5 ms·

Yemen and Ukraine. Sending humanitarian aid to Yemen does not help, actually it has very high probability to prolong the struggle. Sending immediately militar

Yemen and Ukraine. Sending humanitarian aid to Yemen does not help, actually it has very high probability to prolong the struggle. Sending immediately military aid to Ukraine has high probability to end the conflict and avoid larger humanitarian catastrophe. It took me some time to figure out between who is the conflict in Yemen, and why, though involvement of Saudi-Arabia and Iran was a big give away. So it is indeed between Sunny and Shia Muslims. They all appear to be Arabs in large part, so it indeed is just difference in minor details of faith. But why? It appears that it is over control of natural resources. Both sides want to have full control and leave other side nothing. In fact it is just continuation of the previous Yemen civil war. The war was started by Shia Muslims. The conflict is 8 year old by now and it appears to be in some sort of stalemate. I have no idea if the diplomatic solution is possible at the moment. As it is civil war, neither side has in principle more right to win. Should we fear consequences of one side losing? I don't know, is there risk of ethnic cleansing that could follow? Should we fear consequences of one side winning? Perhaps. If Shias win, it would mean that they copy the same conflict elsewhere, for example in Iraq. I don't know. Most important part here in comparison with Ukraine is that these conflicts are not comparable and solutions to these conflicts will be completely different. One is civil war and another is full scale foreign invasion with the goal to end statehood of the victim. It is also very clear that if Ukraine would win, the conflict will be over. There would be no large scale humanitarian crisis because neighboring countries would manage to provide enough help to avoid it. There will be probably some amount of repressions against the losing side but these would be reasonable and in accordance to accepted civil practices. It is also very clear that if Russia would win, the conflict will just start because of very high likelihood of continuous insurgency. It is also clear that there would be large scale humanitarian crisis because Russia has already stated that it will use humanitarian aid as a way to punish Ukrainians for the resistance, it is also clear that there will be large wave of repressions resulting in end of life and end of freedom on large scale. It is also very clear that if Russia wins, it would repeat the conflict elsewhere. Most likely against NATO country. Based on the current information, Ukraine winning is highly favorable. Current practice has also surely demonstrated that there is at the moment no possible diplomatic solution because Russia is not accepting any except total surrender that is again not acceptable by Ukraine and is also not favorable for the overall situation. In conclusion, conflicts in Ukraine and Yemen are very different in origin and in possible solution. Comparing these two is meaningless and does not in any way help to find resolution to either one.

eveningcoffee 4y ago
Just one remark. Russia threatening the world with nuclear weapons and famine is another very strong reason in favor of Ukrainian win. It is in fact one of the main reasons. Nuclear weapons and famine should be not become de facto tools of war like Russia is currently using them. I'm not sure if you and Chomsky, as I understand, are willing to give in to such threats out of cowardice or stupidity. Another main reason is that genocide is not acceptable. Russia is already committing genocide in Ukraine but it is clear that when it wins, the extent of the genocide will be multiple orders of magnitude larger.
EGreg 4y ago
“Both sides want to have full control and leave other side nothing. In fact it is just continuation of the previous Yemen civil war.” Now you found the root of the problem in Ukraine too. Instead of Shia and Sunni, we have three groups: Pro-Russian, Pro-Western and Ukrainian Independence. And each group wants the other to have nothing. Yanukovich nixed a simple association agreement with EU, which Nigel Farage warned about. That was because Russia and Pro-Russian forces forced (heavily influenced) him to do it. Which he openly admitted. Had he not done that, there would be no Euromaidan, and whoever wanted to be closer with EU could be closer to EU. Both pro western and pro russian sides could do their thing. Instead he unleashed Berkut on the protestors and eventually got outsted in yet another revolution and coup (starting with Arab Spring a lot of those happened, but in Ukraine it’s like the norm, just pick a color and year). And then the Pro Western mobs and Prob Russian mobs clashed. Pro Western mob burned people alive in Odessa which shocked the pro Russians (Party of Regions, later Opposition block). And yes the Pro western included a lot of hard line right wing nationalists a— eg Svoboda got 10% of the vote in 2012, and in the 90s a party literally named Socialist Nationalist Party had serious support, Yarosh and Right Sector were just one among many, the latest incarnation at the time, Azov Battallion and other battallions which formed openly admitted that 20% held basically “nazi beliefs”. (I could go on.) Bh it pro Russian also included hard supporters of USSR, which surely was viewed badly by Western Ukrainians whose ancestors faced holodomor at the hands of Stalin. But to me the internal beliefs and rhetoric isn’t the main issue… Taliban and Hamas are Islamist etc. The main issue is what happens next. Do the white supremacists allow blacks to do their thing and only talk? Or do they use violence? Well, we know what happened. They got control back in Kharkiv but anywhere with a land bridge to Russia the separatists got Russian support, just like the Pro West guys got NATO support. It became a proxy war between Russia and NATO. And we all know that leads to years of fighting as weapons and fighers pour in from both sides. Relations get worse and worse. Remember that 11 million people — quarter of Ukraine’s population — have relatives in the other country, the language and culture is extremely similar AND YET these mechanisms caused such a rift that they hate each other… these mechanisms of escalation and deescalation are the very thing we need to study. And we can’t do it if you decry whataboutism. Whataboutism is exactly what repeatability in science is all about. Now the Pro Russian voters are disenfranchised from the country, pro Russian media and parties is banned, any opposition parties are banned too. The US and NATO backed governments in Ukraine have been indeed systematically embracing the Pro Western militias (even the neo nazi ones) while ripping their population away from Russian economy, language, culture etc. The USA and Britain would have long ago invaded “to protect its interests” as it did in Guatemala (for United Fruit Company), or sponsored a revolution as it did in Iran (for British Petroleum). And Russia did the latter. It is no different than what USA did in Nicaragua and around the world. It could have been stopped and resolved by the international community and diplomacy. France and Germany almost did it but USA and Britain blocked it. It is these universally repeating mechanisms and patterns that we have to study and how to prevent them from causing problems. That is what science and engineering systematically does and why our technology eliminated so many problems that used to plague it. But in Politics, this isnt done because we tend to focus on simplistiv explanations in only one particular case (racism, sexism, russia bad, white supremacists bad, and yes even fascists bad etc.) without sitting down and cooperating. And the word to prevent and shut down any sort of systematic analysis of patterns across the entire data set, to discuss solutions, is “whataboutism”. You do it here!

eveningcoffee 4y ago

Just one remark. Russia threatening the world with nuclear weapons and famine is another very strong reason in favor of Ukrainian win. It is in fact one of the main reasons. Nuclear weapons and famine should be not become de facto tools of war like Russia is currently using them. I'm not sure if you and Chomsky, as I understand, are willing to give in to such threats out of cowardice or stupidity. Another main reason is that genocide is not acceptable. Russia is already committing genocide in Ukraine but it is clear that when it wins, the extent of the genocide will be multiple orders of magnitude larger.

EGreg 4y ago

“Both sides want to have full control and leave other side nothing. In fact it is just continuation of the previous Yemen civil war.” Now you found the root of the problem in Ukraine too. Instead of Shia and Sunni, we have three groups: Pro-Russian, Pro-Western and Ukrainian Independence. And each group wants the other to have nothing. Yanukovich nixed a simple association agreement with EU, which Nigel Farage warned about. That was because Russia and Pro-Russian forces forced (heavily influenced) him to do it. Which he openly admitted. Had he not done that, there would be no Euromaidan, and whoever wanted to be closer with EU could be closer to EU. Both pro western and pro russian sides could do their thing. Instead he unleashed Berkut on the protestors and eventually got outsted in yet another revolution and coup (starting with Arab Spring a lot of those happened, but in Ukraine it’s like the norm, just pick a color and year). And then the Pro Western mobs and Prob Russian mobs clashed. Pro Western mob burned people alive in Odessa which shocked the pro Russians (Party of Regions, later Opposition block). And yes the Pro western included a lot of hard line right wing nationalists a— eg Svoboda got 10% of the vote in 2012, and in the 90s a party literally named Socialist Nationalist Party had serious support, Yarosh and Right Sector were just one among many, the latest incarnation at the time, Azov Battallion and other battallions which formed openly admitted that 20% held basically “nazi beliefs”. (I could go on.) Bh it pro Russian also included hard supporters of USSR, which surely was viewed badly by Western Ukrainians whose ancestors faced holodomor at the hands of Stalin. But to me the internal beliefs and rhetoric isn’t the main issue… Taliban and Hamas are Islamist etc. The main issue is what happens next. Do the white supremacists allow blacks to do their thing and only talk? Or do they use violence? Well, we know what happened. They got control back in Kharkiv but anywhere with a land bridge to Russia the separatists got Russian support, just like the Pro West guys got NATO support. It became a proxy war between Russia and NATO. And we all know that leads to years of fighting as weapons and fighers pour in from both sides. Relations get worse and worse. Remember that 11 million people — quarter of Ukraine’s population — have relatives in the other country, the language and culture is extremely similar AND YET these mechanisms caused such a rift that they hate each other… these mechanisms of escalation and deescalation are the very thing we need to study. And we can’t do it if you decry whataboutism. Whataboutism is exactly what repeatability in science is all about. Now the Pro Russian voters are disenfranchised from the country, pro Russian media and parties is banned, any opposition parties are banned too. The US and NATO backed governments in Ukraine have been indeed systematically embracing the Pro Western militias (even the neo nazi ones) while ripping their population away from Russian economy, language, culture etc. The USA and Britain would have long ago invaded “to protect its interests” as it did in Guatemala (for United Fruit Company), or sponsored a revolution as it did in Iran (for British Petroleum). And Russia did the latter. It is no different than what USA did in Nicaragua and around the world. It could have been stopped and resolved by the international community and diplomacy. France and Germany almost did it but USA and Britain blocked it. It is these universally repeating mechanisms and patterns that we have to study and how to prevent them from causing problems. That is what science and engineering systematically does and why our technology eliminated so many problems that used to plague it. But in Politics, this isnt done because we tend to focus on simplistiv explanations in only one particular case (racism, sexism, russia bad, white supremacists bad, and yes even fascists bad etc.) without sitting down and cooperating. And the word to prevent and shut down any sort of systematic analysis of patterns across the entire data set, to discuss solutions, is “whataboutism”. You do it here!