US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Hamas continues to recoup its losses since the start of the war in Gaza.
“Indeed, we assess that Hamas has recruited almost as many new militants as it has lost.”
Blinken said Hamas was placing its bets on perpetuating the war as long as Israel remained in Gaza, claiming Israel’s current tactic of military pressure would benefit no one.
The US should have learned this lesson from its WOT interventions.
Our drone attacks created more terrorists than they killed as innocents were killed and family members of the innocents joined the jihad against the invader. And certainly the deaths of Palestinian women and children is creating new terrorists.
And this raises the question: Why is the US supplying bombs to a nation following a failed strategy?
Because even if a nation cannot achieve peace solely by killing their enemies, it doesn’t mean that killing the enemy can’t be an incredibly important element of defending your country on the way to that diplomatic peace.
Ukraine won’t obtain peace with Russia by killing all the Russians - but they’ll get a peace that allows Ukraine to continue existing because they fought back so hard. Had Ukraine not killed a lot of Russians, Russia would have taken all of Ukraine.
There was a deal to be made. By not joining NATO, the Russian adventure likely would not of happened. Why does Russia fear a Ukraine NATO. Because a nuclear launch from Ukraine decapitates the Russian government in less than 10 minutes. They will not allow that.
Russia has seen NATO roll through eastern Europe and see promises made to Ukraine and Georgia. https://www.nato.int/docu/update/2008/04-april/e0403c.html NATO welcomes Georgia’s and Ukraine’s aspirations for membership to accession talks
That is terrible you might say. How can one nation dictate to another.
Well Israel & the US wish to dictate to Iran that they may not have nuclear weapons. And Iran and N Korea saw what happened to Qaddafi when he gave up the pursuit of nuclear weapons and no longer had that stick to wave.
One can make the argument that Russia would have invaded Ukraine regardless. But we don’t know that.
Finland was able to make an accord with the Soviet Union that Russia maintained.
I have to disagree with this. Having the US fund Netanyahu’s Genocide in Gaza was just as bad funding Bush & Cheney’s embarrassing and expensive misadventure in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Israel is a wealthy country today. Let them pay for their own genocidal campaigns and leave US taxpayers out of it.
Finland currently has laws forbidding nuclear weapons.
Estonia will have to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
What happens when NATO begins missile site construction in Finland or Estonia. Russia will demand that the construction be stopped and missiles removed if in country. If not WW3 or someone blinks.
Perhaps, but that’s not really relevant to the point I was responding to, which was that it was a failed strategy for Israel to try so hard to kill Hamas. Like the thread title - “a nation cannot kill itself to peace.”
Who pays for the weapons that are used in the effort to kill the enemy is an important question, but not an especially material one in assessing whether it is a failed strategy to try to kill that enemy as an element of securing peace.
Why not go to war over Poland, a NATO member since 1999, saying it can’t defend itself? Why not demand France disarm? …that FSB planted narrative isn’t looking any more viable.
Kennedy’s proposition to the Soviets was “are you willing to risk being incinerated over Cuba?” vs, now, Ukraine, or Finland, or Poland, being able to hurt the Russians, if they try invading any of those countries directly.
No. The fear is NATO sitting missile launch facilities near Russia. Putin repeatedly said Ukraine NATO membership crosses the red line. Apparently he is a guy that says what he means. And means what he says.
He did protest NATO’s eastward expansion but never said it crossed a redline in regard to other nations. Even though Russia had been assured no Eastern expansion of NATO would occur.
But Russia was rolled over on previous expansions. We concluded Ukraine would end on the same note.
Does Russia have missiles located where they could hit NATO members?
And Russia guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity.
If making war on a hypothetical situation is permissible, what do you make of this?
'In reality, a foreign power today possesses through their companies, which we know are not independent, the ability to turn the canal into a choke point in a moment of conflict,’ Rubio said.
Rubio warned it is a ‘direct threat to the national interest and security’ of the U.S.
