack with sanctions if they offer any help to countries the USA do attack.
If we take the USA out of the equation completely just how many wars would there be ? fewer or more ? i think fewer because USA is now attacking or helping other countries attack because USA wants economic outcomes that are made easier by the wars it starts or participates in , is that what wars are really about ? economics ? is that what populations want ? i suggest they dont i suggest populations only ever think war necessary if they themselves are being attacked militarily.
I think the other corollary is that those the US back never settle, but keep on fighting because they think that the US support will give them a better outcome.
Hence wars are wastefully prolonged whereas without US support the losers would have folded long ago or perhaps not started off the conflict in the first place.
Take Ukraine as an example. They have been trying to improve their position for the negotiating table for three years, even as their position has deteriorated, but still they persist.
I do not agree with your analogy of the USA acting as policemen - that implies some alignment with law and morality. Rather, the USA acts as a gang. Gangs are notoriously anti-law, they operate on the basis of "might makes right", and they are always seeking to expand their territory in order to exploit more people/businesses and thus gain more wealth and power.
Hello L.J.MacKay , i am not making an analogy that USA are acting as the policeman of the world what i am saying is that the USA think they are the policeman of the world and yes they do behave as if might makes right they are the troublemakers of the world the world bullies
I appreciate your reply, and I still think 'policeman' is the wrong analogy. Yes, I do think that many US citizens think USA needs to act as the police force of the world, but that just shows how uneducated and what shallow thinkers they are. A police force is empowered to enforce Law, but US des not recognise any Law outside itself, therefore can not be the policeman. Maybe it is semantics, but how can there be a policeman if there is no law? I guess you could say the USA sees itself as an "enforcer", much like gangs and mafias have 'enforcers'....but I balk at equating enforcers with policemen. Perhaps I am showing my age, as I was brought up to respect police and to view them as protectors, not violators.
Okay LJ , i get your point , i have to say though , the USA police have a rather poor reputation dont they ? ive seen so many instances of the USA police being called anything but protectors especially by the large proportion of non white people who live in USA isnt it just another issue that the USA needs to sort out ? have not there been too many instances of the police killing black people in circumstances that suggested extreme outlaw violence ? all in all i think the USA is a violent country and i think your gun laws cause it to be that way.
Not my gun laws - guns are regulated and registered in my country, Canada. I have read that Canadians have a similar per capita gun ownership to USA citizens, but somehow not nearly as high an incidence of gun violence. I do not know if that is true, but I do know, as a person who grew up on the prairies, pretty much every farmer and rancher has guns. Probably not as high gun ownership in the cities.
"I am always amazed at how easily people from the USA appear to think it is their right or their duty to talk about USA attacking orher countries to protect some other countries.Dont they ever think to themselves hang on nobody attacks us so why should we attack anyone else ? Its as if people in the USA really do beleive they are in charge of the whole world and have to punish any country that they think is not doing what they think they should be doing."
Morality and consistency have nothing to do with it. The is purely a question of power. Nothing else.
It is not the American people for the overwhelming part, it is their "leaders".
Most Americans just want to be left alone and to mind their own business.
There is a reason why the United States does not conscript soldiers any more, equally why the US has focused so much on massive air power attacks on infrastructure, logistics and communications as its way of war as opposed to actually fighting - it is because actually fighting requires dying, and dying is not acceptable politically.
The model is that of the armored knight in a castle. The castle, in this case, is the ocean-derived isolation of the United States. The armored knight in turn could kill any number of shovel and spear armed peasants, but he cannot watch over each one to force them to farm and support said knight and his castle. But what he can do, is rape/burn/pillage enough times that the most obstreperous peasants get killed or discredited, and the rest agree to being peasants rather than being raped/killed/looted. This is simple terrorism to induce subservience, although it is called feudalism for politeness' sake.
The problem is: if one or more of the peasants gets the wherewithal to kill knights regularly - say guns or the English longbow - the whole medieval feudal thing becomes basically impossible. That's why you then need "nations", not just hierarchies of feudalism to settle when 2 or more armored knights get into a disagreement.
The US is not the armored knight any more. It may have been in the post WW2 period - although I would argue not - but it certainly is not now. And the terrorism aspect has proven not to work because you simply cannot get any real value out of a disorganized, destroyed country still filled with angry fighters and no central government to pay wergild.
It may be that "most" US citizens "just want to be left alone and to mind their own business", but there are very many who believe that they and their nation is exceptional - exceptionally moral, exceptionally capable, and exceptionally holders of the right to impose their will on the rest of the world. Many US citizens agreed with Ms. Albright that killing 1/2 million Iraqi children was "worth it" to ensure USA hegemony over the Near East region and control of its energy resources.
Originally the knights and their castles protected the peasants from other knights/lords: they did not need to attack their own workers to keep them working. Feudalism was basically a division of labour - the warrior class protected the labouring and business classes from the ravages of neighbouring warriors. As kings and their governments enacted and tried to enforce laws so the peasants were not being "rape/burn/pillage", the status of the peasants was also encoded in law. I suspect most workers were as content to "be left alone and mind their own business" once law was established. As arms became less expensive, easier to obtain and use, peasants no longer needed the knights' protection.
Show me the poll where "most Americans" believe that killing 1/2 million Iraqi children was worth it.
Show me the enshrinement of that bitch Albright as anything but the neocon that she is.
Equally, your notions of feudalism being anything but what it is: a system of plunder is quaint. Even in the UK - the Normans came and beat out the existing Anglo Saxon nobility. The UK itself is the originator of overseas empires and rapine of the lesser peoples, so the latest UK defunding of old people's heating subsidies and disabled people's benefits in favor of Ukraine shows clearly that it has never been about the peasants, but always about those in power there.
Don't want to get into a war of words with you - history was my main field of study, but of course history is not a scientific study, and how one historian defines feudalism and its rise is not the same as another's.
I think if you re-read what I said, it was that "many" not "most" US citizens agreed with Ms. Albright's math. Many find it repugnant.
Many as in more than 2? Sure. Many as in the majority? No. Many as in even 10%? Not even clear that is true.
And that is pretty decent considering the enormous levels of bullshit propaganda put out by the mainstream media over Iraq. Even so, there is a very clear understanding among Americans with any discernment that attacking Iraq was based on lies to begin with, much less Albright's bullshit.
As for history - you don't need to be a historian to understand how a relatively small number of armored knights can subdue huge numbers of peasants - even if the various Peasant uprisings were not there to serve as clear examples. Feudalism is no different than a mafia gangster providing "protection" to a shopkeeper - a pure fiction to disguise extortion. And that's not even considering the enormous cultural, linguistic and often religious differences between feudal lords and peasants.
No No and No again , you are wrong , it is the american people i include their leaders yes , your gun laws , the huge number of countries you have attacked and continue to attack this is NOT NEW , you the american people have been killing each other and people around the world for decades.You are a violent nation , you should make a start in changing your ways by ending your freedom to carry guns and freedom to have guns including automatic weapons in your home then you should withdraw all your weapons and missiles and military personel all quarter of a million of them from countries overseas and stop interfering in other peoples affairs mind your own business and stop giving weapons to other countries to kill on your behalf.That would be a good start.
While I agree that the US American culture is a violent one, I think blaming the violence and foreign policy on gun laws is not valid. The violent culture leads to the belief that everyone should have weapons, not the accessibility of weapons leads to the violent culture. Since to a large degree, US culture grew from European culture, which has been engaged in war and killing each other (and foreigners) for centuries, perhaps the US Americans are just an extreme example of it, not an aberration as you seem to suggest.
" I think blaming the violence and foreign policy on gun laws is not valid. The violent culture leads to the belief that everyone should have weapons, not the accessibility of weapons leads to the violent culture."
I am sure that what c1ue said earlier may well be correct , that the americans he knows who own guns are peaceful people , the thing is that most of the people who use their guns to kill people do so for the first time and they do it in anger losing rheir temper not finding another way to vent their anger they grab their gun and shoot someone .I would also say that the many many children who have shot a classmate or teacher at school have done so in anger and done so because the gun was available , if you arm people with guns or make guns readily available people will use them and shoot orher people , just looking at the counter arguments here tells me that the americans have still not learned this , licenses have not stopped the killing.People do terrible things in rage.Having guns available to people is what causes the violent culture .
A lot of Canadians own guns, but Canada does not have nearly the rate of gun violence that USA does. Growing up on the prairies, pretty much every household had at least one gun. So yes, if a gun is available it may be more likely to be used in anger, but if someone is in a killing rage, they will find a weapon.
But I truly do not understand why US allows people to keep guns so carelessly that children can easily get hold of them. Surely guns should be kept locked up when not in use?
If not, then you have no idea what you are talking about.
I am an American, I live in America and nobody I know likes these foreign adventures.
Equally, your conflation of American gun ownership with said foreign adventures is also utterly wrong and clearly not based on any form of reality. The many gun owners I know are all peaceful people.
So you can take your stereotypes and f off.
Not that European nations are any better. UK, France, Germany, Denmark etc etc are all warmongering wankers regarding Ukraine and equally silent with respect to the Israel genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
But unlike simple minded fools like you, I don't believe (and I also know from first hand experience) that the vast majority of people in Europe are neither rabid Ukraine supporters nor complicit in Gazan genocide.
I am sure you are right, and nobody you know amongst your compatriots likes "these foreign adventures", yet many of you are willing to support, or at least go along with them as long as you are not directly affected. Europeans are becoming more and more aware that their countries' Ukraine policies are impoverishing them, and leading to restricted freedoms and erasure of social welfare programmes. Once enough US Americans realize the price in lost freedom as well as economic comfort, it may be that more will take action against "these foreign adventures" in a way that may end, or at least reduce them.
Very few of us "western" citizens, European, US-ian, or other, have anything to be proud of, or any justification for pointing an accusing finger when it comes to silence/support of the Ukraine slaughter, or Palestinian genocide.
Yet again: how many Brits, French, Germans etc support the empoverishment of their own societies in favor of sending money and arms to Ukraine?
The constant churn of so-called democratic governments in Western Europe clearly indicates that the peasants are not satisfied, yet the political classes in Western Europe manage to keep in power, as a class, and continue their nonsense of which Ukraine and Palestine is only a part.
I don't say it has always been so - presumably there was some time in the past where Western European governments actually focused on what helped their own people - but that is not the case today.
And if so-called enlightened Europe is this bad - why do you think that America is any different? Where a ruling class seeks out its prerogatives regardless of what most of its citizens want or even benefit from?
I think that the biggest difference between US Americans and the rest of "western" civilization - which is based on "so-called enlightened Europe" is the degree to which US culture considers itself as exceptional. I think every country and culture has a degree of pride/prejudice in thinking itself "best", but US culture takes it to an extreme.
If our political leaders are widely seen by their populations as enriching and empowering themselves at the expense and to the detriment of everyone else, then it becomes a matter of keeping their "enforcers" loyal and well armed. So far, both the European and US "elites" seem to have well armed and loyal security forces. When the police and Armed forces support the population as a whole, then you have revolution.....not that revolution seems like a panacea. So far as I can tell, revolutions cause a lot of death and destruction mainly to set a new lot of leaders in power. Then the 'new' leaders gradually become as self-serving and corrupt as the ones they replaced.
What you say is true in a literal sense, but not true in a functional sense.
Western voters, Americans as much as Europeans, are the rubber stamp by which the power elites justify their control. Yes, voters are trying to make their desires felt by voting for Trump, for AfD, for Le Pen, for Georgescu, for Farage but even so - the fact is that the "centrist" politicians i.e. the power elites simply make sure that the choices available are those acceptable to said power elites. Which is why Europe is increasingly overtly banning candidates who are not "with the program".
"But the US is a paradoxical example of a state which has a presence everywhere, without being much affected by the consequences of this presence. The Washington system is so big and so clumsy that I sometimes feel that taking account of the rest of the world is just too much additional trouble."
This, I think, puts the nail on the head as far as the US foreign policy goes. Members of the US elite often do very foolish things in other countries because they can afford to, and others pay the price. This carelessness is worse than any malevolence they can muster.
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy. They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
No need to Make America Gatsby Again. It never stopped being Gatsby.
It's astonishing to me the extent to which the American public uncritically accepts the premise that the country faces serious security challenges more than 6000 miles away from its mainland. What kind of ignorance does this require?
Whatever one calls it, warring, armed conflict, intrusions, police actions, and most opaquely peace keeping, some US citizen has been loosing ammunition on denizens of some locale outside our borders for my entire 72 years of existence.
It's well written. But even this excellent essay shows that Westerners are quite confident that they have the right to start wars, while other countries do not have this right. It's so naive. This will eventually lead the West to disaster.
Russians will not ignore the actions of the West, as you think. There is no such option. It's pretty simple. The time has not yet come for a direct response to the attacks of American and British missiles on Russia. The Russians are now consolidating all their resources and allies. It takes time.
“violations" of International Law are violations by states, not their governments”.
I’m sure the defendants at the Nurnberg trials would have been interested to know that. They could have cited the ’Tony Blair’ defence, if only they had had a time machine to inform them.
“there was actually no need for a massive conventional air/land war in Ukraine in the first place: to arrange it required considerable time, effort and stupidity.”
I imagine you are referring to the NATO side when you say that, because otherwise it would be an incorrect statement. And while we are on that subject, the Russians refer to it as a ‘Special Military Operation’
“Casualties in both Gulf Wars were massively lower than expected,”
Western-centric observation - many thousands of Iraqis died - of course the ‘west’ might have expected more, which would make your observation correct but even more devoid of morality. I imagine you would say that ‘morality’ has no place in matters of politics or war, but I can’t agree.
“Campaigns were complex, international politico-military affairs, with a strong humanitarian dimension . . .
Surely you jest. The ‘strong humanitarian dimension’ in most (all?) cases where NATO or the west is involved is no more than a smoke-screen, a sop to the ‘bleeding hearts’ at home. States do not spend large sums of money for mere humanitarian motives. If they make this claim another more self-interested motive can always be found
The humanitarian dimension to Afghanistan dominated everything else, in terms of funding and political interest, even if the US was only minimally involved. At least this was true when I was there. When were you there?
"even if the US was only minimally involved" As the US was far and away the prime mover in this action, that is quite a large omission, and suggests that any humanitarian actions on the part of the 'allies' was as I said, a smoke screen or a sop to guilty consciences. You are correct in that you were there and I was not, but if one could only have an opinion if one were present in any particular location, then there would be a sad lack of diverse comments about practically everything.
"Moreover armed conflicts preemptively require certain laws to be respected." I wasn't clear on this, in an otherwise well set out and informative essay. It makes quite clear that the leaders of these western nations calling for "war," regardless of how defined, are blinded by the believe in their own cleverness. That idea is certainly one not intended to induce sweet dreams.
Perhaps you could clarify what those preemptively required laws are that are to be respected?
The plan in Ukraine ever always only was to get NATO to intervene and for the Americans to eventually have to ride to the rescue. Needless to say, that could not be said out loud.
The only question now is whether the War On Russia will be put on pause so that the Empire can focus on the War on Iran or not. Obviously, the europeans wopuld very much like to focus first on Russia, while Israel prefers that Iran be first on the chopping block.
The USA persuade Zelensky to apply for Ukraine membership to NATO knowing this will threaten Russia also knowing that Russia will move into Ukraine to stop it joining NATO and also knowing that Russia moving into Ukraine will upset the EU .
The USA then with the help of Norway ( a country that has invested heavily in the USA since its new found wealth ) destroy the Nord2 gas pipeline that takes gas from Russia to the EU and UK causing a huge hike in prices as the EU and UK then have to buy gas wherever they can on the world market , most EU and UK power stations producing electricity use gas to power them so in steps the USA to sell their shale oil at inflated prices to the EU and UK.
The governments and media of the EU and UK try to say it was Russia that destroyed the pipeline as if that made sense , but a few weeks later a journalist finds out the truth that is was the USA their aim is to set the EU against Russia not difficult with a leader of the EU whos ancestors were in the nazi war elite , Russia of course were already prepared for such nonsense by the USA and simply redirected their gas to China .
Next we have USA under Trump having the hard neck to say they will stop the Ukraine Russia war on the first day Teump is elected , this of course did not happen everyone is now seeing what a complete blether Trump is.
USA give up on the pretence it was helping Ukraine having done what they intended all along , set EU against Russia and allow UK to step in and take their place to keep the pot boiling.
USA have now moved on to Iran after helping Israel to subdue Lebanon and Syria note its the shia regime they are after , the other sunni half of the arab world is already under their control because of the oil trade.
Iran care much about the sanctions set upon them because the USA via trade agreements and trade threats with many countries across the globe have reached a stage where they can successfully call upon dozens of other countries to apply sanctions to Iran whenever the USA call for it and that is often , simply because the USA is at war somewhere in the world every day of every week of every year , i get what Aurelian says about certain conflict types not really being war but when you are on the receiving end of sanctions from many many countries with whom you have no current or past quarrel coupled with what Aurelian might rightly call skirmishes or isolated fighting or even just threats you will most certainly be seeing things a bit different .
I cannot see USA attacking Iran but i can most certainly see Israel attacking Iran with the arms length help of USA and UK and that will be a far bigger problem for us all than the higher energy prices and influx of refugees from Ukraine because Iran will most definately be a tougher job than Ukraine , better organized three times the population and surrounded by friends.
Lastly i will mention China because i think the Ukraine-Russia
PalestineLebanonSyriaIran-Israel and China-Taiwan wars are coordinated by USA and once Israel attacks Iran or Iran backs down the USA will approach China aggressively knowing that China is unlikely to get anyone rushing to their side to give assistance.
Anyone who knows a wee bit of history about Taiwan will know that it is not and never has been an independent country , its about as independent as the Shetland islands off the northern coast of Scotland whom the english keep telling us in the newspapers will rejoin Norway if Scotland becomes independent but hey thats another story lets stick with Taiwan.
Trump has tried to persuade Taiwan business leaders to move their semi conductor businesses to USA or so he says , the thing is those rare earth metals that are needed to make semi conductors in Taiwan are sourced mainly from within China and i doubt very much if China will let these businesses continue to benefit from Chinese rare ealth metals if they move to USA.
Taiwan is less than 100 miles off the coast of China but is about 7 thousand miles away from the USA so its a crazy idea to think that the USA will bully China the way it has bullied Ukraine Russia Palestine Lebanon Syria Iran even with the help of UK and Israel.
I do not think Japan will help USA even though there are USA military bases in Japan and i do not think other countries around China will help USA either so it is my belief that there is a lot of Trump bluff going on here.
Have Russia seen this coordination ? Have China seen it ? You bet they have they like other countries around the world know how untrustworthy the USA is in pretty much all aspects of its business including militarily.
The threats to Canada 51st state the threat to Panama to steal their canal the threats to Argentina just this week to crumble their economy whats left of it unless they let USA site their huge AI computer factories in the colder water abundant southern areas of the country and on and on it goes , the troublemaker of the world needs brought down a peg or two and Trump,s plans might just see that happening.
Terence, I’m not going to argue against your « list of dots » that you connect to explain what is being happening.
However, I believe that it is not appropriate to use claims of that nature: « a leader of the EU whos ancestors were in the nazi war elite », for three reasons.
1) as « leader of the EU» Mrs van der Leyen has not the potential impact/power you suggest she has
2) the link of her ancestor to the Nazi regime remains under debate; fact checking required.
3) the German population, as well as modern Germany does not deserve to be « remembered » at every occasion that some of their ancestors triggered a disaster.
Having said that, I deplore the warmongering tones taken by Mrs van der Leyen
OK Philippe , points taken but i disagree , i think she should never ever have gotten to such a high position of power i say this simply because there is evidence of her family being nazi not just one but several and i think the evidence of photos showing them wearing nazi uniforms is evidence enough.Its too soon after WWII to forget these things .I wouldnt call what the nazis did a disaster it was sinister evil intentional where as a disaster is unintentional.
A reasonably well put together summary, but it fails to take into account military industry.
Iraq was never a self sufficient military industrial nation - its tools were 2nd and 3rd rate export versions. Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, Syria.
Failure to understand the difference between a peer, military industrial adversary i.e. Russia and China vs. the above examples is nothing less than a demonstration of fundamental military strategic, logistic and intelligence/analysis incompetence.
And note furthermore that Europe, these days, falls far closer to the "lack of military industrial capability" as compared to its apparent belief that it is still the industrial heartland of the world a la pre-1914.
Perhaps it's the empire version of " Do not go gently into that dark night " I suppose that due to the hubris of exceptionalism & the incredibly malleable rules based order that much of your excellent analysis is totally lost on those who need it the most.
Is it a formal war or simply out breaking violence ? This (perhaps valid) intellectual framework can only be produced and discussed by people sitting comfortably far away from the battlefield and is of no use to all those dying precisely on a battlefield.
The Ukrainian casualties are the consequence of the fact that Russia still has a powerful military system capable to sustain long operations. Likewise, the Russian casualties follow the determination of the members of the UAF, backed by heavy logistic, intelligence, organizational (list far from comprehensive) help provided by the West. Thus, every high-school student should conclude that the West is heavily implicated - at war - with Russia. The semantic nuances you provide in your frame work does not change that reality, nor does it affect the situation of all those dying or be wounded on the battle field.
The only rational behavior that could stop the « war » in Ukraine are long lasting mass protests in western capitals against further help and/or equivalent mass protests in Russia against the « special operation ». This does not happen; Humans do not behave rationally, a well known fact.
Thus, one has - rationally - to take into account irrationality. Theoretical frameworks are indeed useful and using appropriate words to describe a situation helps to avoid misunderstanding.
My point is that the amount of « irrationality » that impacts the decision making process of actual political leaders increases for many reasons (***). In turn, the impact of intellectual (logical) frameworks weighs less in their analysis.
(***) Ego. Dopamine levels impact ego. This is not - strictly speaking - something new. What is new is « how » and in particular « how fast » the egos can be triggered, sustained and/or manipulated. Permanent inflow of micro-doses of dopamine in our brain (for example constant exposure to hectic life or social media etc) may increase aggressive behavior (or favor an aggressive decision). I’m afraid there is more than just « uneducated selfish short term oriented elites, Aurélien would say PMC ». We have a severe and widespread « attention span » problem that may preclude in-depth analysis. Conclude yourself.
I notice you only give agency to people in "western"/NATO countries and/or in Russia to affect an end to the Ukraine war. Why do you leave out the Ukrainian people? Ukraine has had several junctures at which concerted pressure by the populace on the government and/or military could have lead to peace terms with Russia. Even now, the citizens of Ukraine could rise up and demand an end to the conflict.
My big problem is the ignorant fools in the West haven't a clue as to how deep their ignorance is and so full of false assumptions and off the scale hubris, they will push on regardless. You can see it in the rhetoric where any hint of restraint is seen as a sign of weakness that should be exploited.
In past times in my life we had meetings about new projects and procedures that were, to a practitioner, totally ridiculous and had failed years ago when previously attempted. However if you pointed this out, you were seen as a negative drag on the team spirit and definitely not with the programme and totally ignored , never to be invited to such a meeting again. These all failed as expected but it was only after the failure that proper assessments were made and reality accepted.
I don't think humanity can afford too many more of these failures as we need to get it right straight away, not as Churchill stated, after we have tried everything else.
Well FF, true, but power is slipping away from them. In the west only the US is a serious arms producer, and the litany of their failed and wasteful projects is long. Whereas Russia is producing cheaper weapons of much higher quality, and China is producing equal quality for very much less and in far larger quantity.
I keep hearing this, but the war continues and the West continues to escalate. China, BTW, is kind of useless as an ally, as China complies with American secondary sanctions.
"All this, I hopes, puts into context some of the wilder statements recently about the “risk of war” with Russia, or whether the West is effectively “at war” with that country, or whether for example direct western involvement with Ukrainian attacks could be considered “an act of war.” These questions are essentially meaningless ...". Your argument, as illustrated here, and by your own declaration, is based on linguistic philosophy (illocutionary speech acts), and the Linguistic Turn. That is very unsteady ground on which to build a thesis: not wholly irrelevant, but of limited application in human activity, and riddled with unstated philosophical presumptions.
I might find your comment plausible, if it suggested you had actually read what Aurelian's wrote about speech-acts, the quotation, the context, or the comment.
For a man who has all the answers, you clearly had not understood the key importance of the Linguistic Turn to Aurelian's argument, nor I surmise know much at all about the Linguistic Turn (the informed would have understood my drift). I am happy to provide you with an extensive reading list.
But hey, I confess the real guilty appeal of coming here is the vanity of the surfeit of trolls. All you have to do is throw a provocative hook in the water (no fly required), and they wrap their mouth round the hook, and bite. And up you popped. Time, after time......
“The Russian preparedness to take significant casualties in support of major, long-term political objectives has caused variously fear, disbelief and incomprehension in the West.”
I have to ask why this is? I understand that the goal of the EU and the United States was to cause another collapse of Russia, break it apart, and then loot it wholesale. I can’t think of any country that would not be willing and able to take heavy casualties to defend itself from actual destruction. People are often willing to let the ruling government fall, but their country not so much.
I imagine Aurelian has been reading western accounts of Russian casualties, which are mostly derived from Ukranian government output. Russia has of course taken casualties, many more than they would have wanted, but the ratio of Russian to Ukrainian is somewhere between 1 to 6 and 1 to 12, depending on when and where the action was.
Regardless of the sourcing of Russian casualty numbers, they are very significant. Easily on par or over that of US losses in Vietnam.
But this is irrelevant. Aurelien completely misses the boat on this subject, as he does on military industry, because he is projecting Western (in) capabilities onto Russia. Western governments have zero tolerance for military casualties because Western populations have zero tolerance for military casualties in service of the stupid and pointless conflicts that Western leaders repeatedly embark on.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is very clearly agreed upon by almost all Russians as an existential issue. The Russian people are willing to fight and if necessary, to die to protect this specific national interest. And they have the military industry to back it up.
Well, it's not me talking here. I'm trying to explain what western governments feel, and why they get things wrong.
Fair enough, although the lack of understanding of military industry/logistics and corresponding lack of capability in comparison to peer opponents - specifically Russia and China - is not a failure of imagination.
It is a lack of competence.
Perhaps because not many people in the West believe that this is the goal. I don't think many people in Russia do, and frankly I doubt it myself. Sure, European and American elites have made some signals in this direction, but it is not something they can realistically achieve and if they have done anything significant that may help them accomplish this outcome (as opposed to simply keeping a non-threatening local war going), I have not noticed it. I think there may be some ambitious/delusional individuals in the Western elites who may really think this is achievable and worth pursuing, but I don't think it's the subject of consensus as anything other than wishful thinking. That being the case, I'd be surprised if a lot of people in the West took the idea that we have been cornered into this conflict seriously.
It shoudl be obvious that the destruction and dismemberment of Russia was the goal. Witness, for example, Syria, Iraq and Libya. Or, for that matte,r Yugoslavia.
Hell, take away Russia and Ukraine would go from The Lighthouse of Muh Democracy, the country so democratic, it need not bother with pesky elections or bothersome terms of office, to a corrupt, nazi-infested shithole.
There is a consensus in the West regarding Russia. I hardly find anything neutral about Russia in the Western media. All articles and reports are sharply negative.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) conflict is often called "Africa's World War" and has been one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II, with estimates of 5-6 million deaths since the late 1990s through direct violence, disease, and starvation.
The essay touches on this disparity when mentioning that "conflict around the world in the thirty years that followed 1990, was essentially low-technology, generally involving militias or poorly-trained forces" and briefly references the DRC in 2013, but doesn't acknowledge the enormous human toll.
This highlights a significant media and public attention bias. Conflicts that don't involve Western powers directly often receive dramatically less coverage, analysis, and international response, despite their devastating humanitarian impact. The DRC conflict involves multiple countries, rebel groups, and resource exploitation, yet receives a fraction of the attention given to conflicts where Western interests or personnel are directly involved.
This speaks to a deeper issue about how we collectively define what "matters" in global conflicts. The essay discusses legal and technical definitions of war, but doesn't address this moral inconsistency in how different conflicts are prioritised in international discourse.
It raises important questions about whose lives are implicitly valued in our global conversation about war and peace, and how this selective attention affects international response to humanitarian crises.
Trie, but there's a limit to what I can cover in one essay. And you will probably be aware of the furious controversy about how to measure deaths in the DRC conflict or how even to conceptualise the problem. It all depends, in essence on the reliability of mortality statistics in distant parts of the DRC before 1996/98.
Your point is well taken. There are imbalance in the priorities when it comes to define “what” is important or “who” is dying. Moreover, we westerners trigger wars but do not accept “our own” casualties. This is the basis for the bias you mention.
I see another possible reason for a the existence of bias. Allow me this silly example:
I live in a country in which a big amount of tax money collected by the central state is re-distributed to regions with less ressources. Regions also collect their own taxes. Say I live in a “wealthy” region and I know, from reading the annual tax report, that “my” region subsidies other “poorer” regions. I could be against, and shout. It turns out that the vast majority of citizens accept this system. It is a complex discussion every legislature, but it holds. Somehow we all “see” the benefit of this re-distribution scheme.
When I discussed this with a friend in another country - a much larger one - in which some similar financing mechanism exists, he explains to me that in his country people are against. Strictly speaking; “why should we pay something to theses lazy people down there”. It follows that tax solidarity is weaker.
History of these two countries differ, local details and governance as well, but they share a common christian background and are neighbors. There has to be something else than greed.
My hint: DISTANCE and SIZE.
In a two to three hours long train ride I can “see” the effect of the re-distributed taxes in my country. When I travel further the country of my friend after four to five hours I distinguish where regions get less attention. There are, however, no lazy people !
How much you care about others and “how far” you accept to do something against potential differences depends on your ability to project yourself (travel by plane is notoriously not sufficient !) to more distant places.
Having said that, I don’t know the true impact of media coverage. Do you have the impression that the uniform, undifferentiated and biased reports available about problems in Somalia, Yemen, Gaza, or Ukraine for example have an impact ?
Philippe,
Thank you for engaging with my critique. While I appreciate your thoughtfulness about distance and size as factors, I find your theory inadequate when faced with real-world examples.
The UK, despite being geographically distant (and small in size) from the USA, receives significant global attention. Both countries command worldwide notice regardless of proximity, suggesting physical distance isn't the determining factor in whose suffering matters.
More tellingly, consider how "Everyone Stands with Ukraine" became an immediate global rallying cry, while the Palestinians, Congolese, Sudanese, and Somalis, experiencing comparable or greater suffering, generate fraction of the solidarity despite being equally distant from Western observers.
My time in the USA revealed how domestically focused their news environment is. The world effectively begins at the Canadian border and ends at the Mexican one, creating a profound knowledge gap about global affairs unless they directly impact American interests.
What emerges is a troubling reality: Westerners operate with a blind spot born of racial hierarchy where some lives inherently matter more than others. The DRC conflict, with its devastating toll of 5-6 million deaths, receives minimal coverage compared to conflicts involving Western interests or predominantly white populations.
This selective attention isn't merely about information gaps or physical distance, it reflects deeper structural biases about whose suffering merits urgent action. These hierarchies manifest in coverage patterns, policy priorities, humanitarian funding, and public empathy.
The question isn't simply about distance or size, it's about whose lives we've been conditioned to value, whose deaths we've been taught to mourn, and whose suffering we've learned to overlook.
Rubio stated that the US was in a proxy war with Russia. Does that statement given his role in the US administration mean there is a declared state of war between US and Russia?
Putin always refers to the armed conflict as a Special Military Operation, not a war. However the attritional aspect of the armed conflict which affects all of the territory of Ukraine through missile and drone attacks, and increasing parts of Russia through drone attacks may consititute a state of war even if not declared?
Direct NATO involvement in planning, directing and firing missiles into Russia , does this constitute an undeclared state of war?
Is it not an issue of the perception of the viewer? If I was Russian seeing US, UK and French missiles landing in my nation I would find it difficult to believe my enemies were not conducting war. Does it require Russia to send a missile onto a German or Polish base rather than a Ukrainian one to have a similar impression on a NATO country citizen? As long as it's just Slavs killing each other is it just a localised armed conflict?
Forgive my naivity if I consider this a war between NATO and Russia with Ukrainians used by one side as disposable human resources willingly donated by their fascist leaders.
Russia desperate;ly tried to avoid this war, and it is ever always only the West that escalates, as it smells blood.
Unfortunately the West is stupid.
They are sociopathic, but not necessarily stupid.
They are sociopathic all right, but stupid too. It is obvious that they are going to be humiliated by losing the SMO, but they are doing nothing to avoid the humiliation. It's almost as if they are all masochistic Eton educated 'thrash-me-harder-mistress, please' types
They still have a lot of escalating to do.
I’m afraid I’m as naive as you are.
I am always amazed at how easily people from the USA appear to think it is their right or their duty to talk about USA attacking orher countries to protect some other countries.Dont they ever think to themselves hang on nobody attacks us so why should we attack anyone else ? Its as if people in the USA really do beleive they are in charge of the whole world and have to punish any country that they think is not doing what they think they should be doing.
I like looking at maps , maps of the world , if you take a look at where the USA have fought wars / attacked other countries its across the whole planet they show no restraint they interfere in every country everywhere the USA have really declared themselves to be the policemen of the world and made their own rules about who and when they will attack , they even threaten countries they dont attack with sanctions if they offer any help to countries the USA do attack.
If we take the USA out of the equation completely just how many wars would there be ? fewer or more ? i think fewer because USA is now attacking or helping other countries attack because USA wants economic outcomes that are made easier by the wars it starts or participates in , is that what wars are really about ? economics ? is that what populations want ? i suggest they dont i suggest populations only ever think war necessary if they themselves are being attacked militarily.
I think the other corollary is that those the US back never settle, but keep on fighting because they think that the US support will give them a better outcome.
Hence wars are wastefully prolonged whereas without US support the losers would have folded long ago or perhaps not started off the conflict in the first place.
Take Ukraine as an example. They have been trying to improve their position for the negotiating table for three years, even as their position has deteriorated, but still they persist.
As noted previously - the plan ever always only was for NATO to intervene and the United States to be dragged into Ukraine.
I do not agree with your analogy of the USA acting as policemen - that implies some alignment with law and morality. Rather, the USA acts as a gang. Gangs are notoriously anti-law, they operate on the basis of "might makes right", and they are always seeking to expand their territory in order to exploit more people/businesses and thus gain more wealth and power.
Hello L.J.MacKay , i am not making an analogy that USA are acting as the policeman of the world what i am saying is that the USA think they are the policeman of the world and yes they do behave as if might makes right they are the troublemakers of the world the world bullies
I appreciate your reply, and I still think 'policeman' is the wrong analogy. Yes, I do think that many US citizens think USA needs to act as the police force of the world, but that just shows how uneducated and what shallow thinkers they are. A police force is empowered to enforce Law, but US des not recognise any Law outside itself, therefore can not be the policeman. Maybe it is semantics, but how can there be a policeman if there is no law? I guess you could say the USA sees itself as an "enforcer", much like gangs and mafias have 'enforcers'....but I balk at equating enforcers with policemen. Perhaps I am showing my age, as I was brought up to respect police and to view them as protectors, not violators.
Okay LJ , i get your point , i have to say though , the USA police have a rather poor reputation dont they ? ive seen so many instances of the USA police being called anything but protectors especially by the large proportion of non white people who live in USA isnt it just another issue that the USA needs to sort out ? have not there been too many instances of the police killing black people in circumstances that suggested extreme outlaw violence ? all in all i think the USA is a violent country and i think your gun laws cause it to be that way.
Not my gun laws - guns are regulated and registered in my country, Canada. I have read that Canadians have a similar per capita gun ownership to USA citizens, but somehow not nearly as high an incidence of gun violence. I do not know if that is true, but I do know, as a person who grew up on the prairies, pretty much every farmer and rancher has guns. Probably not as high gun ownership in the cities.
"I am always amazed at how easily people from the USA appear to think it is their right or their duty to talk about USA attacking orher countries to protect some other countries.Dont they ever think to themselves hang on nobody attacks us so why should we attack anyone else ? Its as if people in the USA really do beleive they are in charge of the whole world and have to punish any country that they think is not doing what they think they should be doing."
Morality and consistency have nothing to do with it. The is purely a question of power. Nothing else.
You could add 'greed'. It is very important.
It is not the American people for the overwhelming part, it is their "leaders".
Most Americans just want to be left alone and to mind their own business.
There is a reason why the United States does not conscript soldiers any more, equally why the US has focused so much on massive air power attacks on infrastructure, logistics and communications as its way of war as opposed to actually fighting - it is because actually fighting requires dying, and dying is not acceptable politically.
The model is that of the armored knight in a castle. The castle, in this case, is the ocean-derived isolation of the United States. The armored knight in turn could kill any number of shovel and spear armed peasants, but he cannot watch over each one to force them to farm and support said knight and his castle. But what he can do, is rape/burn/pillage enough times that the most obstreperous peasants get killed or discredited, and the rest agree to being peasants rather than being raped/killed/looted. This is simple terrorism to induce subservience, although it is called feudalism for politeness' sake.
The problem is: if one or more of the peasants gets the wherewithal to kill knights regularly - say guns or the English longbow - the whole medieval feudal thing becomes basically impossible. That's why you then need "nations", not just hierarchies of feudalism to settle when 2 or more armored knights get into a disagreement.
The US is not the armored knight any more. It may have been in the post WW2 period - although I would argue not - but it certainly is not now. And the terrorism aspect has proven not to work because you simply cannot get any real value out of a disorganized, destroyed country still filled with angry fighters and no central government to pay wergild.
It may be that "most" US citizens "just want to be left alone and to mind their own business", but there are very many who believe that they and their nation is exceptional - exceptionally moral, exceptionally capable, and exceptionally holders of the right to impose their will on the rest of the world. Many US citizens agreed with Ms. Albright that killing 1/2 million Iraqi children was "worth it" to ensure USA hegemony over the Near East region and control of its energy resources.
Originally the knights and their castles protected the peasants from other knights/lords: they did not need to attack their own workers to keep them working. Feudalism was basically a division of labour - the warrior class protected the labouring and business classes from the ravages of neighbouring warriors. As kings and their governments enacted and tried to enforce laws so the peasants were not being "rape/burn/pillage", the status of the peasants was also encoded in law. I suspect most workers were as content to "be left alone and mind their own business" once law was established. As arms became less expensive, easier to obtain and use, peasants no longer needed the knights' protection.
Show me the poll where "most Americans" believe that killing 1/2 million Iraqi children was worth it.
Show me the enshrinement of that bitch Albright as anything but the neocon that she is.
Equally, your notions of feudalism being anything but what it is: a system of plunder is quaint. Even in the UK - the Normans came and beat out the existing Anglo Saxon nobility. The UK itself is the originator of overseas empires and rapine of the lesser peoples, so the latest UK defunding of old people's heating subsidies and disabled people's benefits in favor of Ukraine shows clearly that it has never been about the peasants, but always about those in power there.
Don't want to get into a war of words with you - history was my main field of study, but of course history is not a scientific study, and how one historian defines feudalism and its rise is not the same as another's.
I think if you re-read what I said, it was that "many" not "most" US citizens agreed with Ms. Albright's math. Many find it repugnant.
Many as in more than 2? Sure. Many as in the majority? No. Many as in even 10%? Not even clear that is true.
And that is pretty decent considering the enormous levels of bullshit propaganda put out by the mainstream media over Iraq. Even so, there is a very clear understanding among Americans with any discernment that attacking Iraq was based on lies to begin with, much less Albright's bullshit.
As for history - you don't need to be a historian to understand how a relatively small number of armored knights can subdue huge numbers of peasants - even if the various Peasant uprisings were not there to serve as clear examples. Feudalism is no different than a mafia gangster providing "protection" to a shopkeeper - a pure fiction to disguise extortion. And that's not even considering the enormous cultural, linguistic and often religious differences between feudal lords and peasants.
No No and No again , you are wrong , it is the american people i include their leaders yes , your gun laws , the huge number of countries you have attacked and continue to attack this is NOT NEW , you the american people have been killing each other and people around the world for decades.You are a violent nation , you should make a start in changing your ways by ending your freedom to carry guns and freedom to have guns including automatic weapons in your home then you should withdraw all your weapons and missiles and military personel all quarter of a million of them from countries overseas and stop interfering in other peoples affairs mind your own business and stop giving weapons to other countries to kill on your behalf.That would be a good start.
While I agree that the US American culture is a violent one, I think blaming the violence and foreign policy on gun laws is not valid. The violent culture leads to the belief that everyone should have weapons, not the accessibility of weapons leads to the violent culture. Since to a large degree, US culture grew from European culture, which has been engaged in war and killing each other (and foreigners) for centuries, perhaps the US Americans are just an extreme example of it, not an aberration as you seem to suggest.
I do not agree with you LJ , you said ,
" I think blaming the violence and foreign policy on gun laws is not valid. The violent culture leads to the belief that everyone should have weapons, not the accessibility of weapons leads to the violent culture."
I am sure that what c1ue said earlier may well be correct , that the americans he knows who own guns are peaceful people , the thing is that most of the people who use their guns to kill people do so for the first time and they do it in anger losing rheir temper not finding another way to vent their anger they grab their gun and shoot someone .I would also say that the many many children who have shot a classmate or teacher at school have done so in anger and done so because the gun was available , if you arm people with guns or make guns readily available people will use them and shoot orher people , just looking at the counter arguments here tells me that the americans have still not learned this , licenses have not stopped the killing.People do terrible things in rage.Having guns available to people is what causes the violent culture .
A lot of Canadians own guns, but Canada does not have nearly the rate of gun violence that USA does. Growing up on the prairies, pretty much every household had at least one gun. So yes, if a gun is available it may be more likely to be used in anger, but if someone is in a killing rage, they will find a weapon.
But I truly do not understand why US allows people to keep guns so carelessly that children can easily get hold of them. Surely guns should be kept locked up when not in use?
Are you an American?
If not, then you have no idea what you are talking about.
I am an American, I live in America and nobody I know likes these foreign adventures.
Equally, your conflation of American gun ownership with said foreign adventures is also utterly wrong and clearly not based on any form of reality. The many gun owners I know are all peaceful people.
So you can take your stereotypes and f off.
Not that European nations are any better. UK, France, Germany, Denmark etc etc are all warmongering wankers regarding Ukraine and equally silent with respect to the Israel genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
But unlike simple minded fools like you, I don't believe (and I also know from first hand experience) that the vast majority of people in Europe are neither rabid Ukraine supporters nor complicit in Gazan genocide.
I am sure you are right, and nobody you know amongst your compatriots likes "these foreign adventures", yet many of you are willing to support, or at least go along with them as long as you are not directly affected. Europeans are becoming more and more aware that their countries' Ukraine policies are impoverishing them, and leading to restricted freedoms and erasure of social welfare programmes. Once enough US Americans realize the price in lost freedom as well as economic comfort, it may be that more will take action against "these foreign adventures" in a way that may end, or at least reduce them.
Very few of us "western" citizens, European, US-ian, or other, have anything to be proud of, or any justification for pointing an accusing finger when it comes to silence/support of the Ukraine slaughter, or Palestinian genocide.
Yet again: how many Brits, French, Germans etc support the empoverishment of their own societies in favor of sending money and arms to Ukraine?
The constant churn of so-called democratic governments in Western Europe clearly indicates that the peasants are not satisfied, yet the political classes in Western Europe manage to keep in power, as a class, and continue their nonsense of which Ukraine and Palestine is only a part.
I don't say it has always been so - presumably there was some time in the past where Western European governments actually focused on what helped their own people - but that is not the case today.
And if so-called enlightened Europe is this bad - why do you think that America is any different? Where a ruling class seeks out its prerogatives regardless of what most of its citizens want or even benefit from?
I think that the biggest difference between US Americans and the rest of "western" civilization - which is based on "so-called enlightened Europe" is the degree to which US culture considers itself as exceptional. I think every country and culture has a degree of pride/prejudice in thinking itself "best", but US culture takes it to an extreme.
If our political leaders are widely seen by their populations as enriching and empowering themselves at the expense and to the detriment of everyone else, then it becomes a matter of keeping their "enforcers" loyal and well armed. So far, both the European and US "elites" seem to have well armed and loyal security forces. When the police and Armed forces support the population as a whole, then you have revolution.....not that revolution seems like a panacea. So far as I can tell, revolutions cause a lot of death and destruction mainly to set a new lot of leaders in power. Then the 'new' leaders gradually become as self-serving and corrupt as the ones they replaced.
All very well, but the people elect their leaders. If they don't like the choice they could refuse to vote, or spoil their ballots.
What you say is true in a literal sense, but not true in a functional sense.
Western voters, Americans as much as Europeans, are the rubber stamp by which the power elites justify their control. Yes, voters are trying to make their desires felt by voting for Trump, for AfD, for Le Pen, for Georgescu, for Farage but even so - the fact is that the "centrist" politicians i.e. the power elites simply make sure that the choices available are those acceptable to said power elites. Which is why Europe is increasingly overtly banning candidates who are not "with the program".
"But the US is a paradoxical example of a state which has a presence everywhere, without being much affected by the consequences of this presence. The Washington system is so big and so clumsy that I sometimes feel that taking account of the rest of the world is just too much additional trouble."
This, I think, puts the nail on the head as far as the US foreign policy goes. Members of the US elite often do very foolish things in other countries because they can afford to, and others pay the price. This carelessness is worse than any malevolence they can muster.
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy. They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
No need to Make America Gatsby Again. It never stopped being Gatsby.
It's astonishing to me the extent to which the American public uncritically accepts the premise that the country faces serious security challenges more than 6000 miles away from its mainland. What kind of ignorance does this require?
Whatever one calls it, warring, armed conflict, intrusions, police actions, and most opaquely peace keeping, some US citizen has been loosing ammunition on denizens of some locale outside our borders for my entire 72 years of existence.
It's well written. But even this excellent essay shows that Westerners are quite confident that they have the right to start wars, while other countries do not have this right. It's so naive. This will eventually lead the West to disaster.
Morality has nothing to do with it. Only power.
Russians will not ignore the actions of the West, as you think. There is no such option. It's pretty simple. The time has not yet come for a direct response to the attacks of American and British missiles on Russia. The Russians are now consolidating all their resources and allies. It takes time.
“violations" of International Law are violations by states, not their governments”.
I’m sure the defendants at the Nurnberg trials would have been interested to know that. They could have cited the ’Tony Blair’ defence, if only they had had a time machine to inform them.
“there was actually no need for a massive conventional air/land war in Ukraine in the first place: to arrange it required considerable time, effort and stupidity.”
I imagine you are referring to the NATO side when you say that, because otherwise it would be an incorrect statement. And while we are on that subject, the Russians refer to it as a ‘Special Military Operation’
“Casualties in both Gulf Wars were massively lower than expected,”
Western-centric observation - many thousands of Iraqis died - of course the ‘west’ might have expected more, which would make your observation correct but even more devoid of morality. I imagine you would say that ‘morality’ has no place in matters of politics or war, but I can’t agree.
“Campaigns were complex, international politico-military affairs, with a strong humanitarian dimension . . .
Surely you jest. The ‘strong humanitarian dimension’ in most (all?) cases where NATO or the west is involved is no more than a smoke-screen, a sop to the ‘bleeding hearts’ at home. States do not spend large sums of money for mere humanitarian motives. If they make this claim another more self-interested motive can always be found
The humanitarian dimension to Afghanistan dominated everything else, in terms of funding and political interest, even if the US was only minimally involved. At least this was true when I was there. When were you there?
"even if the US was only minimally involved" As the US was far and away the prime mover in this action, that is quite a large omission, and suggests that any humanitarian actions on the part of the 'allies' was as I said, a smoke screen or a sop to guilty consciences. You are correct in that you were there and I was not, but if one could only have an opinion if one were present in any particular location, then there would be a sad lack of diverse comments about practically everything.
"Moreover armed conflicts preemptively require certain laws to be respected." I wasn't clear on this, in an otherwise well set out and informative essay. It makes quite clear that the leaders of these western nations calling for "war," regardless of how defined, are blinded by the believe in their own cleverness. That idea is certainly one not intended to induce sweet dreams.
Perhaps you could clarify what those preemptively required laws are that are to be respected?
The plan in Ukraine ever always only was to get NATO to intervene and for the Americans to eventually have to ride to the rescue. Needless to say, that could not be said out loud.
The only question now is whether the War On Russia will be put on pause so that the Empire can focus on the War on Iran or not. Obviously, the europeans wopuld very much like to focus first on Russia, while Israel prefers that Iran be first on the chopping block.
I think there is coordination here ,
The USA persuade Zelensky to apply for Ukraine membership to NATO knowing this will threaten Russia also knowing that Russia will move into Ukraine to stop it joining NATO and also knowing that Russia moving into Ukraine will upset the EU .
The USA then with the help of Norway ( a country that has invested heavily in the USA since its new found wealth ) destroy the Nord2 gas pipeline that takes gas from Russia to the EU and UK causing a huge hike in prices as the EU and UK then have to buy gas wherever they can on the world market , most EU and UK power stations producing electricity use gas to power them so in steps the USA to sell their shale oil at inflated prices to the EU and UK.
The governments and media of the EU and UK try to say it was Russia that destroyed the pipeline as if that made sense , but a few weeks later a journalist finds out the truth that is was the USA their aim is to set the EU against Russia not difficult with a leader of the EU whos ancestors were in the nazi war elite , Russia of course were already prepared for such nonsense by the USA and simply redirected their gas to China .
Next we have USA under Trump having the hard neck to say they will stop the Ukraine Russia war on the first day Teump is elected , this of course did not happen everyone is now seeing what a complete blether Trump is.
USA give up on the pretence it was helping Ukraine having done what they intended all along , set EU against Russia and allow UK to step in and take their place to keep the pot boiling.
USA have now moved on to Iran after helping Israel to subdue Lebanon and Syria note its the shia regime they are after , the other sunni half of the arab world is already under their control because of the oil trade.
Iran care much about the sanctions set upon them because the USA via trade agreements and trade threats with many countries across the globe have reached a stage where they can successfully call upon dozens of other countries to apply sanctions to Iran whenever the USA call for it and that is often , simply because the USA is at war somewhere in the world every day of every week of every year , i get what Aurelian says about certain conflict types not really being war but when you are on the receiving end of sanctions from many many countries with whom you have no current or past quarrel coupled with what Aurelian might rightly call skirmishes or isolated fighting or even just threats you will most certainly be seeing things a bit different .
I cannot see USA attacking Iran but i can most certainly see Israel attacking Iran with the arms length help of USA and UK and that will be a far bigger problem for us all than the higher energy prices and influx of refugees from Ukraine because Iran will most definately be a tougher job than Ukraine , better organized three times the population and surrounded by friends.
Lastly i will mention China because i think the Ukraine-Russia
PalestineLebanonSyriaIran-Israel and China-Taiwan wars are coordinated by USA and once Israel attacks Iran or Iran backs down the USA will approach China aggressively knowing that China is unlikely to get anyone rushing to their side to give assistance.
Anyone who knows a wee bit of history about Taiwan will know that it is not and never has been an independent country , its about as independent as the Shetland islands off the northern coast of Scotland whom the english keep telling us in the newspapers will rejoin Norway if Scotland becomes independent but hey thats another story lets stick with Taiwan.
Trump has tried to persuade Taiwan business leaders to move their semi conductor businesses to USA or so he says , the thing is those rare earth metals that are needed to make semi conductors in Taiwan are sourced mainly from within China and i doubt very much if China will let these businesses continue to benefit from Chinese rare ealth metals if they move to USA.
Taiwan is less than 100 miles off the coast of China but is about 7 thousand miles away from the USA so its a crazy idea to think that the USA will bully China the way it has bullied Ukraine Russia Palestine Lebanon Syria Iran even with the help of UK and Israel.
I do not think Japan will help USA even though there are USA military bases in Japan and i do not think other countries around China will help USA either so it is my belief that there is a lot of Trump bluff going on here.
Have Russia seen this coordination ? Have China seen it ? You bet they have they like other countries around the world know how untrustworthy the USA is in pretty much all aspects of its business including militarily.
The threats to Canada 51st state the threat to Panama to steal their canal the threats to Argentina just this week to crumble their economy whats left of it unless they let USA site their huge AI computer factories in the colder water abundant southern areas of the country and on and on it goes , the troublemaker of the world needs brought down a peg or two and Trump,s plans might just see that happening.
Terence, I’m not going to argue against your « list of dots » that you connect to explain what is being happening.
However, I believe that it is not appropriate to use claims of that nature: « a leader of the EU whos ancestors were in the nazi war elite », for three reasons.
1) as « leader of the EU» Mrs van der Leyen has not the potential impact/power you suggest she has
2) the link of her ancestor to the Nazi regime remains under debate; fact checking required.
3) the German population, as well as modern Germany does not deserve to be « remembered » at every occasion that some of their ancestors triggered a disaster.
Having said that, I deplore the warmongering tones taken by Mrs van der Leyen
regards, Philippe
OK Philippe , points taken but i disagree , i think she should never ever have gotten to such a high position of power i say this simply because there is evidence of her family being nazi not just one but several and i think the evidence of photos showing them wearing nazi uniforms is evidence enough.Its too soon after WWII to forget these things .I wouldnt call what the nazis did a disaster it was sinister evil intentional where as a disaster is unintentional.
A reasonably well put together summary, but it fails to take into account military industry.
Iraq was never a self sufficient military industrial nation - its tools were 2nd and 3rd rate export versions. Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, Syria.
Failure to understand the difference between a peer, military industrial adversary i.e. Russia and China vs. the above examples is nothing less than a demonstration of fundamental military strategic, logistic and intelligence/analysis incompetence.
And note furthermore that Europe, these days, falls far closer to the "lack of military industrial capability" as compared to its apparent belief that it is still the industrial heartland of the world a la pre-1914.
Perhaps it's the empire version of " Do not go gently into that dark night " I suppose that due to the hubris of exceptionalism & the incredibly malleable rules based order that much of your excellent analysis is totally lost on those who need it the most.
Interesting as usual, thank you Aurélien.
Allow me a few (emotional !) comments.
Is it a formal war or simply out breaking violence ? This (perhaps valid) intellectual framework can only be produced and discussed by people sitting comfortably far away from the battlefield and is of no use to all those dying precisely on a battlefield.
The Ukrainian casualties are the consequence of the fact that Russia still has a powerful military system capable to sustain long operations. Likewise, the Russian casualties follow the determination of the members of the UAF, backed by heavy logistic, intelligence, organizational (list far from comprehensive) help provided by the West. Thus, every high-school student should conclude that the West is heavily implicated - at war - with Russia. The semantic nuances you provide in your frame work does not change that reality, nor does it affect the situation of all those dying or be wounded on the battle field.
The only rational behavior that could stop the « war » in Ukraine are long lasting mass protests in western capitals against further help and/or equivalent mass protests in Russia against the « special operation ». This does not happen; Humans do not behave rationally, a well known fact.
Thus, one has - rationally - to take into account irrationality. Theoretical frameworks are indeed useful and using appropriate words to describe a situation helps to avoid misunderstanding.
My point is that the amount of « irrationality » that impacts the decision making process of actual political leaders increases for many reasons (***). In turn, the impact of intellectual (logical) frameworks weighs less in their analysis.
(***) Ego. Dopamine levels impact ego. This is not - strictly speaking - something new. What is new is « how » and in particular « how fast » the egos can be triggered, sustained and/or manipulated. Permanent inflow of micro-doses of dopamine in our brain (for example constant exposure to hectic life or social media etc) may increase aggressive behavior (or favor an aggressive decision). I’m afraid there is more than just « uneducated selfish short term oriented elites, Aurélien would say PMC ». We have a severe and widespread « attention span » problem that may preclude in-depth analysis. Conclude yourself.
regards, Philippe
I notice you only give agency to people in "western"/NATO countries and/or in Russia to affect an end to the Ukraine war. Why do you leave out the Ukrainian people? Ukraine has had several junctures at which concerted pressure by the populace on the government and/or military could have lead to peace terms with Russia. Even now, the citizens of Ukraine could rise up and demand an end to the conflict.
There was no intention to leave out Ukraniens; omission without bad intention. Thank you for pointing out this weakness in the argumentation.
regards, Philippe
Very Good Aurelien.
My big problem is the ignorant fools in the West haven't a clue as to how deep their ignorance is and so full of false assumptions and off the scale hubris, they will push on regardless. You can see it in the rhetoric where any hint of restraint is seen as a sign of weakness that should be exploited.
In past times in my life we had meetings about new projects and procedures that were, to a practitioner, totally ridiculous and had failed years ago when previously attempted. However if you pointed this out, you were seen as a negative drag on the team spirit and definitely not with the programme and totally ignored , never to be invited to such a meeting again. These all failed as expected but it was only after the failure that proper assessments were made and reality accepted.
I don't think humanity can afford too many more of these failures as we need to get it right straight away, not as Churchill stated, after we have tried everything else.
The WEst sees no need for any kind of restaint, as it has power.
Well FF, true, but power is slipping away from them. In the west only the US is a serious arms producer, and the litany of their failed and wasteful projects is long. Whereas Russia is producing cheaper weapons of much higher quality, and China is producing equal quality for very much less and in far larger quantity.
I keep hearing this, but the war continues and the West continues to escalate. China, BTW, is kind of useless as an ally, as China complies with American secondary sanctions.
There are no 'wonderweapons' which can instantly stop a war, and winning one still takes time.
Oh, Lord, this one is going in longer than Soviet involvement in WWII.
For that matter, had Russia used adequate force from the outset, this war would long have been over.
You mean by starting WWIII?
"All this, I hopes, puts into context some of the wilder statements recently about the “risk of war” with Russia, or whether the West is effectively “at war” with that country, or whether for example direct western involvement with Ukrainian attacks could be considered “an act of war.” These questions are essentially meaningless ...". Your argument, as illustrated here, and by your own declaration, is based on linguistic philosophy (illocutionary speech acts), and the Linguistic Turn. That is very unsteady ground on which to build a thesis: not wholly irrelevant, but of limited application in human activity, and riddled with unstated philosophical presumptions.
"and riddled with unstated philosophical presumptions."
Amazing how language has the capacity to bite the biter.
I might find your comment plausible, if it suggested you had actually read what Aurelian's wrote about speech-acts, the quotation, the context, or the comment.
😉 Keep on truckin' John Boy
Ah, Mr O'Donnell, if only you knew .......
Oh, I do, John, I do . . .
For a man who has all the answers, you clearly had not understood the key importance of the Linguistic Turn to Aurelian's argument, nor I surmise know much at all about the Linguistic Turn (the informed would have understood my drift). I am happy to provide you with an extensive reading list.
But hey, I confess the real guilty appeal of coming here is the vanity of the surfeit of trolls. All you have to do is throw a provocative hook in the water (no fly required), and they wrap their mouth round the hook, and bite. And up you popped. Time, after time......