Jump to content

International Events: Whatever It Is, Everywhere


Zorral
 Share

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Iran's president was involved in a hard/crash landing in a somewhat remote area. 

This is a Russian euphemism, "hard landing" usually means the helicopter has been completely destroyed. I think even Prigozhin's exit interview was described as a "hard landing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Seems like an accident considering the state response.

I've seen videos of what seems to be the search teams shown on Iranian TV floating around on the net. If the conditions they are having on there are any indication of the condition at the time of the crash, I'm calling this trip insanity to cross a mountain range via helicopter through such insanely thick fog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

This is a Russian euphemism, "hard landing" usually means the helicopter has been completely destroyed. I think even Prigozhin's exit interview was described as a "hard landing."

It seems too early to tell unless something new has popped up. No scenario would surprise me especially with everything going on in the region and all the parties that could be involved. 

1 hour ago, Toth said:

I've seen videos of what seems to be the search teams shown on Iranian TV floating around on the net. If the conditions they are having on there are any indication of the condition at the time of the crash, I'm calling this trip insanity to cross a mountain range via helicopter through such insanely thick fog.

Yeah, the videos coming out from the area make it look like the conditions were pretty awful. The level of visibility was terrible. I wouldn't want to drive through that, let alone fly a copter around mountains in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/17/2024 at 12:21 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Good interview w/ Haaretz reporter Amira Hass.

 

 

Loved the "Peoples Graduation".

Mona Chalabi is a rock star, I could listen to her all day!

Edited by DireWolfSpirit
formating
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I find it hard to be optimistic about this as I assume USA will just try and thwart its enforcement (if it does move forward), on the other hand they want the Hamas leaders as well so maybe not?

Edited by Craving Peaches
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A largely symbolic gesture (because arrests are very unlikely), but not totally empty because i) it will in fact be a minor restriction on international travel and ii) it keeps alive a semblance of justice and fairness at least.
The latter being the more important I think, so that the West can still pretend to embody certain values - human rights that is - and promote its model for the "gobal South."

Of course, this is also very likely to backfire, precisely because Israelis will never be arrested, thus further underlining the fact that the ICC is a farce, and that the West is terribly hypocritical when it comes to human rights...
It was great to create International law and the ICC, but the longer it is tootheless, and the more it reinforces resentment against former colonial powers. France is already learning this the hard way with the loss of its protectorates in Africa ; but it's really the entire Western world that is increasingly losing to China, that benefits from not having much of a colonial/imperialist past.

In the great movements of history, I'd suggest the resentment for past (and present) Western oppression is finally bearing fruit. The question now is how will the US (still by far the world's greatest military) cope with this decline. The great fear of historians and other intellectuals has always been that the US would be unable to accept the loss of its hegemon status.
And the fact is that is is a theme of the current presidential campaign in the US... In a nutshell, will the US go to war over Taïwan or not? It really isn't in China's best interest to give the US an excuse to do so, so that's still uncertain...
As things stand (and though this opinion may be unpopular on a largely anglo-saxon forum), I'd actually be more concerned about an authoritarian-led US looking for excuses to quash the rise of China. The far-right is largely reactionary (the correct term may be palingenetic), so Trumpism could very easily morph into a refusal to accept American decline that throws us into a Third World War. All the more so because of course the world is facing a major energy crisis, and that -whatever some may say- global degrowth is inevitable in the next decades, so securing access to key resources only encourages military options...

Interesting times, as they say.

Edited by Rippounet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an ambiguous curse for Netanyahu because while it does indeed restrict his international travel, it also appears to significantly strengthen his position at home (at least some of his rivals have rallied around him). The other possibly worrisome consequence of this decision is that to look strong and demonstrate to the world that they don't care about the ICC, the Israelis might be tempted to do something unpleasant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

As things stand (and though this opinion may be unpopular on a largely anglo-saxon forum), I'd actually be more concerned about an authoritarian-led US looking for excuses to quash the rise of China. The far-right is largely reactionary (the correct term may be palingenetic), so Trumpism could very easily morph into a refusal to accept American decline that throws us into a Third World War. All the more so because of course the world is facing a major energy crisis, and that -whatever some may say- global degrowth is inevitable in the next decades, so securing access to key resources only encourages military options...

Interesting times, as they say.

So you're more concerned about an unlikely hypothetical authoritarian US, than about an actually-existing authoritarian China? Which currently, at this moment, runs actually existing "re-education" camps and population control for its minorities?

An interesting perspective, which tells a lot about your biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Right, coz it's all been a pleasantry fest so far. 

No, but the status quo is a baseline and they might deliberately go above that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

And the fact is that is is a theme of the current presidential campaign in the US... In a nutshell, will the US go to war over Taïwan or not? It really isn't in China's best interest to give the US an excuse to do so, so that's still uncertain...
As things stand (and though this opinion may be unpopular on a largely anglo-saxon forum), I'd actually be more concerned about an authoritarian-led US looking for excuses to quash the rise of China. The far-right is largely reactionary (the correct term may be palingenetic), so Trumpism could very easily morph into a refusal to accept American decline that throws us into a Third World War. All the more so because of course the world is facing a major energy crisis, and that -whatever some may say- global degrowth is inevitable in the next decades, so securing access to key resources only encourages military options...

Interesting times, as they say.

I'm not sure how Americans will accept an inevitable decline, but I don't think it would lead to a third world war. More likely there would be some kind of internal collapse, but even that can be propped up and fixed in short order assuming there isn't a sustainable authoritarian takeover. 

Frankly I'd be much more worried about China declining with serious internal issues. That probably increases the chances more of a major world war happening and regardless if it happens or not, that will make the previous supply chain collapse feel like a walk in the park. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's an ambiguous curse for Netanyahu because while it does indeed restrict his international travel, it also appears to significantly strengthen his position at home (at least some of his rivals have rallied around him). The other possibly worrisome consequence of this decision is that to look strong and demonstrate to the world that they don't care about the ICC, the Israelis might be tempted to do something unpleasant...

Then it should be on the U.S and The West to make sure that should not happen, and that does mean militarily if needed.

This Israel can do much worst is a tiresome statement and looking at what has been, just looks like excuse making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

It's hard to imagine that this would have happened, empty gesture or not, if Israel had not chosen to conduct this war the way that they have. 

Choosing this way means that the deterioration of Israel's infrastructure and economy is further accelerated.

Our friend who foned us again yesterday says, there are blackouts in many communities now.  The power grid isn't capable of holding up.  Very VERY hot climate change days are upon them, and the electricity for A/C and fans -- not to mention computers, is limited or non-existent. They were having trouble before the war, but it's far worse now.  Shades of Cuba . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

It's an ambiguous curse for Netanyahu because while it does indeed restrict his international travel, it also appears to significantly strengthen his position at home (at least some of his rivals have rallied around him). The other possibly worrisome consequence of this decision is that to look strong and demonstrate to the world that they don't care about the ICC, the Israelis might be tempted to do something unpleasant...

I don't think this changes anything with respect to how they are conducting their war against Hamas in Gaza.  I don't think he is going to do anything crazy like deliberately bombing displaced civilians in mass and causing thousands of civilians deaths per day.  I think that would be a real red line for the US at this point.  And I don't see how doing that would advance any of his interests; it would just be negatives across the board.

But I do agree that Netanyahu will use the arrest warrant to bolster his internal propaganda that it's Israel vs. the rest of the world, which to be fair is now arguably mostly true, and that he is the only leader that is strong enough to stand against the pressure, whereas his rivals are weak and would fold.  Many of his rivals, like most of the rest of the world, want the war to end, while he has been consistent in saying that the war will continue until they defeat Hamas.  It's a major point of differentiation that helps him as long as the war remains popular in Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

So you're more concerned about an unlikely hypothetical authoritarian US, than about an actually-existing authoritarian China?

Absolutely.

The Chinese military budget purposefully runs at about a third of the American one ; Chinese military doctrine remains essentially defensive.
The US, otoh, is well-known to have developed a doctrine allowing for the massive projection of force, to defend its interests abroad and secure access to resources across the world.
I certainly wouldn't defend Chinese authoritarianism, but given that Donald Trump could be elected as US president again come November, the US is a much greater potential threat to world peace than China.

Two additional points worth adding, before people here start getting their panties in a twist:
- This doesn't mean I'm rooting for China as the next hegemon. As a European, US hegemony has certainly proved beneficial to me - perhaps less so for others.
- Almost by definition, a hegemon can't truly be benevolent. If China were to prevail (some day), it would probably be far worse than the US. So as hegemons go, the US probably isn't so bad, and what I describe as "hypocrisy," i.e. the gap between discourse and policy, may be inevitable for any substantial power (that gap is even far worse for my own country btw).

But none of this changes the fact that the US, owing to its ginormous military and network of alliances, as well as its declining economic power (at least in relative terms), is far more dangerous than China can ever hope to be. At present, China is mostly dangerous for its own citizens ; the US government has the potential to be dangerous for citizens of any country, including itself.
As the history of the last... eh... *checks notes* over two centuries shows. And whatever one thinks of its rivals, the US started quite a few wars... One might in fact be tempted to say that it has always been quick to resort to military options to impose itself and -to some extent- its ideas upon the world.
So again, yes, the US going authoritarian is the worst-case scenario for a declining super-power with considerable military options.

If you can't understand that and believe such thinking can only be the result of biases, that's really your problem more than mine. But, by all means, feel free to attempt to demonstrate that I am wrong to be scared of the US military. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Ran locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...