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?