It was inevitable that the US arrest of Nicholas Maduro would raise cries that it was a breach of international law. But while there might be a creature we call international law, I don't think it is "law" in any real sense of the word.

First, it lacks democratic legitimacy. Instead of law it is really a series of conventions agreed upon by countries. Most of these countries are not democracies, and the vast majority of the people in those countries do not live in democracies. Even when they do, the EU shows how badly this can go wrong with laws effectively being written by unelected bureaucrats.

Second, for a law to be effective it needs to be backed by force. While countries have laws that are backed by force, although in the case of some countries so weakly as to make them effectively lawless, there is no international mechanism to back international law with force.

By persisting with the illusion of international law we are applying a rules-based system to one which is force-based, and that blinds us to what is ultimately right or wrong. In a force-based system, breaking the international laws, decided abstractly by bureaucrats with no skin in the game, will often be the most sensible, and moral, thing to do.

(translated from the original Spanish) ...

"If international law can't prevent me from being tortured in a cell at the Helicoide, but it does protect Maduro so he can torture me in the Helicoide, international law does nothing for me, but its f$$king me over".

During the Melian Debate the Athenians opined that "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” The 'invention' of international law was an attempt to restrain the strong and protect the weak. But instead it became a tool to protect the tyrant and impede any and all efforts to protect the people.

Yes. It has always been hogwash. It is unenforceable.

Just ask China, habitual defaulter of the "law".

International law has no 'super power' to enforce it.
So it relies on good men doing what is right.
But they can only do so much.
That being so, many breaches of international law can take place.
Some transgressions could well be justified though.
In the the case of Venezuela, surely the actions of those in power there led to extreme provocation?
To such an extent that the USA was obliged to act?
Are the USA right when they said they could not allow the situation to continue?
Are they justified in their apparently unlawful action?
Is this an exceptional case where law must be relaxed?
In order that USA citizens can be protected?
One must also ask: is this action likely to be successful?

Well what Trump did was in breach of the UN charter, breach of International Law and breach of the constitution.

If it's now legal to use domestic law enforcement to invade foreign nations, than every nation in the world can invade any other to arrest their leader on trumped up domestic charges.

Why would any nation trust the Trump administration in league with Netanyahu?

How many times have they used negotiations for sneak attacks?

Before major airstrikes by Israel and the United States in June, Iran and the U.S. were engaged in a series of nuclear negotiations aimed at easing sanctions in exchange for curbing Iran's nuclear program.

They were to have negotiations with Russia in Istanbul and then launched an attack on Russia's strategic nuclear bombers.

They tried to assassinate Hamas in Qatar during negotiations.

What about Vladimir Putin, Trump told him to stay put while they were having phone discussions and that he'd call him back, then there was 91 drones targeted at his location.

(And Russia turned over the flight data from captured drones, they know everything - the drone strikes were co-ordinated using U.S. targeting data, and Russia is now going to take the gloves off and get serious payback for this)

What about Solemani?
They lured him into Iraq for peace negotiations, then Trump assassinated him with an airstrike.

They did the same with Hezbollah and Nasrallah in Lebanon, lured them to negotiations.

There's no diplomacy.

All’s fair in love and war !

Interesting point GY. Kudos.

Is it dan?

Is it fair when a few hundred thousand women and kids die for Netanyahu?
(That's just the last year or so, not a complete total, much higher
Can't forget Madelaine Albright and 500,00 babies in Iraq and everything in between)
Is it fair when Venezuelans are eating cats and dogs?

Or is it just fair when people like yourself are satisfied with the above outcome

What if Trump really is compromised by the Epstein files
And he takes his orders from Netanyahu and Miriam Adelson
It's quite possible you know.

And people wonder why crazy enraged Muslims are losing their minds.
Not that they need a whole lot of help with Islam...

Don't be surprised when theres and equal and opposite reacion

And all the U.S. plans go to shite, as they usually do.

I think Trump will take Greenland.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised if they try to do the '7 wars in 5 years' thing in Latin America, and try to knock a few more countries off. But I don't think the have the ground forces to invade them, it would be Vietnam all over again. And without boots on the ground I'm not sure how they can control them. All it will take is to put 1000 troops down there, and for revolutionaries to attack them and know knows where that could go.

They made sure to take Maduros wife too, so that she can't get on the TV screaming her head off.

Delsy Rodriguez could go to Chevron herself and try to work out a new deal where the Venezuelan people aren't robbed.

U.S. getting into a ground war would be bloody, a LOT of U.S. troops going home in coffins.
But they're still capable of projecting power anywhere and doing these quick shock and awe campaigns, but they may not always be successful like the 2020 'Bay of Piglets'

"Bay of Piglets" is a nickname for Operation Gideon, a failed 2020 mercenary-led attempt to invade Venezuela and overthrow President Nicolás Maduro, named in mockery of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba due to its perceived incompetence and poor execution by a small, ill-equipped group. The operation, involving former U.S. Special Forces, was foiled by the Venezuelan military, leading to arrests and further political turmoil, highlighting themes of hubris and failed covert action.

I think that Pres Trump believes that if the US don't control Greenland China and Russia will control it, because they can't defend themselves. So it's better to let the US in rather than let an insane unstable group take it. There will be significant costs to the US so they will need to take a large proportion of the resource income. They need to have control so that they are free to implement tactics.

International law, and the so called rules based order, are like the Nuremberg Laws, designed by the oppressor to oppress the oppressed. Based on Trumps action in Venezuela, China would be within their rights under "international law" to take back Taiwan.

http://youtu.be/O10MGZHK6C4

Since 1947, the United States foreign
policy has repeatedly employed force,
covert action, and political
manipulation to bring about regime
change in other countries. This is a
matter of carefully documented
historical record. Iraq 2003, Libya
2011, Syria beginning in 2011, Honduras
2009, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela from
2002 onward. Peace and the survival of
humanity depend on whether the United
Nations Charter remains a living
instrument of international law or is
allowed to wither into irrelevance.
That is the choice before this council
today.

Max Blumenthal : Trump and Rubio’s Buddies to Pillage Venezuela
http://www.youtube.com/live/z_ZGkTBKlrs
[In depth analysis of Maduro legal issues by Judge and expert]

Interesting argument Paul. But do you think Trump's arrest of Maduro will make it more, or less, likely that China will invade Taiwan? I'd say it might have changed the timing, but I'm not sure in which direction, but it has made no difference to their intention because they only recognise international law when it is to their benefit.

Hi Graham Young

"no difference to their intention because they only recognise international law when it is to their benefit"

Isn't that what America's been doing?

So often when it comes to the U.S. and Israeli adversaries, the narrative leveled against them is just as equally true to the U.S. and Israel themselves.

The arguments attempting to de-legitimise international law were as predictable as they are misguided and irrelevant.

International law isn't domestic criminal law scaled up, and it was never meant to be. It has no global police force because there is no global sovereign. Judging it by whether it can physically restrain the strong is to test it against a standard it was never designed to meet.

That doesn't make it meaningless. It makes it a constraint, not a guarantee.

Where the argument really goes off the rails is the leap from "power ultimately matters" to "breaking international law is often the most sensible and moral thing to do." That principle isn't realism, it's moral exceptionalism. It works just as neatly for China, Russia or any other power as it does for the US.

Invoking the Melian Dialogue doesn't help. Thucydides wasn't endorsing Athenian logic, he was documenting imperial arrogance on the road to ruin. It's a warning, not a defence.

International law exists precisely because humans learned what happens when force alone decides what is "right." It is imperfect, violated and often ignored, but it provides a shared benchmark for judging power rather than surrendering morality entirely to whoever has the biggest stick.

8 million Venezuelans who fled the country - in which 90% of the population lives in poverty - are pleased by the U.S action to lift the extreme Left dictator, who us not legitimate, as he claims.

I would like to see the same thing happen to Albanese, who's whimpers on the matter clearly show that his politics are aligned with Maduro. Not the drug pushing of course.

Australia is now clearly an elected dictatorship; we get to vote for the same people every three years, who than do as they please when they gain power. And power is what it is all about: not service to the country and the people.

"International law is no such thing" is correct. No debate necessary.

We have enough problems of our own without the usual subjects virtue-signalling when nobody of importance gives a damn what they think.

Our political system is shot to shite, and needs changing. What the U.S does is none of our business.

"Thucydides wasn't endorsing Athenian logic, he was documenting imperial arrogance on the road to ruin. It's a warning, not a defence."

No. He was describing the real world. You should look into it one day.

In the real world, realpolitik reigns supreme. Each nation looks at its own self-interest and acts accordingly. International morality is merely the lipstick on the pig.

Can Russia take Ukraine based on the US example? They would if they could.
Can China take Formosa based on the US example? They would if they could.
Can China take the Spratly's based on the US example? They would if they could.
Can India take Kashmir based on the US example? They would if they could.

And so on as regards a hundred other territorial disputes. They remain disputes until the stronger power settles them. Morality or the international order have nowt to do with it.

Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and Imperial Japan are very positive examples of US involvement in regime change. With every bad example you have the common theme of the commies sabotaging things. This contrasts with socialist nations which tend to fail without assistance.

I look forward to seeing what happens to living standards in Venezuela under wicked capitalist Donald.

mhaze,

You're confusing description with endorsement, and then pretending that distinction doesn't matter.

Yes, Thucydides was describing how power works. That isn’t in dispute. What is in dispute is whether he thought that was something to admire or something to be wary of. The Athenians don’t come off as wise realists in his account. They come off as confident, ruthless, and blind to the consequences.

We know how that story ends.

"Realpolitik reigns supreme" is a statement about behaviour, not a justification for it. Saying states act in self-interest does not logically entail therefore there is no meaningful role for law or norms. That leap is doing all the work in your argument, and it's never defended.

And your examples don’t actually prove what you think they do. Russia can invade Ukraine. China can take Taiwan or the Spratlys. India can dig in over Kashmir. Of course they can. That just tells us who has the muscle, not whether those moves are legitimate, sustainable, or smart in the long run.

Force explains what happens. It doesn’t magically turn it into something that should be accepted as right.

International law isn't "lipstick on a pig". It's the pig's fence. Imperfect, breached, sometimes jumped, but still the only thing that distinguishes a rules-based order from a world where every act of force is justified simply because it succeeded.

If your position is merely that law cannot fully restrain power, that's banal and uncontroversial. If your position is that law therefore has no relevance, then you're not describing the world, you're arguing for its permanent moral bankruptcy.

You're not having a very good run at the moment, are you?

" What is in dispute is whether he thought that was something to admire or something to be wary of. "

Read the whole of Thukydides Histories (three times in my case) and then we'll talk.

"That just tells us who has the muscle, not whether those moves are legitimate, sustainable, or smart in the long run."

Realpolitik. Who has the muscle is all that matters.

mhaze,

Appealing to how many times you've read Thucydides isn't an argument. It's a credential, and it doesn't settle the question.

Saying "realpolitik, who has the muscle is all that matters" isn't analysis either. It's a description so thin it explains everything and therefore justifies nothing. By that logic, Athens was right, Rome was right, Hitler was right, Stalin was right. If they prevailed for a time, that's all the validation required.

But that's not insight, it's abdication.

If brute force were literally all that mattered, history would look very different. Empires wouldn't keep collapsing, states wouldn't bother lining up allies, and leaders wouldn't waste time dressing invasions up as "defensive" or "necessary". They do all that because power on its own isn't enough.

You're not describing reality in full. You're stopping the analysis at the moment power is exercised and declaring the rest irrelevant. That isn't realism. It's choosing not to think past the first move.

Trumpster,

By what "law" does Trump intend to take Greenland? You have an a-hole making the law, and his sycophantic followers agreeing.

Mhaze said- Read the whole of Thukydides Histories (three times in my case) and then we'll talk. Realpolitik. Who has the muscle is all that matters.

Answer- Sun Tzu talks about Realpolitik too in Chapter 1. There's a fair amount of sophistication involved with the concept of 'muscle' though. I guess there are some things AI can't yet do. Politics is essentially the exercise of power and negotiation as I understand, it is similar to military action but there are differences.

Let me know if I've missed something. Or maybe I need to read the requisite text three times first.

Either way I'll put Thukydides Histories on my reading list, thanks for the advice.

That's roughly my point, Canem Malum.

No one's denying that power matters. The disagreement is over whether "muscle" means brute force alone, or whether it includes alliances, legitimacy, negotiation, timing, and long-term cost. Sun Tzu was very clear that raw force is often the least efficient tool.

Reducing all of that to "who has the muscle is all that matters" flattens realpolitik into a slogan. It stops being analysis and turns into a tautology: whoever wins was strong, therefore strength is all that counts.

That's not how states actually behave, even very powerful ones.

So thanks, but mhaze really could have just done with a "Kudos" this time around. He's been having a rough time of it over the last few days.

JD- would if he could...

There is a suggestion that Trump, on Venezuela and Greenland, might be adopting Nixon's ‘be unpredictable and potential enemies will be reluctant to poke the American bear’ foreign policy.

ttbn said- "There is a suggestion that Trump, on Venezuela and Greenland, might be adopting Nixon's ‘be unpredictable and potential enemies will be reluctant to poke the American bear’ foreign policy."

Answer- The Zen Master said we'll see... Kudos Ttbn.

Hi John Daysh,

Trump might be breaking international law in his operation to kidnap Maduro, but he's using international law as a pretext to continue his operations and seize the oil tankers.

Oil tankers from Venezuela have been stated as carrying 'Stolen US crude'

Sanctioned Tanker Marinera (the former Bella 1)
http://youtu.be/s-XPJsB53CU

US Seizes 'Russian' Russian Tanker Marinera (ex-Bella 1)
http://youtu.be/kksU9eqUcOM

You're pretty smart...

Google? Do US sanctions apply to the sea
AI Overview
"Yes, U.S. sanctions absolutely apply to the sea, targeting vessels, shipping activities, and related services globally to enforce restrictions on entities, countries (like Iran, Venezuela, Russia), and illicit oil/goods trade, often involving seizure of tankers, denial of port access, and penalties for non-compliance, even on the high seas
. The U.S. enforces these through naval actions, port restrictions, and targeting companies facilitating sanctions evasion, sometimes leading to international disputes over freedom of navigation"

Why is it that U.S. sanctions apply to the sea?
Shouldn't they be U.N. sanctions or international law?
Does the U.S. hold jurisdiction over all seas?
I understand there might be some questions about the flag change and transfer of ownership of Marinera (formerly Bella 1).

"Appealing to how many times you've read Thucydides isn't an argument. It's a credential, and it doesn't settle the question."

So that's a no from JD about reading Thukydides. JD's happy to tell us what Thukydides really meant when he wrote about the Melian Debate, but shows he's hasn't the slightest interest in understanding the full Thukydides. Of course, if he (JD) actually bothered to read up he'd realise that what he wants to believe Thukydides meant is a long way from the true. Solution - don't bother reading up, just assign approved views in utter contradictions to the actual text.

"Saying "realpolitik, who has the muscle is all that matters" isn't analysis either."

Maybe not. But it is aa recognition of the way the world really is as opposed to the way some wish it was.

"By that logic, Athens was right, Rome was right, Hitler was right, Stalin was right. If they prevailed for a time, that's all the validation required."

Its pretty funny how hard this is for you to understand. None of them were 'right'. But they all were powerful and prevailed.

"If brute force were literally all that mattered, history would look very different. Empires wouldn't keep collapsing, states wouldn't bother lining up allies, and leaders wouldn't waste time dressing invasions up as "defensive" or "necessary". They do all that because power on its own isn't enough."

That's just about the most clueless sentence you've written here, and that's saying something. Empires fall because they cease to be powerful. States create alliances to increase their collective power, generally against a more powerful foe. You utterly fail to understand the history of great powers.... a thorough reading of Thukydides would do wonders for your education.
_________________________________________________________________

AC,
the captured Russian vessels weren't, apparently, carrying Venezuelan oil. It seems they never actually got to Venezuela. But they had come from Iran and were presumably carrying something meant for Caracas. Currently speculation is left over Iranian nuclear fuel following the US-Israeli obliteration of the Iranian attempts to get the bomb

No, it's not, mhaze.

//So that's a no from JD about reading Thukydides.//

It's a no to treating "how many times you've read a book" as a substitute for an argument.

//JD's happy to tell us what Thukydides really meant when he wrote about the Melian Debate…//

I haven't claimed to reveal some hidden meaning. I've pointed out a basic distinction you keep collapsing: description versus endorsement. That distinction doesn't disappear because someone has read a text multiple times.

//…if he (JD) actually bothered to read up he'd realise that what he wants to believe Thukydides meant is a long way from the true.//

This is assertion without argument. You haven't shown where I've contradicted the text, only that you dislike the conclusion I draw from it.

//Maybe not. But it is aa recognition of the way the world really is…//

Saying "power explains outcomes" is a recognition of reality. Saying "power is all that matters" is a slogan. You keep sliding between the two and calling that realism.

//None of them were 'right'. But they all were powerful and prevailed.//

Temporarily. Which is exactly why "they prevailed" doesn't do the explanatory work you want it to. Prevailing at one moment tells us nothing about sustainability or eventual collapse.

//Empires fall because they cease to be powerful.//

That's a restatement, not an explanation. The question is why they lose power: overreach, internal fracture, coalition formation, legitimacy loss, economic strain.

//States create alliances to increase their collective power…//

Exactly. Which already concedes that raw, standalone muscle is often insufficient. Power is aggregated, managed, and offset.

//…a thorough reading of Thukydides would do wonders for your education.//

Appealing to your reading list doesn't answer the argument. It avoids it.

This debate isn't about whether power matters. It's about whether "power matters" exhausts the analysis. You keep asserting that it does, without ever defending that claim.

Hi AC,

You appear to have remembered that this is my area of expertise (in case your post to me looks random to anyone reading).

The short answer is that US sanctions don't become international law just because they're enforced at sea. What the US is doing is enforcing its own domestic sanctions regime extra-territorially, not exercising some general jurisdiction over the oceans.

Normally, a ship in international waters answers to its flag state, not the US or any other power. That’s why seizing a foreign-flagged vessel without UN authorisation is legally disputed, except in special cases like piracy or when a ship has no valid flag.

What allows the US to act anyway isn't a clean rule of international law, but power plus leverage:

- US courts issue warrants under US law
- The US Navy/Coast Guard enforce them
- Secondary sanctions threaten insurers, ports, banks, and shipping companies worldwide
- Dollar dominance makes non-compliance costly

So the sanctions "apply at sea" in practice because the US can make ignoring them painful, not because it holds jurisdiction over all seas.

That's also why many countries object to this behaviour. From their perspective, unilateral maritime enforcement of domestic sanctions undermines freedom of navigation and state sovereignty, which is precisely why sanctions are supposed to be multilateral or UN-based if they're to carry broad legitimacy.

In other words: enforceable doesn't mean uncontested, and power doesn't magically turn domestic law into international law.

I recommend you read Thucydides - all of it!

CM,

While I didn't get the suggestion from him, Graham Young has said something similar in an excellent article in Spectator Australia if you an access it: 'Venezuela for dummies'.

Russia, China and Iran will be affected by the U.S arrest of Maduro. They have been using Venezuela to avoid sanctions for years. Cuba and Nicaragua also depend on Venezuela. Brazil and Columbia are not pleased.

And, again, the three leading rogue countries will now know that the U.S is willing to use force to protect its interests. Khamenei is crapping himself. He might be next.

AC might know if there is any truth about Maduro supplying cocaine to Russia and China's elite. If true I'd guess that they would be annoyed about Donald arresting their drug dealer buddy.

"You haven't shown where I've contradicted the text, only that you dislike the conclusion I draw from it."

No I pointed out that the connotation you put on the text isn't justified by reading it in context. But you're not interested in reading it in context. You now want me to show you the context but you have to read the entire history or at least the first three or four books to get it. Sorry, I know for those who prefer the ten minute research, devoting a week to it is beyond the pale, but alas, its the only option.

(You seem vexed by my throw away line that I've read Thukydides three times. To clarify, I have Ancient History in my first degree and read it for that. I also studied Ancient Greek (language) at the same time and read it in the original. And then, a few years back when I was going under the knife with no certainty of recovery, I decided to revisit my favourite books.)

Ttbn- I couldn't quickly get GY's Spectator article. But I'm sure it will pop up in some form. Thanks for the suggestion.

You’re doing something very specific here, mhaze, and it’s worth naming.

When you make a claim, a short assertion apparently suffices. When that claim is challenged, the bar for disagreement suddenly jumps to “read the entire work”, preferably in the original language, with added biographical context for good measure. That isn’t engagement with the objection, it’s a way of declaring disagreement illegitimate.

Context matters. No one disputes that. But “the context is the whole book” isn’t an argument unless you can say what in that context actually overturns the point being made.

You keep asserting that my reading of the Melian Dialogue isn’t justified “in context”, while refusing to identify where that context does the work you claim it does. No passage, no claim, no explanation, just credentials and a reading list.
That’s not analysis. It’s gatekeeping.

If you think Thucydides endorses the position that “power is all that matters” and that this exhausts the analysis, then say where he does that and how. If the only response is “read it properly”, then there’s nothing substantive left to discuss.

An interpretation that can’t be stated without requiring others to reread several books isn’t an argument. It’s an appeal to authority fallacy.

Greenland. The U.S already has a military base there; and if the U.S decided to take control: “There is no mechanism legal, military or political capable of preventing such a move once Trump decides it’s strategically necessary”. (James Tidmarsh, ‘Trump's Greenland grab would expose Europe's ultimate weakness’).

Europe has turned over most of its security to America. NATO would bark a bit initially, but it can't “discipline its most powerful member”. So any protest would fizzle out.

And, according to Tidmarsh, Article 5 (which says that NATO considers an attack on one of its members as an attack on all of them) refers to outsiders, not “the state that underwrites the system”.

The U.S would not be conquering Greenland, but acting out of necessity to protect America, because Greenland has been neglected by Europe, and exposed it to Russian and Chinese encroachment.

That there is no such thing as enforceable “international law” throws cold water on the plea that Greenland “enjoys recognised status within the Kingdom of Denmark, and its people possess the right to self-determination”. Any fussing by the UN would be vetoed by America.

So, the U.S could take over Greenland if it so chose. There would be a lot of noise. Nothing more.

As far as left wing, pimple-on-a-pumkin Australia goes, we need to lay off criticising America. There are two great powers: America and Communist China.

Take your pick.

Hi mhaze,
"the captured Russian vessels weren't, apparently, carrying Venezuelan oil. It seems they never actually got to Venezuela. But they had come from Iran and were presumably carrying something meant for Caracas. Currently speculation is left over Iranian nuclear fuel following the US-Israeli obliteration of the Iranian attempts to get the bomb"

I saw on one of those videos that the Bella 1 had previously been in Iran went thru the Suez empty and had not made port in Venezuela and no cargo been transferred.
The U.S. seemed to take a lot of interest in it, I did wonder for a moment here whether it may have had some Iranian weapons bound for Venezuela, or something then I got distracted..

I was also looking at this Putin attack a week or so back.
There's some speculation that the Russians deliberately gave Trump Putins (fake / spoofed) location and Putin told him he'd wait at that (fake/spoofed) location, to see if Trump could be trusted.
And then in came 91 drones.
Russia got chips out of the drones and had all the targeting data that only the U.S. could've fascilitated.
Russia gave the chip back and said 'We know everything'

I wonder if the U.S. really did try to assassinate Putin via Ukraine.
Would they actually be that reckless?

Did Putin trick Trump with false location for drone strikes?
http://youtu.be/MTClM5sRywM

Hi John Daysh,

Thanks for that information.
I'd read that Marinera had been boarded due to 'violation of U.S. sanctions' on the high seas, and I thought you'd be the right person to ask.

http://www.rt.com/russia/630704-us-military-maritime-law/
The Russian Transport Ministry has confirmed that the oil tanker ‘Marinera’ has been captured by the US military.

Earlier on Wednesday, the US European Command announced having taken possession of the ship, previously named the ‘Bella 1’, for alleged “violation of US sanctions.”

The tanker was boarded by US military personnel “in the high seas outside the territorial waters of any state,” and that “contact with the vessel was lost,” the Russian Transport Ministry has said.

"I recommend you read Thucydides - all of it!"
Is it just 'History of the Peloponnesian War', or is there more?
Where should I start, I'll see if there's a version I can listen to.

"Did Putin trick Trump with false location for drone strikes?"

Or did you fall for yet another fantasy?

______________________________________________________________________

"then say where he does that and how"

I'm sorry JD. There are no shortcuts here. To know what he was saying and how your claim that " he was documenting imperial arrogance on the road to ruin" was completely off the mark, you need to get into his mind by reading his works. Reading a sentence and interpreting it the way you'd like it to be is wrong. If there was an overriding theme to his works, and I'd dispute that there is one, its not about the failure of the use of power but the way democracy wasn't up to that task.

His work is one of the greatest books in history and really the first history book in history (sorry Herodotus) and reducing it down to a false interpretation of one sentence is rather sad.

AC,

I was joking about reading all of Thucydides, sorry. That was just me poking fun at mhaze. You can ignore it.
_____

mhaze,

Then we're no longer in disagreement about Thucydides so much as about how arguments work.

You've now said there may be no overriding theme to the work, and that it's as much about the limits of democracy as anything else. That alone is a long way from the claim that Thucydides straightforwardly endorses "power is all that matters".

I'm not reducing the book to a sentence. I'm making a modest claim about the Melian Dialogue's role within the narrative: that it presents a stark articulation of power politics, and that what follows Athens is catastrophic. Calling that a description of imperial arrogance on the road to ruin isn't a slogan, it's a defensible reading shared by many historians.

If your position is now that Thucydides offers no moral endorsement at all, and no simple lesson, then we're much closer than you think. What I've objected to from the start is collapsing his work into a one-line realpolitik mantra and treating that as exhaustive analysis.

At this point, you're not disputing my argument so much as insisting that it can't be discussed without rereading the entire corpus. That may be a view about pedagogy, but it isn't a rebuttal.

Evening mhaze,

'Did Putin trick Trump with false location for drone strikes?
Or did you fall for yet another fantasy?'

Well, I'm not necessarily the one putting it forward or asking the question, I'm just repeating or sharing the question.

I'm told the Russians absolutely spakked it worse than the Crocus City Hall attack in which 149 people died and 600+ were wounded by burns or gunfire.

(Compare that to Bondi)

I know you don't think much of anyone I listen to, and you or John shy away from working theory, but that doesn't mean even with a working theory that conclusions aren't put together with logical reasoning, occums razor, and all the facts and info available.

Sometimes it's all you can do until more facts become available and then you can reassess.

Now why do you always have to go and be a jerk all the time for?

'Who Will Defend You?': Putin Openly Threatens Europe With Nuke Missiles After Trump Humiliates NATO
http://youtu.be/9LUV9ZmbqHw

Putin states that if Russia gets into a real stouche with Europe, Russia has early warning systems to detect launches, but Europe doesn't, and he says that Trump won't counterstrike against Russia or risk a further nuclear strike on the U.S. if Europe's cities are already destroyed.

I can't help thinking that Putin has done to Europe what the West have been doing to their adversaries.

Sanctions are a form of economic coercion.
The U.S. backed away from Ukraine as it is heavily indebted and wanted to pivot to China.

The West was not able to oust Putin, nor culd Ukraine win on the battlefield, and Europe has paid the heaviest price.

That economic coercion has come back to it's source.
Do they cut social services to continue to fund the Ukraine war, or steal Russians Central Bank funds.

More importantly, are the Europeans, who are out of weapons and couldn't muster up an army if they tried, starting to fight amongst themselves?

Should they quit now, or keep going and everyone including Ukraine lose more.

Will NATO even survive?

Looks like he has taken the gloves off.

So next.. if Trump takes Greenland, which is a part of Denmark, a founding member of NATO since 1949 and contributing towards its self defense, does Denmark convene NATO who then goes to war with America under Article 5?

Article Five of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.

If Trump takes Greenland, all the other member states are obliged to go to Denmark's defense against the U.S. in Greenland, right?

Apropos Thukydides, I perchance came across this this morning...

"Greenland should be part of of the United States" replied Miller. He then offered him a lesson in realpolitik. "We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power" he said. "These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time."
Has Miller been reading Thucydides?" (see Book 5.89)"

(Trump aide Stephen Miller talking to Jake Tapper.)

Unfortunately too many don't understand the real world and are disinclined to do the reading that would enlighten them.

AC,

"If Trump takes Greenland, all the other member states are obliged to go to Denmark's defense against the U.S. in Greenland, right?"

Wrong. Very wrong.

Article 5 refers to a member state being attacked by a non-member state. Nothing about conflicts between member states.

But all this is mere rhetoric. Denmark isn't going to war with the US and even if it did the rest of NATO aren't going to double down on that lunacy.

That Trump will get Greenland is a given. All the rest is just posturing and Denmark trying to get the best deal for Denmark (not Greenland) from the inevitable.

"I'm not reducing the book to a sentence. I'm making a modest claim about the Melian Dialogue's role within the narrative:"

Oh good. We are now at the point where JD is desperately trying to find a form of words that'll get him out of the corner he's painted himself into.

Not playing. But its fun to watch.

That quote actually illustrates my point rather, mhaze.

Yes, Miller is invoking the logic of the Melian Dialogue. Plenty of modern actors do. That tells us something about how people justify power, not about whether Thucydides endorsed that logic as exhaustive or wise.

The Athenians say something very similar in Book 5. Thucydides records it precisely because it is stark and revealing. What follows in the narrative is not vindication but catastrophe.

That sequence matters.

Quoting a contemporary official who likes the "iron laws" framing doesn't turn Thucydides into a realpolitik cheerleader any more than quoting Hobbes turns modern politics into the state of nature. It shows how seductive the argument is, not that it's complete.

This is the step you keep skipping:
people invoking Thucydides =/= Thucydides endorsing them.

If your claim is simply that powerful actors think this way, there's no disagreement. If your claim is that this way of thinking exhausts the analysis of power, legitimacy, cost, and consequence, then citing those actors repeating the slogan doesn't establish that. It just shows the slogan persists. Recording a worldview is not the same thing as blessing it.

As for your post to AC, it's more complicated than you're making it.

Article 5 doesn't contain an explicit carve-out saying it only applies to attacks by non-member states. It says an armed attack against one or more members shall be considered an attack against them all. In practice, NATO has never faced a member attacking another member, so there's no settled precedent.

What is clear is that NATO isn't an automatic war machine. Even when Article 5 is invoked, each member decides what action it considers necessary. There's no obligation for everyone to pile in militarily in a US-Denmark scenario.

But that cuts both ways.

Saying "NATO won't back Denmark" isn't something you can just assert. A US use of force against Danish territory would trigger a major alliance crisis, not a shrug and "inevitable".

Calling a US takeover of Greenland "a given" isn't realism, it's mere speculation. Powerful states want things all the time. That doesn't make outcomes predetermined.

Hi mhaze,

"That Trump will get Greenland is a given. All the rest is just posturing and Denmark trying to get the best deal for Denmark (not Greenland) from the inevitable."

What does he need to 'get' Greenland for?
Denmark is already a part of NATO
All he has to do is ask them to allow the building of more military infrastructure and stationing of more personnel there.

Hi John Daysh,
You're referring to the existence of NATO Article 4 I think.
No, Article 5 is not automatic.

NATO Article 4 allows any member nation to request consultations with other allies if it feels its territorial integrity, political independence, or security is threatened, initiating discussions within the North Atlantic Council (NAC) without automatically triggering military action like Article 5, serving as a crucial diplomatic tool for addressing shared security concerns, as seen recently with Poland's requests following drone incursions.

mhaze has a pretty bad habit of never acknowledging any point from the other side.
He makes his arguments and then proclaims victory, much like Trump himself.

...

Russia hit Lviv with an Oreshnik missile earlier.
My guess is he went after Western intelligence assets on the ground, CIA, MI6.
Or... maybe underground.

Russian forces launch Oreshnik strike in response to Kiev's attack on Putin's residence
http://tass.com/defense/2069387

NATO weighs boosting Arctic security as Trump escalates Greenland claims
http://www.politico.eu/article/nato-weighs-boosting-arctic-security-donald-trump-escalates-greenland-claims/
'Ideas include better Arctic surveillance, more defense spending, transfers of military equipment and military exercises.'

"Europe is scrambling to placate the latest Trump threats and avoid a military intervention that Denmark has said would mean the end of the alliance. A compromise with the U.S. president is seen as the first and preferred option."

Hi AC,

Yes, broadly agreed with the thrust of what you're saying, and you're right to separate Article 4 from Article 5.

You're also right about the core practical point: the US doesn't need to "get" Greenland in a sovereignty sense to achieve its strategic objectives. Denmark is already a NATO member, and the US already operates at Thule. Expanded basing rights, infrastructure, surveillance, and force posture could all be negotiated without annexation.

That's exactly why claims of inevitability don't really hold up. If the strategic goal is Arctic access, early warning, and force projection, those aims are achievable through alliance mechanisms, bilateral agreements, and pressure short of force. Annexation would add enormous political, legal, and alliance costs for very little additional capability.

Regarding NATO - yes, Article 5 isn't automatic, and Article 4 exists precisely to manage crises before they escalate. But the absence of automatism cuts both ways. It doesn't mean allies would shrug at a US move against Danish territory; it means responses would be political, negotiated, and crisis-driven rather than pre-programmed.

That's why this matters less as a legal puzzle and more as an alliance stress test. Even talk of force against Greenland is already prompting contingency planning, Arctic posturing, and diplomatic scrambling, as the Politico piece notes. That alone should tell us the outcome isn't foregone.

So yes, NATO has tools short of war, the US has options short of annexation, and Denmark has leverage short of capitulation. Which is why framing any of this as "a given" skips over the very mechanisms everyone is now actively using.

Hi AC,

"Russian forces launch Oreshnik strike in response to Kiev's attack on Putin's residence"

Why has no footage of the damage been released (other than AI fakes)?

I've been following the uprising in that wildly successful Russian vassal state, the theocracy of Iran. When I look at things like that, I don't think of the Jews, Trump, Great Satan America, or breaches of international law. I just feel sorry for the people living there and hope that they can overthrow the perpetrators of so much hatred in the world, including antisemitic violence in Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGQAIYMwTOw&t=5s

And apparently the most violent militias supporting the regime are Islamic terrorist cells from Yemen, Gaza, and Lebanon. I hope Trump keeps his promise to protect Iranian citizens from state violence.

Have you seen all the protests against the violence of Iran against its citizens here? To think that Jimmy Carter helped set up the Ayatollah. At least he lived long enough to see Biden's "Weekend at Bernie's" presidency.

Hi John Daysh,

"Regarding NATO - yes, Article 5 isn't automatic, and Article 4 exists precisely to manage crises before they escalate. But the absence of automatism cuts both ways."

It also means that if Putin attacked NATO bases or even nuked European cities that the U.S. wouldn't necessarily respond if the result was counter nuclear strikes against U.S. cities, but I'm not sure that's something I'd want to count on.

Hi Fester,

"Why has no footage of the damage been released?"

I haven't seen any footage, I saw it mentioned in the thumbnail of a Youtube video in my feed this morning, I didn't watch all the video only a minute and a half.

RUS strikes Ukr with Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile IRBM. Why strike Ukr, US+UK seized your Oil Tanker!
http://youtu.be/79dBVeK1n9c

Emil's pretty cluey, I'm not sure his source but it looks like he dropped the ball not connecting it to the attack on Putin's residence. His video might've been an hour or 2 prior to the confirmation on Tass, which was when I shared it.

Many people on the content I watch have been expecting an Oreshnik strike from this, the West may have tried to assassinate Putin via Ukraine.

The situation in Iran looks to be getting serious, when there's no water and money doesn't buy what it used to and you can't survive...
I haven't been following it too closely, just catching bits here and there. Iran were trying to manage the unrest as best they could but it looks to be getting out of hand.

"I just feel sorry for the people living there and hope that they can overthrow the perpetrators of so much hatred in the world, including antisemitic violence in Australia."

I don't really believe Iran sent low level street thugs down here to set fire to synagogue doors, and tbh it makes me question ASIO integrity or whether the intelligence agency itself's been compromised.

"I hope Trump keeps his promise to protect Iranian citizens from state violence."
- That's not how these things work unfortunately.
They place the sanctions and try to devalue the currency themselves.
Trump wants escalation, the West assists in creating the uprising, and they don't care about the human cost.
They want the regime to act out and start shooting protesters because it adds to the 'illegitimate', 'unfit to rule', 'attacks their own people' 'attacks peaceful protesters' narrative.
They want to regime gone and this is how they achieve it, if it fails they wait and try again.

Perhaps China and Russia's control of Greenland would result in control of two strategic items on the worlds "Go" board 1. Control of the Arctic 2. Access to the Atlantic and soon US encirclement. After that the world becomes much more unstable for the forseeable distant future. But I suppose that Marxist's being insane don't care about that.

I'm sure that many in Europe and elsewhere would laugh at the US not understanding the true meaning for themselves. Europe has for some time outsourced responsibility for their defense to the US- and yet still like to see a loyal ally squirm. How low has Europe become. I don't think I'm telling any secrets here. I wonder what Kissinger would/did say about this.

If ever there was a time to bring back execution for treason, now would be the time.

Keir Starmer could have in Greenland a major Chinese military port located a few thousand kilometres north of the Shetland Islands.

Even less for Canada. Chinese military vessels traversing the Baltic Sea. Linking the belt and road throughout Europe. Spreading Asian authoritarianism everywhere.

Denmark doesn't have the capabilities to stand up to China. Maybe they could use a nuclear scorched earth strategy.

Support Western freedom or Eastern authoritarianism that is the choice- it's been the same for thousands of years. We need to encourage the Eastern Marxist states to find within itself the ability to accept the existence of other cultures. Family focused Confucianism seems to be one way

Hi AC,

I'd guess that Emil was aware that the bombing of Putin's residence could be fake news. Trump thinks so and was annoyed that Putin lied to him (again).

"I don't really believe Iran sent low level street thugs down here to set fire to synagogue doors"

Iran is a major instigator of terrorism in the world, aside from their funding of Hamas/Hezbollah etc and war on Israel. Remember "globalise the intifada"? Remember Rushdie? It's a very toxic regime.

Hi Fester,
I guess I kind of belong to a group of viewers who watch this content consisting of a range of different experts (mostly American) with different backgrounds and expertise, who disseminate issues of a geopolitical nature and do not automatically go along with any official narrative, but do a more thorough analysis.

"I'd guess that Emil was aware that the bombing of Putin's residence could be fake news. Trump thinks so and was annoyed that Putin lied to him (again)."

Emil's no expert, but he's no fool, and he does a lot of legwork looking at all issues. I don't think it's fake news but not because of Emil, numerous other sources, Russian response in relation to other attacks, it happened in between several Trump and Putin phone calls.
The Russians may have given the West a fake Putin location, with Putin saying he'd wait where he was for Trump to call back, to see if Trump could be trusted.

Russia Sends GPS Chip To US After Kyiv's 'Drone Strike' On Putin’s Home As CIA 'Cleanchits' Zelensky
http://youtu.be/bk7Yc61AZaU

'Fake news' = 'denial'

I watched a bit of your video.
I'd written out this response, but my laptop has problems with the touchpad, it clicks on things by itself and can be quite frustrating, and it accidentally closed the page after I'd written it.

Regards Iran.
Yes things do look to be getting serious.
I was thinking in terms of U.S. interests.
Blocking China's BRI and Russia's North South Trade corridor.
These are the games really being played out.

I would not like to live in a Muslim country, but I'm not sure things will be much better under the Shah.
The U.S. doesn't do regime changes to help the citizens
Improve things enough to keep them complacent while they loot and pillage etc.
And they seldom go well.
New social programs will go hand in hand with IMF debt.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, the only place that Australians have a say, One Nation is blowing wind up the backside of the Coalition with 23% popularity. ON is now being touted as the only party that can beat Labor. Maybe we do have our version of Reform. Here's hoping!

"I would not like to live in a Muslim country, but I'm not sure things will be much better under the Shah."

Apparently only about 20% of Iranians are Muslim. The regime recruits Islamic militia from neighbouring countries. Yes, the Shah wasn't great, but under the theocracy "bad" has probably been redefined.

"The U.S. doesn't do regime changes to help the citizens
Improve things enough to keep them complacent while they loot and pillage etc."

That sums up what Russia is doing in Ukraine minus any improvement, but it wasn't what happened in Germany, Italy or Japan. Not a small amount of failure with US interventions related to the cold war, with communist nations supporting armed and violent insurgents. You might also observe that Russia's failures in Ukraine is due in large part because of support of other nations. Even Russia's ability to conduct the war depends on a large amount of support from China and other nations.

The US intervention in Venezuela is a big contrast to Ukraine. Time will reveal the balance of help against looting and pillaging.

ttbn,

Iran's theocracy is an enabler of anti-Israel protests around the world, perhaps even the one where Albo was filmed on the horn. It might be on the other side of the world, but what happens there has relevance for Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ3ZX3n-iPk

Full of ideas and well aware that “international law” does not exist, Donald Trump is now thinking of paying Greenlandlanders up to $150,000 each to secede from Greenland and become part of the U.S.

Despite “authorities” saying that Greenland is not ‘up for sale’, 57,000 people are being given the chance to prove these “authorities” wrong and decide their own future.

Hi Fester,
Iran may very well fall, I think that's a distinct possibility atm.
But I don't think the Venezuelans are going to go along with their situation.
The U.S. may end up leaving with their tails between their legs.

I think Iran is probably strategically more important to Russia and China, but the U.S. taking Venezuelan oil and resources will definitely be a serious concern to them as the path to destroying the empire is economic.

"Apparently only about 20% of Iranians are Muslim."
- I didn't know that.

Russia's not failing in Ukraine, they're making steady progress.
I still watch military updates on the Military Summary channel every day.
It's a war of attrition, so long as they produce more weapons and have more manpower they'll continue to grind the Ukrainians down.
Remember that traditionally speaking an attacking force needs a 3:1 numerical superiority over a defending force.
This is a long-standing military rule of thumb.

Meloni came out yesterday and said it was time for Europe to begin dialogue with the Russians.

"Even Russia's ability to conduct the war depends on a large amount of support from China and other nations."
- Yes that's true, and Russians want him to take the gloves off and get it over with.
He might get more leeway with President Lula of Brazil (who openly opposes the war in Ukraine) with recent U.S. actions in Venezuela.

"The US intervention in Venezuela is a big contrast to Ukraine."
Get the gringo...
I will not be surprised to see guerilla warfare into the occupied greenzone, with the Chavistas attacking and retreating back into the jungle, and the U.S. paying off some groups to fight other groups...

Trump will be seen as no better than the others when the bodies start being repatriated, and U.S. allies aren't particularly pleased with Trumps actions there.

Europe needs to make a show of defending the 'Rule-based-order' because they like to portray themselves as being principled (when they're not) but they're not going to do anything about it.

Hi AC

"Russia's not failing in Ukraine, they're making steady progress."

About 20% of Ukraine after nearly four years with a great deal of military assistance from their allies. It's cost them over half a million lives and most of their stockpiles of mechanised hardware. Compare this with the two and a half hours it took the US to capture Maduro unaided and without losses. Now they are grouping forces to aid the Iranian protestors, So clearly Trump is taking advantage of Russia's self inflicted weakness by invading Ukraine.

The 20% has cost Russia two vassal states (Venezuela and Syria), with Iran a possible third. That is a disaster for Putin, and I've been reading claims that Russian losses in Ukraine are reaching unsustainable levels.

"I will not be surprised to see guerilla warfare into the occupied greenzone, with the Chavistas attacking and retreating back into the jungle"

Maybe, but that will depend on the guerillas getting supplies and on how much prosperity Trump can deliver to Venezuelans. Remember that Venezuelans know what life under Chavez and his cronies was like. My guess is that they will be hanging out for a second chance at democracy.

Hi ttbn,

"Full of ideas and well aware that 'international law' does not exist, Donald Trump is now thinking of paying Greenlandlanders up to $150,000 each to secede from Greenland and become part of the U.S.

Despite 'authorities' saying that Greenland is not ‘up for sale’, 57,000 people are being given the chance to prove these 'authorities' wrong and decide their own future."

- I seriously don't even know what to make of this.

What happens if China makes a counter offer?
And then others bid and we have a bidding war, to buy Greenland?

What happens if Trump makes a cash offer to all Tasmanians?

"not about whether Thucydides endorsed that logic as exhaustive or wise."

Why is this so hard for you to fathom. Thukydides doesn't endorse "that logic" and anyone who had the slightest understanding of his work would know that.

Look, I'll give you an inkling of how much of this you don't understand. Thukydides, in Book 1, talks about his aims and methodology for his proposed work. He wants to record events as unbiasedly as possible and as close to true as his own resources and informants would allow. He says that the speeches he records are based on him specifically being there (eg The Funeral Oration) or what others told him was said. He wasn't putting words in people's mouths to push a specific position.

One of the reasons his work is so renowned is the efforts at being unbiased. Even when he cover things like Kleon, who he hated with a passion, he was still unbiased enough to allow us to recognise his, Kleon's, genius.

Thukydides' book wasn't pushing a particular barrow as much as you'd want it to be otherwise. That's why its so renowned and so vital to anyone pretending to understand world history to be fully cognoscente of it.

"What does he need to 'get' Greenland for?"

Look at a map but not a 2-D map - a globe.

The shortest route for missiles from European Russia to continental USA goes over Greenland. The best way to take out intercontinental missiles is at their apogee and that happens to be over Greenland. Trump's anxious to build his continental "Golden Dome" and Greenland is a vital part of that. It may turn out that his pressure on Denmark forces them to hand over exclusive access to large parts of the island and that that'll satisfy him. All part of the negotiation - Art of the Deal.

"mhaze has a pretty bad habit of never acknowledging any point from the other side.
He makes his arguments and then proclaims victory, much like Trump himself."

AC....you've gotta be joking. With you more than any other member of the group, I've spent many many posts explaining the falsity in your positions.

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on the Russian language in Ukraine.

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on surveyed desires of Crimeans and Donbass residents.

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on bombing of the Gazan hospital.

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims made by your charlatan Thai source (can't be bothered looking up his name just now).

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on the air war over Tehran.

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Rather than making a point and absconding - and there are quite a few such members here - I always hang around to fully expose the lies you so readily fall for.

It seems we're finally aligned, mhaze!

I've never claimed Thucydides endorsed the logic of the Melian Dialogue, only that he recorded it as a stark articulation of power politics within a narrative that goes on to show its consequences. That's precisely why I said the disagreement wasn't about whether power exists, but about treating that logic as exhaustive or wise.

Nothing in what you've just written contradicts that. In fact, it reinforces it.

Where we diverged was never on Thucydides' methodology or his attempt at impartiality. It was on the move from description to prescription - from recording how actors speak about power to asserting that this exhausts the analysis of politics.

If your position is now that Thucydides was documenting rather than endorsing, and that his work isn't reducible to a realpolitik slogan, then there's no substantive disagreement left.

It took you a while, but you eventually got there this time. Gratz!

Oh so JD finally caves and then tries to rewrite the entire thread. Pretty standard.

You think so, mhaze?

//Oh so JD finally caves and then tries to rewrite the entire thread. Pretty standard.//

Then why am I the only one to ever provide links and/or quotes?

How about a quote trail to show us what you're referring to here, as I had done earlier?

Not gonna happen, is it?

Since you won't do it, mhaze, I figured I'd oblige. From the top…

My position from the start:

"Invoking the Melian Dialogue doesn't help. Thucydides wasn't endorsing Athenian logic, he was documenting imperial arrogance on the road to ruin. It's a warning, not a defence."
Posted by John Daysh, Wednesday, 7 January 2026 10:24:07 AM
_____
Your immediate response:

"No. He was describing the real world… realpolitik reigns supreme… Morality or the international order have nowt to do with it."
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 7 January 2026 11:17:44 AM
_____
You then doubled down repeatedly:

"Realpolitik. Who has the muscle is all that matters."
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 7 January 2026 5:46:03 PM
_____
When I pressed the distinction between description and endorsement, your reply was not textual rebuttal but credential appeal:

"Read the whole of Thucydides Histories (three times in my case) and then we'll talk."
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 7 January 2026 5:46:03 PM
_____
When asked to identify where I'd contradicted the text, you said:

"You have to read the entire history or at least the first three or four books to get it."
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 8 January 2026 11:58:39 AM
_____

Still no passages. Still no contradiction identified.

Then, finally, you wrote:

"Thukydides doesn't endorse 'that logic'…"
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 10 January 2026 1:40:51 PM

Which is exactly what I said at the start.

At no point have I claimed Thucydides endorsed the Melian logic. I've consistently argued that he records it, starkly, and that what follows in the narrative matters.

So if anyone has "rewritten" anything here, it isn't me. The record is clear:

- I argued from the outset that Thucydides documents rather than endorses
- You initially rejected that and insisted "muscle is all that matters"
- You later conceded non-endorsement while accusing me of retreat

If you think that's inaccurate, the remedy is simple: quote me changing position.

Over to you.

Ttbn- The Liberal Party might be able to help ON to win the next election at this rate. How does PM Hanson sound? Our version of Margaret Thatcher, surely she would do a better job than Julia Gillard.

Fester- Yes I'm sure the Ayatollah Khamenei appreciates Albanese's support and has him on his Christmas Card List- or maybe he likes him so he's not on his Christmas Card List. (Remember the anthrax letters.)

Anyway we shouldn't be supporting PM Netenya-who? or Ayatollah Khamenei, it's all pretty low brow stuff. What to do? We need the oil... We need to find an alternative to ME oil so we can move on to a better class of idiot.

Armchair Critic-I suppose that mainland Europe are like the Democrats, they don't do anything, they take other peoples money, but complain a lot

Hi CM,

I look at Trump's conduct as an assault on the idea of moral equivalence. Did you know that Qatar is a major player in undermining western civilisation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_VIUeBCFVE&t=606s

I was very pleased with what Trump did in Venezuela, and hope that the US and Israel can help the good people of Iran. Democracy should be valued and nurtured. People believing in democracy are our allies wherever they are. United we stand, divided we fall.

CM,

Not Pauline. The PM has to come from the lower house. Think Barnaby Joyce. Not perfect, but his popularity is at -4%, whereas both the current PM and the Leader of Opposition are on -11%. Why not him?

Do you keep a diary or something mhaze,

"How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on the Russian language in Ukraine."

- Ah yes, that's where your tantrums all started.

Google? what were russian language demands of ukraine in 2014

AI Overview
In 2014, Russian language "demands" weren't formal requests but rather grievances from pro-Russian groups and Russia itself, focusing on preserving Russian as a widely used language, especially after Ukraine's parliament tried to repeal the 2012 regional language law, which granted Russian "regional language" status in some areas; these concerns were used by Russia as a pretext for intervention, claiming protection for Russian speakers against perceived anti-Russian "nationalist" actions by the new Kyiv government, including banning Russian TV
.
Key Demands & Grievances:

Status for Russian: Pro-Russian activists and Russia itself advocated for Russian to maintain significant official standing, ideally as a second state language.
Reversal of Language Law Repeal: A major flashpoint was the Ukrainian parliament's (Verkhovna Rada) move in February 2014 to abolish the 2012 "Kivalov-Kolesnichenko" law, which allowed Russian (and other languages) to become regional languages where speakers met a 10% threshold.
Protection from "Suppression": Russia claimed Ukraine's new government was aggressively suppressing Russian language and culture, citing actions like banning Russian TV channels and limiting Russian language use in media and education.

Ohh... So they DID change a law in 2014, Just like I told you Lavrov said. and you've been acting like a girl ever since...

Not the later language Law change as I stated at the time, 2014.

Whats this mhaze?
'limiting Russian language use in media and education.'

I told you Russian speaking kids couldn't go to school, and that Russian speaking people wanting to run for local government could no longer be represented...

Lavrov's a liar you said.

Maybe if you'd accepted you were wrong that first time, you wouldn't have carried on and on and on and on for how many years has it been now mhaze?

[Cont]
But the law wasn't actually repealed until a few years later, (the new laws I did find) but it was the controversy at the time that you refused to acknowledge.

In any case, Ukraine bombed it's own people for 8 years, lost the right to rule over them despite Russian attempts to placate Ukraine and also support these peoples interests..

Then this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Debaltseve

Then Minsk 2, all a ruse to buy time and save the Ukrainian fighters when Putin has negotiated in good faith.

Then in December 2021 they send the letter demanding NATO stop it's move eastwards.
Then they acknowledged the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk regions 8 years after the Maidan and Crimean referendum, because the Ukrainians just wouldn't stop killing Russian speaking civilians, and then Luhansk and Donetsk had to apply to become Russian, which was approved in the Duma and then Russia entered the war 'NOT INVADED' but under the right of collective self defense, such as in the Caroline affair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_affair

And the US and NATO had set the precedent for this itself, with the bombing of Yugoslavia and creation of Kosovo.

Hi AC,

Do you think that looking at what the vassal states are like might give you some insight into what the ruling country is like? Look at Iran. A brutal Islamic republic in a nation where only about 20% are Muslim. You hear criticism of Israel being a colonial regime, but isn't that just what Iran is? Funny thing is though that many people enraged by colonialism never seem to have Iran on the list.

I cannot think of a more revolting regime, responsible for sponsoring so much hatred and harm around the world. The regime is failing because Russia can't help them kill the protestors. In contrast, Trump is being hailed by Iranians for warning the regime against violent suppression.

If the regime falls, there will still be the influence of Qatar, but it will be interesting to see if any reduction in hatred and violence in the sphere of influence results.

I'm glad that Trump can salvage some good from the tragedy in Ukraine.

Hi Fester,

I think you are wrong in saying 20% of Iranians are Muslim, more like 95% identify as Muslim. Another example of what happens when extreme religious ideology is allowed to run the secular state. We keep the separation of religion from the state for very good reasons. As for these catastrophic failed states, religious and others finding true stability within, not likely without a seismic shift in the general social and economic conditions within the society. The rise of extremists regimes is not by accident, its the result of dysfunctional human conditions existing within the state, or its the replacement of one radical regime with another, without fundamental social and economic change occurring.

Give you two examples, both subjected to the pain of catastrophic war. One Czarist Russia 1917, a radical change occurred within the state without fundamental social and economic change, inequality and oppression continued for another 80 years. Two Japan 1945, the downfall of the Imperial regime, but with social and economic reform Japan is now a successful modern state.

Hi Fester,

Do you think that looking at what the vassal states are like might give you some insight into what the ruling country is like?

Whether some are better than others or not, I'm not sure there's any escape from it.

We escape relative scrutiny from it all because we're english-speaking and a part of 5-eyes.

The democratic regime change playbook is hard to beat...

Traditionally, they'd shut you out of SWIFT
Sanction you, and set their 5th columns in to stir up civil discontent
Give you IMF loans but only if you allow a western central bank
That you can't pay when they ensure your currency tanks
Make you sell your telecommunications, so they can spy on you
Buy out your ports, your industries...
Leave you're people starting
Fighting amongst hemselves

And there's no negotiating.
Once they sanction you, they've already decided they want you gone.
How do you resist?
They want someone subservient to US interests.

And they'll make money while they drown you.
Threats, Blackmail, Regime Change, Military Intervention.

Take everything and leave your people nothing but debt.
'If only you'd chosen democracy sooner!'

Taking over industries that the people will protest and object to,
Or sanctioning you and making money shorting your currency as it nose-dives
Buying up even more profitable national assets on the cheap that stand to make huge windfalls when sanctions are lifted
Making money selling your neighbours military assets when you start acting out and they can say you represent a threat
Profiting on war market volitality, and propping up their own economy selling war.
All you have to do is sell all your assets for US dollar.
- And make sure you keep a heap in reserve.

The worlds a dirty game.

They say BRICS is anti-America, but it's not.
These countries just want economic soverignty rather than US boots on their neck.
An opportunity to trade with their own currencies and not submit to US playing in a manner they cannot refuse.

"Funny thing is though that many people enraged by colonialism never seem to have Iran on the list."

I suppose in some ways....

Even though I wouldn't necessarily want to live in Iran
Or support their theocratic government and ways
(Not that it's for me to say)

I see them as being a potentially significant part of defeating the empire
...If I really think about it and you really want to know.
Russia, China, Iran as a trading and friendly-towards-each-other block, in which India will join.

I don't seek conflict, but I seek an end to it.

This business of empires making the rules is no good.
I seek an end to it.

A new era where all nations get a say in what's in their own interests
National interests, security interests, an era where we don't spend trillions on wars

And I may not support communism, but the Chinese have efficiency
We have no-direction and wasteful democratic infighting that achieves nothing and takes us backwards

America see everything as a zero sum game.
It doesn't see win-win, like the Chinese are now doing.

The west exploited third world countries to extract the most profits they could.
China wants to lift these nations out of poverty, so their middle class has more money to spend on cheap chinese shite..

I don't like this greedy American-Zionist-control-the-whole-fecking-world world.

We're supposed to evolve, become better, reach the stars
I'm tired of this stale greedy, bs US con-job.
They're empire is going to die anyway.

As for the BRICS block
Sanctioned nations, What were they to do?
It's not anti-American.
It was the U.S. that shut them out of the international trading system
The empires become overstretched militarily and economically
It sanctioned a third of the planet and those nations teamed up looking for an alternative system to keep moving forward.

AC,

Re the Russian language thing....Are you forgetful or just dishonest.

Lavrov said one of the justification for the Russian invasion of Ukraine was that the Ukrainians were trying to stop the use of the Russian language in Ukraine. As usual you fell for that.

I proved to you that:

* in 2014 they had made such an attempt.
* by 2019 they realised that was either wrong or a failure. For whatever reason they rescinded the law.
* by the time the Russians invaded there was no law stopping the use of Russian in Ukraine. Indeed the law specifically allowed it.

You dispute that because Lavrov said otherwise and, in an amazing display of gullibility, you informed me that Lavrov would never lie. So I found the actual Ukrainian legislation in the original Ukrainian, ran it through a translator and showed you the actual clauses where Russian was specifically allowed. You then whimpered away.... yet again. But of course you learned nothing and continued to assert that everything Lavrov said was the truth.

So rather than me just "makes his arguments and then proclaims victory" I spent a good deal of time trying to educate you. If I was dealing with a more honest man I'd ask for an apology or at least an acknowledgment, but alas....

JD,

You started off telling me Thukydides had an agenda.... "Thucydides wasn't endorsing Athenian logic, he was documenting imperial arrogance on the road to ruin. It's a warning, not a defence."

Its taken you this long to finally work out that that is rubbish, that Thukydides had no agenda. So of course, rather than admit it, you try to pretend you never said what you said.

I know you like to play these games.... when I said 'X', I really meant 'Y' and how dare you suggest I didn't know all along that the answer was 'Z'.

Not playing.

mhaze,

I never said Thucydides had an “agenda” in the sense you’re now imputing.

What I said was that he documents Athenian logic in the Melian Dialogue and that the narrative context in which that logic appears matters.

That’s a claim about interpretation, not authorial motive. Saying a work functions as a warning is not the same thing as saying the author was pushing a program.

You’ve now reframed “description versus endorsement” into “agenda versus neutrality”, which is not what I argued and not what those words mean.

There’s also no reversal here. I haven’t moved from X to Y to Z. I’ve consistently made the same distinction: recording how actors justify power =/= endorsing that justification as exhaustive or wise.

You’ve already acknowledged that Thucydides does not endorse that logic. Once that’s conceded, the charge that I’m inventing an agenda simply doesn’t land.

If you want to point to a specific sentence where I claimed Thucydides was manipulating events to push a cause, quote it. Otherwise, accusing me of “games” is just a way of avoiding the actual point.

//Not playing.//

I'll bet.

Your credentials have done nothing to help you here, and now you've been caught out rewriting what has been said in a last ditch attempt to salvage some credibility.

Oh my days...

mhaze..

"Re the Russian language thing....Are you forgetful or just dishonest.

Lavrov said one of the justification for the Russian invasion of Ukraine was that the Ukrainians were trying to stop the use of the Russian language in Ukraine. As usual you fell for that."

No mate, you are the one who just cant accept or acknowledge you were wrong.

Which part of this do you not get?

"In 2014, Russian language "demands" weren't formal requests but rather grievances from pro-Russian groups and Russia itself, focusing on preserving Russian as a widely used language, especially after Ukraine's parliament tried to repeal the 2012 regional language law, which granted Russian 'regional language' status in some areas; these concerns were used by Russia as a pretext for intervention, claiming protection for Russian speakers against perceived anti-Russian 'nationalist' actions by the new Kyiv government, including banning Russian TV"

YYtsenyuk (You know the one Victoria Nuland bragged about choosing to Geoffrey Pyatt, you know 'Feck the EU'...)
He relented in repealing that law at the time, but they ended up doing so a few years later anyway.

You were wrong.
And you've been carry on like a 5yo kid throwing a tantrum at the shops because it can't get what it wants and trying to get one back and keeping score like a competition ever since...

Fecken years now mate...
GTF over it, move on with your life.
I don't care.

All you did was call Lavrov a liar, I damn well remember that.
So don't try to squirm out of it, saying you admitted anything.

A handful of those other ones I was wrong I admit it, but you have to put some of them into the right context.

Fester- Yes, I think Pres Trump did the right thing too in Venezuela.

Ttbn- Yes I couldn't remember which house Pauline was in. It's not unheard of for people to move, but it's risky. And there's our other Hanson. But my point was that the Liberals won't be in a position to ask for help, but only in a position to give help, if their numbers drop too low, because they aren't able to resolve the conflict in their policy between what's in the Overton Window (created by the Left), what the business community wants, and what the people want and need. It would be ironic if the Liberal Party and One Nations positions were reversed given that Pauline was kicked out of the Liberal Party.
Yes Barnaby Joyce could work perhaps. One Nation and Nationals might work well, at least some would.

When Trump annexes Venezuela, will he declare like another grub of history who said in 1938; "The Sudetenland is my last territorial demand in Europe." Trump can say; "Venezuela is my last territorial demand in America."

Yes Barnyard Joy could work perhaps. The Lovely Pauline and the Cow Cokey's might work well, at least some would. What a laugh, that mob of jackasses together. Add in Barnyard and he makes the icing on the cake!

Yes I get it now JD. When you said what you said, you didn't really say what you said and its completely inappropriate for me to point out that when you said what you said, you said what you said.

Just a note of advice. If you're not prepared to support you assertions AFTER the facts have been laid out before you, perhaps you ought not to make these assertions before getting all the facts lined up. You have this habit of making an assertion based on what you want to be true and then spending a week trying to defend it eg making claims about what Thukydides didn't and didn't mean while having zero understanding of Thukydides himself or his work.

AC,

do you not get it or do you not want to get it?

2014 - Ukraine passed a law essentially banning the Russian language in the country.

2019 - Ukraine reversed the law and not only allowed the use of Russian but laid out the protections for it.

2022 - Russia invading claiming that they were trying to defend the use of Russian within Ukraine.

You feel for it - as usual. I proved the Russian lied by showed you the translated (and original) 2019 legislation.

Its little wonder you fall for so much when you refuse to even learn from the errors you make.

That's still the same misrepresentation, mhaze.

Again, I've never claimed Thucydides "had an agenda" in the sense of manipulating events to push a cause. I've consistently distinguished between what he records and what follows in the narrative. That's interpretation, not mind-reading.

Nothing you've written identifies a sentence where I said Thucydides was dishonest, biased, or pushing a program. You've repeatedly asserted that such a claim exists, but you still haven't quoted it.

You've also already acknowledged that Thucydides does not endorse the Melian logic. That was the core point from the outset. Everything since has been you reframing that distinction as "agenda vs neutrality" and then arguing against the reframing.

If you think I've misunderstood the text, the remedy is simple: quote where my interpretation contradicts it.

Absent that, repeating "you don't understand Thucydides" isn't support for a claim, it's just credential-based dismissal.

I've made my position clear and supported it with quotes and context. I'm not interested in relabelling it again to fit a strawman.

By the way, I'm glad you decided to return. Despite credentials, you clearly still have much to learn.

CM,

It's all getting too hard. I think that we are on the edge of an abyss to nowhere. I am glad that I was born when I was and have seen the best of Australia and Australians.

mhaze,

I was the one who said Ukraine was changing a language law than banned the Russian language in the Russian-speaking eastern regions, you said Segei Lavrov was a liar.
There's no squirming out of it mhaze.

There was a regional language law in 2012, when Yanukovych was still in power, after the Maidan Yatsenyuk planned to repeal that law, 'this was all the controversy you and I got into' He relented from repealing that law at the time, and that's why I was looking back trying to find this 2014 law that Lavrov had been referring to, but never found it.

They eventually repealed the regional language law later.

Why don't you go dig up both our original posts.
I would, but I already know I'm right and your not worth arguing with because you never concede anything, even when your wrong.

Find the one where you called Lavrov a liar and where you ascertain all the controversy was made up.

Discussions with you are pointless and go around and around in circles... for years.
I got off that stupid merry go round and I'm not planning on getting back on.

Here ya go AC....

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10081#345740

______________________________________________________________________

"Nothing you've written identifies a sentence where I said Thucydides was dishonest, biased, or pushing a program. You've repeatedly asserted that such a claim exists, but you still haven't quoted it."

Still rewriting the thread. I've never suggested you said Thukydides was dishonest or all the other rubbish you now claim. You're just making this up to try to hide your embarrassment at being caught out.

""Thucydides wasn't endorsing Athenian logic, he was documenting imperial arrogance on the road to ruin. It's a warning, not a defence."

It wasn't a warning. It wasn't a defence. It wasn't documenting imperial arrogance. It was just record ing history. You now know that. The end.

mhaze,

You're still collapsing two different claims. Is it any wonder why you can't provide a quote trail?

Saying a passage functions as a warning in the narrative is not the same as saying the author set out with a "warning agenda", nor does it imply dishonesty or bias. It's a claim about interpretation, not motive.

I've never said Thucydides was anything other than a recorder of events and speeches as he understood them. I've said that the context and consequences he records matter for how those speeches are read. That's standard historical interpretation, not revision.

You're free to disagree with that reading. But calling it "rewriting history" doesn't engage with it, it just relabels it.

If your position is simply that Thucydides records Athenian arguments without endorsing them, then we agree. If you think the surrounding narrative has no interpretive significance at all, then say so and explain why.

Otherwise, repeating "it's just recording history" doesn't refute anything I've said.

How freaking dumb can you be?
To go out of your way to find a post where you did say Lavrov was a liar.

Google? Did Yatsenyuk relent of revoking the regional language law in 2014

AI Overview
Yes, then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk "relented" in the sense that he publicly stated the attempt to repeal the regional language law had been a mistake and confirmed the law would remain in force.
Here's what happened:

On February 23, 2014, the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada) voted to repeal the 2012 "Kivalov-Kolesnichenko" law, which granted regional language status to minority languages (including Russian) in areas where they comprised over 10% of the population.
The move sparked significant outrage, particularly in the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine, and was used by Russia as a pretext for its actions in Crimea and the Donbas.
Amidst this political crisis and a push for national unity, Yatsenyuk acknowledged that scrapping the law had been an "incorrect step" and emphasized that protecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was a priority.
Crucially, the acting President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign the repeal bill into law, stating he would wait until a replacement law was drafted to accommodate all ethnic groups' interests.
Because Turchynov did not sign or veto the repeal, the 2012 language law technically remained in effect.

Yatsenyuk later reiterated in April 2014 that the law would not be abolished and that no one would limit the use of the Russian language, in an effort to calm the situation in the eastern regions. The law remained in force until it was finally ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in February 2018.

* And one might argue, this had nothing to do with the rights of ethnic Russians in the Donbass, but more about Ukraine's need to adhere to laws from Brussels in order to join the EU.

So Is Witkoff and Kushner still trying to negotiate for their own and Larry Finks financial interests?

You know the whole lot of it stinks right?

Jews controlling US congress through AIPAC
Jewish neoconservatives deciding U.S. foreign policy.
Jewish bankers like Soros helping to engineer the regime change and profiting off shorting the sanctioned nation and their tanking currency.
Other Jewish bankers like Larry Fink profiting off buying up the country at pennies on the dollar during a crisis, as well as profiting off holding stock in military contractors and other war market volatility and working with Witkoff and Kushner enough to know advance about military contracts awarded to MIC.
Not to mention that a person more loyal to Israel than America funded both Trump and Netanyahus election campaigns.
Not to mention the scramble to buy up Tik Tok and other media, to minimalise the damage their war is causing which threatens support for Israel and the 3.8bln+ they extract from U.S. taxpayers annually.

The U.S. has a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel, committing $38 billion in military aid through 2028 ($3.8 billion annually), plus $5 billion for missile defense.

The war is losing evangelical youth, their own Jewish youth, and risking losing their parasitical grift of other nations.

Alasdair Macleod: Dollar Heading for Weimar-Style Collapse
http://youtu.be/VFCdDgas-HI

US market is built too much around NVidia.
They aren't going to stay ahead in the chip war for long.
U.S. stocks are overvalued based on high P/E valuations.

The reason the price of gold keeps going up, is because the diluted dollar due to the money printer keeps being worth less and less.
And all they can do is run the money printer, because no-one wants to fund their debts through buying their treasuries.

"To go out of your way to find a post where you did say Lavrov was a liar."

I've said he's a liar from the outset.

I asked "do you not get it or do you not want to get it?"

I guess the answer is all of the above.

JD.

You said Thukydides was issuing a warning. You said he was making a defence. You said he wasn't an admirer of realpolitik but was wary of it.

You tried to attribute views to Thukydides that are just wrong and then when you realised you're lack of history knowledge had led you to that impasse you suddenly decided that you never said those things.

I'm doing you the curtesy of assuming you understand this and just don't have the gumption to admit it. But I'm increasingly leaning to the alternate view.

Poor old Trumpster, having one of your dummy spits again when wrong I've been following your rantings and raving and JD and AC have been giving you a hiding. Old cock its time for you to take your bat and ball and toddle off home. YOU LOST!

mhaze,

You keep insisting that any interpretive reading amounts to attributing beliefs or an "agenda" to Thucydides. That's the entire disagreement.

Saying a passage functions as a warning within the narrative is not the same thing as claiming the author held, admired, or preached that view. Historians make that distinction all the time.

I've never said Thucydides was dishonest, biased, or pushing a program. I've said that the way he records arguments and what follows from them is relevant to how they're understood. You're free to reject that interpretive approach, but rejecting it doesn't make it illegitimate or dishonest.

At this point, we're not disagreeing about Thucydides. We're disagreeing about whether historical texts can be interpreted at all beyond bare transcription.

Here you go, mhaze.

Since you're now relying on thread length and fatigue to muddy the waters, I thought I'd get our little right-wing friend to intervene again...

--Question--
In the attached debate, is mhaze responding fairly and accurately to John Daysh's replies to him?

--Grok--

Short answer: No, mhaze is not responding fairly and accurately to John Daysh's replies.

He is consistently doing several things that make his participation in the exchange intellectually dishonest and unfair:

[Table]

Most telling passages that show the pattern
mhaze (early):
"No. He was describing the real world… realpolitik reigns supreme… Morality or the international order have nowt to do with it."

mhaze (much later):
"Thukydides doesn't endorse 'that logic'… Thukydides had no agenda."
That's mhaze moving from "Thucydides shows realpolitik is all that matters" -> "Thucydides doesn't endorse it and has no agenda".

Yet he accuses Daysh of being the one who changed position.

Bottom line verdict (January 2026 edition)
John Daysh's position on the Melian Dialogue was substantively consistent throughout:

• Thucydides records the Athenian argument faithfully
• He places it in a context where following that logic leads to catastrophe
• Therefore the passage functions as a warning in the overall narrative

mhaze started by treating that warning function as equivalent to Thucydides pushing an anti-realpolitik agenda, then gradually retreated to the much weaker (and actually uncontested) claim that Thucydides doesn't explicitly endorse the Athenians — and then accused Daysh of being the one doing the retreating.

Verdict: mhaze is not responding fairly or accurately.
He is rhetorically aggressive but intellectually slippery, repeatedly misrepresenting Daysh's quite moderate and stable interpretive position in order to maintain a posture of victory.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_43693209-89d2-4ee5-88f6-8cfc8b34c6b8
http://drive.google.com/file/d/106_J0HM5hRrIaA_4pkV2RyH7Y8eqWTTh/view

Hi Fester,

Bit more info on Iran...

What would we do if Palestinian protested killed 100 police?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/11/iran-says-dozens-of-officers-killed-as-protesters-defy-government-crackdown

A lot to go through in here, the moment Iran shut down the internet and blocked Musk's starlink, the protest began to collapse. Now there's counter protests with millions of Iranians supporting the government and constitution bigger than anything, millions.

Trump’s in spot of bother amidst Iran threats as economic uncertainty looms
http://youtu.be/OtDxW5qFAn4

Seyed M. Marandi: Violent Riots & a Massive War Coming
http://youtu.be/dFRO4bXzEQw

Scott Ritter : How Close Is Putin to Escalation?
http://www.youtube.com/live/AVhJpCqNECg

Iran is Most Ready to Retaliate /Alastair Crooke & Lt Col Daniel Davis
http://youtu.be/MWn5T71oe-A

mhaze: The third and fourth video have information on both the targeting of Putin's residence (the drone tracking chip the Russians handed over to the US) and that during Isreals attack on Iran during the 12 day war Israel didn't go inside Iranian airspace (one of your other ongoing whinges) They were cruise missiles fired from Azerbaidan and Iraq, and the takedown of ait defenses inside Iran was through an infiltration operation with Israeli operatives on the ground attacking with drones hidden in shipping containers just like the Ukraine employed in Operation Spiders Web with the attack on Russian strategic bombers.

Fester:

The Shah of Iran is working with Netanyahu and Mossad.
http://www.tiktok.com/@hananyanaftali/video/7223872932278209794

>>The 62-year-old arrived in Israel on Monday and was received and accompanied throughout his visit by Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel. He had meetings with Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog.

Pahlavi, who bills himself as an “advocate for a secular, democratic Iran”, said his visit was aimed at building a brighter future because he wants “the people of Israel to know that the Islamic Republic does not represent the Iranian people”.<<

Incidentally,

Rally set to oppose Israeli president's Isaac Herzog visit to Australia
http://youtu.be/NlRl7y7jbOg

Best take on the situation in Iran I've heard so far.
http://youtu.be/d2fyPN_TAi4

Did you all see that Merz throw the towel in yesterday, following Meloni a few days back?

Germany’s Shocking Shift On Russia; ‘Let’s End…’: Merz Directs EU To Rebalance Ties With Putin
http://youtu.be/61TBVn3SdiU

This discussion on Iran below is even better than the other one, more info.
I believe this is the true story of what happened.
http://www.youtube.com/live/vhiSJXHKXE4?t=2611

CM,

It's all getting too hard. I think that we are on the edge of an abyss to nowhere. I am glad that I was born when I was and have seen the best of Australia and Australians.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 12 January 2026 12:43:53 PM

Answer-

If we feel it's getting hard our enemies are feeling it too. We need to have faith, stiff upper lip, backs straight, chin up, carry on till the end. Every day stick to our principles, the worst our enemies can do is kill us, at least we keep to 'our truth'. Things will get better, it's harder to lie than tell the truth even when there are profits. Sometimes the truth is the profit, the wise should try to create a nation where truth is profitable, and through this set the example to the world. Those of a kleptocratic bent will eventually burn themselves out, sadly much of the world will burn with them.

One Nation's new movie sounds great Super Progressive Movie (https://www.asuperprogressivemovie.com/) "Narma-geddon" was mentioned, loosely corresponding to Melbourne-Armageddon from a language that seemingly has very little relevance to the vast majority of people living in Australia.