Discussion about this post

User's avatar
משכיל בינה's avatar

This article started out really, really bad, and I was all set to write a comment about how shit it was, but it got better. However, you are obviously hoping that no-one notices you have changed your theory. Originally you argued that Bibi ‘has engineered a global campaign to dump Ukraine’ because he is competing for limited stores of foreign aid, and because he wants to prolong the Gaza war for his own incarceration status. This was rightly panned by all the commentators as (a) extremely implausible and (b) totally without evidence. (Your subsequent attempt to divert the discussion into allegations of antisemitism which, in fact, no-one made is low and beneath you).

In addition to moderating the extent to which Bibi is responsible for this global campaign (in blatant contradiction to your original article) you are now making an entirely different thesis, namely that Netanyahu wolud prefer western tensions with Russia to cool down in order to stem the trend towards closer relations between Russian and Iran. Now, this is actually a perfectly reasonable observation, and, in fact, this is clearly settled Israeli policy and not particularly associated with Netanyahu (Bennett clearly pursued this policy more aggressively). Thus all the blather about alleged links between Bibi and Candace Owens can really be dispensed with. I would make the following three observations:

(1) This is basically the same concept as the realist idea that the Russian-Ukraine war should be ended to stem the tide towards closer Russia-China relations.

(2) This is not, in fact, an anti-Ukraine policy. The war has to date killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, and millions more have fled. The longer the war goes on, the less likely they are to return. Given Ukraine’s absolutely awful TFR, the war represents a genuine existential threat to the existence of Ukraine as a nation and country. This would be obvious to Ukrainians were it not for delusory nationalism (amplified by their average IQ of 90). Even so, war fever in Ukraine does seem to have died down significantly.

(3) Your preferred policy is massive increase of assistance to Ukraine from all NATO nations. This is not going to happen because no-one wants to do it. Ukraine is objectively not important to any of the member states of NATO except America, is not a real European country, and just isn’t worth the financial cost, let alone the risks of escalation. Poles and other Eastern Europeans with a more direct interest in combatting Russia don’t like Ukrainians, for obvious historical reasons, and are not going to risk their own interests for Ukraine. You can argue this is unwise because it only puts the inevitable conflagration of or whatever, but that is the reality. The only real options are (i) keep on with this war with devastating consequences for Ukraine or (ii) a negotiated settlement. The only people really emotionally invested in Ukraine are Anglo centrist Dad types and, even so, your escalationist views are shared by maybe 5% of the US population and no more than 10% of the defence establishment. Move on.

Other than that, there is a lot of crap in this article like screenshots that obviously don’t prove the point they are supposed to support. Presumably the goal of this is to exhaust and bewilder your audience so they give up and give you a pass on your original implausible and unsubstantiated assertion. But you don’t have to do this. You write too much, and this leads to inevitable quality control issues. You would be better off cutting the number of articles you write by 50%, editing them more, sitting on the for a few days, and sending them to a critical friend before you publish.

Expand full comment
Ally's avatar

You are a jew???

Expand full comment
22 more comments...

No posts