The Canadian Parliament's Unanimity of Applause for, what's his name, Zelensky?

A recent muse. You know, it's really useful to have rigid stringent censorship. And it is inconvenient, a naively bypass. has nothing to do with "reach", musk. Someone else could have the reach and it would scrape the crevacies. 

In the Next edition we will revisit the "Striver Class" https://youtu.be/jf9rSjAk6vU?t=480

Zelensky spoke to parliament.  is there hustling for his own regime.
His perspective on the conflict is understandably manachean. The moral and factual issues were resolved and all Ukraine needed was support and the outlook was good. The audience agreed with everything and the astonishing thing was that not a single person on camera failed to clap. I find the the mechanical unanimity disturbing to the extent I mentally connect wit violence. Everyone, every party are all equally demonstrative.  
 By contrast Crystia  Freeland adorned herself in Ukrainian flags for the occasion. The whole thing was quite perplexing. It was a love fest by parliamentary standards,
They have pledged Hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance towards a phyrric victory. NATOs material contributions have escalated and prolonged the lopsided butchery of our ostensible beneficiaries. 
Everyone clapped enthusiastically. 
They applaud every claim of moral and strategic certainty. I don’t see anyone who looks prepared to discuss countervailing claims. Subversion rebutted gets heard; a far more efficient defense is blocking access to audiences or evasive rhetoric. [“Putin apologist!”]  When Zelensky compares the holodomor to the present invasion, he takes on the indisputable moral high-ground. Nobody standing there needs to hold ground: Everything is done by proxy. 
Other people are doing the dying as a result of it, but the politicians get to feel thay
The Ukrainian President will naturally advocate for his own cause. Unreserved assent that Ukraine’s cause is just and Moscow is in the wrong is a slight exaggeration but it’s a polite way of expressing the presumption of friendship.
However, there seems to be a degree of identification inappropriately obligating the government to take Russia as an enemy . If our interests were identical and one was at war while the other was not, we would be forced to conclude that a) The was was unnecessary on the part of one of the parties a1) 
If that were true, we would already be at war. Antagonizing Russia is a choice, not a necessity. Having the Ukrainians do the dying is a choice.
Ignoring historical and strategic realities is a rhetorical trope, it does not validate moral certainty - Exactly the opposite. To believe otherwise is juvenile logic. That’s why, we do not make a habit of having children head military operations.
We operate on partial information. A great deal of humility is called for, particularly on the part of those who refuse to acknowledge basic facts.
With all the talk about “our victory”,  nobody articulates viable goals. Even stipulating that we have a sufficient pretext to go to war, a strategy is not built on pretext. A pretext is comprised of both the conditions have come into being such that the only viable option of attaining some necessity is military.
So tell me, what is necessary about protecting this particular regime? At this point, it is some combination of a sunk cost rationale and the fact Kiev is totally beholden to NATO countries - which is one of the primary reasons Russia perceived it as a threat.

Add a comment

HTML code is displayed as text and web addresses are automatically converted.

Add ping

Trackback URL : https://thefeebleclone.com/index.php?trackback/21

Page top