If Ukraine Wins, Who Loses?

 

There’s the obvious answers – Putin, the image of Russian might, the Duginist dream of solidifying Russian control over its insolent children. 

Who else? The Russian Orthodox Church, for declaring this a holy war? Xi, for his association with a loser whose actions renewed Taiwanese determination to stave off an invasion? The countries that have been buying Russian military gear and now have a rep, however justified, for buying junk? US pundits who backed Russia’s invasion? Renewable energy advocates, suddenly on the back foot because nuclear is a better option than Russian gas? US intelligence agencies that failed to figure out how the Russian forces are ancient and hollowed out by corruption?

You could also note who else wins: the West, for one. Superior armaments and tech, better logistics, the products of a more energetic and innovative culture. I suspect there’s a non-insubstantial intersection between those who are comfy with Russian control of Ukraine and those who would be irritated by a Western win, because the West is decadent and subject to rule from our Davos overlords, and ought not to prevail until it is overhauled and remade. 

This is not a thread about whether Ukraine will win, or what victory looks like. Just a question about what shakes out when it is apparent to all that Russia could not prevail. 

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 1265 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Turkey has been transitioning for a while from a secular messy democracy to a religious semi-authoritarian state. At some point I suspect it will leave NATO and join with whatever coalition China establishes, but it isn’t going to do that while NATO is ascendant.

    Turkey is never going to do that. Simple reason, NATO gives Turkey strategic depth. It works like this.

    NATO has no mechanism for removing a member. Every decision by NATO requires a unanimous vote. So a motion to begin adding to the NATO treaty provisions some method to remove a member could be vetoed by Turkey.

    Turkey, 4 years ago, was cozying up to Russia, and contracted to buy a modern Surface to Air Missile system. They could do this because NATO cannot kick them out, yet if Russia becomes too frisky they could declare either Article 4 or 5 protections. The only thing they lost because of the missile deal was the ability to build engines for the F-35 as well as F-35 basing in Turkey.

    Just looking at the rules for NATO there is no way to remove Turkey. There is a way to render NATO moot, everybody else joins a new alliance, excludes Turkey, withdraws from NATO. Then when Turkey can’t pay the rent, host countries foreclose on NATO property and cedes it to the new alliance.

    That will never happen, but if it does, you heard it here first.

    I think Croatia might object to Sweden and Finland joining NATO. But my guess is that Sweden and Finland will ultimately be allowed to join NATO within 2 years.

    Also, opposition to Erdogan is growing and perhaps more importantly, the opposition to Erdogan is becoming more cohesive.

    Recently an anti-Erdogan candidate, Ekrem Imamoglu, won the mayor’s race in Istanbul and might be a candidate for President in the 2023 elections.

    The Turkish Lira has lost much of its value.

     

    That would be a good long term thing for Turkey and NATO.

    • #1141
  2. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    This represents the first concrete gain by Russia of a war aim. Question is will Russia try to use this as an off ramp to save face? and will/ should Ukraine let them?

    I agree this is a first concrete gain.

    No to your first question – Putin needs something more than this to save face. I am estimating 21 day reset for Ukrainian forces to be trained on the new equipment (artillery) they have been given and for the leadership to come up with an operational approach to take advantage of the “King of Battle” and to move forces to implement it.

    I don’t think Ukraine would let them off with the land bridge to Crimea, in the event the Russians attempted to negotiate one.

    Nor should Ukraine let them.

    What do you think Russia’s next gambit is then and do you think it can succeed?   My guess would be that they will try to expand south towards Odessa,  since this is the one theatre they have had success in.   I agree with your assessment about training for Ukraine.  It is significant that they are being transitioned to NATO hardware.  While it will take a while for them to become proficient with it.  It is easier for the broader NATO alliance to keep Ukraine resupplied, so if this becomes a more long term affair that is an important element.  

    I agree I don’t think Ukraine right now is inclined to let them get away with that much.  It remains to be seen if Russia can reorganize enough to start making bigger gains.  It also will be interesting to see if Ukraine with NATO hardware can make significant gains in counter attacking the south. 

    As to whether they should or not that is a more open question from my standpoint.  It certainly seems like right now Ukraine has the initiative.  This could still change however and Russia has the capability to hurt Ukraine even while losing.  I suppose that time will tell whether this is the right move or not from a practical or strategic level.  I think morally we can say that Ukraine shouldn’t let them in so far as it would mean Russia has profited from its invasion.

    • #1142
  3. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Instugator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    I have heard some analysts say that it would be very difficult for Ukraine to recapture Crimea. But I would be interested to know if this view is widely held among military experts.

    While I think it will be difficult to recapture Crimea, I think it is in the realm of the possible for Ukraine to accomplish this.

    I also think they should.

    I don’t think it is possible right now.  After they have had a chance to train with new equipment and assuming they either receive sophisticate Air Defense capabilities or Air to Air capabilities I think it might be possible.

    Should they is a more complicated question.   Strategically it make sense plus it is a Ukrainian war aim; however, Crimea is the most pro-Russian region with very little historic connection to Ukraine.   It also has tremendous cultural, strategic, and emotional connections to Russia.  I don’t know how the average citizen of Crimea views the current war and I don’t know how they would react to a Ukrainian ‘occupation’.  I suspect it would be a violent messy affair.  If the end game is to use it as a bargaining chip that might make sense.  If the end game is to long term bring it into Ukraine by force I am less sanguine on it.  

    • #1143
  4. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    What do you think Russia’s next gambit is then and do you think it can succeed?   My guess would be that they will try to expand south towards Odessa,  since this is the one theatre they have had success in.   I agree with your assessment about training for Ukraine.  It is significant that they are being transitioned to NATO hardware.  While it will take a while for them to become proficient with it.  It is easier for the broader NATO alliance to keep Ukraine resupplied, so if this becomes a more long term affair that is an important element.  

    I agree I don’t think Ukraine right now is inclined to let them get away with that much.  It remains to be seen if Russia can reorganize enough to start making bigger gains.  It also will be interesting to see if Ukraine with NATO hardware can make significant gains in counter attacking the south. 

    As to whether they should or not that is a more open question from my standpoint.  It certainly seems like right now Ukraine has the initiative.  This could still change however and Russia has the capability to hurt Ukraine even while losing.  I suppose that time will tell whether this is the right move or not from a practical or strategic level.  I think morally we can say that Ukraine shouldn’t let them in so far as it would mean Russia has profited from its invasion.

    Predictions seem futile. If Putin intends to permanently landlock rump Ukraine (as opposed to using the threat to extract cession of the Donbas and landbridge to Crimea), things get real interesting. Likely he’d also try to occupy the area contiguous with Transdnestria. And that’s the “neonazi” home base (really more paleonazi when contrasted with Putin’s own Wagner Group neonazis). That creates a long shallow front for the Ukrainians to harass.

     

    • #1144
  5. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    I have heard some analysts say that it would be very difficult for Ukraine to recapture Crimea. But I would be interested to know if this view is widely held among military experts.

    While I think it will be difficult to recapture Crimea, I think it is in the realm of the possible for Ukraine to accomplish this.

    I also think they should.

    I don’t think it is possible right now. After they have had a chance to train with new equipment and assuming they either receive sophisticate Air Defense capabilities or Air to Air capabilities I think it might be possible.

    Should they is a more complicated question. Strategically it make sense plus it is a Ukrainian war aim; however, Crimea is the most pro-Russian region with very little historic connection to Ukraine. It also has tremendous cultural, strategic, and emotional connections to Russia. I don’t know how the average citizen of Crimea views the current war and I don’t know how they would react to a Ukrainian ‘occupation’. I suspect it would be a violent messy affair. If the end game is to use it as a bargaining chip that might make sense. If the end game is to long term bring it into Ukraine by force I am less sanguine on it.

    Even if they could, Russia will go nuclear well before that.

    Or perhaps Belarus joins in to put pressure back on Kiev.

    • #1145
  6. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    I have heard some analysts say that it would be very difficult for Ukraine to recapture Crimea. But I would be interested to know if this view is widely held among military experts.

    While I think it will be difficult to recapture Crimea, I think it is in the realm of the possible for Ukraine to accomplish this.

    I also think they should.

    I don’t think it is possible right now. After they have had a chance to train with new equipment and assuming they either receive sophisticate Air Defense capabilities or Air to Air capabilities I think it might be possible.

    Should they is a more complicated question. Strategically it make sense plus it is a Ukrainian war aim; however, Crimea is the most pro-Russian region with very little historic connection to Ukraine. It also has tremendous cultural, strategic, and emotional connections to Russia. I don’t know how the average citizen of Crimea views the current war and I don’t know how they would react to a Ukrainian ‘occupation’. I suspect it would be a violent messy affair. If the end game is to use it as a bargaining chip that might make sense. If the end game is to long term bring it into Ukraine by force I am less sanguine on it.

    Even if they could, Russia will go nuclear well before that.

    Or perhaps Belarus joins in to put pressure back on Kiev.

    I wonder about Belarus joining in.  That is certainly an escalation.  Belarus isn’t a nuclear power and so might not have the same freedom of movement at Russia has.  I assume it would presume itself protected from direct NATO action because of Russia; however, it is not clear to me what actually happens if they get involved.  I am assuming it will be messy and I won’t much care for it.

    • #1146
  7. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    What do you think Russia’s next gambit is then and do you think it can succeed? My guess would be that they will try to expand south towards Odessa, since this is the one theatre they have had success in. I agree with your assessment about training for Ukraine. It is significant that they are being transitioned to NATO hardware. While it will take a while for them to become proficient with it. It is easier for the broader NATO alliance to keep Ukraine resupplied, so if this becomes a more long term affair that is an important element.

    I agree I don’t think Ukraine right now is inclined to let them get away with that much. It remains to be seen if Russia can reorganize enough to start making bigger gains. It also will be interesting to see if Ukraine with NATO hardware can make significant gains in counter attacking the south.

    As to whether they should or not that is a more open question from my standpoint. It certainly seems like right now Ukraine has the initiative. This could still change however and Russia has the capability to hurt Ukraine even while losing. I suppose that time will tell whether this is the right move or not from a practical or strategic level. I think morally we can say that Ukraine shouldn’t let them in so far as it would mean Russia has profited from its invasion.

    Predictions seem futile. If Putin intends to permanently landlock rump Ukraine (as opposed to using the threat to extract cession of the Donbas and landbridge to Crimea), things get real interesting. Likely he’d also try to occupy the area contiguous with Transdnestria. And that’s the “neonazi” home base (really more paleonazi when contrasted with Putin’s own Wagner Group neonazis). That creates a long shallow front for the Ukrainians to harass.

     

    Predictions are so much fun though.  Especially because they are unknowable.

    I know that Moldova was probably the next target if Ukraine had gone as planned.  Likely via Transnistria, because of the convenient narrative there.  The question is, does Russia still hold that as a strategy or has their lack of success in Ukraine scaled back their ambitions?  I hadn’t considered that southern consolidation strategy creates a longer, and potentially more vulnerable front.  That could certainly be a problem especially if Ukraine continues to have access to high tech NATO weaponry.

    • #1147
  8. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Point is material changes would have to happen before a right of return would even be considered by Israel

    The right of return will never be agreed to by Israel, no matter what.  Because after the Holocaust there is a critical mass of Israeli Jews who are determined to live in a Jewish majority country, be that moral, immoral, whatever.  It’s a completely understandable response to trauma, this determination to be dependent on nobody else.

    (Israel’s ongoing dependence on the US is….ironic, and possibly troubling?)

    It is tricky because it depends on how narrowly you define politically successful and what time horizon you are looking at, but if we go with stated beliefs:

    1. Archduke Franz Ferdinand

    Maybe this one.

    1. Allende – (Disputed as to if it was an assassination or not) but did his death did reverse a socialist movement in Chile, and disrupt potential threats to the military junta that took over.

    Not so much this one.  Pinochet had already done the coup when Allende was killed (or killed himself….?)  It’s hard to see it as anything but proactive mop up of opposition.

    1. Park Chung-Hee – Assassin claimed that he was anti-democratic and that this was to bring about democracy in South Korea. It is certain that Chung-Hee was part of a military coup and had shown himself to be pretty brutal. South Korea is a democracy today so if you believe the assassin and don’t believe Chung-Hee apologists this was successful from that light.

    Only if you argue that the act of killing Park Chung-Hee caused democracy to break out.

    The Rabin assassination is most like the first – sort of – although in that there was nothing else that happened, Israel’s political system continued to function normally, but with Rabin dead so died the possibility of peace. (Personally I think that’s overstated, though it did set peace back significantly.  Think of Sadat being killed before signing the accords with Israel – how would that have affected Egypt?)

    • #1148
  9. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Arafat painted a target on his back when he signed up to Oslo. But he did it anyway. Give the Devil (if you will) his due.

    That was a good thing for Israel??

    Oslo was a great outcome for Israel. Decades of relative peace, a Palestinian Authority that does Israel’s security work for it in the West Bank (subsidised by the US), and best of all untrammelled growth in the settler population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And all in exchange for some endless talks that lead nowhere for the Palestinians?

    What’s not to like?

    A surprising but plausible answer.

    It was probably also deliberate.

    • #1149
  10. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    There is no right of return.

    I agree. Especially when the people claiming a right of return never actually lived in the territories in question but only that their parents or grandparents did.

    Compare that with the Law of Return.

    • #1150
  11. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Turkey also gives NATO access to the Black Sea so It is a mutually beneficial partnership. 

    A marriage of convenience, if you will?

    That having been said Turkey is moving away from democratic norms and that makes it an uncomfortable partner in the alliance.

    Greece and Turkey joined NATO in 1952.  Turkey has had four (4) coups since then, Greece has had at least one, but none of that removed them from NATO.

    • #1151
  12. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Turkey also gives NATO access to the Black Sea so It is a mutually beneficial partnership.

    A marriage of convenience, if you will?

    That having been said Turkey is moving away from democratic norms and that makes it an uncomfortable partner in the alliance.

    Greece and Turkey joined NATO in 1952. Turkey has had four (4) coups since then, Greece has had at least one, but none of that removed them from NATO.

    During the cold war there were lots of associations made between democracies and dictatorships.  If you go back further, to the Second World War, the US and the UK allied with Stalin’s Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis.

    • #1152
  13. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Yes, I think the democracy link with military alliances is tenuous.

    • #1153
  14. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Yes, I think the democracy link with military alliances is tenuous.

    One has to be realistic.  Sometimes one must form military alliances with unsavory dictators, with Stalin being perhaps the most illustrative.  

    • #1154
  15. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Yes, I think the democracy link with military alliances is tenuous.

    One has to be realistic. Sometimes one must form military alliances with unsavory dictators, with Stalin being perhaps the most illustrative.

    For example, Americans are forming an alliance with a Putin-like dictator, Joe Biden, in order to drive Putin’s army from Ukraine. Strange bedfellows. 

    • #1155
  16. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Point is material changes would have to happen before a right of return would even be considered by Israel

    The right of return will never be agreed to by Israel, no matter what. Because after the Holocaust there is a critical mass of Israeli Jews who are determined to live in a Jewish majority country, be that moral, immoral, whatever. It’s a completely understandable response to trauma, this determination to be dependent on nobody else.

    (Israel’s ongoing dependence on the US is….ironic, and possibly troubling?)

    It is tricky because it depends on how narrowly you define politically successful and what time horizon you are looking at, but if we go with stated beliefs:

    1. Archduke Franz Ferdinand

    Maybe this one.

    1. Allende – (Disputed as to if it was an assassination or not) but did his death did reverse a socialist movement in Chile, and disrupt potential threats to the military junta that took over.

    Not so much this one. Pinochet had already done the coup when Allende was killed (or killed himself….?) It’s hard to see it as anything but proactive mop up of opposition.

    1. Park Chung-Hee – Assassin claimed that he was anti-democratic and that this was to bring about democracy in South Korea. It is certain that Chung-Hee was part of a military coup and had shown himself to be pretty brutal. South Korea is a democracy today so if you believe the assassin and don’t believe Chung-Hee apologists this was successful from that light.

    Only if you argue that the act of killing Park Chung-Hee caused democracy to break out.

    The Rabin assassination is most like the first – sort of – although in that there was nothing else that happened, Israel’s political system continued to function normally, but with Rabin dead so died the possibility of peace. (Personally I think that’s overstated, though it did set peace back significantly. Think of Sadat being killed before signing the accords with Israel – how would that have affected Egypt?)

    You do realize that you are the sole person keeping this thread alive after more than 1,150 comments, don’t you?  Without your input the rest of us would  have just pleasantly agreed with each other and called it a wrap after comment #40!

    • #1156
  17. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    There is chit chat, and then there is conversation. 

    • #1157
  18. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):

    There is chit chat, and then there is conversation.

    Once again, I don’t know if you mean that you are chit-chatting or conversing.  But I’ve got to say that your dedication to adding to the conversation is extraordinary.  Is this how you throw a dinner party?

    The Buzz: “Zafar is throwing a dinner party!  Block off the month of May.”

    • #1158
  19. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Point is material changes would have to happen before a right of return would even be considered by Israel

    The right of return will never be agreed to by Israel, no matter what. Because after the Holocaust there is a critical mass of Israeli Jews who are determined to live in a Jewish majority country, be that moral, immoral, whatever. It’s a completely understandable response to trauma, this determination to be dependent on nobody else.

    (Israel’s ongoing dependence on the US is….ironic, and possibly troubling?)

    It is tricky because it depends on how narrowly you define politically successful and what time horizon you are looking at, but if we go with stated beliefs:

    1. Archduke Franz Ferdinand

    Maybe this one.

    1. Allende – (Disputed as to if it was an assassination or not) but did his death did reverse a socialist movement in Chile, and disrupt potential threats to the military junta that took over.

    Not so much this one. Pinochet had already done the coup when Allende was killed (or killed himself….?) It’s hard to see it as anything but proactive mop up of opposition.

    1. Park Chung-Hee – Assassin claimed that he was anti-democratic and that this was to bring about democracy in South Korea. It is certain that Chung-Hee was part of a military coup and had shown himself to be pretty brutal. South Korea is a democracy today so if you believe the assassin and don’t believe Chung-Hee apologists this was successful from that light.

    Only if you argue that the act of killing Park Chung-Hee caused democracy to break out.

    The Rabin assassination is most like the first – sort of – although in that there was nothing else that happened, Israel’s political system continued to function normally, but with Rabin dead so died the possibility of peace. (Personally I think that’s overstated, though it did set peace back significantly. Think of Sadat being killed before signing the accords with Israel – how would that have affected Egypt?)

    You do realize that you are the sole person keeping this thread alive after more than 1,150 comments, don’t you? Without your input the rest of us would have just pleasantly agreed with each other and called it a wrap after comment #40!

    I wonder if he is hoping for it to reach 2000. 

    • #1159
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    There is chit chat, and then there is conversation.

    Once again, I don’t know if you mean that you are chit-chatting or conversing. But I’ve got to say that your dedication to adding to the conversation is extraordinary. Is this how you throw a dinner party?

    The Buzz: “Zafar is throwing a dinner party! Block off the month of May.”

    Or leave town.

    Did you know that the longest ever English language novel was written, predictably, by an Indian?

    Also predictably: about getting married.

    ’A Suitable Boy’ by Vikram Seth.

    • #1160
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    There is chit chat, and then there is conversation.

    Once again, I don’t know if you mean that you are chit-chatting or conversing. But I’ve got to say that your dedication to adding to the conversation is extraordinary. Is this how you throw a dinner party?

    The Buzz: “Zafar is throwing a dinner party! Block off the month of May.”

    Or leave town.

    Did you know that the longest ever English language novel was written, predictably, by an Indian?

    Also predictably: about getting married.

    ’A Suitable Boy’ by Vikram Seth.

    I presume you mean Indian “dot,” not Indian “feather.”

    • #1161
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Dot. Like me.

    • #1162
  23. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dot. Like me.

    Your autobiography?

    • #1163
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dot. Like me.

    Your autobiography?

    except i’m unsuitable…

    • #1164
  25. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dot. Like me.

    Your autobiography?

    except i’m unsuitable…

    Nonsense.  Any good haberdasher will fix you up.  Now start writing!

    • #1165
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dot. Like me.

    Your autobiography?

    except i’m unsuitable…

    Nonsense. Any good haberdasher will fix you up. Now start writing!

    Maybe he gets the reference, but I have doubts.

    • #1166
  27. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dot. Like me.

    Your autobiography?

    except i’m unsuitable…

    Nonsense. Any good haberdasher will fix you up. Now start writing!

    Maybe he gets the reference, but I have doubts.

    Mine was just a play on words.  Maybe you see more in it than I do.  What’s the reference?

    • #1167
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dot. Like me.

    Your autobiography?

    except i’m unsuitable…

    Nonsense. Any good haberdasher will fix you up. Now start writing!

    Maybe he gets the reference, but I have doubts.

    Mine was just a play on words. Maybe you see more in it than I do. What’s the reference?

    You never heard of the still-well-known-I-thought “Black Like Me” by John Howard Griffin?

    • #1168
  29. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dot. Like me.

    Your autobiography?

    except i’m unsuitable…

    Nonsense. Any good haberdasher will fix you up. Now start writing!

    Maybe he gets the reference, but I have doubts.

    Mine was just a play on words. Maybe you see more in it than I do. What’s the reference?

    You never heard of the still-well-known-I-thought “Black Like Me” by John Howard Griffin?

    Yeah, that’s also what I was playing on, but I thought Zafar did that deliberately.  I thought you meant my reference to a haberdasher supplying his suitability.

    • #1169
  30. Podkayne of Israel Inactive
    Podkayne of Israel
    @PodkayneofIsrael

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Point is material changes would have to happen before a right of return would even be considered by Israel

    The right of return will never be agreed to by Israel, no matter what. Because after the Holocaust there is a critical mass of Israeli Jews who are determined to live in a Jewish majority country, be that moral, immoral, whatever. It’s a completely understandable response to trauma, this determination to be dependent on nobody else.

    (Israel’s ongoing dependence on the US is….ironic, and possibly troubling?)

    It is tricky because it depends on how narrowly you define politically successful and what time horizon you are looking at, but if we go with stated beliefs:

    1. Archduke Franz Ferdinand

    Maybe this one.

    1. Allende – (Disputed as to if it was an assassination or not) but did his death did reverse a socialist movement in Chile, and disrupt potential threats to the military junta that took over.

    Not so much this one. Pinochet had already done the coup when Allende was killed (or killed himself….?) It’s hard to see it as anything but proactive mop up of opposition.

    1. Park Chung-Hee – Assassin claimed that he was anti-democratic and that this was to bring about democracy in South Korea. It is certain that Chung-Hee was part of a military coup and had shown himself to be pretty brutal. South Korea is a democracy today so if you believe the assassin and don’t believe Chung-Hee apologists this was successful from that light.

    Only if you argue that the act of killing Park Chung-Hee caused democracy to break out.

    The Rabin assassination is most like the first – sort of – although in that there was nothing else that happened, Israel’s political system continued to function normally, but with Rabin dead so died the possibility of peace. (Personally I think that’s overstated, though it did set peace back significantly. Think of Sadat being killed before signing the accords with Israel – how would that have affected Egypt?)

    I don’t know if you follow politics here as closely as I do. There was a big political backlash building against Oslo at that time, and Rabin was never a True Believer in it the way Peres and Beilin were. Had Rabin not been murdered, odds were he would have been voted out in the next elections, and it would have been far from.unthinkable for him to have backed off on Oslo, if not slowed it down. Far from being a boon for the Right, the assassination was a disaster. Even people on the moderate Right were afraid to express their opinions publicly.  The killer was a nut and the classic “moody loner” type, and the assassination meant that Oslo kept going for a lot longer than it would have otherwise.

    • #1170
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.