> What civilian infrastructure was deliberately attacked?
Its clear you have only been getting your information from a certain set of sources. a lot of civilian infrastructure has been destroyed in Iran.
One of Israel's goals is to cripple the economy of Iran.
"Israeli leaders, including Defense Minister Israel Katz, have ordered the military to carry out strikes on targets that cause economic blows to the Iranian regime."
"This included a strike on major Iranian gas infrastructure in the country’s south nearly two weeks ago, and strikes on two of Iran’s largest steel factories on Friday. "
"Missiles also struck one of Iran’s biggest state-run pharmaceutical companies, Tofigh Darou, destroying its production and research and development units, state media said on Tuesday, blaming the strike on Israel. It’s a major producer of anti-cancer drugs and anesthetic in Iran"
"A century-old medical research centre (Pasteur Institute) set up to fight infectious diseases like plague and smallpox has been heavily damaged in strikes on Tehran"
In addition, one of my friends who lives in Iran reported that a dialysis center, a refrigerator factory, a public park (that had "police" in the name),
a popular chicken restaurant, and an entire apartment building full of people were each separately targeted and destroyed (apartment building was double tapped,
killing rescue workers)
the above is just a small selection, universities, factories, bridges, oil infra has all been targeted as well.
would you consider US Steel factories, universities that do research for the military, factories or companies that make components that go into US weapons, apartment buildings where one military leader lives as military or civilian infrastructure?
> would you consider US Steel factories, universities that do research for the military, factories or companies that make components that go into US weapons, apartment buildings where one military leader lives as military or civilian infrastructure?
I would consider it military infrastructure, but if you don't then you can't really complain about the US attacking, say, a petrochemical facility while Iran is/was simultaneously attacking infrastructure in the Gulf and attacking actual civilian targets like apartment buildings.
So you have to be consistent. It's either military or not. Iran is doing the same thing the US is doing or neither are doing it. Either way there's no room for moral superiority or outrage when both countries are somewhat acting the same, of course with Iran attacking and killing more civilians and whatnot.
true, but there's some evidence that was unintentional. whereas Trump and Israel are openly saying they are targeting bridges, oil
infra, economic targets etc.
i don't think you know much about islamist parties and are just grasping for reasons to justify suppressing democracy in certain places.
ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across
the aisle at various points
just off the top of my head.
besides, isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles? if they are in power, why should the majority expect their elected
leaders to compromise
those principles?
> ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across the aisle at various points
Would love to read more on this. Naïvely, I shared OP’s view of Islamist parties’ intransigence. (Note to third parties: Islamist != Islamic majority or even Islamic parties, and certainly separate from Arab parties.)
> isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles?
Yes. But nothing says democracies are fundamentally stable. It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
which includes both analyses from Western academics as well as responses from members of Islamist parties.
> It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
Intolerant of what, and what do you mean by "instability"? If the ideology of the political parties and institutions reflects that
of the (vast) majority of the population, why would we expect "instability"?
Democracy can descend into demagoguery; I believe that occurs when the "people" feel like the state has been captured by an elite (oligarchy) that doesn't represent their interests (i.e. interests of the majority), "intolerant" or not - e.g. Gracchi brothers, Hugo Chavez, etc etc.
I was writing about Arab Islamism. I don't have strong views about Pakistan or Indonesia, though I have negative opinions about Islamism across the board.
One reason I'm skeptical of Arab democracy is that Arab nationalism is weak. In the Arab world, Islam and hatred of Israel seem like the most powerful forces. Much stronger than nationalism. Would countries governed by those forces be stable? Would their policies be desirable from the perspective of the rest of the world?
There are Arab democracies that may prove that Islamists can be pragmatic. Tunisia like you said, Iraq, and possibly the new Syrian government. We'll see. The world is always changing.
Because every Islamic theocracy to date has been profoundly destabilising for its neighbours and the world, and always ends up imprisoning and immiserating its own people. No one wants more Irans or Afghanistans. (Or Saudi Arabias, though that's not said out loud as often.)
but neither Saudi Arabia nor Afghanistan's leaders were voted in ...
and secular/socialist/monarchic dictatorships have arguably worse effects on their neighbors and citizens - e.g. Saddam, Assad, Nasser, MBZ in UAE, MBS
Yes, there are a lot of bad options in the Middle East; Islamic theocracy has no monopoly on awfulness.
I think the broader point is that a democracy is unstable when the electorate just votes for their favourite warlord / cleric, who promptly ends / rigs any further elections.
In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process. Worst case scenario all of this happens at once in different places, and you get a terrible civil war.
Democracy is great, but it requires an electorate that actually wants to sustain and retain a democracy. Those appear to be few and far in between.
> In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process.
that pattern is hardly unique to middle east/islamists though. look at central/south america. guatemala, chile, brazil etc all had democracies overthrown by "elite" coups.
like almost every instance in the
middle east, there is actually a common denominator between these coups... resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability.
That seems rather Whataboutist to me. I never claimed this only ever happens in the Middle East. We are, however, talking about the Middle East, so local examples would seem apposite. You seem to desire to make this conversation so abstract that it becomes about nothing.
> resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability
Or perhaps 'resistance' is an awfully popular rallying cry for demagogues who bring instability, and the US is just the hegemon du jour. "It's the US' fault your crops are wilting! And international capital! And immigrants! And, oh, I don't know, the gays, why not. Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s
Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too.
> I never claimed this only ever happens in the Middle East.
you said
> Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists.
whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony.
see: Brezhnev doctrine (USSR), or the canonical example of Athens and Melos from Peloponnesian war
> Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s
Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too.
I'm sorry, you seem triggered by this discussion, it doesn't seem productive to continue on my end.
> I'm sorry, you seem triggered by this discussion, it doesn't seem productive to continue on my end.
I suppose shall have to make do without 101-level instruction in Chomskyian anti-Imperialism, woven through with whataboutism and international conspiracies.
> whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony.
Wow, big if true. Someone let Iran know.
How many trillions of dollars and gallons of blood did the US expend to make Afghanistan non-Taliban, or Vietnam non-Communist? And who rules Afghanistan and Vietnam today? You mention the Brezhnev doctrine, and yet literally not one of these countries is Russian-aligned today. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan failed just as hard as the British and American ones, all at the height of those respective countries' powers. Not very powerful, these alleged hegemons.
My overall point is that the Middle East (and Latin America, etc) has many local issues (e.g. corruption, misgovernance, sectarianism, organised crime), and an unhelpful habit of blaming some ill-defined global hegemony for misfortunes that are readily explicable as the consequences of these local phenomena. The US is no innocent lamb, but it does no service to the people of any of these regions to pretend that another hundred years of anti-Imperialist rhetoric will somehow bring benefits that the previous hundred years did not.
In these countries, this brand of tired anti-Imperialism is a figleaf for authoritarians. In the West, it is masturbatory politics for a certain type of narcissistic Westerner with a saviour complex, who fundamentally believes only Westerners have agency in the world, and everyone else are just motes of dust floating in the West's shadow. It's this confluence that results in absolute travesties like Chomsky supporting the Khmer Rouge, a far greater evil than all the worst allegations against America stacked together.
If you want to help the Middle East, get involved in civil society building efforts that help bridge the gap between sectarian communities; support charitable and poverty relief efforts that are not affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood; get involved in civil rights advocacy on behalf of the oppressed in the Middle East (women, LGBT communities, religious and ethnic minorities, the list goes on); partake in initiatives aimed at tackling corruption, organised crime, etc. Or at the very least encourage and support the people who do these things, rather than regurgitating half-remembered anti-Imperialist tropes from your polsci 101 class, as though that were a contribution of any value whatsoever.
The one thing that will absolutely not help them, at all, is more meandering, false narratives about how they have no agency in the face of shadowy global hegemons, and how should just lie down and wait impassively for some sort of new, more just world to be given to them by their Western betters.
Ok, lot of stuff to unpack here, but I'll stick to just pointing out obvious misinfo, which is often repeated:
Chomsky never backed the Khmer rouge, he questioned some of the claims and western focus on the Khmer rouge, which was ignoring US culpability. He also never denied that the Khmer rouge were committing atrocities.
Was he wrong? Yes, at least in specific instances. But he was never outright supportive of the Khmer rouge. This is very old propaganda.
> that event might mark the beginning of the end of their geopolitical ambitions.
i hope so, they have been one of the biggest sources of discord in the Middle East, funding civil wars in Libya, Sudan, Yemen, funding a coup in Egypt.
Unfortunately, they're now in league with Israel and just left OPEC which was under the Saudi umbrella. While it's basically trading one devil for another, the Saudis are at least more pragmatic about regional stability unlike the UAE (the Saudis support the legitimate government, against the UAE, in literally every conflict in the region).
I wouldn't be surprised if the UAE starts scheming to foment within Saudi Arabia next. And unfortunately, the only counter to that would be for Saudi Arabia to become further entrenched in its Salafi culture.
exactly this... this has been strategic disaster from US perspective. a blockade plus covert ops could have split IRGC leadership - instead public decapitation caused rally round the flag effect and gave immediate legitimacy to khamenei heir. completely idiotic
my thesis is that the IRGC has successfully established deterrence by demonstrating relative resilience against US attacks (still have boats and missiles), ability to meaningfully strike US bases and its Allies, and willingness to sacrifice a lot of Irans civilian infrastructure. its hard to sift through the propaganda on both sides, but I haven't yet seen anything to disprove this convincingly. anyone else?
I also believe they have the upper hand as they are willing to play the long game. It's like when Russia attacked Ukraine, they gambled on taking Kiev with paratroopers on the first few days. Didn't work and they got stuck.
It will be ironic if Iran gets a stronger position than they had before the war as a consequence of a peace treaty.
It's not really an "if". Iran is in a stronger geopolitical position (than the one they held before the war) today. Any deal they make can only improve things for them, by definition (or else they wouldn't take it).
That's precisely the trap the Trump administration has created for itself. If the only way out is to lose, then you've already lost. And Iran knows it.
I agree that they have this strong position now, but the war is not over yet. I doubt they'll lose it in any meaningful way, but still it remains to be seen how they manage to capitulate it in a possible peace deal.
Again, they don't have to capitulate. They hold all the cards. The world needs that strait open, and 100%, undeniably, without any question at all will pay Iran tolls to get it.
To the extent that this ends in military action, it's going to be the rest of the world protecting the Iranian toll regime from USA piracy. Even Trump won't pull that trigger. Watch for the TACO.
They still need to come to some kind of peace treaty to be able to profit from the control of the strait. Before that happens we might see things like ground invasion or nuclear weapons being used. It's unlikely, but within the realm of possibility.
Again, no, before that happens we'll see Europe and China submit to Iran's tolls and start escorting their tankers through the straight in "violation" of Trump's insane blockade. The US position is 100% untenable here, it relies on everyone else just deciding by fiat that Iran is the bad guy when it's very clearly us.
You believe China and Europe would go to fight with US instead of Iran, if/when we get to a point of actually hurting enough to join that fight?
I don't see that happening... Also if they want to escort tankers, they can escort tankers from US-allied countries, and I assume US would also help.
Overall, I legit do not see a way where countries would pick to fight against US instead of Iran if we ever get there. But maybe, I am wrong, so who knows :)
> You believe China and Europe would go to fight with US instead of Iran
No, but I believe China and Europe believe that they can stare down Trump and force a TACO more than they believe in their ability to successfully navigate the ridiculous shitstorm in the gulf.
I repeat for like the ninth time: It is the USA, and not Iran, that is actually preventing commerce in the gulf as a matter of national policy. Iran just wants to get paid, basically. Trump wants... what, exactly? And that's the problem. The rest of the world needs a solution and not bluster. Iran offers one, Trump just yells a lot.
> Iran is in a stronger geopolitical position (than the one they held before the war) today
Why do you say that? IRGC lost 90% of their corrupt income when USA blockaded their shadow fleet of oil tankers, they are weaker than ever right now, it is hard for any organization to survive long when losing 90% of their income. They rely on a large amount of mercenaries currently to keep the population under house arrest, but what happens when those no longer get paid?
The blockade is 100% unsustainable. It's a joke. The world can't absorb a 25% cut in oil production for anything more than a few months. Reserve capacity is already being tapped. The futures market says it's only a mild disruption because the futures market is predicting (correctly, so far) that it's all a joke that will disappear in a confusing TACO in a few days.
> The world can't absorb a 25% cut in oil production for anything more than a few months.
IRGC can't absorb that for more than a few months either, and if the world wants to open the strait they would rather attack Iran over the strait than attack USA, so there is no way this state will benefit IRGC if it keeps up.
It was IRGC mining friendly countries waters and attacking ships in friendly waters, every country affected has the right to go attack IRGC over that but they choose to wait and see for now. But if it gets as bad as you suggest then they will just force Iran to open it, they wont force USA to do anything since its not USA that is illegally blocking it.
> IRGC can't absorb that for more than a few months either, and if the world wants to open the strait they would rather attack Iran over the strait than attack USA, so there is no way this state will benefit IRGC if it keeps up.
This is not at all obvious to me. Money and economic power historically is downstream of military power - men with guns can expropriate whatever they want or need from their unarmed, isolated population. The only thing that is potentially upstream of military power is ideology, which also favors IRGC and Iran security forces as they seem to be most ideologically fervent faction in Iran.
> they wont force USA to do anything since its not USA that is illegally blocking it.
The USA is literally blockading the strait to prevent tolling. I mean, in some sense you're right: the Trump threat is fake and he'll cave. But the policy you're ascribing to Iran, incorrectly, is actually what your government claims to be doing!
I remain just absolutely dumbfounded at the ability of this administration's defenders to just dig in on obvious lies. Surely on some level you get that you're being lied to, right?
> The USA is literally blockading the strait to prevent tolling.
USA is blockading Iran, they don't blockade anyone but Iran.
> But the policy you're ascribing to Iran, incorrectly, is actually what your government claims to be doing!
I'm not an american. And no, USA doesn't block anyone but Iran here, blockading an enemy nations ports is fair game during war, blockading third party ports that tries to sail through their own waters like Iran does is not. The strait isn't Irans strait, they put mines all over the place in Omans waters, that is extremely illegal and basically a declaration of war against Oman to do so.
Edit: Maybe you misunderstood USAs blockade as they blockading anyone who pay Iranian tolls. No they don't do that, that was just a deranged statement by Trump, CENTCOM later announced the real blockade and it was just a blockade against Iranian ports, nothing about Iranian tolls.
"Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz." - President Donald J. Trump
The inability of people to reason from clear evidence about this president, and instead project onto him whatever rationalizations they've come up with, is absolutely astounding.
Now, again, that is what the president SAID. It is clearly not the actual military stance of the USN in the strait, because that would be insane. But it remains US policy and to argue otherwise is... yikes.
I don't care what Trump says, I look at facts on the ground and fact is that USA never blockaded ships that weren't going to Iranian ports, and the American navy never said they did either. What Trump says in public and what the private orders are obviously very different.
Other countries can see this as well, USA is letting them through and their navy there says they will, they all know Trump spouts a bunch of bullshit so you look at what they do instead of what they say. I haven't seen other countries say USA must stop blockading so they see this as well, they would complain if USA actually blocked any unrelated traffic through the strait but they never did do that.
The "facts on the ground" are that the strait is closed to shipping, has been closed, and seems likely to remain closed for the foreseeable future. Yet you think that is somehow not because of the very clearly stated policy of the world's sole superpower which has been pursuing a war in the region?
That's just... batshit. "OK, you said you'd do this. And you did this. And it happened. But you didn't do it!" Literally that's your logic.
Like I said: the ability of the right wing to create for itself a fantasy world that excuses away all the failings of their movement, even to the extent of disbelieving and writing off the actions of their leaders where they don't fit the desired narrative is just amazing.
IMO Ability to break US forward base sancturary breaks entire US expeditionary model. US+co land basing responsible for most of strike sortie generation/sustainment. Carriers are mathematically supplementary in theatre level conflicts.
Degrade land based strike sorties and support sorties and push CVG back to ~1000km (where strike stories drop to ~50% due to tanking) = entire strike sortie sustainment math breaks hard. Less strike sorties -> even more dependence on high-end munitions. Combined with resilient antiair also denied US ability to move to budget (i.e. JDAM) mop up phase. Strategically Iran being able to soak US damage and still fire back = US air campaign tactically failed to degrade Iran missile complex chokehold over region. Consider US used up ~half of highend standoff and interceptors (if you believe CSIS) then status quo after crippling forward bases simply broke US war logistics. US cannot sustain (not even matter of afford) to fight Iran with current highend munition burnrate + cvg sortie generation, and and defeat Iran tactically to rely on lowend munitions without more political exposure, i.e. a few more pilot rescues going to start meaningfully chip away at US CSAR fleet. Nevermind political fallout of failed rescue or F35 down in Iranian soil.
Hence Trump pivoted to threatened civil infra / counter-value, US saw limits / diminishing returns on ability to neutralize remaining Iranian counter-force threats. US simply cannot afford to prosecute prolonged counter-force standoff air campaig without further strategic exhaustion. Same reason Iran shifted to counter-value oil/infra because the damage to US basing already done, and their ability to degrade US CSG sorties limited.
thanks for your insights. do you have a background in defense?
much of what you are saying sounds plausible to me, but i really don't know much about modern military tactics. do you have any suggestions for where i can learn more about that topic wrt how it applies to this war?
> Obviously this applies to WestPac
do you mean a a potential war with China? i dont think China has leverage over a critical choke point like Hormuz and is instead exposed to one (Malacca) that US would surely blockade.
Wall of text warning. No background in defense, imo slightly more informed/less stupid enthusiast. There isn't specific reading, most narratives are politically motivated and not worthwhile outside of relevant statistics to inform analysis. Really need to understand subject matter from first principles and run available numbers (that pass smell test). Even declassified will get you a long way, i.e. carrier strike sortie generation at various distances, forward basing sortie generation, munition / interceptor stockpiles, weaponeering (munition expenditure) all relatively known. Useful to also correlate with reporting and compare to past conflicts.
Iran as example: Iran is ~5x larger than Iraq by most metrics, US generated ~5x more sorties in Iraq than Iran (with more carriers and regional basing). Factor in hits on Iraq was with 10% precise munitions, Iran has 100%, but Iran doctrine also designed to tank hits by forcing US to expend more munitions etc... rough napkin match suggests mathematically unlikely for US to damage Iran on same scale vs Iraq given Iran's size, US+co sortie #s and air campaign time frame.
Then see initial claims that 100% of Iran regional strike complex destroyed, but Iran obviously still hitting regional targets at XYZ rate (online trackers etc) and you get better sense of picture. News of ~50% of US forward basing hit, enablers like AWACS or radars hit that will further reduce US efficiency, carrier moved from 500km to 1000km standoff, losing airframes flying over Iran, and it's clear Iran maintains ability to fire back, and what they can hit is effectively forcing US to adopt more conservative tactics to stay outside of Iranian fires. Which translates to even less efficiency - less strike sorties (more tanking) and more highend munitions (to reduce risk). Integrate relevant stats as they become available - CSIS report on ~50% of high end stand off, ~50% of high end interceptors expended and numbers suggest US can not mathematically sustain air campaign tempo which has reached marginal effect in terms of suppressing Iranian ability to fire back without unsustainably burning through high end munition stockpiles for much longer before complete strategic insolvency (US cannot fight peer war without these munitions). It all comports to US air campaign cannot defang Iran militarily, even if it might, continuing would be Pyrrhic, then all the talk about blowing up Iranian civilian infra, doing counter blockade to conserve munitions, moving to negotiations suddenly makes sense.
>i dont think China has leverage
In terms of immediate leverage ~90% of highend semi production and/or semi supply chain, reminder many, many, sole source semi suppliers feeding TSMC Arizona / US fabs from east Asia. Arguably bespoke semi supply chain is currently MORE vulnerable, i.e. less redundant than global oil which have many geographic sources.
In terms of blockade, draw a 5000km circle around PRC. That is PRC IRBM / Antiship range covers Malacca, Hormuz, Aden, aka all critical energy SLOCs. PRC have demonstrate coordinated hypersonic antiship missile strike on moving target at sea, with sufficient space ISR to track US shipping in these regions + PRC industrial base = PRC has magnitude greater potential than Iran to degrade US in much broader geographic theaters, and not just land basing but actively deployed navy, i.e. US not capable of blocking Malacca for long because PRC IRBMs can (at least according to demonstrations) take out US ships, their replenishment fleet or the basing that tops up the replenishment fleet... every piece of logistic chain that sustains USN is exquisitely vulnerable to PRC fires. Ditto with USAF tanking/sustainment/logistics.
In terms of REAL PRC leverage, Draw a 8000km circle, this reaches CONUS - 2025 DoD/W China report finally acknowledges PRC has ability conventionally strike west coast. Note earlier disclaimer that important to filter motivations, i.e. these capabilities have existed for years, it was only acknowledged in 2025. Now ask if PRC can make their 10000km+ missiles conventional, then simple geography math will inform that will reach Texas... that's PADD3, i.e. most of US oil strategic production. That's PRC actual leverage to US blockade (legally act of war) - escalating to reciprocal energy disruption on CONUS. US blockade was only viable strategy if damage unilateral/lowcost (i.e. PRC 10-15 years ago / Iran now). Current consequence with respect to PRC is PRC has option to reciprocally degrade CONUS energy extraction/refining at source for mutual disruption. All signs point to PRC skipping US model of CSGs, B21s for rocket based conventional global strike. Hence game theory behind blockade is broken. I surmise will take a few more years before DoD China report acknowledges broader CONUS vulnerability, and once PRC's CONUS level leverage is treated as baseline, a lot of strategic calculations / narratives will have to shift.
I think it’s because they were they were the dominant power at the point when westerners began dominating the area. We see a similar fascination with Aztec, Iroquois, etc. westerners (or really all audiences of history) need to sense their presence in the story, even if it’s “just around the corner”.
IDK if I agree with that. If you could dissuade a nazi by biting your tongue and keeping the conversation going, wouldn't that be the morally right thing to do?
> Most immoral actors cloak deliberately cloak themselves in ambiguity.
Yes, but that still doesn't mean you should assume everybody to be one of those 'immoral' actors. Assume that somebody is normal, if they do something that proofs they're an 'immoral actor', only then assume that they're being dishonest.
They want to make it so Iran doesn’t know if they successfully hit that Oracle data centre.
But they also want to make it so foreign investors don’t get scared off by the prospect of their data centre getting blown up. Obviously investors will avoid the area so long as missiles are flying - but by coming through the conflict "unscathed" will let them bounce back fast. Likewise with tourism.
Which of these is the bigger motivation? Hard to say. But I gather most drones have cameras, so I imagine Iran have a pretty good idea of where their drones are striking.
They are more likely to get funding from EU if they can make it look like they can win the war.
Which of these is the bigger motivation? Hard to say. But I gather most drones have cameras, so I imagine Russia has a pretty good idea of where their drones are striking.
I think the main EU fear is ex-soviet countries fearing they are next if Ukraine falls. So Ukraine should not necessary win, it should mainly bleed Russia and not loose. An eternal standstill is probably best, realpolitik-wise (To be clear, I am not happy with this analysis).
True. As far as EU BigPowers are concerned, they know Ukraine has lost the war but don't really care if Ukraine is being destroyed and Ukranians are dying, as long as they kill as many Russians too.
It astounds me that even in 2026 people are still regurgitating this standard-issue Russian propaganda canard about "Ukraine already lost the war", consciously or subconsciously. While the war is going on, you can make equally vacuous claims that "Russia already lost the war" with about as much cause.
Ukraine is fighting for its survival against a fascist and colonialist invader that aims to end its nationhood. The final outcome is unclear.
The real tragedy is that intelligent people like you buy the EU propaganda that "Ukraine is winning this war" without truly understanding what is happening on the ground.
The stark facts are simple - nearly 20% of Ukranian territory has been strategically captured by the Russians. Ukraine has no real chance of getting it back. Ukraine's counter-offensive has failed twice. It cannot launch any more counter-offensive because it doesn't have the men - any counter-offensive by recalling men from other parts of the frontline would weaken the defence line. So any new counter offensive launched needs to really bloody the Russians to completely back off, or the whole frontline will collapse and Ukraine will face a complete military defeat. Whatever Russian territory Ukraine had occupied has been recovered by the Russians. In case Ukraine doesn't accede to Russian terms, Russia has also been working on a plan B that entails systematically destroying Ukraine's industrial infrastructure (demilitarisation through de-industrialisation - https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/94244 ).
All Ukraine does now is to launch drones and missile attacks at Russian infrastructure for western and social media PR (as it is the only way EU will keep funding Zelensky's government and the war), while it is forced to retreat in the frontlines every week as the Russians slowly keep advancing.
>The real tragedy is that intelligent people like you buy the EU propaganda that "Ukraine is winning this war"
All depends on your victory conditions, tovarish.
>In case Ukraine doesn't accede to Russian terms, Russia has also been working on a plan B that entails systematically destroying Ukraine's industrial infrastructure
You don't seem to be following this war very closely. Short of nukes, Russia has already done everything it possibly can, including trying to freeze old people in their flats during cold snaps, multiple times. They've been targeting industrial infrastructure since day one, but interestingly what's been changing is that Ukraine is increasingly playing that game too, focusing on demilitarizing Russia by targeting its defence industry and increasingly taking its oil exports offline. Turns out two can play this whole de-industrialisation game. It remains to be seen who succeeds, but things aren't looking as good on this front for Russia as they did in 2022 or 2023, that's for sure.
>All Ukraine does now is to launch drones and missile attacks at Russian infrastructure for western and social media PR
Well and also to do things like take 46% of Russia's oil export capacity offline just when oil prices were soaring. You know, small trifles.
>while it is forced to retreat in the frontlines every week as the Russians slowly keep advancing.
Slowly is doing all the heavy lifting here, to borrow a common AI slop refrain. Russia is now losing more men per month than it can recruit, somewhere in the vicinity of 30-40 thousand. Ukraine is extending the drone kill-zone to 30+ km from the so called "front line" (more of a zone). It produces millions of drones and is at the forefront of a drone revolution in warfare. In other words, its demilitarization is progressing swimmingly, but for the minus sign.
> All depends on your victory conditions, tovarish.
The break with factual reality in your post is enlightening. As is the misinformation of Russia "running out of men" when that is the situation Ukraine is facing. There is no "victory", is the point. There is no path to defeating Russia without a nuclear war. That Ukraine can bring about the economic collapse of Russia is a delusional fantasy.
You are just lazily "no u"-ing and projecting at this point, and your uninformed cheerleading of Russian fascism is profoundly uninteresting, so there's nothing further to discuss with you. You're either a Russian Z-bag, or one of those tedious people who make up their minds on a topic they mistakenly think they mastered and then shut themselves off from contrary information. Case in point, the hilarious timing of you saying the Russian economy isn't nearing collapse, when it's one of the main topics of discussion on even on Russian TV and press. Which of course, if you're the second type, you can't watch/read.
What is clear that you have no understanding of either superpower politics, military capabilities or how economies work. You are clearly one of those shameless EU cheerleaders who don't care about Ukrainians getting slaughtered and their country destroyed, as long as they "weaken" Russia in the process.
I don't think Ukraine lost. They surely did a lot better than anyone expected. Right now, I'd say it can go both ways, with Ukranian deaths vs Russian economic crash and hurt for their rich class seeming the main determinaters. If Putin drops dead, if the rich feel enough bombs exploding in Moscow, .... Then Ukraine wins
They have lost depending on the parameters you use to judge the war - I see 20% of Ukraine territory occupied by the Russia, Ukraine having no real military capability to launch an effective counter-offensive (due to lack of manpower), 75% of their industrial infrastructure is destroyed or lost to occupation. They are only surviving and fighting based on the charity of the EU. And their only hope of victory is based on the fantasy that EU is selling them - that once Russian economy collapses, they will "surrender". Even if an economic collapse were to happen in Russia (ala of USSR level), which I don't see happening, Russia will absolutely not end the war in any manner unless their military goals are achieved. Ukraine in NATO means NATO nuclear missile will easily be able to reach Moscow within minutes. Zelensky is a fool to keep ordering strikes deep inside Russia because every successful strike (with unsophisticated drones and ordinary missiles) inside Russia makes the Russians realise how militarily vulnerable they will be Ukraine were to join NATO, and so they will do everything to prevent that. (And let's not forget that Russia is a nuclear power - Ukraine cannot militarily win this war until NATO joins it).
Obviously investors will avoid the area so long as missiles are flying - but by coming through the conflict "unscathed" will let them bounce back fast. Likewise with tourism.
Definitely with tourism. FOAF flew through there a week or two back and said it was very much business as normal at the airport apart from slightly longer queues, otherwise it was the same as it was before the shooting started. This in a country that had been targeted by something like 2,500 dones and 500 missiles.
I'd add the US to that as well. Both the UAE and Israel are highly (practically solely) dependent on US for their military tech and supplies.
reply