War propaganda, 'Realists' and neocons, and the denigration of the war sceptics

[krtek a houby]

So Ukraine gets its way with the No Fly Zone. Russian and NATO forces clash. We're all shitting ourselves as to what will happen next...

What would you do in the shadow of the nuclear holocaust other than think about how unlikely this was (1962 excepted) in the good old days of Cold War stability?

Is this hysterical or realistic?

(Culled from the "Kiss Your Arse Goodbye" thread.)

 

[dilute micro]

Who exactly are 'We'?

NATO countries

 

[Rimbaud]

In what world could the Russians, with the depleted state their armed forces are going to be in after this adventure, possibly invade Poland or any other NATO country?

This is the kind of hysterical nonsense we were hearing during the first six or nine months of the war: a country whose military, it was clear from the start, was hampered by severe problems, and has an economy roughly the size of Italy's, was going to trample all over Europe. Quite a different proposition than the clearly feasible one of leaving behind a fucked-up failed state Ukraine, and surely not genuinely believed by anybody other than the massed ranks of armchair generals.

Nobody said anything about Russia invading Poland, but the idea isn't any more absurd than the idea that any NATO country intends to attack nuclear armed Russia.

 

[RD2003]

NATO countries

But do you regard those who make the decisions on our behalf and the rest of us as having the same interests? It's heard to think of us all as 'We' when the overwhelming majority are just dragged along with whatever is decided, willingly or otherwise.

 

[RD2003]

Nobody said anything about Russia invading Poland, but the idea isn't any more absurd than the idea that any NATO country intends to attack nuclear armed Russia.

We heard a lot about the supposedly imminent invasion of the Baltics, and Poland too, in the first year of the war. So implausible was it that you can only assume it was to keep the fear level up and, as I said, rally the armchair generals.

 

[Rimbaud]

We heard a lot about the supposedly imminent invasion of the Baltics, and Poland too, in the first year of the war. So implausible was it that you can only assume it was to keep the fear level up and, as I said, rally the armchair generals.

Nobody has said anything about it so I'm not sure what your point is.

Edit: However, it is reasonable to fear that certain outcomes of the Russian invasion of Ukraine could ultimately threaten Poland and the Baltic States; if Russia successfully occupied Ukraine all the way to Transnistria, and perhaps annexed Moldova too, it would enormously increase Russia's leverage over Europe economically which could be used, combined with weaponised misinformation and support for right wing nationalists, to cause greater divisions within Europe and NATO - and then it would be about testing if NATO would really respond to an attack on a member state.

 

[krtek a houby]

We heard a lot about the supposedly imminent invasion of the Baltics, and Poland too, in the first year of the war. So implausible was it that you can only assume it was to keep the fear level up and, as I said, rally the armchair generals.

Or maybe you can assume that there's genuine ongoing fears and concerns in Poland, given the history of the country when it comes to invasions.

Seriously doubt that any Polish person who might be nervous about it falls into the armchair general category.

 

[RD2003]

Or maybe you can assume that there's genuine ongoing fears and concerns in Poland, given the history of the country when it comes to invasions.

Seriously doubt that any Polish person who might be nervous about it falls into the armchair general category.

I'm not talking about Polish fears, but how it was more or less taken as a given in the western media that 'Putin won't be satisfied with just Ukraine but will push on...' All said as it was already becoming obvious that the Russians were getting bogged down in Ukraine, and in full knowledge that it has a lopsided economy at best about as big as that of Italy.

 

[RD2003]

Nobody has said anything about it so I'm not sure what your point is.

Edit: However, it is reasonable to fear that certain outcomes of the Russian invasion of Ukraine could ultimately threaten Poland and the Baltic States; if Russia successfully occupied Ukraine all the way to Transnistria, and perhaps annexed Moldova too, it would enormously increase Russia's leverage over Europe economically which could be used, combined with weaponised misinformation and support for right wing nationalists, to cause greater divisions within Europe and NATO - and then it would be about testing if NATO would really respond to an attack on a member state.

Once again-how is Russia going to occupy the whole of Ukraine and annex Moldova when it is mired in the struggle to keep what it has already seized? Especially if the war has economically enfeebled Russia as much as we're led to believe?

Do you really belive that right-wing nationalism in Europe is so heavily dependent on Russian support? Where it has been successful in one instance, in Italy, support for Ukraine is as staunch as anywhere else in NATO. Not all right wing nationalism is pro-Russian. As for weaponised misinformation, that's common for both sides.

 

[krtek a houby]

I'm not talking about Polish fears, but how it was more or less taken as a given in the western media that 'Putin won't be satisfied with just Ukraine but will push on...' All said as it was already becoming obvious that the Russians were getting bogged down in Ukraine, and in full knowledge that it has a lopsided economy at best about as big as that of Italy.

Obvious to whom? The nebulous armchair generals or the experts like your good self?

 

[dilute micro]

But do you regard those who make the decisions on our behalf and the rest of us as having the same interests? It's heard to think of us all as 'We' when the overwhelming majority are just dragged along with whatever is decided, willingly or otherwise.

My post was simply on how adversaries might see NATO's capabilities as opposed to what we may think of NATO's capabilities.

 

[ska invita]

Interestingly the telegraph had run Poland v Belarus/Wagner stories two days in a row.

Lukashenko ‘struggling to keep Wagner troops from attacking Poland’

Belarusian leader claims he is doing his best to prevent mercenaries from crossing border into neighbouring country

www.telegraph.co.uk

Wagner’s Polish gamble may drag the West into war with Russia

Prigozhin is playing a high stakes game that could return him to the Kremlin's top table – or bring about his destruction

www.telegraph.co.uk

What this means I dread to think

I hope it's just pro war shit stirring, but maybe it's a real thing

 

[dilute micro]

Interestingly the telegraph had run Poland v Belarus/Wagner stories two days in a row.

Lukashenko ‘struggling to keep Wagner troops from attacking Poland’

Belarusian leader claims he is doing his best to prevent mercenaries from crossing border into neighbouring country

www.telegraph.co.uk

Wagner’s Polish gamble may drag the West into war with Russia

Prigozhin is playing a high stakes game that could return him to the Kremlin's top table – or bring about his destruction

www.telegraph.co.uk

What this means I dread to think

I hope it's just pro war shit stirring, but maybe it's a real thing

I think this is just psyops. If Lukashenko was having internal problems with wagner he wouldn't need to make it public in a meeting with Putin. It fits Putin's type of saber rattling threats he's made for a long while now. It makes me think Putin and Russia no more understand the west any more than the west have understood Russia.

 

[ska invita]

I think this is just psyops. If Lukashenko was having internal problems with wagner he wouldn't need to make it public in a meeting with Putin. It fits Putin's type of saber rattling threats he's made for a long while now. It makes me think Putin and Russia no more understand the west any more than the west have understood Russia.

Absolutely it is not what is face value, add in the telegraphs own agenda. It's basically bullshit that pleases both sides I expect.

 

[Rimbaud]

Once again-how is Russia going to occupy the whole of Ukraine and annex Moldova when it is mired in the struggle to keep what it has already seized? Especially if the war has economically enfeebled Russia as much as we're led to believe?

Do you really belive that right-wing nationalism in Europe is so heavily dependent on Russian support? Where it has been successful in one instance, in Italy, support for Ukraine is as staunch as anywhere else in NATO. Not all right wing nationalism is pro-Russian. As for weaponised misinformation, that's common for both sides.

It clearly can't do that, because of the unexpectedly high degree of support that Ukraine received and unexpected degree of unity in Europe, contrary to what you have been advocating. But it clearly intended to annex Ukraine and link up with Transnistria, and clearly expected greater divisions within the west, believing that Germany and others would prioritise their economy.

It's hard to judge the extent of Russian influence over far-right politics in Europe, but it definitely is there; and the degree of sway that they would have had would have increased significantly if they brought Ukraine with Belarus and possibly Moldova into a Union State, gaining access to the Black Sea and control over Ukrainian gas and agriculture. This combined with the damage to NATO credibility caused by a successful invasion of Ukraine could very easily lead to a situation where Article 5 is discredited, removing the Baltic States from that protective shield.

It is not unreasonable for the Baltic States and Poland to view the Ukraine war as existential for themselves; far more so than Russia which is nuclear armed itself and knows NATO will never actually risk attacking them.

 

[RD2003]

It clearly can't do that, because of the unexpectedly high degree of support that Ukraine received and unexpected degree of unity in Europe, contrary to what you have been advocating. But it clearly intended to annex Ukraine and link up with Transnistria, and clearly expected greater divisions within the west, believing that Germany and others would prioritise their economy.

It's hard to judge the extent of Russian influence over far-right politics in Europe, but it definitely is there; and the degree of sway that they would have had would have increased significantly if they brought Ukraine with Belarus and possibly Moldova into a Union State, gaining access to the Black Sea and control over Ukrainian gas and agriculture. This combined with the damage to NATO credibility caused by a successful invasion of Ukraine could very easily lead to a situation where Article 5 is discredited, removing the Baltic States from that protective shield.

It is not unreasonable for the Baltic States and Poland to view the Ukraine war as existential for themselves; far more so than Russia which is nuclear armed itself and knows NATO will never actually risk attacking them.

I don't recall advocating anything in particular, not least because this is a mere talking shop on the internet with no impact on the world at large.

Nothing is clear about what the intention of the invasion was, if only because it has never been explicitly stated, as far as I've been able to see. The initial Russian advance appeared to falter before the arrival of the bulk of the weaponry which has turned Ukraine into a killing ground with no end to the slaughter in sight, and a failed state in the waiting. The degree of unity in Europe may have been expected by some, particularly those who feel the need to congratulate themselves about it (including keyboard soldiers who seem to think that they have something to do with it themselves), while others are probably less surprised.

It is indeed difficult to judge the extent of Russian influence on the European far right, but it remains true that the far right is split between those sympathetic to Russia and those who support Ukraine. The example of Italy suggests that when they get a whiff of power they will toe the EU and NATO line if only to protect themselves from being destabilised and thus thwarted in their wider aims. And in seeking to influence the far-right or any other foreign political currents, the Russians are no different than the US and others. The rest of your paragraph is mere speculation/catastrophising.

Given their histories, it might not be unreasonable for Poland and the Baltics to view the war as an existential threat, but that doesn't mean that it actually is.

 

[Rimbaud]

I don't recall advocating anything in particular, not least because this is a mere talking shop on the internet with no impact on the world at large.

Nothing is clear about what the intention of the invasion was, if only because it has never been explicitly stated, as far as I've been able to see. The initial Russian advance appeared to falter before the arrival of the bulk of the weaponry which has turned Ukraine into a killing ground with no end to the slaughter in sight, and a failed state in the waiting. The degree of unity in Europe may have been expected by some, particularly those who feel the need to congratulate themselves about it (including keyboard soldiers who seem to think that they have something to do with it themselves), while others are probably less surprised.

It is indeed difficult to judge the extent of Russian influence on the European far right, but it remains true that the far right is split between those sympathetic to Russia and those who support Ukraine. The example of Italy suggests that when they get a whiff of power they will toe the EU and NATO line if only to protect themselves from being destabilised and thus thwarted in their wider aims. And in seeking to influence the far-right or any other foreign political currents, the Russians are no different than the US and others. The rest of your paragraph is mere speculation/catastrophising.

Given their histories, it might not be unreasonable for Poland and the Baltics to view the war as an existential threat, but that doesn't mean that it actually is.

It may or may not be an existential threat to them, but that doesn't change the fact that they view it as a potential one. Speculation, yes; but it isn't unreasonable for those states to fear that an increasingly powerful Russia after invading Ukraine, exploiting divisions within Europe, could come to threaten them.

The point I was making was that article which claimed Russia will win because their resolve is greater than that of the US is flawed because it centers the US too much; an end to US support doesn't mean an end to support for Ukraine and could instead result in direct intervention from Poland and the Baltics.

 

[dilute micro]

I don't recall advocating anything in particular, not least because this is a mere talking shop on the internet with no impact on the world at large.

Nothing is clear about what the intention of the invasion was, if only because it has never been explicitly stated, as far as I've been able to see. The initial Russian advance appeared to falter before the arrival of the bulk of the weaponry which has turned Ukraine into a killing ground with no end to the slaughter in sight, and a failed state in the waiting. The degree of unity in Europe may have been expected by some, particularly those who feel the need to congratulate themselves about it (including keyboard soldiers who seem to think that they have something to do with it themselves), while others are probably less surprised.

It is indeed difficult to judge the extent of Russian influence on the European far right, but it remains true that the far right is split between those sympathetic to Russia and those who support Ukraine. The example of Italy suggests that when they get a whiff of power they will toe the EU and NATO line if only to protect themselves from being destabilised and thus thwarted in their wider aims. And in seeking to influence the far-right or any other foreign political currents, the Russians are no different than the US and others. The rest of your paragraph is mere speculation/catastrophising.

Given their histories, it might not be unreasonable for Poland and the Baltics to view the war as an existential threat, but that doesn't mean that it actually is.

Is this war some sort of forum banter sport for you? In your mind "nothing is clear" about the intention of the invasion. And you've had how long now to take it seriously?

 

[RD2003]

Is this war some sort of forum banter sport for you? In your mind "nothing is clear" about the intention of the invasion. And you've had how long now to take it seriously?

I'd say it was more a sport for the armchair generals and weapons enthusiasts, both of whom seem to think it's simply a case of cheering on their adopted side from the safety of their keyboards.

Yes, as I keep saying, the ultimate intention of the invasion wasn't, as far as I've ever been able to see, explicitly stated. It was assumed, in the heady, joyful atmosphere of the war's early days and weeks, that the aim was to occupy the whole of Ukraine, but we don't know that for certain. If the aim was explicitly stated somewhere, then where can it be found? Don't see what taking it seriously or otherwise has to do with it really.

 

[krtek a houby]

The heady joyful atmosphere?

Wtf?

 

[dilute micro]

I'd say it was more a sport for the armchair generals and weapons enthusiasts, both of whom seem to think it's simply a case of cheering on their adopted side from the safety of their keyboards.

Yes, as I keep saying, the ultimate intention of the invasion wasn't, as far as I've ever been able to see, explicitly stated. It was assumed, in the heady, joyful atmosphere of the war's early days and weeks, that the aim was to occupy the whole of Ukraine, but we don't know that for certain. If the aim was explicitly stated somewhere, then where can it be found? Don't see what taking it seriously or otherwise has to do with it really.

What taking it seriously would mean is that instead of obtusity there would be an earnest desire to understand what's going on in Ukraine and Russia. Your thing really seems to be chastisement of anyone who you think doesn't hold to your views of war and ethics though pretending to be engaged in discussion of the particulars of the war of which you apparently care very little about. The intention of the invasion doesn't have to be explicitly stated. Democratic, self-determined Ukraine isn't the goal. If you really cared about it you could do some learning on your own. Ukraine has been talked for years by Putin and others in Russia.

 

[RD2003]

I wouldn't say I've taken it less seriously or have any less a desire to understand what's going on in Ukraine than anybody else posting here. Seeking an understanding doesn't mean agreeing with the most dominant viewpoint expressed, which is what has usually been demanded (as you are doing now in a roundabout way.) So far from me chastising anybody, it's always been the other way round. And while I might have expressed views on the war (which other posters are free to take or leave), I don't recall saying anything about ethics.

Without knowing what the Russians explicitly intended, you can't make the assumptions that others in this thread have regarding what would have then followed. And Ukraine has indeed been talked about by Putin and others in Russia. That's the whole point, and why, in my view, the Ukrainians were foolish to follow the prescriptions and promptings of the west, and the US in particular. The latter knew damn well the nature of the regime in Russia, its attitude towards NATO enlargement, and the place Ukraine holds in its view of Russian history, as well as what would likely follow, and still they pushed the hapless Ukrainians down the road of confrontation.

And what does 'caring about the war' mean exactly? Again, I suspect it merely means sharing the dominant viewpoint expressed here.

 

[dilute micro]

I wouldn't say I've taken it less seriously or have any less a desire to understand what's going on in Ukraine than anybody else posting here. Seeking an understanding doesn't mean agreeing with the most dominant viewpoint expressed, which is what has usually been demanded (as you are doing now in a roundabout way.) So far from me chastising anybody, it's always been the other way round. And while I might have expressed views on the war (which other posters are free to take or leave), I don't recall saying anything about ethics.

Without knowing what the Russians explicitly intended, you can't make the assumptions that others in this thread have regarding what would have then followed. And Ukraine has indeed been talked about by Putin and others in Russia. That's the whole point, and why, in my view, the Ukrainians were foolish to follow the prescriptions and promptings of the west, and the US in particular. The latter knew damn well the nature of the regime in Russia, its attitude towards NATO enlargement, and the place Ukraine holds in its view of Russian history, as well as what would likely follow, and still they pushed the hapless Ukrainians down the road of confrontation.

And what does 'caring about the war' mean exactly? Again, I suspect it merely means sharing the dominant viewpoint expressed here.

Yeah okay. Just out of curiosity what do you think could have been the possible intentions for the invasion?

Never said "caring about the war". I was refering to the intent of the invasion.

 

[RD2003]

Yeah okay. Just out of curiosity what do you think could have been the possible intentions for the invasion?

If not to occupy Ukraine in its entirety, then to severely hamper its ability to fully align with NATO and the EU for as long as possible, deepening the project begun in 2014. Perhaps. Like anybody else, I can only speculate in the absence of any clearly stated war aims. Calling it a Special Military Operation seems to leave open a variety of options for declaring it a success, regardless of how it turns out.

 

[dilute micro]

If not to occupy Ukraine in its entirety, then to severely hamper its ability to fully align with NATO and the EU for as long as possible, deepening the project begun in 2014. Perhaps. Like anybody else, I can only speculate in the absence of any clearly stated war aims. Calling it a Special Military Operation seems to leave open a variety of options for declaring it a success, regardless of how it turns out.

Interesting you say occupy when Putin said in his invasion speech that he didn't intend to occupy. I bring up the speech only because you claim there aren't any clearly stated war aims when obviously there are but you just don't agree to them. Whether he could be believed on that is beside the point.

Occupying would be an end to democratic governance and autonomy, correct? Or do you imagine a world where Russia would control Kyiv and let them do as they please?

Hampering the ability to join NATO for as long as possible? Do you envision Russia packing up and leaving after a certain amount of time and then Ukraine might chose to join NATO afterwards?

 

[RD2003]

Interesting you say occupy when Putin said in his invasion speech that he didn't intend to occupy. I bring up the speech only because you claim there aren't any clearly stated war aims when obviously there are but you just don't agree to them. Whether he could be believed on that is beside the point.

Occupying would be an end to democratic governance and autonomy, correct? Or do you imagine a world where Russia would control Kyiv and let them do as they please?

Hampering the ability to join NATO for as long as possible? Do you envision Russia packing up and leaving after a certain amount of time and then Ukraine might chose to join NATO afterwards?

Where, in that case, are the war aims stated explicitly? Putin saying he didn't intend Russia to occupy Ukraine is not a stated war aim. Don't know what your guessing as to what I might agree with or otherwise has to do with anything. I do have a vague memory of one Russian official, although I can't recall whom, saying in the early days that they neither wanted to occupy Ukraine nor necessarily displace the existing government, but it never seemed to be fleshed out.

Occupying the whole of Ukraine might result in what you say, but again it's neither here nor there when it seems unlikely to happen. And what is national autonomy in the modern world, because it seems to me that far from being autonomous in the true sense, nation states are restricted by the decisions of their wider alliances?

I don't even pretend to 'envision' anything. All we can be sure of is that when an exhausted and depleted Ukraine emerges from all this, the backdrop will have changed again, and not for the better.

 

[dilute micro]

Where, in that case, are the war aims stated explicitly? Putin saying he didn't intend Russia to occupy Ukraine is not a stated war aim. Don't know what your guessing as to what I might agree with or otherwise has to do with anything. I do have a vague memory of one Russian official, although I can't recall whom, saying in the early days that they neither wanted to occupy Ukraine nor necessarily displace the existing government, but it never seemed to be fleshed out.

Occupying the whole of Ukraine might result in what you say, but again it's neither here nor there when it seems unlikely to happen. And what is national autonomy in the modern world, because it seems to me that far from being autonomous in the true sense, nation states are restricted by the decisions of their wider alliances?

I don't even pretend to 'envision' anything. All we can be sure of is that when an exhausted and depleted Ukraine emerges from all this, the backdrop will have changed again, and not for the better.

It is precisely a war aim both stated and implied. Stop it RD. Whether you believe his speech or not is up to you but it is out there. My point is there is a lot out there having to do with Putin's ideas on NATO, countries formerly in the USSR, Putin's definition of sovereignty, and the protection of Russia etc. It's these things along with the Ukraine invation that have had a profound effect on former members of the Soviet Union and why they've been tooling up.

"The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force." - Vladimir Putin

Occupying "might" result in an end to democratic governance and autonomy? You mean there's a chance Russia would allow Ukraine to join NATO even during occupation?

Yeah, an exhausted and depleted Ukraine will result from this war but it's the price for their freedom from Kremlin rule, unfortunately, hopefully. Do you want them to stop fighting?

 

[RD2003]

It is precisely a war aim both stated and implied. Stop it RD. Whether you believe his speech or not is up to you but it is out there. My point is there is a lot out there having to do with Putin's ideas on NATO, countries formerly in the USSR, Putin's definition of sovereignty, and the protection of Russia etc. It's these things along with the Ukraine invation that have had a profound effect on former members of the Soviet Union and why they've been tooling up.



Occupying "might" result in an end to democratic governance and autonomy? You mean there's a chance Russia would allow Ukraine to join NATO even during occupation?

Yeah, an exhausted and depleted Ukraine will result from this war but it's the price for their freedom from Kremlin rule, unfortunately, hopefully. Do you want them to stop fighting?

In what way is stating that you don't intend something an explicit war aim?

I don't disagree that the invasion has had a profound effect on Russia's neighbours and former satellites, but I'm not aware of former Soviet states tooling up in any significant way (Baltics excepted). They might be, but I haven't seen anything about it . Certain former Warsaw Pact member states certainly are, but there's a difference between these, who were not part of the SU, and those who were.

I've always believed that negotiation, and eventual peace, is better than war. I suppose it ultimately depends on whether you view an unsatisfactory life in conditions you have little control over as preferable to death or living amidst rubble. It's a particularly sobering thought when you consider that after the dead are counted, the majority, as after any war you can name, will inevitably live lives they feel unsatisfactory anyway, with little control over what happens.

 

[dilute micro]

In what way is stating that you don't intend something an explicit war aim?

I don't disagree that the invasion has had a profound effect on Russia's neighbours and former satellites, but I'm not aware of former Soviet states tooling up in any significant way (Baltics excepted). They might be, but I haven't seen anything about it . Certain former Warsaw Pact member states certainly are, but there's a difference between these, who were not part of the SU, and those who were.

I've always believed that negotiation, and eventual peace, is better than war. I suppose it ultimately depends on whether you view an unsatisfactory life in conditions you have little control over as preferable to death or living amidst rubble. It's a particularly sobering thought when you consider that after the dead are counted, the majority, as after any war you can name, will inevitably live lives they feel unsatisfactory anyway, with little control over what happens.

An aim because it tells what the Russian army would do and wouldn't do. You understand that a conquered population would need to be controlled by an adequate occupying force at least initially and for some time until a domestic force could take the reigns. Have you payed any respect to history and common sense? It told the Russian people and the Ukrainians what to expect from the invasion. Btw, it told Ukrainians that they didn't live in a real country. They lived in a territory.

How would you negotiate peace? What would Ukraine settle for under your direction?

 

[RD2003]

An aim because it tells what the Russian army would do and wouldn't do. You understand that a conquered population would need to be controlled by an adequate occupying force at least initially and for some time until a domestic force could take the reigns. Have you payed any respect to history and common sense? It told the Russian people and the Ukrainians what to expect from the invasion. Btw, it told Ukrainians that they didn't live in a real country. They lived in a territory.

How would you negotiate peace? What would Ukraine settle for under your direction?

That still isn't an explicitly stated aim. And your second sentence seems to contradict what you've previously said.

Putin stating that Russia didn't intend to occupy Ukraine without fleshing it out, tells everybody what to expect from the invasion? I'd say it does the opposite (which might have been the intention.) And Putin and others might consider Ukraine to be a mere territory, but this isn't the official line they've taken so far, and the development of the war up to now suggests that it's going to prove irrelevant.

I wouldn't negotiate peace any more than you would. Our views are of no consequence. However, I've already made clear that I think a flawed peace or a frozen conflict situation is better than hundreds of thousands of dead and an outcome that, a few years down the line, hardly anybody will be satisfied with anyway. History is, sadly, littered with unhappy outcomes built on the blood and agony of those who were steamrollered into fighting on behalf of the minority who reap the real rewards (who also find themselves dissatisfied when the dust has settled.)