Ukraine Crisis
The situation in Ukraine is becoming more dire by the minute. NATO is implying Russia is planning to invade Ukraine, whereas Russia denies this. Russia claims it will not allow Ukraine to enter NATO, as this would effectively put a hostile military alliance - NATO - right at the borders of Russia.
There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices.
The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.
Here are a few links for those interested:
NATO sends reinforcements to Eastern Europe amid Russia tensions
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/24/nato-sends-reinforcements-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-anger
Russian naval exercises off Ireland's coast 'not welcome,' says Foreign Minister
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/europe/russia-naval-exercise-ireland-intl/index.html
Pentagon reveals number of US troops on higher alert over Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/547231-pentagon-troops-europe-ukraine/
Rising costs of Ukraine gamble could force Russia’s hand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/24/rising-costs-of-ukraine-gamble-could-force-russias-hand
Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022...
There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices.
The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.
Here are a few links for those interested:
NATO sends reinforcements to Eastern Europe amid Russia tensions
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/24/nato-sends-reinforcements-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-anger
Russian naval exercises off Ireland's coast 'not welcome,' says Foreign Minister
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/europe/russia-naval-exercise-ireland-intl/index.html
Pentagon reveals number of US troops on higher alert over Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/547231-pentagon-troops-europe-ukraine/
Rising costs of Ukraine gamble could force Russia’s hand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/24/rising-costs-of-ukraine-gamble-could-force-russias-hand
Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022...
Comments (18084)
The terms of the Istanbul Communiqué did not include any territorial gains for Russia - not even Crimea.
Both the Ukrainian and the Russian negotiating teams signed this document.
The West blocked those agreements.
The "imperialist expansion" narrative lost all foundation literally a month into the war. Why are you still parroting it several years later? Repeating a lie in the hopes it may one day become the truth?
Because the agreement explicitly deferred these questions to a later date, supposedly to be resolved in direct talks between Putin and Zelensky.
The fact that it relegated the most difficult question (that of territorial concessions) to a later, completely undefined, process was one reason to be sceptical about the agreement.
The insinuation that the document indicated a russian willingness to forego territorial gains completely is unsubstantiated.
Which is exactly what Russia has done.
I hope you do realize how stupid you sound, and the fact that your moving the goalposts from Mearsheimer can't make any sense of Russia's invasion of Ukraine to ...
Quoting Echarmion
Creates the reality that you cannot be taken seriously and are simply a bad faith propagadists.
Quoting Echarmion
Yes, obviously it does.
What you stated was:
Quoting Echarmion
An act of war at sea is completely comparable to an act of war on land and considering Cuba is very much an island in the sea one would very much expect acts of war to commence in said sea.
Quoting Echarmion
The basic issue of contention here is your claim that somehow Russia's invasion of Ukraine cannot be made sense of, at least not in the realist point of view. So let's just note in passing that you can easily make sense of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
So obviously that part of the discussion is resolved, you can easily make sense of Russias invasion of Ukraine and your only actual issue is that Russia responded with the wrong act of war.
As for it being a good strategy or not, obviously time will tell.
The Istanbul Communiqué is a strong piece of evidence that points in that direction, so obviously it is not 'unsubstantiated'.
Whether you find it convincing or not is a whole other matter, and one that I frankly don't care about.
Your goal here seems to be to bicker over minutiae.
If you are even unwilling to give credit to people like Mearsheimer for accurately analysing this conflict over the course of a decade, you're obviously not interested in an honest discussion.
You're talking about "acts of war" as an abstraction, whereas I am looking at the invasion that actually happened in its concrete form.
My argument is that there's no good way to explain the invasion that happened within a realist geopolitical framework. It doesn't follow that there's no good explanation for any act of war, however we might define that.
If you want to divide the decision into "do we act?" and "how do we act?", then my issue is with the second part of the decision.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's unsubstantiated insofar as it relies entirely on what you guess the russian intentions were.
To say the document is "strong evidence" is to say that in a world where Russia did intend to make territorial demands, we would not see a deferral of the question. But the deferral is equally compatible with a world where such demands are made.
In what world is a draft peace agreement "just guessing"? :lol:
Your compass about what constitutes evidence seems all over the place.
It was a ceasefire proposal not a "draft peace agreement".
Look kiddo, this is a philosophy forum and people here make a sport out of trying to 'win arguments', and that's what you're doing, and it's worth no one's time. You're even wasting your own.
I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm pointing out false and misleading statements.
A peace treaty is a treaty that, if signed, ends the conflict. That's not what the Istanbul communiqué was. This is not bickering, this is you making an obviously false claim. Obviously false because as you know, the question of the further borders of Ukraine, which would be an essential part of a peace treaty, was not resolved.
A peace treaty ends the war, ergo the "armed" conflict - which is obviously what it was meant to do.
Quoting Echarmion
Why not start with your own? :lol:
But sure - you can pretend to yourself that the Istanbul Communiqué was a ceasefire or whatever - then you can pretend that you 'won the argument', which apparently isn't what you're trying to do. (lol)
On the list of clowns you go.
Do you suppose that the Kremlin would hand (what they now (formally) consider³) a piece of Russia over to Kyiv? Perhaps insist on a new Kharkiv Pact??
Didn't Mearsheimer (and Drennan? by the way) argue that Crimea remains a critical geo-political-power-military asset to Russia?
Whatever the case, something here doesn't quite add up.
And what then of their deNazification irredentist genocide?? revanchist rhetoric (again)? For show? Propaganda?
Either way, land grab remains what they're enacting?? (factual, non-theoretical/hypothetical).
More things that telling a coherent story would have to account for, well, unless you think there are sort of random acts involved, maybe.
Now?
No, not anymore. At the onset of the invasion there was still a modicum of trust which formed the basis upon which Russia could agree to a neutral Ukraine holding strategically important territory as it had since the end of the Cold War.
After the West showed its unwillingness to negotiate and kept doubling down on "strategically defeating" Russia, etc. what little trust there was, was gone.
But the fact that even the status of Crimea was negotiable shows that the Russians weren't primarily interested in territory when they invaded, that was my point. Even now the Russians point towards the Istanbul Communiqué as a starting point for negotiations, though it is unlikely they will return Crimea and the oblasts they now occupy.
Quoting jorndoe
Ukraine has had a long-standing problem with ultranationalism, and that problem has only increased since the start of the war. The Russians view that as a threat to their interests and to long-term peace and stability. This is why they talk about 'denazification'. They mean ultranationalist militias like the Azov Batallion.
The Kremlin hasn't really been revanchist in its attitude, though. If anything it's the West that has been looking to 'punish' Russia.
It's possible they're opportunistically exploiting a situation of course and planning to retreat as soon as opposition is stiffening. Too early to tell really.
If this is a sustained operation it's notable in that it would be Ukraine widening the front, which so far they've tried to avoid. A change of strategy?
Exact KIA and casualty figures are hard to come by, but I'd have no problem believing Russia has suffered 60 000 KIA. Seems reasonable.
If your point is that Russia has suffered losses, that is clearly true.
As I've just recently mentioned, my main concern is Ukrainian wellbeing and lives.
I find it highly debatable that the war is harming Russia geopolitically in relative power terms, certainly vis-a-vis Ukraine but also with respect to the US and NATO. For example, the war has done significant harm to the European economy, which may turn out to be bad for NATO, whereas Russia has been able to continue to export commodities and arms and the global uncertainty the war brings may turn out to be good for commodity and arms export.
This has already been discussed at some length multiple times, and the main argument that seems to arise to demonstrate the war is weakening Russia is that it is in fact China the greatest beneficiary of the war and the Russia-China led block has gained significantly as a whole but Russia is a junior partner in that "close friendship". This seems a pretty weak argument to me for many reasons.
However, I'm not so interested in the relative power jostling for power between the US, Russia and China, but more concerned about whether it makes sense for Ukrainians to sacrifice to reduce slightly Russian relative power, even if the were true. If we agree it does not make sense for Ukrainians to sacrifice themselves for US relative power over Russia ... or Chinese relative power over the US and Russia?! (which is what the "real winner is China and Russia is the junior partner" argument seems to imply) then it's of course also interesting to try to evaluate whether Russia is even being harmed in relative power terms. It's a complicated military, economic, political and cultural issue to try to get to the bottom of, necessitating developing a lot of potential scenarios to parse out the benefits and costs of the war to Russia and other relevant parties.
The strategy is the same of creating a "success story" for the Western media.
This stunt replaces the crossing the Dnieper stunt.
Ukraine has military problems, obviously, but its biggest short term problem is financial. If the money runs out then the whole things collapses overnight.
To solve this financial problem, Ukraine needs the Western media to present things in a positive light and forestall any realistic appraisal of Ukrainian military capabilities relative the Russians.
As soon as the Western media concludes that Ukraine is for sure definitely losing, and the losses so far have been overwhelming terrible and difficult to justify, and also the whole thing makes zero sense, there's zero chance of a military reversal and more fighting just means more death and suffering (mainly for the Ukrainians) for nothing, then the whole "this is just what we do (send arms and money to Ukraine)" current disposition of Western institutions will come under significant pressure.
Attitudes can change organically due to undisputed facts on the ground (Western media does have to maintain some minimum level of credibility) and also simply from orders from the top that it's time to pull the plug.
Zelensky needs to prevent both things from happening, which requires sending good news Westward, which required "successes" that may mean nothing strategically and be nonsensical in terms of resources, such as creating a bridgehead across the Dnieper, but are good enough for Western talking heads to keep patting on the back Western institutional mouth pieces and all is therefore as it should be.
This is the main reason, but an additional reason is that Zelensky is also criticized from the pro-more-war factions of Ukraine (aka. literal nazis for the most part) that believe the problem has been "playing by NATO's rules" and not hitting Russia proper hard enough. These people believe that attacking Russia north of the Donbas is a good idea, and they did so before seemingly by themselves with the media narrative that it's all real Russians leading the way to overthrow their own government, if you remember that episode.
In actual strategic terms, the problem with attacking Russia is that it has enormous strategic depth, a serious problem the greatest militaries of their time, such as the Grande Armée and the Wehrmacht, discovered to their dismay after hundreds of kilometres of offensive maneuvers, and so the idea the Ukrainians are going to get somewhere and accomplish something these previous far more powerful forces didn't, is dismissible offhand.
As you're certainly aware, the writing is on the wall, but for the benefit of any others that may have been following my analysis, we are now at the rapid disintegration phase of the war.
However, Russia still cannot conquer all of Ukraine due to logistics, manpower and it often simply not being a good idea to occupy people who really don't want to be occupied (i.e. the Ukrainian speaking regions).
Although small compared to Russia, Ukraine remains pretty big with significant strategic depth of its own, so even in this phase of the Ukrainian front lines disintegrating that does not directly entail defeat.
It could, Russia may have another go at the capital and regime change, but Russia could also just stop advancing at some point, such as after conquering the Donbas.
However, wherever Russia ultimately decides to go militarily will anyways take significant time in terms of planning and logistics.
In the meantime, Ukraine, in particular Zelensky, has other also problems.
As mentioned above, the shortest pathway to total collapse is running out of money. Ukraine just defaulted on their debts. Notably, no Western country stepped in to simply pickup the tab.
Then there's the ever present prospect of a coup.
The two issues are tightly linked. As I explained many moons ago, as long as Zelensky is the avatar that can summon vast sums of cash then other Ukrainian elites need him as the conduit to said cash, but as soon as the spice stops flowing they no longer need him.
Of course, if the West keeps pouring in hundreds of billions of dollars into Ukraine, then the status quo can be maintained, with the front lines moving steadily backward which (if properly managed) could take many more years to get to some sort conclusion, but how much cash the West is willing to spend on Ukraine is a pretty big unknown.
Simply because the Western media takes it for granted that we must send Ukraine as much cash as is needed, does not mean that it's an easy thing for policy makers to do; the cash can be spent on other things.
And that's the main issue that is currently being hashed out: will the West even finance the next phase of the war, which would be just slowly losing at great monetary expense (also expense of lives but Western policy makers don't care about those).
Zelensky's behaviour is becoming very erratic because there is no winning scenario and even in comparatively better scenarios he may still be assassinated. He knows the narrative could change overnight, plug could be pulled at anytime and even if the West continues to prop the show up, his successor could be anointed any minute of the day. You can always make a new avatar and tear down the old posters.
Wouldn't such a supposition also be an admission of sham³? How might that fare (in Moscow, for one)?
Quoting Tzeentch
Hmm. Apologetics to make their (deNazification irredentist genocide?? revanchist) stories fit your narrative? Dubious. Specious.
If Ukraine is neutral, and the West shows a sincere interest in peace, I think the Russians could have possibly been persuaded to agree to some sort of special status for Crimea.
But that was back then. Today it is unthinkable they would give back Crimea and the landbridge that leads to it.
Quoting jorndoe
You can find plenty of information about Ukrainian ultranationalism online. It has been a problem since the time of Bandera. Furthermore, ultranationalists are a favorite when it comes to staging coups and waging proxy wars. From a Russian perspective they're a risk factor for similar trouble in the future.
You may make of this what you will, but it's clearly present in Ukraine and likely the war has only strengthened these elements.
Probably they will stick to their slow & steady war of attrition, which leaves enough breathing room for the Ukrainians to stave off collapse.
The Ukrainians don't need money. They need manpower, ammunition, tanks, etc.
Meanwhile, the horrible toll of the war has caused many in key demographics (military age men) to either be dead or flee the country, which compounds the crippling economic effects of the war.
At this point Ukraine is essentially a zombie that's kept alive solely by Western injections of funds.
It would be a mistake to believe foreign injections of capital can maintain a status quo. It's a short-term solution, but on the long run these injections damage the Ukrainian economy even further, which in turn will make it require more injections, etc. - a vicious cycle.
War is simply not the type of problem that one can throw money at in order to solve it.
I'm doubtful of the notion that public pressure could lead to a change. The political space to organise an opposition movement in Russia is highly constrained. This is compounded by the difficulty of opposing a "patriotic cause".
Concerning Vietnam, historian Max Hastings has argued that a highly critical press which was willing to point out every US failure was critical in shaping anti-war sentiment in the US. There was also not a singular commitment to Vietnam among the leading US politicians. So there was ample political space for the anti-war movement. I don't think this space exists in Russia today.
Yes, the cause of total collapse would be financial.
People can accept fighting a losing war with horrendous losses ... as long as they're paid.
Likewise, the whole government, pensions etc. is floated by the west.
Hence the publicity stunts like crossing the Dniepre or this recent "invasion" of Russia. to make things "make sense" in the Western media.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, until they can't any longer.
Ukraine has a finite man power pool. At some point Ukraine will not have the reserves to throw in to arrest advances and then Russia can manoeuvre at low losses, open new fronts, even return to siege Kiev and the like.
Keeping the fight in the South maximizes the distance Ukraine needs to go to supply the front, so this is a big advantage in the attrition phase; that politically the South being now Russian territory and protecting the separatists one of the main reasons for the war is an additional reason.
However, at any moment Russia can launch an offensive on any other point of the border, including Belarus, where defences are less built up, as we've seen Ukraine just do. Of course, a big maneuver still has the problem of occupation and pacification, and the only war ending maneuver, presumably, is taking Kiev. So, maneuver to go where and do what is a critical question, but my intuition is that there does exist large manoeuvres North that do accomplish more than they cost. We'll see though.
The difference is that Vietnam was thousands of kilometres away and so the reason for the war was an abstract domino theory. There was no practical security threat of North Vietnam to the US and also zero cultural affinity with South Vietnam to make fighting for them emotionally make sense.
In the case of this war, the Russians are fighting to protect Russian speaking separatists and it is obvious what security threat hostile forces in Ukraine would represent for Russia.
It's easy to make a case for the war from the Russian perspective, so you don't have anything remotely similar to the anti-war movement during Vietnam.
Another big difference is that the US was not winning the war in Vietnam; had the US been making steady progress the "we need to win" faction may have prevailed.
Then there's the question of resources that Vietnam didn't have anything of particular importance to the US, whereas Crimea, the Azov sea, the land bridge to Crimea, lot's of arable land and industrial capacity and new Russian citizens and so on, are all positive additions that make the war "profitable" in from a purely imperialistic lens, which I have no problem believing the Kremlin does put on those glasses to consider things, from time to time.
What is it all good for? Hard to say. Perhaps the plan is simply to cause as much dislocation as possible, in the hopes of drawing large formations from other parts of the front.
Its also possible that Ukraine received intelligence about a russian incursion into Sumy and this is a spoiling attack.
Some russian milbloggers are apparently warning that Ukraine might seek to open further fronts and even cut off the salient of Kursk Oblast. I'm not sure where Ukraine would have gotten the forces for such an operation though.
Ukraine just invaded them.
Ukraine's actions in Kursk make no military sense. It's Ukraine that is strapped for manpower, ammunition, etc. They cannot hold ground, their cities are being surrounded and they are losing villages almost daily. Opening another front when already overstretched seems completely counter-productive at least from a military standpoint.
Mearsheimer had the following to say about it:
Quoting John J. Mearsheimer
Personally, the most plausible explanation I have heard so far comes from Alexander Mercouris who reported the possible target of this incursion is a nuclear weapons facility located in Kursk. The goal would be to capture or otherwise threaten this facility in order to gain some kind of leverage over the Russians that could be used in diplomatic negotiations for an end to the war, of which the Ukrainians currently have none.
This would explain why this incursion is hardly covered in western media. This last tidbit is actually quite significant, because if we were looking at some form of Ukrainian success, we would expect the entire western media to fawn over it in an attempt to score some propaganda victory. The fact that we don't see that makes for an unclear picture of what this is/was meant to achieve. Perhaps the West wasn't onboard with attacks on nuclear facilities, which is what Mercouris also hints at.
Well I could make sense of what the professional military analyst I linked to was saying. Perhaps the Ukrainian military is stupid, and so is my analyst and so am I. But when your response AND Your quote of Mearsheimer begin with declarations of incomprehension, I rather tend to think that a strategic justification that seems to make sense to me would be worth actually considering and responding to.
Ukraine seems to have already mined a road to the South, and begun to fortify a couple of defensive lines one on the Eastern side of Sudzha, and one closer to the Ukraine border. and clearly this is not just a propaganda raid. They might be going for the nuclear plant, and I have seen several reports of them being already 20 k up the road in that direction, but there is another 30 k to go, and the logistics of holding the plant and the supply line territory would be formidable.
[quote=yourlink]Russia said Wednesday that it strengthened security at the Kursk nuclear power plant amid Ukraine's assault in the region.
The Russian Guard Corps said it took additional measures to ensure the safety of the plant, including the deployment of additional units in the area.[/quote]
Well it is pretty clear that there are no significant combat troops in the area, only conscript units So I imagine if the plan is is to disable that plant and shut it down for a good while, they could probably do so. To hold it longer term might also be possible, but would be costly.
What makes a deal more sense is that the aim is to force the Russian to fight an offensive war on their own territory, and continue to attrit the Russians with a slow defensive retreat, as explained in the video above.
I like this explanation because that plan requires only a relatively straightforward sequence of events. Ukraine takes a bunch of territory at relatively little cost, which it believes Russia will then be forced (for domestic political reasons) to recapture at relatively greater effort.
The idea of some grand offensive towards Kursk or to cut off a large chunk of russian territory seems fanciful given Ukraines past capabilities.
Quoting John J. Mearsheimer
What I don't understand is how Mearsheimer can conclude this is a "foolish last minute gamble" when he also admits he doesn't actually know what the objective is.
If the previous years are anything to go by, the Russians were likely to continue their offensive actions throughout the winter anyway.
Ukraine's previous offensive was a failure from every military angle as well, but something that makes no military sense may still make political sense. The question is whether it will change anything for Ukraine and the answer is probably not.
Yes of course. Wagner are being recalled from Africa to do it! It might take them an hour or two...
You wonder why the Ukrainians ever bothered to resist at all. They must be crazy berserkers.
That's what propaganda and war do to people, unfortunately. They become radical, irrational and emotionally driven.
In fact, if I were to be particularly cynical I would assume such a state of mind is actively encouraged by those who would see a nation fight to the bitter end.
The Ukrainians were ready for peace in March/April 2022. The West made peace impossible. So when one wonders why the Ukrainians can be bothered to resist - well, what other options did the West give them?
Possible, sure, maybe. Plausible, no. Would have handed the keys back to Kyiv, no, not likely.
DeNazification is their word, one they've been using consistently, and associates with the "Great Patriotic War". (Ukraine generally replaced "Great Patriotic War" with "Second World War" around 2015.) They've accused Ukraine of Nazi rule, and, they say, mean to deNazify Kyiv. Well...Mariupol first. You'll find attempts to justify its use in the thread. But, taking some liberties with your comment, you're right that their rhetoric is "alternate world" ridiculous, though it goes with their irredentist genocide?? revanchist rhetoric. Other than that, apologetics (naïveté no good).
And some obviously biased "latest news"...
Here your assumptions seem that “legitimate security concerns” for one state is only about being “invaded” by foreign countries, and that the only relevant comparison over security concerns is between the US and Russia. But I deeply disagree with both.
1. As I argued elsewhere, “legitimate” is an ambiguous expression: it can be used to express “accuracy” of one’s judgement about perceived risks in terms of security. In that sense also nazis, terrorists, mobsters have legitimate security concerns, because certainly there historical circumstances that potentially harm nazis, terrorists, mobsters more than other circumstances. In another sense, “legitimate” is about other people’s recognition or acknowledgement about somebody’s rights to commit certain actions within an international legal order. So nazis, terrorists, mobsters violating this legal order can not appeal to “legitimate” security concerns to justify their violations, no right of violating the international legal order can be acknowledged by those who are committed to preserve such international legal order. An unprovoked aggressive war (the one Russia inflicted on Ukraine) is not justifiable by security concerns in light of the legal world order Westerners support, a provoked defensive war (the one by which Ukraine resists Russia) is. “Provoked” is not about hypothetical scenarios but actual offensive acts like actual territorial sovereignty violations (as in Russian actual territorial occupation of Ukraine).
I don’t mind you using the expression “legitimate security concerns” once the distinction of the 2 meanings is clearly stated and acknowledged because we should neither conflate the 2 meanings nor assume that one implies the other. Indeed, one can successfully claim that Russia has legitimate security concerns in the first sense, and yet deny the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
2. “invasions” are not the only object of State’s security concerns, destruction of its infrastructures, commercial routes, means of defence and sustenance, and strategic assets (like commodities and technology) can be considered a security threat. Also all factors that may socially destabilise a country beyond conventional wars: like support of terrorists, criminals, illegal immigration or independence movements within a state are security threats. So there are different forms of “security concern”: in previous posts, you yourself were talking about the possibility of putting offensive nuclear missiles in Ukraine as a security concern for Russia, and Tzeench was talking about the threat posed by NATO to the Black Sea fleet in Crimea, and the Black Sea fleet is used for power projection not just defense. Even if one wanted to circumscribe the usage of “security concern” to mere military capacity/equipments and operations, Russia has means and ways to hit the US militarily (see threats of nuclear escalation or “deploy conventional missiles within striking distance of the United States and its European allies”), so it’s not outlandish if the US wanted to increase deterrence against Russia for that reason only. But, at this point in history, I don’t think this the only reason or even the main one: the main reasons are more likely rooted in the security dilemmas for the US within a wider context of a multiplayer hegemonic competition, with China as the primary challenge. BTW something similar holds for Russia too: i.e. I don’t think Russia’s ambitions are primarily about defending itself from an hypothetical future invasion by the US or NATO from Ukraine, Russia’s ambitions are more maximalist, also declaredly so, they are seeking to establish a new world order in which they see themselves in some leading position, along with the US and China. Control over Ukraine contributes to increase Russia’s hegemonic status and power projection in Europe, in the mediterranean area and in the Middle East.
3. Talking about security threats from future invasions of Russia by the US/NATO from Ukraine which didn't join NATO yet what about about future invasions of Russia by the US/NATO from Finland joining NATO (apparently, Russia's border with NATO more than doubles with Finland as a member)? Isn't that a more imminent threat to Russia security? And yet Putin has even withdrawn forces from there instead of bolster them (https://kyivindependent.com/russia-has-moved-almost-all-forces-from-finlands-vicinity-to-ukraine-media-report/)
4. The pertinence of comparing only Russia’s vs the US’s “security concerns” is also questionable. As I argued, Russia is a security threat to Europe with or without the US. Russia’s hegemonic ambitions are a non-negligible security threat at the very least for all neighbouring countries and countries in geographic proximity, like East European countries (including Ukraine). And Russian DOUBLE aggression of Ukraine confirms that is the case MORE EVIDENTLY than an hypothetical future scenario wereNATO forces invade Russia. The US is at the centre of a system of strategic alliance with European countries and the idea of an alliance like NATO is to share responsibilities on security matters to benefit all allies (including the US). And the US would clearly have a greater burden if it wants to lead the alliance. So the US can NOT ignore Russia’s power projection in Europe, if the US wants to preserve its hegemony in Europe.
Quoting boethius
The assumption is questionable for several reasons.
1. EU and NATO are an economic/military alliance between Ukraine and European states too, not just between Ukraine and the US. Indeed, as we are seeing now, the EU is pressed into taking greater responsibility than the US in Ukraine. I also argued that even a fully European military alliance e.g. between France, Germany, Poland, the UK and Finland that could include Ukraine could still be perceived as a security concern by Russia AS LONG AS Russia has no part in it, EVEN MORE SO due to the geographic proximity of all involved parties and historical precedents (the US never invaded Russia, Europeans did, Eastern Europeans’ primary security concern is Russian imperialism, and American imperialism is compelled to focus on the Pacific).
2. Weaker countries may very much prefer to strategically ally for their own security with a superpower far away than with the closest superpower if this ensures greater political and economic freedom (beside Europe, also in the Pacific we have evidence of this logic since many Asian countries prefer to ally with the US not with China). Besides you persist in arbitrarily assuming that all countries are or should be like peace-maximizers, but that’s a historically questionable belief and, in principle, arguably not on you to establish.
3. Your argument looks self-defeating, because you want to claim at the same time that the US can invade Russia from Ukraine if it wanted (so it’s a “legitimate” security concern for Russia for that reason), and yet that the US wouldn’t want to invade Russia from Ukraine “precisely because you [Ukraine] are of no relevance to their actual security”.
4. My understanding is that Russia’s strategic reasoning could have been something like: the US/NATO is getting to unpopular in Europe, as long as Europeans are dependant on Russian oil/gas esports they will not accept Ukraine into EU/NATO to not upset Russia (even more so if there are low-intensity conflicts due to territorial disputes), the mild opposition of EU toward the annexation of Crimea is further proof that they do not want to upset Russia, Americans are tired of the US engagement in world hegemony (see also the retirement from Afghanistan), and the US hegemony is now compelled primarily by the Chinese challenge, and troubled by domestic politics conflict (including Trump who is someone Putin can negotiate with) so it’s unlikely that the US would engage in an invasion of Russia from Ukraine given these historical trends. But then what’s the point of rushing into a full scale war against Ukraine to avert a possible American invasion of Russia from Ukraine, once Ukraine is in NATO?
Instead, Russia’s strategic reasoning was more like: the US/NATO is getting to unpopular in Europe, as long as Europeans are dependant on Russian oil/gas esports they will not accept Ukraine into EU/NATO to not upset Russia (even more so if there are low-intensity conflicts due to territorial disputes), the mild opposition of EU toward the annexation of Crimea is further proof that they do not want to upset Russia, Americans are tired of the US engagement in world hegemony (see also the retirement from Afghanistan), and the US hegemony is now compelled primarily by the Chinese challenge, and troubled by domestic politics conflict (including Trump who is someone Putin can negotiate with) so it’s unlikely that the US would engage in an invasion of Russia from Ukraine given these historical trends. But then what’s the point of not grabbing the OPPORTUNITY to subdue Ukraine and reclaim a superpower status (at this point not only in the eyes of the US but also of China) when the West and its leader are now too weak to oppose, Russia is at its historical peak after the collapse of Soviet Union, and the alibi of a war provoked by the Great Satan is already so popular in the West? What’s the point of not violating a Western-lead World Order supported by a declining West to achieve invaluable strategic benefits when the chances of getting punished for it by the West are at so low ?
Quoting boethius
That’s a questionable assumption on three grounds.
1. Smaller states can also ALLY with other countries against the common enemy as the Greek city states did against the Persian empire. And one weak state might reasonably prefer to military ally with stronger and powerful countries than weaker countries.
2. Defensive moves (like Ukraine inside NATO, which is a defensive military alliance) can be perceived as hostile, despite NATO/Ukraine’s declared intentions. Russia was repeatedly assured that Ukraine inside NATO wasn’t about threatening Russia’s sovereignty, but it didn’t matter, since Russia didn’t agree anyways. Unfortunately mistrust runs on both direction: since Russia’s assurances over Ukrainian sovereignty have been actually violated by Russia repeatedly, while neither the West nor Ukraine have attacked Russia prior to Russia’s aggression of Ukraine. In any case, as long as Russia has no decision power over how Ukraine shapes its security strategy, Ukraine may raise security concerns to Russia, no matter if Ukraine joins NATO, or some other European military alliance, or it takes care for its own military security by itself (remember Mearsheimer’s argument for the Ukrainian nuclear deterrent?).
3. Russia wants Ukraine neutral, demilitarised, AND with a Russian Military Naval Base inside Ukraine, so what deterrence could Ukraine seriously achieve over Russia if these are Russian demands?
Quoting boethius
But I questioned numerous times this kind of arguments. And I’ll do it again.
1. Russia has been acknowledged no right to invade Ukraine to solve alleged “legitimate” security issues under international law (at least by the West). Russia security concerns were framed by Russia in terms of international law when Russia EXPRESSLY AND REPEATEDLY DEMANDED security guarantees (for you, “ornamental” and “with no meaning” or not expressing a “metaphysically necessity”, remember?) which it didn’t obtain, not when it aggressed Ukraine. And if it is not rights according to international law as acknowledged by parties in an international world order, then what rights are you talking about?
2. Binding the notion of “justification” to that of military victory and defeat, or war and peace is questionable. Afghans, Palestinians, Kurds are evidence that people won’t renounce to defend what they perceive to be their land and people against foreign oppression because of the disparity of military means and costs for fighting foreign oppression. One doesn’t need to empathise with them, but if one’s reasoning is FACT based, one can’t reasonably discount the historical and anthropological fact that the pursuit of self-determination by some people can be a major driving force factor in war that overrides the disparity of military means or losses. Nor can one discount the FACT that these wars can be foundational of people’s national identity, in that sense the material and spiritual price to pay for that, it’s ultimately THEIR OWN choice to make in a very personal sense. So I do not need to dismiss your points nor the idea that Ukrainians might have been in better conditions now if they preferred compromise or surrender as soon as possible, actually I find such points even more compelling for Ukrainians after the rather disappointing support Ukrainians got from the West. Yet your points may not be the most personally compelling reasons to Ukrainians. Ukrainians, similarly to many other people rebelling against foreign oppression, may be no peace-maximisers. Their recurrent historical conflicts with Russia supports my belief (as acknowledged also by Mearsheimer in the article you too cited). So Ukrainians too may pursue self-determination against Russian oppression, as much as a political status which grants them greater political-economic freedom through Westernisation. And in order to achieve that they may be ready to pay related (sunk) costs despite being intolerable to peace-maximisers.
3. Ukraine is not fighting alone but with the support of Western allies, so the outcome of their conflict with Russia depends also on the Western allies contribution during and after the war. Both Europeans and the US may be very much compelled to not let Russia win (each of them for their own strategic reasons) as much as they are compelled to not let their alliance be perceived as weaker than the anti-Western strategic alliance.
My conclusion is that no, “likely winning” for a stronger state against a weaker state is neither necessary nor sufficient for justifying aggressive or defensive wars.
Quoting boethius
I don’t find your claim fully intelligible since “trying to do so” semantically refers to an action, but in that contest it’s used as an anaphoric reference to "Ukraine has a right to join NATO" which is not an action. Anyways, let’s charitably assume that you are kind of putting in other words what you just said: i.e. “a smaller state has the same right to preemptive military action but is much harder to form a justification if it is unlikely to win” where “preemptive military action” refers to Ukraine joining NATO. I still find your argument misleading.
1. If one wants to reason according to international law, the right for Ukraine to join NATO depends EXCLUSIVELY on the conditions established by NATO and the approval of NATO members, so “being invaded, losing large amount of territory, massive economic destruction, mass exodus less likely to return the the more the war drags on, and most importantly hundreds of thousands of maimed and dead Ukrainians” don’t necessarily prevent Ukraine from satisfying the requirements of joining NATO, not exempt NATO members to recognise such a right to Ukraine, if Ukraine satisfies such requirements. Surely unresolved/persistent territorial conflicts are an hindrance to NATO accession taken into account in the accession requirements, but not territorial, demographic, infrastructural and economic losses, even when they are significative. The same goes with the Ukrainian right of self-defence against ACTUAL aggression (not hypothetical one): foreign violations of the Ukrainian territorial integrity put a legal burden on those states which acknowledged Ukrainian territorial sovereignty , including Russia. Therefore, talking about rights outside the international law or what has been acknowledged in terms of international order by relevant participants, if that’s what you are trying to do, looks rather unjustified to me.
2. If one wants to reason strategically over longer term objectives under evolving geopolitical conditions one can not discount NATIONAL interest as perceived by the concerned nation (Ukrainians and Russians, to begin with) nor discount how all other relevant players are reacting to such conflict. So defining necessary and sufficient conditions as a function of chances of winning or achieving peace as soon as possible (not even as long as possible?) based on current military capacity of the two direct belligerents, and independently from perceived national interest or other actors’ playing strategy, looks historically and strategically myopic to me.
At best, you may wish to persuade Ukrainians (not me) that it is not in their national interest to refuse to become Russian vassals. But I would be surprised if Ukrainians would find your arguments conclusive since their national identity is rooted in a historical opposition to Russian national identity and oppression. It would like to trying to convince them that the Ukrainian national interest is better served by being Russified.
Quoting boethius
If all you are saying when distinguishing arguments from “rights” and justification is that one should not conflate legal reasoning with strategic reasoning over security matters, I can agree. But then the one conflating the two is you, when you talk about Russia’s legitimate security concerns about Ukraine joining NATO, or the “right to preemptive military action” if that refers to Russia’s aggression of Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, or the genesis of this war as Western provocation. Here is why:
1. Russia may have security concerns about Ukraine joining NATO, but such fact doesn’t commit Westerners to appease Russia’s security concerns in violation of the international world order they support. Russia has no acknowledged right to have its buffer states. While acknowledging Ukrainian sovereignty commits Westerners and Russia (since Russia too acknowledged Ukrainian sovereignty) at least to refrain from pursuing unprovoked violations of Ukrainian sovereignty, or from supporting or approving unprovoked violations of Ukrainian sovereignty by foreign powers (where “unprovoked” refers to ACTUAL aggressions of one country against another, not hypothetical ones).
2. On the other side, Ukraine can justify its patriotic war against Russia, INDEPENDENTLY from legal rights to defend itself as acknowledged by others, as a function of heir perceived national interest and a multiplayer evolving geopolitical environment. So Ukraine doesn’t need to appeal to the acknowledged rights of joining NATO to justify its patriotic war against Russia, and to tolerate related costs beyond what you find acceptable. Appeal to rights to join NATO are the reason but the consequence of Ukrainian aspirations to self-determination from Russia’s oppression.
3. Concerning the genesis of this war, again it is not reasonable to justify Russia’s aggression of Ukraine according to acknowledged rights within the Western-led international order, since Russia wasn’t actually aggressed by Ukraine or the US or NATO, there is no internationally acknowledged right for preventive wars. If there was one, Russia wouldn’t need to aspire to change the Western-led world order. It is not even justified to frame Russia’s strategic choice as a function of some “provocation” by the West since all competing geopolitical players, Russia and the US included, may be security maximisers (as Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism claims) and any increase in deterrence by one country can be considered hostile or done at the expense of other countries’ security. The only counterbalance to maximalist objectives by great powers is the risk of overstretching, not the acknowledgement of rivals’ “legitimate” security concerns. In other words, there is no acknowledged legal or strategic burden on the West to appease Russia’s claims over Ukraine or tolerate Russia’s aggression of Ukraine. It’s preposterous for boxers to call out as a “provocation” a punch in the face by their adversary as if they needed a justification to punch back the adversary, the whole point for boxers is to punch each other in the face, no matter who starts first. Similarly in a world where hegemonic powers act as competing security maximisers it's preposterous to talk about “provocation” as justification of their preventive defensive moves. And that's not all, the US approach to Russia and China wasn't even far from being as hostile as Russia and pro-Russian propaganda wants to depict it. Indeed, globalization was the US strategy to push potentially hostile authoritarian countries far from confrontational logic: letting the West do business with Russia (and China) in exchange for Westernization was the US gamble to curb hegemonic competition. DO UT DES, I'll give you wealth for decades, you'll give up on competing against the US on world hegemony. The US propaganda found also a common enemy: Islamic terrorism and climate change to re-direct security concerns. That's why Russia should not have been compelled to perceive talks about Ukraine inside NATO as an unbearable act of hostility. Returning the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal to Russia was an ACTUAL act of good will from the US more than the hypothetical future scenario of Ukraine joining NATO. Unfortunately, the more Russia and China grew richer the more they got ambitious in terms of power projection (while the US got weaker). US-led globalization EMPOWERED and BOLSTERED Russia (and China) wrt the US more than any talking about NATO expansion in Ukraine could ever do. If Russia could invade Ukraine is not because of the US provocation but thanks to the US globalization.
Your emphasis about “provocation” to explain Russia is rather myopic and comes from your confused and confusing understanding of Russia’s “rights” and “legitimate” security concerns.
To summarise, as far as legal reasoning is concerned, the genesis of the war is Russia’s violation of the international order as recognized by the West (which also Russia was committed to until it violated it in 2014). As far as strategic reasoning is concerned, the genesis of the war is in Russia’s attempt to exploit an opportunity window to change power balance in its favor at the expense of the US and its allies, given the perceived weakness of the West.
Looking forward to reading your counterarguments to each of my points (I even numbered them).
Reportedly [sup](forbes)[/sup], the Ukrainian skies have been seeing old Yak-52 propellers with shotgun-wielding hangers-on chasing drones.
Ukraine is strategically lost, and from such a position there are no tactical master strokes, unconventional military strategies or 'wunderwaffen' that can conceivably turn the tide. The worse one's situation becomes, the less options one has.
I think the problem is people watch too many movies.
In the long run, we are all dead. In the meantime, if one starts from the fundamental irrationality that the wasting asset of one's life is worth spending in a good cause, then one does not give up the hopeless cause, because that alternative is worse than failure and death. And from that position one analyses the best desperate measure to take in the meantime.
Talks with the Russians / Ukrainian neutrality is a fate worse than death?
People who truly believe that are obviously brainwashed.
There were reasonable ways out of this conflict, and Ukrainian leadership, being so foolish as to take orders from the West and their double agenda, refused them all.
There's nothing heroic about that. It's folly. Though the deaths of so many men is tragic to be sure.
Yeah, of course; didn't you know? Any compromise at all is worse than death.
Quoting Tzeentch
War is always folly, and always a tragedy. Come to that, human life is mainly folly and tragedy. But allowing tyrants to triumph is no less foolish and tragic than warring against them.
I must say that i find the fact that The Great Dictator's ambitions have been thwarted for 3 years by a professional comedian rather wonderful. A picture painted in blood, but that is unfortunately the kind of picture we dictators enjoy. If only Putin could have been laughed out of Ukraine!
The idea of invading a country to ensure its neutrality is something worthy of the British Empire. Akin to enslaving a people to liberate them from their savagery.
Quoting unenlightened
The "imperialist expansion" narrative lost all its credibility literally one month into the war.
Russia spent over a decade trying to find a compromise with the West vis-á-vis Ukraine, and was continuously cold-shouldered by the West that perceived it as being weak enough to disregard. Even Minsk - an attempt at peace - was admitted by the West to have been agreed upon in bad faith and treated as an armistice to buy time for arming Ukraine.
Even after the invasion of 2022 started, the Russians were still looking to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table and showed little to no territorial ambitions.
But maybe your comment was a joke that flew over my shoulder. Such things tend to translate poorly via text.
It was you that suggested that Ukraine was supposed to be neutral. If that is not the justification for the invasion, then it can only be that Ukraine is supposed to be part of Russia.
I would say that Ukraine was supposed to be independent. That is what we seem to disagree about.
That the Russians desire a neutral Ukraine is something that they've told us consistently over the course of some 15 years, and it's something they reiterated even after the invasion started.
It was part of the agreement reached between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul in March/April 2022.
So there is plenty of evidence that suggests that it indeed was the question of Ukrainian neutrality that formed Russia's principal justification to invade.
Quoting unenlightened
I wouldn't disagree with that, actually.
The difference is that I don't see anything that is happening today as bringing Ukraine closer to that goal. NATO membership wouldn't constitute independence, even more so considering Ukraine is now so indebted to the West and corporations like BlackRock that it couldn't repay that debt in a hundred years.
What Ukraine had to do to remain independent is what it did up to 2014. It had to maintain good relations with both sides.
In 2014 it made the critical error of jumping in bed with the US.
And well, as I've said here before, jumping in bed with a crocodile to protect oneself from the crocodile across the border makes no sense at all.
Geopolitically they failed, and the US & Cronies ensured it would not be allowed to reverse it.
But that, according to you, was the result of an US-backed coup, wasn't it?
How can it be both a US operation and a mistake?
I dare say Ukraine would like a neutral Russia too. It seems to me that you nor Russia can understand what 'independent' means. It means you don't have to get what you want all the time from everyone.
Meanwhile, blasting civilians (again) seems an unusual way of "liberating" them. Wouldn't the invading forces expect a negative attitude towards them?
Quoting Tzeentch
Not independence from NATO, no. (Unless they were to cancel such a membership again.)
The Baltics have (happily) chosen, Finland and Sweden freely chose, the Moldovans are jittery.
You can't speak of independence, without the independence for them to choose.
The term 'vassal' is often used to describe exactly that: a country that is allowed to govern its own domestic politics, but is expected to fall in line with the suzerian when it comes to foreign politics.
That describes the majority of NATO countries, including mine, accurately. (Ironically, it even describes the position of the American people inside the US - you're free to bicker over gender neutral bathrooms or which clown runs the White House, but in terms of foreign politics you have no say whatsoever).
What Ukraine did up until 2014 was true independence, and true independence relies on a proper understanding of geopolitics, and more often than not on the skillful use of diplomacy.
"True independence" is doing what Russia wants, and if you are so foolish as not be "truly independent". Russia will come and liberate you, and give you free access to their language and government as well. Now I understand.
It would seem the Netherlands’ whole history would have had to be radically different in the 20th century for it to have a more powerful/independent position. Its neutrality in WW1 and it’s not increasing its military defense in the lead up to WW2 made it an easy target for the Nazis to take over and thus have the Americans and Allies liberate and thus be subordinate to to some extent in relying in its independence and defense, even more so after WW2 and the Soviet desire to increase its influence. Its path towards integration with Belgium, France, and Germany in the European Union has made it an integrationist nation. Being that it is surrounded by bigger nations, this makes sense. It also makes economic sense to combine forces on trade. Brexit for example, seems to have hurt the UK’s economy.
I think today's loss of independence started with end of the Cold War. That's when NATO and Europe's position with regards to the US fundamentally changed and Europe failed to notice (or noticed too late).
Before the end of the Cold War, the US couldn't afford to have weak, corrupt allies in Europe. After the Cold War that became the goal. Corrupt, porous democracies are easy to influence, and militarily weak nations are needy and pliant.
In my opinion, this loss of independence is primarily a result of US soft power, and therefore is largely a psychological phenomenon. Nonetheless, it is a psychological phenomenon that is difficult to reverse.
Keep in mind, it's perfectly possible to be a part of NATO, or even a great power's sphere of influence, and still maintain a high degree of independence, but that requires a robust, non-corrupt politicial system and skilled politicians. That's the main issue in the Netherlands currently.
Quoting unenlightened
You are purposefully misconstruing my argument. If a weak country wants to be and remain independent, it must play its cards right. This is just the reality of geopolitics. And yes, sometimes that means placating the gorilla next door.
The suggestion that Ukraine was a slave to Russia prior to 2014 is just patently false. Its presidents manoeuvred between both sides, and did so fairly skillfully.
The problems arose when Ukraine's skillful diplomacy no longer suited Uncle Sam's agenda.
By the way, democracy rights transparency freedom -versus- regression opacity authoritarianism oppression, has come up a few times in the thread (plus proliferation thereof).
Maybe return once Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Sweden Netherlands et al cancel their NATO memberships?
Quoting Tzeentch
Here's what they wanted (again):
Quoting Euromaidan
I vaguely remember reading about some old-school Donbas separatists. They had this old dream of their own country (well, or two), that they could craft on a path of their own. Not on offer from the Kremlin, either.
I guess my point regarding the moves made in the 20th century is that sometimes being neutral or doing very little to increase spending, resources, and troops is the wrong policy. For example, not putting enough into defense prior to WW2 created a very weak and easily defeated Netherlands that was either going to remain under Nazi control or be saved by the Allied countries. Luckily it was the latter. But the position of low military spending relative to other European countries has remained, and thus it's only position is to be integrationist, not independent. It relies on the military support of others, and has no standing in regards to its hard power other than small support roles like it did in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Granted, it’s a much smaller nation than other European countries, but then, there’s part of your answer. Whether it’s an excuse or just the reality, you can interpret in different ways.
It's the same old song: the US overthrows a democratically elected government for 'reasons' and then proceeds to create a mess several times larger, leaving the country in ruins.
You'd think that clear-minded people would wisen up to the charade at some point.
Widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations and oligarchs - , does this remind you of any nation?
Because to me this sounds exactly like the United States. :lol:
That's how we role.
Quoting Revolution of Dignity
Quoting Aug 11, 2024
But then few outside the Baltic States and former Warsaw Pact countries could fathom how belligerent and utterly insane Russia would be with starting wars annexing territories from it's neighbors.
One truly has to simply totally sideline the actual delusional rhetoric that has been repeated in this war. Perhaps people would understand just how crazy it is if we would assume that the prime minister of UK would have similar rhetoric of "All the people of the British Isles should historically and by all logic be part of the same nation" and that the Republic of Ireland is simply an "artificial state" and it should naturally be part of the UK and it's independence has been a huge tragedy. Now a British politician truly saying something like that would be considered insane and briskly removed from office due to his apparent mental problems. Or perhaps an Austrian politician make the argument that Hungary and Austria should become one again.
But with Russia, this is totally natural and actually insignificant for those that want to see absolutely everything in the World just happening because of the evil US. But that's the repeated arguments for hundreds of pages now.
Yet the Ukrainian attack into Kursk shows that evidently the war isn't over.
War? There is merely an anti-terror operation in Kursk :wink:
Reportedly the russian military is using a mixture of conscripts, units from the strategic reserve and battle hardened units from other fronts to counter the Ukrainian thrust.
That seems sensible in purely military terms, though using conscripts is politically risky. It'll be interesting to see whether combat on this front if going to look significantly different from what we've mostly seen due to the absence of mines and heavy fortifications.
Not at all at this stage. Just look that they aren't from Moscow of St Petersburgh. And the fighting is in Russia.
Quoting Echarmion
It makes sense from the Ukrainians if it lures Russian troops away from where they are focusing their assaults.
I'm not denying the Ukrainians anything, though it would be pretty silly to expect NATO or EU membership to magically change Ukraine into a functional state.
Anywho, the one who denied the Ukrainians agency is the Ukrainians themselves, when they made the remarkably foolish decision to put their security in the hands of Washington, crossing known Russian red lines while doing so. That was honestly pretty fucking dumb.
Quoting jorndoe
Reality reflects poorly on the West. One doesn't need to be a Kremlin propagandist to deliver scathing, accurate criticism of our conduct in this conflict.
I mean I agree with all of this. I am not sure why a poster's hatred for the US and its inevitable hegemony after the Cold War would lead to rooting for Russian aggression. What's the end game for such a person? They want to see the rise of Russian hegemony to counter it? But why? What good would authoritarianism do, even if one disagreed with policies from the US. At some point, one must account that even if there are no "good guys", there are certainly "better guys", and Russia ain't that.
It is a fallacy to think that because the US made bad decisions like overthrowing Mosaddeq in the Cold War, THUS the current Iranian regime is fine and dandy because it represents anti-US interests. Only when the US makes the "right" decision (like freeing Western Europe from the Nazis) one can like them, but any bad decision makes them irreconcilably no good any more, and thus one must align with far worse actors on the world stage? Sounds like slightly sociopathic thinking, at the least schizophrenic. Certainly, it's not realistic if you are from a country that barely spends on military. In that case, put in or shut up, might be the most appropriate thing to say.
In a world where everything that happens is a US plot, there is no russian aggression though. It's just an inevitable reflex of US machinations. In such a world, your only choices are to be a "US stooge" or to grind your teeth and make common cause with your strongest neighbors to try and resist the US. There are no "better guys", there's the USA and there's everyone else.
I'm not quite clear on why, in such a world, anyone would choose to not be a "US stooge", given that they all seem to be doing fine, while the alternative seems to be being targeted by coups and embroiled in wars.
Are the Russians trembling now that Finland and Sweden joined NATO? Maybe the Kremlin circle is trembling, though it's of a different kind.
The EU presents a carrot, the Kremlin presents a stick, the Ukrainians have chosen.
Ukraine and Russia trade accusations over fire at occupied nuclear plant
[sup]— Tom Balmforth, Yuliia Dysa, Andrew Cawthorne, Josie Kao · Reuters · Aug 11, 2024[/sup]
Fire at cooling tower of Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
[sup]— AFP · Aug 11, 2024[/sup]
Whatever is going on, it would be reassuring if the on-site IAEA personnel had done a close inspection and reported. (Or...was it a CIA plot?)
EDIT: links and such
Well, Nazism and Communism led to American hegemony. When Communism fell in the Soviet Union, you had Yugoslavian breakup, ethnic wars in Africa, communist or narco-capitalist nations in Latin America, the Middle Eastern mess, and the rise of China. What became of the Soviet Union became an oligopoly that then coalesced into neo-tzarism under the character of Vladimir Putin. So, if you want to call it being a "stooge" to be the better option out of Tzarism, Chinese Communism, or Political Islam, then go right ahead, but your case just strengthens why it's best to ally with the US over the rest.
Kiev is not a victim. It made its choices, and carries the responsibility for the consequences. It chose poorly and is now paying the price.
That's geopolitics for you. This isn't your average lefty echo chamber where terms like 'victim blaming' are used non-facetiously.
Neither is Russia, you piece of pro-Russian propaganda.
Quoting Tzeentch
In a philosophy forum, that's a more fair and humble sport than spinning pro-Russian propaganda with a smug posture of expertise in everything that matters in this discussion. And that's what you're doing.
Apparently there have been new incursions across the border, too. Russian officials are apparently worried about a similar attack into Belgorod, though I'd assume the russian defenders there are better prepared since they're already actively fighting in this sector.
Still no clear indication of any strategic goal on the ground. There's no apparent push towards Kursk, which makes sense since that's way too ambitious given that available forces are probably fairly limited.
Might still be as simple as forcing the russian military to flatten their own villages in order to dislodge the Ukrainians.
Learned indifference
[sup]— Kirill Martynov · Novaya Gazeta Europe · Jul 20, 2024[/sup]
(the original report, "We Have to Live Somehow" (Jul 8, 2024), by the Public Sociology Laboratory is in Russian)
Apparently, the Russians' concerns are different than the Kremlin circle's "existential threat". The new NATO joiners don't seem to have made much difference.
I'll venture to guess that the Kremlin's concern is simple enough or otherwise straightforward: Control over (parts of) Ukraine, backed by geo-political-power-military aspirations (perhaps with a sense of entitlement/ownership) — well, something along those lines. For example, they've more or less had free reins concerning Crimea, despite it being part of Ukraine. Attempts to change conditions on Ukraine's part or potential loss of control on the Kremlin's part could then elicit whatever response from the Kremlin, with little mind to legalities (or involved parties), and warring is a "natural solution" for them. Russia-wide, at least many are more likely to see the Ukrainians as old southwestern friends with cool vacation spots. Add, say, Putinian indignation with the EU for not swiftly extending cooperation without reservation. Putin's sentiment towards Ukrainian EU membership has gone here and there (the EU isn't military). Thus, in a way, since Ukraine is a sovereign country, the Kremlin's attitudes themselves were already on a collision course from early on.
Quoting Address by the President of the Russian Federation · The Kremlin, Moscow · Feb 21, 2022
Quoting Tzeentch
(Who's being bombed again?)
I guess, by such logic, Japan had Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? coming, some 79 years ago (with a difference of not being a land grab). "That’s geopolitics for you."
Anyway, I thought you blamed the US for it all.
There's an obvious distinction between a country and its government, and its civilian population. Countries and governments are not victims, since they are seldom innocent. Kiev made a calculated gamble and it didn't work out. It should not play the victim card but take responsibility for its failed foreign policy.
Quoting jorndoe
Not for it all. Just for the lion's share.
[sup](Say, the US didn't try to do away with Nihongo, either.)[/sup]
So?
Quoting Tzeentch
Could an Istanbul Deal Have Brought Peace?
[sup]— Andreas Umland · Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies · Jun 24, 2024[/sup]
Not sure what point you believe you're making here.
Decisive results that could justify the expenditure of vast amounts of men and materiel so far seem nowhere to be found.
This lack of decisive results makes it difficult for analysts to determine what the intended goal of the operation may have been.
Possibilities include:
- 'Spreading the Russians thin', ergo a diversionary attack to relieve pressure of the Donetsk front.
- Gathering chips for negotiations
- Occupying the Kursk nuclear power plant
- PR / Propaganda purposes
Of these, I find the last two options to be the most plausible.
'Spreading the Russians thin' is questionable on several levels. First of, to spread the enemy one must also spread their own forces, which, given Ukraine's position on the battlefield, is not something they can afford. Furthermore, Russian gains in south-eastern Ukraine continue unabated.
In terms of Ukraine's negotiating position, this has probably done the opposite of strengthening it. There's virtually zero chance the Russians would even consider negotiations while the Ukrainians hold as much as a millimetre of Russian territory. Furthermore, it has given the Russians an excuse to tighten the thumbscrews and increase their war goals.
The Kursk nuclear power plant seems to be the only item of strategic value in the Kursk region which may justify an offensive. The direction at which the Ukrainians have advanced seems to imply this as its possible target. Even so, it's unclear what the plan would have been after capturing this power plant, since the chances of Ukraine holding onto it for long would have been virtually zero, unless they were prepared to use the nuclear plant as a form of blackmail.
Lastly, and perhaps most plausibly, this was another PR stunt, just like the previous Ukrainian offensive - to show both domestic and foreign audiences that the war is not yet lost.
Time will tell.
Regardless of intended goals, what are the actual consequences?
The offensive follows the modern pattern of defense-in-depth, in which the initial offensive drive is not stopped but instead allowed to penetrate until it has ran out of steam and given clues towards its intended direction. A lack of strategic significance of the Kursk region allows the Russians this option. Meanwhile, scouts, light infantry and tripwire forces focus on attriting the offensive's manoeuvre elements.
In other words, regardless of how media may try to spin this, this offensive seems to follow regular patterns of how modern armies deal with offensives. If this offensive came as a surprise, there was likely already contingency planning in place to limit the damage. It's even possible the Russians were aware that this offensive was coming. Alexander Mercouris claims an unnamed source spoke of an attack like this two weeks before it happened, though that remains uncorroborated.
This offensive does however provide the Russians with an opportunity to attrit the Ukrainian armies' manoeuvre elements that were previously held in reserve. Media reports suggest the Ukrainians indeed are suffering heavy losses in terms of manpower and materiel. That is not necessarily strange for an offensive, since they are almost always very costly affairs, but it's also precisely the reason why an offensive must achieve decisive results.
Much in line with the apparent balance of power, this offensive is unlikely to change anything in Ukraine's favor. In fact, it seems counterproductive on many levels: expending one's crack divisions and manoeuvre elements on a strategically irrelevant region while elsewhere the frontline is collapsing seems foolish.
But perhaps the main problem for Ukraine is that this offensive into Russia makes negotiations virtually impossible. This further undermines the Ukraine's/the West's credibility in peace negotiations, which has already been tarnished by the fiasco in early to mid 2022.
And personally, that's what I believe the goal of this operation was: to make peace impossible for the foreseeable future.
We must ask the age old question:"Cui bono?" and there is of course only one actor that desires perpetual war in Eastern Europe: the United States.
Edit: correction, a European arrest warrant.
Nord-Stream-Sabotage: Ermittler suchen nach mutmaßlichem ukrainischen Täter
Nord Stream sabotage: Investigators search for suspected Ukrainian perpetrator
[sup]— Kurier · Aug 14, 2024[/sup]
However, the idea that the Ukrainian general staff, with two and a half years of experience in modern warfare, would plan a major offensive with no strategic goal seems rather fanciful.
I've recently listened to a German general who has quite convincingly argued that a "PR campaign" is not a military objective and the idea that the Ukrainian general staff would conduct a major offensive for PR reasons is absurd. Nor would any reasonable commander assume that their opponent is going to act exactly as they expected. Rather, it's reasonable to assume the Ukrainian general staff has a detailed plan for the offensive that includes specific military goals, and that they are aware of obvious risks.
Which goals those are is not public, but it should be noted that Kursk Oblast is not some purely domestic idyll, but rather a major staging ground for russian artillery and air forces.
Quoting Benkei
If there's a court case, we should be pretty close to getting at least some detailed information about who did what and their connections. That probably won't go as far as directly establishing any government responsibility though.
The best argument for it being a non-state operation, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's just a really odd move. The only party it could have really been aimed at is the German government, but there was never any indication that the German government would significantly diverge from the European consensus.
Does it really matter? Those who believe that the Great Satan is the main responsible for it all, no matter what the “official” version is, won’t be shaken by recent news. On the other side, if the US (or other countries like the UK and Poland) actually supported Ukrainian sabotage of Nordstream or were complicit in hiding the truth, the operation may have been conceived and executed in such a way to grant Western institutional figures plausible deniability.
What I think it would be honest to acknowledge at this point is that Ukrainians have means and motivation to hit Russian infrastructures and other relevant targets outside Ukraine e.g. inside Russia, in the Black Sea, in Africa, in the Middle East without necessarily having the US consent given the problem of Russian red lines or even Ukrainian/Western moles.
Second, this will result in claims and for most people it will affect their willingness to support Ukraine. If the US was involved (and Poland) then the claims will go there and it will deteriorate trust for future operations.
I think Sweden actually stopped the investigations. Which I found quite telling.
I'm thinking more and more that this was a panic of the Biden administration or then really an Ukrainian effort. Or then both.
Of course now with Ukrainians holding a Russian city with the gas pipeline (and even earlier), Ukraine has had this dilemma: it's totally in their interest to attack key economic targets like the pipelines that Russia has, but that has quite a lot of international effects, also to those countries that support it. This is again the problem when Germany, for example, is aiding Ukraine but not part of the actual conflict.
Well, Germany has been quite clueless. At least Finland hasn't. Now when the border is closed and all trade has stopped, it's been really devastating for the border municipalities here in Finland. But there's no whining, on the contrary, people there say that earlier they were (and Finns in general) were too naive when it came to Putin's Russia.
They then thought that it was an ordinary country that would want to have good economic ties with it's neighbors and that there would be normal relations, just like Finland has with Sweden or Norway.
Well, Siberia teaches, as the saying goes.
I welcome the clarification but it’s beside the point I was making. Notice that I didn’t write that Nordstream is Russian infrastructure, I just wrote “Russian infrastructures and other relevant targets outside Ukraine”, the point being that if Russia owns 51% of Nordstream, namely an infrastructure that is meant to bypass Ukraine, benefit Russian business, and to hook Germany with Russia’s gas supply, then Nordstream may still be relevant target for Ukraine to hit, even more so if the US protector has protested so much and so clearly about it.
Quoting Benkei
To me that sounds more plausible for Germany than for other European countries. However German officials’ declarations do not seem to support your views: [I]“The results of the investigation into the explosions of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream-2 gas pipelines do not yet change Germany's commitment to providing further support to Ukraine, German government spokesperson Wolfgang Buechner has told a news briefing in Berlin. He noted that the investigation into the acts of sabotage against the gas pipelines was being carried out in accordance with the applicable legal procedure. The investigation will have no effect on whether Germany will continue to support Ukraine in the future and, if so, to what extent. As Buechner recalled, the Prosecutor General's Office is in charge of the investigation with a "criminal component" and it "has nothing to do with the fact that, as the German Chancellor has repeatedly said, Germany will support Ukraine as long as necessary.”[/I] (https://tass.com/world/1829177)
Anyways, my conjecture is that the risk of alienating Germany’s support was all too obvious to ignore by those who planned the sabotage and if institutional figures were involved it’s unlikely they went for it without suitable alibis. You may very well remember how many people Zelensky has fired from his own entourage (including domestic and foreign intelligence officials), so I do wonder if among those, there might be conspirators of the Nordstream sabotage. I wouldn’t even discount the possibility that powerful interest groups like the Ukrainian gas industry oligarchs (who can even own private militia) may have played a significant role in this sabotage.
BTW it is also claimed the Ukrainian saboteurs left from Rostock (in Germany) so what if they also got some support from within Germany?
How long is Russia going to tolerate Ukraine occupying a chunk of their country?
Quoting Tzeentch
Japan had Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? coming?
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Not geopolitics for you? (there's a question there)
Suspect. When it's the Kremlin, it's reduced to geopolitics, heck they're defending themselves (i.e. excused), and hardly otherwise mentioned ("invisible"), despite their bombing, shamming, etc. When the Ukrainians + supporters are fighting to take back parts of Ukraine, then it's another matter, be it evil US deep state theories, Kyiv to blame, ... And Hiroshima + Nagasaki ? 1945...not geopolitics for you?
Quoting Aug 13, 2024
It's understandable what the Kremlin wants, and, understandably, it's not theirs to have. A middle ground deal — whatever is compatible with international law — seems hard to come by, from early on at that, and now animosity has (understandably) grown.
Quoting David Cameron · ‘High time for peace’, UN chief says, as Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine enters third year · The UN · Feb 23, 2024
Regress.
, at least there are some concrete suspects, though they're long gone.
If you believe I 'excuse' the Kremlin you're simply not reading my comments.
My continual point is that Washington and the Kremlin are two apples of the same shit tree.
Because you cannot handle the fact that I view Washington as the same type of cold-blooded, calculating reptile as the Kremlin, you, just like many others here, feel like you must go looking for inconsistencies where there are none.
It's all very snooze inducing. When you all are done coping and ready to make some real arguments let me know.
US warned Ukraine not to sabotage Nord Stream after MIVD alert (June, 2023)
They're expecting us to believe it was the US that tried to stop Ukraine from sabotaging Nord Stream, when it obviously was the US that orchestrated the whole thing. (Having given us both their stated intent and a clear motive)
Supposedly Zaluzhny was in charge of the operation, and Zelensky was kept out of the loop.
How convenient, considering at the time of the article they were trying to replace Zaluzhny, which has now left the public arena - no accountability there.
No one in their right mind should believe this bullshit.
Whether the physical deed was done by US assets or Ukrainian assets is largely irrelevant. There's only one party that benefits from the sabotage - the United States, and all of this scapegoating of Ukraine is just 'plausible deniability' / false trail spin.
There are two problems with this story.
One is that the German government permanently suspended the certification of the pipeline following the invasion, and there is no evidence this decision was ever about to be reversed. Certainly September 2022 is a very weird timing if you're supposedly worried about Russian gas supply to Europe. On 14th September, the German chancellor, after talks with Putin, stated that he saw no change in Russian attitude. On September 21, Putin announced partial mobilisation. On September 27, Russia announced the annexation of three Ukrainian Oblasts. So the conflict was deepening, and there was zero sign of any improvement in relations.
Edit: I wrongly remembered Nordstream 1 was not affected, but it was.
The second and arguably bigger problem is that Russia has already unilaterally reduced gas deliveries via Nord Stream 1, and completely stopped them on August 31.
Really the most salient thing about the attack on Nord Stream is that it's confusing. And this suggests that either it wasn't done for any of the obvious motives or that we're missing some relevant information.
In the near future Russia will take possession of everything the US military and NATO shipped to Ukraine. (— Kim Dotcom · Aug 14, 2024)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1823767242913583388[/tweet]
I suppose, had Ukrainian support been more decisive, then the concern might not have been much of a factor later. Easy to say in retrospect. And sort of strategically prepared for by the Kremlin.
:up:
Quoting Dec 28, 2022
Quoting Aug 15, 2024
[sup]— Stuart Lau, Zoya Sheftalovich · POLITICO · Aug 15, 2024[/sup]
Ukrainian military officers came up with idea of blowing up Nord Stream pipeline 'during night of heavy boozing', ignored Zelensky's pleas not to go ahead, and set off blast that 'qualifies as attack on NATO', bombshell report claims
[sup]— David Averre · Daily Mail · Aug 15, 2024[/sup]
So apparently the WSJ has published a report, based on 4 anonymous military sources, that the plot to blow up Nord Stream 2 was hatched by some Ukrainian officers during a drunken celebration in may 2022 and initially received Zelensky's blessing. That blessing was later retracted, but allegedly General Zaluzhniy went ahead anyways.
"We got the idea while drunk" would certainly address the issue of motive, though why Zelensky would have given it the go-ahead and why Zaluzhniy would have felt compelled to go through with it against orders is less clear.
It does sound like the kind of story that sounds believable because it comes with a lot of situational details, but that doesn't actually make it more likely in statistical terms.
Really it just seems to shift the confusion from "what benefit does destroying an inactive and politically poisonous pipeline have?" to "why would the Ukrainian leadership decide to just blow up a pipeline on a whim?".
I call bullshit because it's too convenient to have all these details become available within 24 hours of it becoming definitive at least one Ukrainian is suspected.
It's wait and see again.
Right, I falsely remembered that NS 1 was merely shut off by the Russians and only NS 2 was affected.
Another odd thing about the timing of the attack: it happened about a month after Russia unilateraly suspended deliveries, which meant that neither pipeline was actually operational at the time.
You couldn't make this shit up. It's like they're purposefully trying to humiliate Germany at this point.
If the question is “which country was behind it”, I find it very much possible that Ukrainians were behind it, on their own initiative, not on Great Satan’s. But it seems unlikely they really did it all alone given that the attack started from within Germany and the infrastructure was of strategic relevance particularly to Germany, while other Western countries (like the US and Poland) were against Nordstream II.
I think that the economic reason of “losing their investments” is pretty compelling but not that compelling: Western investments were spread across different Western companies, damage to Nordstream II wasn’t beyond repair, private investments might have been somehow compensated (even having the Nordstream II functional but unused is still loss of ROI), and most of all, economic reasons can be overcome by security concerns.
What would be embarrassing for Western officials in the eyes of public opinion is if Western and Ukrainian officials were involved. That’s why we should expect they worked on plausible deniability, and will likely keep it as an inside conflict as long as needed in case there might be reason for disagreement. Actually there is something of a pattern here: indeed, how many Ukrainian operations which Western officials publicly disapproved of did already happen? Maybe Nordstream II was just among the first ones. And let’s not forget that Western officials are not only pressed by Western public opinions but also by the Russian escalatory logic (after all Nord Stream II was 51% Russian as you reported). So Westerners may be enabling or even just assenting to Ukrainians all along with these "controversial" operations while withholding the extent of their support from the public mostly to circumvent the Russian red line logic as long as needed.
ENTRETIEN. Guerre en Ukraine : "Humilié, Poutine devient l’otage de ses propres mensonges" (en)
[sup]— La Dépêche · Aug 15, 2024[/sup]
What are you waiting for, exactly?
The US to come out and say they did it? Wait and see what they write in the history books twenty years from now?
If what you are waiting for is conclusive evidence, that's just not how this type of thing works. Clandestine operations are set up with the express purpose of being nigh impossible to conclusively find out who did it, and thus they provide 'plausible deniability' to the perpetrator.
This 'sitting and waiting' reflex seems to be a form of intellectual paralysis, brought on by the fog of war and continuous propaganda campaigns. It's actually one of the goals of information warfare to bring the adversary into that state of mind, in which case it is called strategic paralysis. It hadn't occured to me until now that this also happens to domestic audiences.
Don't get me wrong. I get the reflex out of intellectual rigor, and usually reserving judgement is the 'correct' thing to do, but in this case it's exactly where the propagandist wants you to be.
I don't see where you get the idea that I'm reducing security concerns to invasion. Obviously invasion is topical for this discussion, but there are plenty of other security concerns as well. For example, between the US and Russia, the main security concern would be a nuclear war.
Quoting neomac
As I've explained many times, "legitimacy" is a concept that is useful in the context of a negotiation, to denote where your own side sees (or you're arguing should see) the other side as having a point needing to be addressed in some way. I often used the example of detectives trying to get information from a criminal. If the criminal demands a coffee, his right to outside time being respected, and a flying horse, the detectives may conclude between themselves that the coffee and the outside time is a legitimate concern, they should address those if they want the criminal to cooperate, but the flying horse is illegitimate and they'll just have to deny that request.
If the detectives don't want anything from the criminal, they are unlikely to care as much, if at all, about the criminals concerns.
The main thing you are still unable to see is that you cannot go from "rights" or "concerns", of one kind or another, to justifications.
"A right" and "a concern" are one aspect of the situation, if we on our side of a conflict or dispute recognize that the other side does have a legitimate right or legitimate concern then that simply indicates to ourselves that we'll need to pay attention to this aspect of the situation and likely need to address it in a robust way, compared to what we view as illegitimate which can just be dismissed offhand (such as a criminal demanding a flying horse). If you go into a court of law or a negotiation recognizing the counter-party does indeed have a legitimate right or concern, the judge will naturally expect you to address in a sophisticated way and then go onto explain that on the whole that legitimacy on those points are insufficient to make their case and your case is the one that is justified.
For example, in contract disputes it is pretty common that both parties have broken the contract in one and usually several areas, and each side will then argue the other side did it first, did it worse, did it intentionally, caused more damages, didn't reasonable address the issue once emerged, didn't negotiate the contract correctly to begin with, didn't secure the appropriate insurance, didn't amend the understanding correctly on the fly which should have been triple stamped and signed in blood with a notary present, etc. etc. etc.
Legitimacy is simply the opposing demarkation to bullshit. If you receive a longwinded demand from a scummy lawyer, the first thing you'll want to do is separate the legitimate points from the bullshit, either born from incompetence or expressly designed to waste your time (usually its both simultaneously), and then come up with robust arguments that address the legitimate points and witty retorts and dismissals to the bullshit if address them at all.
Quoting neomac
No where have I equated justification with military victory.
Fighting under impossible odds can be justified, but the situation must be extreme.
To argue an action is justified requires arguing the likely consequences are acceptable and preferable. So, to attack your kidnappers with 100 to 1 odds of prevailing over being shot in the head, requires more than the right of self defence to justify, you must argue that the likely result of being dead is preferable to continuing to be captive. Obviously you prefer that 1% of chance of taking down your captors with improvised kung fu, but your action is only justified if you are also content with the far more likely result of being dead. To make things more morally concrete, not just a "you" thing, the situation is that attacking your captors will likely result in you and the other captives you're with also being shot in the head.
If your decision is based purely on the "feeling" that somehow you'll prevail against what you have no problem recognizing is 100 to 1 odds, and you yourself have no problem recognizing the captors will simply leave once they've done robbing the place, then that's just magical thinking that gets people killed for no justifiable reason. However, if the captors are likely to torture, rape and the murder everyone whatever happens, then those 100 to 1 odds are looking pretty good.
Vis-a-vis Ukraine, one can simply argue that land ownership is more important than anything else and it is better to fight to the death than give-up 1m^2 of land. As I and @Isaac made very clear, we obviously don't share that view.
However, even on this premise that fighting to the death for land with low odds of victory is justifiable, it does not somehow just magically justify forcing people into fighting, taking away their right to freedom of movement, taking away their right to free elections and a free press and a due process and pretty much every other right they previously had (however poorly implemented in the pervasively corrupt state of Ukraine).
As I've said many times, if Ukrainians (the individual soldiers) were really fighting of their own choice without coercion with more-or-less correct understanding of the situation, knowing the low odds of success, then I wouldn't have much of a problem and wouldn't have much of an argument. Obviously we could still argue whether that really is a justified position or not, still argue about the strategic military choices, and so on, but if it really was a case of "Ukrainians want to fight"; the situation would be tragic but there would be little to really argue about.
However, when the power of the state is used to corrupt people's understanding with propaganda (both Ukraine and Western governments), a flood of external and contingent (on doing what the West wants) money is bribing the elites in effective control of the state, take away people's rights, coerce them to the front lines, and the end result is massive amounts of death and suffering and nothing to show for it, then there's plenty to take issue with.
The narrative of "Ukrainians want to fight" that's brought out whenever the terrible consequences (slip through the cracks of state propaganda) is just more state propaganda to dull the senses of Westerners who step back a moment from the cheerleading and get uncomfortable with what the actual consequences of our choices are and ask obvious questions (like whether it was a good idea to rebuke Russia's offers to negotiate a liveable peace in Eastern-Europe for decades).
Quoting neomac
Right on cue, the exact propaganda I just responded to.
If there was no coercing Ukrainians to fight, then sure, let them fight. However, considering the few Ukrainians outside of Ukraine that return to fight and the many that attempt and do leave, this narrative is simply not true.
As has been repeated many times, my primary issue is with Western policy (as I'm a Westerner and I mostly affect and am responsible for Western policy) and my secondary issue is with Ukrainian policy.
Obviously "Ukrainians" clearly don't want to fight, else there wouldn't be press gangs forcing them to the front lines and there wouldn't be all the whining and bitching about needing Western nations to round up the Ukrainians (refugees from a war; which we proudly recognize the rights of refugees from every other war) who got out and needing to send them back to Ukraine and force them to the front lines.
And, obviously "Ukrainian sovereignty" is not the concern of the West or we would send our own troops to defend this important thing.
The situation is not one of sophisticated moral, political and strategic thinking, but of Western elites cynically bribing Ukrainian elites under the cover of sophisticated propaganda for Western elite purposes, to in turn exploit Ukrainians to fight and die so elites can continue to pocket said bribes.
Furthermore, losing a war now to prevent losing a war later is not sophisticated strategic thinking.
Can't respond more now, but I'll try to make time for it.
Though I agree with your basic point here, @Benkei's issue seems to be the particularly with the story about the plan to blowup the pipelines being essentially a drunken frat prank.
I think some skepticism about this particular story is warranted and seems to play into the propaganda technique of downplaying elite crimes as serendipitous, "boys will be boys" kind of thing, that elite crimes serve no agenda and aren't "really crimes" as any kindergartener might get up to similar mischief, nothing further to analyse.
In this case the drunken origin story portrays the decision to blowup the pipeline as essentially whimsical, and we can just go ahead and ignore the sophisticated planning that goes into such an operation, that there is almost zero chance Ukraine would act without the US' blessing, that Biden stated clearly they'd find a way to end the pipeline, and the immense surveillance system of the US that renders it difficult to fathom that even if Ukraine did come up and execute the plan by themselves that the US did not know about it
Which connects with your point that obviously it is a clandestine operation which we can be positive in any actionable sense that the US carried it out for all intents and purposes, either directly or then indirectly through Ukraine as a backup patsy, but if @Benkei only meant to say he'll wait and see if it was really all planned on puke stained napkin during a binge and then executed by force of willpower and cocaine alone, that seems warranted.
This is could be a planned second phase of the offensive, as securing the area would shorten the frontline and put Ukrainian troops on a more easily defensible line.
Quoting boethius
So, being a Westerner an'all, sovereignty is not a concern?
I agree with Benkei's skepticism.
In fact, I would go a step further and say the WSJ story is obviously bullshit.
What amazes is me is the fact that people are even willing to entertain such a story when it's so obvious who is responsible for this.
It's like the propaganda storm is messing with people's 'bullshit filter'.
If by "Russia" we mean the russian public, it's hard to say. Evidently Putin does not feel safe to order full mobilisation or declare a state of war. But Russia is a well established autocracy and as I said before the availble space for any opposition is small. So I don't expect any near-term effects.
Quoting RogueAI
I'm not sure, but since Putin is cultivating the image of an effective and involved war leader, failure to curb the offensive will certainly reflect badly on him.
So far Russia seems to be attempting an asymmetric strategy, where they're not pulling combat units from the front but instead pull together reserve forces while also intensifying combat in other sectors. This avoids playing to the Ukrainian playbook, but it also means it'll likely still be some days or even weeks before an effective counteroffensive can mounted in Kursk.
Quoting RogueAI
They command a significant following among the ultranationalist crowd, which is an important constituency for Putin. The Kremlin made a number of attempts to gain control over the scene, and made some examples of more vocal critics. Whenever the situation is dynamic and confusing though, the milbloggers have a bit of free reign until a new official line coalesces.
As with everything else this isn't the first time the Kremlin has had to deal with a military failure, so I doubt the current situation is enough to cause a major problem on that front.
If the AFU keep up racking successes on russian territory for a couple of weeks though, that might cause another crisis.
Before even getting to my own views on the issue of state sovereignty as an anarchist, the first problem with the sovereignty argument to justify Western policy is that it is disingenuous.
First, obviously sovereignty is of no general concern to the West: did we care about Iraqi sovereignty, Afghani sovereignty, Libyan sovereignty, Syrian sovereignty, and a long list of other countries the West has invaded, attacked, orchestrated coups and so on?
Obviously not. When the ex-CIA director was asked (in the context of discussing alleged Russian interference in US elections) if the US has meddles in other people's elections, his answer was "nium, nium, nium", and basically when we do it it's for a good cause, which obviously renders sovereignty (of others) a non-factor in formulating foreign policy.
So there's the hypocrisy which makes it impossible to take seriously any such argument in the context of Ukraine.
But, let's say we ignore all that and consider this case in a vacuum, the problem is still rapacious hypocrisy because obviously Ukrainian sovereignty is not our objective.
If it was our objective we would have sent in troops day 1 (or even before) to "stand up to Putin" and protect Ukrainian sovereignty. Which, I remind you, I'm the only one in this conversation that actually advocated that and explained the military and diplomatic steps to do it and why creating such an acute crisis is likely to work and actually less dangerous than a long war and slow slide towards nuclear war.
As I clearly stated, had NATO gone in, Russia backed down, we avoid all this death and destruction that has happened since, great! My main concern here is all the loss of lives (mostly Ukrainian, but Russian too), so if NATO did actually do it's "democracy defending" and avoided all or most of that loss of life, great.
Now, the reason such a policy was unthinkable is not nuclear war, that would be fairly easy to avoid in a confrontation (as Russian elites don't want to be nuked either), but rather such an acute crisis would focus attention and make clear that the only resolution possible would be diplomatic, resulting in not-a-long-war (and so not-a-long-war-profiteering) and thus exactly the kind of "new European security architecture" that Russia was asking for, such as a neutral Ukraine.
You could not have an acute crisis without even the Western media getting serious about it and the only options some negotiated resolution (such as the Cuban missile crisis) and thus Russia getting some of what it wants, such as neutral Ukraine, protection for the Russian speakers, at least token rebuke and commitment to "do something" about actual literal Nazis. For, if there was direct confrontation the propaganda of "we can't negotiate with the Russians, that's up to Ukraine, we're not going to 'go around them' " could not possibly apply, and Western negotiation positions can only be so stupid, but not stupider.
It is only as long as only Ukrainians are doing most of the dying that attention can be obtuse and the propaganda of don't-negotiate, unquestioned Ukrainian just cause ("unprovoked") and drip-feed weapons and so on, can be fed to the public without any criticism in the mainstream media.
Now, we can get into all the apologetics of why Ukraine matters but not that much if you wish, but if we go ahead and assume one or another apologetics argument for not going and defending this sacred sovereignty ourselves manages to work and therefore all we can do is send arms and various covert means.
Well why not send all the arms then? Why have this drip feed of weapons systems over more than 2 years? If Ukrainian sovereignty matters (just not so much as to go ourselves) well why not send the good stuff from day one?
The answer is that the concern is not Ukrainian sovereignty but the policy is to try to damage the Russians using Ukraine as a tool to do so.
But the problems don't end there. If Ukrainian sovereignty (i.e. independent free action) is important, why do you have zero concern for the sovereignty of individual Ukrainians to choose not to fight in the war? How does forcing and coercing individual Ukrainians to the front lines to fight for some sort of abstract "Ukrainian state" right to free action make any sense?
And especially if the support for the war is coming from the right, what happened to "So they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first," and yet when Ukrainian men look to themselves and their families first and don't want to sacrifice themselves for "society" ... well, I guess fuck them is the pro-war rightist message today.
And that only scratches the surface. All in the name of the non-existent "society" that is Ukraine, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of movement, due process, free elections must all be jettisoned to prop up what is now a totalitarian state all in the name of freedom.
The idea what is happening is about "sovereignty" is so hypocritically idiotic it is difficult to even formulate the idea in the mind's eye long enough to write down what's wrong with it.
Well then we definitely agree.
Quoting Tzeentch
:chin:
One wonders how an incursion into a strategically irrelevant region of Russia at the cost of vast amounts of men and materiel plus the collapse of the Donbas front would remotely bolster morale, but alas the Ukrainian side has long since passed from the realm of rationality.
Do you read what you write? I got it from your own statements which I quoted and highlighted for you (here again: [I]“You cannot invade the US from Ukraine.”[/I]). You are FOCUSING on a hypothetical scenario where Russia invades the US from Ukraine. Why? Because you want us to compare such scenario with the hypothetical scenario where the US invades Russia from Ukraine once Ukraine is inside NATO. How should we logically infer from such a comparison that Russia has “legitimate” security concerns?! And Russia is “justified” to invade Ukraine?! And therefore we should somehow appease Russia?! None of this logically follows, RIGHT? My charitable guess is that if you feel compelled to get to these conclusions from “you cannot invade the US from Ukraine” this is because you are drawing your conclusions also from hidden and uncritically accepted premises. So I’m challenging you to make them explicit. More on this in the following comments.
Quoting boethius
And from what concrete context of negotiation results that Russia’s security concerns are “legitimate”? You are not a negotiator between the US, Ukraine and Russia, are you? And I'm aware of no negotiation reports admitting that Russia security concerns about the possibility that Russia is invaded from Ukraine by the US or NATO if Ukraine joins NATO are “legitimate”, are there?
Besides on what grounds one would see the other side “as having a point needing to be addressed in some way”? Based on one’s own strategic interests? On international law grounds? On moral grounds? On what grounds Russia has a point because the US could invade Russia from Ukraine once Ukraine joins NATO more likely than Russia could invade the US after invading Ukraine?
Is in the US strategic interest, legal or moral duty, to have Russia invade Ukraine because the US could invade Russia from Ukraine once Ukraine joins NATO more likely than Russia could invade the US after invading Ukraine?
And by “addressed in some way” do you mean “conceded in some way”, “satisfied in some way”, “fulfilled in some way”? For example, if Russia has a point because the US could invade Russia from Ukraine once Ukraine joins NATO more likely than Russia could invade the US after invading Ukraine, then Russia must be conceded all its non-negotiable demands (Ukraine outside NATO, demilitarised Ukraine, territorial annexations)?
Because if “addressed in some way” simply means “dealt in some way” also rejection, indifference, opposition are ways of dealing with other people’s requests.
Your confused and confusing way of talking is a way to keep your hidden assumptions unchallenged. You keep evading my objections by repeating the same shallow arguments replete with rhetoric tricks over and over.
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius
Where do I “go from ‘rights’ or ‘concerns’, of one kind or another, to justifications”? Quote me.
Quoting boethius
Sure, DO UT DES, I’ll give you something and you give me something back IF IT IS CONVENIENT TO BOTH OF US. But how does this translate to the current conflict? Who has to decide what is convenient between Russia, Ukraine, the US and European countries? Besides, why is it more convenient to the US, European countries or Ukraine to let Russia invade Ukraine than oppose it? In exchange for what?
[quote="boethius;925991”]If you go into a court of law or a negotiation recognizing the counter-party does indeed have a legitimate right or concern, the judge will naturally expect you to address in a sophisticated way and then go onto explain that on the whole that legitimacy on those points are insufficient to make their case and your case is the one that is justified.
For example, in contract disputes it is pretty common that both parties have broken the contract in one and usually several areas, and each side will then argue the other side did it first, did it worse, did it intentionally, caused more damages, didn't reasonable address the issue once emerged, didn't negotiate the contract correctly to begin with, didn't secure the appropriate insurance, didn't amend the understanding correctly on the fly which should have been triple stamped and signed in blood with a notary present, etc. etc. etc.
Legitimacy is simply the opposing demarkation to bullshit. If you receive a longwinded demand from a scummy lawyer, the first thing you'll want to do is separate the legitimate points from the bullshit, either born from incompetence or expressly designed to waste your time (usually its both simultaneously), and then come up with robust arguments that address the legitimate points and witty retorts and dismissals to the bullshit if address them at all.[/quote]
Political leaders of different countries are not like lawyers in a court of law in this respect: lawyers are guided by a legal framework to assess people’s claims and requests. Such legal framework is supervised and enforced by a unique state authority with overwhelming means to impose its rule, and represented by the judge. In a geopolitical context, conflicts between different state authorities can not be solved by appeal to a super-state authority with a comparable overwhelming power. That means states and their political representatives have to find ways to deal with security threats by themselves with all the economic, political and military means available to them. In particular they have to value what security costs/threats certain concessions to rivals will bring about. Are there no security costs/threats to the US in conceding Russia control over Ukraine? Or there are security costs/threats but they are less significative than NOT conceding Russia control over Ukraine?
Quoting boethius
Who decides what is “extreme”? On what grounds?
Quoting boethius.
Who has to decide what is “likely”, “acceptable” and “preferable”? On what grounds?
Quoting boethius.
The problem is not how to act after you have “calculated” odds (the part which you systematically skip in your examples) wrt non-shared or potentially conflicting objectives. The problem is how to “calculate” the odds, and wrt non-shared or potentially conflicting objectives. When objectives and method to “calculate” odds are shared I’d expect convergence of conclusions. Not otherwise.
To what extent Russia, the US, Ukraine, Europe countries share security concerns and ways to “calculate” odds?
Quoting boethius.
“Feelings” in politics and war and propaganda is not just what interferes with odds computation. But also input for odds computation. Indeed feelings shape one’s motivations in responding to threat and in committing oneself to a chain of trust within a community. To many people repeated and wide spread unjust violence for themselves, beloved ones and the community they care for or identify with, inspire will to revenge and fear injustice will happen again or worse, if one doesn’t fight back. The bitter truth is that those who fear death will be more likely exposed to the abuses of those who fear less death. The bitter truth is that being afraid of your enemy and showing your own fear to your enemy likely don’t help much win your enemies or making him go away. And this is not just an anthropological observation but a security concern for states: if Russia can mobilize Russians MORE EASILY AND ABUNDANTLY without fear of consequences than peaceful countries can mobilise their own people to counter Russia, Russia can more easily bully peaceful countries at convenience.
Quoting boethius
First, you are objecting to an hypothetical argument which I didn’t make (if somebody else did, quote him). Why don’t you counter the actual arguments I made, instead of the ones you wished I made?
Second, your hypothetical argument is a rhetoric manipulation. Indeed, why is your argument FOCUSING on Ukraine? And why are you FOCUSING on square meters? Let’s apply your argument to Russia: one can simply argue that Russian soldiers are fighting to death because “land ownership is more important than anything else and it is better to fight to the death than give-up 1m^2 of land”. But Russia is already too big, actually the biggest country on earth, why the fuck would Russia even want to own 1m^2 more of land? Dagestanis, Buryaties and Chechens soldiers want for Russia to have 1m^2 more of land? Prigozhin wanted Russia to have 1m^2 more of land? Russian convicts sent to the front wanted Russia to have 1m^2 more of land? The 18 years old Russian Yermolenko wants Russia to have 1m^2 more of land? Putin wants for Russia to have 1m^2 more of land? Russian soldiers are killing and raping people, destroying their lives, sacrificing their own life so that Russia has 1m^2 more of land? Doesn’t that sound preposterous to you?
Indeed, for Russia we should talk about ”legitimate security concerns”, “Patriotic war against Ukrainian Nazis”, “hypothetical Western/American/NATO invasion of Russia from Ukraine”, RIGHT? But then why do you feel so confident in taking your hypothetical argument as representative of Ukrainians’ point of view? Why shouldn't we talk about ”Ukrainian legitimate security concerns”, “Ukrainian Patriotic war against Russian imperialism”, “hypothetical Russian invasion of Ukraine and other Western countries”?
Your shallow arguments replete with rhetoric tricks won’t get you anywhere with me.
Quoting boethius
As I said many times, I’m not here to fix the world. It’s arrogant or dishonest or both. I’m here to do some intellectual gymnastics (like avoid to use rhetoric tricks, explicit your premises and reasoning, provide workable definitions to improve clarity, provide your evidence and source, avoid making contradictory statements, contrast explanatory power of your beliefs vs others etc.), that’s all. And I think a philosophy forum is the best place where to do the kind of intellectual gymnastics I’m doing.
First, you didn’t quote me or anybody else claiming that “fighting to the death for land with low odds of victory is justifiable” so you seem to have a quarrel with your imaginary friend. Why don’t you counter the actual arguments I made, instead the ones you wished I made?
Second, I’m questioning your understanding of “odds” and “victory”. If your point is, given the questionable trend of Western military support (something wasn’t evident at the beginning of the war), and the worrisome trend of growing disparity of means and men between Russia and Ukraine (something wasn’t evident at the beginning of the war), it’s unlikely that Ukraine will manage to fully restore its borders as declared by the Ukrainian political leadership by military means, I find that point compelling. And I think that also Ukrainians find it compelling. I can concede that much. But FOCUSING on this to assess political intentions, failures or responsibilities of Westerners or Ukrainians overlooks geopolitical and historical reasons which I brought up and you keep ignoring.
Third, concerning the problem of “forcing people into fighting” there are compelling reasons for that. One is the civic duty to protect the country one belongs to from foreign oppression. This is legally codified in the Ukrainian constitution art. 65 ([I]“Defence of the Motherland, of the independence and territorial indivisibility of Ukraine, and respect for its state symbols, are the duties of citizens of Ukraine”. “Citizens perform military service in accordance with the law”[/i] https://rm.coe.int/constitution-of-ukraine/168071f58b and law includes also martial law). The other reason is security: Russia too forces reluctant people to fight and if Russia can force a percentage of its people reluctant to fight more than Ukraine can force an equal or greater percentage of people reluctant to fight, this may give a comparative advantage to Russia, even a greater advantage since Russian population is bigger. Actually, for that reason only, Ukraine has greater compelling reason to force people reluctant to fight than Russia has.
Quoting boethius
Logically speaking, the claim "Ukrainians want to fight" is a generic generalisation as opposed to quantified generalisation. Generic generalisations do not specify quantity of individuals (“all”, “the absolute majority”, “the relative majority”, “71.59%”, “23 thousands”) which the claim applies to, as quantified generic claims do. Nor specify the scope (are we talking about “the Ukrainian political government”, “Ukrainian citizens”, “Ukrainian soldiers”, “Ukrainian soldiers on the front line”, etc.?).
Political debate is replete with generic generalisations. There is nothing inherently wrong with using generic generalisations, they stress what is contextually relevant in a discourse about a certain domain of individuals. But they can be equivocal, and manipulatively used to reinforce prejudices and stereotypes (e.g. immigrants steel our jobs). Therefore when I’m using them, I’m ready to add clarifications.
However, one has to keep in mind that it is LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS to take the generic generalisation "Ukrainians want to fight" as a claim about “Exactly all Ukrainian individual soldiers”.
Besides "Ukrainians want to fight" doesn’t presuppose or implicate anything about “more-or-less correct understanding” or “knowing”.
Quoting boethius
Besides the fact that is not clear to me on what grounds you discriminate what is propaganda and what is not (apparently to you, propaganda is just some claim politically motivated you believe to be false and whose politically motivations you oppose), the point is that accusing others of spinning propaganda you go nowhere, because each propaganda has a counter-propaganda. Here: “Russia too is bribing and used to bribe people in the West and in Ukraine too to spin the narrative you just laid out. With the mystification of Russia’s legitimate security concerns people like you are justifying Russia’s war against Ukrainians and defaming/blaming the victims to dull the senses of Westerners who step back a moment from cheerleading Russia and get uncomfortable with what the actual consequences of our choices are and ask obvious questions (like whether it was a good idea to not help more Ukraine to fight Russia)”. It’s not by labelling people’s claims as propaganda that you score points with me or prove you are not spinning your own propaganda.
That is why I’m arguing based on geopolitics and history. Not primarily on what Biden or Zelensky or Putin say. Even less on unverifiable and manifestly defamatory conspiracy theories stated as facts, as you do (and if this attitude is not a marker of nasty propaganda I don’t know what is). Even less on the self-promoting and crypto-moralistic psycho-analysis of your interlocutors. Your deconstructionist-like arguments seem really inspired by garbage philosophical reading and understanding, to me. Your arguments do not impress me AT ALL. No matter how much you repeat them.
As far as my historical argument goes, the conflict of Ukrainians and Russians has a very deep and long history. The notion of “genocide” invented by Raphael Lemkin (a Polish jew) is documented also in Lemkin’s essay, ‘Soviet Genocide in Ukraine’. The Ukrainian Neo-nazis and banderites (you were whining about) are the ideological descendants of those who sided with the Nazis to fight the Russian Soviets. To argue FOR Ukraine keeping the Soviet Nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, Mearsheimer wrote: [I]There is the danger of hypernationalism, the belief that other nations or nation states are both inferior and threatening and must therefore be dealt with harshly. Expressions of Russian and Ukrainian nationalism have been largely benign since the Soviet collapse, and there have been few manifestations of communal hatred on either side. Nevertheless, the Russians and the Ukrainians neither like nor trust each other. The grim history that has passed between these two peoples provides explosive material that could ignite conflict between them.
Russia has dominated an unwilling and angry Ukraine for more than two centuries, and has attempted to crush Ukraine's sense of self-identity. Recent history witnessed the greatest horrors in this relationship: Stalins government murdered an astounding 12million Ukrainians during the 1930s. Though Stalin was a Georgian, and the Soviet Union was not a formally "Russian' government, Russia had predominant power within the Soviet Union, and much of the killing was done by Russians. Therefore, the Ukrainians are bound to lay heavy blame on the Russians for their vast suffering under Bolshevism. Against this explosive psychological backdrop, small disputes could trigger an outbreak of hypernationalism on either side.[/i]
Source: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mearsheimer-Case-for-Ukrainian-Nuclear-Deterrent.pdf
And there is nothing unique in people’s stubborn national aspirations despite averse conditions: see Palestinians, Jews, Kurds, Afghans.
So the plausibility of the claim “Ukrainians want to fight” (also despite the odds and disparity of forces) is primarily grounded on their perception of historical Russian oppression, not on corrupted elites that try to corrupt people’s understanding the odds of winning against Russia, EVEN IF THEY EXISTED. Besides Ukrainians have still wide access to international media over the internet and direct experience on the ground (from families and friends too), so I’m more confident that UKRAINIANS HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR PREDICAMENT THAN YOU COULD POSSIBLY HAVE. And if despite all the available information to them, they still support the war and fight on the front line, I take their commitment to be enough popular and solid. I don’t know how long it will last though. Not surprisingly stats show some non-negligible declining after more than 2 years of conflict with Russia (https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/07/23/7466999/ ), and these stats are widely and freely accessible to Ukrainians too.
Quoting boethius
Which is why you are prone to spin propaganda more likely than I am. Your contributions here are politically motivated, not mine.
Quoting boethius
[quote="boethius;925991”]Obviously "Ukrainians" clearly don't want to fight , else there wouldn't be press gangs forcing them to the front lines[/quote]
But I never said nor believe that there are no coercing Ukrainians to fight, quote me where I did that. I here say and claim to believe that there is a disturbing amount of coercing Ukrainians to fight. AT THE SAME TIME I here say and claim to believe that Ukrainians are willing to fight (maybe now less then before, but still). There is absolute no logic contradiction in what I said and believe.
“Ukrainians want to fight” is a generic generalisation not a universal generalisation, if you think otherwise, that’s a logical fallacy, remember? You let words like “obviously” and “clearly” replace the job that logic and actual evidence should do. At this point, what is “obvious“ and “clear” is that you are just playing rhetoric tricks to brainwash yourself.
[quote="boethius;925991”]And, obviously "Ukrainian sovereignty" is not the concern of the West or we would send our own troops to defend this important thing.[/quote]
That’s a false alternative, i.e. yet another rhetoric trick. "Ukrainian sovereignty" is a concern for Ukrainians in one sense and for the West in another because Ukraine have national interest as much as European countries. And they may converge enough. Besides, to my understanding, political and military readiness to send troops is way more problematic for the West than for Russia. And I expanded on this in many other previous posts, which you ignored, because you are just happy to repeat the Evil Satan narrative where the US decides for all, corrupts all, exploits all in the West. Indeed, Portugal and Poland do not see this conflict in the same way. Nor the US and Hungary. Nor Finland and Turkey (as part of the Western-lead defensive alliance called “NATO”). Nor populist and anti-populist Western parties or leaders. Assuming that Western and Russian politicians need enough popular consent to support sending troops to war, yet how to get such a consent is not the same for Russia or the US or Germany or Italy. Putin enjoys comparative advantages in taking more bold, coherent and fast political/economic/military decisions than the West can. Consider the pacifist culture in the West vs Russia, consider the notion of defensive-war in the West vs Russia, consider the notion of preventive war in the West vs Russia, consider the different degree of tolerance over the costs/risks of the war as felt between Westerners vs Russians, consider the different sensitivity of public opinions toward civilian casualties and war crimes in the West vs Russia. More broadly, as I’ve already argued, there is an institutional security hazard that plagues Western democracies more than anti-Western authoritarian regimes, and that’s the strategic reason for “exporting” democracy and human rights independently from humanitarian reasons.
Russia with its hostile authoritarian regime, its hegemonic motives and anti-Western pretexts is a security threat to the West, especially to Europeans, no matter how able is the West to counter Russia in Ukraine, no matter what the Great Satan says (Russians and Europeans fought many times before the US imperialism was even a thing). Even more so, if hegemonic powers as Russia are offensive security maximizer in accordance to John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism. Even more so, if the American global hegemony is in decline and Europeans are not military/politically ready to deter Russia for good.
If the Ukrainians have well and truly left the realm of rationality, which it increasingly appears that they have, they may be instrumentalized by the US for extreme ends.
The US wants to see the region in chaos. It has a willing, desperate proxy that will fight without regard for self-preservation and that Washington can blame everything on if things get out of hand in a nuclear way.
The real risk factor here is that US has nothing to lose and much to gain in a cataclysmic conflict in Eastern Europe which it would only be indirectly involved in. It would cripple all its potential rivals on the Eurasian mainland.
BTW why on earth would Russia nuclear bomb the region if this not only will not hit back at the US ("US has nothing to lose") but it will greatly benefit the US ("much to gain in a cataclysmic conflict in Eastern Europe", "It would cripple all its potential rivals on the Eurasian mainland")? What strategic reasoning is forcing Putin to bomb the region so that the US will gain much and Eurasian mainland (including Russia) will be crippled?
BTW Putin has already won the war in Ukraine, right? And Ukrainians puppets can only afford stunts "just like the previous Ukrainian offensive - to show both domestic and foreign audiences that the war is not yet lost", so what are the chances of Putin bombing the region which people are grossly underestimating?
If that happens, it will be because Russia uses nuclear weapons.
The Ukrainians on the other hand are getting desperate and irrational enough to try something like that, and the US may just be cynical enough to give them what they want. Devastation and chaos in the region is what the US is after, and it doesn't care at all about the fate of Eastern Europe. It just wants to weaken China and escalate tensions between Russia and Europe.
Nuclear escalation which it can blame on Ukraine is right up Uncle Sam's alley.
Western audiences have become so gullible and ignorant that they would believe whatever story they try to sell it under.
NATO’s military presence in the east of the Alliance
[sup]— NATO · Jul 8, 2024[/sup]
Czo?gi i wozy bojowe na drogach w Wielkopolsce. Wa?ny komunikat armii (Polish)
Tanks and combat vehicles on the roads in Wielkopolska. Important message from the army
[sup]— Krzysztof Grz?dzielski, Milosz Balcerzak · Radio ZET · Jul 29, 2024[/sup]
US Tanks, Combat Vehicles Spotted Heading for NATO's Eastern Flank: Report
[sup]— Brendan Cole · Newsweek · Jul 30, 2024[/sup]
????????? ????????? ?? 5000 ??????? ???? ? ??????? ? ??????? (Russian)
Finland to deploy up to 5,000 NATO troops near Russian border
[sup]— Lisa Lambrecht · Deutsche Welle · Aug 22, 2024[/sup]
Earlier, Medvedev went on another tirade, making other Kremlinians seem dull:
Medvedev urges to turn life in West into 'permanent nightmare' in response to sanctions
[sup]— TASS · Jun 13, 2024[/sup]
This is typical "journalism" of today, from DW:
What the Finnish newspaper Iltalehti actually said is that an lower HQ is to be established at Mikkeli, which will start to organize the training of a brigade (in the future). And it's equipment will be forward deployed into Finland (in the future). Basically at one time, once the training starts that is, there will be deployed a battalion with a strength of 800 soldiers. That's it.
This likely will happen annually, I assume, just like the training syllabus of other formations go. Hence there won't be a permanent station of even 800 men. But I guess the HQ, about 15 to 50 people (which many likely will be Finnish officers already in Mikkeli).
That is quite different from a formation of "4,000 - 5,000 soldiers and officers is already being formed and will be deployed in the city of Mikkeli". From that you get the false impression that actually 4000 to 5000 NATO will be deployed to Finland and exist there in it's entirety all the time. Where 4000 to 5000 soldiers would be permanently housed I have no idea, as such it would be one of the largest military bases in Finland...which isn't built. :smile:
Some are here the cheerleaders for the attacker in this war. First there was no attack, just US creating hysteria over a possible attack. Then it has been a victory for Russia, case closed, for all the time. Why won't the Ukrainians simply stop and surrender because they have no chance against Russia?
Quoting Tzeentch
Everything is the West's fault. All the injustices that happen in the World happen because of the West.
This naive and false idea makes them believe that they're smart as they criticize the West.
I like that as a generalizable example of how consumerist media kills reality in favour of sellable fictions.
Caricatures aside, the idea that the West carries principal responsibility in this war and that the West's conduct so far has been nothing short of shameful, is an idea that is carried by a well-established group of western experts, analists and academics - a group that has done a vastly better job at predicting the course and outcome of this war than those who subscribe to the narrative that is put forward by virtually every major western media outlet. In fact, I struggle to think of a single fact that said media outlets have ever been right about.
So I'm not sure what you believe this type of posturing achieves.
You've already stated you don't wish to engage with my arguments. If you have changed your mind you may start with the post whose contents you almost fully ignored in favor of a "I'm not going to talk to you anymore!"
So then Tzeentch can ignore yours, @ssu, in favor of a "I'm not going to talk to you anymore!"
Your "serious" arguments come out as caricatures already and you dare to complain if we serve you your own meal?
Let’s complete your reasoning: if the West carries principal responsibility, which one carries secondary responsibility? Ukraine or Russia? I guess it’s Ukraine, right? So no matter what responsibility Russia has in this conflict, yet neither the West nor Ukraine are in position to reproach Russia or to demand compensation or impose punishment to Russia, right? They must pay whatever follows from Russian invasion. Including nuclear bombing of course. This is your serious reasoning or a caricature, Tzeench?
Quoting Tzeentch
In what sense "vastly better"? Actually many geopolitical and military experts other than the few names you often cite explained the root causes [1], or “roughly” predicted what the unfortunate course [2] and the outcome [3] could be, no matter how questionable you find Western media propaganda. So the fascination comes more from the way those few names argue and assess blame which pleases pro-Russian populists like you.
[1]
On Ukraine’s independence and its impact on Russia (1991):
[I]* "Ukraine's independence fundamentally changes the post-Cold War landscape. For Russia, losing Ukraine is a major blow to its ambitions of maintaining a significant influence in Eastern Europe. The success or failure of Ukraine as an independent state will determine the future trajectory of Russian policy."
* Source: Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "The Premature Partnership." Foreign Affairs, March/April 1991.
On Ukraine’s strategic importance to Russia (1997):
* "It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources, as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia."
* Source: Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives." Basic Books, 1997, p. 46.
On Russia’s likely strategy toward Ukraine (1994):
* "For Russia, the loss of Ukraine was geopolitically pivotal, reducing its geostrategic status and diminishing its sphere of influence in Central Europe. Thus, Russian efforts to reassert influence over Ukraine should be expected, especially given Ukraine's strategic significance."
* Source: Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "Ukraine: Crucial to Europe's Security." Foreign Affairs, September/October 1994.
On potential Russian moves against Ukraine (1997):
* "A Ukraine firmly aligned with the West would be a major setback to Russia's aspirations to reassert its influence over the former Soviet space. As such, the Kremlin might use a combination of political pressure, economic leverage, and covert actions to try to bring Ukraine back under its influence."
* Source: Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives." Basic Books, 1997, p. 92
[/I]
[2]
[I]”I fear that the West may not have the political will to sustain the level of support Ukraine needs to resist Russian aggression over the long term."
* Date: March 2022
* Source: Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General, in an interview with CNN.
"There is a real risk that Western countries will grow weary of the conflict and reduce their support for Ukraine, leaving it vulnerable to Russian advances."
* Date: February 2022
* Source: Anne Applebaum, historian and journalist, in an article for The Atlantic.
"I am skeptical about the West's ability to maintain a united front in supporting Ukraine, given the economic and political pressures at home."
* Date: April 2022
* Source: Ian Bremmer, political scientist and president of Eurasia Group, in a tweet.
"The West's capacity to provide sustained military and economic aid to Ukraine is uncertain, and this could have dire consequences for the conflict."
* Date: May 2022
* Source: Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, in an interview with The Washington Post.
"I worry that the West may not be willing to bear the costs and risks associated with supporting Ukraine, especially if the conflict escalates further."
* Date: June 2022
* Source: Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in an article for Foreign Affairs.
"There is a concern that Western countries will prioritize their own interests over Ukraine's needs, leading to insufficient support."
* Date: July 2022
* Source: John Mearsheimer, political scientist at the University of Chicago, in an interview with The New York Times.
"I fear that the West's willingness to provide the necessary aid to Ukraine will wane as the conflict drags on and other crises emerge."
* Date: August 2022
* Source: Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in an article for The New Yorker.
"The West's capacity to sustain support for Ukraine is uncertain, given the economic challenges and political divisions within Europe."
* Date: September 2022
* Source: Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden, in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.
"I am skeptical about the West's ability to provide the military aid Ukraine needs to defend itself against Russian aggression."
* Date: October 2022
* Source: General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, in an interview with The Guardian.
"There is a risk that Western countries will grow tired of the conflict and reduce their support for Ukraine, leaving it vulnerable."
* Date: November 2022
* Source: Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, in a speech at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
"The West's capacity to provide sustained military and economic aid to Ukraine is uncertain, and this could have dire consequences for the conflict."
* Date: January 2022
* Source: Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State, in an interview with Fox News.[/I]
[3]
[I]
"I fear that Ukraine may not have the military capacity to regain all the territory occupied by Russia, especially in the eastern regions."
* Date: March 2022
* Source: Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General, in an interview with CNN.
"There is a real risk that Ukraine will struggle to retake territory from Russia, given the significant military disparities."
* Date: February 2022
* Source: Anne Applebaum, historian and journalist, in an article for The Atlantic.
"I am skeptical about Ukraine's ability to regain control of the Donbas and Crimea, given Russia's entrenched positions and military strength."
* Date: April 2022
* Source: Ian Bremmer, political scientist and president of Eurasia Group, in a tweet.
"Ukraine faces significant challenges in retaking territory from Russia, particularly in areas where Russia has consolidated its control."
* Date: May 2022
* Source: Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, in an interview with The Washington Post.
"I worry that Ukraine may not have the resources or the military capability to push back Russian forces and regain lost territory."
* Date: June 2022
* Source: Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in an article for Foreign Affairs.
"There is a concern that Ukraine's military, despite its bravery and determination, may not be able to overcome Russia's superior firepower and logistical support."
* Date: July 2022
* Source: John Mearsheimer, political scientist at the University of Chicago, in an interview with The New York Times.
"I fear that Ukraine may not have the capacity to regain all the territory occupied by Russia, especially in the eastern regions."
* Date: August 2022
* Source: Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in an article for The New Yorker.
"Ukraine's ability to retake territory from Russia is uncertain, given the significant military disparities and the entrenched positions of Russian forces."
* Date: September 2022
* Source: Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden, in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.
"I am skeptical about Ukraine's capacity to regain control of the Donbas and Crimea, given Russia's military strength and the strategic importance of these regions."
* Date: October 2022
* Source: General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, in an interview with The Guardian.
"There is a risk that Ukraine will struggle to retake territory from Russia, given the significant military disparities and the entrenched positions of Russian forces."
* Date: November 2022
* Source: Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, in a speech at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
[/i]
1. from false premises one can correctly infer true conclusions,
2. from a set of incompatible premises (namely premises that can not be at the same time true but can be at the same time false, or premises that can be neither true nor false at the same time) one can correctly infer exactly the same true conclusions.
Examples:
Every Saturday it rains
Tomorrow is Saturday
Tomorrow it rains
Every other day of the week than Saturday it rains
Tomorrow is not Saturday
Tomorrow it rains
Both arguments are formally sound. And they lead to the very same conclusive prediction. However, such conclusive prediction may happen to be true even if all or some individual premises are false and comparatively incompatible because contrary or contradictory. So it's not enough that predictions are true, nor that reasoning is sound to have valid predictive arguments or theories.
Well, they're still warring (with help from North Korea, China, Iran), 2½ years after the invasion, 10 years after grabbing Crimea.
IL:n tiedot: Suomen suojaksi 4 000–5 000 sotilaan panssaroitu Nato-prikaati
I think it's basically just extremely sloppy journalism: didn't even care to read the article carefully, took just the headline and made a story from it.
Marinchefen: Vi misstänker att ryska skuggflottan spionerar (en)
[sup]— SVT · Apr 22, 2024[/sup]
Baiba Braže in Finland: Russia’s “shadow fleet” and other threats to the Baltic Sea states will be limited
[sup]— ?rlietu ministrija (Government of Latvia) · Jun 14, 2024[/sup]
How to rein in Russia’s shadow fleet
[sup]— Elisabeth Braw · POLITICO · Aug 26, 2024[/sup]
Nothing new I guess. Maybe oil market sensitivities/insecurities and international legalities can account for the lack of response, in part at least. Though, avoiding confrontation encourages offenders.
How long can Russia continue going as it is? Forever?
Not forever. This is a high intensity conflict, a conventional war, and it cannot go like this forever. It can easily become a frozen conflict.
This conflict has gone for a decade, actually, so with the losses and the strain, it won't go forever. But it can go at worst for decades. But then it's likely, as in the 100 year war between France and England or the 30 years war in Germany, it will have those time of lower intensity.
The longer it will go, the worse will be Russia's failure and more likely that Russia will fall from being the last Western Empire.
Won't Russia become more and more hollowed out economically?
Of course!
It's been a disaster for Russia. Not perhaps as big as for Ukraine itself, but still.
Putin's gamble went all fine: first Russo-Georgian war, then the annexation of Crimea, then the involvement in Syria. Then finally this absurdity in 2022. Oh, it likely was a brave dashing plan.
And add to the picture that the US had just been humiliated in Afghanistan where it had just lost a war. So time for Putin to just pit it all in again and throw the dices ...with absolutely devastating consequences this time!
Europe and the West can keep supporting Ukraine. For them it's not a strain in any way. The real question is Ukraine, which with invading Russia proper has done a surprising move again. And what has Russia gained? With Crimea, a problematic territory which creates far more expenses than revenues. With the occupied Ukrainian territories it's even worse.
And this brings to the real question: What if Putin had resisted his imperialist urge and not grabbed Crimea from Ukraine. What would be the consequences?
- Many Ukrainians would still see Russians as brother people. With lots of Russian speakers Putin would be respected in Ukraine as he was prior to 2014.
- Ukraine would be seen as a problematic country. It wouldn't be anywhere close to NATO membership.
- West European countries would have continued their military disarmament.
- Sweden and Finland would be neutral. Finland would still be having bouts of "Finlandization" as it would try to keep good relations with Russia.
- Russia would enjoy good ties with the West and would be seen as a constructive European country. Putin likely would be in G8 meetings.
- A lot of Ukrainians and Russia wouldn't be dead and fighting the "break-up war of Soviet Union", a state that had ceased to exist before many of the victims of today had been born.
In fact the "Finlandization" of Europe that Gorbachev hoped to happen might have actually happened as European countries would have continued dismantling their armed forces leaving Russia to be better.
Why did Putin do it then? Is it because he would have eventually lost power if he worked on making Russia healthy?
Right from the start of his political career Putin's favorite move has been war. It's an integral part of how Putin's policy. Right from the start.
He was practically a nobody in politics when Yeltsin made him Prime Minister, even if he had been in the position of the director of the FDB. But after starting the Second Chechen War (after dubious apartment buildings were bombed in a distant suburb of Moscow), he won popularity. For him the "strong man" image has been important.
(The Second Chechen war was actually a victory for Russia, and Putin)
And since he and his Kleptocracy couldn't make Russia economically great, he chose the imperial greatness card. After all, for him the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a huge tragedy. Something that shouldn't have happened and which left many Russians stranded in these new "artificial" countries that got independence after the breakup of Soviet Union.
The first dent on his shiny image was the submarine Kursk disaster. It would have been an ordinary debacle for any Western politician, but for the former head of FSB it was too much. From there on the autocratic style was reinforced.
And Putin did see the writing on the wall that especially the young had had enough of him when he took the Presidency again after one brief stint of Medvedev on that role. Already 2011-2013 there were a lot of protests against Putin in Russia (see Russian protests 2011-2013).
And I think the real issue is that Putin is utterly corrupt as are the people around him. As one Russian opposition leader once commented, the watch on Putin's hand is more valuable than what the President's official annual salary is. He couldn't just leave office like old and sick Yeltsin and just hope that Medvedev's around. What if another party comes around and puts him into jail?
And now he's chosen his and Russia's path. Russia could have played the Imperialist card in the Caucasus and in Central Asia, but Ukraine was too close for East European countries. And annexing territory was the real no-no, which other states simply couldn't turn away from. But the lure of being "Putin the Great" for Russia was too much. Territory, land mass, has always been extremely important to Russian rulers. And the most obvious thing is to call it imperialism.
(One really should listen for example what Putin is saying here - especially those who think that everything has happened because of the US)
? Aug 13, 2024, ? Aug 16, 2024 (? embedded links for context or whatever)
Some say Ukraine ? NATO plans and that's that, some say ongoing provocations kept alive by a military-industrial complex and covert conspirators to which the Kremlin is simply responding, ... (? such like tend to render the invaders mechanistic / assign blame outside / run with whatever comes out of the Kremlin)
Some add cultural tendencies (including historical) on the invader's part, ...
Anyway, I can't answer on 's behalf.
Let us ask the simple question: "Cui bono?"
Hypothetically, what country might want Ukraine to be unable to sit down for negotiations before a certain, hypothetical election that may take place in the Autumn?
Hmmmm..... :chin:
[sup]— Phil Stewart, Michelle Nichols, Josh Smith, Diane Craft · Reuters · May 30, 2024 — usnews·com[/sup]
Kim Sent Russia Millions of Artillery Shells, South Korea Says
[sup]— Soo-Hyang Choi · Bloomberg · Jun 14, 2024 — time·com[/sup]
Kim must hate Ukraine, waging such "a proxy war" against them. Actually, he probably doesn't care, except he's not fond of those that have sanctioned North Korea. Well, it's understandable when the Ukrainians take issue with Kim, everyone knowing the intent (cf reports above), North Korean crap raining down on Ukraine. The actions of the Kremlin amount to a partial reversal of Ukraine's independence (+ sovereignty + integrity), established in 1991 a couple of years after the Berlin Wall came down, or at least an attempt at such reversal. Consequently, that's what Kim is helping. Independence includes freedom to seek EU membership, wrestle free from the dominating north+eastern neighbor, implement political reforms and develop a democracy, assert integrity, whatever.
Not sure why you're asking, since clearly you already know.
But for the benefit of everyone else, I'll summarise all the various explanations I've heard:
Whether or not the offensive was ultimately "worth it" is a different question we won't be able to answer for some time. The Pokrovsk direction looks bad for Ukraine and Pokrovsk is more valuable to Ukraine than anything Ukraine has taken in Kursk is to Russia (in objective terms). At the same time, committing the offensive troops used in Kursk anywhere else doesn't necessarily change the outcome there.
Also on 7 February 2022 Ivashov publicly called for Putin to resign over threats of a "criminal" invasion of Ukraine.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Ivashov
[i]The Chairman of the All-Russian Officers' Assembly, Colonel General Leonid Grigorievich Ivashov, wrote an Appeal to the President and Citizens of the Russian Federation "The Eve of War":
Appeal of the All-Russian Officers' Assembly
to the President and Citizens of the Russian Federation
Today, humanity lives in anticipation of war. And war is inevitable human casualties, destruction, suffering of large masses of people, destruction of the usual way of life, disruption of the life support systems of states and peoples. A great war is a huge tragedy, someone's grave crime. It so happened that Russia found itself in the center of this looming catastrophe. And, perhaps, this is the first time in its history.
Earlier, Russia (the USSR) waged forced (just) wars, and, as a rule, when there was no other way out, when the vital interests of the state and society were under threat.
[b]And what threatens the existence of Russia itself today, and are there such threats? It can be argued that there really are threats - the country is on the verge of the end of its history. All vital spheres, including demography, are steadily degrading, and the rate of population extinction is breaking world records. And the degradation is systemic, and in any complex system, the destruction of one of the elements can lead to the collapse of the entire system.
And this, in our opinion, is the main threat to the Russian Federation. But this is an internal threat, emanating from the model of the state, the quality of power and the state of society. And the reasons for its formation are internal: the unviability of the state model, the complete incapacity and unprofessionalism of the system of power and governance, the passivity and disorganization of society. No country can live long in such a state.
As for external threats, they are certainly present. But, according to our expert assessment, they are not currently critical, directly threatening the existence of Russian statehood, its vital interests. In general, strategic stability is maintained, nuclear weapons are under reliable control, NATO force groups are not increasing, they do not show threatening activity.[/b]
Therefore, the situation being whipped up around Ukraine is, first of all, artificial, selfish in nature for certain internal forces, including the Russian Federation. As a result of the collapse of the USSR, in which Russia (Yeltsin) played a decisive role, Ukraine became an independent state, a member of the UN, and in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter has the right to individual and collective defense.
The leadership of the Russian Federation has still not recognized the results of the referendum on the independence of the DPR and LPR, while at the official level, more than once, including during the Minsk negotiation process, it emphasized the belonging of their territories and population to Ukraine.
It has also been repeatedly said at a high level about the desire to maintain normal relations with Kiev, without singling out special relations with the DPR and LPR.
The issue of the genocide committed by Kiev in the south-eastern regions was not raised either in the UN or in the OSCE. Naturally, in order for Ukraine to remain a friendly neighbor for Russia, it was necessary to demonstrate to it the attractiveness of the Russian model of state and system of power.
But the Russian Federation has not become such, its development model and foreign policy mechanism of international cooperation repel almost all of its neighbors, and not only.
Russia's acquisition of Crimea and Sevastopol and the non-recognition of them as Russian by the international community (and, therefore, the overwhelming majority of countries in the world still consider them to belong to Ukraine) convincingly demonstrates the failure of Russian foreign policy and the unattractiveness of its domestic policy.
Attempts to force people to "love" the Russian Federation and its leadership through ultimatums and threats of force are senseless and extremely dangerous.
The use of military force against Ukraine, firstly, will call into question the existence of Russia itself as a state; secondly, it will forever make Russians and Ukrainians mortal enemies. Thirdly, there will be thousands (tens of thousands) of young, healthy guys killed on both sides, which will certainly affect the future demographic situation in our dying countries. On the battlefield, if this happens, Russian troops will encounter not only Ukrainian servicemen, among whom there will be many Russian guys, but also servicemen and equipment from many NATO countries, and the member states of the alliance will be obliged to declare war on Russia.
The President of the Republic of Turkey R. Erdogan clearly stated on whose side Turkey will fight. And it can be assumed that two field armies and the navy of Turkey will be ordered to "liberate" Crimea and Sevastopol and, possibly, invade the Caucasus.
In addition, Russia will definitely be included in the category of countries threatening peace and international security, will be subject to the heaviest sanctions, will become an outcast of the world community, and will probably be deprived of the status of an independent state.
The president and the government, the Ministry of Defense cannot fail to understand such consequences, they are not that stupid.[/i]
source: https://web-archive-org.translate.goog/web/20220214005455/http://ooc.su/news/obrashhenie_obshherossijskogo_oficerskogo_sobranija_k_prezidentu_i_grazhdanam_rossijskoj_federacii/2022-01-31-79?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Forecasts of bloodthirsty political scientists
Print version
Discuss on the forum
Of delighted hawks and hasty cuckoos
Mikhail Khodarenok
About the author: Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok – former head of the group of the 1st direction of the 1st directorate of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, colonel
Tags: realities , russia , ukraine , donbass , conflict
realities, russia, ukraine, donbass, conflict In anticipation of "Russian aggression," Ukrainian soldiers are settling down on the line of confrontation with the defenders of the DPR and LPR. Photo: Reuters
Some representatives of the Russian political class today claim that Russia is capable of inflicting a crushing defeat on Ukraine in a few hours (shorter periods are also mentioned) if a military conflict begins. Let's see how much such statements correspond to reality.
In the Russian expert community, the opinion has recently become quite ingrained that there will be no need to even introduce troops into Ukrainian territory, since the Armed Forces of this country are in a deplorable state.
Some political scientists emphasize that a powerful Russian fire strike will destroy virtually all surveillance and communication systems, artillery and tank formations. Moreover, a number of experts conclude that even one crushing strike by Russia will be enough to end such a war.
As the icing on the cake, some analysts particularly emphasize the fact that no one in Ukraine will defend the “Kiev regime.”
IT WILL NOT BE AN EASY WALK
Let's start with the latter. To claim that no one in Ukraine will defend the regime means, in practice, complete ignorance of the military-political situation and the mood of the broad masses of the people in the neighboring state. Moreover, the degree of hatred (which, as is known, is the most effective fuel for armed struggle) in the neighboring republic towards Moscow is frankly underestimated. No one will meet the Russian army with bread, salt and flowers in Ukraine.
It seems that the events in the south-east of Ukraine in 2014 have taught no one anything. Back then, they also expected that the entire left-bank Ukraine would, in a single impulse and in a matter of seconds, turn into Novorossiya. They were already drawing maps, figuring out the personnel of future city and regional administrations, and developing state flags.
But even the Russian-speaking population of this part of Ukraine (including such cities as Kharkov, Zaporozhye, Dnepropetrovsk, Mariupol) did not support such plans in their vast majority. The Novorossiya project somehow imperceptibly fizzled out and died quietly.
In short, there is no way a liberation campaign in 2022, modeled on and likened to 1939, will work out. In this case, the words of the classic of Soviet literature Arkady Gaidar are truer than ever: "It seems that we will now have not an easy fight, but a hard battle."
"WITH LITTLE BLOOD, WITH A MIGHTY BLOW"
Now about the “powerful fire strike by Russia,” which will allegedly destroy “virtually all surveillance and communication systems, artillery and tank formations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.”
This expression alone shows that only political workers could say such a thing. For reference: during hypothetical military actions on the scale of a theater of military operations, strikes are made on priority targets and massive fire strikes are carried out. Note that during operational-strategic planning, the epithets "powerful" (as well as "medium", "weak", etc.) are not used.
In military science it is emphasized that strikes can be strategic (this mostly applies to strategic nuclear forces), operational and tactical. According to the number of participating forces and targets, strikes can be massive, group and single. And other concepts, even in works of a political science nature, are still better not to introduce or use.
Strikes at priority targets and massive fire strikes can be carried out within the framework of a front (fronts on Russia's western borders have not yet been formed) or the main command of the armed forces in the theater of military operations (such a command has not yet been created in the Southwestern strategic direction). Anything less than this is no longer a massive strike.
And what is, for example, a massive fire strike (MFS) of the front? To begin with, let us note that the MFS involves the maximum number of combat-ready forces and means of aviation, missile troops and artillery, electronic warfare means at the disposal of the front (operational-strategic association) commander. The MFS is one massive sortie of aviation, two or three launches of OTR and TR missile systems, several artillery fire raids. It is good if the degree of fire damage to the enemy is 60-70%.
What is the most important thing in this issue, as applied to the conflict with Ukraine? Of course, the MOU will inflict heavy losses on the probable enemy. But to expect to crush the armed forces of an entire state with just one such blow means to show simply unbridled optimism in the planning and conduct of military operations. Such MOUs will have to be inflicted not one or two, but many more in the course of hypothetical strategic actions in the theater of military operations.
It is necessary to add to this that the reserves of advanced and high-precision weapons in the Russian Armed Forces are not unlimited. Hypersonic missiles of the Zircon type are not yet in service. And the number of Kalibrs (sea-based cruise missiles), Kinzhals, Kh-101s (air-based cruise missiles) and Iskander missiles is measured in hundreds at best (tens in the case of Kinzhals). This arsenal is absolutely insufficient to wipe off the face of the Earth a country the size of France and with a population of over 40 million people. And these are precisely the parameters that characterize Ukraine.
ABOUT AIR DOMINANCE
Sometimes in the Russian expert community it is claimed (by fans of the Douhet doctrine) that since hypothetical military actions in Ukraine will take place under conditions of complete dominance of Russian aviation in the air, the war will be extremely short-lived and will end in the shortest possible time.
At the same time, it is somehow forgotten that the armed formations of the Afghan opposition did not have a single aircraft or a single combat helicopter during the conflict of 1979-1989. And the war in that country lasted for 10 years. The Chechen fighters did not have a single aircraft either. And the fight against them lasted for several years and cost the federal forces a lot of blood and victims.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces do have some sort of combat aviation, as well as air defense systems.
By the way, Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile forces (not Georgian ones) significantly pinched the Russian Air Force during the 2008 conflict. After the first day of combat operations, the Russian Air Force leadership was in outright shock from the losses they had suffered. And we shouldn't forget about that.
MOURNED IN ADVANCE
Now about the thesis "The Armed Forces of Ukraine are in a deplorable state." Of course, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have problems with aviation and modern air defense systems. But we must also admit the following. If before 2014 the Armed Forces of Ukraine were a fragment of the Soviet army, then over the past seven years a qualitatively different army has been created in Ukraine, on a completely different ideological basis and in many respects on NATO standards. And very modern weapons and equipment are now coming and continue to come to Ukraine from many countries of the North Atlantic Alliance.
As for the weakest point of the Ukrainian Armed Forces – the Air Force. It cannot be ruled out that the collective West can, in a relatively short period of time, supply Kyiv with fighters, so to speak, from the armed forces – in other words, used. However, this second-hand will be quite comparable in its tactical and technical characteristics to most of the aircraft in the Russian air fleet.
Of course, today the Ukrainian Armed Forces are significantly inferior to the Russian Armed Forces in their combat and operational capabilities. No one doubts this - neither in the East nor in the West.
But you can't treat this army lightly either. In this regard, you should always remember the advice of Alexander Suvorov: "Never despise your enemy, don't consider him stupider and weaker than you."
Now, regarding the claim that Western countries will not send a single soldier to die for Ukraine.
It should be noted that this is most likely what will happen. However, this does not at all exclude, in the event of a Russian invasion, massive aid to the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the collective West in the form of a wide variety of weapons and military equipment and large-scale deliveries of all kinds of material resources. In this regard, the West has already demonstrated an unprecedented consolidated position, which, it seems, was not predicted in Moscow.
There is no doubt that the US and the North Atlantic Alliance will begin a kind of reincarnation of Lend-Lease, modeled on the Second World War. An influx of volunteers from the West, of which there could be many, is also possible.
PARTISANS AND UNDERGROUND MEMBERSHIP
And finally, about the duration of the hypothetical campaign. The Russian expert community names several hours, sometimes even several tens of minutes. At the same time, it is somehow forgotten that we have already been through all this. The phrase "to take a city with one parachute regiment in two hours" has already become a classic of the genre.
It is also worth recalling that Stalin's mighty NKVD and the multi-million Soviet army fought the nationalist underground in Western Ukraine for more than 10 years. And now there is an option that all of Ukraine can easily join the partisans. Moreover, these formations can easily begin to operate on Russian territory.
Armed fighting in large Ukrainian cities is generally difficult to predict. It is well known that a large city is the best battlefield for the weaker and less technically advanced side of an armed conflict.
Serious experts emphasize that in a megalopolis it is possible not only to concentrate a group of thousands and even tens of thousands of fighters, but also to hide it from the superior firepower of the enemy. And also to supply it with material resources for a long time and to replenish losses in people and equipment. Neither mountains, nor forests, nor jungles provide such an opportunity today.
Experts are convinced that the urban environment helps the defenders, slows down the movement of the attackers, allows for a record number of fighters to be deployed per unit of area, and compensates for the lag in forces and technology. And in Ukraine there are more than enough large cities, including those with a million inhabitants. So, during a hypothetical war with Ukraine, the Russian army may encounter more than just Stalingrad and Grozny.
CONCLUSIONS
In general, there will be no Ukrainian blitzkrieg. Statements by some experts such as "The Russian army will defeat most of the Ukrainian Armed Forces units in 30-40 minutes", "Russia is capable of defeating Ukraine in 10 minutes in the event of a full-scale war", "Russia will defeat Ukraine in eight minutes" have no serious basis.
And finally, the most important thing. The armed conflict with Ukraine at the present time fundamentally does not meet the national interests of Russia. Therefore, some overexcited Russian experts would be better off forgetting about their self-indulgent fantasies. And in order to prevent further reputational losses, never to remember them again.
[/i]
source: https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2022-02-03/3_1175_donbass.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodaryonok
Back then, there was an absolutely safe situation on our western borders.[/b] At one time, I worked as deputy head of the presidential administration and supervised military personnel. [b]When future top military commanders came to me for interviews, I often asked them — do they see any real threat to Russia from the West? Is there any sensible and beneficial scenario for the West to attack Russia?
Not one has said “yes” in all these years.[/b]
Everyone understands perfectly well that the West is not living badly, it does not need anything. And even more so, it does not need to attack us, to receive a retaliatory strike, burned cities and countries. From the point of view of the country's security, this is empty.
If suddenly Ukraine joins NATO - and NATO commitments towards it have been accepted - then, of course, the strategic balance will shift if strike weapons, medium-range missiles, even shorter-range missiles with a flight time of several minutes to Moscow are deployed on the territory of Ukraine. But this is a topic of a completely different plan. Then it is necessary to discuss the conditions within the framework of arms limitations in Europe, non-deployment of strike weapons in Ukraine. Of course, then the corresponding demands will be put forward to us. And I fully admit that this will be one of the most important topics of negotiations, at which it will be possible to come to a common denominator.
But I repeat once again: there is no sensible scenario for an attack on Russia from Europe.
On the other hand, let's imagine that Ukraine joined NATO. It is possible that there will be hotheads there who will decide to "feel out" Russia, tickle its nerves, and maybe even drag it, as Lavrov and Putin said, into a direct confrontation with NATO. Can this be imagined? Should our territory be covered? It should be covered. Therefore, I consider the concentration of Russian troops in that region not so much as preparation for an attack, but as preparation for the formation of future fortified areas on the border with Ukraine. If in the end it is possible to reach an agreement on a general withdrawal of troops from the contact lines by 200-300 kilometers, then the troops will be redeployed. But in general, of course, when you watch Putin's old speeches, where he talks about what huge investments are coming from the West to Russia, what good relations we have, that Bush is his friend, you recall the words of Vito Corleone from "The Godfather" - "How did we come to this?"[/i]
source: https://republic.ru/posts/103121
By Evgeny Savostyanov (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%95%D0%B2%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87)
Had Ivashov been younger, there's a fair chance he'd "fall off a balcony and die".
[i]?? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ? ???? ??????????, ????? ???????????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????????, ?????? ?? ??????????, ???? ?????? ???????? ????. ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????????? ????? ???????????? ????????? ???????, ?????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????????? ?????. ???????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ????????? ????? ? ?????? ???????????? ???, ?? ??????????, ???????????, ???????????? ?????, ?????? ?????????, ??????????? ???????, ??????, ????????, ?????????? ?? ?????, ????????? ? ???????? ????? ??????????? ?? ????? ??????, ? ????????? ???? ??????. ???? ???, ??????-????, ???????? ????????????? ????. ?? ?????? ??, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???????????? ????? ????? ?????????, ? ?? ??????? ???????? «?????????», ???? ?????????????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???. ?????? ??, ??? ?????? ???? ????? ? ???, ? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ?? ???????????? ??????????.
[/i]
Against the background of the news about the transfer of Iranian short-range ballistic missiles into the hands of Muscovites, it can be stated that the axis of evil is more monolithic, decisive and united than the soft Western world. The axis of evil is thinking about preserving its long-term ruling regimes, sick-headed pro-government elites, and stockpiles of weapons to protect it all from the outside world. The Western world is thinking about the next election and pluralism of opinion in its liberal paradise, where far-left, far-right, followers of ISIS, fanatics of Palestine, supporters of Israel, greens, liberals, businessmen and homeless people, drug addicts and Baptists peacefully coexist on the same street, and respect each other. The axis of evil will ultimately defeat the civilized world. Because those who are strong are those who ship stocks of deadly weapons to their allies, and are not afraid of the mythical "escalation", when a full-scale war has been going on for the third year. Strong are those who dictate their terms and act, rather than making promises based on sociological surveys.
[i]
?????????? ??????????, ?? ?????????? ????????? ?? ?????? ? ????? ????????? ??????????. ??????, ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ? ?? ?????????, ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??????????? ??????? 16-?????? ????????? ? ?????????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ????? ????????? ????????-???????. ? ??? ? ????????????????? ????????? ? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?????, ??? ?? ??????.
??? ?????, ??? ???????? ???? ???? ??????????? ????? ???????, ? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ? ???? ????? ? ?????????????, ??????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ? ??????, ???????? ??????? ?????????? ???, ?????? ????, ?? ?????????? ??? ???. ????????? ??????? ????????? ?? ????????? ????? ? ??????????? ????? ?? ?????????? ? ????????? ?? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ? ???????. ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ????????? ?????????? ? ?????????????? ????????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ????????? - ???? ?????? ???? ?????????. ???? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????????????. ? ???? ????????? ?? ???????, ???? ?? ?? ?????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????. ? ????? ????????? ??????: ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????????? ????????? ?????. ?? ???????? ????? - ?????????. ???? ?? ?????????? ???? ???????, ? ?? ???????? - ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ????????? ?????????, ? ? ???????? ????????.
[/i]
[i]
[b]Zelensky boasted that the Ukrainian military does not capture civilian Muscovites. Are we really some animals? We are not Muscovites, only they can electrocute 16-year-old teenagers from the occupied territories and imprison civilian cook aunties for twenty-five years. Muscovites who are prisoners of war look much better in our country than before they were captured.
Meanwhile, our exchange fund continues to be too meager, and pro-Russian deputies vote in the Rada together with a monomajority, help each other flee the country, block the stands of the parliament so that, God forbid, they do not ban the FSB RPC. Muscovites are grabbing Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in occupied Crimea for VKontakte likes and a hidden Ukrainian flag in a drawer. [b]Why we can't take all civilian Muscovites from the controlled territories and exchange them for our civilians is beyond my understanding. How long will all this tolerance for the enemy prevail? War looks more and more like a rotten deal. And it will look even bigger if we respond to the crazy actions of the enemy by whining in impotent international organizations. In my understanding of morality: you must respond to a gesture with a double gesture. On double tin - triple. When they treat you harshly and you tolerate it, you will only prolong the term of your shameful existence, and in the end you will lose[b].
[/i]
[i]? ?????? ??????????????? ????????????, ???? ????????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ??????? (?? ????????? ? ?????????, ? ???????? ? ??????), ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????????? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ?????????. ????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ???????, ???????, ??????? ???????????, ?????, ???????????? ? ?? - ? ?????? ???????? ?????. ????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ? ????????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???????????? FPV. ????? ??????????? ????: ???? ? ?????????? ??????????? ?????? - ?? ?? ??????? ????. ???? ????? - ???????? ????. ?????? ??????? ??? ???????????????? - ?????? ?????. ?? ???????, ? ???? ?????????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ?????????? ??????. ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?????????????? ????????, ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ? ?????????? ?????, ???? ?????????. ??????, ?????, ??????? ???????? ??????, ????? - ????????? ????? ???????; ????????? ?????????, «????? ??????», «?????????? ????????????» - ?????????.
[/i]
In the framework of the existential confrontation, when Muscovites kill Ukrainians in whole families (as the day before yesterday in Zaporizhzhia, and today in Lviv), we cannot afford to avoid targets among Russian civilians. Every Ukrainian officer should put orphanages, hospitals, homes for the elderly, markets, supermarkets in the Russian Federation on the list of planned targets. Every civilian car of a Muscovite in the Bryansk region should be under the sights of the Ukrainian FPV. One thing must be remembered: if the Muscovites run out of missiles, the DPRK will send them to them. If drones - Iran will help. All bombers will be destroyed - China will buy. This is an axiom in which the axis of evil will not allow Muscovites to lose by military means. We can only act with terrorist methods, because we are much weaker in terms of resources than Muscovites. Panic, fear, destroyed settlements, terror are companions of our State; Geneva Conventions, "human rights", "international agreements" - weakness.
? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ???????, ??????? ? ??????? ??????? ???????. ?????, ?? ?? ????? ?? ???????. ?? ????? ? ?? ?????? ? ???? ????? ????????? ????? ?. ?? ????? ? ????????? ?????? ?? ????????????? ?????? ?? ?? ? ??????? ???, ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????, ????? ?.
In Ukraine, many people masturbate to Israel, including the first heads of state. However, we do not act like Israel. Could we destroy Belgorod from the face of the earth? They could. Could they strike Moscow's markets and shopping centers on weekends, burying Putin's electorate alive? Of course, they could.
???? ????? ???? ????????????? ? ??????????? ?????. ?? ???? - ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??, ??? ???????? ???, ???? ?? ???????????. ?????? ?????, ??????? ???. ????? ? ???????????, ???? ???? ??? ????, ?? ???????, ????? ???????????, ????????? ????????????? ??????????? ??????, ???????? ???? ??????, ?? ???? ????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????, ??????? ????? ???????. ??? ???? ????????? ???? «????????», ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ???????????, ? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????.
Nowadays, it is fashionable to be a backup singer for the central government. I don't know if certain people do it consciously or not, but it looks like it's planned. Bad boyars, good king. I am looking forward to when all this trash that is happening will somehow end, most of the mobilized will return home, new elections will be held, at which citizens will be able to confidently evaluate the current government, some people will emigrate. This is what our "victory" will look like if Kyiv is not occupied by Muscovites, and the Ukrainian State exists as such.
? ?????? ?? ??, ?? ????????? ????????? ????????????? ?????, ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ???????????? ?? ????????, ???? ?? ???????? ??????????, ? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ????????? ?????????????????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????????? ??????????????. ????????? ??????, ? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ????????? ??????, ????????????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????????, ? ?? ????????? ? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ? ??????? ?????. ?????? ????? ???????? (?????? ????????? ? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????) - ???????? ????? ???????. ????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ??? ? ???? ???????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????. ?????????? ????????? ??? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????????? ?????, ? ? ?????? ?????, ?????? ????????? ????????? ????????, ???????, ????????? ?? ?????????. ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????????, ? ? ?? ?????????????? ????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????. ?? ????? ??????? ????????, ??? ? ?? ????????. ???? ????? ?? ??????????? ??????, ? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? - ????? ???? ???????.
Given the fact that the majority of Muscovite rockets flying today from Kramatorsk to Uzhhorod hit energy facilities, I once again emphasize the actual futility of strikes only on military infrastructure. Military planes, in which hundreds of our expensive drones fly, will move further east of the borders, and their number among Muscovites exceeds the number of our planes ten times. The only way out of victory (peace negotiations with Russia on favorable terms) is to cover Russia with coffins. The number of killed civilian Muscovites must be many times higher than the number of killed Ukrainian civilians. Ukrainian artillery must raze not only enemy observation posts to the ground, but also kindergartens, forever burying little Ramzans, Akhmats, Kuzhugets, and Seraphim. Drones should fly not only over airports, but also over densely populated quarters of border regional centers. This is the only winning formula available today. As long as Russia does not choke on blood, and the number of mourning does not exceed the total number of joys, the war will continue.
[i]???????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?????? - ? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ??????????: ???????, ???????? ??????? ??????????, ???????. ????????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ????? ? ?????? ?? ??????????? ? ???? ??????.
????? ?? ??????????? ??????, ?????????? ????, ?????????, ????????? ?? ??????, ??????? ???, ??? ????? ???????? ???????? ????? ?? ?????[/i]
[i]An important aspect of conducting operations in the enemy's territories is the destruction of property and estates of Muscovites: arson, murders of the cotton electorate, bombings. Muscovites from the liberated territories are most afraid of losing their property and never returning to their shacks.
Let the Ukrainian soldier, remembering Bucha, Volnovakha, Mariupol and Bakhmut, make sure that every Muscovite remembers the court and lies[/i]
[i]?????????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ? ?????? ? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????????, ???? ? ????? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ????? ??????. ?????????? ?? ???????? ??????????????? ?????????? ?? ??? ???????? ??????. ?????, ?? ? ???? ?? ????????, ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ????????????, ????????? ????????? ??? ???????? ???????????? ????????????? ????? ? ??? ????. ???? ? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????????? «?????» ?-?? ??????. ?? ?????, ?? ? ??????, ???? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??????????, ???? ?????????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ? ???????, ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ?????. ? ?? ????????? ??????? ????? ???? ????????, ?? ??????? - ????????? ? ???? ? ??????? ? ????????. ???????? ? ?????, ?? ????? ???????????, ??? ?????? ?? ??????, ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????????, ?????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? - ?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??????. ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ????????.
??????, ??? ?? ???????????? ???? ???? ????????? ????????? ? ?????? ?????? - ?? ??????????? ??????, ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????, ???????? ????? ???????. ????? ?????, ???????, ?????? ???????? ????? ???????? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????????, ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???????. [/i]
[i]Look at how angry Putin is sitting in a chair and listening to the report of military pensioner Gerasimov, who, in the style of his Ukrainian symmetrical colleagues, talks about a stable situation and stopping the advance of our troops. Look at how despicable the Americans make excuses for our Kursk offensive. They whine that they did not agree with them, they say that they do not understand what is happening, they begin to mention the ban on the use of American weapons and all that. Our staff at the GS simply do not pick up the phone from worried "colleagues" from overseas. Because colleagues, as before, are very concerned about the peace of Russian citizens, because Americans perceive the death of Ukrainian children in Ukraine normally, but the death of Russian citizens in Russia is very painful. In their paradigm, only Ukrainians should die, on the extreme - Muscovites who have a machine gun and camouflage. A Muscovite in Suja, according to the Americans, should go to work, drink beer in the evenings before Skabeeva's TV show, go to the elections once every couple of years - vote for Putin or his party. To live is a simple Russian quiet life of the genea bukina of the quiet Kursk province.
Today, the only one who can protect Ukrainians in peaceful cities is a Ukrainian soldier walking on foreign land, killing our enemies. It is difficult for us, it is difficult, many guys after the basic course immediately went to the disco, but this is not the end of the story[/i]
????????? ???????? ??? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????????????? ???????????. ????? - ?? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????-????????, ???????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ?????????????? ????????? (> 80%). ??????????, ??? ????? ??????????, ?????, ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????????? ?????????? ???????????. ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????-???????? ???? ???????????? ?????, ????? ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ???????, ? ??????? ???? ???? ??????????? ?? ?????????????, ?????? ???? ? ????????? ??????? ???????????. ??? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ??????????????, ???????? ?? ??????????? ????? ??????? ?????????????? - ??? ????? ???? ????????????? ???? ?????? ???????? ? ??????? ???????.
A civilian Muscovite must suffer more than a military Muscovite. War is a complex political decision by the political leadership of the occupying country, elected by the absolute majority of the Muscovite population (> 80%). Accordingly, the majority of Muscovites support the actions of their president, government, defense minister, and army. As long as the civilian population of the occupying country will support the war, the war or the idea of ??a complete takeover of Ukraine, in case it ends or is suspended, will live in the vile minds of the Untermanches. The more the enemy population will be demoralized, frightened and disappointed by the myth of their own invincibility, the less such revanchist ideas will reign in the enemy's minds.
Again, unfortunately I still don't have too much time to deconstruct in detail all of your misconceptions and correct them, but I'll do a few.
Yes, obviously the point of pointing out Russia can be invaded from Ukraine is to point out that is therefore a legitimate security concern of Russia, as well as to emphasize that Russia will be much more committed to the war than the US.
However, your main problem is with this term "legitimate security concern". As I've explained many times, I am using the concept functionally as meaningful in the context of a negotiation or then discussing a negotiation.
If you want to get a criminal to talk you may need to get them a coffee as that's a legitimate ask (even from your point of view), whereas you probably won't get them a flying unicorn because that doesn't seem a legitimate ask. If you want nothing from the criminal, then that they want a coffee right now in between designated meals probably doesn't concern you all that much.
It's in the situation of wanting to come to an agreement with Russia that assigning legitimacy to some of their concerns is necessary. Some of that could be purely pragmatic (we don't genuinely agree, but some compromise is needed for a deal) and some could be genuine agreement (for example because we would have the same concern if the situation was reversed; aka. the Soviet Union placing missiles in Cuba).
Now, if you say "Bah!! Nothing the Russians want is legitimate!!" then ok, you can hold that position but what follows from that is therefore more fighting and if that's your position then you need to justify more fighting as a worthwhile endeavour: aka, what's the plan? how to win? what does more fighting achieve for Ukraine? and so on.
Which you've never done!! It's always ... well Ukrainians want to fight, it's their choice.
To which my response is that coercion is not free choice and the West bribing Ukrainian elites as well as bold faced lying to the Ukrainian people is called coercion. Likewise, forcibly drafting people and forcing them to front is also coercion and not "Ukrainians want to fight".
You're theory around these questions is so hopeless confused that unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to explain exactly why they are hopelessly confused.
And this is on top of never answering simple questions such as how many Nazis in Ukraine would be too many Nazis with too much power and therefore appeasement of said Nazis to not invade? If you have a theory of just war then you should be able to answer this question and then go onto explain that the Nazi levels in Ukraine do reach the required number and influence to morally require un-impeasement which would therefore be exactly the invasion we see.
Also, generally speaking, everything I have predicted is now coming to pass, so it seems redundant to point it out everyday. It's sort of perfunctory at this point, but I'll keep repeating myself when I have a moment.
I'll quote myself when I have the time, but within the first weeks of the war I predicted that as soon as it no longer served US interest the throwing-under-the-bussing would commence and that at anytime the US can simply paint the Ukrainians as losing, and one thing Americans don't like is people who lose, and that the loss is Ukrainians fault, that they should have tried harder and won instead.
Quoting CNN - Outgunned and outnumbered, Ukraine’s military is struggling with low morale and desertion
Bt the really key parts of this front page, top right article, is the following statements:
Quoting CNN
and most importantly:
Quoting CNN
So ... who's to blame for the West putting the Ukrainians up to fighting a war with the Russians that every single Western analyst and "decision maker" knew they would lose? (especially as they 100% knew that "whatever it takes" and "for as long as it takes" are obvious lies)
Ukraines fault!!!
The purpose of this article by CNN is to signal to the American elite that the "Ukraine show" is just about wrapped up and to inform them who the blame will be assigned to.
If memory serves me right, when I said the Ukrainians will be thrown under the exact same bus that we threw our "Afghani friends" it was you that explained that it's different because the Ukrainians are more "culturally close" or something along those lines (aka. we wouldn't let down white people).
Well, yes, they're white but very strange ... and also irredeemably corrupt and also fleeing from the battle lines as the above article explains in some detail, and most importantly they're losing and white people who win would really be a lot better.
Quoting neomac
You see, even these delusional "ultra idiots" can see the bus the Americans are pointing to Ukrainian elites to prepare (their people) to lie in front of.
Quoting neomac
Another prediction I'm pretty extremely confident on is that these kinds of hopeless offensives are mainly about getting rid of these dangerous morons: you want to fight Russians? You think "not-attacking-Russia" has been the big mistake? Have we got the operation for you!!!
This is reminiscent of the old sentiment about the weakness of democracy in a fight with authoritarianism, isn't it?
I think the reality is more complicated. Democracies are often clumsy and inefficient, but the plurality of views they offer also makes them more resilient. History has not been kind to autoritarian regimes that assumed that a democratic state would just fold because it's people and government would lack the will to fight.
With regards to aid for Ukraine especially, one aspect that seems underrepresented in the discussion is that there might be more going on internationally than we are directly aware of. The narrative is usually that western governments limit aid and restrict weapon use in order to not anger domestic constituencies. And that is certainly the case. But it might also be the case that a number of important international actors wouldn't be too happy to see the west throw it's entire armaments capacity in behind Ukraine. Chief among them China.
It seems plausible that China is threatening western nations with much more significant support for Russia because China does not care to hand the West a clean "win" in Ukraine.
Quoting boethius
I feel the need again to point out that Russia invaded and that it didn't have to do that. Ukraine was not coerced into fighting Russia by the west. It was coerced into fighting Russia by Russia.
And if we're talking about legitimate interests and security concerns, the big question becomes why invade in the first place? These discussions always revolve around how the west wronged Russia, how Russia was right to feel threatened etc. However, so far I have not seen someone actually sketch the victory scenario for Russia. If we're trying to figure out what we could offer Russia to achieve peace rather than another ceasefire, we have to answer the question of how the invasion could have advanced the legitimate concerns of Russia.
Surprise surprise.
Quoting boethius.
Exactly this argument, the way you expressly formulated it, is a NON SEQUITUR, logically speaking. To be logically valid you should argue something like this:
Premise 1 : If X can be invaded from Y by Z, then X has a legitimate security concern,
Premise 2: Russia can be invaded from Ukraine by the US,
Conclusion: Russia has a legitimate security concern
Once you explicit all the premises, for your inference to be valid we can discuss the premises, their meaning, the evidence that support them or their likelihood and assess the explanatory power of the argument vs alternative arguments (like Russian imperialism).
BTW here 3 Russian sources questioning that Putin's alleged "security concerns" were a good reason to start his war against Ukraine:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/930199
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/930301
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/930306
Quoting boethius.
All right, now the possibility that the US can invade Russia from Ukraine once Ukraine joins NATO is something the US negotiators have conceded to Russia? Or something YOU (A SELF-ENTITLED ANONYMOUS NOBODY) THINK the US has to concede to Russia to reach a deal? Or for a cooperative understanding of security concern? In both cases, on what grounds do you believe that is what the US should concede?
Quoting boethius
If with “you” you are referring to me and not to your imaginary friend, then I told you many many many times how I reason, so that you do not need to invent things at your convenience. In this forum I’m arguing in light of my understanding of geopolitics and history, once we clarified such understanding of mine we can talk my preferences (why I side with the West/NATO/Ukraine/US). But these are two separate things.
Concerning geopolitics, in short, state leaders and governments determine security concerns based (at best) on perceived “national” interest (that’s important to gain popular political legitimacy) and means to pursue them relative to their potential competitors and allies. If states are security maximisers then they will be compelled to project their power beyond their borders at the expense of their competitors. Those states in the middle that can’t compete are compelled to ally with the one perceived as less oppressive amongst the most powerful competitors, if they can't afford to remain neutral. I interpret everything else concerning military, economic, political, propaganda moves in light of this core assumption. The US and Russia are examples of competing powers and Ukraine allies with the one perceived as the less oppressive. ALL THREE as sovereign states are compelled to pursue their national interest, each of them according to their means.
Quoting boethius
I don’t feel compelled by your framing so I raised objections to it which you keep avoiding to address.
On the other hand, my answer is in line with my geopolitical assumptions as applied to the Ukrainian conflict.
So if you want to sound challenging to me, then you have to address my objections to your framing assumptions and/or raise objections to my framing assumptions, NOT to keep repeating your claims based on your framing assumptions.
Quoting boethius
First, so far, these are just allegations. I’m still waiting for you to list the lies Ukrainian elites have been bribed to tell the Ukrainian people by the West, and provide documented cases supporting it.
Second, there is the strategic perspective: if Ukrainian elites can be bribed by the West to lie, they can be bribed by the Russians too, right? [1] So, as far as I'm concerned, even bribing and lies can be better understood in light of foreign competing powers whatever the environment of domestic corruptible political elites is. Still it’s up to Ukrainians elites and their base to decide what to do about it.
Third, “forcibly drafting people and forcing them to front is also coercion and not ‘Ukrainians want to fight’” is a fallacious argument as I explained. There is no contradiction in episodes of forced conscription and ‘Ukrainians want to fight’, nor any inherently compelling proof of immorality or illegality in forcing conscription, that’s in the Ukrainian constitution and civic duty.
Fourth, my argument that ‘Ukrainians want to fight’ is grounded on geopolitical principles (it’s up to sovereign states’ political leaders to determine national interest also in accordance to popular sentiment) and history of Ukraine (the ethnic rivalry between Russia and Ukraine has a long history which also Mearsheimer discussed in the article you cited), as I argued. In several previous posts I also provided additional supporting arguments from their institutions, polls, social media research, access to foreign media and reports, and so on. What I can acknowledge is that ‘Ukrainians want to fight’ comes with more caveats now than it used to. Understandably so.
[1]
https://www.politico.eu/article/voice-of-europe-russia-influence-scandal-election/
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-is-weaponizing-corruption-to-weaken-europe-from-within/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/19/ukraine-corruption-us-accountability-war/
https://www.csce.gov/articles/russia-s-weaponization-corruption-and-western-complicity/
https://visegradinsight.eu/russia-bribe-eu-corruption-ukraine/
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/36723
https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-burisma-terror-financing/32898922.html
Quoting boethius
That’s why I have no pity for you. Apparently you have enough time to repeat once again arguments you have repeated already thousand times. But zero time to respond pertinently to objections, though.
Quoting boethius
I never claimed that I have a theory of just war, and you never explained to me why a theory of just war should answer “simple questions such as how many Nazis in Ukraine would be too many Nazis with too much power and therefore appeasement of said Nazis to not invade?”
Besides the video YOU POSTED (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgKTfe-IqA) offers some input on this:
- ?At minute 9:39 the guy says “if you look at the electoral results of the far-right political parties in Ukraine, they actually only add up add up to 1.65% IN TOTAL, which is less than some INDIVIDUAL far-right parties in other European countries have achieved” and that doesn’t even reach the bar for obtaining any seats.
- At minute 15:54, the guy answers to question about the scale of the Azov phenomenon as follows: “In absolute numbers, it’s a TINY TINY TINY of the Ukrainian population. None knows for sure, but I think the last reliable figures were about 2000 active fighters at any one time”, while the wider Azov movement is max 20k people.?
- At minute 12:32, the guy goes even so far to concede: “If there wasn’t a neo-nazi problem before this war, there might be afterwards”. So Putin’s war would be the reason why there is a neo-nazi problem for Ukraine that wasn’t there before the war.
I could go on with the Russian Nazis that started the invasion in Ukraine. But I did that already, abundantly, in previous posts which you missed or ignored. And will still miss or ignore. Start from here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/882175
Quoting boethius
I don’t care about your predictions. I care about your arguments.
But yes keep repeating, pls. I can’t get enough of your poison.
Quoting boethius.
Quoting boethius
One can make certain predictions based on historical patterns in American foreign policy and related propaganda. But identifying historical patterns depend also on how blind one is to other relevant circumstantial factors that may differ from one case to the other. You are overly dismissive of the Ukrainian agency and the relevance of the challenges that the US is facing now wrt to the ones the US when it was the unique super power immediately after the end of the Cold War. So your prediction doesn't make your argument more compelling, even in case it turns “roughly” right.
Besides your self-promoting routine of manipulatively interpreting conveniently chopped claims from mainstream media as evidence to support your grand denunciation of Western conspiracy propaganda, is intellectually repellent. Propaganda for the good and for the bad is part of the game, so we have to take it for what it is and assess it in the context of the political game we think it’s being played. I and you do not only differ in the way we understand the political game which is being played, but you seem to believe that spinning pro-Russian counter-propaganda is a master piece of deconstructionist analysis of pro-Western propaganda.
Quoting boethius
Your universal claim “every single Western analyst and ‘decision maker’ knew they would lose” was and is evidently questionable:
https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202207-ukraine-final-web_0.pdf
https://www.iiss.org/en/online-analysis/survival-online/2024/01/making-attrition-work-a-viable-theory-of-victory-for-ukraine/
And I doubt that every Western analyst would ground his/her analysis on "whatever it takes" and "for as long as it takes" declarations. Indeed, there is no mention of these claims in the 2 articles I posted. You are embarrassingly unfamiliar to or purposefully ignoring basic notions of logic and argumentation.
Quoting boethius
Yes indeed, I still think that Ukrainians are culturally closer to the West than the Afghans or Iraqis or the Russians, for that matter. I still do believe so. But this claim is only part of a larger argument explaining the ratio of Western/American support for the Ukrainian resistance, to my understanding.
Sure, but one must assess pros and contra of the Democratic vs Authoritarian decision process as it applies to evolving circumstances influenced by differences in economic performance, military capacity, demographic and cultural factors, technology advancement, systems of alliance, so I’m not sure that what held in the past, will still hold in the future. The other institutional issue with Western democracy is due to several comparative advantages that favour anti-West authoritarian regimes:
1. Western democracies can be infiltrated by propaganda from hostile authoritarian regimes to sow confusion and division in the West more easily than the other way around.
2. Western democracies can be corrupted by authoritarian regimes more easily than the other way around since in the latter case surveillance is tighter and traitors risk their lives, if not also that of their family (even abroad). You may have heard about the American youtube influencers paid by Russia (https://www.npr.org/2024/09/07/nx-s1-5101895/doj-says-russia-paid-right-wing-influencers-to-spread-russian-propaganda, Margarita Simonyan - the editor-in-chief of the Russian state-controlled broadcaster RT - is even publicaly boasting about RT's covert propaganda targeting Americans https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1831398758137127099, https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1761911899363426795 )
3. Institutionalized humanitarian concerns in Western democracies (way more acute now than in the past see the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan, plus 2 nuclear bombs during WW2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_strategic_bombing) can be weaponised against the West: i.e. enemies of the West are more free to execute all sorts of war crimes , and by this means destroy public moral more easily than Westerners can afford, while accusing the West of hypocrisy at every suspicion of war crimes committed by the West (no matter what laws of war say about collateral damage).
Quoting Echarmion
I agree, the conflict in Ukraine in an emergent multi-polar world order brings with it all kinds of security dilemmas , including the ones about all other relevant geopolitical actors actual or potential moves (like the race for strategic autonomy in terms of commodity supply for supporting a potential war effort, adequate military industrial complex, military conscription, nuclear weapons, plans to deal with asymmetric warfare which democracies are vulnerable to, strategic alliances, etc.)
You mean that Biden has bribed Zelensky to get rid of the Ukrainian ultra nationalists by sending them to certain death with "these kinds of hopeless offensives" because they do not serve anymore the US and then Biden will pay some CNN journalist to write an article to fault the Ukrainains also for this, right?
Here some options, the CNN journalist will:
- Blame Zelensky for sacrificing its best combatants and dooming his country to certain defeat since other Ukrainians are too peaceful, coward or corrupt to fight patriotic wars as only Western men of honor can do, right? And therefore for obliging the West to take the hard decision to not support Ukraine's reconstruction after they squandered the Western aids so recklessly?
- Or blame Zelensky for understanding too late ultra-nationalists were a real danger (since they pushed him and all Ukraine to a catastrophic war after committing a 8-year genocide in Donbas) after years of lies to silence Western concerns about Ukrainian neo-nazis? And therefore for obliging the West to take the hard decision to not support Ukraine's reconstruction after they squandered the Western aids so recklessly?
- Or blame Zelensky for realizing too late that defeat was inevitable and getting rid of the ultra-nationalists was the only way to finally surrender to Russia's peace conditions, which he didn't need to. Indeed, if he only accepted the Russian deal (see Instanbul Communiquée) as advised by Biden behind doors (to keep publicly honoring Ukrainians' free decision) instead of spreading the lie that the West tried to block it, none of this would happen. And therefore blame Zelensky should be also blamed for obliging the West to take the hard decision to not support Ukraine's reconstruction after they squandered the Western aids so recklessly?
- Others?
I wonder why noone ever expresses their sadness for all the young Russian men who have to die in Ukraine (and now also Kursk I guess) because their leadership embarked on a destructive war.
If they had just not done it, they'd all be fine. It's very strange to me that the position of the anti-war left us simultaneously that war is terrible but also apparently that war is inevitable.
Nope.
So you'd agree countries are not literally forced to start an offensive war? That whatever government does actually order it's soldiers to cross the border and start shooting did in fact decide to do this?
Humble advise, don't challenge him too much. Mikie is a typical case of "emotional flatulence":
"Fart in the Wind is a metaphor for emotional flatulence. [...] It compares the act and response to "farting,” to the act and response to sharing honest feelings, shock, shame, embarrassment and desire to run from the scene."
Here @Mikie, see if you can find some help: https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Flatulence-Establish-Healthy-Relationships-ebook/dp/B0079QQDP4
“Forced”? Of course not — no one had a gun to Bush’s head to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, or Bibi’s head to start a genocide in Gaza. Or Putin’s head to invade Ukraine. In a certain sense, no wars are “forced.” In another, whenever you want to justify one, just say it was “defensive.”
I see 573 pages has done no good. We’re apparently still at “If you disagree with me you think Putin is good.” Pity.
This is convenient framing that you, like some other posters, like to proscribe for us.
Just like the convenient framing that excludes Russian or Ukrainian decisions from the equation and reduces everything to the US as the great Satan and the Ukrainians as the hapless victims.
That framing is leading you to exclude the russian war dead, who on an individual level certainly also include many victims, from your consideration. I think this is a notable omissions from someone who purportedly is worried about the human cost of the fighting.
This war is also a russian tragedy. How do you propose to understand it if you're not even seeing that side of the equation?
It’s a framing because that’s what you, and others, are constantly doing. You just did it above, and you know it.
For example:
Quoting Echarmion
The US is not a great Satan and Ukrainians are not hapless victims, although most of the population is. Ditto Russia.
Quoting Echarmion
I feel for the Russian dead as well. But they’re the invading force, so yes I de-emphasize that. Doesn’t mean it’s right to kill innocent people — regardless of nationality.
Quoting Echarmion
I think it’s an unfortunate move by Russia— even stupid in a political and strategic sense. But they do seem to be winning, and now have a lot of leverage. I don’t necessarily like that, but that seems to be the case so far.
So it’s tough to say it’s a “tragedy” for Putin. The Russian people on the other hand— yeah, maybe it is.
[sup]During Vladimir Putin's tenure (1999-), various positions have been filled by ex-KGB and such (almost resembling a slow coup).
In 2003, one of the richest Russian oligarchs, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, talked about widespread corruption in front of a dismayed Putin (in a public meeting), putting numbers on the money, and what happened? The same year he's tossed in prison where he'd be for a decade. Control. Signaling.
Starting around 2009, Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) tried to "reset" and improve US-Russia relations. Around 2011, Putin had troubles at home, there were protest against him in various cities across Russia, and what happened? Putin blamed Clinton.[/sup]
Sometime, whenever, before 2009, the Kremlin circle (apparently uncompromisingly) decided that it would be unbearable to lose control over Crimea, and perhaps lose their empowering influence over Ukraine, something along those lines. Likely not an overnight thing; perhaps there'd been an "entitled", irredentist, "ownership", revanchist sentiment since the end of the Cold War in those circles. They'd need to secure a land bridge to whatever they hence might have to grab. A new or extended Kharkiv Pact wouldn't do, for example. Couldn't be left for an independent country to decide. Planning.
And so that decision marked the — henceforth seemingly inevitable — collision course of which we've seen the results. The Kremlin circle (whenever before 2009) against Ukraine (1991).
After all, we're talking about the largest country in the world, assertive, powerful, to be respected — and regressive. Well, meanwhile, despite resistance from early on and later invasion, Ukraine has been working towards implementing a modern, free, transparent democracy.
:lol:
Calling the war a "US proxy war" implies that the US and not Russia is primarily responsible for the Russian decision to invade. Do you disagree with that?
Quoting Mikie
How do you define "winning" for Russia though? In terms of territory?
It's honestly incredible that you're able to get this close to the truth and yet not get it.
The only thing to change is that the US bribes all the Ukrainian elites with billions of untraceable funds and weapons as well as essentially de facto full immunity for laundering the money anywhere in the West. It's not just Zelensky getting bribed and also Zelensky is an idiot so I have little problem believing that the money is less important to him than playing the war hero in the script given to him.
But yes, spot on, these "ultra nationalists", aka. literal Nazis, are no longer useful to US interests.
These idiots were needed to start the war (i.e. keep shelling the Donbas for 8 years), and impose a terrorizing fascist dictatorship on the Ukrainian people in order to force people to the front (i.e. just straight up assassinate anyone engaging in critical thinking), as well as be propped up as elite soldier heroes for the part of Ukrainian society that actually wants to drink the coolaid.
However, in the phase of the war we're in now, called the fronts are collapsing phase, these Nazis are simply more trouble than their worth.
Solution, let them do what they've been asking for (and sometimes just going ahead and doing themselves on occasion) and invade Russia. For, the weakness of these particular delusional idiots is that they're delusional enough to think their "ultra stupidity" can actually defeat the Russians.
Quoting neomac
Quoting neomac
I'm honestly feeling this vibe pretty hard. You're not just warm, I'd say you're burning hot on this one.
Quoting neomac
Cold, very cold, far from the prize. This is just way too complicated for a Western audience. What you're describing here sometimes goes by the name of "introspection" and we'll have none of it.
But sure, maybe a little "turns out there's a lot of Nazis" hints and nudges to smooth out "not supporting Ukraine's reconstruction".
Quoting neomac
Again, way too complicated for a Western audience, but elements of what you're talking about maybe tossed around. For sure, "they wanted to fight!" will be the main refrain whenever the absolute disaster is pointed out.
I think you should consider the possibility you're just overthinking things.
US doesn't feel the need to justify anything at all, nor even talk about it.
Even if random Neo-cons blurt out these kinds of talking points (whether true or made-up) the moral of the story is that it won't matter anyways in the mainstream media.
We're entering the "see you in the next war" denouement on this one and things are falling apart, nothing makes sense but it doesn't really matter if you don't actually live in the house you just trashed with your "arch nemesis" frat bro rivals.
Like, you're talking as if these people are accountable to someone or something and would need to like someday makeup justifications or something for their actions and even try to make those make some sort of sense or whatever.
You're honestly really starting to scare me.
We don't talk about the previous wars.
The second rule of start wars for profiteering club is:
We don't talk about the previous wars!
The THIRD rule of start wars for profiteering club is:
WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THE PREVIOUS WARS!!!
I've literally been called a paid Russian intelligence officer by members of your "us", multiple times.
Yet, I'm the only one who explained how US / NATO boots on the ground (before or at the start of the war), creating a crisis, could have worked militarily and more importantly diplomatically and avoided the war, and that I'd be totally for that.
The reason that such direct action was and is unthinkable in any Western policy analysis or decision or talking heads of even this forum (except by me), is because obviously Ukrainian sovereignty is not the objective, but "Overextending and Unbalancing Russia" ... which to remind this exact war and it's likely consequences are described in a Rand summary of that very name, presented in a nice little slide show summarizing a much longer document that explains this very war, how to start it, how Russia would react and what the result would likely be.
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
Rand discusses exactly the measures that would likely lead to "escalation" by Russia:
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
And what are the likely benefits?
Well, we don't have to guess as there's a section clearly titled "benefits":
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
and of course Rand is full of clever, straightforward and there's always risk when contemplating benefits, and we don't have to guess what those are either as the very next section is clearly titled "risks", starting with:
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
Which a full-blown large scale war I'm pretty sure qualifies as "somewhat higher level of intensity".
But by this wording are the authors being simply being coy or do the authors actually believe "somewhat higher" rather than "a lot higher" is the upper bound of risk?
No, because they clearly state what the risk outcomes are in the next section putting it together:
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
The authors are clearly describe exactly the likely result of escalation which is exactly what has happened:
Loss of Ukrainian lives has increase.
Loss of Ukrainian territory has increased.
This is all generally a serious setback for U.S. Policy.
Notice nowhere in this document or any other U.S. document is there any concern for Ukrainian sovereignty or the wellbeing of Ukrainians. Loss of Ukrainian lives and territory is noted as one drawback of the policy of escalation, but the goal is clearly to evaluate whether that would extend Russia or not. This action is not ultimately counselled by the authors not because a lot of Ukrainians would die in a war but because Russia would very super likely win a larger war and the it would be on the whole worse for the US to simply lose the proxy war in simple terms.
Notice nowhere in this document nor any other similar US policy analysis document you'll find anything describing how Ukraine can actually "win" or discussing US direct intervention to "save the day" if the likely outcome of expanding the war occurs.
Why you may ask?
It's because Ukraine is being used as a proxy to damage Russia without any concern of the outcome for Ukrainians or "Ukraine" as some special entity we should care about apart from the people in it.
The only question this brings up is why does the US not follow the Rand advise and "calibrate" support to avoid a larger war that Russia would win and thus embarrass the US.
The answer, as described above in my previous posts, is called "war profiteering".
If you want to continue the giant war profiteering engine that was Iraq and Afghanistan you're going to need another war. This document in 2019 an answers the question of how to start a larger war in Ukraine, also why that's bad for both Ukraine and US long term interests.
But what if you don't care about Ukraine and US long term interests? What if what you care about are 2 super important things to you:
1. Keeping the war profiteering engine going and even increase military and covert budgets, corporate defence profits, black market laundering, exports!
2. Show the Biden administratoin to be "strong" militarily rather than open to the critique of the pullout of Afghanistan.
Well, this exact war we are considering accomplishes those two things. Maybe the Rand authors really did and do care about US long term interests, but that does not mean people who make policy and reading this document do.
If you have other goals than US long term interests then the questions you'll be asking yourself when faced with the extremely likely loss by Ukraine in a larger war is:
Yeah, but defeated by Russia when?
For, as long as the war can be dragged out until the next election then, after the election, Ukraine dropped like a hot shell, it doesn't really matter that Russia is going to win and US be embarrassed and a new Cold War started and all that, as that doesn't concern you.
What you'll do is have the military war game things out (just not publicly as with this Rand paper) and what those war games will reveal is that Russia has no means of simply overrunning all of Ukraine. The initial invasion will run out of steam, then more will need to be mobilized as Russias standing army in 2022 was simply not that big, with the addition of the problem of pacifying conquered regions and so on. They don't know what Russia will do exactly but what they do know is that Russia is very unlikely to win in direct military terms in any short period of time. They'd also know on the off chance they're wrong and Russia does simply overrun Ukraine then that doesn't really embarrass the US as we all knew "Russia would win in 3 days" anyways, and then Russia is anyways the big meany and sanctions can continue and gas sold to Europe and so on.
Long story short, any war gaming this situation out would likely conclude what is likely to happen in a larger war is exactly what has happened, and what has happened is what was desired by policy makers. We can also be pretty sure of this as independent analysis before the war concluded the maximum Russia is likely to achieve in any short period of time is exactly what has been achieved: a land bridge to Crimea.
Further wargaming would reveal that once fronts stabilized the next phase would be high intensity attrition due to the immense artillery capability of the Russians and that Ukraine, being smaller and less well equipped, will reach a breaking point, but that takes years (aka. after the next election).
So, what we can glean from the US establishments own documents is that they knew exactly how Russia would respond to their actions described in their publicly available document dedicated to finding ways to harm Russia, and then Russia did respond in exactly that way in response to those actions.
If you can look at all this publicly available info and come up with quibbles about Ukraine's status as a US proxy to advance US interests at the expense of Ukraine, then you're engaging in what is obvious propaganda to advance US interests at the expense of Ukraine.
Promulgating the entirely false and ludicrous narrative that the West's policy is to help Ukraine out of the goodness of our hearts, doesn't help Ukrainians but gets more Ukrainians killed.
As for Russia's actions, they are a signatory and so also guarantor of the Minsk agreements, both Ukraine and Western leaders have publicly admitted those accords were done in bad faith with no intention of following them, and indeed Ukraine didn't follow them as was the plan and so therefore Russia is entirely justified in forcing Ukraine to abide by the accords, such as respect the people of the Donbas and stop shelling them.
If implementing these accords by force is somehow breaching the previous Budapest Memorandum then the guarantors of that agreement would of course be justified in similarly implementing that agreement by force.
The guarantors of the Budapest Memorandum do no such thing and so we can conclude that they agree there's no breach happening or then they simply don't care about Ukraine enough to fulfill their written obligations from which we can conclude Ukraine has already been fooled once by the West and is now in the process of being fooled again with the "as long as it takes" talk.
It's easy to understand the mechanism the Americans are using here: as Russia inches closer to victory, Moscow will be more and more reluctant to escalate. Conversely, the Americans will be able to provoke Russia in increasingly risky ways.
But why?
It appears they are seeking to raise the threat environment for its own sake.
Perhaps the sole purpose is to placate Kiev without any regard for the threat environment, but my sense is that at this point even Kiev understands that strikes into Russia will do nothing to improve their position in the war.
And did any of that actually happen?
Quoting boethius
No, it doesn't, since what we're seeing is an entirely different category of conflict. The paper clearly does not describe a full blown war by Russia, since the writers did not expect Russia would take such a step. If they did want to predict that, they'd have stated it directly.
Quoting boethius
You're not reading that properly. It says that a disadvantageous peace settlement of the Donbas conflict would be a setback to US policy. But we're no longer in that stage of the conflict anyways.
Quoting boethius
Because putting boots on the ground in Ukraine would be so widely unpopular that no government could afford it.
Quoting boethius
You haven't actually described any of the actions the US took to escalate the conflict so this is an empty claim.
Quoting boethius
It doesn't, and you can't start a war that's already ongoing.
Quoting boethius
A war which does not exist. You're talking about a theoretical scenario which did not end up happening.
Quoting boethius
So why the hell did Russia invade?
Quoting boethius
What actions did the US take? And the result is not remotely described in the document. The document does not describe a full blown invasion by Russia.
Quoting boethius
Yeah you're making sweeping claims and then accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a propagandists. Weren't you the one complaining about being called a propagandist? Pot, meet kettle.
Quoting boethius
This is a lie. If you don't want to be accused of being a russian propagandist, maybe don't lie.
Quoting boethius
This is complete nonsense. Russia did not abide by the terms either. Not only is your conclusion that Russia would be justified to escalate the war in order to enforce Minsk complete nonsense, it's also factually wrong.
Quoting Tzeentch
We can't really answer this if you're not telling us what you're actually talking about.
But if billions of funds used to bribe ALL Ukrainian elites by the US are “untraceable”, how can you claim with such a certainty that the US is bribing ALL the Ukrainian elites, besides Zelensky?!
Quoting boethius
I prefer to review criteria, compelling facts and, possibly, metrics backing up such sweeping assertions. So far you didn’t offer much to me, but you keep talking as if you did. Rather surreal.
Quoting boethius
Don’t be scared man of honour, it was just a passtime exercise about you predicting the likely content of a future article which Biden would have "untraceably" bribed some CNN journalist to write.
At this point I think you yourself could write this article for CNN, since you have it all figured out. You could earn some dollars from the US (instead of the usual rubles) , you know,
and come back at us with: "once again, as I’ve predicted, motherfuckaaaas!"
He comes here, asks himself questions, and then answers to himself. There is lots of agreeing with himself going on, apparently. And then he goes in another thread to do the same.
Serious as shit.
It's exactly what happened. We're at the WTF are you talking about stage of the debate.
The RAND paper describes what will likely lead to "higher intensity conflict":
1. Supplying arms
2. Keep saying Ukraine will join NATO
Then describes the likely outcome:
3. "doing so could also increase the loss of Ukrainian lives and territory"
Ukraine has lost 20% of its territory (so far) and upwards of 700 000 lives, maybe more, and if conquered Ukrainians who are now Russian and emigration that won't return is counted then it's millions of lost Ukrainians.
What RAND says will happen is exactly what has happened and likewise the predicted "serious setback to U.S. policy", which RAND also explains the reason being that Russia will be more committed than the US to any escalation and therefore win.
Which RAND predicts is exactly what has happened.
Quoting Echarmion
You have to actually read the paper to play the "what do the authors say in the paper" game.
What I already cited is definitely sufficient, as if the authors are predicting Ukraine losing more lives and territory in an escalation with Russia ... that process obviously happens due to an invasion and therefore war. They use euphemistic and open ended language because that's how people talk in these circles.
But they are extremely clear, they repeat the point several times, here's another:
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
What this is the alternative to, and note more likely, is the idea of Russia pulling back due to US escalation in Ukraine.
This is clearly "big moves", including straight up occupying Belarus.
Most importantly for our discussion, Russia escalating and seizing more of Ukraine in a way that induces serious strain.
The authors are clearly describing a process of Russia conquering parts of Ukraine in high intensity conflict that causes serious strain: AKA a war and not just waltzing in unopposed in certain places because it's quick and easy and does require a war to do so.
The authors view is that any escalation of the Donbas hot war is bad for US policy (as Russia will win those escalations) so they make that argument. Escalation results in Ukraine losing more territory and lives and so it follows from this position that escalating to a maximum extent would result in maximum loss of Ukrainian territory and lives.
The authors recommend seeking a diplomatic solution to the Donbas conflict in which lethal aid could be one point of leverage to do so but only makes sense in a larger diplomatic strategy.
Quoting Echarmion
No, it says that either Ukraine will lose territory and lives [I]or[/i] then be forced into a disadvantageous peace (to avoid said loss of territory and lives).
The authors correctly predict those are the options and we're in the scenario in which Ukraine chose to lose more lives and territory. Had Ukraine taken the peace deal at the start of the war that would have been the disadvantageous peace option, and that too would be a setback to US policy; a much smaller setback but a more sooner and immediate setback where you don't get to play war hero until the next election. Pretending Ukraine can win, is winning, will win allows the setback to be delayed by many years.
Quoting Echarmion
If you're talking costs, Western governments can definitely afford it and it would be a lot cheaper than the hundreds of billions sent to Ukraine.
If you're talking political costs due to unpopularity, obviously true and we can draw several conclusions from this obvious fact.
First, this fact simply emphasizes the disconnect between what Western leaders say and their actual practically available mandate from their own people. Sure, people love putting Ukraine flag emojis everywhere, makes them feel good, but actually going and helping Ukraine directly is essentially unthinkable as Westerners don't wish to pay any real cost. Therefor, when Western leaders say "as long as it takes" and "whatever it takes" and "we'll stand by Ukraine" and talk about how Ukrainian sovereignty is so important and even more extreme things like "Russia must be defeated" and so on, those are all total lies that do not represent what the West is actually willing to do. What the West is actually willing to do is extremely limited in comparison with what is practically possible, and the extent of the willingness is prop up Ukraine just long enough to lose the war (just after the next election), and this policy is maintained by a drip feed of weapons systems into Ukraine, supplying the next only after the impact of the previous is absorbed and adapted to by the Russians and attrition degrades Ukrainian capacity generally speaking.
The second conclusion we can draw is that while Western people don't want lives lost or a nuclear war, they would actually be thrilled by the West seen to "win" some direct confrontation with Russia. The strategy of direct confrontation with Russia did not involve any loss of Western lives; the strategy would be Cuban missile crisis 2.0 which would obviously result in a negotiated resolution.
The reason is not thinkable is because we know Western leaders are duplicitous, corrupt, ineffectual, and have no moral foundation. No Western leader actually cares about the Ukrainian people and we all know that and therefore (unless you have an imagination) there exists no premises out there in which to build such a process in one's mind. Western leaders do not care about Ukrainian democracy, Ukrainian sovereignty, Ukrainian territory, do not care about saving Ukrainian lives, do not care about avoiding violent escalation in Ukraine, simply do not care, they have no principles, they are not moral people, and we all know that and implicitly accept that as the start of any analysis. The mention of principles is only relevant in terms of a game of scoring political points and at no point does anyone in the West believe our leaders have any actual truly felt moral principles.
Therefore, they would not even contemplate going in and "standing up to Putin" because while that could save Ukrainian territory and Ukrainian lives, it what wouldn't it accomplish?
First, it wouldn't accomplish a long war and all the war profiteering that goes along with that.
Second, it wouldn't create a second Cold War.
The result would actually be exactly what Russia has been asking for: a new security architecture in Europe that reduces tensions overall in the long term.
For, if you start war gaming out sending troops into Ukraine to defend Ukraine (something people, especially Western leaders, love to mention at every opportunity that Ukraine is sovereign and therefore can do what it wants, join whatever alliance it wants and so on), the only next step is a negotiated de-escalation of the situation. The chances of nuclear war if the fighting actually starts between Russia and Western troops and aircraft is so great as to be completely unacceptable. The situation would be so intense and obviously dangerous that Western leaders (lacking any actual statecraft skills themselves) would be forced (by common sense and obviously the overwhelming demand of the people) to effectively give up control of the process to the experienced senior diplomats that are still around to rapidly come to a settlement with the Russians.
Had this happened, the end result would be good for everyone, and the maximum good result for Ukraine by avoiding the war that happens instead. We'd be "talking the language" that Putin understands and we'd actually gain respect in Putin and in Russia by having balls.
Once the deescalation occurs Western leaders would be viewed as geopolitical geniuses that "saved Ukraine" by bold action.
Why this is completely unacceptable to the people that actually rule us is that the long term effects are more peace, less arms profiteering, less buying up all the Ukrainian land (that's still Ukrainian) on the cheap, and actually rehabilitating Russia as a player in the Western political system.
The strategy here is not to maintain the "rules based order" but rather to carve it out for the US exclusive dominance, which means separating this system from the other major players: namely Russia and China. Countries that can be dominated by the US will continue to function under the "rule based order" and countries that can't be dominated need to fuck off from it.
As important to ejecting Russia from the system through a war (rather than a standoff that can end in a hug and "we didn't want to blow you up nukes bro", single tears and various hugging memes) is that the war also weakens Europe. With Russia as a energy and resource partner of Europe, the Europeans, with their competitor to the US dollar the Euro, could become equal partners of the US in the "rules based order"; you'd end up with three economic centres: the US, Europe and China all relatively equal in international influence. The US could also simply collapse financially in this scenario due to continued mismanagement.
I could go on, but the point is that it's super telling that when I explain how NATO could use it's "mightiest might that ever might the earth" to deter Russia from killing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and taking large parts of Ukrainian territory, it's "No! NO! Can't do that!! Uh-uh! NO".
But why not? The reason is because our cynical use of Ukrainians not only for Western interests but for US war machine and energy interests, at the expense of both Ukraine and pretty much every other sector of Western society, is completely internalized in the minds of most Westerners.
Quoting Echarmion
"The war" in the context of this debate has been used to refer to the war that started in 2022 of Russia regular forced invading Ukraine in multiple fronts. When people want to refer to the Donbas civil war that preceded that, they usually specify that.
But yes, thanks for recognizing the reality that the invasion in 2022 is an escalation of an already existing 8 year civil war, in which the independent Donbas regions have the right to declare independence and form their own alliances just as Ukraine can form theirs, and that Russia therefore did not start any war but interceded on behalf of allies as allies are want to do. For, in our system, separatism is completely legitimate ... as long as you win. Obviously no one's demanding the US reintegrate as a UK colony.
Quoting Echarmion
Again, if Russia didn't start a war in 2022 then there's not even potential violation of international law, so thanks for that clarification.
However, as mentioned above "the war" refers to the war at hand, and my use of "the war" refers to the war we get starting in 2022, whereas in the paper they use the term "increased intensity" to refer to a larger war between Russia and Ukraine directly, and they refer to the civil war in the Donbas as a Russian proxy war. Sometimes different words refer to the same thing; since this conversation has taken "the war" to refer to the 2022 invasion, as the mainstream media uses that language so we easily know what we're talking about, I use our language to explain the authors meaning. Of course, the authors don't know exactly what escalation will look like, how big it may get; they don't get into that analysis because they view any escalation as bad for US policy.
But thanks for your pointless quibbles that clearly demonstrate you are a a complete idiot.
Quoting Echarmion
The war definitely exists, we can see it.
Whether you want to use language in which the war started in 2014 and is one continuous war up until now or then language that breaks up the fighting into first a civil war from 2014 to 2022 and then a Russia-Ukraine war since then.
Of course, the authors wrote in the past, so from their perspective in 2019 the war that starts in 2022 is a hypothetical scenario that is covered by their "higher intensity" language. Obviously what we see is higher intensity and their analysis of higher intensity is exactly correct: Ukraine will lose more territory and more lives and the whole ordeal will be a setback for US policy.
Quoting Echarmion
Simply because the US provokes a larger war to extend Russia and Russia know the US is provoking a larger war to extend Russia does not imply that therefore Russia should not do exactly what the US is provoking.
The same RAND analysis that explains what would the US would need to do to provoke an escalation by Russia explains exactly why Russia would do that: it would be a setback for US policy and a win for Russia.
The paper does not explain why Russia going to war in Ukraine would be bad for Russia as a nation state, but the opposite: summed up in clearly stating escalation will likely be a setback for US policy. Since the paper is dedicated to finding how to extend and weaken Russia, then a setback for US policy is an advancement of Russian policy in this context of relative power analysis.
I can go into all the details (for the n'th time) of why "Russia" when considered as a nation state benefits from the war, but basically: more territory, more people (from refugees out of Ukraine and said territory), more respect in the international system, more arms sales, more "national unity" and a long list of other benefits to the "power" of a nation state (that is a fictitious shared construct of the mind but with very real world effects).
But the main reason for this much bigger war is exactly what you keep mentioning that there's anyways already a war in the Donbas since 2014. This situation simply wasn't sustainable and ending that war is an inevitable necessity. It could be ended diplomatically, that Russia and Ukraine and the West did nominally a whole two times, or then it could be ended by force. By simply maintaining the War in the Donbas (by supplying arms, and training and support and encouragement; i.e. using US leverage to prop up the war rather than US leverage to try to find a resolution) an escalation by Russia is inevitable. Russia could not simply let the Donbas separatists be crushed. Unlike Western people who do not care enough about Ukrainians to take on any actual risk, the people's overwhelming demand in Russia is to defend the ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
By refusing outright to negotiate it then puts Russian leaders in the position of needing to issue ultimatums, which Putin then did, and when your "bluff is called" and you aren't actually bluffing then you are obliged to act on your threat to maintain credibility. Putin made clear that we either come to a a deal, a new security architecture in Europe, or he'll invade Ukraine. The US and Europe "called his bluff", so to maintain credibility when you're not actually bluffing you are obliged to act on your word.
Why try to avoid war if the likely outcome of a war is good for Russia and bad for the US in terms of national state power dynamics? because the likely outcome isn't guaranteed so you have to take into account low probability but disastrous outcomes. A negotiated settlement can easily be worse in terms of likely outcome, but is a lot more predictable process without the risk of low-probability but extreme bad outcomes.
Why then go to war when a peace negotiation doesn't work is if the situation and trajectory have anyways those low-probability but high impact events (such as nuclear missiles in Ukraine being used) in addition to the worse likely outcome (being humiliated by US missiles in your face, loss of economic integration with the Donbas and so on). In terms of the most extreme risks, nuclear war, at some point letting NATO stroll into Ukraine increases the likelihood of nuclear war more than conquering Ukraine. With enough such calculations, a giant war now is the peaceful option.
Quoting Echarmion
When a doctor says "consuming more alcohol increases adverse effects" they are also covering the scenario of consuming a lot more alcohols and getting blackout drunk or even overdosing and dying.
You logic would be that if someone actually went and overdosed and died that the doctors advise is at fault because he didn't specifically say that and therefore we were free to conclude that what he's really saying is that enough alcohol is actually good for you.
I hope even you can see how that logic simply doesn't work; if you say more of A is bad you don't need to go through every level of A and explain in detail why it's bad. If an extreme amount of A turns out to be super bad, that is entirely covered from your relating A to badness.
The authors argue to de-escalation in the Donbas and that arming Ukraine more could be part of a bigger strategy that results in de-escalation. You're basically complaining that they say going in that direction is bad but didn't describe in detail just how bad it can get if you go super far in that direction.
Quoting Echarmion
Yes I have, I quoted RAND saying what would escalate the conflict: further arms to Ukraine and simply unilaterally declaring Ukraine will join NATO even if that won't happen soon due to ally objections, I then stated that's exactly what the US did.
Quoting Echarmion
First, "pot, meet kettle" if you're starting with the premise that you're a propagandist as there's no other kettles here in the context.
Second, I literally just explained how I'm the only one who's actually explained how to "protect Ukrainian sovereignty" with Western power and why that would have likely worked, avoided all the death and destruction in Ukraine that has happened since, and that I would have been completely in favour of that. Since, as you point out, West is obviously not coming to actually help Ukraine in a "tough bro" way, well it's as obvious as that that Ukraine can't win a war with Russia by itself and so the rational course of action for Ukraine is to negotiate a settlement sooner rather than later (as the more Ukraine is destroyed the more its leverage in a negotiation is destroyed; things don't get better, they get worse when you're losing a war).
Third, my claims are not sweeping, but very specific: you parrot US talking points without any concern for Ukrainian welfare (at no point do you wonder whether Ukraine is accomplishing anything with the price in blood paid so far and what it would accomplish with more blood) because you are a propagandist.
You make up pointless quibbles like "the war" referring to the civil war that started in 2014 rather than what is commonly accepted it refers to in this conversation and the mainstream media of the Ukraine-Russo war proper that started in 2022, a pointless quibble that establishes the point that therefore Russia is simply coming to the aid of their allies in the Donbas who have declared independence (as nearly every country has at some point). You address no substantive point; at no point do you argue that Ukraine losing so much territory and lives is accomplishing something for Ukrainians.
Quoting Echarmion
How is it a lie?
Under normal circumstances both sides would be accusing the other of not abiding by the agreement so this point would be largely moot. However, because our leaders are exceptionally arrogant and stupid, simply came out and said they made the agreement in bad faith, never intended to abide by it and planned from the start not to, but instead prepare for the exactly the war that would result due to reneging on commitments. Therefore, the point of who didn't abide by the peace agreements is not moot but we are entirely justified in assuming it's the people who blatantly say they had no intention to follow the agreement and therefore Russia entirely justified in using force to hold people to their word.
Quoting Echarmion
Where's your proof?
We have proof of Western leaders own words they didn't abide by the agreement and never intended to, [i]from before the signing of these agreements[/I]. Not only do you provide zero proof Russia violated anything, but anyways any of its violations are subsequent to Ukraine and Western violations who made clear at no point, not even for a single second, was the agreement intended to be followed nor actually followed. These agreements came into being with Ukraine and the West already violating them by already actively planning and continuing actions that breach them.
Now, feel free to provide actual evidence of Russia breaching these agreements and why those breaches aren't anyways justified by the other parties breaching the agreements first.
If you've even read these agreements that is, which I doubt.
Really stupid quibble considering both the US and Ukraine has admitted that money and arms disappearing is a significant problem.
However, I'm not saying Zelensky isn't also bribed with money, just that he's also an idiot who can be easily controlled by just blowing smoke up his ass that he's a real war hero and not a clown actor in a show.
Quoting neomac
These are not sweeping assertions. They are very specific assertions that the RAND experts make, all I'm adding since the war started (as the RAND document is written in 2019) is that what RAND describes in their document comes to pass: US did escalate with more arms assistance and more boasting that Ukraine would join NATO, this caused Russia to take more territory and killing more Ukrainians, which is obviously what is called a "war" (or then a "bigger war" if you want to start the war in 2014).
Quoting neomac
Biden doesn't need to bribe CNN journalists to do specific things. If you don't see that mainstream journalists are simply on "team elite" and say what their told to say, then there's little helping you.
It doesn't say that. You quoted it yourself, it said the US could become more vocal and increase lethal aid. How, specifically, has the US done either?
Quoting boethius
Yeah this is nonsense and everyone but you will understand that, so I won't bother engaging with this further.
Quoting boethius
Yeah no.
Quoting boethius
And, since according to you the US has done exactly what's outlined in the paper, that's what they did, right?
Quoting boethius
Any analysis that starts from such premises can only end up with nonsense.
Quoting boethius
And you wonder why people think you're a paid russian propagandist... Western leaders are all corrupt and eeeevil, but Russia really only wanted the best for everyone.
Quoting boethius
More importantly, it's completely unacceptable to the people that vote, because they are actually afraid of a nuclear war with Russia. We can blame the people for their short-sightedness, but ignoring the very obvious balance of popular opinion is silly.
Quoting boethius
It's not. Separatism is very clearly not recognised by international law.
Quoting boethius
You seem to be forgetting that the authors couldn't have been talking about a war in the future.
Quoting boethius
From you, I consider this a big praise.
Quoting boethius
More utterly insane bullshit. So now it's not Russia that obviously invades against it's own interests, but the US that obviously acts against its own interests by provoking Russia. I guess it fits with your whole "all western leaders are corrupt evil idiots" delusion.
Quoting boethius
Putin made completely absurd demands that obviously weren't going to be granted. This was Austria issuing an ultimatum to Serbia.
Quoting boethius
And I'll call this a bold faced lie unless you can actually point to specific actions.
Quoting boethius
Everyone can claim to have been in favour of past actions that cannot now be taken.
But for the record, I don't believe you're intentionally making propaganda for Russia, I think you're just very far gone from reality.
Quoting boethius
Yeah, you've apparently hallucinated a lot of stuff that was never said. Yeah western leaders said that they agreed to the Minsk agreements to gain time, which is neither bad faith nor particularly surprising. They said none of the rest.
Quoting boethius
You can read Wikipedia or any other news source you care about. I won't educate you about things that are part of the public record.
Quoting boethius
No we don't.
Quoting boethius
Absolute bullshit.
Quoting boethius
How about you start?
It's just dumb discussing with you at this point.
No one disputes American military support to Ukraine before the war started, and you have both Western leaders and Ukrainian leaders, including Angela Merkel simply coming out and saying the goal of the Minsk accords was to buy time to build up Ukrainian military capacity.
US continuously affirming Ukraine will join NATO from 2008 all the way to today. Blinken literally just gave another "Ukraine will join NATO" speech like yesterday.
You're just gaslighting at this point because you have nothing, including not a sliver of soul worthy of existence.
Ok so you got nothing. I guess you're right about this being a total waste of time.
I'll still be calling out falsehoods when I spot then though.
What falsehoods, you don't bother to read the document and then want to play "what does the document mean" game.
The document is perfectly clear:
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
This was and is US policy.
Note that it not only clearly describes Russian reaction to US stating Ukraine will join NATO, they also correctly describe that it also boosts Ukrainian resolve, the other key element to escalation.
You seem to be literally trying to memory hole the entire start of the war in which NATO was the main justification. "Ukraine has a right to join NATO" was repeated a zillion times, Zelensky pleading also for NATO no-fly-zone intervention.
As for lethal aid, both Western and Ukrainian leaders have boasted about using Minsk to build up militarily.
And why would the Russians be provoked by the US being vocal about Ukraine joining NATO (which includes such things as rebuffing Russian offers to negotiate a peace architecture with a neutral Ukraine, private leader-to-leader discussions and so on) because even if it's low probability as the authors note, it's not zero possibility (things could change or the US could pullout some diplomatic coup of some sort and the like).
The authors explain the policy is already provocative and being even more vocal is more provocative. US has been super vocal about "Ukraine's right to join NATO", including in the direct lead-up to the war: no negotiations about European security architecture, full rebuff to Russias draft and ultimatum, Ukraine has a right to join NATO, Nord Stream will end if Russia invades Ukraine, was the US diplomatic position that Biden and Blinken made perfectly clear.
And you're just denying these obvious facts that when I have the time I can easily find video of Western leaders and top officials saying all the above on camera.
The document is clear on what will likely provoke a war (or "bigger war" if you prefer), which is what the US does, and the document is clear on the likely outcome of military escalation: loss of territory and lives for Ukraine and a US policy setback. All of which has happened.
You are simply gaslighting and obviously don't bother reading the paper, which is prescient on many points such as the arms sent to Ukraine getting on the blackmarket.
And what's their conclusion on the "lethal aid to Ukraine" chapter?
Again, we fortunately don't have to guess as they have a section conveniently titled "conclusion".
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
The authors are clear: counter escalation by Russia (such as what we see) is damaging to US interests. US interests, in the authors opinion, is served by ending the war in the Donbas, using leverage like arms supply as part of a diplomatic strategy (which the authors even emphasize would be challenging to do even that).
If you want to pretend the authors are somehow only referring to a "small" counter escalation and therefore are not right about the "big" counter escalation, such as interpreting a doctor saying alcohol is bad as somehow not-saying more alcohol is more bad for you, it's simply idiotic gaslighting.
As I explain above, you continue and increase the policies that lead to war because US long term policy interests are not your concern but rather: 1. war profiteering (go ahead and deny that has occurred just so we can all have a good laugh) and 2. being a "tough war president" until the next election, as well as weakening Europe and the Euro and selling LNG and maintaining a little circle of vassals.
In other words, whereas military escalation with Russia through the US proxy that is Ukraine does not serve US national interests in any coherent sense the authors of the RAND paper know of, if you step back from "national interests" and consider US elite interests, the war makes perfect sense.
And it's all documented in honestly surprising detail (such as Merkel just telling us the Minsk agreements were done in bad faith), so you need to practice your memory holing somewhere else because I see no reason to toss pretty clear and vivid memories that have supporting documentation down the memory hole.
Your propaganda is just dumb at this point in the war as Ukraine is clearly losing, the cost to Ukraine clearly enormous, Western policy to prop up this disaster clearly self serving and duplicitous, the weapons drip feed to Ukraine simply to prop them up just enough to experience severe destruction entirely obvious.
Propaganda at least made a bit of sense when the costs to Ukraine was in the future and people could engage in magical thinking that a ragtag group of Nazis could take on the Russian army with sheer grit and tough guy tattoos.
I honestly recommend reading the whole RAND document cited, it's a fascinating read.
And if you read the whole document, not only is it perfectly clear that escalating the various wars at the time, most notably Ukraine, are bad for US interests ... we know because it literally says so in the introduction:
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
Which again "widely expanded conflict" is another way to say "war" just like "losing territory" in a "higher intensity" conflict is another way of saying war, but correctly describes what we're seeing today: the widely expanded conflict in Ukraine is a large political cost to the United States, along with costing Ukrainian lives and territory as the authors note later.
However, steps that can be taken to provoke a larger war in Ukraine with Russia is not limited to just what happens in Ukraine.
If you bother to read the whole document, you'll also find the authors understand things are connected:
Quoting Extending Russia - Rand
Which there's a lot to say about. First that obviously the Russians are naturally and reasonably concerned about the a decapitation strike and the obvious possibility that nominally defensive missile systems are converted to offensive capabilities, indeed literally saying "highly concerned" and "then as the potential for Aegis Ashore missile defense sites to be altered to fire GLCMs" along with the sea based systems. We should note this because at least a dozen pages have been devoted to what is essentially gaslighting that Russia should not be concerned about these systems in the slightest.
But even more notably for the topics at hand, the authors clearly predict that withdrawing from the INF treaty entirely would likely "would almost certainly prompt a Russian response, potentially involving substantial resources, or at least the diversion of substantial resources from other defense spending, though it is difficult to assess what share would be directed toward defensive capabilities rather than offensive or retaliatory ones" which is exactly what Russia does!!
So, if you read this paper and are wondering how to start a big war (rather than the smaller war that was already ongoing) in Ukraine then withdrawing from INF would be one thing on your lists to do in order motivate Russia to "involve substantial resources" in things like defence capabilities ... but also "offensive and retaliatory" actions.
US withdrew from the INF treaty ... when again?
Quoting Wikipedia Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
But interestingly US already suspended the treaty in February 2019 and the RAND paper is printed in 2019, so it's almost like this paper was written, someone read it, and the US withdrew from the INF treaty.
Keep in mind also that this is the one measure where the authors use the strongest language to emphasize Russia will definitely for sure respond pretty hard.
Which is exactly what happens.
You have already quoted the parts of the paper that make clear that it is analysing a course of action where the US intensifies it's efforts. I'm not sure who you're trying to fool by now acting like the paper was an analysis of the existing US policy. Yourself?
Quoting boethius
I have repeatedly argued in this thread that NATO is a secondary concern to Russia and that there was no objective reason for the russian government to worry about Ukrainian NATO membership either in 2014 or in 2022.
Quoting boethius
But Russia losing it's entire peacetime army and having to engage in several years of grinding war of attrition with huge military expenditures is damaging to russian interests. A scenario which the paper did not forecast on account of it seeming utterly absurd in 2019.
Quoting boethius
Trying to sneak that in here even though you already admitted that you can't actually point to any increase.
Quoting boethius
This honestly just sounds like you're insane. As in mentally ill. This is the actual quote by Merkel:
Quoted from russian news agency TASS by the way.
Does it say "we did it in bad faith"? No. Does it say "we did it to prepare for war"? No. Does it say "we were actually planning to break the agreement right from the start? Hell no.
So just what is wrong with your reading comprehension that you read into it all these things which are not actually there?
Quoting boethius
Russia has lost its entire peacetime army roughly twice already. Ukraine is currently fighting not the army that invaded in 2022, not the army that came after it, but the one after that.
Did anyone in 2022 and before expect that Russia would loose so much equipment in Ukraine that it would significantly deplete it's gargantuan inheritance of soviet weapons?
I think the ragtag group of Nazis has done quite enough damage, and the war isn't over.
Quoting boethius
Yes, one could imagine that, but the Wikipedia page which you yourself quoted does also say that Trump had already announced his plan to withdraw in 2018. The Rand report was published in April 2019 by the way. But obviously an unpublished version may have been around long before then.
I trust more exact quotations with source than your manipulative summaries. Anyways, the fact that “the US and Ukraine has admitted that money and arms disappearing is a significant problem” is far from being an admission or constituting evidence for the claim “the US bribes all the Ukrainian elites with billions of untraceable funds and weapons as well as essentially de facto full immunity for laundering the money anywhere in the West”. Indeed, the temptation of embezzling resources for personal profit could be common in the Ukrainian military apparatus, and fought by the central government as it is in the Russian military apparatus (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/14/russian-corruption-probe-widens-as-senior-defence-official-arrested). That has nothing to do with “bribing”.
Besides untraceable funds and lost weapons may have a strategic purpose other than just bribing : like fuelling military operations far from rats in the US administration, and assuring plausible deniability over Ukrainian clandestine operations.
On the other side when talking about actual cases of bribing, since we are in a context of geopolitical competition, I would care more about the American bribing vs the Russian bribing.
Quoting boethius
So you are telling me that: [I]“These idiots were needed to start the war (i.e. keep shelling the Donbas for 8 years), and impose a terrorizing fascist dictatorship on the Ukrainian people in order to [b]force people to the front[b] (i.e. just straight up [b]assassinate anyone engaging in critical thinking[b]), as well as be [b]propped up as elite soldier heroes[b] for the [b]part of Ukrainian society that actually wants to drink the coolaid[b]”[/I] is a quotation or contains quotations from the RAND document? Are you crazy?
Quoting boethius
Impeccable.
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius
Quoting Echarmion
Indeed not only Merkel has NOT admitted what he claims she has, but it can not even be inferred from what she actually said or equated with what she actually said: reinforcing Ukrainian military not only is not incompatible with pursuing a cease-fire but it could also be instrumental to preserving a cease-fire.
Concerning "bad faith" accusations, apparently it's more plausible that Putin (arguably an expert in disinformatia) was duped by the Europeans (however interested in pacifying the conflict to come back to do business as usual with Russia, reason why they have been already rejecting/postponing NATO membership for Ukraine all along), than that Europeans were taking countermeasures against Putin's palpable bad faith back then (having Putin already violated various international and bilateral treaties by illegally annexing the Crimean peninsula and committing acts of armed aggression against Ukraine, and being very much interested in keeping a conflict in Donbas alive, to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, or to allow further annexations). LOL.
Started with an uncompromising decision in the Kremlin circle some time ago.
Probably not an overnight thing, but ended up an easy enough sell (among some folks).
:shrug:
By now it is obvious the Kursk incursion has turned into a costly disaster, and predictably so. Committing scarce offensive reserves to an irrelevant part of the battlefront, to capture territory that one is unable to hold, while crucial parts of the battlefront are on the verge of collapse can't even be called amateurish - it's worse than that.
Here's what I said about it two months ago, on the first day of the incursion:
Quoting Tzeentch
Lucid, or just stating the obvious?
Remember also all the faux pundits who praised the Kursk 'masterstroke', or delivered supposedly 'balanced analysis' on what was clearly an astronomical blunder from a military perspective. Some of you desperately need better sources...
The question that remains to be answered is why Zelensky insisted on pushing the Kursk incursion. The answer is that this decision was almost certainly made for political reasons. Reasons which probably cannot be spoken out loud, which is why the Ukrainian president has so far failed to produce a credible explanation for his decision. Therefore we have to speculate.
My lingering sense is that the Kursk incursion was a scheme concocted in Washington, with as its purpose to make negotiations before November impossible.
Remember that at any point during the incursion, the Ukrainians could have said "This isn't working, let's cut our losses, pack up and leave", but that isn't happening. This means someone is getting what they want out of this debacle. I think that someone is Uncle Sam.
Now mass graves known to be from Stalin's purges are now made to be mass graves of people killed by Finns at Sandarmokh. Also earlierly rehabilitated killed people are made again to be "enemies of the state".
Putin really has taken to heart and believes the saying that those who are in power rule history too.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/GermanyDiplo/status/1836812764192321994[/tweet]
Yes. @SophistiCat's post just shows that the Brazilian Supreme Court made an effective judicial decision to ban «X» (which reminds me of a deodorant brand) in Brazil. I wish the judicial authorities of our countries could follow the same path in the future.
Quoting Benkei
Actually, I would like that the bullshit is there to be shown... to those that refer to Putin's views and speak of them (here the historical interpretations) as truthful. I think it's really important to see what these global players (like Russia) really officially say.
Also do note it wasn't only the German Foreign Office, but the "readers added content".
For example Wikipedia still serves the truthful version of history, not the version promoted by the Russian ministry of foreign affars (MFA).
The reason governments can't foster healthy public debate is because they are peddling their own bullshit which then would not pass the test either.
So social media is a symptom of a deeper problem, and banning platforms, rather than solving anything, would just put the power in the hands of one bullshit-peddler over the other.
So NO facebook, Instagram, X?
:yikes:
I don't think you have insight into how social media platforms function. They earn more money on engagement and ads, which means, going by psychology research, negative comments and posts generate more engagement while attention bait and rage bait generate more ad revenue.
So you have things backwards, the current form of public debates is a result of catering to how people interact on a large scale today, i.e how people act on social media. Changing public debates will not do a single thing towards changing how people interact. Only transforming social media from market driven algorithms into fostering an algorithm that is neutral for the sake of normal interactions, without any ads or market driven influencers consisting of the majority of views and interactions, as well as a clear line drawn on behaviors reflecting what a normal public space would allow behaviors to be would generate a true social media for the people and not corporations.
Take this forum as an example. Imagine if there was an algorithm that pushed just the most conflict ridden topics to the top and only the ones who pay for algorithm priority raises to the top, flooding the entire front page with their topics, most of them being rage baits in order to earn money through influencing people to buy a certain product. And the mods ignoring most of the obvious racism, threats of violence and bad behavior that we see on other platforms.
Be very thankful this forum is free of such bullshit and that the mods actually ban people for misbehavior. It's actually impossible to be on social media platforms today, and so this forum has for me become a sort of oasis for online debates and discussions as it's not driven by the bullshit that makes up most online communication today.
Quoting ssu
I am of the opinion that there needs to be a neutral social media platform, funded by a UN type collaboration so that there's enough money to run the site, with no incentives to push market driven algorithms or influencer economies. A decentralized, but collaboratively driven global social media platform that features similar functionality as a combination of the major ones.
Since there's a lot of people, like me, who have been present on social media a lot in the past, but who have now seen its decline in quality with the rise of ads and bullshit and losing it's fundamental core values of connecting actual people; having a neutral alternative, that is backed by an open source, non-profit global collaboration for the purpose of being a space for the people and not market forces, would be an obvious choice to move over to.
If people choose to stay on the trash pile that is modern social media compared to that, then let them rot there in that brain rot until there's nothing left but a pile of meat with an inability to do anything outside consuming endless pages of AI produced engagement-trash.
This is true also for Iran. X/Twitter is banned in Iran and China, yet Iranian and Chinese state media outlets and officials have accounts on the platform.
Quoting Christoffer
Nothing that happens on social media is what I would consider public debate, and certainly not healthy public debate.
And that's my point: healthy public debate is lacking.
One of the reasons it is lacking is because governments have forsaken their task of impartial news providers in favor of trying to create propaganda echo chambers.
Quoting Christoffer
That's almost exactly how government agenda-setting functions, hence my point about governments being fundamentally unable to solve this problem. In fact, giving them more power in this regard is more likely to make things worse.
Quoting Christoffer
For that you would need impartial decisionmakers, which we have just established the government is not.
Frankly, people flinging shit at each other on the market square doesn't concern me one bit. Orwellian, government-controlled echo chambers on the other hand concern me greatly.
I think you need to read what I wrote again. The public debates that should be the core of forming rational opinions in a democracy, have been taking on the behavior of how social media function, meaning the lack of healthy public debate is the cause of how social media operates by these large tech companies. It doesn't matter if the public debate is in the public or in traditional media or wherever, the attitudes, herd mentality biases and emotional fallacies have taken over as the primary focus for any debates.
Without social media, in its current form, influencing and programming the public into a toxic debate behavior, you will have healthy public debates showing up. It's the rejection of these toxic market algorithm-driven social media platforms that will lead to better care for democracy.
We already had a major problem with traditional media channels that were reporting biased news, but nowadays it's everyone's behavior due to how these algorithms push people into narratives that align with what makes most money for the tech giants. They simply do not care about healthy democracy until war is on their door step. Because these companies have zero intellectual insight into the broad consequences of their actions, as proved by documentaries like The Social Dilemma and thinkers like Lanier.
Quoting Tzeentch
What does what I said have to do with that? I'm talking about how algorithms on social media corrupts the perception of knowledge and change people's behavior into a corrupted mass herd with a lost ability to form a healthy democratic movement.
Quoting Tzeentch
It becomes impartial by it's decentralized nature, open source structure and global form. You can only be truly impartial by including as many different voices as possible so that it forms a broad consensus, otherwise it will always lean towards someone specific. And if the funding is a neutral fund that cannot be infused by lobbyists and alike, but rather a form of global tax for every nation in the UN to fund, it will both be a very low cost for the world, but also impossible for any government to influence to the point of corruption. Add to that even further structures of how to democratically rotate leaders of it's operation, have impartial oversight reviewers, and it becomes even less prone to corruption.
There are forms of governing that are less prone to corruption and which enforce more rational decision making. Don't make the mistake of using singular government examples to dismiss ideas of functioning politics. There's no alternative to handling society than some form of governing, so it's more about systemic changes to advocate for better functioning democracies. And the form I described the global and neutral social media system is not governed by one government. I'm not sure why you interpreted it in that way.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well it should. You seem to think that the people and the government exist on two different planets. They're intertwined and push and pull on each other.
Modern governments unfortunately have become part of the problem, and therefore cannot be trusted to solve it.
They could help solve this issue by creating platforms where constructive discussions can take place (as they have done in the past), but modern governments show no interest in doing so.
Why?
Because modern governments have gone all-in on propaganda (now euphemistically called 'narrative'), and they don't want their propaganda to be questioned on authoritative platforms.
In fact, governments don't want their propaganda questioned on any platform if they had their way, and that's of course exactly what they would strive for - an iron hold on public opinion à la China - a monopoly on "truth".
Am I? I seem to promote that we should crack down on the predatory algorithms that these tech companies enforce on us in their social media platforms, not the construct of social media itself as I'm further pointing out that we need social media platforms free from market-driven intentional or unintentional manipulation of our perception.
Quoting Tzeentch
Which government are you talking about? You're just summarizing all governments in one big pile? Things are more nuanced than that.
Quoting Tzeentch
Governments as singular entities cannot do this without the risk of corruption. It should be a global effort and collaboration since social media is a global function.
Quoting Tzeentch
Can't do propaganda like that if you have a global collaboration and decentralized and open source nature of the system.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, that's why the concept is to exist under a UN movement rather than any single government. You think the corporate interests of someone like Elon Musk and his conspiracy theory narratives is better than any governments handling social media? Both are equally problematic.
Which is why both singular governments, like China's own platforms and tech companies platforms should be taken down in order to replace them with globalized social media platforms that are decentralized, open source and handled by human rights overseers and directives.
Believing in social media as they are constructed now, buying into Musk's free speech absolutism etc. is ignoring how current social media operates and how it skews people's world view to the point of societal collapse. We already have elections being manipulated through it, even without any governments owning their functions. I don't think you're looking at this with enough scrutiny.
source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yjej0rvw0o
Think about this for a moment.
What do you think a neutral platform would be like?
Would a UN funded / UN regulated platform start regulating what the foreign ministry of a member state (who is in the Security Council) would put out? Of course not.
A neutral platform means that all the propaganda and the biased views would be there, because the platform is neutral.The algorithms work usually to find the stuff that people want to engage in. Classic example: if a person searches for "Egypt", does he or she want to know about a) the current political situation of the country, b) the country as a travel destination or c) the history of the country? Your prior searches likely influence what you get, which is the "market driven algorithm".
In my view the micromanagement of any platform simply would have be with clear laws that limit our "freedom of speach", not with governments hypocritically being for "freedom of speach" yet then demanding behind closed doors to push down some political actors etc. This is actually what those corporations in the first place wanted. Clear legal laws what they could then check on. Naturally Western governments wouldn't give that, because there's "free speech"!
Or the worst with activists in the corporations using the platforms to attack people they don't like.
Quoting Christoffer
This site itself is an example of what we call social media. And it is in my view a fairly neutral platform. The bannings are quite reasonable.
What I think has happened is that governments around the World have simply adapted to the new media and discovered it's potential. And I think any media doesn't itself have fundamental core values. Only people have those. Medias just give people what they actually want, not the polished image of what people answer when asked "what ought to be the social media be like?".
Quoting Christoffer
That form of neutral. Adhering to the values that underpin the core value of the UN, to the actual understanding of how freedom of speech as a concept is protected, and not the skewed corrupted use of the concept that most people use as excuses for spreading hate and vile behavior.
Quoting ssu
And what rules and values does this site aspire to? This forum pretty much aspire to remove the hateful, vile and propaganda spammers. All in the name of basic decency. It also has rules of engagement in which endless trash posting isn't allowed.
Basically it acts like normal society with healthy freedom of speech. It's the disconnected behavior between online and offline that creates monsters of people who are decent offline. Treating the online space as a real offline place with the same rules and social cues we have normally makes things much more healthy.
Quoting ssu
Not when used as a business of the user being the product. Social media that rely on ads and algorithms for ads aren't websites for the people and users, it's for the companies that make up the cash flow for these tech companies. The business is tailoring attention towards these ads so the revenue goes up. So any algorithm and function of social media today is among the most advanced algorithms in computer science, carefully, over the course of many years in use, fine-tuned for the purpose of increasing addictive behavior in the user in order to keep their eyes on the ads and paying customers needs.
That's why I'm proposing social media free of it. Anyone who thinks that media is for the people if it's formed around ad revenue, don't understand how that business actually works.
You either have government funded public service systems and media. In low corrupted nations this can work and be neutral depending on how the laws and regulations are between state and that media outlet. But in many cases and in many nations, public service media is used for propaganda purposes. So it's not a good fit for social media to be funded by a single government.
Media funded social media is what we have now and it's obvious how malicious and negative its functions are for the people. Any other perspective would be living under a rock the last decade.
So, the only way to be able to have a social media space that is actually for the people, would be to have it under the core principles of the people as a whole. The only form of global collaboration that isn't a form of business transaction, is the UN and the UN have neutral organizations that have the purpose of overseeing the core values of human rights on a global scale. Manifesting a cooperation between nations to fund and drive a social media that is detached from business and from any single government influence, on the basis of human rights values and a normal understanding of freedom of speech, would be the only way to handle such a system.
The core here is to remove single government control of social media, and to remove market interest that make the users into products rather than the purpose of the site.
And of course, some nations don't want this human rights-based social media, since it's a threat to their state control. But that battle is a losing one since people will always find ways of reaching out beyond government control. And without the focus on ads and products, the algorithms won't push endless trash and may very well push the right kind of grass root movements that help people organize against state violence in these nations.
We've seen examples of how social media helped arming people with information and quickly organizing against governments. Imagine how it would be on social media that removes all the endless trash and ads obscuring the actual people and their movements.
At least I'm arguing for a solution to the problems of current social media platforms.
You do understand that then denying atrocities that have happened is totally normal for this neutral platform, and it simply doesn't change anything. People have to be informed to weed out the facts from the propaganda. I really don't see much difference, actually. Craving for a neutral platform really doesn't make a difference.
Quoting Christoffer
And is something wrong with that? Without it, people simply move away after enough ad hominem attacks and hence if someone simply wants to shut down this forum, they'll achieve their objective in no time. I've seen this happen once when the owner of a site believed in "free speech" and didn't moderate. End of story: the site was "hijacked" or dominated by one political faction (the owner didn't approve of) and simply shut down the debate/comment section altogether.
Quoting Christoffer
This is totally true. This is the weird and unfortunate reality of social media. At worst it might be that we start to change even our real world exchanges with other people into the kind that are so popular in the social media, because people don't care so much anymore even if they flame in their own name.
Quoting Christoffer
Who pays for it? The one that does, holds power over the media. That fact of reality you simply cannot disregard. UN? That member countries put their tax money to the media?
First, the UN organization can itself be corrupt. If someone then wants to criticize the UN organization responsible of this free neutral social media, how if then the organization shuts down such hate speech.
Secondly, member countries will try to influence directly this "neutral" media. Many countries would just love to have the control just what is determined to "hate speech" and what is "supporting terrorism". Now it's defined usually from what country the media is from.
Quoting Christoffer
In Finland we had a government funded public service that had a monopoly for example of the radio waves until 1985. Then the first commercial radio started. Guess what: young people didn't listen to the radio prior to that while they now are and have been for a long time the largest group that listens to the radio. What was the reason? They was ONE radio program ONCE per week playing Pop & rock music prior to 1985. And I'm not making this up. Yet for the public broadcast corporation didn't understand why people didn't listen to radio anymore in the early 1980's.
This is the actual reality of a government monopoly of a media. And don't think it will be different under the UN.
And I think you should understand the real implications of your proposal: An UN mandated social media won't start to compete with the commercial medias... it would be changed by law with the commercial medias being disbanded by legal actions. Because it would be whimsical to think that some UN lead media would have the ability to compete with the other medias and somehow obtain now a monopoly situation just by free competition.
Hence basically your idea just comes down to squashing free speech and make it more bureaucratic.
Quoting Christoffer
How on Earth you think that will happen with your proposal? Sovereign states do understand just how important and crucial public discourse is. Some give more leeway to this, some are totally paranoid about it. I really doubt that this would be a function that the UN as an organization could handle well.
Quoting Christoffer
NO IT'S NOT!
It's not a "losing battle". I would argue that it's the other way around: government's around the world now understand the new media quite well and can use it well to spread their own propaganda and disinformation. I do agree that earlier in the turn of the Milennium, many governments were still quite clueless about the new media, but that is history now.
It ought to be quite evident that people can tow the official line happily, especially if the subject is about national security, natural importance and so on. I find this is a battle that the naive IT geeks who thought that the World Wide Web would free people from the shackles of government control have already lost quite dramatically. It just took a couple of decades for the governments around the World to understand how to control the new media.
Besides, people will try to find ways to reach out beyond government control when government is totally obvious and basically ludicrous. Every Russian knows what the "freedom of speech" is in Russia when you can get jail time for saying that a war is "a war". But try making the argument on a Finn, a Swede or a Swiss. They can understand that their governments can push one agenda or another, but they aren't worried about their freedoms being trampled.
Quoting Christoffer
Again something that people said sometime in the 1990's.
Quoting ChristofferIf there's a will, there's a way. And today governments understand how social media can be used to attack against them. And can use quite similar tactics themselves.
I think I understand your objective, @Christoffer, but as @Tzeentch said (whom usually I disagree with), it does sound like you are promoting cracking down social media. You likely don't mean that, but that is how governments see your proposal.
How is that an answer to what I clarified?
Quoting ssu
Why would it be? Why do you interpret it as wrong when I've lifted this forum as good example of neutral praxis that would conform with the same ideals that a UN based social media would do?
Quoting ssu
It wouldn't be if the algorithms didn't cater to conflict and negativity, since the research concluded that such behaviors drive attention and interactions more, which is key to ad revenues. Removing the concept of having the users as the product for the real customers (brands and marketing) and focusing on the users as the main and only focus of the platform would drastically lower the level of toxicity that occurs online. This has been researched and reported on for the last ten years so it's an obvious conclusion as to what action would fix most of the problem.
And this forum is such an example. Without any need to push ads and engagement, it kind of keeps itself in check on the basic level of human decency, even if we're operating under pseudonyms and avatars. The forum moderators lift up good behavior and shut down the bad. Social media does the opposite as much as they can without getting public criticism.
Quoting ssu
Yes, why not? Managing a social media without the purpose of pooling billions into profit means that the taxes for nations are miniscule for the output of good it will do to the world. Some nations will of course object and refuse, but there's enough nations that see the benefit to keep the social media platform afloat. And each nation might even want to join paying for it in order to be part of influencing the platform management. The more the less governed by anything other than consensus.
Quoting ssu
You're implying a totalitarian takedown of free speech criticizing the platform, which there's no evidence for would happen. Remember, the UN isn't consisting of just some top people, it is consisting of multiple organizations and overseers. The more parties involved, the more nations involved, the less it can be corrupted. Even if some are, it wouldn't equal the entirety being corrupt. Such ideas just sound like some kind of genetic or slippery slope fallacy. The UN still operates far better than the uncertainty of having singular governments or entities in control, which is the state of things now looking at both global commercial social media platforms and state owned like in China.
Quoting ssu
And the consensus from which the UN operates by, is what? So far, adhering to human rights have proven to have more cases of being on the side of good morals than any specific agendas that individual governments have had. They can try and influence all they want, but the nice thing about the UN is still that they force consensus and there are usually more morally good people than bad. The worst things can get is "stupid", but "stupid" generally bounce back and self-correct better than immorality.
Quoting ssu
You're comparing the wrong things here. You speak of a single government, you speak of mainstream media that's about a binary output and receiver. Social media is nothing of this.
And yes, I think that social media should be illegal for commercially based tech companies to have the right to operate. Social media has become an infrastructure and no public would want the same operating methods of these companies to apply to other forms of infrastructure or communication. We don't operate telephones on the standards of engagement bait and ad-revenue. We aren't pooled by force into public squares in which people get into fights that grabs our attention while officials walk around with physical ad signs. The absurdity of how social media operates for something so integral to our modern world is clear once realizing the problems of tech owned social media.
Quoting ssu
This conclusion does not follow the argument you made. There's nothing of what I propose that leads to squashing free speech, quite the opposite, since there's no single entity in control of it, but a collective of the world, using open source standards and by the guidelines of human rights, it takes free speech seriously and not in the pseudo-way that bullshitters like Elon Musk or Zuckerberg do.
"Free speech" is a concept that people have lost an understanding of. There's no such thing as free speech absolutism or anything like that. Free speech today has become an acronym for excuses made by those who just want to spew out their hate, not actually talk criticism. Actually, it's the promoters of free speech absolutism like Elon Musk who generally silence people who criticize them or something they like. So it's the people who scream about free speech the most who seem the most keen on suppressing it.
The beauty of collaboration and consensus among the many is that these morons like Elon Musk become suppressed in their psychopathic oxymoronic attempts to abuse the term "free speech".
What leads to free speech is keeping platform rules open source, always under scrutiny by the consensus of the world, under the banner of basic human rights. Free speech, ACTUAL free speech is part of those human rights. Tech companies do not operate under such ideals, they use the terms in marketing strategies for their own agendas.
Quoting ssu
By concluding social media as an communication infrastructure of the world and not a business for companies to exploit.
Quoting ssu
Once again, I underscore that a global platform is under the scrutiny of the consensus and being an open platform. The openness in this means that any attempt to take control is impossible without it being seen by the public of the world.
I do not produce arguments out of some conspiracy of some cabal operating in the UN. There's more proof of corruption for how things operate today through tech companies and individual states than any notion that a consensus and collaboration on a global scale with an open source structure would ever lead to such corruption. That's just conspiracy theories as the basis for an argument.
Quoting ssu
You're still speaking of individual governments, not how a consensus would operate. The only reason the UN can't do much on the global scale is because they don't have such power. But if nations in the west start to primarily ban commercially driven social media with the intent that we globally build such an infrastructure as a replacement, then they will be able to as there won't be enough revenue for the tech companies to operate social media sites.
A closed infrastructure, regardless of being controlled by an individual state or a tech company is still more in control of individual agendas than a global collaboration in an open source structure. That should be obvious.
Quoting ssu
Yes, but what does that have to do with this? You're creating scenarios that doesn't fit how it would be so for a globally consensus-governed social media platform, but rather mix together individual totalitarian states with how the UN operates. The argument seems oblivious from the nuances here, a form of binary perspective of a governing body always being corrupt and totalitarian, even when the structure prevents such corruption from manifesting, or at least preventing it far better than tech companies and individual governments do.
Quoting ssu
You disagree with the assessment that ridding social media of these algorithms and market driven operations would make for a better public space online? It's not an ideology, it's the truth of how social media affects society today, it's research backed knowledge, not some IT-people idealist ideas from the 90s.
Quoting ssu
Yes, so remove individual state influence and tech companies power over them. It's delusional to think that such operation is better preventing such malicious control, than an open platform that's globally collaborated on and open to scrutiny from anyone.
Russia-Ukraine War: Putin's Quest To Revive USSR? The Real Story Behind Russia's Expansion
[sup]— Jessica Goel, Akash Verma, Abhishek Vadav · India Today · Sep 27, 2024 · 3m:52s[/sup]
Quoting Christoffer
I don't, so we agree. But you asked "And what rules and values does this site aspire to?" so I thought you have some problem with this.
But notice that this site isn't important. It has a tiny number of active members and a small number of people that read it. With the UN site, we are talking about a far more serious issue, which many sovereign states hold to be of extreme importance.
Quoting Christoffer
The algorithms cater to what people are interested in: more people are interested, the better. And this is totally normal and can be seen for example from ordinary media, from radio, from television etc. People aren't interested in conversations where everybody agrees on the issues and perhaps differ only in nuances. Nope. A heated debate is what people want to follow. Even here in PF this is evident: the threads where people disagree get the most comments.
Quoting Christoffer
Perhaps not a "totalitarian takedown", but the kind of "free speech" as you and I understand isn't something that many sovereign states accept. Sorry, but that's the truth.
The Soviet Union was the perfect example of this. Did it accept the human rights declarations the UN made? Of course, but it did so by influencing just what was tolerable and what was hate speech. The simple fact is that UN makes decisions usually in the fashion of a consensus. Hence totalitarian states can influence the decisions here. For example Turkey (Turkiye) might insist that any talk supporting the Kurdish cause is terrorism. Or for China talking about the Uighurs.
It's the simple fact as with news sites: it is a real blessing that you do have news documentaries in English done by different countries, DW (Germany), France24 (France), Al Jazeera English (Qatar). One single entity would be an absolute disaster. And even if it's propaganda, I would still like to have the ability to watch Russia Today on Youtube.
Quoting Christoffer
Nah.
There's just the idiots that engage in the stupid culture war on both sides. These people are partisan people, whose arguments for "free speech" can be easily checked simply by taking an example of a heated issue, like supporting Palestine etc. Both on the left and on the right there are these people who think of themselves as being open for discussion, yet aren't actually open for discussion. With issues that they consider "dog whistles", these people show immediately their true colors.
Quoting Christoffer
What is the openness of having just ONE social media site?
Again, you don't seem to notice how the UN works. If a reasonable amount of member states (or the permanent security council members) don't want something, the UN has to adapt to it. Just look at this simple quote from a UN-webpage on democracy:
(see Global Issues / Democracy (UN)
Well, the problem is that actually democracy is a specific model of government. It has to be in order to function correctly. Yet China, Russia and previously Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union had no problem with the UN Charter, because the UN was toothless. Hence in your example of an UN controlled social media, countries simply would ask to ban discussion they aren't OK with and the UN likely would follow them. Hence it won't simply work.
Quoting Christoffer
That's why it's important that there are different states that can have their own media. It's something obvious in the classical media landscape.
Quoting Christoffer
I agree with you that the UN doesn't have power. Hence your argument is really absurd. UN doesn't work as a Federal entity. It isn't even a Confederacy. It's just a loose club where something can happen when no Great Power isn't stepped on and the issue isn't part of the global competition.
We have seen first how absolutely meaningless was the consensus of the League of Nations. And we have seen how impotent the UN has been and will be. Hence why to think as somehow everything would change?
Quoting Christoffer
It has to do with this when people are OK with their life and the way things are, they will likely listen to what their governments say to them.
Quoting Christoffer
Firstly, you do have to understand that "algorithms" is the way how the whole thing works. If algorithms are used really to limit your capability to get information (as in China), that's one thing. Take your own computer and google images of "Tianamen square". I'm pretty confident that people in China will get another kinds of images.
That ought to be the first issue when the "Child lock" is given to everybody as mandatory.
Quoting Christoffer
To think that the UN would be this white knight saving us all is very delusional too. It won't work. Far better is to have outlets from different countries, different news agencies and so on.
Just like in the traditional media.
That’s a very good point to me. I would go further in arguing this. Notice that we are in a philosophy forum and lack of consensus in philosophy is neither a big issue nor uncommon. In Western philosophy, be it metaphysics or ethics or epistemology, there is lots of disagreement, and no matter how weird a philosophical theory may sound, one may find advocates supporting it. And also philosophical debates can get heated due to intellectual straining. I think some disagreement can be found also in the scientific debate, especially in the human and social sciences. And also this disagreements can get heated.
There is a difference however with the kind of disagreement one experiences in political debates. Political debates are more directly and intentionally oriented toward political decisions and actions. And in this case the debates get heated not due to the intellectual effort per se but because people feel more materially threatened in their economic, social, biological conditions and of those they care about.
IN A PHILOSOPHY FORUM, what should be more than welcomed is a more PHILOSOPHICAL approach, not a political one even when we talk about politics and divisive political subjects, like the war in Ukraine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So our intellectual efforts shouldn’t move from beliefs to actions/decisions, but the other way around: from actions/decisions to beliefs. We SHOULD NOT GIVE FOR GRANTED notions of human rights, democracy, freedom of speech, international law, nations, self-determination, states, morality,propaganda, etc. we should find ALL OF THEM open for debate. We should SUSPEND our pro-active approach (like the open and crypto-activists in this thread and the like are doing) and dig into our assumptions. Make them explicit and open for questioning, further explanations or justifications.
And such an approach should be backed by adequate means to do that like clarifying ambiguous terminology, articulating reasoning from premises to conclusions, provide accurately reported evidence and source, provide illustrative examples, avoid to replace literal/descriptive language with non-literal/value language, avoid to replace actual arguments with insults and dismissive remarks, avoid to replace DE RE arguments with AD HOMINEM arguments, etc.
Constructive discussions are not necessarily the ones where people converge in conclusions (which is rationally possible when people agree on premises and procedures to get from premises to conclusions like in mathematics or logic) but also the ones where respective views are presented in a way that is rationally compelling and scrutinizible, ALSO WHEN TALKING ABOUT DIVISIVE POLITICAL SUBJECTS WHICH WILL LIKELY REMAIN DIVISIVE.
Just gaslighting apologetics. What does Merkel say:
Now this is well into the war. If she wanted to say that the goal of making Ukraine stronger was to deter Russia and so avoid a war ... she would have said that! She's not a moron.
The reinterpretation of what she said as somehow to support a ceasefire through strength, is memory holing the whole episode. Back in autumn 2022 the Western narrative was that Russia was weak, Russia was falling apart, Russia was losing and Ukraine was in the process of inflicting a brilliant victory. The Western talking heads and officials were in a circle jerk of patting each other on the cock in celebration of this brilliant geopolitical strategy, in which the Ukrainian build up, with Western assistance, since 2014 was to credit for Ukraine's extraordinary prowess on the battlefield. Various politicians and officials, in both the West and Ukraine, were taking credit for the brilliant move of using Minsk as a cover to build up Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Merkel in this statement was buying into this narrative of Ukrainian victory and taking a bit of the credit.
And it wasn't just Merkel, plenty did a little victory lap of how Ukraine "outplayed" the Russians and Minsk was part of that deception.
A version of events proudly asserted by Ukrainian politicians even before the larger 2022 war even started:
Quoting The Guardian
Now, before the war started it would have been controversial for Western politicians to join this narrative, but a few months into the war when the West understood Ukraine and itself to have won, then saying that Minsk was about building up Ukraine into the strong modern nation that is spanking Russia on the battlefield was simply being part of the cool winning club. Seemed at that time (if you believed what you saw everywhere on Western mainstream and social media was even partially correct, that it can't be pure invention) that this duplicitous strategy was working and the people in Ukraine that wanted only to buy time for a big war were correct.
Now, as I mentioned in my comments, more important that what Merkel or anyone else says after the facts, is those facts themselves.
A core element of Minsk was disarming the Nazi groups who literally burned their political rivals (aka. normal fucking people) aline in a building and were constantly shelling civilians.
Western countries had to literally pass laws that arms were not to be transferred to organizations their own governments viewed as Nazi terrorists (which they obviously were). These laws were passed because it's hard to vote against a ban on weapons for Nazis but journalists went regularly to demonstrate the West was not following its own laws much less Ukraine trying to implement Minsk by disarming these non-state groups.
Europe could have put pressure for these kinds of obvious provisions of Minsk to be implemented, which would not only be a demonstration that the agreements were negotiated in good faith and Germany and France doesn't want Nazi's running around with guns and artillery any more than the Russians, but had the various paramilitary explicitly Nazi groups been disarmed and removed from the front lines the actual ceasefire may have been actually implemented by Ukraine professional forces. As important, if you remove fanatical Nazis who explicitly call for a Great War with Russia, explicitly claim war is a way of life for them and they want more of it, don't hesitate to explicitly outline how a war would be a purifying process for the nation, from the front lines then if it is Russia who breaks the ceasefire you could at least plausibly make that claim.
And that's only one element of the agreements that Ukraine did not attempt to implement and the West did not use any leverage to get Ukraine to implement.
You may say "that's what friends do" but the Nazi's aren't "Ukraine's friends", Zelensky even tried going to talk to them to get them to follow orders from the president and they just told him no. Now, had the West put pressure for the disarmament of these groups (i.e. no more weapons until their disarmed and removed from the front lines and the situation on the front professionalized) then that would have actually supported Zelensky's attempt to avoid a war, which I have no problem believing was genuine but it is in fact undermined by not only the West tolerating the arming of literal Nazis but that was clearly the policy in order to "calibrate" a conflict to imposes costs on Russia as the RAND documents happily explains to us.
The continued shelling of civilians made the larger 2022 war inevitable and the West doing nothing to restrain their Nazi dogs is one of the critical contributors to "somewhat higher intensity" fighting that we see.
The position that Merkel was taking credit for Ukrainian "winning" by helping to negotiate a bad faith deal to buy time was not controversial, that was the accepted facts and talking heads didn't hesitate to explain it to us and Merkel didn't run to explain "no, no, no! not strength in the sense of beating the Russians, that we all know is totally happening, but strength to maintain a ceasefire that unfortunately didn't happen!"
The apologetics that Merkel (and plenty of others as seen above) meant something else only arose after it turned out Ukraine wasn't totally and easily beating the Russians and that maybe it would have been better to try to implement Minsk to avoid a giant war that turns out has gotten hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians killed.
You need to reach into the memory hole and dig out what the Western media was essentially playing on loud speaker, on repeat without interruption for months: Ukraine was winning, fighting for the "right to join NATO" (even when you can't actually join NATO because NATO doesn't let you in) is brilliant politics, Russia would collapse any day, and so on, the war was in no way regrettable but "teaching Russia a lesson", and that the West was pure and righteous and never did anything wrong and Ukraine was our innocent child finally taking flight from under our wing and learning to soar on the winds of angelic victory (just as we do since centuries).
Quoting neomac
I can't even parse what you're even trying to say ... that concerning bad faith actions Putin was duped by European bad faith actions? Just in a different way than no one made much attempt to implement Minsk (because US policy was to have exactly the conflict we see and European leaders are merely the receptacle of American dick)? Is that what you're trying to say?
The paper is an analysis of existing US policy:
You need to actually read the paper to play the "what does it say" game.
The word "expand" is used because the existing policy is to assist Ukraine which the paper is analyzing the existing policy of supporting Ukraine to inflict costs, in terms of blood and treasure, on Russia and is considering the possibility of increasing that assistance.
The paper goes onto to consider a bunch of factors, including nuclear deterrence:
Quoting Extending Russia ,RAND
Moreover, the authors asset very clearly that the risk of a larger conflict exists even without further provocations: that Russia "Russia might even preempt U.S. action, escalating before any additional U.S. aid arrives. Such escalation might extend Russia," which means the existing policy of supporting Ukraine may result in escalation by Russia that comes with significant risks.
The key phase being "significant cost to Ukraine and to U.S. prestige and credibility" and also "This could produce disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows".
I.e. if you actually read the paper the authors are quite clear that the existing policy of supporting Ukraine may result in a larger war which they see is highly risky for US policy as well as a high cost to Ukraine whatever happens. Their recommendation is to resolve the situation, in which further assistance of threat of assistance could be leverage in a resolution, but the authors are quite clear that the risks are very high, in particular to Ukraine, including of simply continuing the existing policy if you want to pretend the US made no further provocative moves between the paper being written and 2022 when Russia does indeed escalate.
Point of all this being: US policy makers knew what their policy was leading to and that the cost to Ukraine to be used as a tool to extend Russia would be enormous.
More importantly than this paper accurately predicting exactly what the consequences for the policy would likely be, the policy of drip feed of weapons systems to Ukraine is simply irrefutable evidence that the policy isn't and never was for Ukraine to "win" (otherwise you'd pour in everything they could use from day 1) but simply to calibrate the conflict at a "somewhat higher level of intensity" to inflict costs on Russia and, even more importantly than that, profit immensely in terms of arms and gas.
And this is all very obvious in only the most cursory analysis of obvious facts, without even need to get into the US policy clearly to arm the most extreme Nazi groups in Ukraine to ensure both the most bellicose actions possible towards the Russians but also to serve as fascist boots on the ground to deal with any Ukrainian resistance to the policy to march to war with a far more powerful neighbour which would obviously harm the country immensely and get a great many Ukrainians killed.
Why are you so convinced that you alone have correctly understood what she was referring to?
Quoting boethius
I'm genuinely confused whether you just don't understand English grammar or whether you're just doubling down to avoid admitting that you overstated your case.
"Would" implies a conditional. Doing A would lead to B. Not (currently) doing A leads to B.
Quoting boethius
Do you genuinely believe US policy makers are so good that they can predict future events with perfect accuracy? Noone, except perhaps the Russian planners, "knew" what would happen in 2022 years in advance.
Quoting boethius
Real world policies of states are not monoliths. The goals you're listing are not mutually exclusive.
Quoting boethius
A policy you made up.
Quoting boethius
An interesting fantasy but don't you think the fascist boots crossing the border from Russia are a much more effective motivation?
Just empty nothingness.
The West had no problem reporting this interpretation and portraying the Minsk agreements as a brilliant move by Ukraine and the West to prepare for an amazing job in the bigger war that was ongoing and understood to be essentially already won by Ukraine at the time.
It is not "I alone" that has this interpretation. Merkel is only one of many data points in evaluating this particular topic, you also have Ukrainian politicians explicitly stating they never intended to implement Minsk. More importantly there's the actual actions of further support to Nazis to shell civilians which is the surest way to provoke a larger war, which is what the US and Ukraine does and the war that would predictably result from doing that then happens.
Quoting Echarmion
As I clearly explain, the "would" is considering expanding an existing policy of supporting Ukraine to drain Russian blood and treasure in the Donbas which the paper has no problem recognizing is the existing policy.
The first sentence I cite is clearly recognizing the existing policy is to support Ukraine to drain Russian blood and treasure and considers the possibility, the "conditional" you are referring to, of expanding that policy.
I am responding to your statement that the authors aren't analyzing US policy at the time at all.
They clearly are (which is amazingly obvious if you read the paper) and they make that clear in stating making it clear that the status quo of the time is to support Ukraine to inflict costs, in blood and treasure, on Russia.
They consider the possibility of expanding that policy to inflict even greater costs and recommend not doing that.
However, they not only clearly recognize the existing policy as made clear in the sentence you are taking issue with:
"Expanding assistance to Ukraine" (which makes it clear there is already assistance to expand) "would likely increase the costs to Russia, in both blood and treasure" (which makes it clear the existing policy imposes costs which would then increase if the existing policy was expanded).
The meaning is very clear if you understand English and it's made even clearer by the context.
I know you would want to quibble by arguing that "expand" could be somehow ambiguous ... even though it's really not: if I say I want to "expand my restaurant" there is almost no English speaker that would interpret that to mean "I don't have a restaurant but I want to start one, thus expanding from zero restaurant", and if you said you wanted to expand your restaurant and it turns out you din't have a restaurant people would feel misled if it mattered (i.e. you were taking in loans backed by the restaurant you're expanding but also don't have) and would take it as a joke if the context was not serious (haha, good one, expand you're restaurant from zero restaurant to having a restaurant).
The authors talk of expanding assistance to Ukraine because they understand the policy is to assist Ukraine in fighting Russian proxy forces (the authors describe the war as a proxy war).
Therefore, knowing you would raise such absolutely ridiculous objections I then go onto cite more of the authors statements that further makes it clear they are analyzing the existing policy and it's consequence and risks:
Quoting Extending Russia ,RAND
Russia may "counter-escalate" and commit "more troops and pushing them deeper into Ukraine" which is exactly what happens. They even identify this as a risk even if the US doesn't even do anything, clearly stating that Russia may "preempt U.S. action".
As mentioned, they make there position even clearer in their recommendation to resolve the conflict, compared to keeping it going (which may result in Russian preemptive escalation) or indeed expanding lethal aid, what the US actually does (which may also result in Russian escalation).
Quoting Extending Russia ,RAND
In other words, the authors get it exactly right: inviting escalation (which includes not even doing anything yet) would likely be a U.S. policy setback and come at significant costs to Ukraine, in terms of lives and territories.
The US, since the paper was written, supplied arms to Ukraine, eschewed negotiations, reiterated Ukraine would join NATO (that the authors also note elsewhere is not only escalatory but would surely solicit a response from Moscow), and the result is exactly what the authors of the paper predict: significant costs to Ukraine, inability for the US to have Ukraine prevail and therefore also a US policy setback.
However, if you read the paper and "US policy" in terms of some arguably sane US foreign policy is not your priority, but rather selling gas and arms to Europe, eliminating Europe as a geopolitical rival, as well as a new shiny war to distract the masses from any accountability for the older less-shiny and disastrous wars, and, unlike the authors of the paper, you have zero concern for Ukrainian territory or wellbeing in the slightest, then you would press all the buttons the authors describe that would help provoke a "somewhat higher level of intensity" in the fighting (aka. a giant war).
If you didn't want the conflict to go nuclear, then you'd drip feed your support to Ukraine so that they are never an actual military threat to Russian forces and therefore Russia would have no need to nuclear recourse.
Which is exactly what actually happens.
Of course, the authors are writing in the past but even more importantly explicitly say they're methodology is simply to consider different policy directions (all in the view of extending Russia to coerce compliance, in particular in the information space: i.e. RT hosting US dissidents basically) and recommendations are based on essentially the subjective intuition of the authors and they are explicitly not quantifying anything in this first paper (but further work would be needed to do that); so if you circle back to your earlier objection that the authors don't exactly quantify the larger war that occurs, that is to be expected as they aren't trying to do that but rather evaluate if that policy direction (i.e. expanding assistance to Ukraine to impose greater costs on Russia) would be a good idea or not. Their explicit objective is to try to identify areas of competition with Russian in which the ground is favourable to the US (and, as has been clearly demonstrated, provoking further escalation with Russian in Ukraine is not such a favourable direction).
Quoting Echarmion
Again, more pointless quibbling.
US policy makers clearly know by being informed by expert analysis such as the paper in question that their propping up Ukraine and also literal Nazis to fight in the Donbas while being vocal about Ukraine joining NATO ... oh, one day, and also withdrawing from the INF treaty (what the authors warn would almost certainly solicit a Russian response) all while rejecting outright negotiating with Russia, are actions that would very likely provoke a larger war between Ukraine and Russia, a war that Ukraine would almost certainly lose at great cost to Ukrainians.
They know what the likely consequence of their actions are because they not only have expert analysis informing them of the likely consequences but it's also common sense. Sending arms, withdrawing from INF, breaking US laws to make sure Nazis get weapons, are all well considered decisions. I know you would like to portray US policy as essentially a series of well meaning whims, but that's just dumb.
No where do I state the likely consequences (such as the likely consequences of different policy decisions that the RAND paper explains) are somehow "certain", but in this case what is likely is what actually happens.
Experts put significant effort into explaining "doing this will result in that" and then US Policy makers go and do this and the that results. The argument that somehow they thought something else would happen is just dumb.
The additional proof they know exactly what is likely to happen and that is the end result they too are looking for is the drip feed policy. If US policy makers actually thought Ukraine could prevail and actually wanted that to happen then they would not drip feed weapons systems all the way to a handful of F16s in 2024, they would have poured in the armour, the HIMARS, the other missile systems, and much more from the beginning, and if a weapons system really was not yet appropriate they would have been trialing those weapons systems to inform tactics and training for when those systems are required (such as when the Soviet equipment does in fact get all blown up).
Instead, not only are the actual facts that the weapons systems are drip fed, i.e. "calibrated" to support a certain level of conflict without escalating further in the language of the RAND document, but US officials are pretty clear in what they are doing as they don't hesitate to explain that they won't provide this or that so as not to escalate, and assert that as common sense for months ... and then one day provide that very thing.
Escalate to what? Obviously Ukraine actually winning.
And why the about face suddenly one day? Because the weapon system under consideration no longer actually risks Ukraine winning.
Even Western talking heads trying to fully back US policy would have trouble parsing this policy and would even ask themselves confusingly what exactly is the escalation the US Is trying to avoid? Of course then they got the memo to just stop asking themselves that question.
Quoting Echarmion
Which is why I have no hesitation to really believe that Zelensky really did want to prevent the war from breaking out in doing things like trying to control the Nazis, but other factions in Ukraine prevailed (such as those very Nazis just straight-up telling Zelensky they wouldn't do what he says), and I'd have no problem believing many elites in Europe didn't want this war either but didn't prevail against US proxy politicians in Europe as well as US pressure and direct actions (such as stating Ukraine would join NATO, those 12 or so CIA bases in Ukraine, direct arms supply to Ukraine and so on).
Nowhere do I present state policy as monolithic.
Quoting Echarmion
... Yes, obviously the goals of drip feeding weapons to Ukraine to calibrate the conflict at "Ukraine loses" and profiting immensely from the conflict by locking in Europe to US gas exports and also a generalized arms sales bonanza in starting Cold War 2.0 are ... not mutually exclusive gaols.
I'm not sure what you're responding to, but yes, we agree that drip feeding weapons to Ukraine so that they loose, just slowly, is compatible with immense arms industry and fossil industry profits.
Totally agreed.
Quoting Echarmion
Not made up, I'll go repost the Western media's own investigations into this issue if you really want me to. Journalists go to see if these Nazi groups are getting Western arms and ... immediately verify that as fact ... and then they publish those finding and nothing change so even if you wanted to pretend it wasn't the policy because "they didn't know" ... as even 12 CIA bases literally right there can't "know everything with perfect accuracy" well they obviously know once it's reported in the media.
The policy is super duper clearly provoke a larger war between Russia and Ukraine and therefore in total consistency with that policy the Nazis are supported as they not only do the most provocative things like shell civilians but are also a provocation by just being their wholesome Nazi selves.
Quoting Echarmion
Again, I can repost the West's own reporting on these Nazis and their effect on the Ukrainian political process. Every time I do nothing in the videos is ever refuted or discussed further and the topic suddenly switches, but if you really want to get into those pretty clear video reports that show pretty clearly what the Nazis were up to, I am more than happy to post those reportings again (reports made by the West's own mainstream media as no one at that time had yet gotten the memo that "Nazis are in and making any sort of sense is out").
I don't remember anything of the sort.
Quoting boethius
You're switching back to full on propaganda here.
Quoting boethius
Deciding what your interlocutor is saying sure makes arguing easier.
Quoting boethius
Great, so we finally agree. Now, as I asked before, can you point out how the US expanded their policy?
Quoting boethius
Nowhere does it say that not changing the policy would also invite escalation.
Quoting boethius
When and how did they "expand" these forms of support? When the paper was published, the US was already directly supplying small arms up to Javelin ATGMs. They only started supplying heavier arms after the invasion.
The only other change was to use the presidential drawdown authority to supply arms to Ukraine, but this only happened in mid 2021 with russian troops massed on the border.
US stance on Ukrainian NATO membership didn't change anywhere between 2014 and 2022.
Quoting boethius
It's interesting that you're drawing attention to just how silly your equivocation here is.
Quoting boethius
You're using "A war" here to stand in for anything from an escalation of the Donbas war to a full invasion aiming to completely conquer Ukraine. Those are simply not comparable scenarios.
Quoting boethius
Actually you're doing exactly that, and all the time. In this very post you have repeatedly talked about the outcome of the war with complete certainty.
Quoting boethius
If that is the case then why did the experts not outright say "Russia is going to commit to total war to conquer Ukraine"? If according to you, that is what they predicted, and they put "significant effort" into making sure it's understood, then surely they'd just have said it.
Quoting boethius
Again there can be different goals at the same time.
Quoting boethius
Do you think pouring all of the West's weapon systems would have no negative consequences at all? Don't you think countries like China might take a rather dim view of it? Or, indeed, the populations of the western countries.
Quoting boethius
See, this makes me very angry.
Russia invaded.
Russia invaded!
Noone else made that decision. [B]No. One. Else.[/b]
All these people that died? They'd be alive if Russia just didn't invade. They didn't have to. Not a single Ukrainian or NATO soldier would have set a single foot on russian soil had Russia not invaded.
It was not necessary. The russian leadership is directly and unequivocally responsible for every single life lost in this war. And you don't even mention them with one single word.
Quoting boethius
These investigations, as you know, do not support the claim you made.
Quoting boethius
Just repeating the claim doesn't make it true. You claim a specific policy: "to arm the most extreme Nazi groups in Ukraine"
That is your claim, or better your lie. Because it's obvious you won't actually be able to defend it with facts.
Quoting boethius
The effect they reported was nothing like what you claim here. You're using a bog standard troll tactic where you'll post a "source", wildly misrepresent - or perhaps just outright lie about - what it says and then forever pretend that you proved your point.
You did not prove your point. You repeatedly ignored all the counterarguments.
Or she didn’t say that because just a moron would have thought that buying time was an admission by Europeans that Minsk agreements were deceivingly meant to arm Ukraine in order to initiate/pursue a war against Russia.
Germany’s position was pressed by a strategic dilemma: compromise strategic alliance with Ukraine and the US, and compromise pro-West international order by forcing Ukraine (acknowledged as THE VICTIM AND THE WEAKER party in the conflict) to by caving in to Russia’s demands, or compromise its economic ties with Russia while the anti-NATO/anti-EU wave was rising in the US (see Trump) and also within Europe (see Macron). What should be clear to me is that Germans were very much interested in pacifying the situation and go back to normal business with Russia THAT’S WHY we can believe Merkel’s genuine intention to reach a cease-fire through diplomacy. Yet Germans were cornered by geopolitical circumstances into a role of mediation whose diplomatic efforts could have been weaponised against German strategic interests in any case, and still make the cease-fire impossible to achieve or preserve.
In short, reaching a cease-fire through diplomacy was very much in the interest of Western Europeans, at least for Germany, yet the implementation of the Minsk agreements was very much left onto the Russians and Ukrainians’ initiative because there was no possible mediation between CONTRADICTORY demands by a third party interested in maintaining good terms with both. Indeed, Russians and Ukrainians had strongly competing views about the Minsk agreements, depending on their implementation, seen as capitulation or escalation. There was no viable third option.
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius
Nowhere Merkel is talking about Ukrainian victory in that comment. That's your rhetoric manipulation.
Notice that Merkel’s comment about Minsk agreements came in response to the following question: [I]“Do you ask yourself whether the years of relative calm were also years of neglect, and whether you were not just a crisis manager, but also partly the cause of crises?”[/I] (https://www.zeit.de/2022/51/angela-merkel-russland-fluechtlingskrise-bundeskanzler/komplettansicht). And which party had more reasons to complain and actually complained about Merkel’s diplomatic approach to the Ukrainian-Russian conflict? Ukrainians of course, not the Russians, NOT only because of their weakest position, territorial losses, strategic stakes, and the fact that the full scale war with Russia happened anyways BUT ALSO because eventually, NATO member states – including Germany – collectively failed to support Ukraine’s efforts to rebuild a credible deterrence in line with Ukrainian expectations, at least until the full-scale invasion was inevitable, from the Ukrainian perspective. Ukraine was denied weapon supplies for eight years to “avoid an escalation of the war” and compelled to sign the Minsk agreements under duress (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/can-ukraine-and-russia-be-persuaded-to-abide-by-minsk-accords, https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/10/06/protests-against-steinmeiers-formula-gather-largest-crowd-since-euromaidan/) PRECISELY BECAUSE the West tried to adhere to the intention of such agreements to find a political solution to the war.
So Merkel was simply defending herself against the accusation that Minsk Agreements were a diplomatic failure to which she countered: [I]”Diplomacy isn't wrong just because it didn't work,” she said, speaking in the interview broadcast on ARD on June 7. "So I don't see why I should have to say that it was wrong and I won't apologize for it.”[/I] (https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-war-germany-merkel/31888480.html). From Merkel’s perspective, given the fact that Russians were the aggressors, the strongest party, and that Germans already tried to appease Russia by denying Ukraine NATO membership, it is plausible to assume that the initiative for cooperation was expected from Russia more than from Ukraine (as much as initiative for cooperation is expected by many from stronger Israel wrt weaker Palestinians). And it may also be argued that between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine was the one which made the greatest efforts in abiding by the Minsk agreements:
https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/through-ashes-minsk-agreements
https://ecfr.eu/article/ukraine-russia-and-the-minsk-agreements-a-post-mortem/
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15202.doc.htm
So the least Germans could afford to achieve FOR Ukrainians without forcing Ukraine to capitulate, was what Poroshenko himself admitted and Merkel echoed in her interview: namely to allow Ukraine to get stronger, by regenerating and rebuilding its Armed Force for deterrence. Indeed on the onset of war in 2014 exposed Ukraine as completely unprepared. The Ukrainian Armed Forces were not manned, equipped, or trained to meet Russian aggression.
In short, there is no admission of intentional deception of Russia by Merkel, but explicit refusal to take the blame for the failure of the diplomatic approach (as voiced by the Ukrainians). Merkel failed to reach a cease-fire despite being EXPLICITLY PURSUED (“It was an attempt to prevent precisely such a war”), AND CONSISTENTLY PURSUED wrt the strategic interests of Germany, still Ukraine could benefit from Minsk agreements to counter Russian aggression ("The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine.").
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius.
I've questioned many times the logic and the relevance of your "main stream media narrative" counternarrative in countering my own claims. Infowar, deceitful propaganda, and blame game are not uncommon in politics as much as in times of hegemonic competition, so Westerners should not be expected to refrain from infowar, deceitful propaganda, blaming game IN FAVOR OF Russian infowar, deceitful propaganda and blaming game, ESPECIALLY given the asymmetric advantages Russia enjoys in poisoning the Western public debate. The same goes with issues related Western tolerance toward war crimes, neo-nazi militia, military-industrial complex lobbying, democratic backsliding, and forcing people to war.
But, beyond accusations of spinning deceitful propaganda, one has to look deeper into what strategic reasoning may push official propaganda. And to understand that one has to look into the core strategic interests of all involved parties and their own agendas, not only into the US’s.
So until you address my objections, your pro-Ukraine propaganda deconstruction has ZERO appeal to me.
Quoting boethius
Not sure what you are referring to with "Nazi groups who literally burned their political rivals" or with "constantly shelling civilians". Anyways, the purpose of Minsk agreements was mainly to reach a cease-fire through disarming, deescalate, withdrawal ON BOTH sides, not on one side only, and it doesn’t talk specifically about Ukrainian Nazi groups, but more in general about “disarmament of all illegal armed groups” and “the withdrawal of all foreign armed forces, military equipment, as well as mercenaries” (like the Nazi and Imperialist Russian militia which started the conflict) with the aim of reaching a cease-fire and the intervention of third parties like OCSE for monitoring the situation.
Quoting boethius
So what? The laws were passed prior to the Russian full scale invasion of Ukraine in ’22 and yet Russia invaded anyways . Besides the role of “the Azov Battalion” was understandably instrumental to Ukraine in countering Russian aggression when Ukraine had a weaker army, and especially to counter Russian Imperialist/Nazi militia. Highlighting the Nazi problem is instrumental to Western pro-Russian propaganda (like yours) which also comes from Western far-right and crypto neo-Nazis like AfD (https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/05/14/co-leader-of-germanys-far-right-afd-party-fined-for-using-nazi-slogan). Indeed, there is nothing in your or Russian denunciation of the Ukrainian "Nazi problem" that is inherently anti-Nazi.
So it’s still up for debate for whom the Azov Battalion is a "Nazi problem" and in what sense it’s a problem.
Quoting boethius
Your rhetoric framing is highly questionable. The integration of the Azov Battalion to the Ukrainian National Guard came with Poroshenko not with Zelensky. And the integration into a regular army in a moment of need WAS already an attempt to make the Azov battalion a depoliticized, professional and accountable force more instrumental to Ukraine defensive needs than to pursuing neo-Nazi propaganda and political agenda: indeed, the unit has been repeatedly reconstituted since then, with its extremist early neo-Nazi leaders like Andriy Biletsky leaving, among others (https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2022/08/19/1384992/much-azov-about-nothing-how-the-ukrainian-neo-nazis-canard-fooled-the-world). So much so that Ukrainian Jews fought in the Azov Regiment, also in the Mariupol siege: https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-zelensky-adviser-40-jewish-heroes-fighting-in-mariupol-steel-plant/ , https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-762000
Besides RAND doesn’t mention the Ukrainian neo-Nazis in the article you posted.
Quoting boethius
OK let me double down on this point then. The Minsk Agreement did not cover the full scale/scope of the hybrid war Russia was waging in ABSOLUTE BAD FAITH FROM THE START (https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/10/25/leaked-kremlin-emails-show-minsk-protocol-designed-as-path-to-ukraines-capitulation-euromaidan-press-report/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surkov_leaks).
Russia couldn’t possibly be a credible mediator between belligerents (Ukranian government and pro-Russian separatists) being itself a belligerent party and initiator of the conflict, having already and repeatedly violated previous agreements (Minsk agreements came after the invasion and annexation of Crimea by Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226), pushing for further Russification of the occupied territories despite diplomatic negotiations, and being very much interested in exploiting the conflict in Ukraine to prevent Westernisation of Ukraine. On the other side, the Minsk agreements “bought time” also for Russia to prepare for its forthcoming full-scale war while testing the resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine.
So Ukrainians, Europeans and the US had all compelling reasons to believe that Putin was approaching diplomatic solutions IN TOTAL BAD FAITH FROM THE START, and it should be totally expected that Ukrainians, the US and Europeans were compelled to build a credible military deterrent for Ukraine while pushing for a diplomatic solutions to contain Putin’s hegemonic ambitions (as a “carrot and stick” approach suggests). Russia's claim that the West was in bad faith can be a typical example of accusation in a mirror (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror) as expected by ex-KGB agent expert in disinformatia and historical revisionism (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10509605/, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/vladimir-putins-rewriting-of-history-draws-on-a-long-tradition-of-soviet-myth-making-180979724/, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html).
Your reasoning seems to assume as evidently compelling that the burden of making all necessary efforts to avoid the conflict were only on the US, Europeans, Ukraine, BUT NOT ON RUSSIA, and that such efforts must have been assessed against RUSSIAN STRATEGIC INTERESTS AS PERCEIVED BY RUSSIA not US/European/Ukrainian strategic interests as perceived by US/Europeans/Ukrainians. On what grounds you do that? From a geopolitical and historical point view your assumptions are totally questionable.
Can you parse that better now?
Indeed, the dude overly indulges in trolling tactics: framing facts through manipulative labels ("Nazi problem", "Western coup", "Russia legitimate security concerns", "Western propaganda"), misreporting sources and interlocutors' claims, and take others' objections just as a pretext to loop once more into framing facts and distorting others' claims.
Then you're obviously not really following events and are just wasting time and space.
When the Western media believed Ukraine was "winning" the conversation (in the Western media) was very different than it was now. The faction in Ukraine that wanted to war and for which Minsk was just to buy time to prepare for the inevitable war seemed completely validated by the West and the Western cheerleaders for the war essentially presented these people as geniuses, both diplomatic and militarily.
Quoting Echarmion
Neither the Nazis nor the shelling of civilians by said Nazis are propaganda. The West's own institutions and media recorded both.
Now, I suppose you could argue that yes there was and are Nazis and yes the shelling of civilians was a regular feature of the Donbas war but it was actually moderate regular forces that were shelling civilians. If you're taking this position then I am happy to present the argument of why that is a terrible position to take and in contradiction with the available evidence.
Quoting Echarmion
You can literally click through the series of responses to arrive at your comment:
Quoting Echarmion
You're literally accusing me of trying "fool" someone by stating the paper analyses existing US policy.
I then demonstrate that the paper quite clearly is analyzing existing US policy and its benefits and risks as well as considering different directions US policy could go.
For the subject at hand, the paper analyses the US policy vis-a-vis support for Ukraine in the Donbas war (that the paper describes as a proxy war), the existing policy of Ukraine joining NATO (... oh ... some day), and the existing policy vis-a-vis the ABM and INF treaty.
The paper describes all these policies as already provocative to Russia and potentially soliciting a Russian escalation (without even doing anything more), but considers doing more such as more arms and assistance for Ukraine (things like 12 CIA bases in Ukraine would also certainly qualify as more assistance), being more vocal about Ukraine joining NATO, as well as withdrawing from INF. All three actions, which the US then does, the paper describes as likely leading to a significant Russian escalation (indeed, the paper correctly predicts that the Russians would likely respond with offensive actions in response to INF withdrawal rather than defensive actions such as inventing in ABM, but also notes that Moscow is already sensitive to the possibility of a decapitation nuclear strike and the possibility of converting ABM bases, deployed after withdrawal from the ABM treaty, to launch nuclear weapons).
In other words, the paper describes the existing US policy on all the areas directly related to conflict in Ukraine as already provocative and already risking a Russian escalation, and then discusses policy changes that would be even more provocative.
The US then does all those things and you want to just keep denying what the paper clearly says in plain English.
It's really impossible to take you seriously at all at this juncture.
If you're willing to deny what you clearly just stated a few comments ago, that the paper doesn't analyze the existing US policy at the time, you're clearly just trying to waste time.
Now, it's not a waste of my time to demonstrate your bad faith and pure idiocy of your positions, but I'll be selective in responding to you going on, only bothering to respond to your comments if it involves points I wish to make anyways.
However, in the event you have some sort of growth of your own soul (from currently empty to "something") then feel free to actually read the entire RAND paper as there's plenty of interesting conversation to be had based on what it actually says rather than simply repeatedly denying what it says and asking me to cite it continuously.
What the paper says vis-a-vis an escalation in Ukraine is also obviously common sense that Russia will have a significant advantage and a bigger conflict will result in significant losses to Ukraine in terms of lives and territory.
The only reason the situation "appeared" to be different in 2022 is first because the Western mainstream media simply ignored completely the Russian conquest of the entire land bridge to Crimea and how that's a major strategic victory that Russia would then need to consolidate, ignoring disproportionate losses for Ukrainians (often by just repeating Ukrainian loss estimates for both sides) and the fact Russia would likely be more conservative with spending lives (giving Ukraine a temporary advantage in the area of willingness to sustain losses, which Russia could easily compensate in other areas such as air power, artillery and building a sophisticated defensive line, but did allow Ukraine to "compete" for a time those losses were indeed available to lose), and ignored the simple fact that Russia is a lot bigger with better demographics (not "great" demographics but far better than Ukraine, and even that made worse by the mass exodus from the country).
That's literally what the expression "buying time" means. It doesn't mean "coercive pressure as one component in a diplomatic strategy to establish a lasting ceasefire", which Merkel could have easily expressed that concept in her own words had she wanted to. She would have also been appraised of the situation that Minsk is not being implemented and is unlikely to be implemented during the entire non-implementation of Minsk while she was in office.
When she made these comments the mood in the West, if you can remember those days, was extreme exuberance for Ukrainian war prospects and people were happy to take credit for the happy situation.
The propaganda and cheerleading in both Western mainstream and social media was extreme with mass Ukrainian flag emojis everywhere you looked. I would go so far as to describe the emotion as catharsis with continued reenactments of Churchillian speeches and steady drip of a little of that VE-Day glorious celebration.
The narrative that Ukraine was just "buying time" for a bigger war preexisted the 2022 bigger war and supported by Ukrainian officials and voices of various sorts, as I cited above. Merkel would have known this faction in Ukraine that actually wants a bigger war with Russia existed and at the time she made her comments it seemed this factions view was validated.
We can go back to those days if you want to be extremely sure that the narrative that Merkel was just decrying a failed bid to maintain a ceasefire is an apologetic invented after battlefield conditions soured, and not before, but the general point that Minsk was not a good faith agreement is supposed anyways by plenty of Ukrainian actions and, more importantly, plenty of Ukrainian and Western actions.
Quoting neomac
She says "buying time" ... buying time for what? To become "stronger as we see today".
The far bigger war with Russia is at that time underway. By "strong" she is obviously implying "able to win on the battlefield".
Otherwise her comments would make absolutely no sense: Minsk was to buy time for Ukraine to be strong ... but alas obviously not strong enough and therefore to ultimately be severely damaged by Russia and forced to sign unfavourable peace terms?!
The sentence clearly and unambiguously is describing "buying time" to successfully deal with Russia in military terms, which nearly the entire West completely believed was happening in December 2022.
You don't "buy time" to suffer the same consequences later, perhaps even worse, you "buy time" to prepare a more favourable outcome. Using a negotiation to "buy time" would be understood by anyone in diplomatic, legal, and/or political circles as the goal is to buy time to prepare for an escalation of the conflict and not buy time in order to implement the spirt of the agreement (which makes no sense: you do not "buy time" in signing an agreement with the intention of fulfilling the agreement, just not now but maybe later?! It's not how anyone speaks with even a cursory experience with this kind of discourse).
Had Merkel actually thought Ukraine negotiated Minsk with the intention to avoid a bigger war and was therefore implementing Minsk with the goal of avoiding a bigger war, but that, alas, supplying arms to Ukraine as part of that diplomatic strategy didn't work but fortunately Ukraine is now better able to deal with Russian bad faith vis-a-vis Minsk, she would have said something along those lines, but she doesn't because she knows very well it is Ukraine the obstacle for either implementing Minsk or then trying to renegotiate it, and likewise the West is an obstacle in rebuking any attempts at a larger negotiation with the main Western powers to arrive at an understanding.
The reason there's no negotiations directly with the West concerning the situation in Ukraine is because the West, in particular the US, knows that Ukraine cannot effectively use Western leverage in a negotiation.
As the RAND paper makes clear, the West was pressuring Russia on several military and economic domains. To take two important domains: in the ABM and INF situation, the West could offer in a negotiation to assuage Russian concerns of nuclear first strike, even in mutual beneficial ways that aim to create a new non-proliferation treaty architecture that is favourable also to the US (vis-a-vis not only Russia but also other nuclear or would-be-nuclear powers); and in the economic sphere obviously the West could approve Nord Stream II that Russia spent some 10 billion dollars building. In direct bilateral negotiations Ukraine cannot offer either of these things as leverage, only in negotiations that involve (at the least) the US and Germany could ABM, INF and Nord Stream II be on the table.
Now, it was presented by Western officials and media at the time that the reason to rebuke any Russian invitations to negotiate all the issues in play, a "new European security architecture" was that this was essentially as a favour to Ukraine in that the West wouldn't go "behind Ukraine's back" and negotiate things with the Russians.
What the West, in particular the US obviously making these decisions on behalf of everyone in NATO and the EU, was actually doing in rebuking direct negotiations with Russia was minimizing the leverage Ukraine had to negotiate a resolution to the disputes in Ukraine. Russia may very well have agreed to favourable terms for Ukraine in not only the Donbas but even Crimea could have changed status (some sort of strange quasi status is had been floated at the time), if Nord Stream II was approved and also some nuclear deescalation (or then at least avoiding further nuclear escalation) which presumably the West should also want. Obviously plenty of other issues such as NATO and so on.
I say all this not only because it is apropos but also Merkel would have known the purpose of US policy was to be provocative and not to try to reach a resolution with Russia.
It's Markel and Holland trying to talk Bush out of declaring Ukraine would join NATO all the way back in 2008, so she is fully aware of the trajectory.
To circle back to her comment of Minsk being used to buy time, she is not some kindergarten level intellect considering only a few surface level facts, appearances and straight-up lies, Western media permits to be discussed (the kind of intellect that truly believes fighting for "the right to join NATO" makes sense). She has a great deal of insight into actors in the West and Ukraine, and in autumn 2022 perhaps antagonizing Russia was still not her "ideal preference" but it did seem to be at least working, everyone was happy about it, and therefore she did not have a problem with saying the truth in a phone call she was unaware was being recorded.
And it is the actual facts which best serve to understand Merkel's meaning. There are no facts available in which to base an opinion that the West was doing everything possible to resolve conflict with Russian in Ukraine and instead there are a plethora of facts available to demonstrate the West, in particular the US, is escalating conflict with Russia (Ukraine being only one area: there's also Libya and Syria, and economic conflict and continuously accusing Russia of meddling in US elections which turn out to be 200 000 USD of Facebook adds purchased by a clickbait farm; though what US elites actually meant when they say things like Russia is winning the information war is that Russia was hiring US dissidents and giving them a platform; i.e. exactly what the West did to the Soviet Union and was good value for money).
If we assume Markel isn't an idiot with kindergarten level reasoning skills and absolutely clueless and oblivious to what was going on during her entire political career, then it is a very safe assumption that Merkel understood correctly the goal of US foreign policy and also the goal of the dominant faction in Ukraine (in line with US foreign policy and CIA assistance) was to have a much larger war with Russia, which they got, seemed to be doing well in, seemed "strong" and it was safe to just say the truth (especially in a conversation that she understood was casual and not recorded).
It's an interesting topic but there's also plenty of other evidence in which to base the opinion that Ukraine was not trying to resolve hostilities in the Donbas but maintaining them while building up their forces for a larger war with Russia.
Now, perhaps the Ukrainian people didn't want the resulting war, and perhaps Zelensky was completely honest in his platform of making peace with Russia, but when you have fanatical paramilitary forces that are outside the control of the central government then what the people want and what their president wants are not necessarily determining factors.
[sup]— U.S. Department of Justice · Sep 4, 2024[/sup]
U.S. Seizes 32 Pro-Russian Propaganda Domains in Major Disinformation Crackdown
[sup]— Ravie Lakshmanan · The Hacker News · Sep 5, 2024[/sup]
The Lies Russia Tells Itself
[sup]— Thomas Rid · Foreign Affairs · Sep 30, 2024[/sup]
Living behind the new curtain is subject to heavier measures.
????????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ????????? (en)
[sup]— RBC · Sep 30, 2024[/sup]
Land — wheat homes¹²³ art coal — grab.
Expansion.
Or your very idiosyncratic perception of events is simply not the same as other people's.
Quoting boethius
I can't think of a specific example for what you're describing here, but even if, for the sake of argument, I assume that's true, what you're describing is media reacting to what seems to be great successes. Why would that not validate the hawks?
Quoting boethius
Obviously neither of us knows every single soldier involved in the campaign. But I would very much like to see evidence that "Nazis" were in control of most or all Ukrainian artillery fire during the Donbas war.
Quoting boethius
The paper was not an analysis of existing US policy but an analysis of a series of future possibilities.
But obviously by analysing some future policy you're going to reference the current policy.
If I were to say something like "they aren't analysing US policy at all" that'd falsely imply that there's no connection between current and future policies. I didn't mean to imply that so I rejected your phrasing of my position.
Now in an ordinary conversation this would not need to be said, but here we are.
Quoting boethius
I don't see how it does.
Quoting boethius
The paper doesn't link Ukraine and the INF.
Quoting boethius
It didn't do "all these things". I've explained why I think that and you haven't responded to the specific points.
Quoting boethius
Consolidate how?
Quoting boethius
Oh, so you have access to classified military documents which allow you to judge - better than the very sophisticated OSINT projects monitoring the military developments - exact loss figures and military strength?
Quoting Echarmion
First you claim the paper is not an analysis of US foreign policy:
Quoting Echarmion
I then explain why it definitely is analyzing existing US foreign, which you have issue with and I respond to with the parts of the paper clearly analyzing existing US foreign policy and the risks already inherent in the existing policy.
Clarifying the purpose of my points with:
Quoting boethius
To which you then cite this sentence and rebuttal with:
Quoting Echarmion
Since you are unable to deal with the fact the paper obviously does analyze existing US foreign policy at the time.
The paper is not discussing things in some sort of hypothetical vacuum but takes as it's starting point existing relations with Russia and analyses those existing policies as a basis to then consider different policy moves and the benefits and risks of those moves. However, it also considers the benefits and risks of the existing policies, such as the Donbas war already imposing a cost on Russia and that Russia may anyways decide to preempt US actions and counter escalate. Why the paper recommends trying to resolve the Donbas conflict, in which expanding US assistance to Ukraine could be one bargaining chip in a larger diplomatic project. For, although the authors recognize escalation by Russia in Ukraine would be further cost to Russia it evaluates the risks to US foreign police (and also Ukrainian lives and territory) to be not-worth it (noting elsewhere that increasing conflict with a nuclear armed rival for conflicts sake doesn't make any sense).
To sum up:
1. First you deny the paper analyses US foreign policy, which if obviously does
2. Then you can't deal with the direct citations of the paper analyzing the existing US foreign policy of the time (of which I only provided a couple of examples, which is sufficient to disprove your claim the paper doesn't do so)
3. So you deny you ever said that when I explain that it does analyze existing foreign policy, that I'm just randomly deciding what you're saying.
4. Then I cite you your own words quite clearly stating "I'm not sure who you're trying to fool by now acting like the paper was an analysis of the US policy. Yourself?"
5. Now you just circle back to claiming the paper doesn't analyze US foreign policy.
Obviously, being demonstrated to be such a transparently bad faith actor, you're trying to move the goal posts from stating the the paper doesn't analyze US policy (and to claim it does is trying to "fool" people) to that's not the main objective of the paper.
However, saying "the paper doesn't do X" is not stating "the objective of the paper is to do X".
If you say a "paper doesn't mention Paris" and someone can cite the paper in question literally talking about Paris, that is sufficient to disprove the claim that the "paper doesn't mention Paris"; to then try to move the goalposts to "the paper doesn't primarily talk about Paris" is just dumb.
I am aware of the objectives of the authors because I read the paper, and they literally describe the methodology in a section literally titled "Methodology":
Quoting Extending Russia, RAND
Notice they are basing their work on "current policy debates" which, if you can read English, is another way of saying "analysis of existing US policy", which is what current policy debates are about.
So we not only have the words of the authors describing what they are doing, but then plenty of examples of them actually doing it (i.e. actually analyzing existing US foreign policy) such as statements like:
Quoting Extending Russia, RAND
They have a footnote for this sentence which reads as follows:
Quoting Extending Russia, RAND
Which is a demonstration of doing what they say they will do "drawing on these expert opinions on current policy debates" in literally citing these experts they are drawing on (i.e. analyzing the existing policy as a starting point).
Notice how this sentence in question does both: it represents an analysis of the policy of withdrawing from the ABM treaty (by simply citing an expert analysis they are going with in their analysis) to evaluate the likely Russian reaction to withdrawing from the INF treaty.
This example not only demonstrates one of many example of analyzing existing policy (along with the previous examples I gave) but is also topical to the original disagreement of whether US action (since the paper) was provocative towards Russia. After this paper is written the US does withdraw from the INF treaty and US policy makers clearly know that it further provocation likely to solicit a response from Russia.
A significant part of the paper, perhaps the majority though I haven't counted, is focused on economic relations. Indeed the very first paragraph of the paper in the summary, page xi, states:
Quoting Extending Russia, RAND
Which is clearly commenting on the existing US policy of sanctions against Russia, crediting the sanctions to contribution to Russian stagnation, which the paper puts significant focus in further analysis of these economic policies and options to expand sanctions them.
In other words, the paper is not some sort of hypothetical exercise drawing on lessons of history of similar great power conflict or simply positing fictions scenarios, but takes the existing US foreign policy and situation with and in Russia as a starting point to then consider different policy moves from the current situation.
In line with this objective the paper considers the impact (benefits and risks) of existing policies, such as the existing sanctions and existing support to Ukraine.
The authors literally say that's what they are going to do, "drawing on these expert opinions and on current policy debates" (i.e. analyzing existing US policy), and then they go and actually do that. They sometimes even consider different contradicting expert opinions and then give their own opinion about the matter, one topical example is:
Quoting Extending Russia, RAND
Demonstrating that they are clearly aware of different expert opinions exist, worth considering but they politely make their own position clear that they do not agree with this opinion but find it unconvincing. Of course they use polite diplomatic language as is usual for these kinds of papers, but considering they explicitly state elsewhere the risk of not only Russia escalating in Ukraine in response to US actions in Ukraine but consider is also a risk of Russia even preempting those actions and escalating first anyways.
Now, to remind anyone following along and actually interested in honest debate, the reason for these absurd denials about what the paper quite clearly states, is that the position that the US decision makers know that:
A. Their actions (at the time of the paper and since) were provoking Russia into a larger war: the existing support to Ukraine risked a larger war and in particular actions since the paper was written (in which arms assistance to Ukraine was increased, US more vocal about Ukraine joining NATO, and withdrawing from the INF treaty, all identified as significant risk of provoking Russia into significant escalation).
B. That the likely outcome, according to experts, of a larger escalation of the Donbas war was Ukrainian losing territory and lives and Russia would likely prevail and impose a disadvantageous peace on Ukraine and that would be a setback for US foreign policy.
C. It is highly risky to increase competition with a nuclear armed adversary.
[quote="Extending Russia, RAND;https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html"]Most of the steps covered in this report are in some sense escalatory, and most would likely prompt some Russian counter-escalation. In addition to the specific risks associated with each measure, there- fore, there is additional risk attached to a generally intensified competition with a nuclear-armed adversary to consider. Consequently, every measure needs to be deliberately planned and carefully calibrated to achieve the desired effect. Finally, although Russia would bear the cost of this increased competition less easily than the United States, both sides would have to divert national resources from other purposes. Extending Russia for its own sake is, in most cases, not a sufficient basis to consider the steps outlined here. Rather, these need to be considered in the broader context of national policy based on defense, deterrence, and—where U.S. and Russian interests align—cooperation.[quote]
US decision makers (i.e. whoever is calling the shots in the Biden administration) obviously know all this because they or their assistants read these kind of RAND papers.
It's also just common sense that doing things like military and covert assistance to Ukraine, like building 12 CIA bases in Ukraine, are provocative actions, along with withdrawing from INF and doubling down on Ukraine joining NATO, refusing to discuss, much less any real negotiation, for a broader European security architecture are provocative.
The US own top tier analysis says all this is provocative, that Ukraine will lose significantly in an escalation, that Russia will likely prevail, that the end result is also bad for US policy and prestige, and that obviously you can't go too far in intensifying a conflict with Russia because they have nuclear weapons.
Now, propagandists such as @Echarmion just want to deny the obvious fact that the US knew it's actions were provoking a larger war in Ukraine and that the US knew the super duper likely result of Russia winning such an escalation at significant cost to Ukraine in both lives and territory. Why this denialism is so important as to get to the absolutely stupid situation that @Echarmion needs to then deny his denialism only to go onto deny his denialism of his denialism is that it is so obvious.
You cannot read this RAND paper and then have even a cursory knowledge of the facts (not only arms supply to Ukraine military but to Nazi groups that Western journalists go and verify for us is definitely happening despite Western laws past to make that explicitly illegal), CIA bases in Ukraine, withdraw from INF, being vocal about Ukraine joining NATO "oh ... someday", and so on, and conclude there's not only no provocation but the facts are simply inline with someone reading this RAND report and then simply pushing on all of the buttons the authors identify as likely to provoke a Russian escalation in Ukraine.
You can also not read this paper and conclude that the policy since the war started of drip feeding arms to Ukraine was somehow due to an honest belief that the expert opinion as represented in the RAND paper was somehow wrong and that Ukraine could in fact prevail in a larger war with Russia. The policy of drip feeding weapons to Ukraine is not compatible with the belief Ukraine can "win" despite the extreme disadvantageous position the RAND paper points out, but rather represents the "calibration" of support the paper describes to increase costs on Russia while avoiding an out of control escalation (such as nuclear exchange); of course, a calibration of the conflict far beyond what the authors recommend but nevertheless implementing their basic framework of controlling the escalation so as not to get out of hand.
Likewise, US decision makers are clearly cognizant of the risk of nuclear escalation and their policies clearly reflect avoiding nuclear escalation ... by drip feeding weapons to Ukraine and forbidding Ukraine to use Western weapons to strike deep in Russia, which is another way of saying that US policy makers "calibrate" the conflict at "Ukraine loses" so as to avoid the risk of nuclear escalation.
Now, considering the paper is pretty clear doing all this is bad for US foreign policy, the choice is that US policy makers are just stupid with a kindergarten level intellect (as always promoted in the Western mainstream media when Western policy is counter-productive to any reasonable understanding of Western interests) or then they know what they are doing, as they can read these kinds of papers and know there's no "counter analysis" out there that says differently, but their priority is not some arguably objective US, or West in general, interest.
If you're goal is to have another war to:
1. Distract from the disastrous ending of the last wars and avoid any introspection or accountability.
2. Keep the gravy train of military spending flowing.
3. Sell gas to Europe.
4. Have a "rally around the flag" effect that comes with a righteous war.
And you simply do not care about US long term interests, just making bank for your friends and backers and winning the next election (i.e. the policy need not be "successful" just appear to be successful until 2024), then it would make complete sense to read the paper and then simply push all the buttons that maximize escalation with Russia but nevertheless still calibrate things short of a nuclear war (since fortunately, and credit where credits due, you are not so pathologically insane as to actually want a nuclear exchange with Russia).
If your goals are partisan and special interest, as outlined above, you would not ask yourself the question "can Ukraine prevail so that it's no embarrassing for US policy and prestige?" but rather "can Ukraine seem to prevail, at least 'enough', to get to election 2024? afterwhich we can drop them like a hot pierogi and move onto the next war, as, yeah, sure, maybe 'losing' war after war is 'bad' for the US in the long term but it's highly profitable in the meantime".
Quoting Overextending and unbalancing Russia Brief, RAND
And they assess the risk to doing so as "high" and likelihood of success as "moderate".
Increasing lethal aid to Ukraine does not even make it to their "Most-Promising Cost-Imposing Options" that they list at the end of the document.
The measures the authors identify that are "most promising" all have a greater favourability than moderate likelihood of success but high risk.
The only high risk option they include is further sanctions but they rate that as having high likelihood of success and high benefits, all the other options being at worst moderate risk but high likelihood of success or then moderate likelihood of success but low risk.
Obviously US policy makers in the Biden administration (which I guess is probably mostly Biden's wife, but who knows) don't follow the recommendations of the paper, but they also do nothing to "change the game" as it were to somehow prove the authors wrong, such as pouring in advanced weapons systems into Ukraine day 1 of the war without restriction in order to prove that Ukraine can indeed win and Russian nuclear weapons are of no concern to them.
Indeed, the US administration explicitly tells us that "why not this weapon system or why not that weapons system" is to not escalate further ... but escalate to where? Obviously Ukraine winning, or even risking that outcome, that's what would be "escalation" in the proxy war with Russia. There is simply no way to cause Ukraine to start winning on the battlefield but also that not being the escalation they are talking about avoiding.
Even Western talking heads would confuse themselves in trying to grapple with what this "avoid escalation" meant in the context of a giant war the US was nominally trying to help Ukraine win. Then they'd confuse themselves even more when the exact escalatory thing that was proposed as "common sense" obviously we can't supply to Ukraine one day was supplied to Ukraine the next day.
There is no theory ever proposed which would demonstrate a pathway to proving the authors of the RAND paper wrong much less any action in accordance with such an alternative theory.
The paper describes what will likely happen if the US policy provoked Russia into a larger war (including just maintaining the existing policy, why the paper recommends trying to resolve the Donbas war and not even just maintain the status quo), the US then does those provocative things the paper describes as bad ideas, the US explicitly tells us aid to Ukraine is limited to avoid "escalation", and then exactly what the authors predict from a major escalation is what occurs: significant costs to Ukraine in terms of lives and territory and also a US policy setback and embarrassment (i.e. loss of prestige).
The idea that US policy makers don't understand their own policy analysts is simply dumb.
The theory that coheres with all the facts is that US policy makers know what they are doing, know it's bad for Ukraine and also US long term interests, but do it anyways for other reasons (partisan, special interests, being pro-evil generally speaking).
Yes, obviously. As I pointed out normally this is common sense that does not need pointing out. But since you are constantly twisting everyone's words around to fit into your preordained conclusions we're now at the point where you spend several paragraphs explaining something utterly trivial. No doubt under the impression that you're somehow proving a point.
It's simple: Yes any evaluation of possible future policies includes, as it's baseline, the current policy. That does not mean that an analysis of future policies is also simultaneously an analysis of the current policy. The two are related, they're not the same thing.
Quoting boethius
It doesn't. There is no chapter in the paper analysing the contemporary situation, nor does the paper state anywhere what the risks and benefits of the current policy are.
You can argue that those risks and benefits can be inferred from what the paper discusses. But yo say that "the paper is analysing the current policy" is and remains wrong.
Quoting boethius
I have no idea what the text looks like in your mind, but the text that I read has no "direct citations analysing the existing US policy".
There is a difference between "talking about" something and "analysing" it. My best guess is you simply assume that just referencing the current US policy counts as an analysis.
Quoting boethius
This is just false. "Current policy debates" does not refer just to "debates about the current policy". It's more broad and would include both debates about current policies as well as debates about possible future policies.
Quoting boethius
You realise that the footnote does not reference some expert analysis of US policy, but simply a news report about Putin's statement?
Apparently Putin announced a few days ago that Russia is planning to change it's nuclear doctrine:
AP News: Putin lowers threshold of nuclear response
As various commentators have pointed out, the change is clearly intended to make the doctrine more vague. It's also pretty much a direct warning to not allow Ukraine to strike targets on Russian territory using western weapons.
This seems a fairly big step for Russia, which seems to indicate that they're really concerned about possible long range strikes. It also demonstrates the bargaining power Russia's nuclear capabilities still represent.
Ultimately I agree with the view that, no matter what Russia says their nuclear doctrine is, there is just nothing to be gained from using nuclear weapons over Ukraine. Nuclear weapons are a powerful threat to a country's population and infrastructure, but their direct military use is limited unless you intend to absolutely obliterate an area. Using nuclear weapons directly against Ukraine would create more problems than it solves. Using them against anyone else would just be plain stupid and amount to suicide.
So, I'm trying to "fool" people by pointing out this common sense thing?
The conversation is just dumb, and it's also not common sense that the paper would take an analysis of existing US policy as a starting point.
As I mentioned, it is entirely possible to do entirely hypothetical analysis or then historical analysis or, indeed, as you first claimed: analysis of different things the US could do and what might happen afterwards, without commenting on existing US policy.
However, the paper does analyze existing US policy as starting point to evaluate different policy options, as the paper explicitly says is their goal.
Quoting Echarmion
This is even dumber. You literally just offer the rebuke that the paper taking the existing policy situation as a starting point in their analysis is common sense and not worth mentioning ... and you're next point is directly contradicting the point you just made.
We're literally on a descent into stupid.
That the paper is not organized in chapters about the contemporary situation and chapters considering future action does not remotely entail the paper does not consider and analyze the contemporary situation.
To take the Paris example of debating a paper that does talk about Paris but you continuously deny, simply because a paper does not have a chapter literally entitled "Paris" does not mean the paper does not mention Paris and simply citing the paper discussing Paris should be sufficient evidence to satisfy everyone in a discussion that yes indeed the paper does talk about Paris: maybe doesn't talk primarily about Paris and maybe doesn't have a chapter literally titled "Paris" but does mention Paris nonetheless and that can be verified by directly citing the paper using the word "Paris" and clearly talking about the city of Paris in doing so.
The paper is organized thematically on each dimension of competition with Russia.
Each dimension or area the paper considers (and there's many as the paper is nearly 300 pages long) the authors take the contemporary situation and their analysis of it in order to then consider changes to that status quo and analyze to arrive ultimately at their recommendations (which, topical for this discussion, does not include Ukraine at all).
It is neither common sense that the authors would necessarily do this (plenty of ways to provide policy analysis without considering the contemporary situation; either as a sort of "blue skies" thinking, or then go into fine detail on just one thing that could be done without considering the broader consequences, or then for the purposes of creating a longer term view of imperial competition generally speaking to generate timeless lessons of imperial exploitation). All of which is analysis that exists and people produce all the time. To give one example, militaries routinely create contingency planning for a wide variety of events and policy changes without any relation to contemporary policy (such as detailed plans on invading various countries without anyone involved in that analysis believing that would actually happen in the short or long term), and it is also obviously that they didn't do this thing you claim is obvious they would do ... simply because they have no chapter literally called "the contemporary situation and how we got here".
Quoting Echarmion
It's honestly just bizarre.
Within the same comment, you literally start with:
Quoting Echarmion
In response (directly citing me) making the point:
Quoting boethius
Which, to repeat myself, is not obvious as there are plenty of ways to analyze policy options without considering the existing policy and situation as a starting point.
And then after claiming my pointing out the paper is not hypothetical but takes it's starting point as an analysis of existing policies, you say that doesn't need being pointed out ... and then, in the same comment, contradict yourself in claiming no where does the paper do that:
Quoting Echarmion
I guess you're trying to move the goalposts from analysis to "direct citations" of US policy. The paper does not need to make direct citations of "US policy" (which is often not actually written anywhere in some monolithic "US policy" document but requires considerable analysis to even come up with an educated guess what the policy even is).
The reason the paper doesn't make many direct citations is because the paper is delivering the conclusions of experts and is meant to taken as authoritative. For example, when the paper discusses the US withdrawing from the ABM treaty, the point of doing so and Russias reaction to then go onto consider further ABM and nuclear technologies competition, it's presumed the authors are authoritative enough to not require "proving" that the US did indeed withdraw from the ABM treaty, "proving" why, "proving" the Russian response so far to that, and so on.
Now, if you're dissatisfied that the analysis presented in the near 300 page paper isn't detailed enough for you, that is a weakness of the paper the authors recognize and quite literally point that out and then recommend a second phase of the analysis be carried out that goes more into detail, in particular to try to quantify in dollar terms the costs of each policy option (both to the US and to Russia).
The authors are quite clear on this:
Quoting Extending Russia, RAND
And yes, simply because the document also contains "judgements" it is still an analysis paper and both providing analysis explicitly to us on occasion, directly citing the prior analysis they make reference to, as well as also delivering the results of their analytical deliberations they've had as experts to come up with authoritative statements and judgements.
If you're issue is this is not an academic dissertation filled to the brim with citations to attempt to prove every step in the thesis, it's because this is not an academic paper but the target audience are policy makers (politicians, bureaucrats of various kinds etc. to get a broad overview of both the situation with Russia and what experts have to say about it and what options are available and their comparative likely fruitfulness: benefits, cost and risks).
Quoting Echarmion
"Current policy debates" are about "current policy": i.e. the starting point is what is the current policy.
Whether an author or team is analyzing the history of a current policy, the impact of a current policy, the ethics of a current policy, the cost of a current policy, the trend of where the current policy is going, as well as how the current policy could be changed or anything else we may wish to discuss about a current policy, the common denominator about these various "current policy debates" is the "current policy".
By explicitly telling us they are drawing on "current policy debate" they are making it clear the paper strives to start with the current policy.
More importantly, the authors then go and do exactly this, analyze the current situation in each area they consider, evaluate the existing policy (such as for our purposes stating the war in Donbas already imposing a cost, in blood and treasure, on Russia when the paper is written), with plenty of footnote references they refer to in establishing their current policy positions.
The style of the paper is very fluid and conversational weaving together the collective wisdom of the authors for the purposes of delivering said wisdom to the reader, mostly presuming the reader is going to go ahead and trust the experts know what they are talking about (and so do not go into the minutiae of exactly how we know when, how, who and what happened next with existing policies such as withdrawing form the ABM treaty, but the authors assume readers will trust their report and ideas about this existing policy experience).
Nevertheless, the authors do not expect the reader to trust-but-not-verify, and conveniently provide us 116 footnotes with references to other expert work supporting their points, and also for our convenience include a comprehensive list of all their references in 41 pages of references at the end of the book.
In other words, the analytical work the authors provide us is very thorough and in drawing on "current policy debate" the authors go ahead and all analyze for us the current policies.
In reading the paper, which I suggest you actually do, it is quite clear that the authors strive to present an analysis of the current situation so the reader has a good idea of "where we are" before considering different policy options that would go in different directions to evaluate their costs, benefits and risks (that the authors put in super clear colour coded tables in the brief of the paper).
To circle back to the point that started this expedition into the depths of what about the paper can easily be established by simply citing examples from the paper, the authors do indeed (as they explicitly tell us they intend to do) draw on the "current policy debate" vis-a-vis Ukraine, siding on the side of experts that believe Russia can commit to and sustain a larger war, and also consider the risks of the current policy of supporting Ukraine in a proxy war in the Donbas, that it does extend Russia in blood and treasure but comes at considerable risk of escalation even sans-US-doing-anything more in that Russia may anyways preempt any such actions and escalate in Ukraine, which the authors evaluate the likely result will be that Russia has a significant advantage (due to proximity) and there would be significant loss of Ukrainian lives and territory as well be a US policy setback and loss of US prestige.
Please feel free to continue to go in circles to simply avoid dealing with what the paper obviously says and therefore US policy makers obviously know in deciding to push on all the escalation buttons the paper explicitly says risks a major Russian response, likely offensive: more arms to Ukraine, withdrawing from INF and being more vocal about Ukraine joining NATO.
Obviously it doesn't serve any purpose for you to continue to go around in circles of denialism and then denying your denialism and so on, but it is somewhat humorous to watch.
If you're interested in the actual situation you should start with:
1. Ukraine is in the collapse phase on the losing end of a war of attrition, which was entirely foreseeable.
2. Striking infrastructure and civilian populations deep inside Russia is essentially the only military move or point of leverage Ukraine has left.
3. The West has not wanted to "escalate" to that point because the West is absolutely content with Ukraine losing the conflict.
Notice how at no point does the West have any problem with Israel "escalating" with Western weapons to the point of levelling entire apartment blocks filled with civilians.
Why? Because the West wants Israel to "win" and therefore do whatever is necessary to "win" (I put win in quotes as Western leaders may not have a clear idea of what a winning end-state would be, but whatever seems like winning and Israel wants to do is fully supported).
Why maintain the asymmetry that Russia can disable Ukrainian infrastructure across the entire country but Ukraine can't do likewise to Russia is to "calibrate" the conflict at a "somewhat higher level of intensity" without escalating too far (i.e. escalating to a point where Ukraine maybe winning on the battlefield).
As I've pointed out since the beginning of the conflict, the reason the West does not "escalate" to actually threatening Russia (in terms of battlefield loss in Ukraine or damaging Russian infrastructure on a mass scale) is nuclear weapons.
Quoting Echarmion
It may surprise you but at the start of the war many here, and elsewhere, argued that Russian nuclear weapons were of essentially no meaning in the conflict and did not shape Western policy and shouldn't shape Western policy: i.e. I argued that Russian nuclear weapons does and obviously should deter Western escalation, while others argued it doesn't and it shouldn't ("we cannot let them get away with nuclear blackmail!" was the battle cry of this camp).
Nearly 2 years later and this is not the common sense position even in the Western mainstream media that nuclear weapons are indeed a significant deterrent to "winning".
Quoting Echarmion
This is not a significant step. Russia has already signalled the threat of nuclear weapons use since the start of the conflict, they are just making it more explicit now to make it even clearer that they aren't bluffing. The policy doctrine before was also vague in that wasn't clear what "existential threat" for the Russian state actually meant.
Quoting Echarmion
First, you literally just made the point that "It also demonstrates the bargaining power Russia's nuclear capabilities still represent" so obviously they are useful as leverage, and they are useful as leverage because they can be practically used in response to different actions (such as a large attack on Russian infrastructure).
Second, nuclear weapons ability to obliterate an entire area has many military uses, in particular obliterating entire NATO bases, which is what the Russian doctrine change is referring to.
A large scale conventional attack on Russian infrastructure would be a major problem for Russia risking the collapse of the state. It's not a similar major problem for Ukraine because the West underwrites the Ukrainian government, military, pays pensions, ensures supplies of essentials and so on (of course it will be a "major problem" the moment the West stops funnelling cash into Ukraine to prop it up).
Russia is therefore making it clear that if the West were to organize such a major missile strike, intended to cause systemic damage to Russian infrastructure, that Russia will start nuking the NATO infrastructure that supports such missile supply and operation.
The West might not be that deterred if it thought Russia would respond with Nuclear weapons only in Ukraine, as obviously Ukrainian wellbeing is not a priority, but it is a much more significant deterrent the prospect of NATO bases being nuked.
The basic problem, as I've elaborated on many times since the first phases of the war, is that the West would be unable to strike Russia with nuclear weapons in-kind without that escalating to a general nuclear exchange.
So, it is a lose-lose situation. If they organize a large scale missile strike on Russia and Russia then nukes a NATO base and the US does not respond with nuclear weapons, that would be definitely losing the exchange, and if the US does respond with nuclear weapons that would very likely lead to a general nuclear exchange which isn't exactly good for the US just right now.
Therefore, the threat of nuclear weapons effectively deters the West from causing any significant harm, or even risk of significant harm, to Russian state power in Ukraine or indeed in Russia.
The US does not face similar escalation risks in the middle-east and therefore it is not effectively deterred and so does not place similar constraints on the use of Western arms by Israel.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly.
Quoting boethius
From my perspective what's happening here is that you're showing me a guide to the city of Bordeaux and telling me it's a guide to the city of Paris. When I point out that the guide is about Bordeaux and not Paris, you keep pointing out all the places where the guide talks about how to get to Bordeaux from Paris, or where it compares locations in the two cities.
That's the end of that discussion as far as I'm concerned.
Quoting boethius
Sure, the collapse phase that's been going on for months now. One wonders why the Russians don't just take over all of Ukraine.
Quoting boethius
No it's not, but since you don't actually know anything about the military situation it's not surprising that you're just making stuff up.
Quoting boethius
You have the start of an interesting discussion here, but rather than actually engaging with the different strategic and political contexts of the conflicts, you're content to just assume it must somehow be "what the west wants".
Quoting boethius
But, according to you, Ukraine cannot possibly win. So what you actually mean is that western leaders don't declare war on Russia and destroy it's military capacity.
And of course you know full well the reason they're unlikely to do that.
There's many problems with your conception of the conflict but perhaps the most important one is that you've never seriously considered what "winning" means for either side.
You've constructed for yourself a framework where the only way for Ukraine to win is an impossible scenario, yet you also consistently treat the western powers' unwillingness to pursue this impossible scenario as evidence of their duplicity.
Quoting boethius
The general views on russian nuclear threats has not changed. Most analysts and military professionals don't credit them, but popular opinion remains scared of them.
The reason western politicians don't ignore the popular worries even if they're not supported by professional analysts should be obvious.
Anyways my previous point about you not properly considering what "winning" could mean also applies here.
Quoting boethius
They're useful for scaring people.
Quoting boethius
The idea of an infrastructure campaign against Russia in the same vein of Russia's attacks against Ukraine is not credible. The debate is not about weapons that can hit factories near Moscow or in the Urals but about weapons which can hit russian supply dumps.
And "Russia will start nuking NATO infrastructure" means global nuclear war and the destruction of Russia.
Quoting boethius
This is silly. If Russia starts attacking NATO bases with nukes that is the start of a general nuclear exchange. This is exactly how nuclear deterrent works: Both sides making clear that they'll respond to a nuclear attack in kind.
Quoting boethius
If Russia nukes a NATO base Russia is at war with NATO. Even if a general nuclear exchange is somehow averted, at the very least any russian troops in Ukraine would be flattened by the combined NATO airforces and the russian leaders responsible would shortly after drop from a window.
Do you think that if Russia uses a nuke on NATO territory everyone will just shrug and do nothing?
Quoting boethius
You don't need a successful first strike scenario for nuclear weapons to be a threat. During the cold war, one of the pillars of nuclear deterrence was that no side could develop an effective missile defense system.
The deterrent effect from nuclear weapons isn't based on the fact that they make you win the war. It's based on the fact that they'll make your enemy lose.
And this is also the reason why the west doesn't "want Ukraine to win" as you understand it.
Quoting boethius
Oh? Didn't you write earlier:
Quoting boethius
Then maybe you're becoming self aware.
Quoting Echarmion
Just more very dumb trying to move the goalposts.
These are your central claims on this issue:
Quoting Echarmion
Quoting Echarmion
I then cite where the paper clearly takes positions on the existing US policy of the time, in line with what the authors explicitly set out to do in drawing from "existing US policy debates" with their 116 footnotes and over 40 pages of references.
I not only cite directly where the authors are clearly analyzing the existing policy of the time but also citing them explaining that is their methodology and summarizing as follows:
Quoting boethius
You then directly cite this sentence and rebuttal with:
Quoting Echarmion
And so moving the goalposts from I'm literally trying to fool people by pretending the paper consider existing US policy all the way to that claim is obvious and does not need pointing out!?
Now, why are we having this incredibly stupid exchange that is easily resolved by simply directly citing the paper?
Because you were unable to deal with the obvious fact that Russia was extremely very likely to prevail in Ukraine if there was an escalation and obviously US elite know that because they read their own elite think tank policy papers, such as this RAND papers which makes this point extremely clearly.
Your first bad faith propaganda strategy was to just keep denying that the US did anything escalatory between the paper being written and the larger war in 2022 (which they obviously do such as withdrawing from the INF treaty but you can't deal with that so you just ignore that part) to then pretend that these expert authors do not support my position (which, to be clear, is the super obvious common sense position that Russia is extremely very likely to prevail in Ukraine, and whatever the result would be at a massive cost to Ukraine in terms of lives and terriroty), but that debate about how provocative US actions where between 2019 and 2022 isn't even necessary as the authors make clear that Russian may escalate anyways, preempting any US escalatory action, resulting in the same risks of Russia prevailing, significant cost to Ukraine in lives and territory and a setback for US policy and prestige.
Now, I understand that your aim was to engage in stupid quibbling that the US didn't arm Ukraine "even more" between 2019 and 2022, and simply ignore the US being more vocal about Ukraine joining NATO (one other major escalatory action the authors describe) as well as the US withdrawing from ING (what the authors describe the Russians as particularly sensitive about and would certainly undertake counter-escalation, likely offensive, in that event).
Rest assured it is quite easy to demonstrate that the US policy decisions between 2019 and 2022 are exactly the kind of escalatory action the authors describe, but if your aim is to unwind the stupidity then you can simply accept that the authors position was that the status quo in the Donbas was anyways a risk of Russian escalation, which the authors are quite clear is in the US interest, and certainly the Ukrainian interest, to try to avoid through a diplomatic resolution.
We now see exactly the expected results the authors describe: significant loss of Ukrainian lives and territory, very likely leading to an even more disadvantageous peace (i.e. losing), and it is indeed a US policy setback and loss of prestige (Russian weapons pawned US weapons in Ukraine; Russia can deal with US intelligence, the US cannot do what it said it would do in supporting Ukraine "whatever it takes" and "as long as it takes" until victory).
Therefore, the purpose of provoking the war and propping up Ukraine with cash and a drip feed of weapons systems, was not to advance US policy and prestige (in any arguably objective "national interest" sense) and much less to help out Ukraine, but was for partisan and special interest purposes (i.e. corrupt profiteering as well as have a bit of "war time administration" until the next election).
Why would this happen? How exactly would Russian troops be flattened in Ukraine?
Even if we ignore the fact that nuclear use would make NATO conventional war on Ukraine less, rather than more, likely, what you describe is simply propaganda.
NATO would have the exact same problem, just a lot worse, that the Russian airforce had in 2022 and 2023 (and still has in 2024, just less) in that surface to air missiles (A2/AD bubbles in the modern parlance) are highly effective against airplanes and not many are needed to deny access to an airspace.
Stealth is not some magical invisible technology and Russians have had decades to develop systems to defeat US stealth systems.
Then there's the problem that the Russians in Ukraine are in basements and bunkers and dugouts and spread out and you still need to actually find them to be able to drop bombs on.
In other words, even if we pretended Russian anti-air assets had zero effectiveness (which would not be the case), air supremacy doesn't win wars anyways: right now Israel can drop US bombs at will on Lebanon and Gaza and that has not delivered victory.
But most importantly, let's say Russian A2/AD simply doesn't work, and you can also turn the tide of the war in Ukraine thanks to this bombing, Russia can still continue to nuke things.
If your response to a NATO base getting nuked is conventional, Russia can just nuke more things.
So there's the high risk that NATO planes in Ukraine don't have the desired effect of "flattening" all the Russian troops there but instead planes start to be downed and NATO needs to fall back to standoff positions just as the Russians did in 2022 due to Ukraine anti-air assets, and then even if that doesn't happen there's the risk of NATO planes not actually turning the tide of the war, and finally the risk that Russia just nukes more things in response to this conventional air assault.
And in all of these strikes and counter-strikes a general nuclear exchange would be on a knifes edge as each side would be paranoid of the other side launching first. Planes and missiles flying everywhere are not going to reduce tensions.
At the end of the day, Europe, and the US for that matter, knows that the US is less committed to the conflict than is Russia and that the US has no interest in even a major risk of a general nuclear exchange with Russia. Even if European leaders were willing to have nuclear strikes on their territory for the sake of defending "Ukrainian sovereignty", which honestly many Europeans seems dumb enough to actually want, they know that the US doesn't actually want that: that Ukraine as a useful proxy force to accomplish some objectives for a time and at no point is the US going to "risk anything" for Ukraine.
Therefore, if the US did escalate to the point of Russia using a nuclear weapon to reestablish deterrence both the US and the Europeans know that the US has no rational response.
In this scenario, the situation, at the end of the day, would be US and NATO (mostly the UK) firing missiles at Russian critical infrastructure, an attack Russia needs to respond to, with nuclear weapons if that is the only option. Therefore, the solution would be for the US and NATO to stop attacking Russia to end the nuclear war. The only other option would be to simply continue the nuclear war; Russia would be in the same position of needing to resort to nuclear weapons to reestablish deterrence and therefore the only actual alternative to the US stopping the cycle of escalation would be to simply escalate to a nuclear war.
Actually attacking Russia is no longer deterrence it is simply straight-up attacking Russia resulting in Russia needing to respond to reestablish deterrence.
Which is why at the end of the day US elites do follow the RAND paper basic framework of "calibrating" the intensity of the conflict to avoid unwanted escalation; the intensity of violence needing to calibration to achieve that is Russia prevailing in Ukraine without systemic risk to Russian critical infrastructure.
The Russians can tolerate NATO weapons being used in Ukraine because at the end of the day they choose to be there, Russian critical infrastructure is not impacted, and defeating those weapons and prevailing in Ukraine has some advantages (from the Russian imperial perspective).
Quoting Echarmion
As mentioned above, if you are attacking the other sides critical infrastructure (what the Ukrainians want permission to do with NATO missiles) this is no longer a mutual deterrence situation: you are being attacked, therefore use of nuclear weapons is either the only recourse or then is believed would reestablish deterrence.
It's like if you had a gun and I had a gun and then I knife you in the stomach so you shoot me and then we're both dying and I'm like "what gives!? I thought we had deterrence??"
The first sentence is ambiguous in that the negative is meant to apply both to being not deterred and the placing of constraints.
I have edited the post to clarify by repeating the negative.
Obviously the US does not place similar constraints on Israel: flattening entire apartment blocks, carrying out a genocide, raping prisoners and proud of it, and so on.
The difference in the situation being that Iran has no nuclear deterrence vis-a-vis the US.
The Israeli vs "the Curse" war may indeed escalate to Tel Aviv being nuked, whether soonish or then eventually depending on the state of Iran's nuclear program, but even in that situation the US does not risk much being nuked itself and if Israel gets themselves nuked that's not really a US problem.
Why would I be unable to deal with that? Yes most everyone assumed that Russia would easily prevail over Ukraine if it committed serious resources (at least initially). But it turned out that Ukraine had more teeth than most anyone assumed.
Quoting boethius
That's a strawman. I asked you specifically how the US escalated in Ukraine. You never were able to answer those questions.
Quoting boethius
No they don't.
Quoting boethius
I pointed out the facts to you already, you ignored them. At this point I'm just going to call this an intentional lie.
Quoting boethius
Of course, you're just not going to do this very easy demonstration. Because you're lying.
Quoting boethius
Russia invaded.
Quoting boethius
The two biggest airforces on the planet, plus the European air forces?
Quoting boethius
That's the thing you don't get about nuclear deterrence. Once you actually use a nuclear weapon, you've shot your bolt. There's no escalation ladder from there. Either you'll immediately cause a general nuclear exchange or you're going to cause a situation where any additional threats you make will cause a nuclear attack on your country.
The reason is that once you use one nuke, you're announcing to the entire world that nuclear weapons are now fair game. At that point noone can afford to allow you to get off a second shot.
That's why there was never a limited nuclear war during the cold war. There's just no way to control the situation if you press the button once.
Quoting boethius
I think that the airforces which have been designed to penetrate such defensive systems will not be quite so easy to shrug off.
Quoting boethius
In this case though, there would already be an army on the ground.
Quoting boethius
That'd be suicide, as I pointed out above.
Quoting boethius
You've got this backwards though. It is precisely because the US and the west are less committed to the conflict that no rational Russian government would ever use nuclear weapons in this conflict.
You keep saying that the west is content to see Ukraine lose. And although you keep stretching the evidence far beyond what it actually supports, there is an element of truth in this. The west faces no existential risk over the outcome of the Ukraine war and so it's determination to support Ukraine remains limited.
If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon, especially if they were to use it directly against NATO, it would create an existential risk. At that point the West would be forced to strain every sinew to eliminate the government responsible for the attack.
It is a very, very bad idea.
Quoting boethius
But you run into the classic problem: both sides understand the logic of the situation. Both sides know that whoever stops the cycle of escalation loses. And whoever escalates into a general nuclear exchange also loses. The only winning move is not to play.
Quoting boethius
The point though is that Russia is already achieving that effect with just threats. No-one is even considering a large scale strike at russian critical infrastructure using western weapons. It is the strange logic of deterrence that using a weapon is less effective than threatening it's use.
Quoting boethius
No, Ukraine wants permission to attack specific military targets (airbases, air defences, supply dumps).
Quoting boethius
That's one difference. There are many others as well. It's not just that Iran has no nukes. It doesn't have all that much economic or political capital to throw around either. Plus Iran's main ally is Russia while China has other priorities.
Ukraine has been able to invade Russia and hold a chunk of its territory indefinitely. If NATO forces entered the fray, Russian forces would be rolled up like a wet carpet. You really dispute this?
What's bizarre is that, according to Russia's official position, Ukraine has been striking Russian territory with Western weaponry for more than a year, since when it first started using it against targets in Crimea. When Russia formally annexed more Ukrainian territories, those strikes expanded accordingly. So, as far as Russia is concerned, there would be no major escalation if Western donors permitted Ukraine to use their weapons with fewer geographic restrictions.
Besides, the Russians have been crying wolf for far too long for such theatrics to look credible. They've been insisting that the West was at war with them since even before the invasion. They've been issuing dire threats against the West since before the invasion. And they've been repeating basically the same things at regular intervals all throughout the campaign. Unfortunately, the West all too often plays an obliging dupe to such crude intimidation tactics.
Hand wringing is how the copium is purified and refined from the raw hopium flowers that blossom after cultivators carefully plant the seeds of magical thinking in the fertile bullshit on the foggy mountains of ego preserving delusion; before being dried, packaged and trafficked to the network of dealers and pushers around the world.
Right.
Yet, the Kremlin circle getting their way like so strengthens their ways for Putin's regressive Russia, strengthens their (aggressive) power, impunity, propaganda/rhetoric. Heck, Putin might be revered as a hero by some, perhaps enough to make a difference.
Others are taking notes. It would be a victory of sorts for posturing, opacity, suppression, regression, anti-democracy, kratocracy, authoritarianism, and proliferation thereof.
Ukraine's supporters might as well be deemed impotent (or cowards). After all, combined, Ukraine's supporters have markedly more resources than Putin's Russia.
Democracy, freedom, human rights, respect for law, whatever, would take some further hits, as would Ukraine's efforts.
It's the choice of a down-slope that our children's children would have to deal with; we already have historical parallels to learn from. (Not much new here; unlike @boethius, I wouldn't say that "the West" doesn't care.)
If by "most everyone" you mean just common Westerners that believe what they're told on television, then yes they believed what the television told them.
However, actual military experts did not believe this 3 days scenario but that Ukraine had a sizeable military, could and would likely fight (as that's what soldiers are trained to do and usually do), and was also supported by US and NATO intelligence.
Then there was the size of the Russian regular forces which were and still are insufficient to simply conquer all of Ukraine.
In addition to military operations having fundamental logistical limitations.
Without even getting to the part of the West flooding in arms, such as shoulder launched anti-armour and anti-air missiles (which aren't sufficient to win the war but highly effective defensively).
Quoting Echarmion
Completely false.
What has occurred is what experts predicted was the maximum war aim Russia could reasonably accomplish with its initial force: securing the land bridge to Crimea.
Here's just one paper of actual experts analyzing things before the war occurred (published in December 2021).
Quoting FORECAST SERIES: Putin’s Likely Course of Action in Ukraine, Understanding War
In the same paper they describe Putin's "most attractive option":
Quoting FORECAST SERIES: Putin’s Likely Course of Action in Ukraine, Understanding War
The paper also explains exactly the problem Russia would have in actually conquering significant parts of Ukraine:
Quoting FORECAST SERIES: Putin’s Likely Course of Action in Ukraine, Understanding War
Hence why the authors identify the most "attractive option" as establishing the land bridge to Crimea which solves a "a real problem" after which he could "halt military operations" and "declare victory".
A significant part of the paper is devoted to analyzing the possibility of Russia conquering all of Ukraine, which the authors recognize Russia could do but that it would pose so many military and political problems that they describe such a move as irrational, even putting in bold:
Quoting FORECAST SERIES: Putin’s Likely Course of Action in Ukraine, Understanding War
Followed immediately by:
Quoting FORECAST SERIES: Putin’s Likely Course of Action in Ukraine, Understanding War
The core thesis of the paper is:
Quoting FORECAST SERIES: Putin’s Likely Course of Action in Ukraine, Understanding War
The terminology the authors use is "invade unoccupied Ukraine" refers to conquering all of Ukraine, and anything less being a limited operation which they predict is in fact likely:
Quoting FORECAST SERIES: Putin’s Likely Course of Action in Ukraine, Understanding War
The authors also conclude that the "leaked plan" to conquer all of Ukraine is likely a ruse (by either Russian or Western intelligence) as well as the obvious fact the Russians could implement different operations as ultimately feints (either planned that way from the start or then pulled back if losses are too high).
Point being, experts definitely expected Ukraine to fight and that Russia conquering and occupying all of Ukraine to be so infeasibly militarily given Russias available forces as to be irrational, but that what does make sense is securing the land bridge to Crimea which is what ultimately happens.
All this has been discussed multiple times since the start of the war and in particular since the Russian withdrawal from North Ukraine.
Quoting Echarmion
We can definitely get into the escalations in Ukraine itself, such as those 12 CIA bases and supplying more weapons including to Nazis if you really need it.
But this is the kind of kindergarten logic that I simply need to push back against. Escalating militarily with Russia in terms of being more vocal about Ukraine joining NATO (what the RAND authors point out would likely solicit a Russian counter-escalation) and also withdrawing from INF, of which NATO intermediate range missiles being stationed in Ukraine is what Russia would be most concerned about in the scenario of Ukraine joining NATO, are both escalations in Ukraine.
This kindergarten logic that withdrawing from INF is not technically happening "in Ukraine" as it happens on paper in the abstract and so "shouldn't" involve Ukraine, is just stupid (at an adult level; if actual kindergarteners had these sorts of conceptual divisions that would be ok).
Whole reason Russia is so concerned about Ukraine joining NATO is the possibility of stationing intermediate range nuclear weapons now, and it was already essentially taken for granted even by Western talking heads that one reason to maintain a proxy war in the Donbas was to impede Ukraine joining NATO.
We can get into the funding passed in 2017 of military assistance to Ukraine if you want which would be the escalation in Ukraine, but as the authors of the RAND paper make pretty clear the Russians are particularly sensitive to the nuclear issue and potential for a decapitation strike and use pretty strong language to point out Russia would likely respond to both being more vocal about Ukraine joining NATO as well as withdrawing from INF.
Quoting Echarmion
What facts? Literally what the hell are you talking about?
Ok, well if you're going to call me a liar without even the cursory research into what you're talking about, the military assistance to Ukraine and the intelligence assistance (eventually revealed as 12 CIA forward operating bases) are not disputed facts except by you.
Here's an article from Politico from 2019 describing the situation:
Quoting Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia, Politico
Which is what is called escalation in Ukraine, continuing year after year thus building up capacity and escalating further.
If you are unaware of such basic facts you are clearly not actually interested in the topic but just want to engage in denialism, which is just dumb.
Quoting Echarmion
That's what the purpose of provocation is.
Quoting Echarmion
Russia has a massively superior Air Force to Ukraine and yet it does not have uncontested air supremacy. After 2 years Russia has been able to degrade / attrit Ukrainian A2AD enough to be able to launch glide bombs from dozens of kilometres out.
The reason is that planes are incredibly vulnerable to surface to air missiles, and these systems can be highly mobile, hidden, dispersed and turned on only long enough to engage a target and then moved.
Not that this debate matters, but the idea NATO could destroy all Russian anti-air assets essentially overnight is ludicrous. Without nuclear weapons it would be an immense and long battle of attrition. NATO has a greater airforce but Russia would have a defending advantage of NATO needing to fly into Russian A2AD and not vice-versa.
Quoting Echarmion
This makes literally no sense.
The more committed party is the party more likely to resort to more extreme force, the less committed party the party more likely to backoff and not escalate further.
Hence, it is because US and the West are less committed and Russia is super committed to winning the conflict that the US and the West knows if they actually did pour in enough weapons soon enough to actually threaten Russian forces, or then allow Ukraine to attack critical Russian infrastructure, that Russia is likely to resort to nuclear weapons which they have no response to being the less committed party.
Quoting Echarmion
Limited support = content to see Ukraine lose.
That is literally the definition of limited support.
It honestly seems borderline miraculous that you have been able to realize essential fact of the conflict, which explains pretty much all the other facts.
Quoting Echarmion
Using a nuclear weapons against a NATO base in Europe supporting attacks on Russian critical infrastructure would not be an existential risk to NATO, and far less the US.
What would create an existential risk, in particular for the US, is to counter-attack Russia with a nuclear weapon or even more massive conventional attack.
If the process is Russia strikes a NATO base with a nuclear weapon and then the US does not respond in kind, then that is not an existential risk to the US and no US territory has even been damaged. Striking in kind on the other hand is an existential risk as that may lead to a further cycle of escalation towards a general nuclear exchange (where US cities would be hit) or then Russia may simply preempt that cycle of escalation by jumping right to general exchange (to have first strike advantage).
It of course makes zero sense for the US to risk actual existential risks to protect Ukrainian sovereignty either by directly intervening or then supplying Ukraine with weapons and intelligence that would put Russian critical interests at risk (in this case mostly prevailing in Ukraine as well as critical infrastructure within Russia).
Therefore, there being no way to mortally wound Russia without significant risk of Russian resorting to nuclear weapons to reestablish nuclear deterrence (which is of course already there, just in this scenario one side is choosing to ignore it for a period of time), the only rational move is to not cross a threshold of escalation that would lead to nuclear use.
Which is exactly what we see! NATO tanks, NATO planes, NATO missiles (and all the top shelf stuff not even what Ukraine eventually gets) could have been supplied to Ukraine day 1. The argument that it "wasn't useful" at the time is just gaslighting. Optimum military strategy would be to start transitioning to those systems starting day 1, which means fielding units with that equipment to start 1. gaining experience to workout optimal tactics to 2. more importantly to have a cadre of experienced Ukrainian troops on these equipments in order to train others when the day comes to scale up, to 3. even more importantly smoothly transition from old systems to new systems without a collapse in capacity and in fact increasing capacity. What NATO does instead is drip feed weapons systems into Ukraine, far from top shelf stuff, introducing each weapon system when previous capacity essentially collapses and then "calibrating", to use the RAND author terminology, the supply to not escalate to a "larger conflict" (i.e. one that risks nuclear weapons use).
Quoting Echarmion
Well now you're getting it. The US is choosing not to play the nuclear escalation game by not supplying Ukraine in a way that risks critical Russian interests such as the bulk of their territorial gains in Ukraine or then critical infrastructure at home.
The US, understood as rational imperial interests (much less rational actual Americans interests), doesn't gain anything from doing this, it is a US policy setback and loss of prestige to lose the confrontation, but rather massive profits are made and natural gas is supplied to Europe and a new Cold War is started to ensure even more massive profits.
The kindergarten logic that you present here, just repeating Western talking heads propaganda, is the idea that because Russia is also deterred by Western nuclear weapons means that we can therefore do anything to Russia and they would not retaliate.
This is obviously not true. Attacking Russian critical interests, whether directly with NATO planes or then through supplying the Ukrainians with the right weapons and right permissions and intelligence to do so, is no longer a situation of mutual deterrence but one of simply attacking the Russians. If the attack approaches risk and losses comparable to a nuclear strike then this is simply starting the nuclear escalation cycle just using conventional weapons, on the basis that talking heads with kindergarten level logic can say things like "Russia is bluffing! We have nuclear weapons too!" or then "Ukraine has a right to attack Russian infrastructure! It's a war!"
However, what Western talking heads and their parrots on social media say doesn't constrain Russia. If we start a nuclear war it doesn't matter if Western talking heads feel the West was following some sort of rule book that allows it to attack Russian critical interests without the Russians retaliating. These kindergarten level logic developed by Western talking heads does not matter on the battlefield.
If the West, directly or through Ukraine, with conventional, nuclear or unconventional weapons, attacks Russian critical interests in which their only recourse is nuclear weapons or then risk collapse of the state, they will of course resort to nuclear weapons in order to stop the attack.
There's no "we have a right to attack you in a special way as outlined by our talking heads where you don't have a right to retaliate but just need to accept collapse of your entire economy and state".
What matters is not the methods but the end results. There's not "special way of murdering someone" where you get to get away with murder because "technically they pulled the trigger" and all you did was put them in a device that forced them to pull the trigger or then "all I did was leave some poisonous drink around and I didn't anyone to drink anything". These obviously stupid loopholes that obviously don't matter in the real world is the kindergarten level logic that Western talking heads keep repeating.
However, obviously Western policy makers, while happy to have these talking points repeated over and over so that the obvious problem with the policy of supporting Ukraine isn't scrutinized (that the West obviously is deterred by Russian nuclear weapons and therefore we are simply propping up Ukraine to receive harder punches), don't actually believe this kindergarten logic. When they tell us directly that this weapons system or that weapons system can't be supplied or these missiles can't be used to strike Russia, as to not "escalate", they are simply explicitly telling us that they are deterred in their choices by Russian nuclear weapons and therefore won't risk an nuclear escalation: how is that achieved? By not supplying Ukraine or permitting Ukraine to do anything that would actually risk Russian critical losses in personnel, material and infrastructure.
Quoting Echarmion
Again, you follow literally zero events. You do zero reproach. You simply randomly deny things.
Which, if there was still interest in the conversation by others I'd just ignore you, but you are at least a useful foil in order to explain things I'm happy to explain anyways.
Striking Russian infrastructure with Western missiles is exactly what Ukraine has been asking! That's what Western talking heads keep repeating that Russia attacks Ukrainian infrastructure all the time and so the framework that Ukraine isn't allowed to do likewise to Russia isn't fair, Ukraine "has a right" blah blah blah.
Quoting Echarmion
Again, you follow zero events, what Zelensky and others have been quite clearly stating is that Russia is only going to give up once the Russians in Moscow "feel" the war, which is achieved by attacking critical infrastructure, which obviously the Russians do in Ukraine all the time so obviously if you believe in "fairness" it's common sense that Ukraine would be allowed to retaliate in kind.
However, the West does not believe in fairness, but believes Russia would resort to nuclear weapons and so these permissions aren't given.
Since I know you'll just keep denying these obvious facts until I spoon-feed them to you.
The title of this BBC article is literally "Russia must feel war consequences, says Zelensky amid Ukrainian attack".
Quoting Russia must feel war consequences, says Zelensky amid Ukrainian attack, BBC
Which you may say "that's not specifically about missiles!"
Ok sure:
Quoting US Maintains Stance on Strikes Inside Russia Despite Ukrainian Pleas
But even if you're right, that just demonstrates NATO is deterred by Russian nuclear weapons as I explain.
That's the problem here - NATO becoming a direct participant in the war by giving Ukraine the targeting data for its long-range strikes.
This would put two nuclear-armed powers in direct conflict with each other.
That's what the recent signaling is about.
The Kremlin keeps playing the nuclear card, because they know they have a much higher stake in this game than the West does.
This simply doesn't really matter.
Giving one party a weapon to then use on another party anyways makes you a party to how those weapons are used.
The status quo that weapon supply is not considered being a party to a conflict is only because they all like selling weapons. However, using this status quo as a loophole to then do critical damage to someone doesn't work. Even if your loophole "works" in terms of international law or whatever that simply isn't worth all that much.
No leader will go "ahhh, yeah, they got us, you see the loophole they used there, that they didn't technically strike us but gave the weapons to a proxy force so there's just nothing we can do".
Whether Ukraine needs NATO or not to technically use the weapons doesn't matter.
I honestly don't think it would be all that problematic for Ukraine to program the weapons themselves using their own spies, surveillance, literally google maps for targeting data. Critical infrastructure is not exactly difficult to find. The only difficulty is that the West would need to provide Ukraine the API interface needed to program the weapons which they don't provide precisely to be in control of what Ukraine uses the weapons for. If I had the API and documentation I would expect to be able to program one of these missiles to hit something like ... oh let's see ... let's say the Kremlin in about a day, week tops if there's some zany math going on to harmonize various sensor inputs. Probably there's some sophisticated simulation software the optimizes performance but I'm pretty sure a good approximation could be worked out by trial and error if we simply fired enough of these bad boys.
But whether it is or it isn't, if the only way to reestablish deterrence is striking a NATO base with a nuclear weapon, that's what Russia would do.
Obviously Russia would anyways claim exactly what you say, that NATO is supplying intelligence thus making them a party (which obviously NATO is doing generally speaking anyways so already a party to the conflict on that definition, also obviously already programming missiles to hit Russian targets "nearish" the front line anyways) but my point is NATO and Ukraine getting into some hair splitting loophole of who exactly is inputting what data into the missile doesn't actually change the situation.
The situation is that Russia and the West have currently an understanding that "what happens in Ukraine stays in Ukraine" but this understanding is founded on the West not going too far and instead letting Russia win. As it stands Russia is gaining territory, gaining people and resources, and so NATO support for Ukraine can be accounted for as a cost of doing business on the imperial profit and loss statement.
What the West is currently doing is playing a bit more footsy to signal to Ukraine to keep fighting because "maybe" they'll let Ukraine do some spite attacks and then they'll feel better (but still obviously lose) ... but they have cold feet this time as it may break the understanding they have with Russia to be cool.
Whether or not NATO is directly involved in the hostilities is not really an interesting practical question (obviously they are deeply involved), but it is an important legal question, and it's important for international perception which is something Russia does care about.
There's a world of difference between Russia being seen as reacting to the West, as oppossed to aggressing the West. This will be vitally important if it ever comes (God forbid) to nuclear escalation.
That's why I think these nuances are worth pointing out.
Yes, we're definitely in agreement, and as you point out the language being used is as part of a signalling exercise.
I just add clarification that the concrete reality doesn't actually matter lest someone get into a zany kindergarten level argument that Russia couldn't retaliate against NATO ... [i]if Ukraine did it[/I].
Obviously you're aware this sort of logic doesn't drive decisions.
Currently Russia doesn't retaliate against NATO because doing so would cause more problems than solve, but if NATO was attacking Russian critical infrastructure (directly, indirectly through Ukraine, with Ukraine programming the weapons or "advisors" or mercenaries or someone's hacker cousin) then the calculus obviously changes.
Completely agree with you that in this theatre there is likely a hard cap on escalation that is unlikely to be breached for the reason you point out that the great powers benefit from the status quo at the end of the day and they don't have an interest to nuke each other.
What's different in the middle-east right now is that Israel is not a great power that benefits from the geopolitical status quo as such, but rather benefits from the American empire and can "draw down" US imperial capital for their own purposes, which could honestly be mostly delusional prophecy fulfillment
A lot of the experts I think we both follow are discussing this pretty intensely right now of whether US is controlling Israel policy for US imperial interests, or Israel is controlling US policy for Israeli imperial interests, or even that it may appear Israel is driving policy at the moment but US imperialists wisely set things up this way decades ago to happen (to act as that cross-roads spoiler you've described, come-what-may style).
It's quite fascinating, but I feel there's just too much long term degradation of US prestige for what we see Israel doing to be some sort of cryptic US policy. General idea, sure, but no one concerned with US imperial interests would want to see a genocide in Gaza; They'd want to see what the US does: insane amounts of damage and suffering ... but aha! not quite genocide motherfuckers! Purposefully starving a population, for example, US imperialists simply view as beneath them (if people are eating while the US drops bombs on them, that doesn't bother them much, it's a sort of "why not?" attitude within the US war machine to people having basic food stuffs supplied by various humanitarian organizations; what we see Israel doing is I think too profoundly different to be driven by US imperialists; certainly enabled by zionists within the US administration, but this I think should be viewed as Israel effectively in control of US policy and not US imperialists, as such apart from being also zionists, view the extremes of zionism as somehow serving US foreign policy).
Personally, I am reserving judgement on this issue, though I am leaning towards the US being in the driver's seat.
The basic question is, could Israel be used to plunge the Middle-East into chaos once controlling it becomes unfeasible?
(That's ultimately why the US is interested in the Middle-East. Oil, yes, but more importantly it is a vital land corridor that connects several geopolitical rivals - plunging it into chaos would be enough to deny that connection)
And I think the answer is yes, especially considering Israel will be a nuclear-armed power that's conceivably fighting for its survival.
Conversely, if Israel is in the driver's seat it's entirely unclear to me what power base they would be deriving that position from.
AIPAC? Ok, then where does AIPAC get its power from? If the Israel lobby is capable of coercing the former hegemon, it must have some practical levers of power that can be discerned, and personally I have never seen a convincing argument to that end.
US prestige taking a hit is certainly a factor worth considering, but once global domination becomes an unfeasible goal, perhaps prestige starts to matter less. We also have to consider the US may be gearing up to play hardball with the rest of the world (thus throwing its reputation out of the window) to protect its hegemonic position.
Doing so at present seems about as odd (or irresponsible perhaps) as Russia dishing out threats to Ukraine's supporters.
Periodically up'ing one's own stakes — or appearance of stakes — seems like a transparent strategy.
If the Kremlin is willing to start a nuclear war over a quarter of Ukraine, then we (the world, including Russians) already have a serious problem on our hands.
Then again, maybe things will change in one way or another.
Quoting Feb 29, 2024
Well, I guess ...
Quoting Jul 15, 2024
North Korea had a similar treaty with the Soviet Union, but Russia didn't have it until this year.
No, it literally doesn’t. The metaphoric locution “buying time” roughly refers to the purpose of delaying the moment of facing some issues, either in the hope those issues will disappear by themselves or in order to better prepare to cope with them. Out of context, the intention to be provocative or to dupe somebody is not inherent to the semantics of that locution AT ALL. So one has to take into account context to determine its contextual meaning. Here you go:
1) Let’s start reviewing the claim in its wider textual context:
[I]ZEIT: Are you asking yourself whether the years of relative calm were also years of failure and whether you were not just a crisis manager but also partly the cause of crises?
Merkel: I wouldn't be a political person if I didn't deal with it. Let's take climate protection, where Germany has done a lot compared to other countries. But with regard to the topic itself, I admit that, measured against what the IPCC's International Climate Report says today, not enough has been done. Or let's look at my policy with regard to Russia and Ukraine. I have come to the conclusion that I made my decisions at the time in a way that I can still understand today. IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT EXACTLY SUCH A WAR. The fact that it didn't work doesn't mean that the attempts were wrong.
ZEIT: But you can find the way you acted in previous circumstances plausible and still consider it wrong today in view of the results.
Merkel: But that requires you to say what exactly the alternatives were at the time. I thought the discussion in 2008 about Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO was wrong. Neither did the countries have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully considered, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and to NATO and its mutual assistance rules. And the Minsk Agreement in 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time. [Editor's note: The Minsk Agreement refers to a series of agreements for the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which had broken away from Ukraine under Russian influence. The aim was to gain time through a ceasefire in order to later achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine]. It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. As we saw in the battle for Debaltseve (a railway town in the Donbass, Donetsk Oblast, ed.) in early 2015, Putin could have easily overrun them. And I very much doubt that the NATO states could have done as much to help Ukraine then as they are doing today[/I].
So in that interview, Merkel ADMITS that Minsk Agreements were an attempt to prevent such a war (as the note of the editor further confirms), however it failed. And even though it failed, it gave time to Ukraine to implement Minsk Agreements, and ALSO to get stronger “as we can see today”. NOWHERE Merkel is talking about Ukrainian victory or about the chances of Ukraine to resolve the conflict in military terms according to its maximalist expectations or cheerleading propaganda.
2) It is very far fetched to claim that Western Europeans, especially Germans or Merkel, were intentionally provoking Russia to a bigger war. For several reasons: (A) given the economic-political ties between Germany and Russia, Germany military unreadiness, and Germany ideological aversion to get dragged into wars and all its consequences (including a refugee crisis). (B) Westerners cornered Ukraine to sign Minsk Agreements which burdened more Ukraine than Russia, since not only Russia was not taken to be a co-belligerant but it was also granted a role of mediator pushing for an interpretation of the Agreements which for Ukrainians amounted to a capitulation to Russia. (C) Even though Minsk Agreements helped Ukraine restore its military forces which in 2014 were poorly equipped, undertrained, and unprepared for a Russian aggression and to partner with NATO (actually, a “decrepit” army: https://theconversation.com/in-2014-the-decrepit-ukrainian-army-hit-the-refresh-button-eight-years-later-its-paying-off-177881), in a moment where Russia had means and motives to pursue a military escalation after grabbing Crimea without much of a fight, STILL the West and especially Germany didn’t military support Ukraine as Ukraine expected, out of fear to provoke a military escalation from Russia. Indeed, the military aid was very much constrained, slow and far below expectations (since 2014, remember the issue over lethal vs non-lethal weapons up until 2018? Where non-lethal weapons means “defensive and designed to prevent further UAF [Ukrainian armed forces] fatalities and casualties” https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07135/SN07135.pdf ), Germany was the most reluctant country to offer military aid to Ukraine also after the war started (https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2022-04-28/german-arms-deliveries-to-ukraine-spds-controversial-course). And again, Germany opposed NATO membership for Ukraine since 2008. (D) Merkel ADMITS that Minsk Agreements were “an attempt to prevent such a war” in the very same interview where you extrapolated the claim to defend herself most likely against criticisms about her having not done enough to support Ukraine (see the Guardian article you posted, see persisting complaints by Ukrainians about the Western support). That's why Merkel needed to stress it out that however questionable from the Ukrainian perspective still Minsk Agreements achieved something important for Ukraine, that otherwise wouldn't have been possible. And that's what she's trying to take credit for despite the criticisms.
3) In light of contextual considerations, it is very far fetched to claim that Western Europeans, especially Germans, were deceptive, because making Ukraine stronger to the point of being in condition to withstand a major Russian escalation WAS NOT EXCLUDED BY THE MINSK AGREEMENTS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Text_of_the_protocol), and no she didn’t need to express herself otherwise to make that point clearer to those who ignored the actual content of the Minsk Agreements and the criticisms she was trying to defend herself from (like those coming from Ukrainians and Westerners invoking greater support to Ukraine). So Russian expectations about the “provocative” reconstruction of the Ukrainian army were not grounded on what was explicitly agreed upon. Besides, as you can read here in this report: “The Minsk Agreements: Not Legally Binding but a Political Commitment” (https://www.kas.de/documents/252038/4520172/The+Grand+Stalemate+of+the+Minsk+Agreements), so it was mostly left on Ukraine and Russia’s initiative to comply with such agreements. So no, Merkel did NOT admit any intention to be provocative or to dupe the Russians.
4) Whatever residual reason to pin “bad faith” on Western intentions (also independently from Merkel's declarations in that interview) in favor of Russian expectations can overwhelmingly be retorted against Russia because: first, conjecture for conjecture, it’s very hard to believe that a paranoiac despot, ex-KGB agent expert on disinformatia and historical revisionism, with a network of both Western (especially in Germany, given their economic and political ties) and Ukrainian covert agents could possibly be duped by Western intentions about the Minsk agreements. Putin was most likely aware in what predicament Western Europeans and Ukraine were, also considering the power relations between the US and Europe, and how he could exploit their hesitancy and “buying time” in his favour more easily than they could in their or in Ukraine’s favour. Indeed, their hesitation/reluctance could have been taken as a political pretext for escalation, as well as a convenient window of opportunity to push covert operations on the ground (including Russification of the region), AS HE ACTUALLY DID. Secondly, given the occupation of Crimea by Russian militia and the Russian arming/leading to support Ukrainian separatists’ armed conflict with Kiev, Russia was most likely violating previous agreements like the Budapest Memorandum, NATO-Russian foundation act and the United Nations Charter (among others). Third, while Russia was more accountable to comply with Minsk Agreements than Ukraine because (A) Russia was the unprovoked aggressor (differently from Israel wrt Hamas) and Ukraine the victim, (B) had greater military means than Ukraine, and (C) had vested interest to protract the conflict and compromise the Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty (to compromise Ukraine’s chances of Westernisation), not only Russia didn’t do its part to preserve a cease-fire but it was arguably Ukraine the one that did more to comply with Minsk agreements (https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/). But if that’s the case then one doesn’t owe good faith to others for dealing with problems that those others created and protracted in bad faith .
Quoting boethius
It’s a convenient caricature to present Ukraine’s views as ”this faction in Ukraine that actually wants a bigger war with Russia”, what the Ukrainian leadership aimed to is to preserve territorial integrity and political sovereignty. One can question the methods in light of their chances too succeed. The point is that Ukrainians were/are fighting against Russian oppression, as much as Palestinians fight against Israeli oppression. The main difference is that the former was UNPROVOKED, since Ukraine didn’t attack Russia proper, as Hamas attacked Israel proper. And ultimately it’s inherently a national matter what Ukrainians are ready to do to defend their own territorial and political sovereignty.
Quoting boethius
That may sound plausible in the hindsight, but when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, neither the West nor the US administrations were expecting Ukrainians to be able to resist as they did. When building up the Afghan security forces in 20 years, the US spent tens of billions more than they spent to rebuild the Ukrainian army since 2014 to 2022. When they were directly war fighting the Talibans in Afghanistan, the US spent hundreds of billions more than they spent in war fighting the Russians in Ukraine (https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2021-04-30qr-section2-funding.pdf). And yet when the Americans left Afghanistan, these Afghan military forces were unable to prevent the Taliban from taking control of the country in a matter of months after the US withdrawal.
So, without a deeper understanding of the situation (including Ukrainian motivations), it was not implausible that the Ukrainians could have collapsed in the same way vis-à-vis such a foe as the Russian army. Even less implausible given the political/military/intelligence/economic/demographic ties between Russia and Ukraine since the Soviet era. All the more if one were to believe Russian propaganda: Ukraine’s regime was the result of a Western coup, Russians and Ukrainians are one people, Ukrainians are just misled to self-destruction by a biiiiiig (or “tiny tiny tiny”? Which one sounds better? You tell me!) fraction of genocidal Nazis, Kiev will capitulate in matter of days or weeks, etc. This understandably elicited greater optimism and boosted moral because expectations about Ukrainian performance in an armed conflict with Russia were already pretty low (no matter how Western propaganda artificially amplified this sentiment).
Besides, roughly one month prior to Merkel’s interview, Gen. Mark Milley notoriously warned Ukraine and the West that despite Ukraine’s heroic success in driving the Russians from Kharkiv and Kherson, it would be “very difficult” to evict Russia’s army from the entire country by force. There might be an opening for political solutions, however: “You want to negotiate from a position of strength, Russia right now is on its back”. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoxCo1mXzEE&t=6s).
So, NOTHING in admitting that the Ukrainian military forces became stronger, logically implies or “obviously” suggests that their strength was enough to resolve the Ukrainian territorial disputes with Russia via military means in a way that satisfied Ukraine. BTW this is a persisting issue of Western support to Ukraine, at least, from the Ukrainian perspective.
Quoting boethius
Nobody knew back in 2014 what Putin would do in 2022 for certain. We should talk in terms of risks of escalation. The Ukrainian were confident that to mitigate such risks they needed to work on military deterrence with the help of the West. But Western collective support to build such deterrence couldn’t possibly have been granted, or even fully planned back then by individual Western politicians, other than in a form of a generic political commitment, and most certainly not with the same confidence Putin can establish/plan Russia’s foreign policies. The decision process in Western democracies is way more complicated than in authoritarian regimes both internally to individual countries, and externally among allied countries. And Russia can interfere with Western and Ukrainian decision making through infowar more easily than the other way around. So Western commitments to Ukraine could end up being more problematic and conditional in the backstage than on the stage when the West must show unity for propaganda reasons. This is consistent with the persistent disagreements between Ukrainians and Western allies on how to deter Russia.
Quoting boethius
I argued that Minsk Agreement served both purposes: reach and preserve a cease-fire while at the same time making Ukrainian more military ready in case of Russian escalation. They are not inherently incompatible, and both purposes took time (also the implementation of Minsk agreements, since it had to go through the internal Ukrainian political process and was obstructed by Russia). What I deny is that Merkel admitted in that interview to act provocatively toward Russia or to dupe Russia. This is a caricature of what she said, based on pro-Russian biased assumptions.
Quoting boethius
Indeed, she said “something” along those lines. That’s what I’m arguing.
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius
Here is a question for you: since Europe wouldn’t need a defense system against an anti-Western authoritarian regime as Russia is, then another way to get rid of NATO/Western defense system against Russia would and have been for Russia to turn into a pro-Western democratic regime, respectful of other pro-Western countries’ sovereignty? Russia could be like France and the UK a sovereign and nuclear power within the West strategic alliance. Russia could use its resources to improve material and political standards of life in Russia for the good of the Russians, enjoy a peaceful life as ex-imperial nations with other Western nations (like France, Germany, Spain, Japan) and still expand its sphere of influence in a cooperative way with the West (e.g. in Africa and Middle East). So what’s wrong with these scenarios from Russian perspective?
While you think about it, here my objections to your claims:
1) Let me notice that the US made its efforts to act cooperatively with Russia after 2008 see the Obama administration’s “Russian reset” which, among others, comprised Obama’s decision to turn down Bush’s plans to station an anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6720153.stm). And [I]Vladimir Putin said the decision was "correct and brave".[/i] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset). And there was even a dedicated channel to address whatever Russia’s security concerns about NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as established by the 1997 Founding Act (https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm). Besides there were margins for security cooperation in other areas of the globe, e.g. in fighting terrorism and stabilising the Middle East (especially, under Bush’s administration). Yet things deteriorated during the following years on different issues because NEITHER party could help but interfering in whatever the other party saw as its sphere of influence (it’s again Obama the one who approved the plans for the defense systems installed in Romania and Poland). Russia’s concerns in foreign policies are the same ones the US has, and such concerns have little to do with specific/circumscribed territorial and economic claims. They have to do with hegemonic competition at large, starting with those areas of the globe which both Russia and the US see as their proxy spheres of influence like in Europe and in Middle East. Security maximizers are prone to stretch and clash whenever they see an opportunity for weakening their competitors. What makes the difference is their resources to pressure competitors and attract clients. In other words, when states compete for hegemony there is no inherent reason to take opportunities for cooperation as a railroad toward greater stability. Indeed, weaker competitors could grow bolder and empowered through cooperation (as it is the case of Russia, China and Iran) and turn more aggressive, especially if they have historical humiliations to redeem.
2) Russia’s security concerns about the defense systems installed in Romania and Poland, here is what Stoltenberg said in 2016 :
[i]Nor does the system represent any threat to Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent. Geography and physics both make it impossible for the NATO system to shoot down Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles. The interceptors are too few in number, and either too far south or too close to Russia to do so.
We have made this clear to the Russian authorities time and again. Yet Russia has declined all NATO proposals for cooperation on missile defence, including the establishment of joint centres and a regime to ensure missile defence transparency. Moscow unilaterally terminated dialogue with NATO on this issue in 2013.[/I] Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/opinions_130662.htm?selectedLocale=en
In other words, Russia cornered itself into a position of no dialogue with NATO about security in Europe. The point is that the US can do the same with Russia, and obviously for very compelling reasons: the security system in Europe concerns all European countries not just Ukraine nor primarily Ukraine. So if Russia is perceived as a threat by other Europeans countries, the US can’t just sacrifice European security for Ukrainian security. And if any unilateral defensive move/request from Westerners can be claimed to be hostile/provocative if it can’t be vetoed at convenience by Russia, the West can do the same.
3) One thing I do not understand in your argument is the following: if Russia fears these defence systems, how annexing south-east Ukraine will prevent that if the rest of Ukraine can still join NATO? And even if Russia turned the whole of Ukraine into a neutral/demilitarized/puppet state, still those defence systems could be deployed in the Baltic States and in Finland. How can Russia prevent that without invading/attacking those countries? Besides Russia likely deployed nuclear weapon systems bordering NATO countries (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/36982), so why Russia’s deterrence should be prioritised over Western deterrence?
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius
Unless, Merkel would have known that the purpose of Russia’s was to be provocative and not to try to reach a resolution with the US, as it became blatant before the Russian invasion started:
[I]The Russian leadership is demanding legally binding security guarantees from the US and NATO in two draft treaties. Key demands are, firstly, a commitment to refrain from undertaking any further Eastern enlargements of NATO, particularly with regard to Ukraine or other states within the region such as Georgia. This would entail withdrawing the prospect of membership offered at NATO’s Bucharest summit in 2008. Secondly, the Alliance should guarantee that it will not deploy any weaponry or military forces on the border with Russia. Thirdly, NATO should end its military cooperation with post-Soviet states and scale back its military forces to the 1997 level. This would mean no longer deploying military forces and weaponry in NATO countries that were not members of the Alliance in 1997. Moscow is therefore also demanding that NATO withdraw its multinational battlegroups from Poland and the Baltic states. Fourthly, the US should pull its nuclear weapons out of Europe and, fifthly, cease meddling in Russia’s internal affairs. Here, the Kremlin is referring to support for the so-called Colour Revolutions as part of a US democracy-building agenda.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has also made it clear that Moscow takes a critical view of any NATO accession by Finland and Sweden. The Russian leadership is thus extending its reach beyond the traditional post-Soviet sphere of influence and, by seeking to reduce NATO’s role in Europe, is striving for a dominant position in European security policy. Russia is no longer merely demanding a right of veto in all matters pertaining to European security, as called for in former President Dmitry Medvedev’s 2008 proposal for a treaty on a new European security architecture. Instead, THE AIM IS TO DRASTICALLY CURTAIL THE US’s ROLE IN EUROPE, to establish security guarantees for Moscow and to consolidate spheres of influence in Europe on a legally binding basis. Initial talks between the US and Russia on 10 January 2022 showed that such guarantees are unrealistic.[/I]
Source: https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/future-european-security-what-does-russia-want
BTW, anti-Americanism is also the reason why many, also in the West, and in this thread too (likely including you), take a pro-Russian stance. Even if Russia is evil, still it’s the US the Great Satan.
Yaroslav Hrytsak: "Zelensky's popularity is at an all-time low because he doesn't tell us the truth. He treats us like children"
"the Ukrainian historian expresses strong criticism of the president: "He continues to repeat the heroic narrative of the first months, but no one here believes it anymore. He dreams of playing the role of the Ukrainian Churchill. He is more like Gorbachev: very popular at beginning of Perestroika, but then increasingly isolated; respected abroad, detested at home"
source: https://www.huffingtonpost.it/esteri/2024/10/08/news/hrytsak_la_popolarita_di_zelensky_e_ai_minimi_storici_perche_non_ci_dice_la_verita_ci_tratta_come_bambini-17370169/
An interesting article that appeared in the Guardian (of all places) written by historian and writer Adam Tooze, echoing a sentiment that I have expressed in this thread pertaining to the nature of US actions in the current crises.
Tooze questions the surface-level appearance of the Biden administration as being incompetent, and instead hypothesizes that Biden's neocon administration is rolling out an elaborate strategy:
And I agree with Tooze on various points.
I've made similar arguments pertaining to the crises in Ukraine and Israel - namely that Washington feigns weakness and reluctance, when in fact it is doubling down on all the policies that drive towards escalation in a way that suggests it is following a coherent strategy.
Countries outside the West have long understood this. These sentiments aren't exactly new. But what is interesting is the fact that a big Western media outlet would publish such an article.
Could it be that Europe is slowly starting to regain some of its geopolitical wits?
I wouldn't say that. Tooze does not claim that the entire sequence of events is part of an elaborate long term US strategy. He acknowledges that in Ukraine and Israel, the US reacted to aggression. He also explicitly says that Russia miscalculated over Ukraine, assuming that the invasion would not cause the kind of reaction it did.
What he does argue is that the US is shaping it's response to these events deliberately and in concert with each other. This is a general assumption of competence with which it is hard to argue. The article is somewhat light on substance though. It offers few specific explanations for actions and no predictions.
If the US is revisionist, what can we expect the revised world order to look like? The article does not say unfortunately. Iran and Russia weakened seems like a safe assumption. But what's the significance for China, for example?
Obviously you could use Israel for such a purpose as well as plenty other purposes which the US has and does.
However, the US has plenty of other ways of causing chaos in the Middle East. If it was just about causing chaos there are literally hundreds of pathways to chaos that don't involve paying such heavy prestige costs.
And even if you chose "have Israel attack people" as the pathway to chaos you simply wouldn't have them commit genocide in any rational plan.
Imagine all the same fighting, just no genocide: even better chaos! Without genocide you may actually be able to build a coalition to go fight Iran and have far less opposition to it at home as well.
Genocide not only solicits far higher resistance to your chaos machinations, but also causes massive cognitive dissonance within the US state apparatus itself, as "against-genocide" is a pretty core part of the US imperial proponent identity. "US is good because it defeated the Nazis who were committing genocide" is a pretty foundational plank of most pro-US-empire thinking.
Notwithstanding, the basic structure of Israel is near 100% imperial imposition by the British and then American empires and Israel is a sort of ersatz fractal copy of these empires
However, the argument that these particular recent events are not driven by some sort of plausibly objective US imperial policy is because nearly all the key decision makers in the US administration at the moment are zionists.
The US envoy to go negotiate with Lebanon is literally an Israeli military alumni! which is a massive indication that Zionists are running the show. Non-zionists US imperial custodians that are using Israel for their own purposes are extremely unlikely to do such a thing.
The general theme of causing more death and destruction in the middle-east is certainly on the to-do list of the CIA, but paying this high prestige costs simply doesn't make sense. Gaza has zero importance to the US empire as such, and you could have just as much fighting and chaos and just do some false flags to move things along while allowing food and water into the strip and refraining from bombing hospitals and schools. These war crimes and genocide in Gaza serve no US interest, they simply impose a cost that is super massively high for no benefit. Genocide in Gaza serves the purpose of getting rid of the Palestinians living there which is squarely and uniquely a Zionist interest.
The current situation is Israel drawing down US diplomatic capital (at an alarming rate if you're a non-Zionist US Imperialist) in order to commit genocide. There is zero return on investment to the US for this component of the violence.
And generally speaking Israel is not a critical US imperial asset, but mostly frustrates relations with far more important countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and the whole region is very much divided without the need for Israel. You only really need Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran to maintain a strategy of tension to prevent regional integration ... but you also have Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Pakistan and plenty non-state actors to boot!
Furthermore, if you consider all the US interventions in the Middle-East as the result of cold Imperial logic ... well Israel wasn't really needed in any of them: US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq without really needing Israel for anything to do that and when NATO wanted to bomb Libya into a failed state they just went ahead and commenced with the bombing. The one key "Imperial utility argument" Zionists made was guarding the flank of the Suez Canal ... that the US gave to Egypt anyways as that actually served the US Empire better.
It's also not the case that the US is somehow otherwise benefiting, such as being paid, to turn a blind eye to the genocide, such as the Saudis paying for a war against the Houthi's, but rather the US is paying Israel!
Imperial logic, aka. "Geopolitical strategy", is simply not as dominant a force as your studies have led you to believe.
For whom is it all for? Yes, there is an imperial strategy developed by professional bureaucrats that pretty much explicitly identify as humble custodians of the empire, and so what happens is in this framework, but they are not the primary beneficiaries of the empire, they just work for it. The primary beneficiaries, i.e the actual owners, of the empire do not have the same mindset but have their own personal objectives, usually to amass a lot of wealth: For example, massive wealth disparities and huge national debts are not good for imperial cohesion and finances ... so why do the rich get tax breaks and huge contracts paid by national debt? Because they run the show! If imperial maintenance and geopolitical strategy was a dominant factor determining policy then reckless Imperial finances wouldn't happen. The reason reckless imperial finances happen is because it transfers wealth from the empire to the effective owners of said empire and they happen to see that as a good thing.
For the case at hand, a large faction of the US imperial primary beneficiaries happen to be Zionists and so they are willing to convert Imperial capital to Zionist objectives. They may not be the majority dominant faction but they have prevented the formation of any anti-Zionist coalition from forming and so dominate policy through a plurality of power, at least when it comes to issues concerning Israel.
Agreed, the US is driving towards more escalation, but the strategy is not coherent.
As the RAND document recently discussed mentions: escalation in Ukraine only benefits US interests if Ukraine prevails, which is it extremely unlikely to. Ukraine losing would be a loss of prestige to the US and of course massive cost to Ukraine.
The Ukraine war benefits various US special interests in their short term profits as well as helping to protect the Biden family from the whole being bribed thing (best way to get rid of a political problem in a country is a force majeur giant war) and is also a general extension of neocon delusion.
There is zero "5D chess moves" happening.
The US is in classic imperial decline where the primary beneficiaries, mentioned above, are more concerned with drawing down imperial capital for their own purposes (aka. corruption) than they are in imperial maintenance.
Empires generally grow out of a solid political structure and culture based on hard, honest work and sacrifice for the common good and has developed various mechanisms to suppress corruption (as a small structure can obviously not prosper in corrupt conditions) in combination with an real or perceived external threat that can only be reasonably met (at least in this political structures thinking) with expansion. So Babylon v Persia, Rome v Carthage, Athens v Sparta, Mongols v China, England v France (and then Spain, and then Russia ... and then Germany ... twice), US v Japan and the Soviet Union, and so on. I simplify from memory but the basic pattern of imperial expansion is nearly always driven by fear of some enemy.
If there are economic fundamentals driving social integration then imperial expansion has a stable equilibrium around that economic integration and the empire transforms into what we would describe as a nation-state (such as ancient Egypt and China, which remain nation states today).
However, if the imperial expansion exceeds any economic justification and is simply extracting resources from a dominated periphery to a imperial core, then as soon as the political system is no longer under threat then the meritocratic system that built the system erodes and drawdown of imperial wealth for private interest commences. It is fear of being conquered that is a check on corruption and once that fear goes away then it is time to enjoy the fruits of imperial power.
Why this pattern is so common can be sourced to imperial exploitation (and what is necessary to maintain it) being incompatible with any sort of coherent theory of justice.
Arguably, ethnic cleansing and genocide are the only options the Israelis have left if they want to cling to their ethno-state ideal.
The fact that they are occupying millions of Palestinians makes them extremely vulnerable in a large-scale conflict since there is a good chance the Palestinian population would rise up and/or join in a partisan war.
That's the reason the US may tacitly approve of Israel's genocidal actions, since, if successful, it gets rid of a critical vulnerability of their Middle-Eastern proxy.
Of course, there is a cost to this as well. The question is how heavy that cost will be. It's entirely possible that we are overestimating the damage to US reputation and the consequences it has on the balance of power.
The idea that the US will somehow be 'punished' for supporting genocidal regimes may just be wishful thinking. Israel has been at this for decades, and it isn't the first genocidal regime that the US and allies have supported.
On the topic of geopolitical strategy:
The red thread throughout US Eurasian strategy today is the denial of land-based trade routes. The US wants Eurasian geopolitical rivals to be reliant on sea-based trade, since the US has an overwhelming advantage in naval power.
To deny a trade corridor, it is not always necessary for the US to control it directly or to completely deny it to the rival. Sowing chaos and conflict in these areas is often enough to stop trade from flowing.
In all the places that connect US geopolitical rivals to the rest of the world via land, we see long-standing US involvement, the most important ones being:
Eastern Europe, the Middle-East, the Caucasus and Central-Asia (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan). Forever wars in these areas are perfectly suited for long-term denial of trade. Of course, the US does not want to fight these costly forever wars themselves - much better to let the Ukrainians, Europeans, Afghanis (etc.) and Israelis fight these wars for them.
Note that even a neutral actor like India had to suffer both of its land corridors (Pakistan and Bangladesh) falling under long-standing US influence.
Of course, in conjunction to this we see a very successful effort at the control/denial of sea-based trade as well, with the US and cronies completely boxing in China, and seeking to deprive Russia off its central position in the Black Sea.
Finally, there is another element to US global strategy which involves stopping regional powers from rising. The theme here being: the US is unable to divert its attention to many powerful actors at the same time, so must work pre-emptively to keep potential regional powers weak.
Iraq was one such potential regional power. Iran is another. The US has been interested in curbing both of these nations since the end of WW2. This is of course where US and Israeli geopolitical strategy meet.
These countries are also somewhat unique is that they are both a potential regional powers (Iran already is a regional power) and they are located on a vital trade corridor.
This is especially problematic for the US, because destabilizing a regional power is much more difficult, which is why it now is using Israel. Israel is able to cause a lot of chaos with its intelligence aparatus, high-tech military and nuclear arsenal.
All indicators are that (unlike Iraq) Iran has slipped the window of a US intervention (mostly because Chinese pressure in the Pacific is keeping the US from being able to commit elsewhere in the world), so the US must now rely on harsher means to protect its interests.
Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to go through the long list of reasons why the genocide being some cryptic US plan is extremely unlikely.
To be clear, this is not because anyone important in US decision making has any problem with mass-death and genocide per se, and there are plenty of examples where the cost of senseless mass murder is indeed low as you point out.
But the basic framework that you may find worth considering is simply that few policies are actually explained by geopolitical strategy.
For example, if you really cared about geopolitics:
- you wouldn't give-up the draft
- you would have universal health-care (to have a healthy population to mobilize if need be, like Israel does)
- you would have free secondary education so as to self-produce your own intellectual class (like Israel does) and not rely on foreign intellectuals that can bring back your cutting edge expertise back to their country of origin legally or illegally (as China is happy to do)
- you wouldn't transfer all the means of production to communist China
- you wouldn't go into huge national debts
- you would keep strategically critical industries you invented, such as semiconductor manufacturing, on-shore and definitely wouldn't send all that stuff to Taiwan
- you wouldn't maintain a war on drugs that is turning one of you neighbours into a narco-state and creating a massive con and ex-con population that are sub-optimally contributing to society and unavailable for conscription
- you wouldn't poison your own population making them unfit for conscription
- most of all you would fight corruption inside your institutions like the plague as corruption leads to wasted recourses, treasonous rats, and general incompetence as well as inability to manage an actual crisis
You can easily understand the reasons for all such policies by envisioning a geopolitics game with options like "poison or don't poison your own population" and "give-up the draft or don't give up the draft" and "balance the budget or go into extreme debt" and the obvious consequences of such decisions over the long term (aka. obviously maintaining a healthy, educated population, with sound general finances, guarding jealously industrial capacity in particular at the cutting edge, and low corruption is going to provide an advantage in the geopolitics game).
So, how to explain America does none of that shit?
It's because geopolitics is not the priority. Geopolitics is there, some people are paid to think about it, sure, but it is not the driver of decision making.
What is? Transferring the wealth of the empire to the primary beneficiaries of the system through a network of corruption.
Mostly that wealth is just money but on occasion the real owners want something else and in this case it's cover to perpetrate a genocide.
The alternative just doesn't make any sense.
For example, the idea you mention that the US wants Israel to solve its proxies strategic weakness of Palestinians being in Gaza. First, how is this genocide doing that? Israel is going to have far more radicalized proxies on its borders from committing a genocide and not less. And second, solve that strategic weakness to do what exactly? Conquer the whole Middle-East in a giant US-Israeli war on everyone and then occupy the place forever? US was literally just occupying Afghanistan and Iraq for decades and that didn't really accomplish anything and they left ... so the idea here is the US actually wants to return and by doing it with Israel instead of literally all of NATO (which includes several countries 10x bigger than Israel) it's going to work out better somehow? It just makes no sense.
If the idea was to pave the way for the US to reenter the Middle East ... well then why give Afghanistan back to the Taliban in the first place? And how exactly is a genocide needed to achieve that? How is a genocide in Gaza going to enable the US to reinvade the Middle-East ... which there's no indication the US will do and completely unclear what exactly they'd be doing, trying to conquer Iran in a multi-year war that is likely to fail?
If it's just causing enough division and chaos to avoid land-trade-corridors, how has that not already been achieved? And again, why would a genocide be needed to achieve that?
Genocide in Gaza is simply not a US interest no matter how you look at it, it has only immense liabilities and no upside even from a super cynical point of view (for example the point of view where sacrificing hundreds of thousands of weapons while drip feeding them weapons to "calibrate" the fighting at "lose" all while telling them they're fighting for Western values and "whatever it takes" and "however long it takes" knowing those are lies, we can see the basic imperial logic of separating Russian resources from the European economy, maybe harming Russia; may not be the best Imperial moves but we can understand the motivations), and if the US was somehow in command all the fighting and chaos we've seen is completely 100% totally feasible to have without a genocide, bombing hospitals and schools systematically and so on.
Genocide in Gaza is a Zionist interest, not a US imperial interest. If there was something the US was getting (money or something) then maybe we could conclude that the US is trading cover for the genocide in order to get that said thing (such as money) but that's not the case. It's the US paying Israel hard cash to carry out the genocide that Israel wants to commit. And Israel is 100% dependent on the US so there is simply not a situation where the US would need to "give Israel a genocide" to get Israel to do something in return ... such as continue to be a source of tension in the Middle-East.
People have been studying and analyzing geopolitics for a long time, with a lot of focus on the US; if there was some US geopolitical advantage for carrying out a genocide in Gaza various analysts would have pointed it out. It hasn't been pointed out because it makes no sense and trying to make sense of it post-murderous-festum is grasping at straws to avoid the obvious conclusion that the US empire is thoroughly rotten and on it's way down, making lots of blunders mostly due to pervasive corruption, and not in some brilliant counter-stroke re-ascendency.
For example, the war in Ukraine at least fits some sort of Imperial logic as we've been discussing for hundred of pages. Maybe a big mistake, but the general Imperial ideas are easy to understand. What's also indisputable (when the actual facts are under consideration) is that the US drove this process to war and it's a deliberate policy decision by the US and at no point is somehow Ukraine driving US policy.
And what do we see? We easily find discussion of exactly this war that is happening in US policy analysis documents literally called "Extending Russia" as well neocons discussing conflict with Russia in one form or another for years and years. In addition there's years of anti-Russian propaganda, CIA and neocon fingerprints all over the place (including literally on cookies handed out in Maidan Square ... and also 12 CIA forward operating bases) and the list goes on.
With the genocide in Gaza there's none of that. There's no analysis of how Hamas is somehow standing in the way of critical US interests, most of all there's not "programming" of what comes next, everything is a surprise. It's just not the CIA way. If the CIA wanted to go to war with Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, Iran, we would have been talking about this for quite some time, the reasons would be clear, we'd have built up to it: Obama would not have signed the nuke deal and then Trump would not have been criticized by the mainstream media for backing out of it, and the logic and need to go to war with all of Israel's enemies would have been made clear and the drums of war would have been beating for quite some time and the march to war would be underway to thunderous applause and it would be clearly explained by Biden the need for these new wars.
Hence I started a thread Why Americans lose wars as there are parallels to Afghanistan and the Vietnam war.
Of course, I may be wrong. And hopefully I would be wrong, actually...
Events have resolved all the key issues of disagreement.
Quoting ssu
It was bleak since rejecting negotiations and committing to a long war.
Quoting ssu
Trump hasn't even said he's going to pressure Russia. Unless I've missed something, Tump has mostly just said he'll end the war.
Quoting ssu
Well, that's assuming the US even cares about the results of these kinds of negotiations. Once the decision is made to get out of a war, what's there to negotiate from a US perspective? The rights of the people they're abandoning?
Quoting ssu
I'll add my thoughts when I have the time, but I think we agree on the basics.
Quoting ssu
Doubtful you are wrong. Losing wars is where the money is.
Great.
At this point in time, Ukraine is lost and will soon be pressured to the negotiating table by Trump. Even though I understand that it will be a painful process for Ukraine, I consider it to be in Ukraine's best interest. The alternative is an even longer war with an even bleaker outlook, from which Ukraine stands to gain absolutely nothing.
The Biden administration is plainly trying to make such a process impossible by attempting to deteriorate and escalate the situation to a point where negotiations are no longer an option.
Washington desires war, and this is what they had envisioned since the start of the conflict in 2008, when they deliberately set out to violate Russian red lines - this is what I have argued for months, if not years by now.
Everyone can see that any further expansion of military aid to Ukraine at this point is too little too late, and won't change the situation on the battlefield.
Meanwhile, the Russians have been warning NATO about the seriousness with which they regard this particular escalation, saying that they would consider this move to put Russia directly at war with NATO - aka World War 3. This blatantly puts all of Europe into the crosshairs of Russian retaliation, and for what?
11,000 to 100,000 North Korean soldiers muddies the political waters. These special ops troops infiltrate and assassinate.
Nevertheless, this madness must end at the negotiation table.
Frachon opines:
With Trump in the White House, Charles de Gaulle's prophecy is coming true: One day, the US will leave the Old Continent
[sup]— Alain Frachon · Le Monde · Nov 7, 2024[/sup]
These limitations of use of weapons is similar thinking just like during the Vietnam war where the US made limitations for itself. How Joe Biden has been so afraid of Putin, when the other way around Russians haven't been afraid of him.
Cable lines cut in the Baltic Sea. Between Germany and Finland and also Sweden and Lithuanina, so it's that time of the year for some hybrid attacks.
Yeah it was very quick and as far as I know, not very effective.
Just not a good idea. But I believe we have different takes on this war.
What did they achieve?
Nothing, except for the fact that Putin has stated in September they would consider themselves to be at war with NATO if this were to transpire, with which he refered to their nuclear doctrine which undoubtedly prescribes that in the event of a war with another nuclear-armed power, Russian nukes should be ready 24/7 to deliver a 'second strike'.
How do Europeans sleep, knowing they're the playing chips with which the US and the UK are pursuing these types of escalations?
They have been doing that for a while, albeit with more limited range.
So is Ukraine "lost" or can they negotiate? Those two statements seem to contradict each other.
This is horrifying. Worse that many American and some Europeans think this is a good idea - not all of them to be clear.
I don't understand how people think this is good. We are standing at the precipice of annihilation.
People of the UK are Europeans, actually. :wink:
To have peace, simply prepare for war: Si vis pacem, parabellum. Deterrence stops Putin. Appeasement won't.
For example the Swedes sent all of the residents living in Sweden a booklet called "In case of crisis or war" just a few days ago. It is published in many languages and also English, which can be read here:
In case of crisis or war
It's very similar to what the Finnish government educates to it's citizens in the case of war or crisis. And an interesting booklet for the American prepper to view how Europeans think about preparedness. Sweden and Finland both have this thing called "total defense". What I like is that the Swedish government dedicated one page to pets that people have.
We stood at the precipice of annihilation during the Cuban missile crisis or on the few occasions when a detection error almost set off a nuclear exchange. The current situation doesn't seem remotely close to those situations.
Ukrainians have been killing russian soldiers and destroying russian installations using western weapons for years now. Russia could have used a nuclear weapon at any point, yet to what end?
I don't know how much more evidence one needs to know that Russia is being serious. It is being left without options.
____________________________________________________________________________
Quoting ssu
For the sake of geopolitics, they are not. The UK belongs to the periphery, and as such benefits from keeping Eurasia divided and fighting amongst themselves. The US operates on exactly the same principles.
Quoting ssu
This isn't deterrence. This is provocation and escalation, and it achieves nothing besides those two things. Besides, the Russians have made clear they believe they are protecting vital strategic interests - in other words, they won't be bluffed out of this.
The US and the UK are playing with fire, and it will be us, the Europeans, that are going to get burned.
Quoting ssu
What you'll have is a total curling up in the foetal position while our countries are incinerated.
You're sitting on the front row, I on the second.
We have nothing to gain here.
All we can hope for is for the Russians to understand that it is the US and the UK who are pursuing this strategy over our backs, and that the Russians seek to impose costs on them instead.
That's the only way for the US and the UK to start behaving - if they are the ones to pay the price of war.
Yes sure, that may well be the case.
But we know that "limited nuclear war" cannot be fought with those two countries. It's a total fiction.
What? I honestly have no idea what you mean here.
How is Russia without options? The russian state is not remotely threatened. They're facing more difficult logistics and aerial campaigns which might eventually degrade their capacity to fight in Ukraine but not immediately. Even if Russia's offensive momentum is completely halted it would be able to negotiate, given how difficult it has been for Ukraine to make any headway against heavy fortifications.
This is bad for Russia but not "mutual suicide is our only option" levels of bad.
Why do you think Russia might use a nuclear weapon? What would be their goal?
Quoting Tzeentch
There's no such thing as a "limited nuclear war" between two nuclear powers.
Quoting Tzeentch
Which would not be a limited nuclear war but a total one. I fail to see how this is in Russia's interest.
Exactly.
Remember that then in Cuba it was Nuclear weapons themselves in Cuba that caused the uproar. Conventional Scuds (which were new during that time) weren't the problem. And ATACMS and Storm Shadow still have what is considered a short range. It would be different if the systems were medium range and could everywhere west of the Ural mountains. Storm Shadow has a range of 250 km range and ATACMS 300 kilometers. Moscow is about 450 kilometers from the Ukrainian border and it would be very perilous for Ukraine to use either weapon system on the Ukraine-Russian border (and have the launcher, be it on ground or an aircraft in reach of many Russian weapon systems).
This is the same game that Russia has played from the beginning of the war. And in a similar way, we ought have not given Ukraine a) any weapons, b) any missiles be it ATGM/SAM/SSM, c) any tanks, d) any fighter aircraft. And since this micromanaging of the weapon system has been going on with usually with too little too late, Ukraine hasn't been able to use them in a decisive way.
Perhaps Russia would have accepted that Germany gives bodybags to Ukraine.
And anyway, it's quite delusional to accept the Kremlin line. During the Cold War there were no limits on just what would be given to a country fighting the other Superpower. This kind of silly talk that Putin says didn't and wouldn't fly then.
The proper answer when Putin rattles his nuclear sabers is to just comment: "We have nuclear weapons too" and simply leave it there.
That's right this does not threaten them. But it is US and UK soldiers using US and UK machinery firing into Russia.
Imagine Russian missiles being shot with Russian technology from Cuba into the US. What would happen?
That's direct involvement. What are they going to do take it?
They probably will hit Ukraine very hard. But if these attacks continue, they have to reply in kind to the US or Britain. And then what happens? You can imagine.
So, unless you really believe they will just take attacks without retaliation, I don't see how you don't see this as being dangerous in the extreme.
No, It isn't. Ukrainians are totally capable using those weapon systems themselves. Besides, Ukraine has had cruise missiles and artillery missiles for a long time.
And besides, those U2 planes shot down over Cuba, the air defence was Soviet Army units. Just without their uniforms on. And these "advisors" were also in Vietnam. For example Israeli Air Force fought Soviet Pilots and their aircraft (posed as Egyptians) also.
Quoting Manuel
Imagine the US invading Cuba or Mexico, then these countries attacking Florida Keys or municipalities near the Rio Grande. If they have a possibility to do that, why not?
Sorry, but it would be something that really could happen, if the US chose to invade those countries.
In my scenario, the US would eviscerate Cuba and attack Russia.
But I am not here to debate this topic with you or anyone else. After nearly 3 years, what would be the point?
All I'm saying is that I think this is extremely reckless behavior. You disagree. Fine.
But this is ultimately a matter of degrees. Ukraine has been relying on US intelligence and targeting data since the start of the war. It's an open secret that special forces of NATO countries are active in Ukraine.
Quoting Manuel
It depends right? It's a strategic decision of what to do. First of all I have to note that to make the analogy work, the US would already have to be fighting against Cuba on Cuba.
Second Houthi rebels have been firing Iranian weapons at US warships for some months now. Has this caused total war between Iran and the US? Hell Iran just straight up fired missiles into Israel and the result hasn't been a nuclear strike.
Quoting Manuel
Are you implying that's not what they have been doing?
Quoting Manuel
Why though? They don't actually "have to" do anything. This really reminds me of the talk about the invasion itself. Oh Russia "had to" do it because of provocations X, Y and Z. But we're talking about strategic decisions and countries are very well able to take a loss and roll with it.
What provocation or escalation is attacking ammo dumps? It's totally logical to destroy the ammo dumps of the enemy. It's not that Ukraine is doing pure revenge bombing and shooting missiles into Russia hospitals (as the Russians do in Ukraine). Ukraine is fighting for it's survival in an all out war. Why would it have to fight with one arm tied to it's back. It's simply nonsense to think otherwise.
Putin can talk all he wants about being in a fight with the US. He is in a similar fight that both sides were during the Cold War basically all the time, when they had proxy wars.
Last I saw Kiev was functioning. It wasn't like Baghdad was left.
I mean full and total devastation of Kiev.
Quoting Echarmion
Yeah, in an ideal world they would just take hits and not do anything. This is not that world.
History tells something about this. Like the reasons why Stalin chose armstice and peace with Finland than continuing the war.
In 1940: Stalin feared that the UK and France would commit troops to defend Finland.Worse thing if everybody would be at war with the Soviet Union.
In 1944: Stalin feared that continuing the attack into Finland might reduce the strength of Operation Bagration and the Western allies might into Berlin first. Worst thing to pacify a puny country in the North and thus fail to capture the ultimate prize.
Now, what here is the reason that makes it better for Putin to accept peace than continue with the war? Well, if people are against arming Ukraine, that it's a forever war, then he ought just wait before the West defeats itself again and then he can do with Ukraine whatever he wants.
Yeah, they will take more land. It might be a forever war. But negotiations have to happen.
Ukraine simply cannot beat Russia now the numbers don't add up.
It's doubtful whether Russia can afford to do that. But I think more importantly Kiev is part of the russian national heritage at least the way Putin and the (ultra-) nationalists see it.
I don't think Russia is keeping significant operational capacities in reserve. If they had, they had every incentive to use those. Instead Russia got troops from north Korea to aid it's Kursk offensive.
Quoting Manuel
Yet it is important to remember that strategic decisions still happen. If there was an inescapable spiral of escalation, then the soviet union would have attacked the US navy ships blocking the shipping lanes to Cuba. They did not though.
Quoting Manuel
And negotiations will happen. Everyone is aware that the war must end with negotiations. How else could it be? The question is how one-sided the negotiations will be.
Quoting Manuel
I don't think "can Ukraine beat Russia" is really a good question to ask. The situation right now is that neither country is strong enough to enforce their demands. They're in a fairly even attritional struggle (with the current level of international aid to Ukraine) that favours Russia but does not offer it a clear route to victory.
Given that, what does it take to "beat Russia"? Take Moscow? Push all russian forces over the 2021 borders? The 2014 borders? Stop their momentum? Keep Kiev?
All of these are, imo, plausible variants of "beating Russia". But at the end of the day the operative question should be: What kind of post-war order do we envision?
A situation where either Russia or Ukraine are building up for the next round to address their grievances isn't stable. A situation where the West leaves Ukraine by the wayside to be absorbed in the Russian orbit would badly damage the cohesion and credibility of NATO.
On the other extreme a destabilised Russia would be volatile and cause all kinds of future security risks. Again it's a strategic calculation. It's not simply about a binary win/ lose outcome.
There are no forever wars.
All wars, even the Hundred years war, came to an end. The longest conflict that are going are the Kurdish insurgencies. Another long conflict is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Even they aren't active all the time. But nothing close to forever.
Quoting Manuel
Yet winning never has been that Victory Parade on the Red Square for Ukraine.
Correct. But NATO is making it worse, not better. We will see how it pans out shortly.
As you probably already know, we were literally one word away from nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
We can't keep playing tightrope forever, eventually someone will fall and by extension everyone else will.
Quoting Echarmion
I don't see a world in which Russia retreats from the territories they conquered in this war. They would rather commit collective suicide. I just don't see them doing this.
Maybe I am completely wrong - maybe they will in some future scenario, swap land for peace. But then Ukraine can never be a part of NATO.
No option here is one in which Ukraine has a favorable hand. It's a question of how much they will lose. They can lose more or lose less. That's how I see it.
Quoting Echarmion
But why does NATO exist? It's stated goal was to defend against the Soviet Union. That collapsed and NATO remained.
You are probably aware that Putin asked Clinton is Russia could join NATO but was rejected. Had Russia been in NATO, this war would not have occurred.
They only remaining "threat" is China. They're a threat to Taiwan. Not to the world.
I was replying to your comment. Of course, literally, no war is forever. But they can be very long, like Korea, which is still ongoing.
Quoting ssu
Winning is stopping the killing. What other winning is there? That Russia is defeated- that they go back pre-invasion days? That's not going to happen.
I don't like Putin; I don't like the current Russian government. That has nothing to do with winning or losing.
Quoting Skin of Evil (1988)
If the Kremlin is willing to start a nuclear world war over a fifth of Ukraine, then everyone, including Russians, already has a significant problem to deal with. Is that what we're talking about here? Should Seoul hand the keys over to Pyongyang tomorrow?
Quoting ssu
And Kim Jong Un is taking notes.
Ukrainians targeting ammunition depots and such is fair enough. Why wouldn't it be? By all means, they should try to destroy bombs that would otherwise fall on their heads, like over the past 1000 days. (By the way, the Kremlin's hostilities don't end there.)
And yet what is the alternative? A principled stance for peace will not prevent someone else from pursuing their goals through war, and always avoiding escalation just hands all the cards to the other side. It's not a practical strategy if you care about the outcome.
Quoting Manuel
That seems like a very bleak outlook. What makes you so pessimistic about this?
Quoting Manuel
And thus they should give up? Or what is the conclusion you're arriving at here?
Quoting Manuel
I find this an odd question. NATO has been very successful. There have been no overt attacks on any NATO member. Who would dismantle a successful system of mutual defense? What possible interest could that serve?
Quoting Manuel
I'd be curious as to what your source of information on this is. As far as I know there were informal talks behind closer doors, the details of which aren't public. Reportedly Russia asked for some kind of special status within NATO.
Perhaps NATO could have been more accommodating. But perhaps also Russia should not have made demands at that time.
Quoting Manuel
What qualifies as a "threat to the world"? Was the Soviet Union a threat to the world? Was Germany in 1914?
On the one hand, most people just want peace and prosperity. On the other hand there are clearly different visions as to how the future world looks, and they're not equally appealing from where I stand.
Well, comes to mind a small curious anecdote: one of the longest conflicts happened between Sweden and San Marino. You see the tiny nation of San Marino, which was on the Catholic side, and protestant Sweden didn't make peace in treaty of Westphalia, hence the two states were technically at war until 1996. I assume that no Swede noticed this belligerent status of his or her country in the 1980's when visiting San Marino.
And even if some artillery duels or North Koreans attacking US soldiers with axes has happened on the DMZ, this has been a frozen conflict, not a conventional war as is now fought in Ukraine. So there's a huge difference between a frozen conflict and a conventional war.
Insurgencies can go far longer and literally fade away. One of the most bizarre event was when the Baltic States were opened for tourism in the Soviet era during the 1960's and Finns rushed to the countries for the cheap alcohol, the last remnants of the "Forest Brothers", the Balts fighting against the Soviet Union, were still hiding in the forests. In Estonia I think the KGB captured the last "Forest Brother" that had evaded them in the 1970's as an old man.
Quoting Manuel
Why then didn't the Ukrainians denazify themselves then?
Well, it's about the peace deal they get. Is it so difficult to understand that Russia has lost wars, even if the enemy didn't occupy the country? Russia lost to Japan. Russia (or Soviet Union) against Poland. That one has nuclear weapons doesn't mean you can lose wars.
Hence Ukraine can get / could have gotten a better deal like Japan or Poland. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why the defeatism? There'd be no Finns, we'd be basically Russians just like the Mari people or other Finno-Ugric people in Russia if we would have that kind of defeatist attitude, if we would never had fought for our independence.
In other words, NATO, via the US and the UK, is now directly at war with Russia, or so the Russians argue.
When Russia is directly at war with another nuclear-armed power, that puts into effect aspects of their nuclear doctrine, one of which being (I assume) that nuclear weapons are to be permanently aimed at you and me.
It's honestly quite remarkable to me that you're still showing no signs of alarm. At what point will you say enough is enough? When the air sirens go off?
Do you understand the implications of the argument I have put forward previously, that:
1. Europe and Russia are parts of the world the US will no longer be able to control going into the future.
2. Europe and Russia will play a critical role in keeping China's economy afloat in case of a US-China war.
3. Europe and Russia being in pole position to benefit greatly from a US-China war, and probably becoming the laughing thirds of such a conflict.
In the domain of what one can conjecture, sure your predictions can be seen as roughly plausible as others (like a re-approaching of the US and Russia to contain China). You didn't put a timeline though, nor offered a concrete path on how this is going to happen. There are bigger demographic and technological processes that may contribute to shape the future, as much as less predictable events (like pandemics and climate change effects). Making claims and showing off how confident you feel about it, shows more your biases than offering insights about our current predicament.
I understand that. But we are speaking about nuclear powers. You have to measure if your principles stack up against the real possibility of nuclear annihilation, not just in this case, but many others.
It's not pretty, much less fair.
Quoting Echarmion
What they've said, what they've sacrificed in war and national pride. Doesn't help they changed official nuclear doctrine. Remember The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has changed from hours to minutes to midnight about two years ago. These are serious people.
Quoting Echarmion
It's about measuring how much they're going to lose. 52% of Ukrainians now want negotiated settlement, that should count for something.
Quoting Echarmion
What have they done? Help in tearing apart Yugoslavia? Destroy Libya? Support Israel? Intensify tensions in China?
I don't see why Europe should need the US to pay for their defense. Europe should have its own foreign policy, independent of the US.
Now if that European Defense organization wans to ally with the US for something - they should do so.
Quoting Echarmion
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
If they wanted to "isolate" China, this could have been a smart move. But alas, it was rejected.
Quoting Echarmion
Good question. As far as I see, anything that the West doesn't like. China, Iran, North Korea, Russia.
Quoting ssu
52% of Ukrainians now want a negotiated settlement. Historical parallels are interesting and potentially informative, but each conflict is new and brings unique difficulties to the table.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2024/11/21/ukraine-can-t-afford-to-lose-tens-of-thousands-of-lives-to-reclaim-crimea-says-zelensky
There are very good reasons for the West not liking those countries and trying to contain them.
It requires US or British assistance for virtually every step of the deployment process. The strikes are probably completely planned by American and British operators.
When Trump got elected, the price of gold started to come down significantly from an all-time high. Apparently the world, unlike this forum's left-leaning denizens, viewed Trump's election as a turn towards stability.
A few days later, this downward trend is reversed as the Biden administration takes clear steps to make said turn towards stability impossible. The gold price skyrockets to a new all-time high and probably will continue going through the roof for the next several days.
Again dismissive lies about the Ukrainians.
Ukrainians can use the MLRS system, and why wouldn't the US give them satellite imaginary? And they do have an intelligence service and military intelligence of their own.
Besides, the ATACMS is used by Bahrain, Greece, South Korea, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Ukraine and Taiwan besides the US and is contracted to all the Baltic States and Australia and Morocco. You think all these countries are totally incapable of use ATACMS alone, but need special help from the US? You think they would buy a system they couldn't operate themselves? Or that somehow Ukrainians are so ignorant and stupid that they cannot use them? This weapon system was from the 1980's and is thus is forty years old.
Artillery rockets are far more simple than long range air defence missiles, which have to hit very fast maneuvering targets. And Ukraine has made an equivalent to the S-300 Surface to Air weapon system (the SD-300). The Ukrainian R-360 Neptune cruise missile is famous for sinking the Moskva and also has a land variant. Hence countries like Ukraine that have the capability of creating their own missiles surely can use missile systems that are given to them with training. The idea that Ukrainian couldn't use them, that you would have to have American and British assistance for every step in the operation of the weapon system is just bullshit, simple badmouthing of Ukrainians. That Ukraine could use Soviet era platforms to fire Western weapon systems is quite telling of Ukrainian capabilities.
So Putin talk again.
The situation is totally different if an user has to use some weapons without any logistical trail of spare parts etc, like Iran found itself with American weapon systems after the Iranian revolution. And then Americans in all of their hubris declared that Iranians couldn't use their F-14 Tomcats and their advanced AIM-54 Phoenix missiles without US assistance. Wrong again: Iranians did use the systems all through the Iran-Iraq war and even later, until this day.
Quoting Tzeentch
Commentators always have to give a reason why something goes up and down. A standard line like "market participants try to arbitrage" won't do. In case of the gold price, it's more long term development isn't tied to wars and pandemics as the commentator says, it's that the international debt based fiat monetary system is steadily losing it's value. US is taking more debt, which creates inflation.
The short term changes in the long run don't matter. Likely when Trump leaves office in 2029 (if he survives so long), gold will be far more higher in dollar value than today. But in those four years it surely will bounce up and down.
That's not "Putin talk" - that's simply in the nitty-gritty of how these sorts of things work.
And all this "Putin talk" is coming from Western analysts.
Do notice all the drone attacks done by Ukraine, btw. Far earlier Ukraine attacked Dyagilevo and Engels air bases and destroyed TU-22 Backfire and two TU-95 Bear aircraft. So that shows their capability.
Besides, Ammo dumps don't move, they can be only emptied, but that takes time. What is telling that neither side cannot hit moving targets deep inside in the other ones territory. I haven't seen one example of a moving train that has been attacked and destroyed (I may have just missed the occation). Russian aircraft don't dare to venture deep into Ukraine and attack trains and traffic.
You won't hit the broad side of a barn with just '80s INS, but the guidance modules have been updated over time to be able to correlate INS with systems other than GPS, since GPS is basically a relic of the past due to how easily it is jammed.
Ammo dumps are far larger than a side of a barn. Or you mean top of a barn? Besides, as the solid fuel propellants of the missiles go old, old inventories aren't from the 1980's anymore. At least in the US.
We are talking of a 10-50m CEP with ATACMS. Does the job perfectly.
(Just for comparisons: 450m CEP for a SCUD B from the 60's, 4500m CEP for a V2 during WW2.)
With just a tiny, old INS over a 300km trajectory?
Yeah, no.
The whole point is for the GPS and INS to function together to reduce their respective errors.
If we want to avoid WW3, we should probably look into our own role in perpetuating the conflict - for example at the role of the US and the UK in blocking the Istanbul agreement, and Biden's current escalatory actions to make peace impossible when Trump has stated he intends to pursue a deal.
The defeatist attitude that will guarantee a victory for Putin.
Quoting Tzeentch
Hoping that Trump will cut a surrender deal to Putin, just like he did with the Taleban?
Well, it's a possibility, unfortunately
If you're still hoping for a victory you need a dosis of reality.
I'm hoping that Ukraine exists as an independent state now and in the long run.
That won't happen if we stab Ukraine in the back.
The promise upon which the Ukrainians hedged their chances against the Russians was the fact that we would come to their rescue. We did not. We hung them out to dry, drip-feeding them weapons and aid in a way that's ensuring their slow demise.
There is no military path to an independent Ukraine. Ukraine will be completely hollowed out. Whatever is left at the end will not be an independent state in any meaningful sense of the term.
Ukraine's best chance at independence were the Istanbul negotiations.
I agree that the idea of giving Ukraine enough to survive and only that is the cause that makes the prospects of negotiations with Russia now so dire. It simply has been delusional to think that military aid given to Ukraine would mean that Putin would launch WW3. He isn't and the Russian leadership aren't insane and suicidal.
But this is an example where Western politicians have lost the idea of winning on the battlefield, but just to "send messages" with military aid. For them it's a minor issue, one among others. For Putin this war is existential. Once Russia is committed, only the possibility of a total fiasco will force Russia to the negotiation table. But now Putin is totally OK with hundreds of thousands of Russian soldier having been killed or wounded, so ideas that Trump could force him to do anything are whimsical. Hence the only one Trump can pressure is Ukraine.
Quoting Tzeentch
I severely doubt that and besides, a lot has happened after that. Yearning those negotiations that didn't go anywhere is like to yearn for the time of the Oslo Peace Process at the present time in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That moment has passed, it's not turning, things have changed.
Not just for Putin, mind you.
It's quite popular among the mainstream media to repeat the idea that this is 'Putin's war', but it's been known since prior to the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a red line for much if not all of the Russian political establishment.
So yes, the Russians are prepared to go far in order for this war to be settled in their favor. That much should be crystal clear by now.
Quoting ssu
True. Things have gotten gravely worse for Ukraine. There's nothing left of the bargaining position they had in March/April 2022. Frontlines are crumbling, nations are starting to talk about withdrawing support, etc.
That's a direct result of choosing the military path, and continuing on the military path will obviously extend this trend probably all the way to Ukraine's total demise.
In Ukraine's defense, there is another dimension to this.
In March/April 2022, the West told the Ukrainians to cease negotiations - even make them impossible as Zelensky made sure to cement in the Ukrainian constitution - and double down on the military path.
Ukraine likely did this because of promises that were made by the West.
Now Ukraine is likely and understandably bitter about the prospect of negotiations in the face of wavering Western support. We basically made them fight on for two years, for nothing.
That's probably why Ukraine will need serious 'nudging' (aka, threatening to cut off support) to force them to change their stance.
It was about Ukraine's (established) independence, sovereignty, all that, and that the Ukrainians might assert it sooner or later.
"Fortunately" for the Kremlin circle, Ukraine's anticipated NATO aspirations came to the fore, giving them the excuse to cross Ukraine's established red lines (land grabbing).
Well, their (ongoing) destruction, regress, activities, whatever, engendered hate, further distrust, degraded chances of talks, it's how they roll.
Russia chose the military path to increase it's territorial annexations. Denying this and only talking about "NATO Enlargement" as the only cause is pure denial and a huge error, because those what you continue to repeat aren't all the Russian objectives. To gain Ukraine and it's territory is an objective itself and has been absolutely central here. To argue something else is not only wrong, but dangerous.
Russia had gotten it's objective of Ukraine not joining NATO with the 2021-2022 military buildup already, if not earlier. This is totally evident, for example from Angela Merkel's memoirs that she was against NATO enlargement to Ukraine. Yet NATO never could accept a formal veto from an outside party as it would go against it's charter. But a de facto veto was obvious, not only with Hungary opposing, but Germany. And then absolutely everything changed with the large scale attack in 2022.
The Istanbul agreements are direct evidence to the contrary. Ignoring the evidence that is out there in favor of warmongering for total war is what is dangerous, and that's what many in the West are engaged in.
The Russians were willing to settle the war in March/April 2022 without any territorial gains for themselves.
That's a fact. It's confirmed by neutral sources, and even by the Ukrainian negotiators themselves.
On 30 September 2022, Russia unilaterally declared its annexation of areas in and around four Ukrainian oblasts—Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, parts that Russia didn't and does not yet control.
But for you this obviously didn't happen, because is worried just about NATO and at the start of the war had talks that didn't go through. Because you really simply don't listen to what Putin says and what he does. Why the denial? I have never denied that NATO enlargement was one reason, simply said that it wasn't the biggest reason and Ukraine couldn't have avoided this conflict just by not being in NATO... which it doesn't belong to. Even without NATO, Putin likely would have tried to grab parts of Ukraine back to Russia, if not all of it. Putin very clearly shows where his objectives are. Some quotes from that September 30th speech:
And the reasons, coming again back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union:
The objective: Great historical Russia for the next generations:
Simply ludicrous to think that a leader saying all the stuff above is just thinking of NATO expansion and wouldn't have an imperialistic agenda. Seldom if ever has it been as evident as this. It's basically a Russian Reconquista.
But to repeat the line that it's all just about NATO enlargement is the disinformation that works wonders for Putin. If Trump comes with his "peace plan" and opts for there being peace with Ukraine out of NATO and the four oblasts now sacred Russian territory forever, then Putin has indeed has succeeded in the a great reconquista! Worth all those lives lost.
You'd have to be pretty foolish to think that such a move on the part of the West wasn't going to have fundamental consequences for the nature of the war.
You are like someone talking over and over about the Oslo Peace process, contemplating how it's going to be restarted. It cannot restart as Israel has truly changed, we are in a totally different era and the brief period when the conflict could have ended with the Oslo Peace process is over. Permanently.
And anyway, it's extremely likely that Putin simply would have used an agreement reached in Istanbul just for a time to get his military up after the initial failure in getting Blitzkrieg victory. Remember ALL the Minsk agreements? Remember them, @Tzeentch? THEY DIDN'T END THE CONFLICT!
What he has said and done tell it all so clearly. Face reality.
The unfortunate thing for you is that the Russians have told us exactly in word and in deed what they want for over a decade - a neutral Ukraine.
That is the reality.
You're pretending that all of these things that happened in reality should be ignored in favor of lowbrow "us vs. them" narratives, and attempts at mindreading the Kremlin's 'true' intentions.
Quoting Tzeentch
As they exactly did about the lands they wanted to annex from Ukraine, Novorossiya.
I'm not pretending anything. I myself have said many times that Russia was against NATO enlargement. But that enlargement to Ukraine they had already stopped before February 2022. The major reason for the war and the objectives cannot be put more clearly than Putin did in September 30th 2022.
The fact is that you cannot deny what I say, hence you simply won't acknowledge the obvious and stick to this hallucination that conflict would have ended happily in Istanbul. All the various Minsk agreements and of course, the Budapest memorandum, have been simply peaces of papers Russia uses as toilet paper.
You're simply cherry-picking.
The idea that the Russian goals in September 2022 more purely reflect their initial goals than those stated up to and including March/April 2022 has no logical basis whatsoever.
In fact, it's plainly counter-intuitive and pretends that the developments of the war, amongst which a complete rejection of diplomacy by the West, did not significantly impact Russian war goals.
Really? That I say that NATO enlargement was one reason, but so is also all the stuff the Putin has said, acted, put into law about the annexations of Ukrainian territory and Ukraine being an artificial coutry?
And I'm the one cherry picking?
You are hilarious! :rofl:
Quoting Tzeentch
Look, the obvious war goals were arleady there to anybody to see in 2014. Putin annexed Crimea. Annexed territory. Add there all the rhetoric of how artificial Ukraine as a state is and how it should be part of Russia. And all the focus on Novorossiya. It's mindboggling to say this wasn't obvious before 2022.
This map is from 2015:
Those "separatist" were directly controlled by Kremlin. The war aims have been there for anybody to see for years. Your denial about of this simply is laughable.
And oh yes, NATO enlargement was also a reason.
What "single reason for the war" do you believe I am repeating?
Quoting ssu
The idea that Russia's annexation of Crimea was purely territorial/imperial is a completely unconvincing argument to make, and not only do you seem to be doing that, but you're also using that argument to then claim Russia's reason for war in 2022 must be the same.
You can no longer rely on the annexation of the four oblasts, since Russia has already proposed to return them to Ukraine in return for Ukrainian neutrality during the Istanbul negotiations, so now you retreat to an even less convincing argument.
Quoting ssu
Again, that's simply cherry-picking.
You're ignoring a decade of clear signals to the West over a selective interpretation of a single sentence.
Whenever the Russians say things that confirm your preconceived notions of this conflict you attribute great value to them. When they don't, you ignore them.
Quoting Tzeentch
Who again is retreating to an even less convincing argument?
Istanbul negotiations happened in April 2022, when things weren't under control for Russia and the front hadn't been yet stabilized. Then it was perfect stalling tactic for the Kremlin then. Just look at all the Minsk agreements! That now it's a totally different situation doesn't matter to you, because this is the way you can defend Russia. And when those negotiations didn't come through then A HA! Tzeentch finds his Holy Grail: it's all the fault of US and the West, because they pushed Ukraine to continue. Not like the attrocities Bucha mattered. Everything would have been solved then.
Well, let's then look just WHY Istanbul negotiations failed:
(See Fresh evidence suggests that the April 2022 Istanbul peace deal to end the war in Ukraine was stillborn)
And how you cherry pick this story:
This is the only thing important for you... not the story, just something what one Western politician said. That's all you need in your cherry pie along with the vague promises an US president has made for Kyiv about NATO membership (without there being any acceptance from all the member states about this, actually opposition to this). But who cares about the NATO charter.
After all, what has happened after, or what had happened before, what Putin has said about Ukraine, what he has done in Ukraine, what the Ukrainian territory means for Russia, that doesn't matter as the Istanbul negotiations are the only thing that matters here, because everything, absolutely everything is the fault of the West.
This is simply the Kremlin line that feeds on the self-criticism of the West.
I've shared multiple accounts (like 5?) of the Istanbul negotiations, all of which either Ukrainian, Western or neutral, and they all sketch the same ugly picture, so accusing me of cherry-picking doesn't impress.
Quoting Tzeentch
They went ahead with the opposite. Started a war and whatnot. Supplied the Ukrainians (+ others) with more reasons for wanting to join NATO, or whatever sufficiently resourceful defense.
Not just neutral, by the way (has come up before). Besides, if Ukraine was neutral, then they might still kick Russia out of Sevastopol where they've been for a good while, put up a wall to prevent illegal Russian "migrants", look to the EU for trade/cooperation, go their own way.
Adding something like "Russia Shall Not Be Attacked From Ukraine" to Ukraine's constitution is a bit late now, not impossible though.
But, if that's what the Kremlin wants, then peace should be achievable:
Add something to the effect of "No Ukrainian NATO-Membership" and "Russia Shall Not Be Attacked From Ukraine" to the Ukrainian constitution (without any of those special external vetos or backdoors). Ukraine butts out of Kursk. Russia butts out of Ukraine.
Additionally, Ukraine could sign the usual minority protections, due process in the justice system, anti-corruption, some further democratic reforms and humanitarianism (things incidentally part of their path towards the EU, that Russia incidentally isn't currently expected to meet).
Do you think the Kremlin would be on board with that peace proposal? (Lots of resources freed up, too, and I'm guessing a few sanctions would be lifted.)
Some theorizing, FYI, though from memory this stuff has come up in the thread already:
Why Russia Started War in Ukraine (— The Military Show · Sep 7, 2024 · 18m:55s)
Ishiba's 'Asian NATO' dead on arrival as new PM set for diplomatic debut
[sup]— Kathleen Benoza, Jesse Johnson · The Japan Times · Oct 8, 2024[/sup]
Japan: Deciphering Prime Minister Ishiba’s Strategic Vision. Toward an Asian version of NATO?
[sup]— Céline Pajon · Ifri · Oct 10, 2024[/sup]
Japan’s prime minister vows military buildup and deeper ties with the US as regional tension rises
[sup]— Mari Yamaguchi, Mayuko Ono · AP · Nov 9, 2024[/sup]
Little interest.
Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, perhaps others, share some interests, though.
Not much by way of nuclear deterrence, unlike a bunch of neighbors.
Trump is basically implying that he will cave to Putin, whom he constantly expresses admiration for. As said many times, I believe Putin is wholly and solely responsible for the criminal invasion of Ukraine, the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Wholly and solely. It is desperately important that Putin is defeated and seen to be defeated, and that will be an extremely difficult, if not impossible, outcome. But anything less is capitulation to a murderous autocrat.
Then I suggest you start reading from page 1 and report back to me once you've caught up.
European nations denounce Russian hybrid attacks, cable cut probes launched
[sup]— Andrius Sytas, Barbara Erling, Johan Ahlander, et al · Reuters · Nov 19, 2024[/sup]
Russian attacks on undersea cables 'most serious threat' to our infrastructure' - NATO
[sup]— Shona Murray · euronews · Nov 28, 2024 · 12m[/sup]
Lies, fear- and war-mongering? Either way, there are prior examples, not unheard of.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but NATO has been involved in a proxy war against Russia for about three years now. We're launching missiles into Russia. Imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was Russia firing missiles into Europe.
You're looking at the world through star-spangled glasses, that's why 579 pages in you still haven't gotten beyond the surface-level propaganda.
And Trump's stance is basically what you said. Hence Putin can be confident and is confident that Trump will give him a similar lucrative peace deal just as Trump gave to the Taleban. There simply is no way in hell that Trump would put pressure on Putin here. Would he, after all what he has said, then truly ramp up the support of Ukraine to pressure Putin? Would he give US cruise missiles (with conventional warheads) to Ukraine to put more pressure on Putin? Does he really think that selling US oil and gas will put pressure on Putin?
Nope. Americans don't care so much for Ukraine and they'll believe the "forever war that only supports the military industrial comples" argument. The cop out will be marketed as a brilliant achievement and any critique of it will be labelled as outbursts of "Trump Derangement Syndrom". Just look at how little the surrender deal to the Taleban sparked outcry.
What's your deal with getting so personal?
What are you referring to here? The Brussel summit of 2021 reiterated, for the first time in 13 years, that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. It looks like the opposite...
The guarantees that Germany made that Ukraine wouldn't become a member after the military buildup that was "military exercizes". Or just read Angela Merkels memoirs. Or look at the position of Hungary on Ukrainian NATO membership. Ukraine has gotten only this "member in the future" without actual timetable. Just look at the comparison to the two newest NATO members: Before actual membership application Turkey didn't see any problem in Finland joining NATO (Finland asked it before the application), but once the actual application was in, then the bazaar haggling by Erdogan started just as with Sweden. Yet now Hungary is directly opposed to Ukrainian membership even before there is no application process ongoing with Ukraine. That's a huge difference.
And moreover, what about the Brussel summit of 2021? Did it really iterate that? NO! There is NO talk of when Ukraine would join NATO. Here's what the actual communique said about Ukraine:
First of the situation that Ukraine and Georgia and Moldavia are in:
And here, about the relationship between Ukraine and NATO:
This simply is the "Ukraine can be a member in the future" -rhetoric given already ages ago WITH NO TIMETABLE. Just commentary that Ukraine has done good, but has still to do work in "wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law" and also "Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services of Ukraine". And this will be supported. The limbo that Ukraine was continuing in 2021. And seems to continue today.
The fact is that Russia demanded a veto say on any new members to NATO. That goes against the founding charter of NATO. Or should NATO add an article to it's charter "new members have to be accepted by Russia in order to join the organization"? The alarm bells for Finnish leadership went off already back then, because Russia was demanding this. Even in the above communique, NATO states that " We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference." NATO would go against it charter if it would have accepted Russia's demands.
It's like Turkey's bid for EU membership: it's not going to get into the EU (if it still wanted), yet the EU won't admit publicly that Turkey does have no possibility of joining.
, that's not very ambiguous, is it?
You really think a commitment to the very the thing that sparked this whole catastrophe was going to set the Russians at ease in 2021?
How harmless do you believe the Russians viewed this as, considering 'ambiguous' commitments in 2008 led to over a decade of Western involvement in Ukraine, complete with coup d'etat and military training and armament - all of which clearly intended to make Ukraine jump the gun on a Russian intervention and create a fait accompli?
These aren't 'Kremlin lies' - these are common views held among many Western scholars. If you don't want to debate, don't debate, but don't throw this weak nonsense at me.
:rofl:
Yes, you've gone over the few many times over and over again. Jeffrey Sachs, Mearsheimer, the tiny lot.
Quoting Tzeentch
Good debate is to produce a counterargument based on some evidence, a clear way to say just what is wrong or something like that. Which I try to do, but going over and over again things like the Ukrainian revolution isn't worth wile with you as you stick to the obvious anti-American narrative where everything has happened because of the US and Putin simply has responded to such "outright hostility". But seems for you "debate" is like:
Quoting Tzeentch
Do we hear from you what was wrong there? Of course not.
The title alone makes me not take it seriously - trying to claim authority by presenting 'fresh evidence', as though anything is going to top the three corresponding Ukrainian accounts that have been out there for years, and the Western press has done everything in its power to ignore.
Then they mention some details and pretend 'this makes everything different' - how convenient. Plausible deniability achieved, etc., people who have been searching for any excuse to dismiss the clear picture we already had now have a little yarn to spin.
I don't waste my time on such 'journalism'. That's why I dismissed it.
This is the unfortunate follow on of Russia and Iran's other defeats. The relatively stable stalemate in Syria is likely to keep sliding out of control since Assad has long been highly reliant on foreign support and most of the opposition that is left come in the appealing flavors of "out and out radical jihadis" and "Turkish-supported out and out radical jihadis willing to start fights over Kurdish areas most Arab factions have given up on."
Thanks SSU your perspective on geopolitics always seems very sound and well informed to me.
Let’s not forget, however, that while Trump inked the deal with the Taliban that lead to the US withdrawal, it was Biden who had to execute it, which lead to those disastrous scenes and deaths at Kabul Airport and the debacle of the collapse of the Afghan military. This was then used against Biden for the remainder of this term, regardless of the fact that Trump had set the wheels in motion. Which would only be typical of MAGA politics. But that’s the other thread.
I generally refrain from commenting on the Ukraine disaster, but I have an ominous feeling about it. I think it’s too optimistic to hope for Ukraine to turn the tide of war, but it’s desperately important to avoid and outcome that Putin can claim as a victory.
Yes, this is so. The double whammy of two incompetent leaders is what created us scenes where desperate Afghans try to fly jet transports holding on to their landing gear... not understanding that they will die as the cruise speed of the aircraft is 520 mph and it flies at altitudes they won't have oxygen and aren't going to survive the cold either.
The unfortunate issue here is that because Presidents of both parties are culprits for this disaster, it isn't discussed at all. Because it's a bipartisan failure, in the highly partisan discourse it won't surface.
Quoting Wayfarer
It's not so rosy either for Putin and Russia. He is burning through a lot of manpower and war material. It's not like all would be lost for Ukraine.
Why the situation is actually quite bad is very well put in the following video that also goes through what mistakes Trump made with the peace deal with the Taleban and what kind of peace plans there are now. Now we don't know what Trump will, do, yet a quick deal can have dramatic consequences. OF course, as the commentator say, this all is very speculative...
Going for an armstice and freezing the border where it is will be a victory for Putin. And then the conflict can continue as an on/off conflict it was 2014-2022. This will be simply damning and a way for Russia to really wore down Ukraine and NATO countries.
Now Trump has picked Keith Kellogg as the special envoy for Ukraine, who has been working at the America First Institute after retirement. At least this is a general, who isn't at all clueless, but has been a realist all along and just from looking at interviews he has given as a Fox commentator before the invasion and throughout the war. Kellog earlier urged the US to give more arms when Ukraine had the initiative and well predicted that the US isn't giving enough for Ukraine to win and that Russia will go on the defensive (which proved to be correct at that time).
On the America First Institute (think tank), Kellog himself gives a well thought paper on how he see the situation here: America First, Russia, & Ukraine
Some quotes from that paper that Kellog (and the think tank) state,
Here you can see that Kellogg is fully aware of the reason why Putin attacked Ukraine and is fully aware (unlike the pro-Kremlin apologists. Mearsheimer, Sachs) of the reasons why this isn't only about NATO enlargement.
Then a bit of alternative history, "what if" things had been done differently:
Some notable points. Kellogg understands that NATO membership wasn't happening, and lethal military aid should have been jumped up before the invasion. Only that is deterrence. Yet this is only a hypothetical scenario and if Putin would have been stopped from invading Ukraine is uncertain as his actions fully show that this isn't just about NATO or what the US does, but Ukraine itself.
As this is very long, here's Kellogg's actual peace plan, or what the objective of it should be:
That seems calming as at least this is realistic, but then again, Kellogg is just an envoy and can be replaced. The notable issue here is if Ukraine really would be negotiating from a position of strength. Would Trump be ready to make a bilateral defense agreement on Ukraine to deter Russia? That Russia wouldn't just lick it's wounds, produce more tanks and ammo, have some new generations hit conscription age and continue the fight afterwards? Or will the peace deal be a Dolchstoss for Ukraine that Zalmay Khalilzad negotiated for Trump in Doha 2020.
This is the real question here.
? Russo-Ukrainian War (2014-2022-)
? "On conducting a special military operation" (2022)
? Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
? Atrocity crimes during the Russo-Ukrainian War
? Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (2014) (Kharkiv Pact ditched)
? Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts (2022)
? Russification of Ukraine » Modern-day Ukraine
? Larger Wheat Harvest in Ukraine Than Expected (— NASA · Dec 4, 2022) ? Exclusive: Crimea showers Syria with wheat, Ukraine cries foul (— Reuters · Dec 19, 2022)
• What the Ukrainians wanted (or want): 2013-4, 2014, 2014-
• What has come out of the UN: 68/262, 2623, 11th session, ES-11/1, ES-11/2, ES-11/3, ES-11/4, ES-11/5, 77/229, ES-11/6
Elsewhere:
? Kabelmysteriene (The cable mysteries) (— NRK · Jun 26, 2022)
? Hybrid CoE Paper 18: The Arctic after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: The increased risk of conflict and hybrid threats (— Hybrid CoE · May 10, 2023)
? Unprecedented GPS jamming attack affects 1600 aircraft over Europe (— New Scientist · Mar 29, 2024)
? GPS jamming traced to Russia after flights over Europe suspended (— New Scientist · May 1, 2024)
? Innovation: Recent GPS jamming in regions of geopolitical conflict (— GPS World · May 24, 2024)
? Newest NATO Member Sweden Says Russia Disrupting Its Satellite Networks (— Bloomberg · Jun 20, 2024)
? Nordic satellites targeted by Russia after Sweden’s NATO accession (— Telecoms Tech News · Jun 21, 2024)
? European nations denounce Russian hybrid attacks, cable cut probes launched (— Reuters · Nov 19, 2024)
? Russian attacks on undersea cables 'most serious threat' to our infrastructure' - NATO (— euronews · Nov 28, 2024 · 12m)
Squaring it so narrowly is off.
Besides, you've been given sufficient evidence + arguments that repeating your lines as if you hadn't seems disingenuous.
Also, just linking articles is not something that holds any value in today's information environment. The internet is flooded with propaganda and nonsense.
I could find hundreds of articles about why the earth is supposedly flat if I wanted to. You'll simply dismiss them, as will I with yours.
You replied to my post stating that NATO has been involved in a proxy war in Ukraine for three years.
Do you dispute this?
Potentially, yes. Trump thinks about things very transactionally. He wants to "win" any deal.
But Putin is sort of stuck with maximalist aims, which is why Russians are forced to do things like carry out frontal assaults in civilian cars and golf cart style ATVs. What is Putin going to do, declare "victory" while leaving the "Nazi regime" in power in Kyiv with explicit US security guarantees that are for all intents and purposes going to have the same effect as being in NATO, while having triggered NATO expansion to the north and having his war result in 700,000+ killed or wounded and the destruction of most of Russia's military hardware and major economic issues, all to annex some areas in the Donbas (not even the whole Donbas), which Russia already defacto controlled in 2022, plus Mariupol and some sparsely populated areas in the south?
This was what was worth all the deaths, Europe abandoning Russian energy exports, spending through their reserves, and a coup that saw Putin fleeing the capital and warning the nation about civil war on TV? And this will happen in the context of Assad's forces routing in Syria and a protest movement that looks a lot like Euromaidan sweeping Georgia and all the post Soviet states seemingly abandoning Russia for the West or China.
I can certainly see Putin being forced to overreach and this triggering a stronger response.
So, did you think that those ? items were to be expected? (By the way, has the Kremlin somehow managed to purge NATO from their vicinity? No? But they have accomplished something.)
As mentioned sometime, continuing to bring up "NATO is in a proxy war with Russia", is about as helpful/useful as saying "North Korea and Iran are in a proxy war with Ukraine", hence it's brought up out of bias, potentially questionable preconception, whatever, maybe an agenda.
Exclusive› Medvedev on NATO ‘direct war’ with Russia and escalation risks amid Ukraine conflict
[sup]— Dmitry Medvedev (interview) · AlArabiya News · Nov 27, 2024 · 20m:10s[/sup]
Notice the (silovik style) talking points, propaganda lines, incidentally having made their way to certain others (thoroughly).
Quoting Richard Dearlove (interview) · Sky News · Nov 27, 2024 · 1m:4s
Either way, that sure is what the Kremlin circle wants others to hear (perhaps domestically in particular), something like "Russia is at war with NATO, the US, the West", which is just nonsense.
Quoting Mark Galeotti (via Andy Gregory) · The Independent · Dec 1, 2024
No particular prospect of Ukrainian NATO membership according to Galeotti. Others have come to similar conclusions.
And all deals simply don't go through. "Winning" any deal might not be a win.
Why I think this is important is that usually all US Presidents attempt a domestic agenda, don't get much of it done and finally the only playing field for them is the Foreign policy arena.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Would in the end the US do this? That's the real question. I'm all for Trump if would seek a position of strength for Ukraine, but is it really this. Where US has really commitment is supporting Israel. That's where I see a real bipartisan commitment, which isn't fluttering in the Wind. Ukraine hasn't that. In 2016 Trump did give a damn on Ukraine. Anyway, I fear that in the US many politicians see Ukraine simply as a "problem". Like Iraq, Afghanistan, South Vietnam etc. While Putin can indeed declare a victory. After all, according to him, Russia has fought NATO all along, hence Russia can say it has defeated the might of the West and prevailed.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes, the idea of Russia that has regained it's territory, Russia re-emerging from it's latest "Time of Troubles" is indeed worth that. It's irrelevant that Crimea and the Donbas are basically more of a dead weight and a burden than new resources that would or could vitalize the country. It's irrelevant that the important economic ties to Europe are cut. Putin doesn't care a shit about economics. He has re-iterated even today what a disaster the collapse of the Soviet Union was and this is his attempt to restore it. Politicians do start wars because of ideas.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Russia could lose as it did lose the Russo-Japanese War or the Soviet-Polish war. A war lost would likely change Russian politics and lead to internal reforms. Yet if the West repeats to itself again and again that "the Ukraine war is unwinnable", then Putin will win and Russia won't stop at Ukraine.
Quoting jorndoe
Except that in the case of North Korea it isn't in a proxy war. When you commit your own armed forces into a war, you are directly a combatant, whatever you say about denying the whole issue or declare them being "volunteers" etc.
* * *
What is happening in Georgia now will be telling. After several proxy conflicts, an open war and annexations, will Georgia bow down and accept it's place under Russia sphere of influence? Another example that this isn't just about Ukraine.
On the topic of first-hand accounts: I have shared them. You, presumably, haven't even bothered to look at them.
I'd be pretty surprised if he supports Ukraine in any way. Why would he?
That's the worry. That he will do the same thing for Ukrainian that he did to the Republic of Afghanista, a surrender deal and hence assist the Russians as he did the Taleban.
People are worried about this, just like NATO's secretary general.
But why should Trump listen to people like Rutte, when he has his friend Putin. Who btw shows his prowess as an intel guy in how he talks to Trump:
What does he mean by that? That Ukraine is the only thing stopping a giant BRIC takeover? That seems a little crazy.
This Trump-Biden cop out made Putin to think you wouldn't react much if he attempted a takeover Ukraine (as his intel painted a very rose picture of easy this would be). Hence if you push for a similar "peace" that is very unfavorable for Ukraine, just like you did with North Vietnam and the Taleban (without caring much about South Vietnam or Afghanistan), then you embolden Russia, China and North Korea.
Hope you understand the logic.
Yes, but I thought Afghanistan was invaded on a quest to find Osama Bin Ladin. In the meantime, Afghanistan became a massive heroin producer, with much of that ending up on the streets of small towns in the US. It's been truly devastating, which I see firsthand because I work in healthcare. It's hard for me to see how the US screwing around in Afghanistan is a good thing for anyone anywhere.
Quoting ssu
Obama didn't react much to previous Putin maneuvers. I think that's because 1) it's not really in American interests to protect countries near Russia, and 2) the US is in decline, with a giant debt that will never be paid and concerns over how it's going to keep paying social security.
Quoting ssu
What do you think Russia, China, and North Korea are going to do?
Indeed the American response was totally different as in the first Twin Tower bombings, but you did it. As the saying goes, once you break it, you own it. But I guess now the idea is to break it, then get bored and simply walk away.
Do you think that there was nothing good was in having a Republic of Afghanistan? Do you think that it's bad that girls and women would be educated? Have you ever talked with an Afghan on how they see the rule of Taleban? I have, had a long discussion. The Afghan hated the Taleban. He was an older guy, so remembered fondly the 1970's the times before the Saur revolution. But I guess that many Afghans would have preferred democracy (of some sort) and not a theocracy is irrelevant here.
Quoting frank
Really?
That doesn't sound well to a Finn, or a Swede. What is so bad with something like NATO? Not only is it a successful defense pact against Russian imperialism, but it has pacified countries inside Europe. It is far more stronger than Putin's autocratic Russia. What is so wrong with that? It's an international alliance that has as it's members states that have desired to be part of the alliance. What on Earth is wrong with that? Why do need now to bow to a bloody tyrant in Russia?
Quoting frank
Why embrace decline? Is cultural pessimism so trendy?
If Americans themselves don't believe in their country, who will? How will that help you not believing in your country? Remember, if you hate your country and see as many Trumpist your own institutions as the enemy, then you will be talking the Russian disinformation lines and hence the Kremlin is so victorious.
Quoting frank
Ask first, what will you do?
If you walk away, then you will just leave Russia and China here. North Korean troops are already fighting in Europe. Chinese vessels are already cutting internet cables in the Baltic Sea connecting my country to Central Europe. The Chinese are already helping their Russian allies with the hybrid attacks. It's a constant barrage of little sabotage that didn't happen earlier. Hence the cable cutting is no accident. You don't have freak accidents happening at this pace. And you can see the "Finlandization" here at the present: nobody is saying anything against China, even if it ships have been very active.
So please understand, that this anti-US alliance is already in Europe and already engaged in hybrid warfare against the US and it's allies. And if you let Russia have Ukraine, that will only embolden this alliance to go further. You do understand that Russian leadership views the US as an enemy, but will surely use every "useful idiot" they can find.
Self-criticism in Western thinking is good if you want to improve something, if you desire to better yourself. Yet in order to do that, you have to have a positive idea of yourself. Because self-criticism also leads to depression and apathy, where you don't see anything good in yourself. And here Russian disinformation is giving a toxic narrative for people to believe: that Western Culture is dying because of liberal democracy and somehow Russia is this last champion of Western ideals. That because of US actions there's war in Ukraine. Because US actions neo nazis rule Ukraine. And that the solution to the cancer of liberal democracy is strong leaders, like Vladimir Putin.
If we had a global government, that would be an issue that could be raised.
Quoting ssu
Redirect funds from social programs to defense? Although directing funds to building a fusion power plant would be better in the long run. How bad would it be if Russia took over Finland and Sweden? What would change for regular people?
In the case of Afghanistan, it was raised. You don't need a global government to do this.
That women were educated, could go to work was one of things that people were proud about in the Afghan Republic. And the women's demonstrations against the Taleban did happen, which tells what many Afghans think about Theocracy. Just like the youth in Iran.
(from years ago after the Western withdrawal from Afghanistan)
Quoting frank
I'll repeat. What is so wrong with having an alliance? Several countries together are stronger than one alone. And the EU is actually giving in total more money to Ukraine than the US.
Besides, the Swedes did have nuclear weapons for a while. The problem was that only in the 1970's did they produce a fighter that was capable of carrying the free fall bomb. But what really stops Putin is a force that he simply cannot win.
The US isn't a dependable partner for the EU.
Trump might not be a dependable partner, we'll see. There's still those Americans that actually believe in a healthy way in their country and it's role in the World. The self-hatred hasn't become endemic.
You might think the US is over, that's it's time is finished. But hold on, there's nobody replacing them. So the end might not be just around the corner. China and Russia are facing big problems themselves.
I don't hate the US. There's something beautiful about its ambitions, its values, and its tendency to fall ass backwards into incredibly good luck. I've spent a lot of time immersed in history, and its had the effect of making the present moment seem fleeting. I can see how the US sizes up compared to the biggies of history. The US is just the tail end of the British Empire, which invented global trade for our world. I see flames in the future, and maybe a split in our species between technology-loving and technology-hating. That's where my head is. But I hope the best for Europe.
That's a really neat way to look at it. Well, global trade had been around for a long time. Some might argue that it really went off when the Ottomans basically cut the ties of Europe to the Far East and the Silk Road didn't work as earlier. Thus the Portuguese and the Spanish went looking for maritime trade roots and found them (plus another continent in addition). The last transformation happened when countries like China and India changed the economic policies from the ruinous socialism to capitalism in their own way (as still the Chinese think their system is Marxism).
Quoting frank
The luddites broke machines in the 19th Century, so even that isn't anything new. Yet the dramatic change of people who work on the fields in the countryside and now are in cities didn't happen with huge swarms of unemployed farmers and farm workers roaming the countryside.
There has been always flames somewhere. I'm not so sure it's really the time to say "Après moi, le déluge".
Climate change
Do you think that a declining Global population will still mean perpetual growth?
People tend to take the alarmist attitude to alarm people, as if they wouldn't be alarmed if you say: "You know, this issue will suck in the future"
I think the species will survive, but I assume maximum CO2 emissions, so all the coal in the world being burned over the next couple of centuries. That will produce a large scale spike in temperature that will last about a few thousand years, and then the temperature will start coming back down. It's the dramatic swings that will likely take out the present global order. As it sets in, I would expect humans to start trying to preserve our knowledge base for the people of future.
Quoting ssu
I think survival will be a challenge for the next 5-10 thousand years.
Quoting ssu
There's a good side and a bad side to everything. You keep interpreting me as pessimistic or full of self loathing. Neither is true.
I'm not making any ad hominem remarks. But coming back to the topic of the thread, one has to understand that Anti-Americanism typically leads to a distorted view that supports the disinformation of a totalitarian state.
We don't have to pick sides, I think it's totally logical for example be against Israel's actions in Gaza and Russia's actions in Ukraine. Yet the Anti-American typically goes with the thinking of my enemy's enemy is my friend. In fact one commentator in this thread (perhaps unintentionally) told the reason why the strange bias: he didn't want the US to be looked at as a knight in shining armor. Whatever other faults we might have, those faults don't make supporting a country that is attacked unjustified. It's not the victims fault that the aggressor in this case disrespects the agreements it has made earlier and has imperialist motives to annex other states.
Quoting ssu
No idea if this latest jab was aimed at me, but is this some kindergarten-level attempt at misrepresenting other people's opinions while trying to save yourself from a rebuke?
Grow up.
This entire thread can be renamed to Pro-American / Anti-American illusions.
Because the majority of sub-topics and arguments in here are generally only about that and nothing else. The biggest problem in this thread is that people project their emotional and political ideologies in the form of fallacious arguments about Ukraine, rather than out of facts or rational reasoning. So instead of being about the war, about Russian aggression and the ripple effects into world politics, for the most part it's mostly just anti-American evangelists coming into conflict with people trying to make arguments that the anti-Americans fallaciously argue is pro-American.
It's a thread riddled with reductionist, overgeneralization, genetic, and false cause fallacies.
Most of the back and forth between people in this thread has been extremely low quality and it's just running on empty these days.
At least one of the people who said that was Isaac in an exchange with me. An otherwise normal person becomes unhinged when the topic is the USA. Weird.
Yes, I think it was him, thanks for reminding it. Nice that others too follow what fellow members write here! And I think it was really a honest reply. People do get unhinged when the topic is the US, especially it's foreign policy. Israel and Palestinian conflict is another example, which also is understandable when you think of it.
In US foreign policy, just as with all Great Powers, you find such differences that it's hard to assume that you are talking about the same nation. Compare US foreign policy and influence on let's say the UK or Sweden, and then to Panama or Guatemala. This is evident when we think about just how NATO did enlarge itself and what soul searching mission it went to before coming back to it's roots. Here the crucial actors were the Eastern European states themselves and finally, neutral nations like Sweden and Finland and their people clearly responding to Russian actions. How unique NATO (and the EU) are can be seen when you compare it to the short history of it's fellow treaty organizations, CENTO and SEATO. The main reason why these sister organizations failed was because the member states didn't share common objectives or common threats. The threat environment of Pakistan and the Philippines is totally different, as different as the geographical location of the two states.
Yes. I think this will haunt Israel forever. It was a terrible mistake.
What is happening now, yes.
It's telling that when the ICJ issued the arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and Gallant, the Hamas leader also issued that arrest warrant has now already been killed by Israel.
It is a story extremely successful military/terrorist operation launched by Hamas, which created a horrific event that first shocked the Israeli people and then made them cry for revenge, and of a government that was willing to milk this feeling for all it's worth as an opportunity to solve the Palestinian problem once and for all, something that never has been dared to be done earlier. The criticism of Israel has emerged from the understanding that it indeed was a Western democracy, hence not to be judged similarly as the undemocratic autocracies that surround it.
And to put these threads together: What is happening in Ukraine, in Israel and the successful march of populist authoritarianism can taken together be made into a picture of us losing the values that West did achieve in the 20th Century. A picture where liberal democracy is really under attack as it was in the 1930's. There might be too much gloom and doom in this picture, but only the future will tell us if it's correct or not.
Yet the silence in the Israel-Palestine conflict thread, Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, is to me, a bit discomforting. In the last month only me, @BitconnectCarlos and @Benkei have written to that thread. Yet a lot has happened in the Middle East.
And yes, I understand why this thread is put into the "lounge". Yes, this is a philosophy forum. Yes, @Christoffer is right about what the "Ukraine Crises" has become. But if this is a Philosophy forum and we are the people who love wisdom and have a passionate pursuit of inner understanding about the relationship between one's true self and one's world, what does it mean when we don't want to comment the obvious tragedies that are happening around us?
You haven't once mentioned the hostages. It's like they're invisible to you.
It's also, in a way, been overshadowed by events in Syria. But when it's Arabs killing Arabs there will never be any mass protests or ICC arrest warrants.
All the Israeli victims deserve to be remembered and their suffering recognized.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Quite a strawman argument. The hostages, just as killing of civilian families, is evident, as I referred to Al Aqsa Flood having been a military-terrorist operation. The killing of as many people and the capture of hostages was obviously the objective of the operation. Just as is the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure the objective of the Russian forces. It was an intended warcrime.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Let's put things into some context, the Syrian war has gone on for some time, about half a million have been killed. But as I said, nobody has claimed that the Assad-family run state has ever been a democracy. It's been a totalitarian state at least from the 1980's. Why no ICC arrest for Assad. The ICC has asked to do this, but Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, meaning that it has not been possible to bring an international criminal case against its government.
Now it indeed might happen that the Assad regime falters. Hopefully the end state isn't then a totally failed state like Somalia or Libya.
I agree. My point is that the hostages are part of the justification of Israeli military response in Gaza making it about more than just "revenge" for 10/7. Hostage recovery is a goal. BTW the Gaza population has increased by ~2% since 10/7 last year.
Quoting ssu
Good to know. There should still be some other body that could do it.
Ripple effects related to Ukraine and the Middle East (Israel).
Russia apparently also needs North Koreans, maybe for Kursk in particular.
Might China take advantage of a weaker Russia? (Vladivostok/??? came to mind.)
> Ripple effects related to Ukraine and the Middle East (Israel).
Some more signs that the US and Israel are doomed, as some self-entitled nobodies claim here, or more signs that it's not only the US that is overstretching, but also Russia and Iran?
Or simply once when the insurgents clearly showed sings that they wouldn't be genocidal lunatics as ISIS was in wanting to create an international Caliphate, then those soldiers fighting for the dictatorship of the Assad family simply laid down their arms and took off their uniforms. Because the obvious reason why Alawites and Christians etc. would support the Assad regime was for the fear what the Sunni majority, lead by violent Sunni extremists, would do to them. That was the way the Assad family ruled. If there were no Syrians willing to fight for Assad, doesn't matter how much support Russia or Iran would give to them. The will to fight was lost.
A bit different situation in Ukraine.
I doubt that. It's been reported that the Syrian rebels are replete of all sorts of jihadists (including ex-Isis and ex Al-Qaeda) which in principle are averse to other religious minorities, so Christians and Alawites don't look to me safer than under Assad's rule just because the rebels look now more moderate than Isis (not even sure that the Syrian army are overwhelmingly composed by Alawites whose moral might be determinant in defending Assad's regime). On the other side the contribution of the Russian aviation (mainly) and philo-Iranian militias on the ground is/was critical to Assad. This support seems to have vanished now. Turkey may have lots to gain from supporting the rebels at the expense of the
Iranian and Russian influence in that region. Lybia is another potential target to further strengthen the Turkish influence in that area at the expense of the Russians.
Firstly,
1) They showed cooperation. That's a big issue.
2) At least what I've noticed, there hasn't been atrocities against minorities done in the liberated cities.
3) At least the leadership clearly is speaking the correct terms in a way that he's at least had thought what the future would be. Worth to watch, look at the surprising CNN interview of HTS leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani:
There's an obvious difference in the message that Al Qaeda and ISIS are saying...
What they say doesn't matter so much as what they do. In fact in Joe Biden's answer it's clear that the US is also waiting what will happen. Is there a hand over of power? Is there a coalition formed? Do the groups refrain from fighting each other now? Are there elections?
In fact, one of the more positive tweets from Trump on the issue:
Of course Tartus naval base (now empty) was very important for Russia, but if Trump does stay away, likely better.
Now, of course everything can go to hell in a hand basket. In the end they can go the way like Libya or Sudan, but then again, it doesn't have to be so bad. Sometimes it's good to be a bit of an optimist.
(and btw there's a thread for Syria... this is the Ukraine thread)
Perfect place for Assad, there with Putin. So nice that the Russian officials accepted the ex-dictator for "humanitarian reasons". :vomit:
Also Talibans when they came back in power talked about peaceful relations with other countries , women's permissions to work and study "within the framework of Islam", granted a general amnesty, etc. My impression is that the Syrian rebels' leader is trying to reassure neighbouring countries and the West about threats of instability (civil wars and its spill overs), or about the resurgence of Islamist ambitions, while advertising their anti-Iranian stance. But it's too soon to judge. The relevant point to me wrt this thread is that those signs are in a direction more averse to the Iranian and Russian hegemonic ambitions in the region.
Quoting ssu
There are links between all these conflicts and therefore it's myopic to understand them in isolation from their wider historical circumstances.
Indeed they did. And indeed they also showed very quickly there own side. But in Afghanistan, there was just one actor that took power. Also, notice how any military opposition to the Taleban fizzled out in a few days. The sheer number of actors, of foreign forces now in the country (including IDF that just enlarged it's zone from the Golan Heights) makes this all very difficult.
At least for now, there are some promising signs, for example how HTS has dealt with religious minorities in the places they have controlled. The interview with the bishop of Aleppo is telling.
It was the Assad regime that basically had the narrative that they are protecting the minority from the Jihadists. And even if HTS will keep to it's promise of not being a monster like Al Qaeda or ISIS, it may be that women will feel the sharia law quite quickly. Even if now they seem to celebrate the passing of Assad regime. Still, let's not forget that the vast majority of all the deaths in this Civil War have been perpetrated by the Assad regime.
Best thing would be: If there's no news from Syria. That's usually a sign that things actually would be positive. Time will tell.
So better leave these "no sound arguments" unchallenged in a Philosophy Forum? Not everyone is a troll and I think trolls do get banned rather quickly.
Especially during the incoming Trump era, this engagement is necessary. The debate can get even more crazy and people will usually just stay in their camps. Yet not everything is disinformation and not everybody is a troll. I remember this during the War on Terror -era. Many came to the forum to defend Bush, and they were sincere in their views. Open discussion about were there actually WMD program in Iraq was useful. I find it good that you then pointed out the errors and didn't go with the crowd. And so it will be now.
Perfect example is the "NATO made Putin to do it"-argument that is typically rationalized by John Mearsheimer's views. Our current President Alexander Stubb, far before he was asked to be a candidate for the Presidency (which he won) was working as a professor in Italy and engaged in John Mearsheimers idea in a good academic way. This is interesting as now this man is in charge of Finnish foreign policy and hence wouldn't speak so openly or discuss Mearsheimer:
This kind of response is beneficial and informational. Stubb doesn't make ad hominem attacks on Mearsheimer. Yet it's important to discuss issues like this. Just last week, A popular Youtuber Johnny Harris put out a video seeking to tell "the other side"-view of the war in Ukraine and hence reurgitating the "NATO made Putin to do it" argument with interviews of a Pro-Russian academic. The video got such a devastating response that in one day he put it down and happily acknowledged his mistakes (see here).
There is the argument that one should not engage in disinformation, that engagement only then promotes the false idea. Perhaps with nonsense like Flat-Earth argument this works, but when people on this forum really think that there's something to it, it's not just disinformation, then the engagement is worth it. Especially Israel is an issue that is close to heart to many people, just as the Palestinian question is to others.
(moved this to the Ukraine thread - seems that threads are getting a bit mixed!)
Objectively, there definitely is an argument to be made from a Russian security perspective that having a large military alliance on your doorstep has clear ramifications with respect to their military capabilities vis-a-vis your own country. The argument NATO is purely defensive is merely theoretical as Kosovo and Libya have shown but even the treaty changes with respect to, for instance, space warfare. It's not merely benign. But even granting what is defensive today, we do not know what it is tomorrow. So this worry of Russia, from a real politik perspective is entirely logical.
Some of the responses to Harris' video reflect a moral view of international relations, which simply doesn't mean much in a world where international relations are preponderantly governed by real politk considerations. Does Russia have a right to empire? No, but then no country does. Yet there were empires and there are empires; through military, economic or even cultural influence. Russia has the de facto power to project power in the near abroad as do other large powers (notably the US and China). And yes, that makes certain countries a lot less relevant to the point where they have little agency left. After all, nobody gives a shit about the strategic relevance of the Netherlands for a reason! That has nothing to do with ignoring agency of Eastern European countries, which is a moral cliam they should have freedom to chose, but simply that stark political realities say otherwise.
The problem with the moral argument is also that it only works if you adhere to moral principles yourself; otherwise it's just another real politik tool "Do as I say (but don't do as I do)". And while I agree Eastern European countries have the moral high ground; they are simply not the most relevant players between the proxy wars. There's no fundamental difference between the regional influence the US has (tried to) build through wars in various regions. The Russians simply are more ruthless. And it works - the EU is afraid to escalate - and opinions differ on how justified that fear is.
I think you pointed out we armed allies during the cold war and it never led to escalation (except for the Cuban Missile Crisis I guess?). I think that's a good point and in my view, NATO did drop the ball, could've delayed a conflict by clearly distancing itself from a Ukraine NATO-membership or more clearly committing to the defence of Ukraine to make it more costly. The wishy-washy approach was inviting Russia to invade now before security assurances for Ukraine became more solid. Boots on the ground was the moral play with respect to the Ukrainian people once they (Russia and NATO) fucked up the diplomacy.
Well, I do.
The criticism is the one-sidedness of Mearsheimer's theory. He doesn't, and he has admitted himself, look at the situation from the Russian domestic political viewpoint. This is the theoretical flaw here. Domestic politics is absolutely essentially in every country: it drives foreign policy in every country. Then there is the idea that this, starting a huge conventional invasion, was a rational decision by Putin to thwart NATO enlargement. Yet the action lead to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the NATO countries increase their spending and NATO getting back to the role that it had during the Cold War. It doesn't make any sense. Especially when just having large scale exercises would have made Ukrainian NATO membership as impossible as EU membership of Turkiye. (But as NATO follows it's charter, it could never say this out loud.) Hence the war cannot be explained only by NATO enlargement, which is now done by those willing to go with Putin's line. And that "only" changes a lot in the actual picture. Yet it make sense if Putin wanted Ukraine irrelevant of NATO.
Quoting Benkei
Yet it doesn't reflect accurately EVERYTHING. Yes, Putin says that he is in a war with NATO. So basically he is saying that Russia is also in war with your country, Benkei, and with my country. And I've been the first one here to remind even before the annexation of Crimea, the in the official military doctrine of Russia the first threat was NATO enlargement, when international terrorism (read Al Qaeda) was threat number 14 or so. Yet if you just repeat the Mearsheimer line, the logical system would be not to enlarge NATO or even get rid of NATO. But that wouldn't stop Russia! In fact that would simply make them be even more aggressive. If you think that's just a hypothetical, that also Russia could be totally passive and nice neighbor, that isn't the case when people like Putin run the country. You simply have to listen to what they really say, not just look at the US and the West and think that everything that other people do is just a response to your own actions. It isn't that way. That's the whole point here.
Quoting Benkei
Hold on,
You are missing the biggest one, Afghanistan. Article 5 was actually used in the assistance to the US after 9/11. But this is actually the [i]new NATO as intended[/b], and these were the kinds of operations that NATO intended to do BECAUSE there was no Russian threat. The territorial defense -idea of the Cold War was something antiquated and thrown to the dustbin! Best example of this was that there were no exercises in the Baltic States when the Baltic States got into NATO, not even operational plans to defend them, as that was too aggressive for the new NATO. Because Russia wasn't a threat. Hence when Trump says that NATO is antiquated and respond to new threats, he's repeating the OLD line of post-Cold War NATO.
Quoting Benkei
Russia [i]is an empire[/I].
It acts like an empire and does what it does because it is one. It is inherently imperialistic, irrelevant of NATO enlargement or not. It's not a nation state. The idea of nation state is a threat to it. If part like Poland, Finland and the Baltic States flew out of it, how about the Checnya or Tatarstan? Are they Russia? What would be actual Russia? St Petersburgh and Moscow and surrounding areas? This is the fear that Putin bases his power grab on. You cannot have democracy while that could lead to parts of even the present Russia opting for secession.
Could it be democratic and not totalitarian? Austro-Hungary wasn't a totalitarian, but to be an Empire with truly a multicultural population is difficult.
Quoting Benkei
Really? I beg to disagree. You are in the heart of Europe. You have the largest port in Europe, which also is the largest one outside Asia. Paris is just 280 km from your border. You are next to the Ruhr region of Germany. An ordinary artillery missile fired from the Netherlands can hit London (just like V2 rockets did in WW2 that were first launched to London from the Hague). You have a lot of strategic relevance!!! It just isn't contested, but you are one of those central countries to any Western alliance.
Quoting Benkei
Why oppose having morality in international relations? Aren't there morals that we all should adhere to? Or is everything just realpolitik, shit just happens? Well, what Israel is doing in Gaza is realpolitik too, so why do you anything to complain about that? Or is it that we pick what is realpolitik and what is morally wrong just because of our own likings? I think that's close to the argument that @BitconnectCarlos hurls at others on a constant basis.
I think countries should aspire to have sound moral foreign policies. It's a fairly decent objective and in the confines of even larger countries and a possibility to reach at least with functioning democracies. Will they reach that objective? Not always, but still it's an effort that ought to be made.
Quoting Benkei
Again I have to disagree with you.
The defense that Ukrainians have put up against Russia is the most relevant issue here and the Ukrainians are more relevant here than the aid the West has given. It is very telling here that NOBODY actually believed in Ukraine...except the Ukrainians. What I read was that Ukraine could possibly make a good insurgency battle against the Russian tide, but not stop it in it's tracks in an conventional war. That the US offered Zelensky to flee from Ukraine is very telling how "the most relevant player" thought things would go. Because these European countries don't matter. We Finns know this line. Should we too have been so reasonable as the Baltic States were in 1939? Or behave like Denmark in 1940, put up a discreet but not costly defense of six hours before surrender? After all, Ukrainians could have opted for the stance that the Czechs did in 1968: go to protest against the Russian tanks in the streets of their Capital, but otherwise lay down their arms. And then we would have been like, "Oh, too bad! But what could they have done against the Russian juggernaut?".
This is not a theoretical flaw, it is a prediction of the theory that domestic politics has little effect on great power politics and there's both theoretical and empirical justification for it, for example that US foreign policy remains extremely consistent throughout wildly different administrations.
Quoting ssu
This is a wildly inaccurate statement.
Quoting ssu
It makes perfect sense if enlargement into Sweden and Finland is viewed as less dangerous than enlargement into Ukraine.
Finland joining NATO is not some sort of "gotcha" but you'd need to actually demonstrate why Finland in NATO is far more threatening to Russian interests than Ukraine in NATO.
Quoting ssu
What's this statement based on?
Quoting ssu
This is such a strange line of argument to assert that what people explicitly say, such as "Ukraine will join NATO" should be ignored in favour of what "they actually mean" if you listen to internet analysts or "what is actually possible" if you read the fine print as interpreted by internet analysts.
Quoting ssu
NATO enlargement is I think best viewed as the "ultimate cause" of the war, a possibility so bad from Russian elite perspective that Russian elites are essentially united in their willingness to fight a way to prevent it happening, and there is a bunch of proximate causes, such as there already being a war in the Donbas regularly killing ethnic Russians that ethnic Russians in Russia want and expect something to be done about it. But the Donbas war itself is explained as an attempt to keep Ukraine from joining NATO, so if the argument that Ukraine would never join NATO because there's already border dispute designed to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO ... then the argument is basically it was irrational for Russia to expand the war that was rational for Russia to start in the first place, which is pretty tenuous view of rationality, but to address the substance the problem with keeping a war going to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO is that it's not sustainable (just as Ukraine has encountered the attrition problems of fighting a much larger power even in the context of substantial support from outside powers, so too the Donbas militias had the exact same problem, and the solution is the same of the larger supporting power directly intervening).
Added to these two main causes, there's then a long list of other co-factors and triggers. There's for example a long list of escalations of tensions by the US generally speaking from simply more anti-Russian propaganda to withdrawing from the INF and ABM treaties, "clashing" or whatever you want to call it in Syria, and the main trigger for the war I would argue is the obstruction of licensing the Nord Stream II pipeline, which is when things came to a breaking point in terms of any further dialoguee.
Quoting ssu
But isn't the whole argument that the war is irrational for Russia premised on Russia being weak and the war therefore too damaging? How does that square with symultaniously presenting Russia as this unstoppable force that would roll over all of Eastern Europe, and maybe even Western Europe, if not for NATO and also stopping this unstoppable Russian army with the unmovable might of NATO in Ukraine?
Even more problematic for a philosophy forum, in defending the idea that NATO in Ukraine is not a threat to Russia your methodology is that nothing anyone explicitly says matter, but then when it comes to Russia threatening Europe you beseech us to take every little word as seriously as possible and also "know what they mean" even if they didn't say anything.
For, you will not actually find any of this threatening language before NATO escalated with Russia in pushing into Ukraine ... for apparently zero reason if it is true they would never "actually do it" ... so you're whole argument basically boils down to "Russia is irrational for not realizing NATO is in fact the irrational party pretending to do things they will never actually do".
It would be more interesting to assess Mearsheimer’s analysis wrt his real politik theory than wrt Russia’s arguments for two reasons: 1. Mearsheimer’s analysis wouldn’t contribute much into understanding the conflict in Ukraine if it limited itself to report Russia’s arguments, we can access them way more easily than Russians can access Western arguments 2. It is very much possible that Mearsheimer is picking only the Russian arguments that better support his claims ignoring, omitting, downplaying others which do not add up with his general views, in other words his theory may bias his views . DO YOU AGREE? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
Quoting Benkei
IF that argument can be made FOR RUSSIA, THEN the EXACT same argument can be made AGAINST RUSSIA and its military alliance (CSTO) by NATO countries. And if Kosovo is a case against NATO, Russia’s interventions in Chechnya, Georgia, Moldava and Ukraine are a case against Russia.
The difference is that you and Mearsheimer are supposedly Westerners not Russians. And while I do not find surprising that Russians promote Russian views on national security , I find rather baffling that Westerners promote Russian views on Russian national security, instead of promoting Western views on Western national security.
Quoting Benkei
The issue I’m having with such claims is that even moral views require POWER if moral rules are expected to be collectively ENFORCED through powerful means, ideally DISPROPORTIONATELY more powerful than those means available to people who oppose/violate such moral rules. DO YOU AGREE? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
Quoting Benkei
When I accuse pro-Russian supporters of ignoring agency I’m referring to the fact that they put ALL/MOST/PRIMARY/ULTIMATE responsibility on the US for anything that happens on the ground:
1. Euromaidan (coup d’etat) => blame the Great Satan of course
2. Zelensky president => blame the Great Satan of course
3. The War in Ukraine => blame the Great Satan of course
4. Nord Stream blown up => blame the Great Satan of course
5. Peace talks interrupted => blame the Great Satan of course
6. Israel devastating Palestine => blame the Great Satan of course
7. The EU incapable of being of any relevance in the international arena => blame the Great Satan of course
8. The Middle East is a mess => blame the Great Satan of course
9. North Africa is a mess => blame the Great Satan of course
Etc. etc.
[quote="Benkei;953000”]The problem with the moral argument is also that it only works if you adhere to moral principles yourself; otherwise it's just another real politik tool "Do as I say (but don't do as I do)”. And while I agree Eastern European countries have the moral high ground; they are simply not the most relevant players between the proxy wars. There's no fundamental difference between the regional influence the US has (tried to) build through wars in various regions. The Russians simply are more ruthless. And it works - the EU is afraid to escalate - and opinions differ on how justified that fear is.[/quote]
I find your first claim sloppy and the second shallow.
If I myself was very very very bad at keeping promises and yet I made the following moral argument: “violating promises is immoral and the US has violated the promise made to the Russians that they would NOT expand NATO eastward, after the reunification of Germany, therefore the US acted immorally by expanding NATO eastward”, this argument would be roughly sound and valid (if the premises are held to be true). In that sense the moral argument “works” INDEPENDENTLY from the moral qualities of myself making the argument. Maybe what you wanted to say is that people’s moral authority doesn’t come from the soundness/validity of the moral arguments they make, but by their proven moral dispositions. But then my question to you is: why do we need moral authority? What is the relation between moral authority and political authority?
Concerning real politik, what people often do not realise is that moral rules are not inherently dictated by the laws of physics, so powerful agents may be needed to enforce them over a collectivity. Besides powerful agents can not enforce moral rules beyond their reach (power has limits) nor can abide by moral rules if that would empower competitors who oppose/violate such moral rules, this would go against the goal of being moral rules enforcers.
This is true also for powerful agents in the geopolitical arena. And the weight of the infamous “Western hypocrisy” or “exporting democracy” to me is more grounded on a misunderstanding of the role or purpose of Western propaganda by the Westerners themselves.
Political power, be it democratic or autocratic, is dependent on domestic political support, be that needed support of the voters or the security apparatus. Foreign policy is to serve those goals, just like defense policy or energy police etc.
Quoting boethius
So does every policy in the US that enjoys the support of both political parties. For example, just where the US spends it's government income has been extremely stable without not much differences between administrations: wealth transfers (welfare and pensions), health care, defense and education (and then the interest on debt). In fact, there isn't anything for politicians to decide as the usually these spending has been announced to be mandatory. What has approval of both parties, doesn't create much debate, as foreign policy does, especially when it's usually the last refuge that US Presidents then try to mingle after their domestic campaign promises have withered away.
Quoting boethius
Just look at the Charter of NATO itself: every country has to be ratified by each member state. For example Hungary has said that it doesn't want Ukraine in NATO. And prior the invasion, member states like Germany opposed this. This is why NATO has often irritates American Presidents as the organization won't go the way as they plan. The really ignorant and naive idea is that the US can push anything through NATO. It cannot. It couldn't do that either in CENTO and SEATO, as these are organizations made up of member states.
Yes, the members can say that Ukraine will be in the future a NATO member, just as the European Union can say that the door is open for Turkey to join the EU.
Quoting boethius
This was a war started by the Russian Intelligence services with and controlled by the Kremlin. Even the annexation of Crimea, which The real goal for Russia is to get Ukraine back into Russia as it sees the country as a natural part of Russia, Novorossiya. And with Ukraine it has the what it considers much needed resources. The main objectives are pure imperialism, because Russia is an empire.
Quoting boethius
Just ask yourself, what if Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea, which doesn't bring enormous riches to Russia, but more problematic backward economy. If it hadn't done this, the European countries would have continued to dismantle their defenses, Russia would enjoy large support in Ukraine (and hence have a say) and Ukrainian NATO membership would be one silly thing that some US presidents would have said. Ukraine would seem quite dubious candidate with it's frequent revolutions etc.
Just look at what happened in Central Asia. After 9/11, American had several military bases all around Central Asia, even with Tajikistan holding both an American and a Russian military base. Now...NOTHING. Russia had just to wait for the neocon dream to implode, which it did. Now Russia has a firm grasp on the area, even with countries needing Russia help to put down their demonstrations... without invading anybody.
Quoting boethius
Russia has nuclear deterrence. Without that nuclear deterrence, it's likely that NATO would have created a "no fly zone" over Ukraine and been one actor in the war, just like it was for example in the Libyan Civil War.
And isn't then also the European Union is also a "threat to Russia"? As we can see from Ukraine and where the revolution of dignity started and now are seeing in Georgia, where the Georgian dream as backtracked it's election promises.
Quoting boethius
I'm really confused what you are aiming here for. First, NATO is a security arrangement for Europe and an obvious issue is actually Article 1, that it keeps member states in not having conflicts themselves. NATO membership has at least for now made Turkey and Greece to avoid a war. Then NATO was wholeheartedly seeking for a mission and thus concentrated on "new threats", but Russia's actions has made it to focus in it's original mission, which in the 1990's and 2000's was a relic of the past for many.
Quoting boethius
That simply is a lie.
Just against my country, Russia made threats far before this, basically starting from the 1990's, first by Russian generals and Russian politicians. First hybrid attacks of sending migrants of the border into Finland and Norway happened in 2015-2016. The real breach already happened during the Kosovo war. There Russian forces faced British NATO forces and the rhetoric from Yeltsin was already very aggressive. That was before Putin. And of course there's the famous Putin at Munich in 2007 well before the Russo-Georgian war.
Actually, he has stated himself that he only looks at the issue from his own theoretical perspective, which doesn't take into account Russian domestic politics. Hence such things that Russia has annexed Ukrainian territory and Putin has repeatedly made it clear what an integral part Ukraine itself is of Russia is not relevant for Mearsheimer. Which makes it so biased.
And the rest of your comments, spot on! :100: :up:
We should really compare the CSTO to NATO. And CSTO seems really to operate quite in a similar fashion like the Warsaw Pact did. Did Russia come to the aid of Armenia when Azerbaijan attacked it? Of course not, Armenia had made openings towards the West, why would it have? Yet if a country like Kazakhstan has internal protests, does Russia help it. Certainly, root out the "color revolutions" where ever they emerge! CSTO, just like the Warsaw Pact, is a tool for Russian control. NATO on the other seems like a huge pain in the ass with it's "free riders" for the US. I've not yet heard of NATO countries invading a member state to put down internal strife. This of course would go against NATO's article 1.
I don't consider the Gaza war to be Israel engaging in realpolitik. Any other country would respond similarly. It is deeply personal to many Israelis and likely even for Netanyahu given his vivid language unless you think that's entirely performative.
Anyway, it's fine to condemn countries for their foreign policy. But when someone describes the deliberate murder of that country's civilians as "resistance" and makes absurd demands of a country (like ceding a huge chunk of its territory to an enemy) I see the accuser as a nasty sort of bigot making outlandish demands.
So you consider the Gaza war to be more an ideological and moral fight than a practical undertaking, like taking out a threat. :chin:
Well, many of those that criticize Israel agree with you as they see ultra-nationalism and religious extremism behind the objectives of the war, which the Hamas terrorist attack has given an opportunity to carry out.
It's not ultra-nationalism. It's not religious extremism. When ~6000 armed monsters breach your border and murder, rape, and torture your civilians (including children) it's simply human to set out to destroy the perpetrator. Israel's hand is forced in this.
There's certainly religious and ideological forces at work in the making of the conflict, but the fact that Israel must respond and destroy the perpetrator -- that's just human. I suspect if Russia were the victim the response would be much harsher.
Perhaps e.g. the Jains wouldn't respond violently given their religion, but I don't think such a philosophy would survive in the near east.
But you can continue just to repeat the line of the horrible attack October 7th 2023 and say that Hamas has to be destroyed and disregard criticism just like Yaalon gave here (as if he would be opposing the action against Hamas).
That is simply blind support of every move that the current administration makes.
(And btw @BitconnectCarlos, this ought to be in the Israel thread, not the Ukraine thread)
Then call it justice. If an armed band of foreigner insurgents breach your border and murder even a handful, is a military response an emotional reaction? I wouldn't say so. It's expected unless the victim is committed to pacifism. And then there are the people who were stolen.
Regarding afterwards: We don't not go to war because of post-war uncertainty. Defeat Hamas and go from there.
I don't disregard it. We should absolutely protect IDF soldiers. If there are war crimes being committed those responsible ought to be brought to justice. Israel still must win. If there are war crimes trials then do them after the war is won. Israel will likely have a presence in Gaza after the war, but that is not unprecedented nor is it a war crime. Neither is population displacement a war crime but is rather a natural result of warfare itself.
Quoting ssu
Someone can move it.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What Geneva conventions say about warcrimes:
and also:
But for you warcrimes aren't actually those warcrimes defined in the Geneva conventions, which 196 countries are party to, including Israel and Russia. For you it's a rhetorical term like everything else, it seems.
Yes, forcible transfers are a crime. Yet if a place is about to be bombed people will typically leave. Israel will typically inform the population. Population transfer occurs naturally in wartime as people flee to safety. If Israel were to e.g. forcibly load them onto trucks or trains and send them somewhere that would be a war crime. But yes, Israel will assist in evacuation efforts if an area is about to be subject to bombardment -- that's humanitarian. That would be making an effort to protect civilian lives.
The first convention was done in 1864, then in 1906 and later in 1929 before the current agreement. Hence the idea of legislation that has effect on both sides in war is quite new.
(The last war where both sides followed the Geneva conventions was actually the Falklands war. So that's how effective the legislation of war is.)
Up to a point, when they don't anymore.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
So what is your view then about Israel simply declaring every living person being a terrorist or their supporters and a valid target after a certain time? There is still 400 000 people in Northern Gaza.
I understand the urge for you to defend the Jewish nation, but the simple fact that it has now truly turned and ugly page in it's history.
But as this is the Ukraine thread, that ugly page has been turned already by Russia. That has had an effect even on Finns too: in exercises medical reservists opt not to wear the red cross in their arms anymore and any tents or ambulances having that red cross is not preferred. Russia has been targeting these crucial people in Ukraine deliberately.
We = the Allies. Israel's crime then is not following the 1949 conventions that nobody else follows either, except for the Falklands?
And when it came to WW2, people like "Bomber" Harris well knew that he would be facing war crimes tribunal if the allies lost.
I would draw the line at when commanders order warcrimes to be done, when it's the planned strategy, not when at the heat of the battle a soldier kills an enemy soldier that is wounded or would surrender. Far too often I hear these arguments "we weren't innocent either" and just framing the argument of both sideism. Yet there is a huge difference on just how armed forces behave, or if they even are willing to think about war crimes, human rights. Just look at the huge difference in civilian casualties when Soviet Union fought the few years in Afghanistan and how few compared to that were killed in the longest war the US has ever fought. In the 21 year war roughly 70 000 Afghan civilians were killed. In the Soviet war about 1 to 2 million civilians died in the nine years of fighting and 5 million were made refugees outside Afghanistan. 70 000 to two million is a big difference.
And this continues even to this day. The massacres in Bucha in 2022 are quite similar to the scenes in the first and second Chechen wars. The fact was that Ukraine rapidly took over the areas and could see the evidence of war crimes.
Bucha 2022:
Chechnya 2000, during the first war:
Checnya makes it clear why you have to oppose Russia, why for Ukraine it's not an option to give up and live under Putin's control.
If the Axis had won, Churchill and Roosevelt would have been hanged for war crimes, so what the Axis would have done to Allied leaders is neither here nor there.
Did Harris go overboard? Maybe. I like this quote from him, though:
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else and nobody was going to bomb them.
At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation.
They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
He's absolutely right. War is not fought by Queensbury rules. If your opponent is gleefully committing war crimes, like raping women to death, they're going to reap the whirlwind.
I hope the operation goes as humanely as possible. Nor am I under any delusions when it comes to what Israel/Jews are capable of. The Irgun were terrifying. Jews are just as capable of terror as anyone else.
Here's the thing though- Just as the Russians could kill and rape their way to Berlin and remain the "good guys", so the IDF can engage in questionable practices (clearly far more civil than the Russians) and still remain the "good guys." It's one of those funny things about war. We could imagine e.g. a Red Army battalion where every one of its soldiers had engaged in war crimes and deserves a hanging at Nuremberg, yet as long as they are pushing towards Berlin and wearing that uniform they are "good."
Back to the N Gaza operation; obviously those who stay in Gaza should be handled carefully. Fighting-age males are especially suspect. We'll see how it goes. I have no problem putting IDF soldiers on trial in Israel if necessary.
BTW I'm sure you've come across this study which found that the Gaza death count has been exaggerated to vilify Israel.
Likely the time that the UK came to the nearest to peace terms with Germany would have meant that Churchill wouldn't have become prime minister. By the way, Edouard Daladier and Paul Reynard, the politicians that lead France against Germany were prisoned, but not hanged. Both survived German prison camps and could later oppose later de Gaulle in French politics. Hence it's not so certain that this would have happened. Yet Soviet Union did put Finnish leadership on trial, but even they were not hanged.
Quoting RogueAI
Or hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. Yes, 19 terrorists whom none were from Afghanistan lead the US to have it's longest war that it in the end humiliatingly lost. This is result of when war isn't politics by other means or with a goal, but an emotional response needed to serve the craving for revenge by the masses. And this emotional response is abused so well at the present. Even Putin had his obscure Moscow neighborhood bombings to ramp up support for restarting a war.
Yet the western allies and especially the US put aside these emotional responses after Germany and Japan surrendered. And the US won the peace.
Well you seem to have just disproven your own point then since if Russia foreign policy depends on domestic political support, which you claim the Russian state doesn't have, then obviously the foreign policy of waging war in Ukraine would have collapsed by now due to depending on domestic political support which is insufficient to support the policy.
Russia is continuing to wage war in Ukraine so therefore has sufficient domestic political support to continue to do so. Case closed.
As for Mearsheimer's basic foundational point, the current international system, parties, in particular the great powers can't trust each other, which breeds paranoia, and so seek to maximize their power to ensure their survival.
Not that the small powers can trust each other or then the great powers, just that their only option is usually to cut a deal with a great power (or more) to be of some functional utility ("ally" / vassal, buffer, military base substrate, source of raw materials, or what have you) in great power politics.
In this framework, Mearsheimer answer to your rebuttal is that the states people of the great power will both argue and more importantly actually act on the premise that state security dominates all other "domestic political concerns" in that there is no domestic politics at all if the state is destroyed.
The situation is NATO is threatening Russia (literally writing documents hundreds of pages long detailing how to impose costs on Russia to both weaken Russia and coerce Russian foreign policy positions) and therefore it is rational for Russian state decision makers to react to those threats. The political structure is setup in Russia, as in the United States, so that state decision makers can react to threats without bothering much with the opinion of normal people anyways.
Now, also importantly, Mearsheimer is not saying that state decision makers, in this tense and paranoid sauce they find themselves in, make therefore optimal decisions, but rather the exact opposite that miscalculations occur all the time (precisely because things are so tense and paranoid). Likewise importantly, these global in scale hegemonic power struggles are a zero-sum game and therefore miscalculations are exploited by opposing powers.
Quoting ssu
You go from claiming that foreign policy (even in autocratic regimes) depends on domestic political support (so democracy is superfluous anyways as all state policies by definition require domestic political support) to seamlessly transitioning to claiming both major political parties in the US essentially by definition represent accurately the US population ... and not special interests or anything like that.
"What has approval of both parties" ... "doesn't create much debate"
... So you're saying the US health care policy hasn't created much debate?
But foreign policy (... which my understanding is we both agree is nearly 100% consistent throughout all recent US administrations; presumably how we know they have genuine support from the general population) does create debate?
Quoting ssu
I don't have the time to fully unpack how absurd this line of reasoning is, but to make short of it: when you make statements like "Hungary has said" that's something that is only true for now, if it's true at all (i.e. if Hungary really could oppose the will of the US even now). So, even if what you said was true right now, obviously it could be the opposite tomorrow with a change in leadership in Hungary, of which the US is pretty experienced in bringing about (why this whole war started in the first place).
The idea that Russia is irrational for basing their foreign policy on the mighty Hungarian position in NATO, is just laughably absurd.
Quoting ssu
The annexation of Crimea was in response to a literal coup in Ukraine orchestrated by the CIA with Victoria Nulled literally handing out coup-victory cookies in the Maidan square.
The CIA had already built 12 forward operating bases that we find out about later (but certainly Russia would have already had at least some intelligence about).
You're whole argument is basically "don't worry, the most powerful nation on earth can't accomplish it's explicitly stated objectives, can't do shit about a single tiny country in it's main alliance disagreeing, can make a coup happen but couldn't substantially follow through on that coup to do anything; and therefore, due to these mostly paperwork issues, Russia is just totally overreacting to billions of dollars of financing to anti-Russian parties, including literal Nazis; it was all basically 'fun money' and didn't threaten a single Russian fly".
Quoting ssu
Really? Russia has a firm grasp on the area?
That obviously false statement aside, the difference between events in Ukraine and Iraq and Afghanistan, is that both Iraq and Afghanistan were US client regimes. The US made Saddam Hussein and also the Taliban (to fight Russians).
The US was not actually attacking any Russian interest, and in fact Russia helped with both logistics and intelligence in those wars as both a gesture of good will towards the Americans but also since they don't like Islamic terrorism either (which, to be clear, I have seen zero actual credible proof 9/11 was orchestrated or abetted by anyone actually in Iraq or Afghanistan, and even less so anyone in the Iraqi or Afghani state; and the US investigation into 9/11 is filled with wholes, contradictions and insane claims like the source of finance is irrelevant to the investigation of the crime).
However, for our purposes here, what's important is that the US response to 9/11 did not harm Russian interests, so your whole premise makes zero sense in that the US was somehow acting against Russia in Iraq and Afghanistan to begin with.
Where things started to change is in Libya where Russia approved the no-fly zone as Russian interest were not threatened, but interpreted "no fly zone" as to mean "you cannot fly aircraft in the zone without the UN Security Council permission" and not "everything that could potentially help something to fly, which is literally anyone and any object whatsoever, can therefore be bombed" which is how NATO interpreted "no fly zone". Where Russia had issue is that was just a retarded use of language and bombing a country into a failed state (that now has literal slave markets) doesn't benefit anyone, including Russia, and obviously radically increases the power of international Islamic terrorism by creating an essentially Islamic Mad Max scenario.
But, again, to differentiate with Ukraine, NATO was not directly harming Russian interests, which is why Russia supported the no-fly-zone (which had it been an actual no-fly-zone in the common sense understanding of "what do words mean" then that would have helped some reasonable negotiated political process).
Where Russia actually intervened to directly oppose US intelligence activity, is in Syria, and the reason being Syria does represent Russian interest.
You're argument here is basically because Russia didn't need to intervene to stop the US from essentially cannibalizing it's own vassals to have a "as long as we can war", then it doesn't need intervene when it's own interests are directly attacked.
That's just foolish.
Quoting ssu
As I've stated many times, without nuclear weapons, we would already be in World War III, and if we were discussing geopolitics at all it would only be because we happened to be in the same trench.
Since there is nuclear weapons, the great powers can't simply launch all-in warfare against each other, and instead we are in a process of America attempting to maximize its coercive power just short of triggering a nuclear war (or then full scale nuclear war; likely they are trying to ease the world into normalizing limited use of nuclear weapons).
Is Russia counter strategy optimal?
Well obviously not optimal as nothing is, but it is a rational response of basically a good defence is a good offence.
The situation for Russia is that it simply doesn't know what the CIA could eventually cook-up in Ukraine (especially with things like AI coming online) so best resolve the tension while things are still somewhat predictable (including decouple from the West technologically speaking).
Of course you can make counter-factuals that what the CIA was doing in Ukraine would have amounted to a nothing burger had left to continue.
You can also for sure add Russian imperial ambition that many Russians, and certainly Russian elites, very much would like Crimea back, as there was not really a good reason for the Soviet Union to "gift it" to Ukraine in the first place.
Quoting ssu
Obviously the European Union is also a threat to Russia, it's just superfluous to mention as all the key militaries are also a part of NATO.
Quoting ssu
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point you're responding to, but to clarify what NATO says on paper doesn't matter much to counter-parties.
NATO has embarked on plenty of offensive actions in which no NATO country was under attack and in addition to that there's a little something called a false flag that solves the problem of launching an offensive action under a defensive requirement.
You speak as if Russian generals should just print out NATO's charter and go through that when they sit down to evaluate their own force posture ... rather than print out maps of military assets.
Obviously nowhere do generals base their recommendations on what opposing forces have written about their own intentions publicly ... well it happened once (maybe) and it was called the Trojan Horse and, notably, only needed to happen exactly once (and even then it maybe didn't actually happen) for the entire world to learn the lesson of not blindly trusting the word of opposing parties that may wish you harm.
It's just amazing that you expect people which the US literally categorizes as enemies (usually with a bunch of euphemisms like "rival" and the like, though also sometimes just outright say that Russia is an enemy that needs to be defeated), should take the US and NATO at it's word (with the odd exception of when the US and NATO are directly threatening them, in which case they should be assumed to be bluffing or impotent to cary out those direct threats), when not a single chance you'd just take Russia, or Iran, or Hezbollah, or anyone you had issue with at their word about their own intentions.
Not sure you're aware of this, but Sadam Husseine and the Taliban both gave their word they weren't helping islamic terrorists strike the US, on 9/11 or otherwise (and turns out they were actually right about that), and yet I'm pretty sure you don't view the US actions as irrational due to the word of Sadam Husseine and the Taliban.
Quoting ssu
Well feel free to produce this evidence.
Mearsheimer makes the challenge essentially every time he speaks on the subject for people to present any evidence that Russia was threatening Ukraine, Georgia, much less NATO, and expressed any intention whatsoever to expand into Ukraine, Georgia, or then Finland in your example, prior to 2008 which is the start of the escalation in Mearsheimer's view.
Notably, your example of "hybrid action" against Finland is in 2015 which is after the Ukraine coup, annexation of Crimea, Donbas civil war, and escalation goes hot.
Just seems to my your entire position is hopelessly confused.
You argue that Russia had zero reason to invade Ukraine as the US (and also NATO) declaring it's intention that Ukraine would join NATO doesn't matter ... but also that it is in fact Russia that was threatening Ukraine (and also Finland) all along and therefore Ukraine joining NATO (which you also argue can't actually happen because of Hungary) was a reasonable response to Russian aggressive language.
It's simply a series of mutually incompatible positions.
If it was right for Ukraine to join NATO to be protected from Russia ... then it's absolutely fucking retarded to try to do that if you know it can't happen because Hungary disapproves ... which isn't fixed by then trying to argue NATO doesn't matter and everything the US does fails so Russia should just not react to anything and assume US will anyways fail ... it's just a hodgepodge of nonsense at this point.
What is real however is the immense harm that has come to Ukraine in this bid to join NATO ... which apparently could never have happened anyways ... how is that possibly fair to Ukraine ... but also Finland can join NATO and so Russia is severely damaged by that and so waging war in Ukraine was a big mistake because ... Finland ... makes zero sense.
Never said such thing. In the end even the most ruthless dictatorship has to have a "domestic support", namely of the security apparatus. Putin has his followers, just as Trump has his followers. But likely not everybody is in Russia happy about Putin's adventures, but who are they to say it, when you can be sent to jail for speaking out.
Quoting boethius
We've actually discussed this a year ago, I put the evidence there, starting from the information given by the migrants themselves. And now when Russia did the same, authorities in Finland weren't so clueless what to do as in 2016. So look it up.
Quoting boethius
In the older PF I was saying this before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, that there seem to be no WMD in Iraq. Naturally everybody understanding the situation then understood there's no link between Saddam and OBL.
Quoting boethius
Again wrong. It's really difficult to explain in more simple terms:
For Russia to keep Ukraine out of NATO it wasn't necessary to invade Ukraine. A show of force on the border would have done that.
Yet for Russia to gain the territories of Novorossiya, to annex Crimea and the Donbas, it was necessary to attack Ukraine.
That's it. That's the line that you should understand. But for you it's The US/NATO made Russia to do it, as "offence is the best defence", and thus legitimizing imperialism.
It's you who aren't making any sense:
Quoting boethius
So a good defence is to invade and annex parts of neighboring states that Russia has first recognized to be independent sovereign states and recognized their borders. That's the "good defence"? It's this idea that makes your argumentation a crazy. Yet understandable when you want fo defend Putin.
Luckily Putin's gambling has made huge mistakes. The Syrian campaign which looked to be so brilliant few years ago has ended up in a humiliating defeat. And just how murderous the Assad regimes is now shown to have been, perhaps we should look at your remarks about Syria.
What you wrote three years ago:
[quote="boethius"]Completely familiar ... but even more familiar is the exact same script in Syria:
1. Russian army is incompetent, hahahahah
2. "Resistance" is winning the information war, so many videos of "resistance" victories online!
3. Gains Russian army are making mean nothing
4. The people Russia are fighting are freedom fighters, not a single fanatical extremist among them
5. We need to pour arms into the situation to give Russia their Afghanistan! Hurrah!!!
6. Russia is winning ... but playing unfair!!! Boohoohooo
7. Chemical attack is going to happen
8. Anyday now, chemical attack since Russia is winning on the ground, but Putin and Assad are so evil they'll use chemical warfare when their wining! (obviously if they were actually losing we'd just let that play out into a failed state).
9. Chemical attack is coming ... it's coming ... Assad and Putin are just that crazy, and they know we'll be upset about a surprise chemical attack!!! And they know we'll easily find out!! And it will isolate Russia on the world stage and totally backfire!! But nothing can stop their evil machinations!!!
10. Chemical attack! Chemical attack!
We're on step 9 of this play.[/Quote]
So how much is Russia winning now and which step are we on?
:up:
If their rationale was just NATOphobia, then what would the land grabbing accomplish anyway?
Bring alerts to the world (including NATO) with aggression/warring? Cause Russophobic reactions in Europe like another application of Putin's own NATOphobic argument/logic? Extend right up to NATO members instead of keeping (the dangerous) NATO at a distance? ...?
Something's not quite right, or something's missing.
Either way, annexations, invasion, destruction, killing, Russification, remain facts in action.
The Ukrainians asserting their sovereignty, independence, self-governance, going their own way (accompanying Kremlin loss of control) was the background-factor in the first place, perhaps going back to 1991 in certain heads. Hence annexations, expansion, Russification, etc, as if Russia somehow wasn't large enough already.
Exactly, this shows the hypocrisy of those who promote the Pro-Russian stance.
If it would be just about NATO enlargement, there would be no annexations of territory. And this is what many simply don't understand from Russia: it is an empire and it is fixated on it's territories that it owns. It is simply classical imperialism. And again, I'm not saying that NATO enlargement wouldn't be a reason, it surely is one reason. Yet to understand Russia and to understand how it operates, you simply cannot ignore the actions it does and how it operates: territorial annexations, Russification of areas it has conquered, establishing frozen conflicts. This is basically a Russian reconquista.
Those leading Russia see Russian imperialism as the sole idea of Russia. Russia cannot be anything else. For them Russia cannot be a post-imperial multiethnic country, like let's say the UK is. Hence the fixation on Ukraine and it's near abroad and the attempt to influence other countries, as we see today.
That it's all going wrong should be obvious to anybody. The collapse of Syria was the last humiliating failure, but that the Ukraine war wasn't a successful "special military operation" as was the annexation of Crimea is also such a failure.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c159082vdqyt?page=2
The Ukrainian losers whining over a successful Russian attack on Xmas instead of blaming themselves and the Great Satan. Well done Mr. Putin! Give this human scum a lesson !
One Russian tanker, Eagle S, has been stopped by Finnish authorities. It slowed down when going over the cable area, then picked up speed again. Finnish authorities will have a press briefing in one hour.
Seems also that an airliner has been shot down in Kazakhstan, at least there's tell tale signs of a blast fragments from a surface to air missile in the tail. That isn't the damage that a birdstrike would make.
Now let's see what the Russian response is, if there is any.
Azerbaijani airliner crashes in Kazakhstan, killing 38 with 29 survivors, officials say
[sup]— Katie Marie Davies, Dasha Litvinova et al · AP · Dec 25, 2024[/sup]
Exclusive: Preliminary investigation confirms Russian missile caused Azerbaijan Airlines crash
[sup]— Euronews · Dec 26, 2024[/sup]
Russian air-defense system downed Azerbaijan plane, sources say
[sup]— Nailia Bagirova, Gleb Stolyarov et al · Reuters · Dec 26, 2024[/sup]
Russians are encouraged to have sex while on break at work to help increase the population
Russian demographics is really horrible. Just look at the life expectancy, which shows how bad the issue is, especially about the men:
Add to the equation a conventional war, which basically is now killing in weeks the amount that were killed in the Afghanistan war. The huge attrition of the war can be seen in the fact that Ukraine has been protecting it's youngest generations and the Ukrainian soldier is on average very old, from 43-45 years old range, something basically similar to Hitler's Volkstrum. The age that Ukrainian soldiers are conscripted to the war is I think at 25 years old, when a large part have already been have had children.
Ukrainian soldiers, who look to be in their 40's or older.
Quoting Yevgeny Shestopalov (Health Minister)
Typically, offices have rules concerning sexual harassment, not so much about having sex there, let alone promoting it. (Can always grab some children from Ukraine I suppose.)
So Russian men basically party full blast until they die. Is that a cultural thing?
Quoting jorndoe
I would be fired on the spot for having sex at work.
They don't only party. They drink to forget the reality. Just like with American popping pills and using drugs. Or do you think that all those fentanol use drugs to party full blast until people they die?
And vodka production has been a government monopoly for ages. Just like drugs in the US, it has a role in controlling the people. Drug users and alcoholics focus on their addiction and aren't politically active. Which for some political systems is a good thing.
Only two Russian leaders have tried to curb Russian drinking habits. Both were ousted and the whole nation collapsed in both occasion. No really, first one was Tzar Nicholas II and the second Mihael Gorbachev.
Now hopefully the younger generations don't drink as the older generations did, but the damage has already been done.
Quoting frank
You work in a school, in a kindergarten or are employed by a church? But anyway, government programs that promote people having more children are a bit odd.
[i]President Tokayev is evidently cognizant of the significant Russian-speaking population in the northern region of Kazakhstan, which harbors the potential for separatist sentiments. Additionally, he is aware of statements made by certain members of the Russian establishment, such as Vyacheslav Nikonov, a Duma deputy, who persists in claiming that Northern Kazakhstan is essentially Siberian territory, populated and developed by Russians, and that its transition to Kazakhstan was arbitrary and unlawful.
Furthermore, Tokayev is mindful of assertions made by Russian politicians, including President Putin, insinuating that Kazakhstan, along with other post-Soviet states, was artificially created by Lenin to fragment the cohesive Russian empire and appease minority groups. These statements highlight Tokayev’s awareness of external pressures and challenges to Kazakhstan’s territorial integrity and underscore the importance of his diplomatic and political maneuvers to address such concerns.[/i]
(source: https://cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13798-kazakhstan-resurrects-golden-horde-in-political-messaging.html)
The topic, or one topic at least, is whether or not the Clown will follow Putin's example, and snack on things that aren't theirs.
Things might be looking up in the Middle East at the moment, yet, the current climate leaves a lot to be desired — warring, dis/mal/misinformation, post-truth, political rhetoric (and tirades), tariffs, cancellation of international rules or disregard thereof, anti-democratic forces, instability, moves to divide (and polarize), extremism, ...
More cannibalism would be a signal to the autocrats of the world (or would-be autocrats): help yourselves to the buffet. Something NATO can help deter, by the way.
By Rachlin, backsliding has been much too frequent in our time, of which Putin's Russia is an example.
Europe might want to get together, build sufficient deterrence, stand up for civilized democracy, build strong relationships with, say, Australia, Japan, South Korea, others.
Ukrainian tragedies
(I'm using "tragedy" somewhat broadly; also, there are no utopias here.)
The war kicked off by the Kremlin is a tragedy — destruction, bombing, killing.
Then there are possible future tragic turns:
Ukraine falls back under the Kremlin's thumb, dragged thither by Putin's regressive Russia.
Ukraine becomes a tense border in another cold war.
Ukraine's supporters throw them under the bus, (cowardly) abandoning promises, appeasing Putin.
Ukraine becomes a nation of bitterness, hate, mass production of weaponry.
I suppose there are more possible tragedies, but there are also less tragic possible future turns:
Ukraine continuing to develop democracy, political reforms compatible with the EU, wouldn't be tragic (if Belarus were to follow a similar path, then that would be a bonus).
Ukraine leaves Kursk, Russia leaves Ukraine, handshakes and signatures, Russia shall not be attacked from Ukraine, ease up on sanctions, no more sabotage, GPS jamming, downing passenger planes — peace.
Oh wait — we can’t take him seriously when he talks. It’s just “sarcasm.” Unless 1 out of the 1,000 things he promises actually happens, then he was serious all along and a very stable genius.
A bit of a cheap gotcha, but ok.
Let's say he ends the war in 100 days, as the Trump administration now says it intends, what then?
Apparently all weapon shipments to Ukraine have been halted for the next 90 days.
Not going to happen, but if it did I’d praise the move.
I can’t see it happening because I don’t imagine Trump will agree to Russian terms regarding annexed territory, or NATO. Maybe there’s a 5% chance or so.
Trump seems to be reasoning along these lines:
And so on.
That is why the accusations of the Western/America/NATO provocations are OBJECTIVELY questionable. And that is why the MAGA propaganda is so popular in the US.
Let’s see how much those people in the West (especially in Europe) and in the Rest who despised the American Imperialism under the Pax Americana will like American imperialism after rejecting the Pax Americana.
What is encouraging is that Ukraine is becoming very good at this old-new form of unmanned air war and a home-grown industry is taking shape.
Rubio stopped one sentence short of finishing his thought, because of course these lies weren't propagated "somehow" - they were part of a deliberate propaganda campaign designed to instrumentalize the Ukrainian people, to have them refuse diplomacy and instead willingly throw themselves against Washington's former archrival Russia in a battle that couldn't be won.
Notice how when it is said outloud today, it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) sound controversial, even though a year ago it would have been complete and utter heresy.
Isn't propaganda a funny thing?
Team realism scores again.
Isn't propaganda a funny thing? Notice how when it was said outloud yesterday, it didn't (or at least shouldn't) have sound controversial, even though now it's complete and utter heresy.
Isn't propaganda a funny thing? And then they call it "realism".
With the realism you argue for, Finland never would have made it against the Soviet Union. We would have suffered the part like the Baltic States, that accepted "diplomacy". And luckily the Ukrainians have understood to defend their country and not surrender, which some "realists" have long argued for.
Actual realism is that Putin will accept a negotiated peace/ceasefire if he faces a real possibility of military defeat. Nothing else.
Only if it's a realistic possibility, which it isn't. The US and Europe are and never were going to risk WW3 over Ukraine.
The US Secretary of State just outright admitted it.
But by all means keep denying what is obvious. You've spent 582 pages being wrong, so why not add a couple more?
"The US Secretary of State just outright admitted it"... oh interesting, if Biden says Ukraine can win is propaganda, if Trump says Ukraine can't win is not propaganda.
What do you know, nuclear deterrence works.
Supplying arms to one side isn't going to war. Never has been. And that supplying arms has been the issue. For the 582 pages, if you have not noticed.
[i]
“They (Ukraine) may make a deal, they may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday,” Trump said. He stressed that he also wanted to see a return on investment with US aid for Ukraine, again floating the idea of a trade for Kyiv’s rare earth minerals.
[...]
Trump repeated his interest in reaping a return on US assistance for Kyiv. “They have tremendously valuable land in terms of rare earth, in terms of oil and gas, in terms of other things. I want to have our money secured,” he said.
“I told them that I want the equivalent, like $500 billion of rare earth, and they’ve essentially agreed to do that, so at least we don’t feel stupid. Otherwise we’re stupid. I said to them, we have to get something. We can’t continue to pay this money,” he added. [/i]
SLAVA UKRAINI :strong: :fire:
Isn't that fun? That's what Europeans like you were looking forward to hearing. So you can keep blaming only/mostly/primarily the USA (who else?) and then rush back to support business with Russia. That reminds me of the infamous gypsy curse: "may you get all that you wish for”.
How about Trump throwing Palestinians under the bus? Didn't you like it as well?
[sup]— Anthony Borden · The Atlantic · Feb 4, 2025[/sup]
Not really all the surprising, is it?
Looks like P01135809 won't stand up to Putin after all, I guess we'll see.
The new Trump administration could herald a remaking of the international order. How should the world respond?
[sup]— Leslie Vinjamuri · Chatham House · Feb 5, 2025[/sup]
US defence chief signals major shift in Ukraine support in first NATO meet
[sup]— Al Jazeera · Feb 12, 2025[/sup]
On another note... When someone pushes for peace, not by stopping the attacker, but by stopping the defender, then something's amiss.
No more personal than the comments of other dimwits, right?
Quoting Benkei
Dude, make it personal is your favorite move EVERY TIME you disagree with people on topics that trigger your dimwit moral sensitivity.
Whoever saw that coming?
Should I rename myself to Nostradamus?
So many questions.
Quoting jorndoe
Well, there has been always the possibility that Trump will fuck it up as he did with the surrender deal to the Taleban where he did through Afghanistan (and other allies like NATO) under the bus. (Yet in truth he needed Biden to finish up it to be a total catastrophe, so Trump isn't there the only one to blame.) The worst case is that general Kellog, who would be a competent negotiator, is pushed aside and Trump wants to "be in charge" of the negotiations. And then we will get something as the idiotic braindead Mar-a-Gaza . Putin knows how to stroke Trumps ego well enough (with saying the lie that with Trump he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine).
Yet that's a possibility still, not what has already happened. But surely a thing that the pro-Russian Putin supporters will drool on.
Already Trump is giving away the bargaining chips and the fact is that Russia would negotiate in earnest for a peace/ceasefire deal only when there would be the possibility of military defeat. Otherwise it's a negotiation of getting something they couldn't otherwise win. In any other situation, the war continues and Putin doesn't give a shit about negotiations.
The fact is that Russia is very limited in it's capability to make large scale attacks into Ukraine. Ukraine can hang on. That is of course, if Ukraine gets military support.
More reason for Europe to really wake up.
Yet that it's a new situation is obvious. New situation, new ideas:
Actually a great move from the Saudi leadership. What do they care about European problems, but likely with this move they appease enough Trump, because hell no they will do anything on the braindead Trump suggestion of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians added with seaside property development. So better to give a stage for Trump to think about something else.
At worst, Trump's going to fuck this up too like he did with the Taleban. I fear it's going to be like in Helsinki last time. Then it really was like the Soviet leader (Putin) meeting the leader of East Germany or some satellite nation of the Soviet Union. It was so crazy and the craziness just deepens.
Quoting jorndoe
Trump really should think about selling California. All those Democrats leaving the Union would be absolutely great for him! All those liberals with their DEI stuff, ugh! All good Republicans have already moved to Texas, so why not? California just has brush fires and nasty democrats. A Great Deal for Trump!
But seriously. There really is the possibility we can witness the self-inflicted collapse of the last Superpower. Basically European countries doing first what France did and then simply NATO and the Atlantic tie is between Canada and the EU. And then NATO is something like CENTO or SEATO. Sounds absolutely crazy, but we live in crazy times.
It’s a nice idea. Rather than a geographic union, form a union based on how corrupt or non-corrupt a democracy you have. Democracies with low corruption go into a union of free trade, military securities etc.
Essentially a union around modern and better values than corrupt criminal states and an ability to block them out until they prove themselves worthy enough to be part of it.
At least the last time the US lost a war, it didn't send back South Vietnamese refugees to the Communists. But that was then and now it's different with Trump.
Although I am dead against the war and was shocked when Putin invaded. I realise that it was a fatal strategic error for Putin. His army is now depleted in arms and feet on the ground. His economy in tatters and all the lucrative energy deals with Europe ended. He is far less a potential threat to Europe and the West than he was before the war.
There is a longer background of US involvement here, I know.
Trump needs Russia on his side to counter-balance China (precisely because Russia has turned into some China's puppet, to put it bluntly, which thing even Putin must not enjoy very much). We are moving within a logic of division by sphere of influence among great powers on steroids. And for the lovers of universal human rights hypocrisy of the West, Trump will likely fully abandon the rhetoric of human rights and rely more on nationalism and religious fanatics inside and outside the US. They do not give a shit about universal human rights and they are ready to embrace arms to defend their land and their interests.
Trump may pursue peace at the price of sacrificing Western values and international justice (in Ukraine as in Palestine), at the expense of World order where Europeans have so far politically, culturally and economically prospered.
Fixed it for you. This was rather obvious. And we already have the first post defending it. Excellent. I give the UN another 10 years at most after which it will have become irrelevant in its entirety due to the continuous undermining of it.
EDIT: to expand on my take.
Trump has thrown Ukraine under the bus, that much is clear. Yet many people still don’t seem to fully grasp the consequences. This deosn't seem to be, as is often the case, a conflict between America and Europe; but appears to be a fundamental rupture.
Trump wants to keep Europeans outside of the discussions. Exact motivations are difficult to ascertain considering his erratic behaviour. Being seen as a ‘peacemaker’ and cheap rare earth materials have been mentioned. But in reality, he is saddling Europe, as well as the international community, with enormous problems.
The first immediate problem is: how do you prevent Ukraine from collapsing if American support disappears? Ukraine needs a lot of weapons—and very quickly. The loss of Ukraine would have catastrophic consequences not just for Europe but for the entire world.
Meanwhile, Trump’s followers seem to idolize him, but he is proving to be an exceptionally weak leader and a shitty negotiator. He's given away Ukraine territory and NATO membership before negotiations have even started. Seriously? He should have simply begun negotiations—not handed everything over right away. It increasingly looks like Putin has kompromat on Trump - as was already raised by you in the first term.
The international order as we know it has, in a sense, been blown up. The reliability and credibility of America’s word are now worthless, and as a result, the credibility of Article 5 has also been severely damaged. People are starting to consider their own form of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Many treaties, especially the Non-Proliferation Treaty, are now under heavy pressure.
Moreover, other dictators are realizing that by possessing nuclear weapons, they can attack neighboring countries as long as they threaten to use them enough. There will always be a Western leader willing to reward them for it. This effectively erodes the existing world order that had been in place since 1945. It will still exist on paper, but in reality, the law of the strongest and the shifting of borders will happen more frequently.
And if people think, "Well, it’s just Ukraine," then I think we need to remember that in December 2021, Russia issued an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of NATO troops from Eastern Europe. That demand will return, which is why people must insist on having a seat at the table. This is the greatest betrayal of the United States since the Tehran and Yalta conferences and the fate of Poland.
Thanks for the compliment. A part from the fact that speaking one's mind can hurt feelings more than comfort them, right? Again we are in a philosophy forum, right? And to me philosophy has NOTHING to do with whining over people's tragedies, blame gaming and acting as a moral tribunal (don't tell me you do not you love repeatedly accuse others of being genocide/cleansing/apartheid apologists?) and call this emotional reaction "critical thinking" while giving for granted ones' framing assumptions about statehood, human rights, national self-determination, moral standards, political business and propaganda, original appropriation, international order as they apply to concrete cases like the Ukrainian or Palestinian conflict. ONLY if you agree with me on all I've just wrote and argue on topics even hot political topics more philosophically than politically or emotionally I can intellectually respect your posts.
Edit: to clarify, rhetorical questions are dumb.
Not more than your rhetorical objection
I think it's quite the opposite.
The Americans making a mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle is a precondition to return to stability in Eastern Europe, which the Russians have been signaling is what they are interested in ever since the war began.
All of this nonsense about the Russians coming for Berlin and 'dictators sharpening their (nuclear) sabres' comes from desperate European politicians who, just like the neocons, are on the verge of being ousted together with their rotten cliques. They would love nothing more than a sense of crisis to help them cling to power.
I don't ban people for being dumb or having morally abject opinions. If you don't enjoy it, you're welcome to leave.
I don't think aggression is the proper term for it. The Russians initiated the use of military force, but there had been a conflict brewing for a long time before that, during which they attempted numerous times to settle it diplomatically.
If you want to call that aggression that's fine, but in that case I would argue sometimes it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests.
In the end, all that really happened is that Russia made the West respect its red lines. Like I said, I don't think the proper term for that is 'rewarding aggression'.
Well said.
The bad news for you is that I actually enjoy doing philosophy, unlike you. And being like 'the gadfly that pricks the old horse' fits perfectly with my philosophical disposition. So, I’ll keep pricking.
By the way, I find myself agreeing more with your post than with Tzeench. However, when it comes to negotiations, we should not confuse what’s said in public channels with what’s said behind closed doors. And public claims often serve as diplomatic maneuvers targeting the masses in one way and targeting political interlocutors in another. Ukraine needs to be stabilized and secure if the US wants to do business with it—whether that’s exploiting natural resources or building real estate and infrastructure (the famous hypercapitalist exploitation you enjoy whining about along with your self-entitled fellows). The interest in doing business with Ukraine implies that the US may have reasons to stay and protect American assets in Ukraine (which could have otherwise been fully Ukrainian or, even, European). So, Trump can exploit the benefits of this conflict, burdening the European ‘hoompa loompas’ who, according to some Western imbeciles, were serving US interests so well that Trump feels now so much the need to punish them economically, politically, and militarily. Meanwhile, he might cozy up to Putin to turn him away from China by negotiating over Ukraine. But we’ll see who is really fooling whom—Putin or Trump.
The idiots (pardon, maximum experts on "realism") will think 'the Americans making a mea culpa' (another moralistic judgment so much praised by in the “realist theory”), while Trump and Putin just blame everything on the Biden administration and the American deep state. Trump doesn’t admit mistakes easily, especially when he can shift the blame onto others. On the other hand, Ukraine will still serve to keep the rift between Russia and Europe alive, especially a divided Europe. This is what the idiotic Westerners celebrate as a 'return to stability in Eastern Europe' and 'all that really happened is that Russia made the West respect its red lines' (What about the Western red lines that Russia should respect, realists?).
These fools (pardon, maximum experts in propaganda) don’t even understand the ‘realism’ they think they’re supporting when they claim 'the Russians have been signaling what they’re interested in ever since the war began,' as if real politics or political realism are about the whims of a Russian dictator when Russia is weak and the West is WAY TOO GENEROUS toward them. Or worse, like when they dismiss 'all this nonsense about Russians coming for Berlin' and 'dictators sharpening their (nuclear) sabres,' as if nuclear threats from Russian authorities weren’t a MAJOR ARGUMENT, spun by pro-Russians with the intent to scare Western public opinion and undermine Western deterrence.
But where you continually and especially show intellectual cowardice and hypocrisy is in your refusal to dig into the relationship between moral aspirations and power, between moral justification and historical/political explanation. Instead, you just repeat it dogmatically and insult anyone who questions it, as if parroting it somehow replaces a good argument that would ground such distinctions—distinctions that you take as self-evident, like prophets take their religious visions. Questioning it would be blasphemy.
And you are among these people, because what Trump is doing is less erratic than what you think, here is why https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963479
The UN project (which is originally an American project) was more likely to succeed if all countries turned more democratic and respectful of universal human rights standards. But it didn't happen because non-Western authoritarian regimes so decided, right?
The cheap/spoiled moralism of many Westerners accusing the American imperialism of hypocrisy and undermining International institutions can now enjoy American imperialism without hypocrisy and constraining international institutions. This is the great improvement Western moralists and idealists (and self-entitled realists) were DE FACTO "working for" so hard (with the blessing of Russia, China and Iran), precisely because Western moralists and idealists (and self-entitled realists) do not get the link between power and morality. It's much more easy to rely on hard power than to rely on soft power. Discrediting the American soft power and depicting the US as the Great Satan won't make Western self-entitled nobodies' moral wishes come true, it may actually bring about the opposite. This is a silly expectation of spoiled Westerners, especially spoiled Europeans, which they have to pay for. Bitterly.
Boiling it down to 'aggression was rewarded' seems to miss the fact that there was a lengthy geopolitical power struggle. It would be more apt to say that political/soft power aggression was met with military/hard power aggression and a war ensued.
Is the use of soft power better than the use of hard power? Maybe so, but when the United States is the belligerent, soft power has the capability of altering the fate of nations (and is no longer so 'soft').
Maybe 'aggression was rewarded', but the US was also shown there is indeed a limit to how far other nations let themselves be pushed around. Considering the US is the most aggressive, destructive nation on the planet, perhaps that is some good with the bad?
If Mexico or Canada were to join an anti-US alliance or if Russia were to station its troops in either of those two border countries it would be alarming so their concern is understandable. Europe should be able to hand this one.
Nobody officially wants to talk about this, but it's obvious that now the security environment of Europe is rapidly changing. Trump is really doing a monumental change in Europe as many countries have truly rested their defense and security on NATO and international cooperation.
Just as Trump doesn't have a clue on the Palestinian history of the "Naqba", he doesn't understand that many Palestinians were fooled to seek refuge somewhere else as the war (of 1948) was fought and thought they could come back as the fighting has ended. Since Trump has confused the Baltic and the Balkans, thought that Finland is part of Russia etc, it's no wonder that he can come up with such delusional ideas as the Mar-a-Gaza solution. And similarly he can easily think that there's no problem with him and Vlad having a chat on what sphere belongs to whom. Why would he care about territorial sovereignty, about the little countries in Europe? After all, likely he doesn't know what Molotov-Ribbentrop pact meant for many countries. Hence when Trump in Saudi-Arabia decides things with his friend, Putin, and then (likely) announces the things for Ukraine to take it or be the real problem in the conflict, he likely won't understand what this will mean.
In fact, your country is the perfect example of this, because for Netherlands Atlanticism and the EU have been the cornerstone of your defense policy. The country has solely relied on NATO even with being surrounded by allies all around and this has been in historical terms a very peculiar arrangement, where sovereign states have voluntarily given their defense policy to a treaty pact. Yet it still during the Cold War Netherlands a large army and conscription. (And actually still have the latter, even if after 1997 the compulsory requirement for conscription has ended.) Now this security agreement obviously has to be reformed. Trump isn't a bug, it's a feature in US policy and Europe simply cannot rely on the US to be there, even for it to understand how important for itself is to have all the European countries as it's allies. The talk of the US leaving NATO has been a theoretical possibility, but now is becoming a genuine possibility. Perhaps the country that truly feels things changing is Denmark, which has been a loyal NATO member. Needless to say, no politician wants to talk about this idea from Trump.
Quoting Benkei
Remember Brexit. The British are usually sane and informed people, aren't they? At least more informed than the average American (people here are far more informed). Yet Brexit happens and the Brexiteers were cheering for all that freedom they would enjoy after breaking the shackles of Brussels. Same as with the Brexiteers: do they care about the real negotiations and the real economy going south? Nope! They are mesmerized from the fact that Brexit went through. And so does Trump's second term look for the Trumpists. Trump is a cult. You have now freed Jan 6th rioters telling that they will die for Trump, if they have to. Every negative thought or remark is just Trump derangement syndrome.
Quoting Benkei
Yep. Russia will be on the roll when Trump puts them on that course.
Much sooner and for different reasons than I expected but where 6 years ago I was still against a centralised army for the EU, because it would create our own military industrial complex, I changed my opinion in this very thread 3 years ago: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/693678
I've been hammering on the EU leaving NATO since then as the only reliable way forward for our security.
Interesting and well-written perspectives? What’s the thread coming to?
Anyway — how seriously do we take anything Trump says? Words and posturing matter, given the US’s stature, but I can’t see Trump allowing Russia to annex Ukrainian territory and permanently shelving NATO membership — which is likely be non-negotiable aspects of any settlement. Hegseth has asked already walked back statements re: NATO.
Precisely… but you must change you opinion once more. Indeed, there are all sorts of moral hazards that are inherent to accepting a military industrial complex: like POLITICAL HAWKISHNESS, POLITICAL CORRUPTION, SELLING WEAPONS IN CONFLICTS AROUND THE WORLD, COVERT OPERATIONS, BEING EXPOSED TO AND ACCUSED OF SECURITY PROVOCATIONS, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL MILITARIZATION OF THE SOCIETY (people need to be able to sacrifice their lives if needed, and kill other lives), USING PEOPLE AS CANNON FODDER, RISK TO COMMIT OR GET INVOLVED IN ALLEGED OR ACTUAL WAR CRIMES, MAKING NUCLEAR THREATS.
Sure you can morally stomach a military industrial complex?
Quoting Benkei
A EU military/army and home nuclear deterrence are a greater risk than US-led NATO for Russia, obviously. In history Europeans have invaded Russia, the US never did. And while the US can feel safe far from Russia, shift strategic focus elsewhere or withdraw from overstretching in Europe, Europeans can not afford the same. Besides while the US strategic interests where shifting toward China and the Pacific, the NATO financing for the European security was decreasing (https://www.nato.int/docu/review/images/66d708_2_grand_nato-canada-fm-1989-to-2022e_nato_article.jpg).
If the US has no reason to support a European military and ESPECIALLY a competing European military industrial complex, even less has Russia that’s why interfering with European politics and find pro-Russian bootlickers in Europe is vital for Russia’s imperialism as much as building buffer states.
To me that sounds like being a hawk. It's like the essence of what hawks are.
Don't forget that Putin said that he wouldn't have invaded Russia if Trump would have been POTUS. (If you believe that, I guess you're the someone that people should sell real estate in Florida...)
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Europe seems fairly far removed removed from you there.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Right, so when you would have Russian forces on your borders, that would be alarming for you. So I guess not much else would alarm you. Only then it would be useful to find somewhere the old and dusty WARPLAN RED for invading Canada.
Let's think about this from another angle. So you've been with someone for many decades and find that actually, you want some space, need to go alone for a while and be on your own. Now what do you call it? I guess the term usually used would be 'brake up'. Fine, these things happen. Yet, do you really think that it won't have an effect on your relationship with this someone? Everything will be just fine and dandy like this. Or if you would need this someone, she or he will be there to continue as if nothing happened.
Simply put it: appeasing your enemies that think you are an existential threat for them and then bitching to your allies and telling they don't matter and you aren't going to be there for them, simply isn't a winning strategy. Just why emboldening your enemies and alienating your friends will work, I don't know.
Yet I guess it works well when you have the right mix of delusional aspirations and ignorance.
EU isn't part of NATO. Remember Ireland and Austria, Benkei. And Sweden and Finland haven't been long in
And even EU might be far too cumbersome. The European family is just too big to work as a team. There will be always some country like Hungary or whatever, that swims in the other direction. Far better is simply a loose but working coalition of countries. NATO countries around the Baltic and the North Sea would be a great start.
Like we, uh, actually have already where both of our countries are operating: the JEF
Basically JEF was a move to make non-NATO Sweden and Finland to co-operate in the defense of the Baltics, yet the emphasis should be in creating deterrence, not having a forum to talk. There are enough of those. Like minded nations is the key. What actual important player missing is Poland, because Poland is going to have one serious military in the future. France and Germany? Well, the EU has been lead by those two nations and Germany seems not to capable of taking defense seriously.
Others? Now I don't have anything Spain or Spaniards and well understand that the security environment next to the volatile North Africa put's Spains focus totally somewhere else. And it's understandable (as the country actually has territory in Africa).
Not sure what you are talking about. To me, "hawkishness" in foreign policy roughly refers to a tendency to favor military action or aggressive diplomacy, while "dovishness" leans towards diplomacy, negotiations, and peaceful solutions over military intervention. Claiming that the risk of having a military industrial complex is that, among others, you may have a "hawkish" lobby, is a fact. And facts as facts are neither "hawkishness" nor "dovish".
That would sound more promising. But once NATO is gone without being replaced by some comparable EU collective defence, not sure if the EU will survive. Imagine if countries like Hungary or whatever that swim in the other direction, will continue to do it also over security matters e.g. by hosting Russian military bases.
Which btw just shows how poor Hegseth is as secretary of defense as first impressions matter. That your first thing you say to NATO members you have to walk back tells a lot. But perhaps it's the genius of Trump. Maybe Trump just wants his underlings to parrot his talking points... perhaps make them more coherent and thoughtful.
Yet the damage is done. Hardly anyway now to think that this card, possible Ukraine NATO option, could be put on the table again. Why it was so damning, to say that Ukraine won't be a member state, is because it goes against the idea of NATO's article 10:
Any European State ought to be capable of joining if it meets the criteria. Already from article 10 we can see that it's really complicated for Ukraine to become a member, but saying it aloud is just giving Putin what he wants.
You might think that this is a tiny issue. It isn't, it truly isn't.
When Putin demanded that Russia ought to have a say what members are accepted to NATO and what not, that was the red line for Finland. By this demand Putin put Finland to immediately to start the process of joining NATO membership and Finland pushed also to Sweden to seek the membership. And it went through the Parliament with vast majority once the conventional invasion of Ukraine started.
You see, we were happy to wiggle around without being in NATO and having only an option to join NATO. Give us a space to wiggle, we Finns will wiggle, but take that wiggle space away and put us into a corner, we are far worse than the famous cornered rat. Ask Stalin how annoying we can be. With this demand Putin only showed the corner and that was enough for the Finnish leadership.
Perhaps politicians will not take seriously everything what Trump say, but they simply cannot think that it's all [s]bullsh[/s] 4D-Chess playing. Perhaps Trump just wanted to give the middle finger to outgoing Trudeau with his talk of Canada become part of the US. But those kinds of "gestures" do have effects. There is a reason for diplomats being "diplomatic".
Quoting neomac
Only Trump can really end NATO. I think Europeans have still a love affair with NATO and when Trump is against it and hates it, it will be there for the Europeans as this organization from a more peaceful past. Likely it will exist as an option, if the US notices the mistake it's making and will come back. But still, Trump hasn't left Europe.
What is likely to happen that Europe will rearm... with European arms. Likely event what Trump with all his hostility will make is that US arms industry will suffer a lot in the future. After all, the US cannot be trusted, so why would you then buy weapons from there?
But you are right that the way of appeasement might indeed what many countries will opt. Russia's objective is to have the ability to approach every European country individually as then it is in the position of strength. And that's why Putin absolutely hates the EU and NATO and the dissolution of the two is his goal.
That is the only risk I see from all of this. I don't think Russia would invade NATO countries (but who knows given what Trump has done to it) but I do see a big risk of Putin going after the smaller former Soviet states, if only to save face.
That being said, the war ending is a good thing since this was realistically the only way it could've ended.
The point was to signal to Russia that their two preconditions to negotiations (no NATO membership for Ukraine and no return of territory) were on the table. That some poor schmuck has to walk it back infront of US allies and deal with the fallout is par for the course.
However, the US wants out while every day Ukraine's negotiating position gets worse. This means Moscow will be expecting a very favorable deal.
They have signalled they want a permanent settlement to the conflict, where they don't risk the next administration making another U-turn and things ending up in the same situation. This amounts to the US having to admit strategic defeat (in deed, if not in word).
Whether the Russians can be satisfied while also giving the US a way to save face is the big question here. Since the US isn't paying the price of failure (it is Ukraine), it is easy for them to walk away.
It's up to skilled diplomats to somehow square this circle.
The one thing that makes me hopeful is Trump's somewhat more friendly tone towards the Russians. Ironically I think the Russians are sensitive to the prospect of normal relations with the West.
A lifting of the sanctions and a resumption of the NordStream project are ideas that are being floated, and these things may be enough to get a concession out of the Russians elsewhere which would make a deal possible.
If there is a geopolitical strategic ratio in Trump's policy toward Russia (besides taking a personal revenge on Zelensky), this is most likely to detach Russia from China and from EU and from Iran. Getting Russia to stabilize the middle east, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and curb Islamist ambitions may be worth sacrificing the Ukrainian national self-determination.
Quoting ssu
Fusing defense industries would favour the rise of a military-industrial complex lobby which may be the necessary step to build a valid political and military deterrence against hostile powers. It’s also economically important to preserve a unite and dynamic market and technological development to compensate for the demographic and morale decay of spoiled Europeans.
And that's the issue that should be done. But there are good prospects for this. Assuming there's the will to do it. Just take for example drone warfare:
Europe has totally the ability to bypass American arms manufacturing and not be dependent on the whims of the American president.
BTW it seems to me that pro-Trump's propaganda is caught in some rhetoric conundrum: if Russia is no threat to Europe and ironically is looking forward to normalising relations with the West because the Russian red-line is just to cleanse and genocide the Ukrainians as some pro-Russian genocide apologists believe and justify ("it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests") :eyes: why do Europeans need to buy from the US defense industry or even be in charge of Ukraine sovereignty? If Trump wants to appease Russia, why can't Europeans do the same and gift whatever is left of Ukraine to Putin in exchange for resuming business? If the US can leave NATO, why Europeans can't join the BRICS?
If Russia is a threat, why should Europeans rely on the US for military assistance and weaponry which is something that can be withdrawn at some US president's whims to the point of even explicitly encouraging Russia to act more aggressively to establish its sphere of influence in Europe manu militari [1]? If Europeans have to turn into actual US bootlickers why can't they turn into Russia or Chinese bootlickers? We have plenty of anti-Americans that would rush into bootlicking Russia and China. Even in this thread.
[1] Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough (https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html). I'm sure the pro-Russian and pro-Trump idiots in this thread don't get the logic presupposition: if Russia IS NO THREAT to Europe independently from the US provocations Trumps' THREAT AGAINST Europe would make no sense.
I would correct that to "The American elan". The Republicans are happily cheering to this. They will remember things in democracy like the separation of powers and corruption only if a democrat is the President. As if they lacking any morals.
Seems that the dividing line starts to be Russia-Trump vs Ukraine & Europe.
Because it likely is worse than I thought.
According to google, the distance between ...
Fair point. I'm thinking though that the EU should be able to contain Russia. It can fund Ukraine as appropriate. It might actually be beneficial if the US can ease off pressure and be seen as a more neutral partner who can eventually broker a deal between the two. I couldn't have seen Russia brokering a deal with Biden given some of the things that he said.
Also as another poster mentioned we don't want to draw Russia any closer to China.
Distance from Moscow to Beijing: 5,793.80 km
It’ll become clear soon enough.
American acted as the Western leader. And no matter how blameful , ill-minded , and ominous the US look and looked to many, I would still insist that the strategic need to export "democracy", "universal human rights" and the rhetoric "the end of history" was integral part of the globalization project in which the German-led EU, China and Russia could prosper. The two sides of a coin. And we should never discount German-led EU, China and Russia agency in how things evolved.
Quoting ssu
Perfectly in line with what I said 2 years ago:
Quoting neomac
And 7 months ago:
Quoting neomac
It can happen. Even is likely. At worst, Trump can walk out of NATO if he feels like it.
I think James Ker-Lindsay put it quite well.
Trump is lazy and intellectually lazy. He will want a deal quick and if it's then Ukraine saying no and Europeans saying something else, he might just walk away from everything. Personally I think Trump's fixation with Putin and his hate of woke Europeans will prevail. He truly doesn't see any importance at NATO. Trump is totally incapable of understanding that he is giving Americas foes the best birthday present ever by dismantling the Superpower status of the US.
Who are the foes and friends here is blurred with the Trump administration, because Trump himself doesn't think about the issue.
JD Vance's Trumpian speech at Munich, which likely was more for the Fox News listeners back at home, does show the rift here. That an administration which itself is banning the use of words and punishing organizations that don't use the term "Gulf of America" is here scolding and reprimanding of Europe and saying that Europe is forgetting free speech and that is a bigger threat than Russia. Or Pete Hegseth apparently totally incapable of answering a question if Russia also has to make concessions in the peace negotiations, but was quick to give away Ukraine's negotiating positions even before the negotiations is telling.
I think it's more than just laziness. The entire behaviour of this US government seems to be purposefully geared to undermine collective security. You can callously throw an ally under the bus behind closer doors. But that's not what they're doing. They're putting a spotlight on how they simply do not care.
Which is in line with the domestic political policy, particularly via DOGE. The policy is not one of reform, it's one of revolution. And it's possible the people who provide the philosophical underpinnings of this revolution (who do not include Trump himself) do not actually envision rebuilding any of the things that are being torn apart.
Congress has not uttered a squeak about anything Trump has done since the election. Not a word, not a raised eyebrow. If Trump says jump, their only response will be How high?
It's very much in line with the Miran plan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Miran
“In December 2024, president-elect Donald Trump named Miran as his nominee for chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.”
“How can the U.S. get trading and security partners to agree to such a deal? First, there is the stick of tariffs. Second, there is the carrot of the defense umbrella and the risk of losing it. ”
https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf?bsft_eid=a30f775d-a95b-4704-ba5b-9fcd5291f465&bsft_clkid=d77202ed-6243-4868-80b3-cac2e2cc0204&bsft_uid=9cbb1a3f-fa2f-419b-b7c7-e6dd5fdc9654&bsft_mid=41525857-7d6a-4c17-8c4b-32fa072a0d0a&bsft_txnid=71ccf64d-01ad-4629-b814-d2085bc58599&bsft_utid=9cbb1a3f-fa2f-419b-b7c7-e6dd5fdc9654-Newsletter_COR_WHATEVERITTAKES&bsft_mime_type=html&bsft_ek=2025-02-17T05%3A00%3A00Z&bsft_lx=8&bsft_tv=513&bsft_aaid=72bb9dec-3452-4075-a63c-0f8d60246a1e
Since Trump basically is incapable of getting laws through, he just goes with executive orders. Just ask yourself: what legislation did he get through last time? The tax cuts were basically a thing done by the GOP with Trump giving only the signature. So he will go with executive orders and with DOGE, which has absolutely no legal basis. And Elon knows this. Hence the extreme hurry with the revolution... as the case of firing those responsible of nuclear weapons showed. Or that when the USAID assistance to Mozambique was to a place there called "Gaza", then we got this ludicrous idea of condoms being sent to Hamas. But hey, it's a great tweet and Trumpist will share it!
It all comes down to seeing the US government itself as the enemy of the American people. Nothing else explains this better. Anarcho-libertarianism at it's worst. Or anarcho-libertarianism as the figleaf for a naked power grab. And notice just how many nowdays refer to the richers people as "oligarchs" in the US. Actually that was earlier not so popular.
And when nobody will stop him and the Congress won't raise a finger when obviously it's position is severely undermined, Trump will continue. Today you have a Congress of pundits fearful of Trump's retaliation, while Democrats are totally ignored. That's what you get with decades of gerrymandering.
Sorry about the break up. I hope the US and Europe can still be friends.
Anyway, in the event that a broader scale war in the Middle East does break out I would prefer not to have Russia as a vehement enemy. I would prefer that the US has a dialogue with them; a rapport as opposed to just trading insults and giving sanctions which Biden did.
The EU has a combined GDP of $22bn and Russia has around $4bn so I don't see why the countries of Europe can't band together to deter Russia.
Me too, but this is the problem with populist foreign policy. I really would hope that this is just one low point between Europe and the US and things can get better. Sorry, if I'm too pessimistic.
Populism already starts with a juxtaposition of us against them, namely the "real people" against the "rich elite". That can easily be turned into prejudice, fear and hatred about foreigners.
Likely the door will be kept open, but unfortunately it does seem as the damage already has been done. The Europeans now know they cannot count on Trump being an ally.
Furthermore, do notice that the reason for European integration in the first place was WW1 and WW2 and the millions of dead Europeans from those two World Wars. Not just an idea of economic growth and trade agreements for the elites. Yes, unfortunately the integration process has been organized by bureaucrats in Brussells, but that doesn't refute the basic reasons for the integration process. Here if someone questions the territorial sovereignty of a nation state is like opening the Pandora's box. You will have in no time people hostile to each other. And Russia has gone over that border. I'm now in my summer place about 20 or so kilometers from the borders and it's totally empty with nothing moving over the border. That hit extremely hard this border community, but that doesn't matter at all as the stakes are far higher than any economic benefit there would be from trade.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes, but notice the real danger here. Once Europe does indeed get to the defense spending levels of 5% and that happens in a new institution outside NATO, what does that look like?
Let's just remember that the US and UK were allies during WW2. Still, the US had War plan Red in case of a war in the interwar years until as late as 1939. Quite similar in seriousness to the famous "War plan Orange".
That happens when two large countries aren't allies.
1. Aggregating GDP of EU countries doesn't make much sense if one overlooks the deep divisions over security issues among European countries, especially as perceived by a spoiled and old populace ("people want peace" not justice, not freedom, not prosperity, "people do not want immigration or the EU and euro" traditionalist and ethnically pure nation states waaaaaaaaay better than technological advanced big sovra-national markets and powers).
It would be different if Europe had its own Putin who centralized federal power, wrecked all forms of national independence by destroying and butchering civilians, murdering and imprisoning reluctant economic, financial, industrial elites, independant press journalists and political activists, who could send Italians, Germans, French, Netherlands, Hungarians, Poles as cannon fodder or criminals or mercenaries and threat nuclear wars to establish red-lines. It's not primarily matter of means but of unity over long term goals. This is a PRO-RUSSIAN RUSSIAN ANALYST that makes it clear this point and which Europeans should veeeeeery carefully listen to:
[i]Since the military conflict in Ukraine is not an all out war, the loser will not be the side who physically runs out of strength, but rather the one who loses the will to fight sooner. What is important here is a clear vision of victory and a clear strategy for achieving it.
Russia initially had problems with this: The start came as a shock to everyone and just as suddenly turned into a protracted military conflict with a series of humiliating defeats. [1]
Russian society was able to withstand the blow last year and – albeit not immediately, only towards the end of the year – pulled itself together and prepared for a long and hard struggle. The conception of our victory is clear: We still need the demilitarization of Ukraine (a radical reduction of its army), neutral status for Kiev (and a mechanism to control it) and the recognition of some form of territorial changes. The latter, by the way, will be the most difficult legally; here – for the sake of international legitimacy – Jesuitical forms such as a 99-year lease are possible. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, on this point.
Although this concept of victory has not been articulated, it is intuitively clear; the actions of the authorities at all levels do not contradict it; and society, although not very happy (only people who are not completely healthy enjoy armed conflicts), has rallied and is ready, if not to participate directly, then to support or at least tolerate it. All this will sooner or later produce results at the front – IF THE ENEMY DOES NOT RESPOND WITH THE SAME UNITY.[/i]
(source: https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/counteroffensive-is-failing/)
[1] Who remembers those idiots, pardon I meant the maximum experts on economy, military, propaganda, morality, geopolitical realism, in this thread who were spinning the pro-Russian "feint theory" raise your hands!
2. The US is not compelled to rise a fourth competitor power in the Eurasian continent as much as it is to keep competitor powers divided, which is not that difficult since their default divisions are even bigger than the ones dividing European countries. So Europeans are coerced into becoming SERVILE AS THEY WERE NEVER BEFORE to the US by Trump administration [2]: US security as a service. Europe MUST NOT build its own military-industrial complex and military for its security and perpetually pay to sustain and grow American defence industry and business all around the world (American imperialism 2.0), and no more whining. Otherwise they have to remain divided economically, politically and military, and fearful of Russia. On the other side, Russia is now weaker than it was at the beginning of the war and depleted enough of its military/naval/political assets, and Putin (being so nostalgic of the Soviet era) is so wet for Trump that it could turn into US bitch anytime now and sell it as "strategic victory" (well, to be fair, at this point this was the best they could hope for). I guess in this chess board also Israel plays a strategic role to keep Europe separated from the only option it has left for a strategic alliance to strategically emancipate itself from the US: China. [3]
[2] if they were so servile, why is Trump punishing and mistreating them so publicly in the name of Make America Great Again? The same holds for Zelensky
[3] Who remembers those idiots, pardon I meant the maximum experts on economy, military, propaganda, morality, geopolitical realism, in this thread who were spinning the propaganda that Russia and Europe will ally and grow prosperous in peace ever after because the US is doomed to fight China (and Isreal is doomed to disappear from earth thanks to the Palestinian cause) raise your hands!
https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-trump-musk-afrikaners-0f58dfe1651671d30fcbe16d00c3d99c
https://time.com/7222820/trump-third-term-president-explainer-pathways-constitution-courts-legal-experts/
The great betrayal has begun.
[quote=NY Times;https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/us/politics/trump-russia-putin.html]As far as Mr. Trump is concerned, Russia is not responsible for the war that has devastated its neighbor. Instead, he suggests that Ukraine is to blame for Russia’s invasion of it. To listen to Mr. Trump talk with reporters on Tuesday about the conflict was to hear a version of reality that would be unrecognizable on the ground in Ukraine and certainly would never have been heard from any other American president of either party.
In Mr. Trump’s telling, Ukrainian leaders were at fault for the war for not agreeing to surrender territory and therefore, he suggested, they do not deserve a seat at the table for the peace talks that he has just initiated with Mr. Putin. “You should have never started it,” Mr. Trump said, referring to Ukrainian leaders who, in fact, did not start it. “You could have made a deal.”
Speaking at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, he went on: “You have a leadership now that’s allowed a war to go on that should have never even happened.” By contrast, Mr. Trump uttered not one word of reproach for Mr. Putin or for Russia.[/quote]
The Manchurian Candidate has finally been activated. Well played, Mr Putin!
Perfectly matching with what the maximum expert on economy, military, propaganda, morality, geopolitical realism in thread said: "The Americans making a mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle".
BTW who could possibly be at fault for the war for not agreeing to surrender territory in Palestine? Does anybody have any clue whatsoever? The maximum expert on economy, military, propaganda, morality, geopolitical realism must know, mustn't he?
This gives Putin legitimacy in his claim that this is Europe’s war, by encouraging and giving military support to Ukraine. Alongside EU expansionism.
Molotov-Ribbentrop pack II.
Autocracy waaaaaay much better than a deep state.
He is really not mentally capable for his job.
Of course, for Trump to say this is a bit rich. After all, it's the US that lured them into this course of action, and the US has presumably had a gigantic influence in Ukrainian affairs for it to get to this point.
"Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a War that he, without the U.S. and “TRUMP,” will never be able to settle. The United States has spent $200 Billion Dollars more than Europe, and Europe’s money is guaranteed, while the United States will get nothing back. Why didn’t Sleepy Joe Biden demand Equalization, in that this War is far more important to Europe than it is to us — We have a big, beautiful Ocean as separation. On top of this, Zelenskyy admits that half of the money we sent him is “MISSING.” He refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls, and the only thing he was good at was playing Biden “like a fiddle.” A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left. In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end to the War with Russia, something all admit only “TRUMP,” and the Trump Administration, can do. Biden never tried, Europe has failed to bring Peace, and Zelenskyy probably wants to keep the “gravy train” going. I love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job, his Country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died – And so it continues….."
For the most part, Trump isn't being irrational here, he's simply being amoral, valuing only money. He believes profits will be maximized by supporting Putin. Although blaming Ukraine for failing to give Putin everything he wanted is bonkers.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5-L5pyXLZQ
Actually, Trump is indeed irrational as this is bonkers. There's no rationality here. What kind of "negotiator" Trump thinks he is? Look, I think we are close to the fact that Trump will leave NATO, because those nasty Europeans took the side of Ukraine and wouldn't go along with his (Putin's) great Nobel-peace award winning peace plan. There's no "adults in the room" to save this from Trump. So he can go back to a trade war stuff.
I think the whole Trump peace deal didn't get even further than this.
And Putin has is achieving his greatest victory by Trump ruining the groundwork for US to be a superpower. I think he will just use the hapless idiot Trump for as long as he can, as he quite can now that things can change in the US, because not everybody in the US are braindead. Putin's agenda is to crush the US and get it go back to it's own Continent and then stay their eating it's apple pie. And it's really working well. So he will happily enforce Trump's hallucinations of a US-Russia axis, as if he would give away China and put his cards with a lunatic like Trump.
NATO was an excuse
Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and status as a country, was established in 1991 more or less throughout the world. That was a couple of years after the Berlin Wall came down. Changes were in the air.
The relationship between Ukraine and NATO goes back to Ukraine’s independence: increased cooperation in 1994, 1997, 2002, 2005; decreased 2010; increased 2014, 2018; U-turn 2022; back again 2022; …
Sometime before 2009, the Kremlin circle (ex-KGB and the like) decided that it would be intolerable to lose control over Crimea, and perhaps lose empowering influence on Ukraine, something along those lines, and that they would need a land bridge to whatever they hence might have to grab. A new or extended Kharkiv Pact wouldn’t do, for example. Couldn’t be left to an independent country to decide.
And that uncompromising decision marked, and set, the — henceforth seemingly inevitable — collision course of which we’ve seen the results. Likely not an overnight decision, more like an irredentist, “entitled”, “ownership”, or revanchist sentiment, possibly since the Cold War in those circles.
It’s a thread throughout (elsewhere, 2013, 2018, 2021, 2024).
Ukraine wrestling free from the dominating, northern neighbor, wouldn’t be easy — isn’t easy. And their NATO aspirations were, perhaps predictably (2022, 2022), a useful excuse for the Kremlin to attack/invade, (pseudo-)annex (2014, 2022), assimilate, regardless of Ukraine’s sovereignty. If their rationale was merely NATO, then what was all this about, and what was accomplished? Besides, something similar would apply to any strong defence that Ukraine would seek membership of. NATO was the most likely around to get in the way of unimpeded Russian military (or Russification) actions, and the Kremlin had years to prepare. We can now conclude that the aspirations were justified.
Quoting Wikipedia, which has the requisite references, here’s what the Ukrainians want(ed):
Quoting Euromaidan (2013-2014)
Quoting Revolution of Dignity (2014)
Abandoning the Ukrainians would have the faint whiff of cowardice, broken promises, appeasement and encouragement of the attacker, more so if echoing their lines (2022, 2022) — free expansion of non-democracy.
Re: Nato, he has already de facto left it. He will never authorize US forces to defend an ally. Violating the NATO treaty is as easy as violating trade treaties. In the meantime, he could draw down US forces stationed in Europe and maintain a facade of membership to avoid much domestic heat.
Re: Trump-Putin, Trump is Putin's useful idiot. I'm not sure what you mean by Putin "crushing" us. He feels he can successfully compete in a world that ignores moral values and in which what is considered "true" is malleable. That's a pretty strong competitive advantage.
This is the stuff of nightmares. And it kept me awake last night.
I sleep quite well here on the border to Russia. Doesn't effect my sleeping. My country's military has already been for years preparing for war. Ci vis pacem, para bellum.
Yes, Trump is rescuing Putin from a defeat. Actually the dire situation of Putin can be seen from that he is even willing to participate in talks. Then he can look at how the "peace keepers" behave. Shoot them with a tank. First say it was an accident (or something as crazy). Then wear them down. Or have you buddies China there and then venture into Ukraine to get some "war criminal" or something. Behave in Ukraine as Israel behaves in Lebanon, or something like that.
Then get Trump to withdraw forces from the Baltics. Have Trump talk down on the Balts, by how badly they take care of their Russian minorities or so. And behold what do you know? You will have ethnic violence in the Baltic states and Russia has to send peacekeepers to defend the ethnic Russians there, or there simply go "volunteers", just as for years before 2022 Russian "volunteers" were fighting in the Donbas with tanks and artillery.
And because it's a "domestic crisis" and not an "invasion" and the Balts are anyway nazis, so why would the US lift a finger. EU members shouldn't get involved, they should first get their democracies working, as JD Vance said.
And Hey! We all lived through a pandemic, remember? That wasn't so bad. According to one statistic, only seven million deaths in the world and one million in the US. And since your old, but having this discussion with me, likely you have had the flew and didn't die (obviously). Trump cannot get us to WW3, he will fail even in that. :wink:
He continued: "Bring in Russian and American troops, and Europe won't have to defend itself from anyone. Quietly, carefully, we'll set up our bases in the usual places. Berlin, Paris, like in 1814.[/i]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-s-confident-he-s-on-brink-of-winning-war-with-europe-division-fears/ar-AA1zmoTe
From NY Times.
Laughable.
I had a feeling you were younger than me! I was 8 in Oct 1962.
[I]"[Trump]said Tuesday: “I think Europe has given $100 billion and we’ve given, let’s say, $300-plus (billion).” He wrote Wednesday: “The United States has spent $200 Billion Dollars more than Europe.”[/i]
Reality: wartime military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine through December:
Europe- $258 billion committed; $148 billion allocated
US- $124 billion committed; $119 billion allocated.
Trump: "Zelensky has a 4% approval rating"
Actual: 52-57%
[I]In the Wednesday social media post, Trump falsely claimed that Zelensky “admits that half of the money we sent him is ‘MISSING.’”[/i]
Zelensky has made no such admission...He said in a February 1 interview with the Associated Press that although people talk about Ukraine getting as much as $200 billion in US aid, Ukraine had received about $76 billion, largely in the form of weapons. Zelensky said he doesn’t know where all the professed additional money has gone and that perhaps these higher figures are correct “on paper,”
Baerbock let it slip the other day that the EU is prepairing €700billion aid package for Ukraine. Apparently it was being kept quiet until after the German election. Looks like Europe is going to step up to the plate after all.
It was always going to happen, with or without US help. The day Putin threatened Europe with nuclear attack the day of the invasion, European history changed. Now they will re-arm and take care of their own security.
Quoting Tzeentch
And what do we see?
The US is extricating itself from the Ukraine debacle, while Washington sycophants like NATO Secretary Mark Rutte are preaching that 'Europe must prepare for war!', even though public support for deeper involvement, or indeed any involvement at all, is and has been thin, and is thinning further still.
There is no greater threat to European security than for it to involve itself directly into a conflict with Russia while Uncle Sam is standing on the sideline harboring ulterior motives.
I've predicted this would happen.
Washington sensed that Europe would start to slip its grasp as its clique is being ousted under pressure of popular revolts (as we see happen all over Europe), which meant that Europe would go from obedient vassal to potential geopolitical rival.
Washington's Ukraine policy (starting from 2008 onward) has had as its purpose to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia, and to sow the seeds for large-scale war, giving Washington a trump card to play which would deny both Europe and Russia from becoming 'laughing thirds' to any future US-China conflict.
Washington has successfully created a highly-volatile situation in Eastern Europe, and is now extricating itself. The last step is for Uncle Sam's 'Trans-Atlantic' clique (Rutte, Marcon, Scholz, etc.) to goad Europe into taking on primary responsibility in a conflict that bears a major risk of spiraling into a direct confrontation with Russia.
Worse still, Washington will soon be able to throw fuel on the fire to its heart's content, since it will no longer be party to the conflict.
Europe has and has had a massive blindspot for the type of games Washington likes to play, and it's going to end up like every other nation that naively jumped into bed with Uncle Sam: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc.
Europe's next.
So you mean that the blob has won again and Trump turned into a blob crypto-puppet?
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
The Americans are making mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle?
Quoting Tzeentch
You said lots of things... you know
Is that not exactly what they are doing? They've all but said that the Russians were right all along, while pinning the principal blame on Ukraine.
I never said the mea culpa had to be sincere or believable. Just that it had to happen in order for negotiations with the Russians to have any chance of success.
And despite being a precondition to peace, if the Europeans can be successfully goaded into continuing the conflict without the US, that's of course a massive new obstacle to peace. But that won't be Washington's problem after they've extricated themselves.
Apparently it is being seriously considered which would add another €300billion to the war chest.
I don’t know who was responsible for delaying this move. Trump claims it was Belgium, but who would believe a word he says?
Excuse me.
The U.S. is morally weak right now and Russia is bankrupt (her economy before the war was equivalent to a mid range European country).
Quoting Punshhh
It's totally possible. Germany already hinted at how this is done. The American way: just increase the debt, and you don't have to cut social welfare and other costs.
Quoting Punshhh
Actually, Trump was crucial here. All the pivot talk to Asia was one thing. Even in Munich Zelenskyi was told by a delegation of Democrat and Republican senators that Ukraine will have the backing of the US. Now Trump has shown his real intensions of simply giving Ukraine on a platter to Russia. Trump is now basically doing a deal about Eastern Europe as Ribbentrop did with Molotov, which surely won't go unnoticed in countries that were divided back then.
That's not true. Republicans are speaking out now.
It is exactly what they are NOT doing. Russians were right all along they say, all right, but they are blaming Ukraine, Europe, and Biden administration. Not the Americans represented by Trump. And it’s not matter of Russia being right for pro-Russian propaganda purposes but of Ukraine and Europe being blamed for the conflict, since Trump could have put all the blame on just Biden’s administration alone. By doing this Trump seems to advocate for total surrender by Ukraine to all Russia’s demands and burdening Europe of the consequences.
All this doesn’t seem to add up with things you said elsewhere. Indeed, despite belonging to the neoliberal blob (as you claimed) the foreign policy of artificially sparkle geopolitical tensions between Europeans and Russians to be more free to pivot to Asia, now it’s Trump that is doing it on steroids, the one you claimed was fighting the neoliberal blob to change American foreign policy. The problem is that Trump changed American foreign policy in ways that are not dictated by the neoliberal approach to American foreign policies (the one that Mearsheimer was bitterly criticising and you were following) but still it is against Europe (in a way that is perfectly in line with Mearsheimer’s idea of sphere of influence where Russia should ally with the US against China). So now not only Russia is threatening Europe (however it is much weaker than it used to be before starting the war) but also the US is threatening Europe. And while insisting on the Russia’s penchant to bond with Europeans just for business (with apparently no threats for Europeans worth warning people about), you have always ignored the Russian penchant for a privileged link with the US to reach a superpower status (perfectly in line with Russian imperialism) and contain China and other Asian countries’ imperial aspirations (like that of Turkey or Iran) which can both weakend Russia’s influence in the Middle East or Caucasus or north Africa or Mediterranean Sea.
What I also find rather baffling in your reasoning is that while you can so easily condemn Western provocations against Russia you do not seem to put any condamnation on Western populism which was provoking the US as you so candidly admit. And if you have predicted that Russia was threatening to wreck Ukraine as a consequence of Western provocations or Ukrainian independence, you seemed very hopeful the US (the Great Satan with plenty of lackeys in Europe, according to you) would have NOT found ways to backfire at European provocations and anti-American emancipation (by European populists whose delusional aspirations do not beed to be condemned). Not to mention that populist anti-Americanism in Europe was also supported by Russia (at least until now since Trump is openly trying to steal European far-right populism from Russian claws) as much as the US was supporting anti-Russian feelings in Ukraine.
The paradox of your reasoning is that on one side you are ready to sacrifice the Ukrainian emancipation from Russia in the name of the European emancipation from the US (so apparently self-determination for Europeans and Palestinians it’s fine but for Ukrainians and Israelis no), on the other side you keep reasoning as if Europeans or the European populism had greater chances to emancipate Europe from the US (the Great Satan which betrays all allies and has all europeans as their vassals) than the Ukrainians to emancipate Ukraine from Russia (which is just happy to have a piece of Ukraine for its existential survival and then just do business as usual with Europeans).
Without providing quotes of what I said, I cannot gauge whether you're representing what I said properly. My initial impression is that for the most part you are not.
About Trump running against the neocon establishment, here are my thoughts:
On the surface, Trump certainly seems to be running against the neocon establishment. This is undeniable.
However, surface level appearances do not always tell the whole story, and I find it perfectly plausible that Trump is being used as the 'bull in a China shop' on which a bunch of necessary but unpopular actions can be blamed.
If Trump's actions suddenly start to make sense in a broader picture - in this case, that of America pivoting to Asia - it is only natural to hypothesize about goings-on beneath the surface.
The foreign policy blob is powerful, and they might be using Trump or even working together with him to bring the US on this new course.
I think many analysts, including Mearsheimer, are too quick to assume Washington is simply being dim-witted and incompetent, and never ask the question whether all of this display could be part of a strategy.
Lastly, I am not anti-American. I am anti-Washington.
You're giving my calculator a headache
Except:
Quoting ssu
There's also a matter of US intelligence.
Either way, European cooperation, sooner rather than later, seems the way to go.
Satellite technology isn't limited as it was in the 1970's. When there's a will, there's a way.
Quoting jorndoe
Hope this happens. The worst thing is simply to deny what just happened or then think that the best way would be to wait for Trump's term in office to run out.
Quoting magritte
Well, of course it can be "fake news", but here's the source. Wikipedia gives similar statistics (here)
Anything you can point to? I've seen a couple of low-profile Senators grumbling about it, but overall, State Department and all the heavy hitters are toeing the line.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-ukraine-zelensky-john-cornyn-thune-b2701516.html
How much difference do you think that is going to make?
Far more serious, actually. Terrorist attacks were a minor issue than actually Europe-scale war.
I think it's the most serious crisis in Europe since the Cold War. Pax Americana has died. Thanks to Trump, Europe took a giant step towards war. Russia is now putting it's sights on the Baltic. Next thing is for Putin to make Trump to ask that US forces would be withdrawn from Eastern Europe.
It's a very bleek and dark future ahead of us.
Some people want to repeat history.
Why Putin Invaded Ukraine: A Crisis Manufactured to Rewrite the Global Order | Fiona Hill on 2/2/22
[sup]— Helsinki Commission · Nov 13, 2024 · 13m:23s[/sup]
Hilton interviewed Hill in 2023:
Why Trump befriended Putin | The life and philosophy of Fiona Hill
[sup]— The Institute of Art and Ideas · Oct 19, 2023 · 11m:13s[/sup]
Jeffrey Sachs bringing to European ears something which, apparently, is not common knowledge here.
This man has 36 years of experience with the Soviet Union, Russia and Eastern Europe. He knows. He provides first-hand accounts of events, and direct quotes from high ranking US officials which will tell you exactly what Washington's role is and was in this conflict.
I know most of you will not be able to stomach what he says. The cognitive dissonance is too great. But whatever. People can hide from the truth until the cows come home, while more sensible people take over the wheel.
With Trump's election, whatever you may think of it, voices like those of Sachs are no longer systematically suppressed in favor of state propaganda.
Pax Americana is dead and we are closer to war, if Europe doesn't get it's act together. Or at least form a willing coalition. Because Putin won't stop and he already has his sights on next targets.
It's likely as Trump is Putin's poodle, he will likely give in. Likely it will be announced as "pivoting against China". Likely Trump will unleash a similar attack towards Europe as he did against Zelenskyi, if (and hopefully when) Europe stands with Ukraine.
And badmouthing Zelenskyi is done obviously to sell the Americans the surrender deal of throwing Ukraine under the bus. And Trump can surely throw other European countries under the bus too.
Yes, I missed your definition of "domestic political support" to include the "security apparatus", which removes nearly the entire meaning of the expression to reducing essentially to a truism that those in power have by definition some basis for their power, and it would be only relevance in literally the last moments of a regimes nominal titles when it has lost control of the security apparatus during a coup.
However, even with your definition your framework is still wrong as the security apparatus keeping people in power is not by definition domestic but can easily be partly, or even wholly, foreign controlled, in term of finance and intelligence resources and even the people.
I'm not sure this part of the debate is relevant to continue, though feel free to, but just wanted to address a couple of points, especially where I misinterpreted you, before getting back into the current debate.
Generally, I am still intending to make a new thread on these more general themes.
Quoting ssu
Do you not follow the news?
Quoting Russia using chemical choking agents in Ukraine, US says
Problem that was encountered was that this playbook is no working, to such an extent the neocons have been ousted from power.
They were agents in their own unagency Tzeentch, authors of their own writing themselves out of the script entirely.
I do. Do you follow the thread, as you refer to two months ago? A lot happened this week.
Militarily Russia isn't winning Ukraine, but Trump is giving Putin the biggest political support ever.
As Trump is crushing the Atlanticism, and ending Pax Americana, Putin can be very happy. Alexander Dugin stated that this was the (and should be the goal) of Russia, and thanks to Trump, Putin is achieving his objectives.
Just as actually a Finnish politician that I really loathe, is for the first time saying something that I have to agree with: Trump can also throw Finland under the bus as he has done with Ukraine.
Perhaps, given everything that was told by mainly @Tzeentch, the late @Isaac and myself, you would consider for a moment that propaganda has lead you astray.
As Neutrality Studies has pointed out repeatedly, if the EU genuinely believed Russia represented a military threat they would be building up like crazy! But they don't.
Why?
Because they don't view Russia as a genuine military threat to the EU.
Russia has only conquered Russian speaking, ethnically Russian, and also Russian identifying (to a large extent), regions in Ukraine (large extent being defined here as enough to render pacification easy).
Russia is simply not conquering, nor shows any signs of intending to conquer, anyone who is not fundamentally cool with being conquered.
Then there's the problem of nuclear weapons, which two EU countries have along with the United States.
In addition to that there's the problem of no feasibly conquerable EU territory having any resources worth conquering.
However, this is not to say there won't be further war, only that my prediction is that it will not be started or desired by Russia but engineered by European countries in order to justify the current trajectory, in particular in terms of totalitarianism.
As the Finnish professor Glenn Diesen recently noted, I believe on the Duran if memory serves me, along with calling the Finnish president a traitor (which he is), the Finnish population has been and is being prepared for war by Finnish media and Finnish politicians, and the mood has changed to war with Russia being inevitable.
Now, this was a policy undertaken during the Biden administration, so it may change, but I doubt it. Mark my words, however, that the war will not be instigated by Russia but rather by Finland.
Finland is a small country that can easily be sacrificed for the greater EU good, which in this case is defined by maintaining a state of total delusion.
Actually, one thing I agree: Europe has to look after itself, because Trump has become the lapdog of Russia. I think I know the apologetics of Jeff Sachs, we've discussed that already.
Quoting boethius
Lol. :lol:
Well, that's delusional and simply false. No, up until this week, Europeans have truly believed that the US is an ally. With US and NATO allies, there's such a mismatch, that there hasn't been a reason to spend so much more on the military. There was ample deterrence. Yes, it's not just Trump that has been talking about the "Pivot to Asia", that started with Obama. But taking a bigger role in defense of Europe and the US going along with Russia are quite two things. The military threat of Russia is totally real. This week, the threat of a larger war in Europe just increased. And so will likely the Russian hybrid attacks.
Where do I start...
From last year:
Americans really should wake up on what is happening and how dangerous this is for the World. And it should be noteworthy to the Europeans here that there are many Americans like van Hollen, who are still for freedom and Atlantic alliance and understand the betrayal that Trump has done and is trying to do.
What is promising is that several conservative commentators that have been in the Trump train, did have reacted to the lies of Trump and the absurdity what the Mad House of Trump is doing and have at least corrected the lies.
Like Ben Shapiro (see from 4:58 onwards)
And some darling commentators of the anti-woke have also went against Trump, like Douglas Murray, who goes through the lies of Trump in New York Post:
(See Mr. President: Putin is THE dictator and 10 Ukraine-Russia war truths we ignore at our peril )
I might agree with these guys on everything and sometimes harshly disagree, but they are totally correct here. Worth reading that article above. Let's hope that this kind of sanity will prevail in the US and the House of Trump will stop the worst nonsense. Conservatism and the MAGA-loonies are still different things.
I would call this bullshit. Do you think that speaking a specific language means that you identify with, as belonging to, and wanting to be a citizen of, i.e. "conquered by", that mother country where the language derives? For example, do you think that Americans would be "fundamentally cool" with being conquered by England because they speak English?
Furthermore, it's very evident that many expatriates are expatriates because they disavow the governance of the homeland. But when the disgruntled ex-citizens are perceived as congregating and conspiring against the government of the homeland, by members of that government, they might feel compelled to take action against them.
The point was in your seeming to take issue with my description of the "chemical attack script" which obviously came and went along time ago, serving its purpose at the time to further frustrate any attempt at a negotiated settlement.
Quoting ssu
If you thought / think Russia isn't winning in Ukraine and it's only Trump that is spoiling Ukraine "victory", of whatever sort is defined at the end of the process of Russia not winning, it's difficult to start to address this. I will try to get to it later.
The Ukrainian military is essentially melting away at this point.
Quoting ssu
.... or in other words:
Quoting boethius
Agree?
"Saying stuff" is not building up arms in any meaningful way, whether to send into Ukraine as the "last line of defence" or then for your own preperation.
What Europe has not done is any sort of crash program of any sort to buildup armaments.
Statistics have been rolled out on the regular that Russia is outproducing all of NATO in basic things like artillery shells, by several factors, and the reaction to EU elites and journalists is just ... hmmm, pity that.
If you actually thought you might be actually invaded by Russia there would be massive efforts of building up arms as well as building up significant fortifications.
Notice your own date of your own citations:
When Quoting ssu
... last year ... last year whoever your quoting (which is just talk) wants to:
Well ... why the fuck aren't they already ramped to the fucking max already in 2022 when the war that war to "stop Putin in Ukraine" started?
Or then even before when European leaders were already preparing Ukraine to fight said war? If Russia was such a threat why not prepare also themselves?
There is no actual preparation, much less even the slightest sort of "war time economy" to support Ukraine as some sort of Gondor against the forces of Mordor, because there is no actual belief that Russia poses a threat.
Again, doesn't exclude war with Finland, but Finland doesn't matter.
Poland isn't just "saying stuff". The way the Finnish military has started to train it's reservists isn't just "saying stuff".
Or news like this:
Quoting boethius
As I said, they were very slow to see the threat. Remember that Germany isn't anymore divided, it has Poland between it and Russia. And the US was still there to back NATO up. Poland has seen the light. Not Italy, France and so on.
And people falsely fell to Putin's scares of WW3.
Well I must call bullshit on your calling bullshit.
I clearly specified that "large extent being defined here as enough to render pacification easy"; i.e. being "fundamentally cool with it".
Pacification has been easy (see Afghanistan for a comparison case of pacification being hard).
Now, what most people "truly believe" is a different question to the fact there is clearly enough Russian identity, sympathy or then tolerance to render pacification easy.
Also keep in mind Kiev's campaign to suppress the Russian language ... so, true enough that speaking a language doesn't mean you want to be conquered by the main body of the speakers of that language, but do you really think people like having their mother tongue suppressed and have a strong desire to remain under the rule of people suppressing the language they speak?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Unclear what you're talking about, but the reality on the ground is that insurgency, sabotage and intelligence rat lines within the conquered territories have had no noticeable effect on the course of the war.
Of note is that there are other regions of Ukraine where that would not be the case which Russia has made no attempt to conquer and pacify; when Russia did go through those regions at the start of the war in the Northern operation to surround Kiev, they made no attempt to conquer and pacify territory (which they obviously know how to do as they did so in the South).
It's more than political support:
'Game changer': US reportedly threatens to revoke Ukraine's Starlink access over minerals
The Russian economy and military are in shambles. It will take decades to recover! Also, they will be at the gates of Berlin in no time: we must militarize!
Oh, how the propaganda machine spins in mysterious ways.
There is not the remotest semblance of a European war time economy in preparation or planning.
Saying stuff, arms deals / profiteering from the situation, and updating military training (which armies do anyways in response to contemporary conflict whether they feel threatened or not) are not the remotest semblance of planning, preparing for, "laying the ground work", and much less in the process of implementing some sort of wartime economy that you definitely would be in the act of doing if you thought you actually might be fighting Russia.
And again, your evidence betrays the reality of the situation.
2024 ... a whole two years into the war, and only to "replenish stocks" and not somehow match, much less exceed, the Russian rate of production to fight a large scale conventional war in Europe with said Russian production.
This arms deal is simply the common sense and nearly inevitable result of sending nearly all the ammunition available to get used up in Ukraine (or then sold onward on the blackmarket) in that those stocks need to be restocked at some point.
Quoting ssu
You betray yourself!!
If they're only "seeing the threat" in 2024, then obviously they were lying to us before when the war was existential for Europe and democracy and the "rules based order" from the get go (the "war starting" referring here to the significant expansion of the war in 2022).
You're basically saying "well they were lying to us before and totally didn't see Russia as some sort of actual threat were just 'saying stuff' in order to exploit Ukraine for cynical ends. But now, Now, NOW! they totally see the threat now and they are totally telling us the truth Now.
It's Schrödinger's war machine.
There is no cognitive dissonance: the narratives are superimposed simultaneously without that bothering anyone in the slightest.
Quoting boethius
Well, you answered it yourself.
Quoting boethius
Well, because the Trump team is basically hostile to Ukraine and on the side of Russia. So yes, that indeed is really a change here.
:up: :lol:
The story here is that Europe will now re-arm. This will take a decade or more. In the meantime Russia is weak and can be held at bay for that decade.
The fly in the ointment is the possibility that Trump will gift Ukraine to Putin. This will embolden Putin allowing him to replenish his army and threaten Europe before it re-arms and will have a destabilising effect on geopolitics.
In the meantime Russia is capable of throwing a vast amount of artillery at her opponent and is developing her drone capability quickly. A drone arms race is not good and needs to be choked off asap. This situation could become very expensive as Putin is throwing all his remaining money at it. This needs to be avoided and Trump throwing a spanner in the works really doesn’t help.
I thought I was enough clear, the quotes I’ve reported are all linked so anybody can click and get more context. Anyways, I doubt that more context is gonna help address my points, so I’ll try another way. This time I will not use full quotes but I will report your views as I roughly understood them. No sarcasm, no rude tone, ok? Feel free to highlight and correct where I’m badly misrepresenting your views.
There are some basic factual premises which I find handy to start investigating/explaining interstate conflicts. They concern respectively: people’s “right” to self-determination and power relations among countries.
People’s “right” to self-determination (whatever its degree of codification in the international law) can DE FACTO inspire political struggles for greater emancipation from foreign or sovranational powers perceived as oppressive interference, exploitation or occupation (see Ukraine vs Russian, EU vs the US, Palestine vs Israel, Taiwan vs China, European nations vs EU, Catalonia vs Spain, ex-colonies vs ex-colonial powers, Kurds against Middle Eastern regional powers, etc.) and spin propaganda accordingly or be ready to fight down to its most bitter consequences (and fail).
Then there are DE FACTO power relations among countries as a function of their demographic, economy, technology, defence resources, geography, collective psychology, powerful allies, etc. which DE FACTO political leaderships can exploit to advance foreign political agendas. From that perspective, if power relations favour Russia over Ukraine, Russia will more likely prevail over Ukraine on certain contended issues, if power relations favour the US over EU, the US will more likely prevail over EU on certain contended issues, if Israel power relations favour Israel over Palestine, Israel will more likely prevail over Palestine on certain contended issues, etc.
What is the link between people’s “right” to self-determination as a motivational factor and power relations? Well, people’s ‘right’ to self-determination as a motivational factor can nourish people cohesion (e.g. in light of collective historical traumas) and morale (i.e. determination and tolerance for privation and suffering) so this important motivational factor among others can weigh in establishing power balance. On the other side, if power balance is not determined exclusively by collective psychological factors and collective feelings about a political predicament, then it’s possible that power relations will eventually frustrate “people’s ‘right’ to self-determination” aspirations.
What I just drafted shouldn’t be controversial because it’s totally independent from personal preferences, moral/juridical justifications/condamnation or political propaganda. Now, the reasons why I bring that up are two:
1) In some posts you stress the fact that you are explaining not justifying (e.g. when you talk about Russia strategic interests), in other posts you seem condemning more than explaining (e.g. when you talk about the Palestinian genocide by Israel), in some others you seem to mix the two (e.g. when you talk about the US provocations and engage in blame talking). However you do it in ways that look to me somehow inconsistent. Here is a more concrete example: believing that the Ukrainian emancipation from Russian hegemony and the Ukrainian chumming up with the US was perceived as a “provocation” by Russians sounds to me as plausible as claiming that the European emancipation from the US hegemony (especially under the form of anti-American or anti-Washington populism) and chumming up with Russia (especially under the form of anti-American or anti-Washington populism) was perceived as a “provocation” by the US. If Russia’s reaction was justifiable in imposing its will over Ukraine, even brutally, because Russians felt provoked, then also the US’s reaction was justifiable in imposing its will over EU, even brutally, because the US felt provoked. And if US/Ukraine are to be blamed for provoking Russia and Russia’s consequent reaction, then also EU/Russia (even more so the anti-American or anti-Washington populist) are to be blamed for provoking the US and US’s consequent reaction. In other words, the symmetry in attributing “hegemonic aspirations”, “emancipation aspirations” and “provocations” between Russia vs Ukraine and the US vs the EU is such that justification/condamnetion and blame can be equally distributed on both sides. So they can NOT ground the asymmetry you seem to believe in: namely, that the US’s reaction was less justifiable than the Russians’, and that the US/Ukraine are more to be blamed than European populism/Russia for this conflict. And since you mostly insist on the US hegemonic aspirations, US provocations against Russia, and European (especially populist) aspirations to emancipation from the US, my point is precisely that “hegemonic aspirations”, “emancipation aspirations” and “provocations” can be symmetrically distributed so they do not explain the asymmetry of judgement. Other premises must be invoked to ground the asymmetry in judgement and blaming: something like the US provocations against Russia were significantly worse than Russia provocations against the US, or it was the US which started all of it, or the US is more evil than Russia, or I don’t care about Ukrainian emancipation as much as I care about European countries emancipation, and the like. Whatever premises ground your blame attribution and condemnation, I think they would deserve more focus than the US “hegemonic aspirations”, European “emancipation aspirations” and Western “provocations” against Russia.
2) In your “realist” explanations, you often brought up Mearsheimer’s arguments mostly to back up your own views, however I’m not sure how committed you are toward his arguments or where your views diverge from his (the fact that you think there is more strategy than incompetence per se doesn’t improve understanding over the strategy, nor does the idea that the blob hiddenly pushing Trump now is the same crew pushing Clinton/Bush). One related example is when you talk about “the blob”: indeed, one of Mearsheimer’s arguments is that American antagonism with Russia (and exporting democracy) was driven by neoliberal agenda while Mearsheimer’s ideas were more open to accepting a division of sphere of influence to avoid American overstretching and ally with a weaker/declining Russia to contain the rising China. So Trump’s approach seems very much in line with what Mearsheimer’s was suggesting. Yet the problem for the European emancipation from the US hegemony is that the change in strategy from neoliberal to Trump’s (and Mearsheimer’s) doesn’t look less worrisome, on the contrary it looks more worrisome because it’s openly humiliating and threatening European “allies” down to obedience to avoid nasty retaliations. And given Trump-Musk support for European far-right populism (like AfD), I’m not sure if European populism is still the right horse to bet on for European emancipation. So not only changing strategy by the US doesn’t look more promising for European emancipation neither European populism does. Your belief that that the same hidden crew of Washington is frustrating European emancipation aspirations or serving American imperialist aspirations or abandoning allies, before or under Trump’s administration, besides looking unverifiable to me, it doesn’t change the fact that the strategy looks pretty different, the prospects for the European emancipation look rather compromised now, in spite of (or maybe even thanks to) rising far-right populism, and the pattern of American abandoning allies can not be explained via neoliberal hypocrisies because they are grounded on Mearsheimer-style reasoning over foreign politics.
Said that, here are two major differences between my and your views (among others): while you were warning and still keep warning about provoking Russia, Russia’s security concerns and the danger of servile pro-US European elites. I was warning about provoking the US, Russian aggressive imperialism (which goes way beyond than just not having Ukraine inside NATO) and the dangers of servile pro-Russian (and now tempted to turn pro-US) populist movements.
And while, prior to this conflict, the Europeans under the neoliberal agenda (the one you despise so much) grew prosperous and relatively safe, and had the best opportunity to develop a collective European military-industrial complex for their own security (but I suspect you are against a collective European military-industrial complex) without risking the kind of retaliations that a “victorious” Russia and “angry” US are capable of, as of now. You seem/seemed to believe that precisely this Ukrainian conflict was the best chance for Europe to emancipate itself from the US without risking Russia’s retaliations by making political choices that would have anyways led to a “victorious” Russia and “angry” US (and without a collective European military-industrial complex).
The Ukraine conflict is not comparable to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ukraine is much more morally grey.
In the case of Israel-Palestine, it is not morally grey at all. It is perfectly clear to me what has gone on over the past 70 years, and the world as represented in the UN General Assembly agrees almost unanimously, just like virtually every human rights organisation imaginable, including Israeli human rights organisations.
Second, when geopolitical actors meddle in ways that are misleading and exploitative, I have no qualms with making moral statements about that.
Russia is clearly a wolf and widely perceived as a calculating geopolitical actor. The US on the other hand is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and therefore much more dangerous because people are ignorant to its true nature.
In neither case is there a double standard, since the two things being compared are simply not the same.
I support Ukrainian independence. What I do not support is incompetent nations like the EU, or exploitative nations like the US leading it down the prim rose path by feeding it fake promises of security.
Quoting neomac
Yes, I think Mearsheimer is too quick to assume incompetence rather than deliberate strategy on the part of the US.
Considering the US is objectively the most powerful, and most dangerous, nation on earth, at the very least the idea of deliberate strategy should be exhausted before assuming incompetence. Currently, it remains conspicuously absent from the discussion.
Mearsheimer himself has argued that the influence of US presidents on foreign affairs is limited at best, and whether Trump is truly acting independently from 'the Blob' is unclear. I never said I had definitive thoughts about that.
About European 'emancipation' I have little to say. Europe is a lost cause. It will take decades for it to undo the damage of post-Cold War soft power US colonialism. But for the US to leave is obviously a prerequisite for things to get better.
Quoting neomac
What's the US going to do? Leave? Conquer Greenland?
Let them. The sooner they show their true face, the better.
The principal threat is not an 'angry' US - the US is thousands of miles away across an ocean - but European 'Trans-Atlanticists' prostituting Europe to the American agenda.
I don't believe in the narrative that the Russians are coming for Berlin. The Ukraine war neither suggests they have the intention nor the capacity to threaten Europe.
Europe's population is roughly four times that of Russia. It's GDP is roughly ten times that of Russia.
Even if Europe organises its defense inefficiently on a country-by-country basis there ought to be no Russian threat.
The only reason Europe is vulnerable is because American interests have infiltrated its every institution like a Trojan horse, disallowing it from making sensible decisions.
It's not. Above all, Russia is an existential threat under Putin's attempt on an imperial Reconquista. A Russia under someone else would have made things totally different. But now Putin will continue his aggressive policies, they simply won't end with Ukraine. He will go after NATO countries, this is for sure.
For the majority of Europeans, thankfully this a black and white issue and only those falling to Russian propaganda will see it as grey.
Quoting Punshhh
Yes, I agree with you.
What now is likely will happen is that Ukraine simply won't accept the Trump's pro-Russian plan, and Trump will have a temper tantrum on Ukraine ...and Europe. And Europe really has now to aid Ukraine. Let's hope they finally start with the billions of Putin's seized money. Then forget the spending limits and simply use debt to spend more on defense.
Here's what the Americans like JD Vance don't understand. Questions like wokeness or what is considered hate-speech, all this cultural war debate, are issues to be debated inside every democracy and their Parliaments and in their political arena. Threats to the existence of Sovereing states are totally different. And talking about taking the territory of another Sovereign nation state is an opening of Pandora's box. In Europe, we take it deadly serious. And the emphasis is on deadly. It's not about our economical benefits or political or moral character, it is the threat of war and our existence. Political debate or economic benefits or trade issues aren't so important. They don't mean anything compared to our security, which isn't just a few terrorists succeeding in their actions.
Trump seems to be incapable of understanding just how much damage he has done.
I simply cannot take you seriously if you consider the Ukraine conflict and Israel-Palestine conflict in the same moral ballpark.
I don't even believe that you sincerely believe that yourself.
Like when several Arab nations immediately attacked Israel from all sides and Israel didn't just roll over and die. What a travesty! :lol:
But yes, clearly black and white. We can all see the group that abducts civilian hostages and murders a mother and her little children in captivity are clearly the good guys. The issue couldn't be any clearer. All the human rights organization agree. No need to look at the footage or draw our own conclusions; just trust the organizations. The internationalist organizations always hold the truth and cannot be compromised.
Jews in Gaza are dead or hostages. Palestinians in Israel serve in Parliament. By all means, continue listening to your internationalist sources flush with Qatari money.
Zelenskyy says he would step down if Ukraine can join NATO, blasts Trump mineral pitch
[sup]— Cybele Mayes-Osterman · USA TODAY · Feb 23, 2025[/sup]
Why wouldn't you put them into the same ballpark?
The only difference is that Palestine and the Palestinians aren't a sovereign state that is attacked by another sovereign state, as in the case of Ukraine. That simply makes a huge deal, because once sovereign states can be done away with, that changes quite a lot in the World.
If you understand so well the reasonable objective of Putin's Russia, then you can well understand "the reasonable objectives" of Netanyahu's administration.
Well, it might be that:
a) European NATO countries insist to themselves that there is no problem with the Trump administration, that just as long as nobody asks Trump about it, we can just say that nothing has changed and the alliance is working. And Republicans will (behind the back of Trump, of course) insist that there's nothing to worry, the US is has their backs and this is just a negotiating tactic of Trump. Naturally they won't make this publicly.
b) That European NATO countries push Ukraine accept the punitive extraction attempt from Trump. Because of a).
c) Obviously Putin knows that he has Trump by the balls and can make him squeal as he wants him to do just by dangling in front of him some billion dollar deal that personally benefits the Trump family. Trump, who has never been interested in Europe or Ukraine, likely will give in for further demands as he sees the mirage of Russia billions in his eyes.
d) The likely one is what Putin has wanted for a long time, a demand which he actually put immediately on Trump when he was a candidate: have US troops leave the Baltics. And this can be done secretly, just like with Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, where the US just says it is pivoting to Asia. US forces simply won't participate in exercises in the Baltics... for cost cutting reasons. This is basically going back to the time when NATO didn't have any warplans to defend the Baltics, because having them would have upset Russia. And this was the truth before the invasion of Crimea 2014.
e) Once this is done, well, the Putin can freely go after the Baltic states with the much used playbook of creating "internal conflicts" and in order to protect the Russian minorities, "Russian volunteers" or "Russian peacekeepers" are sent in. And why not, because the US won't do anything and European members haven't prepared or don't want to intervene because of a).
The Finlandization of NATO is totally possible, which just show what an existential threat Russia is for Europe.
Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not.
Morally equating the two is perhaps the most childish thing I've seen you do on this forum.
Wow, seems you are definitely on Putin appeaser. Quite a Pro-Putinist there!
The attacks on civilians, civilian infrastructure, hospitals and taking away of Ukrainian children just show what kind of enemy Putin's Russia is. Russian army had showed already in Chechnya how it fights wars.
I remember what a Finn that had fought in Ukraine told about a prisoner exchange they had. The Ukrainians delivered Russian prisoners of war, the Russian gave them Ukrainian children.
So that's the enemy you are so much understanding and putting on a different category. It really starts with things like Ukraine as a country "is an artificial construct". It is quite similar as the condescending attitude towards "There is no Palestine or Palestinians".
You're a clown, mate.
Taking into account timelines, the history of Russia is quite bloody. But we are talking about the current here.
Quoting Tzeentch
That is a sure sign of a Putin-apologist right there.
The EU is part of Europe, Norway (mature democracy), Hungary (mostly democratic), ..., are parts of thereof.
Hungary argues with whoever else, Croatia and Serbia are arguing, Slovakia might argue with Germany and France, the UK now hangs out on the side, ... Then there are all kinds of bureaucracy.
Unlike the US, the EU isn't a country, Europe isn't a country, and has a tediously long history.
If one expects Europe to have centralized executive powers (like the US), then they have things to learn.
This sort of "diversity" is exploitable, which is what the Kremlin does.
A question:
Is there an underlying assumption by some, that the US has a secretive organization (or the like), that more or less determines policy, across the various administrations?
If not determines, then otherwise assert strong power to their end behind the scenes?
Say, over the last three decades? Four? More?
Until I hear an explanation for the Bucha massacre this sounds like Putin apologetics.
Israel has never went into Gaza or the West Bank and hog-tied hundreds of civilians before executing them.
In a philosophy forum, I find more interesting to discuss explicit moral criteria, hopefully not “ad hoc”, than just provide moral opinions. And I will charitably assume that your criteria are not something like: if after 70 years there is unanimous agreement by all human rights organisation imaginable (excluding Russian human rights organisations, since apparently there aren’t much left there unlike in Israel, even under Netanyahu) on the Russia’s aggression of Ukraine, one is entitled to morally condemn Russia’s aggression of Ukraine.
Concerning criteria relying on the advise of international law and humanitarian organizations, the allegations that Russia is committing genocide and war crimes in Ukraine do not look so much less severe than the Israeli case to me, see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
What actually sounds even morally worse in the Russian case than in the Israeli case (assumed the notion of “genocide” equally applies to both) is that in his article ”On the historical unity of Russian and Ukrainians“ Putin has claimed [I]“Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people” [/I]. (https://www.prlib.ru/en/article-vladimir-putin-historical-unity-russians-and-ukrainians). So Putin’s war against Ukrainians is not only genocidal, but also fratricidal. Nothing of the sort can be said of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Finally, also the moral outrage of the perceived "provocations" look more problematic for Russia than for Israel: indeed, what's evidently morally outrageous in the idea of having Ukraine joining NATO some day in the future compared to the massacre of Israeli civilians in Israel by Hamas?
Concerning history, the struggle of Ukrainians to gain independence from Russia is going on for centuries (the last one is just the 4th war of independence). So the claim that the Ukrainians badly want to be independent from Russia and Russians do not let them doesn’t sound so far fetched. Not to mention the case of the “Holodomor” which looks to me way more atrocious than the “Nakba”. Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" in 1944, explicitly applied the concept of ”genocide” to the Soviet oppression of Ukrainians, including the Holodomor. He considered the destruction of the Ukrainian nation as a "classic example of Soviet genocide" and "the longest and most extensive experiment in Russification”.
Concerning political principles, as I said elsewhere, Russia’s war against Ukraine looks pretty hegemonic in nature. Indeed, Russia not only has a state which Ukraine acknowledges and hasn’t invaded or attacked (at least prior to this conflict), but it has the largest state on earth, and abundant land for hosting way more ethnic Russians than currently exist compared to Israel (the population density in Israel is roughly 50 times higher than in Russia). Besides Russia has previously formally acknowledged Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. On the other side, Israel’s war against Hamas doesn’t look hegemonic in nature. Israel so far is just trying to establish its own nation state and keep it safe from Palestinians’ and other neighbouring middle-eastern countries’ aggressions, and it has never acknowledged the existence of Palestinian state. Besides, in accordance to the premises I made explicit in my previous comment, if one holds the right to people self-determination, it’s much more easy to condemn Russian hegemonic ambitions as violating Ukrainian people’s self-determination, than to condemn either nations between Israelis and Palestinians which are fighting for their right to self-determination over exactly the same land.
So what is it making so “much more” morally grey one case over the other to you doesn’t look evident to me at all. Could you provide criteria that would make such difference so much morally grey in one case over the other?
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, given the case of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, I thought your moral assessment depends not only on honesty and exploitative intentions , but also genocidal intentions and war crimes.
Concerning honesty and exploitative intentions, since Russia is a “wolf”, what would you consider as misleading and exploitative by Russia in the current conflict with Ukraine? Do you have concrete examples in mind to provide? Maybe the fact that Russia acknowledged Ukrainian territorial sovereignty on many occasions (including the one Mearsheimer wrote an article about in “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent”)?
Concerning genocidal intentions and war crimes, can you articulate a bit more your moral views on that? Indeed, since you accused others of cognitive dissonance, let me point out that I also see a risk of cognitive dissonance on your part too. Honestly I don’t remember much of your moral statements against what Russia is doing in Ukraine. And the problem is not much that you seem way more focused on the moral status of the US and its European “vassals” than on Russia because, as you claim, the US is much more dangerous than Russia. The problem is that you even look “favourable” to Russia’s aggression of Ukraine, given this comment [1]: [I]“it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests”[/I] (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/968536). Now, if this argument is not apologetics for Russia’s genocide in Ukraine (territorial annexations included), then also arguing that Israel is reacting against the Palestinian aggression (territorial annexations included) is not apologetics for Israel’s genocide in Palestine as “it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests”. If it is apologetics in one case, than it is also in the other.
Given your views, it must be convenient for you to argue that Russia is not seriously committing a genocide in Ukraine or war crimes (because you are morally against genocide or war crimes, right?), at least until you provide more explicit and non-ad-hoc criteria. The alternative would be that committing genocide and war crimes are morally justified if “it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests”. Which is it?
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
These two comments remind me a bit of the joke “It's Schrödinger's war machine.”
Instead of indulging into sarcastic retaliations, let me highlight the following dilemma.
Either the US is objectively the most powerful and most dangerous compared to Russia, then recalling the geographic distance shouldn’t be enough to dismiss the security threat coming from the US, nor suggest that’s batter to provoke and keep provoking/antagonising the US (so yes one must be definitely be worried about a “angry” US).
Or the US is NOT objectively the most powerful, and most dangerous compared to Russia, then recalling the geographic distance shouldn’t be enough to dismiss the security threat coming from Russia, nor suggest that’s batter to provoke and keep provoking/antagonising Russia (so yes one must be definitely be worried about a “angry” Russia).
Which is it to you?
Quoting Tzeentch
Are you saying that it’s thanks to the war between Russia and Ukraine that we know that Russia has not “the capacity to threaten Europe”? How so?
Besides, if Russia has not the capacity to threaten Europe, then the fear of an “angry” Russia seems less compelling, do you agree?
These statements in addition to the previous ones do not make it more clear how you assess the Russian threat to Europe. More on this below.
Quoting Tzeentch
How do you know that populist movements or national leaders are less incompetent than EU leaders?
Do you mean that Russia is not an exploitative for making fake promises of security to Ukraine like the Budapest memorandum?
Quoting Tzeentch
The problem of the European emancipation must also go with some important acknowledgement from you:
did the US oppress Germany, France, the Ntehterlans or Spain as Russia is oppressing Ukraine?
Obviously, I can get that a nation wants to become independent from foreign interference which is perceived as oppressive. But the US hasn’t been oppressive toward EU countries as Russia is toward Ukraine, or Israel toward Palestine. Actually the EU prospered in peace for several decades. Do you agree?
Besides what do you mean by “for the US to leave”? One can say that Soviet Union has left Hungary, still Hungary has been supporting Russia over EU and the US as a European vassal may support the US. That is to say, that even assuming that the US military bases leave Europe, that doesn’t imply that the US “the most powerful and dangerous” country has not economic and military interests in Europe that will still constrain Europe margins for strategic emancipation (things may get even trickier if "Europe" refers to individual European countries instead of groups of European countries like the EU).
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
First, Russia has military resources to threaten Germany and a nuclear arsenal (indeed Russia has not spared itself from making nuclear threats when its strategic interests are at stake), Germany has an insufficient military capacity wrt Russia, Russia has historically invaded Germany and taken a good piece of it, so Russia doesn’t need to come for Berlin anytime soon to be a security threat to Berlin.
Second, as I pointed out in another post: aggregating GDP (or population) of EU countries doesn't make much sense if one overlooks the deep divisions over security issues among European countries. Besides Berlin is just one European capital, there are other Eastern European capitals for which Russian conventional military aggression could be a serious problem.
Third, most importantly, Russia’s threats to Europe are not limited to conventional warfare. Hybrid warfare must the taken into account and hybrid warfare can be enough to induce concessions to Russia’s demands. So if European countries want to emancipate themselves from being vassals of foreign powers like the US, then the same must hold against Russia. Besides a source of security concerns comes also from Russian minorities populating many European countries (including Germany). They are a good resource for pretexts to rise tensions, covert operations (like sabotaging) and political trafficking.
Quoting Tzeentch
What about a “victorious” Russian interests in Europe? Did Russians infiltrate European institutions and far right populist movements like a Trojan horse? What if the US will leave and Russia wants to ensure that the US doesn’t come back again and for that it will do its best to fill the void of power left by the US? It shouldn’t sound so far-fetched that outside NATO/EU e.g. Hungary might be interested in hosting Russian military bases. Or that European countries which need Russian oil/gas/wheat could be blackmailed in various ways including buying Russian weapon systems to feed the Russian military-industrial complex and its power projection like in the middle east, Mediterranean sea, North Africa and Baltic sea (around Europe).
So while Russia is arguably far more oppressive and aggressive over nations under its sphere of influence than the US is toward European countries, it seems you worry more about a vassal status of the EU toward the US, and as if there was no risk that European countries would turn into vassals of Russia once the US has completely gone. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t even exclude a worse scenario one in which an “angry” US and a “victorious” Russia will turn European states into more submissive vassals (for the US, Italy is a good candidate, as much as Hungary is for Russia).
The first one is worth digging into because it can contribute to explain the authoritarian turn of Trump's administration, his antagonism against EU and Trump’s philo-Putinism.
The second one is worth digging into because it can contribute to better assess analogies and differences between the Ukrainian-Russian conflict vs the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The strategic stakes of the war between Russia and Ukraine were mostly about a new world order in which powerful authoritarian countries can impose their rule over the others through direct negotiations between supreme leaders (independently from the qualms of international law), including Western democratic countries no matter how justified their moral outrage is.
No, I did not answer the rebuttal myself.
Quoting ssu
The points here are twain:
First, they've been saying the exact same thing since 2022 in order to justify pouring arms into Ukraine, so for you're argument to work you must recognize that from 2022 to 2024 "saying stuff" like Putin is literally Hitler and we need to him in Ukraine and so on was pure propaganda that no leader in Europe actually believed.
I.e. that you're argument structure is that it was the boy who cried wolf for 2 years and now, NOW, there's actually a wolf, trust me bro.
That's the first point you need to contend with as the rhetoric has not changed.
Second, even 2024 and 2025 there is still zero evidence of the EU planning, preparing, much less implementing some semblance of a war time economy in order to fight the Russians, not even a little bit to just reach shell parity for Ukraine in Russia.
Is it really that hard to make enough artillery shells?
There's industrial layoffs in Europe all over the place, idle capacity ... why not get people to work making shells.
Which still wouldn't make a lick of sense to only start doing now (if any part of the rhetoric represented the slightest true belief), as even if we recognize that painting Russia as a threat to the EU was bullshit there was still the "rules based order" and democracy and borders, Borders man! (outside the Middle-East of course) that needed defended.
Furthermore, even if it's completely delusional, a large majority of Europeans simply believe the propaganda that Ukraine good, Russia bad, Putin's literally Hitler, if Ukraine falls then literally the rest of Europe will be next, and so on, even more so at the start of the war ... so not only could idle capacity be put into making shells but there would be a large group of recently laid off industrial workers essentially volunteering for the production lines, not to mention millions of just able bodied people's (and even women with zero construction or industrial experience whatsoever could rapidly skill up and not only produce simple things like shells but far more complicated things like fighter aircraft, in WWII ... but with more eduction, more automated tooling, more engineers and so on, this cannot be accomplished today?).
At some point you have to answer these sorts of questions.
And the answer is there was never any intention, whether in Europe or the United States, to have any other outcome in the war in Ukraine other than the one we are currently seeing (of the Ukrainian military lines breaking).
The reason there is no crash program to produce things as simple as artillery shells is because that would help Ukraine quite a lot, and as importantly does not generate obscene profits for military contractors.
The strategy was always to drip feed weapons to Ukraine to at least get to the next election while still being able to at least pretend things are fine.
... Again ... why only now? (even if true, which it's not in any remotely meaningful "preparing for total war with Russia" sense)
But same question to you as with @ssu ... the rhetoric has not changed, so how are you not implicitly accepting European leaders where lying about that for years, drip feeding weapons to Ukraine to prop it up just enough to not collapse spectacularly (before the US election), and therefore the "story" being "Europe will now re-arm" is because they've been crying wolf and only see an actual wolf now because the US (specifically Trump as you've said) has exposed them to the consequences of their own actions of antagonizing a far more powerful neighbour for cynical reasons?
How can you just casually skip over the fact the EU obviously wasn't rearming in 2022 in response to literally New Hitler invading a European country and EU countries are bound to be next if New Hitler isn't stopped in Ukraine ... but obviously could have with things like the "biggest arms deal in EU history" and the like, or then even a little bit of actual war time economy measures to support Ukraine (such as essentially volunteer based factories to produce enough shells for Ukraine)?
I.e. how can you just casually skip over these obvious lies and deception by European leaders for 3 years, if not many years before, without exposing your position as just repeating whatever "pro-Ukrainians dying" propaganda you heard last.
Quoting Punshhh
WTF are you talking about?
The fly in what ointment? The delicious ointment of provoking and then propping up a war by drip feeding in weapons for war profiteering purposes, only to suddenly realize antagonizing a far more powerful military while being nearly fully dependent on another great power an Ocean away (that has since decades being talking about it's "pivot" to an Ocean even farther away) was terrible state craft?
Now, if your question is why would European leaders go down such a self-destructive path which, at best, renders Europe a poor vassal backwaters to the United States?
Well the answer is that the European leaders that did this are essentially just organized crime kingpins and organized crime have benefited a great deal from this war.
Quoting Punshhh
Ah yes, in the meantime Russia can just casually outproduce the largest economic block on the planet.
... but I thought the holy ointment was propping up total war in Ukraine while not even making token efforts to match production rates and only starting to think about that part of "being essentially at war with Russia" now that Trump wants to make peace with Russia as that's in American's interest to do, and will lower energy prices and get US access to all sorts of minerals and so on.
So considering war with Russia your "ointment" ... how exactly do you see choking off a drones arms race? Arms control is a deescalatory process of arms limitations, but the "story here" is Europe will re-arm ... so you're idea is Europe will rearm while asking Russia to kindly exnay on the onesdray, just kind of cool it a little, maybe just a forceful "knock-it-off", or a strongly worded letter will get the job done?
Quoting Punshhh
Why would your program of choking off an arms race become expensive?
Also, it's called "oil", which is turned into an obscure economic thing called "revenue", which renders the phrase "Putin is throwing all his remaining money at it" basically nonsense. This sort of complicated businessney thing maybe over your head but I, as a long time corporate executive, could try to explain it to you.
I'll only answer those questions where I think my position may require clarification.
Quoting neomac
In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict:
- +/-70 years of thorough documentation
- Mountains of reports by human rights organisations, including those within Israel itself
- Mountains of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions
- Near-unanimous global condemnation
- Condemnation within Israel itself
- Admissions by Israeli politicians
- Having studied the conflict in-depth as part of my academic education, and having visited the region as part of a research tour.
Quoting neomac
War crimes are an unfortunate reality of war. They happen in every war, and criminals ought to be punished.
Things take on a different guise when war crimes are carried out intentionally on a large scale, at a governmental level.
I don't believe Russia has genocidal intentions in Ukraine. Ukrainians are returning to Russian-occupied territories every day.
Where that leaves Europe is a bit of a different story though. Europe has supported Ukraine more than the US, with 132.3 billion EUR against 114.2 EUR billion by the USA (excluding UK, in which case the difference is even more significant). And where the US has only allocated another 4.84 billion EUR, Europe has already allocated 115.1 EUR billion. See Ukraine support tracker. That can change, of course, especially as you point out the USA would have a stake in Ukraine. But if European countries were cut out of the deal entirely, that will further fuel resentment towards the USA as we will have basically "funded" the deal through military support. So the knock-on effects could be quite different.
EDIT: also looking at the "deal", the last draft was the US demanding 500 billion USD in minerals, which is a multitude of the aid provided. Even with security guarantees that's a bit rich. At the same time there's the EU Memorandum of Understanding that seeks to integrate Ukrainian resource mineral extraction in EU supply chains through mutual investments. Seems a lot fairer!
Out of courtesy I’m thanking you for your courtesy. However, I doubt the that your problem is repeating moves, as you claim, since you keep repeating moves [1] (including the claim that you have already said this and that so no need repeating [2]). Even in this last post of yours.
You can give synthetic answers to my questions (I consider all of them equally pressing, then it’s up to you), at least we can verify where you said that already as you claim.
Besides, the fact that you keep repeating claims may also point to the fact that you think to win arguments by repeating the same response to challenges against what you keep repeating. Unfortunately, I’m sure you agree that “you don't win arguments by repetition”. Maybe try something else instead of repeating.
[1]
“That's something I've repeatedly argued in this thread: NATO, the US in particular, was purposefully seeking conflict in Ukraine from 2008 onward”.
[2]
“I’ve probably written about a book's worth and can't be arsed to repeat it all”
Quoting Tzeentch
In what way this is a clarification of “It is perfectly clear to me what has gone on over the past 70 years, and the world as represented in the UN General Assembly agrees almost unanimously, just like virtually every human rights organisation imaginable, including Israeli human rights organisations” when my explicit challenge to you was: “I find more interesting to discuss explicit moral criteria, hopefully not “ad hoc”, than just provide moral opinions. And I will charitably assume that your criteria are not something like: if after 70 years there is unanimous agreement by all human rights organisation imaginable (excluding Russian human rights organisations, since apparently there aren’t much left there unlike in Israel, even under Netanyahu) on the Russia’s aggression of Ukraine, one is entitled to morally condemn Russia’s aggression of Ukraine” ?
I do not question that you may be more convinced in one case than the other, but I’ll repeat that the criteria you are repeating seem rather arbitrary.
A part from the fact that if a conflict lasts 70 years of course one may have evidence and complaints spanning over 70 years to support the “genocide” accusation, while if a conflict lasts 3 years of course one may have 3 years of evidence and complaints to support the “genocide” accusation. But most importantly, really are you waiting for 70 years of evidence to make moral assessments about wars? 3 years are not enough? BTW moral rules like “do not kill”, “do not lie”, “do not steal”, “do not break promises”, sound rather intuitive, so do you seriously not have amassed enough evidence in 3 years that Russia is committing more violations of moral rules against Ukraine than the other way around in this conflict or its genesis? Or you want to say that Russia’s aggression of Ukraine was a morally “proportional” response to the Ukrainian desire to join NATO while Israel’s response against the massacre of its civilians by Hamas wasn’t? No temporal constraints are part of the legal definition of "genocide".
How fair is it to recall certain criticisms from within Israel vs lack of similar criticisms from Russia given the fact public opinion in Israel is much more free than in Russia?
Concerning your appeals to your expertise or experience (not the first time you are doing it), how is not that convenient, besides being unverifiable to us? Appeal to your authority is as good as an attack ad hominem against your interlocutors. Actually its complement.
Finally, a part from the fact that the accusation of “genocide” is legally different from the accusation of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity, you can read more about appeal to near-unanimous human rights organizations and UN Assembly condemnations against Russia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
So much so that there are ICC arrest warrants for Putin as much as for Netanyahu (and also for Hamas representatives but not against Zelensky).
Concerning the UN Security Council resolution the trick is that it requires the permission of Russia, which is the perpetrator of the alleged “genocide”. Besides the accusation of committing “genocide” against Israel by the Security Council concerns specifically the massacre of Sabra and Shatila, not the current conflict:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel#United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions
And the problem is not only in the criteria which you mention, but also on criteria which you do not mention now, while being so important to you in other posts. I'm referring to your claim: “it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests”. You made this claim to justify/explain (until you do clarify better how you distinguish them, I’ll put both) Russian aggression of Ukraine, but not the Israeli aggression on Hamas. Why? Is it “it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests” a moral criterium for moral condemnation/justification or not?
Quoting Tzeentch
That sounds to me a plausible criterium when accusing governments of committing genocides because it stems from the legal definition of “genocide” which includes the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. The problem is to understand what evidences are needed to prove such an intent in one conflict over the other. There are evidences coming from human rights organizations and UN resolutions, one can check historical patterns, one can check political decisions and declarations. I think one can find lots of compelling evidence in both cases.
Quoting Tzeentch
If the criterium of assessing “genocidal intentions“ is Ukrainian ability to go back to occupied territories, then the same holds for Palestinians, see here : https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/27/middleeast/palestinians-return-north-gaza-intl-hnk/index.html
Good.
My criteria don't seem arbitrary to me at all.
So what is it you expect from me? Convince you somehow? To try and 'win the argument'?
If you're not even willing to believe I'm being honest about my credentials, then what possible point would there be to carry on conversation?
To me the point of this conversation with you has nothing to do with believing your honesty over your credentials or whatever else, of course. As I said, I find it rather irrelevant, even if you were honest: indeed, I find irrelevant any argument from authority if that’s meant to replace arguments de re.
If I do not understand the criteria for sexing chickens, and ask you clarifications, it would be pointless to tell me: “see these two chickens? Well, the right one is male and the left one is a female and the criteria are that I’ve academic credentials on sexing chickens, I’ve sexed chickens for 30 years in tens of farms and I’m honest”. Even if you were 100% right, 100% honest, 100% convinced, 100% believed by all the people in the universe, past, present, future (ME INCLUDED!), yet you didn’t offer any criteria for me to understand how to sex chickens.
I think the purpose of a conversation in a philosophy forum is not just to exchange opinions about things one takes to be evident but also to investigate and question grounds to believe things. That’s why I’ve joined this philosophy forum and this thread. Is this why you too joined this philosophy forum and this thread? If not, for what other purpose are you here?
Ouch, did I poke a bear, or something?
Look, I’m well aware of the points you raise. But I wasn’t addressing them, I was saying what the big story is, the big headline. That the post war settlement is coming to an end and a new settlement will be reached.
The U.S. and Russia have been sparring since the end of WW2. That was part of the Cold War narrative with occasional proxy wars, crises etc. It worked for a long period maybe 70 or 80yrs. That has now come to an end and the geopolitical tectonic plates are moving.
An important thing to remember in that settlement was the caretaker role of the US in Europe. This is why European countries haven’t developed powerful armies. This is why they have become complacent , always relying on Uncle Sam to do the heavy lifting. This suited both part parties. This was not likely to change much until Trump came along and trashed NATO. This combined with Putin’s imperial ambitions have changed the landscape and a new equilibrium will have to be found.
This inevitably results in a lot of chaos and shouting.
How did the Ukrainian delegation, with Zelensky at the head, let this happen?
It seems very likely now that the US is going to pull out. That was probably going to happen anyways, given that the Trump administration has shown zero interest in actually negotiating meaningfully.
Trump and Vance are in Putin's camp and talking heads for the Russian dictator. How else would it go? Zelensky has to be honest to his people, who are fighting this war.
I just hope that Western Europe has enough backbone and stand up against Trump and support Ukraine. I'm sure that the asshole Trump will demand Europe not to support Ukraine and go along with this pressuring of the victim. Vance going of with Kremlin talking points is despicable.
US was the leader of the free world for 80 years. Not anymore.
Quoting Wayfarer
I do agree with the sentiment, but Zelensky had a purpose for going to the White House, and he failed. Maybe there was no actual way to succeed. But this was certainly not the optimal way for that to go, even taking into account the personalities of Trump and Vance.
Do understand that the US under Trump isn't in support of Ukraine, Trump is against Ukraine. Ukraine is the problem. Ukraine won't bow down to what Russia wants, so Zelensky has to go!
You criticize and attack your enemies, you don't speak anything bad about those who you support. This cannot be more clear now. There is no other way to see it.
Hence there was no way for an actual deal to succeed, because Ukraine isn't yet in a position that it's defense would be collapsing. If there would have been a deal to be made, then there would have been an actual meeting behind closed doors, not ambush like we witnessed. Now Trump will punish Ukraine, because he is for Russia.
What Trump will push for the peace deal that Putin wants, a deal that Putin wouldn't otherwise get. People have to wake up on this. Trump won't lift a finger to anything that Putin does. That's the real problem. Europe has to arm itself, because the US is now a willing sidekick of an Putin, whose appetite will grow now very much. This won't end with Ukraine.
Trump is getting us to a situation where it isn't just about Ukraine anymore. Putin can surely taste the blood in the water now.
As I predicted.
[i]"As expected, the Russian government seemed thrilled over the public spat between Trump and Zelensky.
“The insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office. And [Donald Trump] is right: The Kiev regime is ‘gambling with WWIII’” wrote Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia.[/i] "
-Rolling Stone
I'm reading the situation a bit differently. Trump doesn't care about Ukraine one way or another, he just cares about his ego. He appears to genuinely believe Putin respects him as some kind of great leader, hence he's willing to take Putin's side unless it involves him looking weak.
A lot comes down to what Trump is told by the people with a plan behind the scenes. JD Vance seems to seek to push a wedge between Europe and the US in general, not sure to wear ultimate end. Musk seems more interested in dismantling government structures from the inside.
In general the feeling I get is that these people don't care about the fate of Ukraine or Europe in the near future because they're imagining that once they've remade America, the rest of the world will either follow or cease to be relevant.
Quoting Punshhh
But the Trump chaos is being steered in a more deliberate direction this time. Both internally and externally the goal seems to be to use Trump to engineer a breakdown of existing structures.
With such insight into Trump's manly brilliance, how could Trump not think highly of Putin?
;
If they wouldn't care, why then the hostility? No, really. Vance and Trump have absolutely no intension to be on the side of Ukraine... or on Western Europe. They want to cozy up with Russia and that's why the attack and the hostility. They are pressuring Ukraine to take what Russia wants, hence they are here doing Putin's bidding.
When you throw somebody under the bus, you have to show that the person earned it, had it coming, that he's the bad guy. It has to be Ukraine's fault.
And it will be worse, because Europeans won't so clearly throw Ukraine under the bus. This will irritate Trump even more, and likely the next thing will be NATO alliance itself. As John Bolton has said, Trump has wanted to exit NATO during his previous administration. I totally believe this. It think it's going to happen, because Putin can play Trump so well.
That is the ultimate goal what Putin wants, and Trump is doing his best to do that.
“Whaddya mean, “I’m not gonna sign”?!?’
Let’s not forget that just this week, the US refused to endorse a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion.
Trump is to all intents a Kremlin asset now.
Russia will keep the territory they annexed and there will be a guarantee of no NATO membership— either that happens or there’s no end to the war, other than a ceasefire and a long cold war. If Trump actually pushes for that, I’d be surprised.
I don’t think Ukraine could ever agree to it— but without US support they have 0 chance of taking back territory, let alone “winning” the war. They’re not going to win even with US backing. Maybe when Zelensky is out, things change. But it’s unclear to me what exactly happens here, with a mineral deal.
It's hard to predict what will happen to Ukraine if the US pulls the plug, even after a peace is signed, but it probably won't be pretty.
US President-elect Donald Trump won’t end the Ukraine war because he has appointed “a bunch of hawks” who suffer from “Russophobia in the extreme”, international relations scholar John Mearsheimer has claimed.
Mearsheimer argued the West and Ukraine must — but won’t — accept two conditions for Russian President Vladimir Putin to enter negotiations. First, “that Ukraine will never be in Nato”. Second, “that Crimea and the four Oblasts that the Russians have now annexed are permanently lost”. He continued: “I find it hard to imagine the US, even Trump, accepting those two conditions.”
https://unherd.com/newsroom/john-mearsheimer-trump-is-appointing-russophobic-hawks/
Whatever Trump is ready to concede to Putin concerning this world order, implies that Putin must be ready to concede the same to Trump: e.g., if I'll break Western alliance to contain Russia, then Russia must break with its alliance (China, Iran, North Korea). If Russia occupies pieces of Ukraine or widens further its boarders, then the US (including Israel) can do the same. If Russia wants to sell oil to Europe, then the US will take Ukrainian resources (like rare earth).
(Don't mind the fact that is breaking international law and setting examples to others e.g. China with Taiwan)
It's called peace by prostitution. If you are a European prepare your lubricant coz you are gonna be next... ah but you are not European but from the US? Tell us your dirtiest desires, master.
Yes, I agree, I suspect there is Kompromat on Trump which is being leveraged to pull his strings. Indeed there did seem to be a tell (when responding to Zelenskyy) in his ramblings about the way Putin had been attacked with a so called Biden scam. Referring to the Hunter Biden laptop, where he emphasised something disgusting happening in Hunter’s bedroom. I read this as there is something on a laptop disgusting in a bedroom, but Trump was on the tape rather than Hunter.
Nonsense. You're just being presented with the same Janus-faced nature the US has always shown, but people keep forgetting about.
Trump is being used as a patsy to carry through some harsh but necessary foreign policy decisions. An exit from Ukraine is one of them, just like Trump facilitated the ugly but much-needed exit from Afghanistan.
I see a lot of Americans putting all the blame on Trump, and then on Putin who must have blackmailed him, trying to exculpate their country from this utterly blatant act of Machiavallianism.
The next president will be able to claim "it was all Trump" and "things are back to normal again", after which the next lamb will be led to the slaughter.
When will it get through to you that what you're seeing now is the true face of the United States?
Yes the pragmatic solution is a ceasefire with the line drawn where the current frontline lies. With a new iron curtain erected. But we are a long way from that on both sides.
Ukraine can continue, with European support, even if the U.S. pulls out now. Also Trump is in a position to put considerable pressure on Putin, especially if he does a deal with Xi. This side of negotiations has not been reported on. I’m sure Xi would want a ceasefire now and this would be an opportunity to show strength on the global stage. Likewise if Trump forced Russia to end the war, the kudos would be enormous, something he would surely seek. But he is a petty two bit grifter, so probably can’t see that.
Trump has great power in this crisis, Putin is weak and on the ropes. Europe is ready to mobilise. The opportunities are enormous, but somehow I think Trump will make a mess of it. The biggest fail of all time.
What's confusing me is that I don't see what either the tech-bros like Musk or the nativists like Bannon (I'm not really sure where Vance falls on this) are getting out of this.
I can understand Trump liking his ego stroked by Putin. But Russia seems an unlikely ally for any of the factions that make up Trumps power base (or pull his strings). It seems to me that Russia has little to offer to any political faction in the US. The US doesn't need the raw materials, the Russian consumer base is relatively small and Putin doesn't even have much diplomatic weight to throw around.
Quoting Punshhh
It could also just be basic psychology. Trump sees Putin as being like him (an image that Putin no doubt did everything to reinforce) and thus he projects his own frustrations on Putin.
There seem to be many plausible ways to explain Trump's behaviour on this issue. What puzzles me much more, as I have written above, is why everyone else in the Trump administration is behaving the way they are.
Quoting Punshhh
A new iron curtain would imply Ukraine is in NATO. I think the Ukrainians would be ready to accept that deal. But neither Russia or the current US administration would accept it.
Tech-bros are getting EU laws/tax against American Big Tech down and prevent the formation of European big-tech competitors (keep an eye on AI and how AI will be integrated within military industry or how American crypto currencies will be injected into the European system). Bannon with his fascist-leaning mindset and propaganda aspires to be the guru of European far right movements (see Salvini in Italy who is waving between becoming a Putin's bitch and Trump's bitch, or both), so he helps steal the European far-right movements/propaganda from Russia. All three are helping each other.
I’m under no illusions about the nature of the U.S. I’d just rather have U.S. hegemony than the alternatives atm.
His views on the Ukraine conflict:
- May deflect blame from other policy failures
- Justify continued engagement with a weaker Russia to contain a stronger China and maintain hegemonic supremacy
- Limiting the scope of public debate on foreign policy, while providing controlled opposition that gives the appearance of diverse viewpoints within foreign policy discourse.
you mean this?
If it turns out that Trump is collaborating with Putin... remind me again, how does the west treat Russian spies who infiltrate positions of power?
Yes he is. Putin likely has dangled deals of hundreds of billions to American corporations to Trump, likely with few billions to Trump to pocket himself. Somebody (I don't remember who) commented that likely the math involved here with the demands that Ukraine has to pay are in similar ball range (as Trump confuses these things). The priority here is the normalization of relations and Putin getting a deal that he wants: The peace Putin would be OK with are Russia getting also the parts of the Oblasts that aren't in Russian control, Ukraine not in NATO and without security guarantees. Perhaps "Euro-peacekeepers" that can be bullied around like peacekeepers are bullied (like actors like Israel), but no serious military capability for Ukraine. And of course Zelenskyi thrown a way and a possible Putin puppet to replace him.
Quoting Mikie
Unfortunately I think you are wrong.
This is the lie Trump tells to us, the window dressing of his dubious objectives. What Trump wants is money. And Putin likely has promised him money. Promises of money are enough for Trump. That's the only reason why Trump would so recklessly, so enthusiastically try to force everything down the throat of Zelenskyi. That would explain the ambush of Zelenskyi.
Anybody, including Trump, just wanting for the deaths to stop, wouldn't go on to attack one side of the negotiation the way that Trump did.
Quoting Mikie
Russia actually wants the Oblasts that it doesn't totally control. Remember that Russia has already annexed them, so for Putin they are already part of Russia. That territory isn't negotiable. Ukraine did push Russian out of the Western side on Dnipro (Dnieper), yet the oblasts that Russia has annexed are situated also on the Western side. This would be a huge defensive difficulties to a post-peace treaty Ukraine.
Quoting Mikie
Don't be a defeatist.
Russia lost in Afghanistan.
Russia lost to Poland.
Russia lost to Japan.
Russia can have these military defeats and has to back down. It has happened. With a true backing of Ukraine this could a possibility. Before it would happen, Russia would negotiate for peace.
Even puny Finland all alone without such backing as Ukraine has, could get a peace deal in the Winter War, because Stalin was nervous that he could face French and British troops in Finland. They were intended to come here (in the end they were used in Norway). And this is the reality one has to see here: Russian will negotiate of peace only if it's really preferable to continuing the war. Hence Ukraine, if it would get a peace negotiation, it should come from a position of strength. Ukraine isn't yet collapsing. But thanks to the help of Trump to Russia, it might in future.
Certainly.
Quoting Punshhh
Nope.
Quoting ssu
I think it’s power and praise. A Nobel prize would be nice. Plus war is costly and unpopular. He’s driven by media, as well, and can read the writings on the wall. He likes money too, of course, but I don’t think that’s a major factor here.
Well, think of Elon and Trump. Elon gave him a lot of money to his campaign. Without Elon, he likely wouldn't be in the White House. So how he behaves towards Elon shows how he bows for money.
Power has gone to his head. What else could you say about the Mar-a-Gaza idea or the annexation of Greenland (even if that was already floated in the first Trump administration).
Next thing might be that NATO dies. Now people would like to think that this might be an outburst like France leaving NATO for a while and then coming back. But the way Trump handles these issues, I'm not sure. It really might be the last days of NATO, as Stavridis here says.
Only if the Americans would wake up to what disasters Trump is making, but likely that won't happen. MAGA crowd will cheer as Trump dismantles the US.
Next we will have the trade wars. You can just guess how that trade war will reinforce the current break up.
I’m not going to labour the point, but is Putin so strong that he has ended up dug in, in eastern Ukraine. With Ukraine troops picking off his troops. Possibly up to 1,500 per day. Troops being one of Putin’s most scarce resources at the moment.
Sure, Putin was a convenient figurehead to use for the right wing populists and their nativist, anti-EU and frequently Anti-American agenda.
But that was and is mostly political manoeuvring to appeal to voter blocks. It's hard for me to see why a Europe that was actually ruled by nationalist governments would be friendly to Russia. There is no constructive overlap of interests. The overlap is purely destructive: against the EU and NATO.
Similarly with US politics, I can see right wing populists using Putin as a sign of their opposition to the status quo. But now that they're actually in power, there seems little reason to care for Russia one way or another.
There must be something I'm not seeing.
Quoting ssu
Actually it now occurs to me that for those that want to radically rebuild the US into some cyberpunk dystopia, the entire Ukraine conflict might be just another smokescreen to keep both the public and Trump distracted while they go about their work.
Yes, maybe. The way I read it is that Putin has something disgusting on Trump and when he realised that he was going to have to push harder against Putin if he’s going to get a deal. He immediately went to the plausible deniability that it was a set up orchestrated by the Biden’s and that he isn’t as depraved as he appears in the video. He might even claim it’s a deepfake.
Yes, but what alternative is there? The boundary has to be impermeable or Putin would infiltrate. Also the only way to guarantee Ukraine’s security is for her to be in NATO.
Putin might have no choice, there isn’t much he could do about it now. And the U.S. is trashing NATO and May even leave it. They can’t expect to dictate the direction of NATO in those circumstances.
The two sides are so far apart that it will require something this big to get anywhere near a deal.
It might be quite simple really. That Trump wants to be a dictator like Trump, Xi, Kim Jong-un. That his administration is following the Orbanisation playbook asap so that he can prevent anymore elections.
Nope, nobody is creating this as another smokescreen to keep both the public and Trump distracted. It might [i]become[/I] a dystopia, but nobody's building for it to be so.
This all is the doing of Trump's and Vance's erratic behavior when Trump is surrounded by yes-men who take at heart anything the Emperor thinks one day. The whole argument of there being "a method to the madness" and Trump playing a 4D-chess are just hopeful dreams that this would end in something better. It isn't. It's an old man with a short attention span thinking he can do nearly anything he wants.
Americans should really wake up to the enormous damage being done now by Trump. If you really cheer now for Europe to "take care of it's own security", you should understand that it means that you the alliance is breaking apart thanks to Trump. This isn't about "Europe paying it's share" because there isn't going to be an alliance. Trump has no intention of strengthening the alliance. He really doesn't need NATO. When your visionary vice-President argues that Putin's Russia isn't a threat to Europe, his ignorance is quite set (as is his defeatism). When they intervene in the elections of European countries and try to push political parties of their making, that is a sign of outright hostility. You cannot hide it.
For Trump and Vance their actual enemy is liberal Europe, all these countries that have thought about being allies of the US and in defense of a rules based international order. Not Russia. And since not every country is lead by Victor Orban and Bibi Netanyahu, there are many of these "allies" they actually hate. This hatred is quite evident to see, actually. For these it's "Freedom of speach" values hurled at them, for Russia it's the new "realpolitik" of never criticizing Putin and telling Kremlin lines/lies. And trying to negotiate a peace on behalf of Russia.
Americans really should wake up and notice where Trump is steering your country into.
Precisely, for Russia the destruction of EU and NATO must be very much functional to weaken the grip of the US in Europe, which is the superpower against which Russia tries to define its hegemonic status.
Besides European nationalisms constrain one another, so it may be in the interest of superpowers (like Russia, but at this point also the US) to keep Europe divided. Dividing Europe may be convenient to avoid the emergence of a European superpower, but also to turn small nations into clients (or worse puppets) otherwise to thwart their exploitation by rival superpowers. In the case of Russia, nationalist Orban is serving Russia. And you shouldn’t discount the largest Russian minority in Europe which is hosted by East Germany and may have very much contributed to rise of AfD, the far right political movement (https://theconversation.com/how-russians-have-helped-fuel-the-rise-of-germanys-far-right-105551). Musk was trying to steal AfD from Putin and it seems he failed, at least for now.
European nationalists serve to keep Europe fragmented and turn them into US bootlickers or Russia bootlickers. Salvini is the prototype of far-right populist which Trump and Putin wish to have in all European countries in which political elites try to resist the US/Russia’s interference or refuse to complain with their demands.
Quoting Echarmion
If American nationalists wish to keep the US as the strongest superpower, which they most likely do, then Russia can be very much instrumental to contain China (and Iran to make Israel happy!). This likely includes the idea of keeping China and Europe separated. The idea of using Russia to counter China as the biggest competitor to the US supremacy is e.g. what Mearsheimer kept suggesting roughly since the beginning of this conflict.
On the other side it is unlikely that Russia is happy to turn into some dumb sidekick of China. Russia current economic, military and political weakness can be exploited by Trump to turn Russia into US’s sidekick (this move reminds me of Nixon's opening to Mao’s China against the Soviet Union). And to make this proposal of partnership credible to Russia, Trump needs to blame everything on Biden, Zelensky and European allies, make them pay for Russia’s aggression of Ukraine and make a good deal of concessions to Putin.
But wouldn't the US aligning with Russia create a situation where a disgruntled Europe is now more open to Chinese influence?
If you could choose between retaining an alliance with Europe and gaining one with Russia, why would you choose Russia?
And let's, at this point, remember the episode which made Zelenskyy an internationally-respected figure, when the US Embassy offered to helicopter him out of Kiev, in February 2022, and he responded:
Before proceeding to bleed the invaders of half a million attackers.
He's the kind of leader America could use.
It’s a distopian Oligarchian nightmare which would usher in our demise due to climate change.
Sure, Europeans will be compelled to look for new alliances, like China, if the US is turning into its enemy.
However the first 2 related problems that come to mind to me are the following:
1. China is pretty faraway from Europe and all routes for commercial and security support are mostly under the control of Russia and the US, one way or the other.
2. Europe is not really ONE political subject. It’s many, and they are unable to strongly converge on many security and economic issues (local nationalism contributes to keeping divided, without the interference of foreign powers). And the US strategy is to avoid to overstretch but still preserve an affordable/sustainable sphere of influence over the part of Europe that will submit to its demands for business and/or security and shut up (“How can the U.S. get trading and security partners to agree to such a deal? First, there is the stick of tariffs. Second, there is the carrot of the defense umbrella and the risk of losing it.”), because they are unable to do otherwise under the pressure of the Russian threat, economic recessions, islamic immigration, corrupt politicians, climate change, gender equality, you name it.
Quoting Echarmion
My understanding is that on one side, the pivot to Asia, namely the incumbency of competing superpower like China, has been a strategic concern for the US politics for a good decade. So an economically/military weak Russia, subordinate to China (which is also eroding Russian influence on its eastern flank), in desperate need to regain its superpower status (like at the end of the Second World War) can be instrumental to the US in exchange for a strategic partnership. On the other side, Europe has spent 30 years of globalisation enriching themselves and the US enemies (Russia and China) at the expense of the US, instead of taking a greater responsibility in opening its market to the US, and defending the West through soft-power (instead of spinning populist anti-Americanism, complacency toward anti-Western sentiments in the Rest), and also by military means.
It’s really baffling to hear, even in this thread, Europeans complaining about the US as the Great Satan or as the most powerful and dangerous country in the World, and yet at the same thinking that the best strategy for Europe is to poke the US in the eye by being complacent with Russia (which has invaded Europe more than the US has, even prior the existence of the US) and China, and spin anti-American propaganda.
As Russia and China are using populist nationalism against the transatlantic alliance, the US will be using European populist nationalism to turn their countries into a submissive client status, because they are incapable of turning into strong allies (like Israel). They just acted as US parasites, so they will be treated as such.
This is exactly their agenda. Why the US doesn't see this a hostile intent is beyond me. But I guess too much of "culture war" and too much of the idea that the "Deep State" in the US is the real enemy blurs people from seeing those who really have hostile intent.
Quoting neomac
And this is so the real insanity, which just show the extreme hubris and utter ignorance and delusions of these "American nationalists".
Perhaps they in their fantasies think of an "Kissinger moment" when Nixon went to China and the Americans enjoyed that "they" had breached the Communist states. Well, that breach happened because Mao was Stalinist and Soviet Union moved away from Stalinism with the two countries even having a border war.
What this friending of Russia, in order to "separate China", will do is for the US just loose it's largest and most trustworthy ally. Allies that really have designed their armed forces to be part of NATO. The trust has already been breached by Trump. Trump has through his actions made it totally clear that it won't stand with Europe and Europe has to go it's own way. The "Europe having to pay" for it's share of the common defense is now only a fig leaf that certainly the Europeans will repeat diplomatically. But they do understand that Trump and Vance don't give a shit about Ukraine and don't give shit about the Transatlantic alliance. Far too liberal in their view. Biden and Obama were liked in Europe, so fuck those people. So the real division here done is an effort to break up the Atlanticism. The US is already an untrustworthy ally.
Besides, these "American nationalists" seem to be totally incapable of seeing this from the Russian perspective. Why on Earth would Russia be against China here? What benefit would have to have hostile relations with it's largest trade partner and a country that is shares a very long border? It's China who has helped Russia here, not the US.
Putin will happily lure these suckers into breaking up their own alliances with empty promises.
Here's a great interview from Gabrielus Landsbergis, a former Latvian foreign minister, who clearly tells the situation as it is now. He gives insight just why some countries (like France) is against the using of Russia's frozen assets to help Ukraine. The reason is that China and Saudi Arabia are against this, which itself is understandable as for these countries such a precedent would be bad. Also the Landsbergis compares of just how little the aid to Ukraine has been compared to how costly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were. The assistance to Ukraine is counted in few hundred billion, those wars in the Global War Against Terror cost is in the trillions both.
Well it depends. If Trump's strategy fails, the next US administration may blame it on Trump, but if it succeeds. They will preserve it. Democrats were complaining about Trump's withdrawing from JCPOA agreements, but then they kept it. Democrats were complaining about first Trump's administration's tariff policies turning the US market more protectionist, but then Biden kept this approach. Democrats (Since Obama) started taking seriously the pivot to Asia, Trump is doing the same but more coherently than the Democrats since the Democrats were more committed to globalization which led the US to overstretch. Overstretching would be a problem for the US in any case (not only for the US geopolitical power but also for domestic political stability). Besides the situation looks particularly favorable to the US now, Trump has amassed lots of power within his country and lots of leverage against Russia and the EU. And the more he succeeds in pursuing his goals, the greater is the chance that Americans want to keep Trump in power or whomever he blesses to be his successor.
The Trump administration has fxcked up big time. By cutting USAID they have fallen at the first hurdle. The biggest threat from China over the last few decades has been their aid and investment strategies around the third world(amongst others). Now the influence the U.S. had in these arenas has been handed to China on a plate. While Russia is following China’s example in the African continent and we have the rise of BRICS.
Secondly they have misunderstood the motives in Europe. The failure of the TTIP negotiations wasn’t a failure on the part of the EU, it was them not falling over and becoming an economic vassal block via U.S. litigation which would be imported along with the goods. A colonisation through the economic back door. Also the deleterious effects the U.S. experienced as a result of globalisation were also felt by European countries. It affected all Western countries and is the primary reason why the EU is struggling economically at this time.
They will fall at the next hurdle if they alienate Europe and find they have no friends anymore. How sad, although, they will have Putin’s shoulder to cry on I suppose.
I think that in the US most people and politicians (left or right leaning, it doesn’t matter) have finally converged on the idea that the US can’t afford anymore to overstretch: overwhelming debt for military expenditure, dispersing resources around the world in geopolitical arena without significant return of their political, military, economic investment while enemies and allies grow fatter and hostile toward the US. So now the US is betting on the fact that neither Europeans nor Russia can really profit much from the US downsizing their presence in Europe to threaten the US strategic interests (also in Europe) in the foreseeable future, at least by comparison with China. Russia and Europe look now too weak to challenge Trumps’ game, and their weakness can be played against one another.
Quoting ssu
I don’t think that Trump (and his advisors) ignores the risk of Putin not playing along, or that the US may suffer a significant backlash from European allies, which feel betrayed, but I think they feel the need and see greater opportunities for this strategy to succeed now for the reasons I discussed previously: the US must avoid to overstretch, must contain China, both European countries and Russia must be more instrumental to the US strategic interests than the other way around, and at this point the US has greater leverage over European countries and Russia.
Concerning the relation between China and Russia, the problem is multifaceted: to begin with, the Ukrainian case is important also as a precedent for the case of Taiwan, in the sense China are supporting the Ukrainian territorial integrity to then be able to justify the same demand against Taiwan and US interference. But most importantly, China's growing influence, both economically and militarily, has the potential to impact Russia's security and strategic independence in complex ways (from energy business to technology). A the same time areas of competing interests (Central Asia, Far East, Arctic region) are abundant (they also had border conflict in the past). So Russia is very much unlikely that it aspires to become more vulnerable to China. Besides China enjoys greater appeal in terms of soft power and diplomacy to the Rest. And Slavic Russians feel to be more culturally and ethnically close to Europeans than to Asians, which makes it hard to swallow e.g. for Russian ultra-nationalists (e.g. supporting Putin’s aggression against Ukraine) to tolerate Chinese growing and more assertive influence. So from the Russian perspective (especially Putin’s perspective) it could be more tempting to partner with the US than with China. But is Putin really going to trust Trump and play along? The US frustrated Russia’s expectations so many times. And what if Trump’s mandate ends in four or, worse, two years?
Besides, I don’t think that Trump’s interest is to leave Europe. He wants Europe to turn into submissive clients, more responsive or pro-active in complying with the US demands: you want security? Pay or you’ll be on your own (or, worse, we’ll be against you). You want our market open to your products? Pay or you’ll be on your own (or, worse, we’ll be against you). Sort of a racketeering strategy, which is the other face of the wonderful peaceful multi-polar world which European pacifists were so badly wishing for.
I believe Trump sees himself and Putin, united, as capable of creating one superpower of world dominance. However, they both know, that ultimately there's only room for one at the top, so even within their partnership they are each strategizing and maneuvering to gain the upper hand.
Quoting Punshhh
Russia put a significant amount of effort, over a long period of time, into providing for Trump, the presidency, in the first place. There was most likely significant strategizing and collaboration, much of which is probably documented somewhere (the proverbial "laptop"). On the other hand, many MAGAs refuse to believe that the movement which they are a part of, is nothing more than a plot hatched by some wily Russians. Disillusionment can be devastating, so is is resisted as long as possible. Release of that information ("laptop") at the appropriate time, could be devasting to MAGA, as well as Trump himself, and possibly the US in general. So Trump is in a position where he needs to ensure that Putin still needs him for as long as possible, to avoid that devastation, and Putin seeks the time of highest impact.
USAID was part of the US soft-power arsenal (something similar holds for China). But America soft-power narrative has been exploited by anti-Americans outside and, most importantly, inside Europe, to further discredit the US foreign policies, or, if you prefer, American imperialism (China wasn’t discredited as much). So if you want USAID now you have to beg for it and stop shitting over US foreign policies or, if you prefer, American imperialism. Besides there are means for the US to mess-up with Chinese investments around the world, by fomenting conflicts or by bending political will with threats (https://www.csis.org/analysis/italy-withdraws-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative) or by extending territorial control (see the story of Panama and Greenland).
I totally understand that the US is playing a risky game because they might still very much need allies to preserve their superpower status. But in the current predicament they clearly privilege those which are proven to be helpful and faithful to the US’s struggle for supremacy, then it’s matter of European people’s taste: Netanyahu, Starmer, or Salvini?
Quoting Punshhh
European motives, no matter how legitimate, risk very much to fail when they fly over power relations. And lions want and take the biggest share, no matter how hungry the others are. Maybe Europeans could have played it smarter instead of playing it harder? For sure, they had time. Now time is over.
Quoting Punshhh
Europe is not one subject. It can be conveniently fragmented by pushing domestic nationalism. And Europeans, especially the anti-American and pro-Russian nationalists are happy to fragment Europe. Now those very same anti-American and pro-Russian nationalists will get what they wished for. They are going to love it.
But this doesn't make sense. Fine if you want to downside your military, if you want to go back to the US, be the proverbial isolationist, why then attack your allies? Why go so blatantly and so clearly on the side that is and has been hostile to you? Why vote in favour of Russia and North Korea when even China abstained from the vote in the UN? Why repeat Kremlin talking points? And why then this bizarre ideas about Trump Gaza? Why the attempt to annex Greenland and Panama? The US behavior under Trump is not something what you describe above.
Above all, is Elon cutting dramatically the American military to be half of it's size? Of course not.
And the US people and the politicians? I don't think that they have converged to this idea at all. If they would, then you could post me ample amount of speeches and commentary that this would be the case.
Quoting neomac
What leverage the US has over Russia? Trump has surrendered the position that everybody know how you deal with Russia, from a position of strength. It has thrown away it's own cards and become an subservient to Russia in pushing the agenda what Russia wants. Before the negotiations have even started, it has accepted the major Russian points that Putin has made. So idiot Vance tells that these arguments that Putin has made are "reality". Well, that Ukraine would be fighting a war still after 3 years of the conventional attack wasn't "reality" for anyone except the will of the Ukrainian people.
Sorry, neomac, I truly respect your views and you are informed about these issues, but this isn't your typical administration that has long term objectives and clear thinking of what it is going to do. There is this urge to see some logical reason behind everything, but you have to understand that one really big possibility is that there is none.
Trump is the key to understand everything here. It's so simply.
Because just look how actually thoughtful and visionary someone like Marco Rubio was before Putin invaded in 2022. (Notably you can see a person who is now a the secretary of defense in his former position in the video). Rubio understood that Russia would attack Ukraine and Rubio had been a very pro-Ukrainian hawk. Here, before the 2022 invasion, he was saying that Ukraine has to be armed. Here's a blast from the past:
Hence this isn't some new insight that the political establishment has. This is just the political establishment coping with the whims of Trump. And Trump thinks he is the Master of the Universe, so he goes on with a quick surrender of Ukraine, Trump Gaza and other crazy stuff.
Quoting neomac
He might genuinely be so stupid as he comes through his rhetoric and actions, which will just end up in the dismantlement of American power in a very rapid way. Note that Europeans have already seen where this is going. Friedrich Merz said that Europe has to be independent of the US and isn't sure if NATO will be around for the next NATO summit in the summer.
Likely it will be around in the end of June, but the Hague is a great place for Trump to leave NATO.
Yeah,
Why don't you start with the allies that have contributed soldiers that have participated in the wars you have fought? Wouldn't they be the ones that are important? Or you want those allies that won't do anything, but praise your President? Guess then your most helpful and faithful allies are Bibi and Victor Orban, which the former naturally hasn't ever contributed forces to your wars, but you contribute troops to even today. And why doesn't Trump ask the billions back from Bibi then?
In fact, just in Afghanistan, Denmark suffered the second most casualties compared to the population, which is quite small.
Number of foreign soldiers killed in Afghanistan
Country Deaths Population (2010) Deaths per million
1.USA 2,461* 309 million 7.96
2. Denmark 43 5.5 million 7.82
3.Georgia 32 4.4 million 7.27
4.UK 457 63 million 7.25
5.Estonia 9 1.3 million 6.92
6.Canada 159* 34 million 4.68
7.New Zealand 10 4.4 million 2.27
8.Norway 10 4.9 million 2.04
9.Australia 41 22 million 1.86
10.Latvia 4 2.2 million 1.82
So how is Trump valuing Denmark as an ally and the commitment the small country has made? He wants to buy or annex parts of it, and hasn't refrained from even using military force. In that Trump shows his real face.
Don't ever think that this is normal or belittle the past administrations that they too would be as "transactional" as Trump. For the MAGA crowd, those are the "Deep State". This really isn't normal behavior anymore.
Now what was that tally I was doing;
EU; €700billion.
Frozen Russian assets; €300billion.
Norwegian sovereign fund; €1.5trillion.
Looks like we can go it alone after all.
There is a dichotomy here, nationalism pulls together for the fight in a war. If the libertarians want to create division in Europe to weaken the EU. Forcing them to step up to defend a European country is not the way to do it. Indeed, the opposite will happen. It will probably end in an integrated European army. I’m reminded of what Sweden and Finland did following Putin’s invasion. Strengthening NATO. They (Sweden) are prepairing for war conducting exercises with Canadian forces. Looks as though the opposite of what Putin wanted is going to happen.
Yes, makes sense. There was a similar thing happening in the U.K. with the Tory party. Particularly Boris Johnson, who pushed the Brexit vote over the line.
Yes. Hopefully we will just get to have that will and not buy the MAGA-American defeatism.
Some countries have helped more Ukraine with what they have, than others:
The truth is a war against Russia is totally winnable in the sense that you don't have to surrender. Japan, Poland and my country have shown it.
:smile: :
Since the last events that took place at The White House (Washington, United States of America), I have been reflecting on what I posted here, (and what is worse) what was my opinion on Zelensky, yet I wasn't even entitled to say that and the other.
I defended with high emphasis that Zelensky was a puppet of both Biden senior (the President) and Biden junior (Hunter), but after watching the heated discussion with Trump and Vance, I regret now all that I thought. I ranted at him about gas prices and how everything went up because of the war crisis.
Nonetheless, Zelensky pointed out something critical: We signed a gas contract. A gas contract, yes.
I opened my eyes and awoke from my ignorance. It turned clear to me that Ukraine is a country full of natural resources whose sovereignty is subdued to different empires. Russia in the past and America has interest now.
It would be very difficult to be a president of a nation where bullies want to huddle you up and rip off your land. Look, it is not about to be pro-Russian or pro-Ukraine, yes? It is about how people from Eastern Europe are defending their dignity. We live in countries where natural resources are low, but imagine that you have some, and your destination depends on what deal is done at a random desk in a Western nation.
Too bad. I regret what I thought and posted in the past, but intelligent people rectify. Kudos to Zelensky for facing Trump.
3/3/2025.
"Traditional" Republicans are anti-Russia, but they're pro-personal power. Trump's presence as President gives them power, but only if they support everything he does.
I'm not really seeing a carrot here though. Threatening to withdraw security guarantees isn't a carrot, it's another stick. It's all stick.
Trump seems to operate on an extreme version of the door in the face policy where he ramps up the rhetoric, then turns it down a bit, only to ramp it back up again if there's no immediate reaction.
If Trump wanted to peel of countries from Europe to firmly anchor to the US, the obvious target would be Britain. Yet by ramping up the rhetoric and questioning US support, the Trump administration is instead causing Britain to deepen it's ties with France.
Quoting neomac
Eh, I'm not buying it. Russia is in no position to help contain China. Russian demographics don't support it and it's diplomatic capital in Asia is in decline. Russian efforts in Africa seem to have fared somewhat better, but a bunch of mercenaries aren't competitive with the economic incentives China can offer.
And at the end of the day Putin's regime would have trouble selling it's role as the US' new junior party to the russian public.
Quoting neomac
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The US is China's biggest single customer. And Europe has been moving in concert with the US regarding China for the most part.
Russia has been a bit different due to Europe's reliance on Russian gas but the war has already "fixed" that.
And in terms of military support, European forces where involved everywhere from Afghanistan to Lybia. Sure US relations have been contentious with various European parties, but accusing Europe of "spinning populist anti-Americanism" is just a really weird take.
Quoting neomac
Turn European countries into submissive client status and then what? I'm missing the strategic objective here. You talked earlier about the US wanting to avoid being overstretched, but turning allies into clients leads to more overstretching, not less.
Honestly I do not think the policies of the current administration correspond to the kind of traditional power politics you're outlining. I think we're seeing attempts by at least some people in the administration to engineer a radical break with all US "entanglements". Elon Musk today tweeted support for the US leaving both NATO and the UN. There was an angry message from Trump towards Europe and Zelensky, followed by significantly more conciliatory tones at a press conference.
The obvious result of this is chaos and uncertainty, not any strategic improvement of the US' geopolitical position. Perhaps the chaos is indeed the point.
1. Blaming the victim for their own situation
Trump explicitly tells Zelensky: “You have allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” This is classic abuser rhetoric—blaming the victim for their suffering. The implication is that Ukraine itself is responsible for being occupied by Russia and for the deaths of its people.
2. Pressure and coercion into ‘gratitude’
Vance demands that Zelensky say “thank you.” This is an extremely toxic tactic—forcing the victim to express gratitude for the help they desperately need, only to later accuse them of ingratitude if they attempt to assert their rights.
3. Manipulating the concept of ‘peace’
Trump claims that Zelensky is “not ready for peace.” However, what he actually means is Ukraine’s capitulation. This is a classic manipulation technique—substituting the idea of a just peace with the notion of surrender.
4. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of war
Trump repeatedly insists that Zelensky has “no cards to play” and that “without us, you have nothing.” This is yet another abusive tactic—undermining the victim’s efforts by asserting that they are powerless without the mercy of their ‘saviour.’
5. Devaluing the victims of war
“If you get a ceasefire, you must accept it so that bullets stop flying and your people stop dying,” Trump says. Yet, he ignores the fact that a ceasefire without guarantees is merely an opportunity for Russia to regroup and strike again.
6. Dominance tactics
Trump constantly interrupts Zelensky, cutting him off: “No, no, you’ve already said enough,” and “You’re not in a position to dictate to us.” This is deliberate psychological pressure designed to establish a hierarchy in which Zelensky is the subordinate.
7. Forcing capitulation under the guise of ‘diplomacy’
Vance asserts that “the path to peace lies through diplomacy.” This is a classic strategy where the aggressor is given the opportunity to continue their aggression unchallenged.
8. Projection and distortion of reality
Trump declares: “You are playing with the lives of millions of people.” Yet, in reality, it is he who is doing exactly that—shifting responsibility onto Zelensky.
9. Creating the illusion that Ukraine ‘owes’ the US
Yes, the US is assisting Ukraine, but presenting this aid as “you must obey, or you will receive nothing” is not a partnership—it is financial and military coercion.
10. Undermining Ukraine’s resistance
Trump states that “if it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended in two weeks.” This is an attempt to erase Ukraine’s achievements and portray its efforts as entirely dependent on US support.
Based on what I've read, it's actually worse. The Trump administration has halted all weapon exports to Ukraine.
People are still scrambling to find out what exactly that means but it could be a complete break with Ukraine. Which would in turn signal a break with NATO.
I think once European leaders have wrapped their heads around this, the next step might be the attempt to buy those US shipments and send them to Ukraine. The reaction of the US administration to that would be telling on the future of NATO.
Here some clarifications:
First, I was talking specifically about the issue of “overstretching”. Imperial overstretch can be broadly understood as the overextension geographically, economically, or militarily that inevitably leads to the exhaustion of vital domestic resources, decline, and fall (https://niallferguson.substack.com/p/debt-has-always-been-the-ruin-of). This risk was abundantly under the radar of American analysts, prior to Obama administration (https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/07/15/the-danger-of-imperial-overstretch/)
And it became even more pressing under Obama and the pivot to Asia:
https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/25/04/2017/obama-and-%E2%80%9Cunder-reachover-reach%E2%80%9D-dilemma-american-grand-strategy
Secondly, I wasn’t talking about isolationism. I think Trump is aiming at revising American Imperialism where the US keeps a sphere of influence but more affordable/sustainable (also militarily). And this will take place at the expense of international liberal order. The international liberal was supported by the US during the globalisation but it ended up benefiting, mostly: EU, Russia, and China. Maybe it came natural to many to think that the end of American-led world order automatically meant the end of American imperialism. But if one understands the extent to which the American-led world order was a BURDEN on the US, one can understand why its end doesn’t necessarily compromise US hegemonic ambitions. On the contrary, it can unleash them. Indeed, once the US breaks free from multilateral agreements (that could be vetoed), the costs of policing the world, and spinning the liberal-democratic propaganda, American foreign policies have an “unprecedented” wider spectrum of options (I’ve already talked about this one month ago [1]) also for decreasing their costs. This comes at the price however of accepting greater risks and more fluid alliances, hedged only to the extent the US maintains its military/technological/financial supremacy.
Thirdly, the wide support for Trump’s second mandate in the name of “Make American Great again” evidently show that Trump’s agenda and propaganda were effective to gain popular consensus over internal and external challenges. And things were set in motion already in his first mandate. Notice however that Biden, in between the two Trump’s mandate, kept following the foreign policy trends set by Trump in his first mandate:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/22/biden-us-policy-trump-legacy-foreign-policy-aukus/
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/07/strategic-change-us-foreign-policy?lang=en
“U.S. Foreign Policy on the Verge of a New Path” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8807368/
Ukraine also provides a case to understand left-leaning attitude toward the risk of overstretching: despite the rhetoric, Biden’s support for Ukraine was pretty much self-restrained (while the support for Israel wasn’t as much) for reasons that do not seem explainable exclusively in terms of military aid capacity or fear of escalation e.g. to a nuclear conflict.
My understanding is that this approach was inspired by the need of containing Russia (and Russia’s influence in Europe) without overdoing, namely, without diverging efforts from the pivot to China, or even letting China profit from Russia’s weakness to increase its regional influence. Indeed, [I]”China, not Russia, poses the greatest long-term threat to American interests" [/I] (https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/03/ukraine-wants-security-guarantees-does-that-mean-america-must-go-to-war/). Biden had also to take into account the raise of domestic concerns from overcommitting to foreign conflicts (see https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/25/wide-partisan-divisions-remain-in-americans-views-of-the-war-in-ukraine/ where only [I]“18% say the U.S. is not providing enough support”[/I] to Ukraine).
Not to mention the far left which spins anti-imperialist propaganda and keeps invoking restraint and retrenchment: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/15/chomsky-foreign-policy-book-review-american-idealism/
[1] https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963479
[I]
As I wrote a while back, the problem the West must face is that if rising anti-Western regimes do not evolve into more Western-style liberal democracies, the West may feel compelled to adopt the characteristics of these anti-Western, militarized authoritarian regimes in order to balance the asymmetry. Meanwhile, nationalist and religious motivations, as well as propaganda, are likely to take precedence over universal human rights motivations and/or propaganda. Imperial ambitions may also become more openly territorial, which AT BEST could lead to a form of agreed-upon, stable (?) spheres of influence. In this scenario, minority groups and non-hegemonic states will likely face oppression, exploitation, or will be used to serve the interests of the dominant powers one way or another through local populist bootlickers.
Trump seems to be reasoning along these lines:
* If Russia can make territorial claims over Ukraine and China can do the same with Taiwan, then the U.S. could claim territories like Greenland, Panama, or even Canada.
* If Russia commits genocide or ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, and China does the same against the Uyghurs, then Israel can act similarly in Palestine.
* If Russia and China can leverage economic pressure or political division to exploit Europe against the U.S., the U.S. can retaliate in the same way against Russia and China.
* If Russia and China reject green agreements, the U.S. can do the same.
* If China exploits Russia to counterbalance the U.S., the U.S. can attempt to exploit Russia against China.
* If Russia and China promote nationalism or religious extremism to advance their geopolitical agendas, the U.S. can follow the same path.
* If Russia and China adopt protectionist policies against the GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft), the U.S. can similarly oppose China’s technologies and Russia’s attempts to exploit them against the West the US.
And so on.
[/i]
Quoting ssu
To me the war in Ukraine wasn’t primarily about evidently pressing security concerns for Russia (I don’t think they were non-existent but they worked more as convenient pretexts), but about:
1. Russia imperialist ambitions and power projection: reshaping the world order in which Russia could see it self as top-rank superpower beside the US like during Stalin, Soviet Union, Cold War, and related sphere of influence. Feelings there shared not only by Putin but by its political and economic entourage, part of Russian intelligentsia, and Russian people.
2. Grabbing the opportunity provided by a series of favourable conditions: EU unreadiness and fear of escalation, conflicts between EU and the US (anti-NATO and anti-American feelings), US domestic instabilities and US pivoting to Asia. And the pressure of unfavourable conditions: Russia’s incumbent demographic decline and pro-Western ideological corruption of Russian youth especially in the capital (democracy, human rights, freedom etc.)
So the leverage Trump has is to finally satisfy Russia’s aspirations, and to save Russia from China’s fatal hug, in the moment where Russia is more vulnerable since the beginning of the conflict wrt the US and China. Besides what if Trump helps Putin economically recover e.g. by removing sanctions?
I don’t think public declarations alone help us understand the full picture and I can’t discount the possible existence of reserved diplomatic channels where Putin and Trump may have found some basic agreement already by the end of last year. What however strikes me the most is the idea that Trump is taking by far the initiative to reset the relationship with Russia, without much evident concessions from Putin other than political flattery. Anyways, taking into account Trump’s aggressive diplomacy and even extortion (see Miran’s plan), my speculation is that Trump is de facto provoking and humiliating the Europeans to trigger some reaction that can be conveniently exploited against Russia one way or the other. If Europeans will prove to be so determined to counter Russia’s expansionism even by military means, if necessary, Trump can play the role of the good cop offering a partnership to spare Russia’s predicament from getting worse. In exchange, Trump expects Russia to detach from its current allies (China, Iran, North Korea), and avoid to interfere in the Middle East (also in favour of Israel). The cooperation with Russia and Israel will help further isolate China from Europe. If Europeans give up on Ukraine and start to go in different directions, Europe as a common project will likely end , then there will be those which will turn into US bootlickers and those which will turn into Russian bootlickers. The difference is just that if the US bootlickers will be happier than the Russian bootlickers, resentment toward Russia will grow once again and Russia will need to repress, so the burden of overstretching will be put once again on Russia’s shoulders without US antagonising Russia.
In both cases, Trump can sell weapons to Europeans to counter Russia but only for business sake (like Turkey with Ukraine), not because he cares about Russia taking Ukraine or other pieces of Europe to re-establish its sphere of influence. So much so that Europeans are compelled not only buy but also buy as much as possible prior to any conflict with Russia to avoid that the US will stop selling weapons to favour Russia. In both cases, there will be some “bucket-passing” ([I]“when a great power finds itself in a defensive posture trying to prevent rivals from gaining power at its expense, it can choose to engage in balancing or intervene by favoring buck-passing—transferring the responsibility to act onto other states while remaining on the sidelines[/I], see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism#Theoretical_flaws).
Notice that this speculative scenario is somehow reversing globalization: Europe and Russia will be put one against the other to empower the US and help the US contain US rivals (primarily China, but also Russia and Iran).
It’s a “Weimar moment” for the international order: US resentment + economic weakness (debt) + weakness international institutions and soft power are leading to a more assertive/aggressive and authoritarian US.
Quoting ssu
Once one takes into account the full picture one can see better how propaganda is instrumental for longer political trajectories (after putting aside the part in which the propaganda of one side is just trying to put the blame on the opposite side): Russia WAS and IS a threat to Europe and Trump wants to keep it that way (even better if Russia feels threatened by Europe). It’s just that neither Biden-style nor EU-style approach (as shown by European politicians hesitant toward Russia or infiltrated by Russia) could handle the Russian threat the way Trump can to support MAGA. Russia poses a different threat to the US now (before it was too close to Europe, then too close to China), so Trump needs to contain the Russian threat independently from the European contribution to such containment, by offering Russia the US partnership to re-balance.
Quoting ssu
We will see. I just believe that Trump’s moves however outrageous to our political habits are more logic than they appear. He’s certainly playing a risky game. And things can go awfully wrong in so many ways. But even if Trump won’t achieve his goals, that doesn’t mean Europeans are going to achieve theirs. As I wrote two years ago: [I]“Outside the EU (or some other form of federation) Europeans might go back to compete one another not only economically but also for security. And outside the US sphere of influence, we might compete not only with Russia, and China and other regional or global competitors, but also with the US. Good luck with that.”[/i]
Quoting ssu
The problem is that Trump is questioning his predecessors’ strategies based on liberal internationalism and Western alliance, so he doesn’t feel committed to liberal internationalism, nor responsible for its legacy or supporters. I doubt what we are going to see a backlash against Trump from Europe soon, since the closest threat to Europe is now Russia.
But I do wonder what European pro-Russian supporters, even in this thread, would think if Trump materially enables Russia to completely defeat Ukraine. After all it’s always Trump who said he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough.
If you think that “integrated European army” is the likely result of Trump’s pressure and an integrated European army is precondition for the European strategic emancipation on world stage, then paradoxically Europeans should welcome Trump’s pressure. However Europe is not just Finland and Sweden, nor is their alliance going to compromise Trump’s agenda. And nationalism can be used also to break European cohesion, as it has been so far. Besides what European may need is not just an integrated army, but also an integrated military-industrial complex, and also a nuclear arsenal. Maybe the latter is even quicker to achieve.
Right, it’s stick and stick, not carrot and stick, but whatever you want to call it, that’s Trump’s advisor’s proposed strategy. Britain has to deal with Trump’s extortionist approach and to try to hedge against it, if things go sideways but the instinct is still the same: insist on the “special relation” and try to bridge the divide with treats like an “unprecedented” invitation for a second state visit from King Charles.
The US wants to maintain the upper hand in dealing with other countries, it doesn’t matter if they are allies or not, since also allies can defect, betray or abuse of the benefits coming from superpowers' protection. While enemies are more willing to cooperate when they feel too weak.
Quoting Echarmion
Russia has a nuclear arsenal, oil and gas to fuel the Chinese economy. Its extension and geographic position can be used to constrain routes from China to Europe and to the arctic region. If the US helps Russia to end the conflict in Ukraine and remove the economic sanctions, Russia won’t feel the pressure to rely on China any more, it will have time to recover its resources to re-assert its dominance against those Russian federal states more vulnerable to the Chinese influence. But the US could help Russia even more to overcome its weaknesses (for example by providing needed technology). Go figure if the US sells weapons which Europeans are not willing to buy to Russia.
BTW also China has a problem of demographic decline.
Quoting Echarmion
But you must read more carefully. I wrote [I]“Europe has spent 30 years of globalisation enriching themselves and the US enemies (Russia and China) at the expense of the US”[/I]. Germany, France, Europe didn’t buy enough American to balance their business affairs with China.
Surely you too are right to observe that also the US contributed to enrich China. To Trump however that means pro-globalization American establishment is responsible for enriching the enemies of the US. They have to be blamed, not Trump nor the US he represents.
Concerning European populism (especially far right populism), from the US perspective the issue is still the same. The problem is not much the legitimacy of US foreign policy criticisms. The problem is that the combination of aversion to NATO, EU (both instrument of American dominance), US imperialism (see criticisms toward “war on terror”), and Anti-Zionism (see criticisms against Israel seen as instrument of American imperialism) were infiltrated/supported by enemies of the US (Russia, China, Iran), while still Europe was hypocritically enjoying the benefits of the US protection. And their advocates were rising to mainstream politics. So now how can Trump reverse this trend? How can Trump use far right nationalists against Russia, China, Iran, etc.? Starting by reneging NATO, EU (both instrument of American dominance), US neoliberal imperialism, pushing their support to become more mainstream can help, but what about Israel? Trump needs more christian fanatics who are more anti-muslim and anti-arabs, than anti-Zionist not only at home but also in Europe.
Quoting Echarmion
The overstretching came from overcommitment to allies and from policing a liberal world order which allies and enemies could benefit from more than the US. Indeed, European allies (in particular Germany as the EU leader, but also France and Italy) didn’t pay their due for the security the US was offering, on the contrary they increased the reputational costs of American foreign policies, while still doing business with Russia and China and without any concern for their hegemonic ambitions and competition with the US. Now there is no liberal world order to police, nor obligations toward allies which do not pay American support as requested. Anybody who wants the US economic and military support has to sacrifice a bigger piece of its economic, political and military independence: markets must be wide open to American products, politicians should literally turn into American cheerleaders and European defense feed US military industry to offset security threats (like Russia). Clients do not lead to overstretching in the racketing business, that’s how mobsters ensure their criminal business to perpetuate.
Quoting Echarmion
What do you mean by “traditional power politics”? My understanding is based on comparing Trump’s current strategy wrt his predecessors’ (given the problems his predecessors had to face like overstretching and pivoting to China ), Trump’s advisors/sidekicks (like Miran, Musk and Bannon), and geopolitical analysts (like Mearsheimer). Trump’s strategy looks to me as an effort to maintain the American supremacy in accordance with the MAGA motto while adapting to the emergence of a multi-polar environment infested by powerful and ambitious authoritarian regimes.
Finally, “chaos” is about uprooting what has been taken for granted by allies and enemies about the US, right? How can such “chaos” serve Trump’s MAGA agenda to you? Maybe some order is still preferable to no order, right? What order is the preferable order to the US? What US preferable order may more likely lead allies and enemies fearing chaos to converge upon, right now , and without falling into the previous toxic dynamics?
Look, I may be wrong, and frankly I wish it to be if that's for the best, but maybe it’s better to take into account the worst scenario consistent with the available evidence. See where believing that Russia wouldn’t eventually invade Ukraine led us.
What's worse is that religious and nationalist fanaticism can be more valuable to politicians than moral standing and pacifism, for the simple reason that the former create the psychological deterrence (they are ready to kill and be killed with not much qualms) the latter is incapable of inducing in perceived enemies.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_25_673
Trump has just banned all protest on college campuses, on price of jail.
What are the "unprecented" wider spectrums? This seems even more delusionary than the Brexiteers talking of the wonderful new deals that the UK can do without "being shackled by the EU".
How is does to the maintaining of that military/technological/financial supremacy help to alienate Europe, push them to put up their own military-industrial complex, declare publicly that you are an untrustworthy ally, who might not be there for you and then start what the WSJ called the "Dumbest trade war in History"?
How does it help that? IT DOESN'T! It has totally the opposite effect.
Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense. What is there to "divide" between Russia and China. China's military allies would be traditionally North Korea (even if that is a bit tense) and Myanmar and perhaps Pakistan. And that's it. Russia has basically has North Korea, a comrade in arms, Belarus, that is problematic for Russia ...and Armenia, for which this alliance has been a disaster. And then real or perceived influence in Central Asia. Oh and perhaps Cuba and Venezuela. And that's it.
What are you dividing with these countries? Russians are just laughing at how the US is destroying it's might itself. Russian economy is the size of Italy.
What is the reason to walk away from your most powerful allies?
Only thing is that Trump is either truly agent Trumpov or that the MAGA-crowd hates so much the liberal international order that they will want to attack their allies, destroy everything that the US has been building for 75 years and have these dreams of "a new world order" growing out of it.
Ukraine really is here the key, because it's the key to European defense structure. Vast majority of European countries will unify behind the support of Ukraine. You can already see how this is happening: a coalition of the willing is extensively working together and they don't give a fuck about Hungary or Slovakia.
To become Rocket Man.
Or is it Icarus.
I’ve just heard an interview with general Sir Richard Sherriff (ex chief of the European arm of NATO). Who has his finger on the pulse. That the Russian army is in a bad way. They are putting disabled people and teenagers onto the from line and using civilian vans and vehicles, even golf trolleys to supply them and morale is low.
Besides I'm not saying Trump will succeed. That doesn't mean Europe, Russia or China will succeed either. What Trump is injecting into this multi-polar world is the idea that the US has the means to undermine trust and commitments of all the players by exploiting others' weaknesses and making threats: that's not only true for the West but also for the Rest, since Russia can break e.g. from China and Iran. But if anybody is on their own, then the bigger beasts have greater chance to eat the smaller ones and the biggest wins the competition.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/us/politics/hegseth-cyber-russia-trump-putin.html
I couldn't find that anywhere. Do you have a reference? (Not that it'd be surprising.)
Quoting Punshhh
So, this is a good time for Putin to be relieved of pressure. Trump, at least, seems to be accommodating him.
https://x.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1896943473120407962
Trump threatens to cut funding for schools that permit ‘illegal protests’ and vows to arrest ‘agitators’
[sup]— Yelena Mandenberg, Steve Frank · Irish Star · Mar 4, 2025[/sup]
And that's why Trump is a gift from heaven to Putin. Even still, Russia can fight with an army that is treated like shit. And when the Ukrainians can basically just defend, they will be OK.
Quoting neomac
One cannot convince Trump. Trump is Trump and will be the disaster he will be. One should convince Americans how much harm Trump is doing to you.
We have now the dumbest trade war in history and the self-mutilation of America has started. At worst, it can really end up in a violent confrontation inside the US. If Trump now, when he has Congress, has to resort to disregard totally the separation of powers, go after judges and fire generals, think what it will be like if Democrats take the House and Senate? You think Trump will somehow come to his senses.
No, if you listen to him, he is living in his alternate reality with 100+ billion aid becoming 350 billion aid.
Quoting neomac
Look. Trump takes these issues quite personally. Notice his rant about "He and Putin" being thrown into fire with the Russiagate. How was Putin under fire? That is the real Trump. Soft-skinned and vindictive narcissist, who has a lot of hate and revenge to give after all those court cases. When Europeans try to be diplomatic, he sees weakness. But when they dare to talk about the Atlantic Alliance, the rules based order, Trump sees just Biden loving liberals who he resents. That's why Europe and Trump are on a collision course and there's no way out of this.
Really, this isn't about bargaining. Heck, the bullying with tariffs got him Canada and Mexico to put troops on their borders. Well, that worked! They were OK with this kind of Trumpist bargaining. But was Trump satisfied with that? Hell no! Now after one month, he had to have the tariffs. Did he give anything for the tariffs? No, just drop dead and move your factories to the US. Well, trade creates prosperity, but when you put it like that, the response will be like Trudeau and Claudia Sheinbaum have given. And they are popular, because it's very popular to be against a bullying foreigner, that is an asshole. Because that's what Trump looks like outside the US (and inside for some).
I think we make a real failure of thinking that somehow Trump has logic and reason behind his actions. He doesn't. People desperately wish there would be and want to see that there is. You see, in his first Administration he didn't actually get much done, which is actually great. Because if the economy is Ok, Americans are happy. They might be happy if the POTUS would be a genuine live Duck named Donald, as long as the economy is OK. As ducks live more than four years, not hassle with Donald Duck.
But now, Trump, the Master-of-the-Universe, will want to do a lot. And he surely is doing a lot.
It will be really, really worse even than now.
As I've said, first the most hated person in the US will be Elon Musk. Then afterwards, the most hated president will be Trump. But before that, there will be those who truly support him.
Trump has no respect of the Constitution or the separation of powers. At worst, it really can come to a violent overthrow of him.
At worst.
Yes, paradoxically I think many Europeans do welcome it. That Europe is taking care of her own security. While regretting the cause of it and the political implosion of the U.S.
Your argument about nationalism in Europe was good in our last conversation and I didn’t have much of a counter argument. But now my argument is strong, that this crisis will weaken this nationalism and increase unity and cohesion across Europe. Some proponents of this nationalism are in disarray. They don’t know what to make of Trumps pivot to a Putin fanboy. Many of them while flirting with Russian talking points don’t take seriously the idea of swapping sides, so to speak. Nigel Farage is in this position in the U.K. There are Reform(his party) supporters abandoning Reform over the unpleasant taste of being aligned with Putin. More broadly nationalist support is based primarily on the immigration issue. Not some kind of appeasement, or support for Putin.
All this Putin stuff seems to have come from Trump, who isn’t a nationalist. Although hiding behind the banner of nationalism, he is a demagogue, who aspires to authoritarian rule. Politics doesn’t figure, it’s raw power.
I agree, although he hasn’t dismantled the democracy which elected him as yet. So his status is currently uncertain.
They still assume to be talking to an administration, that is logical. That Trump might say this or that, but later clearer heads will prevail.
Listening to the responses of Canadian politicians, I think they are really finally awaking what kind of president Trump is. This man is ignorant and stupid, he genuinely wants Canada to be the 51st state of the US. He is incapable of thinking why this wouldn't be such a great idea. Canadians have also noticed that behind the trade wars there actually isn't much reasoning. When Canadians do understand this, then they respond to Trump as one should respond to someone like Trump. The UK doesn't notice, that they too have a "special relationship" with a Commonwealth partner called Canada. And the "special partnership" is nearly non-existent. The only country that has a "special partnership" with the US is Israel. Europeans still assume some kind of sanity behind the madness or some continuation in the policy of the US.
For example, Trump has repeated his desire for Greenland. And this is a message that the Danes simply don't get as they think and believe that the US is an ally and anything else simply would be impossible:
Just look at the response of ordinary Danes (or the few Greenlanders) when asked about it. They are simply puzzled:
And compare this when the Foreign Minister Lars Rasmunssen is asked about the question about Greenland (at the 6:00 mark in the following video). He is simply bewildered and gives a non-answer:
So perhaps just wait and hope that Trump will have to focus somewhere else. If Ukrainians would think similarly, it would be very dangerous.
Because the warning signs that Trump genuinely doesn't give a rat's ass about Ukraine and will want peace quickly even if it's Ukraine surrendering to Russia doesn't sink in. Ukrainians might understand this, but Europeans simply cannot fathom this kind of behavior, hence they are shocked when Trump continues with his outrageous ideas.
What should be understood, that Europe and Ukraine do have the cards here. If the US walks away, it then walks away. Then they should rapidly send weapons and ammo as it would be 2022. It is possible, the defeatism spread by Kremlin is propaganda.
Quoting ssu
I deeply disagree with your approach. And I think this deep disagreement has manifested already in other occasions when we talked about Bush’s war on terror or Netanyahu's war on Hamas.
To me, leaders matter to the extent they are supported (actively or passively). Leaders matter to the extent they aggregate, represent, and guide collective interests coming from ordinary people, powerful economic and media lobbies, geopolitical experts, political entourage and advisors. And such interests are related to domestic and foreign challenges. So to make it all about the “erratic” or “vindictive” psychology of the leader or his official speeches or his personal conflict of interests is very myopic to me. One has to understand what are the perceived challenges from whoever supports Trump’s views, approach, official speeches in his background. That’s why I’m talking about logic: the exercise is to understand what could possible be the more widely shared premises (no matter how implausible they look to you) by collective interests which support Trump and then what most coherently can follow from such premises. This holds for Trump, for Putin, for Netanyahu, as any other political leader.
Besides Trump is the product of a political regime which is different from Putin’s. In the US political regime power is much more distributed and therefore constrained than in Russia. For sure Trump has amassed lots of power more than any of his recent predecessors, given the current US regime, and, given his mindset, he could very much exploit such favourable institutional conditions to push further for a regime change in the US in an authoritarian sense. The problem for the Europeans is that they have now not only Putin but also Trump as enemies.
All this Putin stuff seems to have come from Trump, who isn’t a nationalist. Although hiding behind the banner of nationalism, he is a demagogue, who aspires to authoritarian rule. Politics doesn’t figure, it’s raw power.[/quote]
I think it’s still too early to be optimistic about European reactions. No matter what they are going to decide to counter Russia or to revise the European collective approach to security, European leaders are still slowed down by an aging population which is sticking to mental habits and material privileges coming from the pre-Trump era, but which now do not look anymore adaptive. What needs to be changed is more radical than just re-arming. Europeans need an anthropological change that will take generations.
What’s worse is that the burden of democracy and multilateral agreements within a multipolar world infested by powerful authoritarian regimes, and which Trump looks pretty much determined to unload from the US’s shoulders, is still what European countries are suffering from. As long as they had the US on their side, European political leaders and people could easily ignore this problem, so much so that Europeans myopically abused of their comfort zone. But now European democracies (with their appeal to freedom of speech and universal human rights, and self-deprecating or anti-American rhetoric) do not only have to face the challenges coming from Russia and China, but also from the US.
Good luck with that.
I would agree to this when it comes to Putin, Netanyahu, Bush etc. But Trump really is an exception here. Let me put it this way:
Was there a drive in the US for the territorial expansion of the US as Trump has put it? If you haven't noticed, this has truly angered the Canadians to feel that this isn't just a trade issue at stake here. Really, before Trump I didn't notice this thinking that the Northern Hemisphere ought to be belonging and annexed by the US anywhere inside the US. If someone (correctly in some events) called the US policy neo-imperialist, this is actually quite old-school imperialism. The fact is, nobody, no political movement was asking for territorial expansion that Trump has declared his objective. This really is Trump's own designs that he's taken on.
This makes Trump totally different. Trump has to be understood as a person, who thinks he has these great ideas. He's not acting as a representative of a political movement, he's more acting like a king. Kings obviously look after their nation, but can come up with ideas themselves what would be best for the country. The total disregard of the separation of powers tell that this isn't a man who see's that he has a certain limited role as the elected leader of the executive branch, who then should share power with the legislative and the judicial branch. He clearly want's to dominate the two other branches. OK, so he's an autocrat, at least a wanna-be. But there's more to this.
I think professor Timothy Snyder explains best the view I have about Trump. Snyder correctly explains what the Trump plan for Ukraine is: "It's not a peace plan yet, but a warmongering process" as "literally everything that Washington has done under Trump, has made it easier for Russia to carry out the war". Snyder observes that Russia itself isn't talking about a peace process and it hasn't given away on any of it's objectives, It's just that the US stance has come aligned with it. Making concessions to Russia just enables them far more. And Snyder also notes how Trump views the issue at a personal level, Trump and Putin personally. Similarly Snyder noticed in the scolding of Zelenskyi that Trump told that "he and Putin have gone through tough times together".
Worth watching this interview:
I agree that with Snyder's observation that this has made the US far weaker and improved the position of both China and Russia.
You may be right (https://www.icelandreview.com/news/icelands-foreign-minister-accuses-trump-of-humiliating-zelensky/). I don't know how they prepared that map. But, a part from Hungary and Slovakia, see Italy.
You do realize this is a debate forum, and considering you weren't even addressing the points impacted by your citation of my point, certainly you can appreciate that's annoying.
Quoting Punshhh
You cite my point and respond, if you aren't responding to my point then just say so.
Now if by "aware" you mean "agree" then it's even more confusing, but if you agree on the points about narratives (aka. propaganda) that were being discussed then that's good to know we agree on those points.
Nevertheless, I disagree with this adjacent point of what the "big story is".
First I would argue that the "big story" is Western elites cynically manipulating, aka. bribing, Ukrainian elites (with the complicity of said Ukrainian elites, who definitely want to be bribed), into fighting a war that could not be won, no one ever intended to win, and in which hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians died and it's not even over.
That would definitely be "the big story" in my book of stories related to this affair.
As for Europe rearming. I seriously doubt that is any story in terms of actually fighting the Russians.
I'd say they story there is that actual war in Europe and constantly claiming Russia will take all Eastern Europe, maybe Western Europe too (indeed even the US according to the "fight them over there so we don't need to fight them here" rhetoric), if not stopped in Ukraine, was not enough to really get war profiteering going.
European elites may not like Trump but they see the opportunity to get that war spending finally going by playing the Trump-Europe personality friction like a full string orchestra.
Quoting Punshhh
If by sparring (of which the whole point of that word is to indicate no one dies) you mean "fighting proxy wars" (in which many people die), then correct.
Maybe geopolitical "skirmishing" was the word you were looking for to denote fighting that is less intense than a full blown war in which the idea is to relate the size and role of a skirmish in an actual war to that of an actual proxy war in relation to a global conflict between superpowers.
Quoting Punshhh
I simply disagree, the equilibrium is exactly as it was before. No one (who matters; aka. decides what the propaganda is rather than their job being to believe it) actually believes that Russia will actually attack the EU. Ukraine was a particular case in terms of culture, strategic military implications, and resources.
Another war maybe fought in Finland, but that will just be to sacrifice Finns to keep up the pretence of this amazing confrontation (and so sell more arms).
Quoting Punshhh
... and also people dying. You seem to always leave that part out, such as the "Big story" is arms being purchased ... not all the dead Ukrainians.
So in the same answer you don't believe Russia attacking the EU yet then you believe maybe Russia would attack the EU.
These delirious opinions should be given respect they deserve: Not worth commenting further.
Who are they? List 3 of them.
You are so committed to the propaganda that you are simply unable to conceive that it's even possible for their to be a hot war between Finland and Russia without that war being 100% Russia's fault in aiming to conquer Finland. Reality is more complex than what propaganda would lead you to believe.
A Finnish-Russian war, that I predict may indeed happen, would not be Russia attacking Finland but some messy situation and a series of strange events and false flags / alleged false flags (that could be caused by literally anyone, such as cutting undersea infrastructure).
The goal would be to create a tense military situation with little actual fighting. Russia has no interest in conquering Finland and Finland has no possibility to conquer Russia obviously.
At least to start, of course once fighting starts the nob can be slowly turned up while avoiding any unwanted escalation (such as any non-Finns dying in the proposed conflict).
So it would be this sort of war.
And this isn't really my prediction but only extrapolating a bit on the analysis of Professor Glenn Diesen, who quite confidently asserts Finns are being prepared to fight an inevitable war with Russia.
So the two notions are compatible that Russia does not "attack the EU" with the intention of conquering parts, much less all, or it, and there is nevertheless a war between Russia and Finland.
Just like the war in Ukraine radically increased tensions, including nuclear tensions (if you remember those days of increasing nuclear readiness), simply because Ukraine is a European country and US / NATO was backing Ukraine (at least in terms of social media virtry signalling), now that we've all been desensitized to the war in Ukraine and it is essentially normalized and no longer viewed as a source of nuclear tensions, if you wanted another "tension dose" you'd need to upgrade.
The logical upgrade available is some sort of war between Finland and Russia as Finland is in NATO. Now, to have such a war also not lead to a nuclear war it would need to be calibrated just like the war in Ukraine was calibrated to achieve such effect and things would need to be confusing so as not to result in US and Russia fighting.
For, it is assumed that any sort of fighting whatsoever between Russia and any element of NATO would immediately result in a full blown war, but this is just a thing "people say" and assert as if it's a law of nature when obviously it is not. There is a whole spectrum of both fighting and tensions between Russia and elements of NATO that can be explored without that leading to a full war, much less a war in which Russia seeks to conquer large parts, or even any part, of the EU.
Hmmm, well Zelensky to start, then maybe throw in a bit of Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems.
But why stop at 3?
There's all sorts of profits to be gained from war, from human trafficking and black market arms dealing to just generously supplying LNG to a gas starved Europe.
Why aren't Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems not bribing Trump to push for the war in Ukraine, so they can sell more weapons?
First, in terms of general principle, the war profiteering contribution from the war in Ukraine, especially in terms of defence contractors, is in creating a far less stable world generally speaking in which it is "common sense" that more arms are needed by all parties. I.e. in stoking a new arms race.
Once adequately stoked, a fire no longer needs further kindling.
Second, even defence contractors don't want a nuclear war and even they would recognize the need for drip feed theory. Which, as the name connotes, is far from the maximalist approach to "whatever it takes" to supply arms to Ukraine.
Indeed, defence contractors don't even want too much war!!
Too much war, even in setting policy too ambitiously in arming Ukraine, would be bad for defence contractors as it would be necessary to transition to a war time economy, at least partially. What a war time economy means is a central planning and low wage, if not volunteer, basis to war production (think women building planes in WWII).
If EU states actually sat down and put themselves to the task of making enough arms as simple as shells for Ukraine they would immediately realize the only way to do it is through government mobilization of the work force (say the recently unemployed industrial work force of Europe due to cutting off Russian gas) and they would need to organize this production themselves. This wouldn't be a good thing from the perspective of the defence contractors. May even open pandoras box of the defence contractor world in that socialism is a far more efficient and strategically sound approach to arms production. We rely on quasi volunteers (i.e. paid well below the market value of mercenaries to do the same thing, made possible through the magic of patriotism) as combat soldiers so it actually stands to reason that a quasi volunteer force to produce arms (or then at least standard munitions like shells) may in fact be equally common sense.
You wouldn't want to open pandoras box would you?
God man, heaven forbid.
In other words, even from the private producers of arms point of view it is merely a truism that more chaos and death is good for business. Aristotle man, moderation is the key. There is a sweet spot of chaos and death that maximizes profits, minimizes socialism and also manages the risk of destroying the defence contractors in a nuclear war along with much of the rest of the economy (this is the "does the stock market still work in your plan" sanity check for corporate executives in this sector of the economy).
By "manages the risk" what is meant is maximizing the net present value, which is basically expected gain but integrating over a longer term to take into account depreciation, discount rates and a bunch of other stuff we corporate executives like to phone up accountants about and be like "crunch the numbers on this! stat!".
1% chance of nuclear armageddon MULTIPLIED by a trillion dollars, equals 990 billion dollars (BILLION dollars man!) of net present value and is simply a win in business terms if both increasing or decreasing the risk of nuclear armageddon results in a lower net present value, and therefore would be violating fiduciary responsibility and lead to lawsuits from shareholders, which quite obviously would mean the end of the fucking world in corporate executive terms. QED in corporate speak.
You are just describing how Russia attacks other countries. False flags are just the Russian traditional method. Or the attackers described as being "volunteers" or "local freedom fighters" and in the end, the Russian army being a "peace-keeping force".
Quoting boethius
Lol. Glenn Diesen, of course. The person who is frequently on Russia television.
But anyway: Si vis pacem, parabellum. The real way you can have peace.
Quoting boethius
No, the logical upgrade is the Europe get's it shit together and does take it's security seriously and creates that deterrence, which is needed. All thanks to perhaps agent Krasnov?
And help Ukraine.
Quoting boethius
I agree with this, actually.
The fact is that actually two nuclear weapons armed countries can fight each other quite openly without it ending up in a nuclear exchange. This goes to the stupid and actually dangerous idea that we cannot talk about nuclear escalation being contained in a military exchange. The accepted lithurgy is that a war between two nuclear powers would lead to humans wiping themselves off the Earth, which isn't even possible even if all nukes would be used and they all would work.
The really dangerous thing is the idea of "escalation to de-escalation", because it does have a kernel of truth in it. If a small 10KT tactical nuke would be used in the middle of nowhere against a military target, the media frenzy and the collective panic would lead people desperately calling for immediate cease-fire. And that's the idea behind escalation to de-escalate.
In fact, if Russia would want really to get Ukraine to peace talks, it could just do a nuclear test under ground in Novaja Zemlya. NATO, even before Trump, wouldn't have attacked anything if Russia would have made a test in it's own backyard. But in the case, the nuclear rattling would be far more credible than just talking about nukes as now the Russians have done. But since Trump is giving everything to Putin already, no need for anything like that.
Quoting boethius
And we've seen that spectrum in Moldavia and Georgia ....and Ukraine, prior to the conventional attack.
Yet the fact is that many NATO countries might openly want to believe this crap, because it would be better for them. So perhaps the Nazis in the Baltic States are really oppressing their Russian minorities and having Russian "peace-keepers" there is a great idea. It's just an internal problem like what we saw in Spain in Katalonia etc. Nothing to do with NATO and article 5.
Openly siding with the Kremlin lies is useful for many.
You just described how you proved my point.
I guess thanks for that.
Quoting ssu
Soooo, I'm not following you here, you'll need to spell it out.
Oh you don't have to thank me. I will agree with you when you say something that is true or correct.
It's actually quite important to understand just how Russia fights these wars. Yet perhaps the biggest thing is that we assume that Russia is just a large European state like, well, Germany or Poland.
It's not.
It is really an Empire. It has countries and regions that aren't Russian or European and these minorities aren't migrants (as in the UK or Germany), but basically people that are in a rather same situation as we where as a Grand Dutchy of Russia. Perhaps it would be similar to think of France being connected to Algeria without there being any Mediterranean. After all, France didn't think of Algeria as a colony, but as a part of France with many French living in the country (the Pied-Noirs). Well, Algeria isn't Christian and isn't European and the cultural assimilation is different. Chechnya wasn't either, even if the country was on the European side of the Caucasus mountains. And Central Asia, as name implies, is really different also.
I think this, and it's geography that doesn't give it refuge, makes Russia so fearful especially about democracy and liberalism at it to feel more safer, if it can push it's borders further. And here it sees as the best defense attack. And this creates the self fulfilling prophecy that it's weaker neighbors fear it ...with genuine reason.
Well, now fortunately Europe seems to be waking up. Of course that means that the threat of large scale war has become closer, yet I do think that Europe will find enough deterrence for the peace to prevail here or even in the Baltics.
6March25
from Paris, France
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/974404
[tweet]https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1894314449810358664[/tweet]
Then in 2022 and before it actually wasn't Trump, even if he bragged about changing European attitudes towards defense spending and getting them finally to increase defense spending. Then it was Putin back then, first with the annexation of Crimea and then his assault and planned three week war against Ukraine. The era of Finlandization and the Post-war era for my country ended in February 2022. Then the people here demanded to apply for NATO membership and the politicians quickly responded with also dragging Sweden into NATO, which happened later after a long haggling with Turkey.
But now it was really, really Trump. The Trump-Putin axis has really sent shock waves around Europe and Canada. The US is playing the Kremlin's tunes. We understand just how the threat of large scale war is lurking quite near.
And if we are find out that Trump is really agent Krasnov or not, that doesn't matter so much anymore as the truth is as he is an asset for Russia and is literally pushing the agenda of Putin, things are now changing.
I think that the last weeks have now been a similar historical change as the United States, because you lose trust only once. And that just happened now. Americans, even the Trump administration, can try walk it back, it cannot be done. The US is now simply an unreliable ally. This can be seen from just how hollow it now sounds when Secretary of Defense Hegseth praises the British from his personal experience in Afghanistan. The utter destruction of the credibility of the US has already been done and the silence of Republicans has told us Europeans, that you cannot trust the Americans, even if there are plenty Americans who see the importance of the Atlantic and do want there to be the alliance that has given us peace and prosperity.
The chain breaks from the weakest link, and it doesn't matter how strong the other parts of the chain are.
The United States of America has never been a friend or an ally, but a partner. They wanted security and prosperity in Europe because this would benefit them. But they never had in mind anything else than defending themselves. The WWII was a good example of that. Until the Pearl Harbour attack, they didn't care about the war in Europe.
I always saw American foreign policy as a threat to Europe and my country, just because of the way they always tried to impose how we should behave in the world they created after WWII. I think they don't really understand Europe; probably, the average American can't point your country on the map; they think we are Mexico or Africa, and I guess they don't know about Slovakia's existence.
Why did we let these guys put their military bases on our land? Time to do self-criticism.
I understand why you Finns are worried; now Trump is fond of a threat to your nation. But let's not forget that he is also very friendly with Muhammad (the dictator of Morocco). What would happen if that mad lad decided to attack Ceuta and Melilla? Will Trump support him? Will Trump threaten Sanchez and Spain as he did with Zelensky and Ukraine?
In the next decades, Europe has to think more about itself! We are older than them. We have more experience in struggling in war or hot zones.
No political or popular “movement” ok, but American analysts have been on these issues for a while now
(For example, see this article: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1944-10-01/iceland-greenland-and-united-states, or here: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-importance-greenland-us-national-security, or here: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/23/china-diplomacy-panama-00062828).
Also the hawkish Bolton was among such analysts as much as part of Trump’s advisors in his first mandate:
https://www.thefp.com/p/john-bolton-trump-greenland-denmark-casino
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/03/bolton-builds-anti-china-campaign-at-the-u-n/
(Notice that even though Bolton seems now willing to question Trump, that’s more about Trump’s aggressive diplomacy than about his strategic motives).
Concerning the Neo-imperialist attitude this looks to me still functional to counter the perceived challenges posed by the current multi-polar environment infested by powerful authoritarian regimes, as I already said. Since I don’t know if you read it, I’ll repost it for the third time:
[i]As I wrote a while back, the problem the West must face is that if rising anti-Western regimes do not evolve into more Western-style liberal democracies, the West may feel compelled to adopt the characteristics of these anti-Western, militarized authoritarian regimes in order to balance the asymmetry. Meanwhile, nationalist and religious motivations, as well as propaganda, are likely to take precedence over universal human rights motivations and/or propaganda. Imperial ambitions may also become more openly territorial, which AT BEST could lead to a form of agreed-upon, stable (?) spheres of influence. In this scenario, minority groups and non-hegemonic states will likely face oppression, exploitation, or will be used to serve the interests of the dominant powers one way or another through local populist bootlickers.
Trump seems to be reasoning along these lines:
* If Russia can make territorial claims over Ukraine and China can do the same with Taiwan, then the U.S. could claim territories like Greenland, Panama, or even Canada.
* If Russia commits genocide or ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, and China does the same against the Uyghurs, then Israel can act similarly in Palestine.
* If Russia and China can leverage economic pressure or political division to exploit Europe against the U.S., the U.S. can retaliate in the same way against Russia and China.
* If Russia and China reject green agreements, the U.S. can do the same.
* If China exploits Russia to counterbalance the U.S., the U.S. can attempt to exploit Russia against China.
* If Russia and China promote nationalism or religious extremism to advance their geopolitical agendas, the U.S. can follow the same path.
* If Russia and China adopt protectionist policies against the GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft), the U.S. can similarly oppose China’s technologies and Russia’s attempts to exploit them against the West the US.
And so on.[/i]
(Source: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963479)
Quoting ssu
I really appreciated Timothy Snyder’s insights in this video (I’ve been always his fan).
Surely Trump is playing a risky game. And one should keep in mind also the points he makes starting from min 12:43:
[I]If you get to a situation where Ukrainians are in effect given the deal that American power and Russian power will overwhelm them unless they accept what is in fact a surrender, if you get to that solution, here are the precedents you're setting:
1. you're setting the precedent that National sovereignty and the legal World Order don't mean anything because Russia invaded Ukraine in a very straightforward violation of the most basic principles of international law.
2. the second precedent that you're setting is that the aggressor will come out ahead um and you'll be setting that precedent in dramatic fashion because at the moment American policy seems to be and I would love to be wrong about this but it seems to be to reward Russia with things that Russia's not capable of getting on the battlefield on its own
3. perhaps even more significant is that you're encouraging nuclear proliferation because if we get the outcome of the war where Ukraine is forced to surrender then every medium-sized country is going to draw the conclusion that they need to have nuclear weapons to prevent a Russian style scenario[/i]
My only objection is that he also dismisses too quickly the Trumps approach without considering the reasoning that makes it more compelling than it looks.
Quoting boethius
As far as I can recall, that’s the first time you are bringing this argument up with me. And I really appreciated it. No irony. At least it’s something new and definitely worth discussing.
Some more questions: what empirical evidence support your claim that “socialism is a far more efficient and strategically sound approach to arms production”? And what do you mean by “strategically sound”?
Russian top diplomat Lavrov praises Trump on US president’s dealings with Ukraine
[sup]— Lucy Leeson · The Independent · Mar 2, 2025[/sup]
Trump's stunning string of Putin-friendly moves
[sup]— Dave Lawler · Axios · Mar 4, 2025[/sup]
Hegseth dismisses as "garbage" critique of US stance on Russia
[sup]— Phil Stewart, Idrees Ali, Sachin Ravikumar, Diane Craft · Reuters · Mar 6, 2025[/sup]
Russia launches huge strikes across Ukraine as US halts intelligence-sharing
[sup]— Luke Harding · Guardian · Mar 7, 2025[/sup]
Someone mentioned rebranding "surrender" as "peace".
"Trump's peace" is "Putin's peace"?
It's clear enough that this would be a major victory for Putin, who otherwise could have ended up facing some (harsh) problems at home.
The Kremlin circle's responses to the Oval Office incident (Feb 28, 2025) are telling.
None of this would make the Kremlin peaceful or deterred.
Great Powers can have totally different policies in totally different regions and with different countries. This is why many have this problem especially with the US as it's actions in it's backyard, in Central America and then in Western Europe or with Israel has been quite different. And this is totally similar with Russia and China. Russia can be outright hostile and murderous in it's "Near abroad" like Ukraine and Georgia, yet it's likely very cordial and friendly to India or Brazil. And this is why many traditional leftists who have been against the US have been irritated of my views, if I have mentioned something positive of the previous actions of the US.
Unlike the Warsaw Pact, NATO was a voluntary defense treaty, not an instrument of subjugation. The Warsaw Pact did achieve it's mission in 1956 in Hungary and especially in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, which was most successful Soviet military operation since Operation Bagration in 1944. It genuinely were the former Warsaw pact states in Eastern Europe that wanted themselves NATO protection. They were the most active in this. And in the case of Sweden and Finland, there is no other reason than Putin himself. Hence the pro-Russian commentators never talk about Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
Above all, European countries really loved the system of keeping the Russians out, the US in and Germany lame.
What Americans true hubris is that these new "realpolitik" players that see Europe as weak as the EU is made up of 27 states and the largest of them, Germany, is a militarily tiny, is to see the continent as a liberal pushover. Because outside threat can make Europeans to come together, just like the Greek states came together with a unified threat of the Persian empire. For Europe, Putin is really a threat. If Trump goes to bed with Putin and does Putin's bidding, how would that logically change the situation? What is the threat now?
With Trump, it has changed. Just look at how the relationship has changed with Canada. It's really worth wile reading, and then reading again what Justin Trudeau, the exiting Canadian prime minister said:
[quote]Trudeau accused the US president of planning "a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that will make it easier to annex us".
"That is never going to happen. We will never be the 51st state," he told reporters on Tuesday.
"This is a time to hit back hard and to demonstrate that a fight with Canada will have no winners."
You think that is just "trade war rhetoric"? No, that above accusation you basically hurl at your enemy. Not a competitor, not an adversary, but to an enemy that threatens you. Only an enemy would have this kind of objective. And the way things are going, I think that in the future European politicians will start to sound like their Canadian counterparts.
That Trump has gone to the side of Russia, that JD Vance tells us that Russia isn't a threat to us, but some culture war issue "freedom of speach" is and Trump hints at possibly using force to get Greenland from Denmark have all crossed a line. Because the NATO members aren't Warsaw Pact members, so this has real consequences.
Quoting javi2541997
This is our weak spot and this is why we seem to be so weak to Americans. Because even if I know Ceuta and Melilla, I'm sure that many Finns wouldn't know that these cities are in Africa. And there would be plenty of intellectuals that start talking about Spanish colonialism and the atrocities done in the Rif war.
We've already talked about the totally different security situation that European countries find themselves. I think the whims of the King of Morocco isn't your biggest threat, what if Morocco would collapse to have a civil war like Algeria or Syria? What if on the other side of the city limits (and the border zone) of Ceuta and Melilla you can see the flags of Islamic state of the Maghreb? Those people could declare of the divine mission to retake the lost lands of the Moors back.
The error here is to think that Finns would be indifferent if this happens. If the Finnish leadership tells us clearly just how the perilous the situation is for Spain, then there could be the response. It is simply a case of our leaders understanding that we are in the same boat and we cannot turn a blind eye to others security problems. That makes all security arrangement we have weak.
Quoting javi2541997
I would disagree.
The time is now. Or actually after last Friday week ago. And they are already thinking. Thanks to Trump, the World has changed already. The change is here and now.
Thanks for the references!
But do notice the difference here. One thing is to ask, especially behind closed doors, about something like this (as Bolton states). Another thing is to declare it openly, like Trump. Actually John Bolton explains it well:
When actually many Greenlanders do want independence, and it's just 50 000 people, what Bolton here is actually saying something that Danes could perhaps accept without losing face.
Yet Trump wants to annex more territory into the US. His agenda is to increase the territory of the US to cover all of the North of the American continent with the large island next to it. And this is the proposed with a sublte manner of asking a man if his wife can be raped.
Quoting neomac
OK, I do understand where you are going. And I'm just trying to say that this is absolutely loony.
Autocratic regimes of Russia and China aren't more prosperous than us. We do like our democracy and our justice state. We are willing to fight for it. The "populists" we have do abide with laws and parliamentarism and actually support Ukraine.
But let's go over these points you made:
Quoting neomac
Yeah, but notice what has happened when Russia made those territorial gains and didn't achieve it's goals of conquering Ukraine in three weeks. Russia is an existential threat to Europe. As von der Leyen said: "A clear and present danger". And that's why Europe is uniting in a historic arms race to put nearly everything and the kitchen sink into defense. That's why countries like Canada, Norway, UK are joining up with EU states as the threat is obvious. This is basically the only way that you can get the 27 nations of the EU plus few that are only in NATO to unite. And once they have built up their defense, why would they then listen to anything that the bully US will say?
And do notice that China hasn't at least yet started military action against Taiwan.
Now, why the fuck would you want the same type of reaction against yourself? Really, nobody has answered here what is the reasoning behind alienating your allies and bowing down in front of your enemies? The only one's agenda that this serves is Russia, as it wants to destroy the power of the US.
As been said, Italy is a larger economy than Russia. Russia is approaching one million dead and wounded in this war and has lost huge quantities of equipment. Why is this country put then on a pedestal?
It's just absolutely crazy that when you use Occam's razors, you do end up with the whims of an old vindictive narcissist as the answer.
* * *
And anyway, if scolding and badmouthing Zelensky, demanding a huge minerals deal without giving any security guarantees, cutting all aid and intel is bad... Perhaps it could be even worse:
Yet perhaps a grain of salt should be used here. The US has a habit of trying to influence things in Ukraine, but it doesn't control them. This is where some swalloy the Russian propaganda too easily: the Ukrainian revolutions, which there have been many, haven't been some astro-turf events machinated by the US. They have been popular revolutions, where usually the US have tried to influence the events. And so will here too happen. Ukrainian resolve to defend their country isn't made up of just one man. And the other Ukrainian politicians mentioned here likely won't be puppets either.
[quote=WaPo;https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/07/trump-russia-sanctions-threat/]“I actually think he’s doing what anybody else would do,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Friday, when asked whether he was upset that Russian President Vladimir Putin was taking advantage of the U.S. halt in aid for Ukraine. “Probably anybody in that position would be doing that right now. He wants to get it ended. And I think Ukraine wants to get it ended, but I don’t see. It’s crazy. They’re taking tremendous punishment. I don’t quite get it.”[/quote]
"Don't quite" get it? How about "don't have the foggiest idea, but would hate to upset my good friend Vladimir." In essence, Ukraine is being blamed for not throwing down their arms and inviting Russia to occupy their country. It's completely nuts, as is most of the other stuff he's doing.
Do you adjust your theory at all based on the fact that the US is obviously not the country forcing a continuation of the conflict?
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah it's increasingly obvious that when Trump says "end the war" what he means is "Russia wins".
You can also contrast his behaviour with the tariffs with his behaviour on Ukraine. With the tariffs he is constantly changing his mind based on whatever media reports get to him. On Ukraine he has not changed any of his decisions despite significant concessions to him by Ukrainians.
A deal with Putin, yeah right.
They speak for themselves.
Trump could say anything against Biden's administration. And indeed he blames Biden's administration for this war. Besides Trump has a penchant for conspiracy theories, so really it's very hard to understand why he couldn't say this... Ah, you mean that at this point Trump is clearly a Blob's puppet (as much as Biden) and he can't say anything against the Blob, right? But even in this case Trump could blame everything on Biden exclusively. His supporters aren't going to question him anyways. Why couldn't he do that? You have to speculate some more.
Since you do not need any evidence to support your factual claims, then no evidence are needed to dismiss your factual claims. Easy peasy.
But most of all why do you need all these elaborated speculations for, when the US strategy has clearly changed? Why on earth are you so badly looking for an almighty villain to blame everything on?
It doesn’t matter what argument is put forward, everything goes back to Putin. Someone who can’t be trusted.
But I urge you to look up information on these accounts yourself. Jeffrey Sachs gives clear accounts, which he bases on information he received directly from the mediators and diplomats involved.
If you want first-hand accounts by the Ukrainian negotiators, try this interview by Oleksandr Chalyi, or interviews by David Arakhamia.
Or try interviews by Oleksiy Arestovych - Zelensky's former spokesperson and possible Ukrainian political candidate.
The information is out there, just not in the mainstream media.
Trump’s communicative approach in foreign politics is coherent with his aggressive style in domestic politics. And he’s aversion toward to the Europeans is not just resentful because he sees Europeans as materially parasitising the US but also due to an ideological gap that aligns Europeans (mostly the EU) with Democrats and the Woke culture.
Voicing moral outrage to somehow induce the US to be more complacent toward the EU can backfire to the extent Trump could use it once more against Europeans (as Zelensky's appeal to common goals and solidarity backfired against Zelensky in the Oval Office).
Quoting ssu
American-led globalisation empowered Russia and China so that they could challenge US global supremacy. If this is the case, then it’s logic that the US is compelled to break down American-led globalisation which includes a system of alliance and international institutions which are no longer functional to the US. Given that the premise bears enough plausibility, especially to the Americans who supported Trump, and the consequence is logically consistent with the premise, then the argument is compelling. If the argument is compelling, and actions are substantially consistent with this argument, then focusing on how distasteful or shocking this foreign policy u-turn by the US is, hoping that US people and politicians will come to their senses and renormalise relations, looks more a waste of energy to me. Unless that’s a way to wake up not the US, but Europeans so they become more reactive in supporting policies aimed at countering/mitigating US aggressiveness.
Quoting ssu
That’s what I keep doing, but you do not want to listen. I’ll repeat it in short. Pivot to Asia, the burden of Globalization, EU parasitism are the main premises of the reasoning. Russia is needed to contain China (Israel helps too) and keep it isolated from Europe. To Trump Russia looks enough depleted of power projection means and always jealous of the US attentions. While the EU looks too opportunistic about US economic and military support while being too snobbish about US global policing.
Now both the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict must end to redirect energies where they need to be.
If you want to say, the US will fail because Europeans are going to do this and that, well first let’s see if they are going to do this and that, and if doing this and that is enough to change the US revolutionary approach to the multipolar world in favour to Europeans, or to sustain the US antagonism.
Quoting ssu
Very very very bad, but still consistent with the premises. Notice that the US with this deal has:
- Still one strong reason to remain in Ukraine
- Without Russia feeling military antagonized, since it’s officially about business not security (Putin even wants a deal on rare earth with the US on Russian territory)
- With strong benefits for the US (so the US will have a return of investment to make US people happy)
- And anticipating China’s protectionism over rare earth supply as a retaliation against the US tariff war
Already Reform in the U.K. is split and in disarray. Established rightwing political commentators, such as Andrew Neil are washing their hands of Trump. Putin is Kryptonite, on a level in the public opinion with Hitler. I haven’t been following the reaction from the right in other European countries. However the resolve and camaraderie between EU leaders is clear to see.
Regarding the geopolitics of the situation my position hasn’t changed much from our previous conversation. Trump is not as yet an authoritarian leader, it’s just cosplay at this point. I very much doubt that he will be able to overturn the democracy in the U.S. In which case, this is a blip and we will be back to business as usual once Trump leaves office. Or it would result in a civil war. In which case, the U.S. will withdraw from the world stage while they sort out issues at home for a few years.
Although if the U.S. were to step back from the world stage for some time(for whatever reason), geopolitics would return to a peaceful state for that period. Russia would be licking her wounds and China would continue as before, playing the long game. With the noticeable difference that Europe would be a strong world power, conducting trade and cooperation with China and the U.S. may well find herself in third place.
So this is what Trump is thinking? It’s still looney and quite a stretch.
I agree. But Trump really doesn't understand that this isn't entertainment. It really isn't "professional wrestling" that is a show. And the culture war stuff? Fuck that bullshit! We are talking about of war and peace, of having good relations or seeing each other.
Quoting neomac
For Trump it's just "great Television". Otherwise he is a total coward.Just look at how he is flailing with Canada. He immediately backs down if OH!... the stock market goes down. Oh no!!! Heck, Mexico even didn't have the time to react, only said to react on Sunday (tomorrow), and weak dick bully Trump had already backed down.
Trump can be handled by a) the US economy going down and b) his base getting angry at him. Luckily and thanks only to Trump, you are now facing a recession.
When it's about the sovereignty of nation states and issue of war... who gives a fuck about the stock market? It's a minor detail. People don't give a fuck about losing half of their savings, if the issue is about war or peace, their own lives and their countrymen's lives at stake. This isn't anymore about Ukraine, it's all about the Transatlantic alliance. Only the truly blind and the totally ignorant won't see this. But that is what is at stake.
Quoting neomac
No, it's not logical to break down the globalization that empowerd the US and made it to be prosperous. You can spend without any limits because the US has been a reserve currency, which IS A POLITICAL decision your allies have accepted, not an economic decision or a thing that has emerged just from the free market. Please let that sink in. The World has gone on for thousands of years without a "reserve currency" and can do that again. It's plain an simple: companies participating in foreign trade can use a basket of currencies and don't have to rely on a "reserve currency". Why should let's say Italy and Saudi-Arabia use dollars for oil trade. There is absolutely no reason for this ...other than the US had provided security guarantees for both countries.
And then just think of the immediate consequence of this rift between the US and Europe. What will emerge as an obvious result is strategic autonomy, a thing that France has promoted. Sure, France has been an ally of the US, fought in it's wars, yet has not depended on US arms exports. And that makes total sense, because I can easily imagine the rest of Europe being in situation as Ukraine is with the US when Trump acts like he does. If you really think good relations are gotten with bullying and threats, then think again.
[/Quoting neomac
And I repeat my line and my question to you: Trump didn't make us to spend more in defense. Putin did. Putin is a threat to Europe. Now you are siding with Putin. What does that make the US for us?
So why be friendly with Russia, a basket case of a country with huge problems, which is run by a dictator and could have it's own revolution, and then push away and anger an union of 500 million people that have thought of America and Americans as friends that share the same values? Why make us the adversary? That's what Trump is doing. It doesn't make any sense.
If Trump wants that, OK. The US won't be a superpower anymore. It will loose it's allies.
Did you read the lead negotiator David Arakhamia where he literally states the following?
[i]"There is no, and there was no, trust in the Russians that they would do it. That could only be done if there were security guarantees."
Arahamiya clarified that signing such an agreement without guarantees would have left Ukraine vulnerable to a second incursion.
“They would have come in more prepared, because they came in, in fact, unprepared for such resistance,” Arakhamia said.[/i]
(source: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24645)
Yeah I think this is a plausible take on some of the motivations. Still it also feels like we're missing a piece here.
For example, why would the US government not attempt to milk the current relations with the EU to maximum advantage, e.g. trying to leverage it's military protection to get a more unified front against China?
Or why is the administration not tying Russia down with some kind of commitment before they hand a bunch of concessions to them?
Even if we ascribe purely Machiavellian intentions to the US government, the abject chaos and whiplash they're causing doesn't appear to be in their interest. This is also true if we compare recent US behaviour to that of Russia or China: Those countries would not suddenly and publicly throw their allies under the bus. They're generally careful to avoid public outbursts, at least by officials, and while they'll use economic and military pressure to gain advantages, they'll do so quietly.
Granted it might simply be a case of Occam's razor as @ssu pointed out: the reason it doesn't quite make sense is that we're not dealing with a monolithic and purely rational administration but a bunch of volatile egos.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Arakhamia&expand=yes&child=&forums=&or=Relevance&discenc=VWtyYWluZSBDcmlzaXM%3D&mem=&tag=&pg=1&date=All&Checkboxes%5B%5D=titles&Checkboxes%5B%5D=WithReplies&or=Relevance&user=neomac&disc=Ukraine+Crisis&Checkboxes%5B%5D=child
The gist is that Russia can not be trusted, therefore security guarantees are ABSOLUTELY needed.
But any security guarantees that need Western European third parties must take into account their national interest. We both can agree that I need a loan from the bank to repay my debts toward you. That doesn't mean the bank will accept to give me a loan.
Besides Russia wanted to be able to veto the enforcement of such security guarantees while security guarantees were to defend Ukraine from Russia.
Sure the US doesn’t look in an existential danger as Europeans are. But not all Europeans are in existential danger as those which are bordering with Russia.
Threat perception varies over countries and one has to clarify the nature of the threat (which can range from conventional war and occupation to hybrid warfare and political interference which may lead to civil wars and regime change) and the degree of its incumbency.
On the other side, hegemony can be to powerful countries an obsession as much as existential threats are to less powerful countries. And the reason is that once one country loses hegemonic power than it can suffer from dangerous internal instabilities (as it happened in the US) and turn into prey of more powerful countries, especially if they had them as their historical enemies.
To my understanding the problem is and has always been not only about Ukraine, not even about the Transatlantic alliance, but about all the material and institutional conditions that allowed Western-style democracies to prosper.
Quoting ssu
Your argument looks rather fallacious to me. Power comes from different sources and in must be assessed in relative terms. If dollar is a universal “reserve currency" that is a tool of power, it gives leverage to the US, but that’s not the only factor. And from the end of the Cold War up to now, the US power has decreased significantly wrt powerful competitors like China and Russia, even more so if they are allying to further erode US power. Europeans are helping China and Russia to erode not only US material power but also soft-power.
“Logic” means beliefs and actions are consistent with certain general premises which are held to be true. One can try to question the validity of the premises but I find the premises if not unquestionably true (also because uncertainty remains part of the problem of assessing political strategies), yet plausible enough to be rationally compelling. Indeed, US people and politicians can widely converge on such premises (remember that “pivot to Asia”, "fuck the EU" Nuland, steps toward disengaging the US from antagonizing Russia and from Middle East happened under Obama’s administration already). So much so that while Russia and China enjoyed greater internal stability and wider popular support wrt the US, the burden of US imperialism was nurturing domestic political instabilities. Hence the need to make American great AGAIN.
Quoting ssu
As I said in another comment [I]“I think it’s still too early to be optimistic about European reactions. No matter what they are going to decide to counter Russia or to revise the European collective approach to security, European leaders are still slowed down by an aging population which is sticking to mental habits and material privileges coming from the pre-Trump era, but which now do not look anymore adaptive. What needs to be changed is more radical than just re-arming. Europeans need an anthropological change that will take generations” [/I].
Besides there is a lot on the table to digest by European politicians and people that is broader than re-arming or, even, raising a European army: namely, growing a European military industrial complex for strategic autonomy, nuclear deterrence and high-tech warfare (satellite, drones, AI, etc.).
Meanwhile the US and Russia can find ways to slow, destabilise or disrupt the European security collective strategy, also by spinning European countries’ domestic and inter-European polarization.
Quoting ssu
An enemy
Quoting ssu
Again I totally get that Trump is taking a risk. But European reaction, like rearming, has been taken into account (e.g. see again Miran’s plan). One has to see to what extent it will play to US favour though. The point is that Europeans do not seem in condition to strategically unite (actually their division can even be nurtured by Russia and the US). There are plenty of European bootlickers eager to serve as puppets.
Anyways, even if Europeans manage to join their forces effectively, the primary incumbent enemy is Russia and this condition plays again in US favour, since Russia would be exposed to security challenges coming from both Europe and China, more than the US is. So the US can play the good cop with Russia.
Concerning the 500k people EU market, notice that it was directly or indirectly more protectionist toward American products than to Chinese products and Russian oil/gas. At the same time Euro as a reserve currency was also a potential competitor to the US dollar if not even a tool of European emancipation from the US (read “A Plan for a European Currency” 1969 by Robert Mundell). So why would the US keep a EU/Euro big market which the US can’t benefit from?
Finally, in a multipolar world where nobody can rely on nobody for their security and that of their business, the US has still a good chance to preserve its supremacy as long as it keeps its strong economy, its technological and military superiority, geographic benefits (location and abundance of natural resources) and sound demographic (compared to Europe, Russia and China’s, see https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/us-chinese-german-and-russian-demographics). And a much narrower network of powerful/threatening countries, like Russia and Israel.
Well, the US has tried to warn/persuade the EU to align more with the US interest, especially Germany. But since a soft-power approach didn’t work as desired. Now the US may be wanting to test historical allies and see if aggressive diplomacy can do the trick. Consequently, as I said in an earlier post, “for Trump, abandonment could be a policy goal or a bargaining chip. Europeans now have to prepare for both scenarios: https://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/briefs/trump-card-what-could-us-abandonment-europe-look”
Quoting Echarmion
That’s indeed a good question to me too, as I admitted in a previous post: [I]“What however strikes me the most is the idea that Trump is taking by far the initiative to reset the relationship with Russia, without much evident concessions from Putin other than political flattery.”[/i]
One can just speculate without much supporting evidence. My idea is that, first, Trump cares much less about codified agreements and international law, than personal agreements between strong leaders of powerful/threatening countries. Private personal agreements between strong leaders come with some benefits: they hedge against the risks of sabotaging from internal and/or external enemies, they preserve the possibility to withdraw from these agreements whenever needed, and they grant greater freedom to adjust propaganda as needed. Second, Trump’s may have been already in contact with Putin by the end of last year, so it is possible that agreements have been already established a while back (https://www.axios.com/2024/10/08/trump-putin-bob-woodward-book). Not to mention that Trump’s bromance with Putin was already developed during Trump’s first mandate since the elections, also thanks to a network of intermediaries (https://swalwell.house.gov/issues/russia-trump-his-administration-s-ties). Third, and most importantly, official commitments are not necessary when mutual benefits and means of retaliations are secretly shared by both leaders. In its current predicament, maybe Russia can’t possibly afford a “vindictive” Trump as enemy, along with a rearmed EU. While the benefits of closing the Ukrainian conflict, removing US sanctions and regaining a superpower status beside the US can very much compensate for the losses. What this personalistic approach may however foreshadow is the following problem: how can Putin be sure that Trump will be in condition to fulfil his promises in the long term given the limited and temporally constrained power of the POTUS within a democratic regime? Well, an authoritarian turn in the US under Trump can likely increase Trump’s trustability in Putin’s eyes.
Quoting Echarmion
I’ve already commented on this in previous posts [1]. In short, even if we discount Trumps’ personal resentment toward Europeans, Biden and Zelensky, and penchant for authoritarianism or egomania, he’s still addressing issues which preceded him and will likely follow his mandates, in ways that are more consistent and arguably more sustainable than their predecessors’. Risks must be taken into account and if Trump fails, a democratic successor can try to re-adjust the US foreign policies to mitigate the perduring damages.
In any case, even if the Trump fails, that doesn’t mean EU will succeed in addressing the challenges of the multi-polar world.
[1]
[I]To make it all about the “erratic” or “vindictive” psychology of the leader or his official speeches or his personal conflict of interests is very myopic to me[/I].
[I]To me, leaders matter to the extent they are supported (actively or passively). Leaders matter to the extent they aggregate, represent, and guide collective interests coming from ordinary people, powerful economic and media lobbies, geopolitical experts, political entourage and advisors. And such interests are related to domestic and foreign challenges. So to make it all about the “erratic” or “vindictive” psychology of the leader or his official speeches or his personal conflict of interests is very myopic to me. One has to understand what are the perceived challenges from whoever supports Trump’s views, approach, official speeches in his background. That’s why I’m talking about logic: the exercise is to understand what could possible be the more widely shared premises (no matter how implausible they look to you) by collective interests which support Trump and then what most coherently can follow from such premises. This holds for Trump, for Putin, for Netanyahu, as any other political leader.
Besides Trump is the product of a political regime which is different from Putin’s. In the US political regime power is much more distributed and therefore constrained than in Russia. For sure Trump has amassed lots of power more than any of his recent predecessors, given the current US regime, and, given his mindset, he could very much exploit such favourable institutional conditions to push further for a regime change in the US in an authoritarian sense. The problem for the Europeans is that they have now not only Putin but also Trump as enemies.[/I]
[I]I think that in the US most people and politicians (left or right leaning, it doesn’t matter) have finally converged on the idea that the US can’t afford anymore to overstretch: overwhelming debt for military expenditure, dispersing resources around the world in geopolitical arena without significant return of their political, military, economic investment while enemies and allies grow fatter and hostile toward the US.[/I]
[I]US people and politicians can widely converge on such premises (remember that “pivot to Asia”, "fuck the EU" Nuland, steps toward disengaging the US from competition with Russia and from Middle East happened under Obama’s administration already). So much so that while Russia and China enjoyed greater internal stability and wider popular support wrt the US, the burden of US imperialism was nurturing domestic political instabilities. Hence the need to make American great AGAIN.[/I]
Quoting Punshhh
It's a very long way for Europe to become a united world power. See, UK is not even in the EU (the Brexit, remember?). I don't see the point of getting enthusiastic over strategic revisions that are still on the making. And then let our imagination jump to desirable future scenarios as if they were already within reach. Things can go awfully wrong in so many ways.
Well I've mentioned quite a lot that the war is good for arms manufacturers, but it maybe the first time I've pointed out that the arms manufacturers don't actually want a total war, as that leads to socialism.
In the literature it's referred to as "war communism" to stress the irony that capitalist elites love immediately building what is essentially a communist central planned economy where everyone the state needs contributes what they can to the war effort completely outside any sort of free market dynamics; conscription being the biggest such socialist agenda.
Of course socialism in this context is used to simply represent top down state programs where most value is contributed on a volunteer or quasi-volunteer basis (both in terms of pay and also possibly not having much a choice in the matter), such as in Soviet economy. Of course, socialism here has nothing to do with workers owning the means of production.
The reason this is more strategically sound is that orders of magnitude more value is generated for the same cost, which should be common sense as a quasi-volunteer (especially conscription) produces enormously more soldiers for the same cost.
Think it through. Plenty of Europeans volunteered to go fight in Ukraine, how many more would volunteer (or quasi-volunteer, as in perhaps be paid something but far below market value) to work in factories producing shells. People would be lining up!! Plenty qualified people to boot.
Are you really sure about that? Putin hates the US. Yet the Maga idiots thinks that Putin being a cultural conservative and against Gay Europe is a friend. As if Putin would break ties with China to a few years of Trump chaos? He surely knows that 80% of Americans don't trust him (Putin). His intention is to destroy US power in the World. How isn't that a danger?
Quoting neomac
Before weren't, but now the issue is of the whole defense treaty. Don't underestimate how historical this is. If Trump withdraws the US troops and perhaps leaves a small detachment to Orban's Hungary, don't think that people have gotten the message already.
At least for Sweden and Finland it isn't so bad because we have had to have already a military capability to defend ourselves. It's actually countries like Netherlands or others that really have trusted their security policy on NATO that have to think it over now.
Our politicians might be diplomatic, but for example reading comment section in the biggest newspaper, the majority think that Trump is a traitor, a Russian agent and a Quisling. In fact, the few politicians that have said something positive about Trump are getting their asses chewed off by the public.
Actually, he isn't. Not in any way now. And Trump knows it, actually.
Getting your allies to participate more in the cost isn't the same thing as going against your allies, against the shared values and becoming an enabler for your adversary.
Alliances are a lot more than transactions like buying a service, just as soldiers of fortune are far less trustworthy than soldiers that have taken an oath to serve their country. NATO has been around for 76 years, so I guess there has been something to it. Yet when a country doesn't care of those values, when everything is just a transaction, a lot has gone wrong.
Very strange statement from the EU on Syria:
The European Union strongly condemns the recent attacks, reportedly by pro-Assad elements, on interim government forces in the coastal areas of Syria and all violence against civilians.
Civilians have to be protected in all circumstances in full respect of international humanitarian law.
The EU also calls on all external actors to fully respect the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Syria. The EU condemns any attempts to undermine stability and the prospects for a lasting peaceful transition, inclusive and respectful of all Syrians in their diversity.
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/spokesperson-statement-latest-developments-syria_en
Seems pretty clear that it's HTS/government forces committing the atrocities. Civilians are fleeing for safety to the Russian base in the area. Israel has also ventured in to protect Druze minorities. Perhaps there is a real drifting apart of the EU versus the American worldview. This seems pretty black and white to me.
True, but it would make sense that Trump thinks of them as purely transactional. Of course we also don't really know how much of the current policy can be ascribed to Trump as a person.
Quoting neomac
Under the mental framework you're suggesting, the US does not actually have any interest in European military capability though, has it? Under that framework Europe is an "entangling alliance" to ditch and replace with more easily controllable client state relations.
Scaring Europe into investing significantly more into defense is a workable strategy, as current events demonstrate. Yet the US would have to start injecting itself back into the debate before the European plans have really solidified. Or else bet on European attempts failing. Which I guess could be a way to go about it but seems like an unnecessary risk.
Quoting neomac
Yeah, that does seem plausible. Though Trump is only part of the mystery to me. There's also Elon Musk and JD Vance, who seem to be pushing US policy towards Russia and Ukraine in the same direction. Thus this seems to be more than just a personality quirk in Trump.
I doubt these people honestly fear a WW3 scenario, or truly care about the human suffering. Something is in it for them, but I don't know what.
Quoting neomac
Is Putin offering support for a US autocratic turn in the form of Russian information operations and possibly some kind of public gesture? That's a frightening possibility.
Quoting neomac
I would credit that if it didn't look like the administration's foreign policy changes every other day.
I can see the US adopting a radically different model:
Suppressing internal dissent by taking over the nations information channels with the help of the tech oligarchs.
Restructuring the US economy by using tariffs to force strategically vital industries (like semiconductor manufacturing) to relocate to the US. Thus insulating the US from any shocks caused by global trade disruption and overall improving freedom of action.
Extracting the US from entangling alliances and instead using the size of the US economy, it's military capabilities and it's hold over much of the information infrastructure to force weaker states into more explicit client relationships.
I can see someone adopting this as an actual strategy, and moreover I can see how it would play into the mindsets of various groups with powerful influences in the US, from radical Christians to the tech oligarchs.
My issue isn't that I cannot see any reason why the US would make radical changes. My issue is that the changes we actually see are haphazard and chaotic. In particular, apart from the suppression of internal dissent, there seems to be little reason to rush decisions as much as they're doing.
The really good thing about Syria is that we haven't heard from Syria. It's been quite, at least until now.
Naturally as the Alawites have been in the coastal area (which didn't see fighting in the Civil War), clashes between Alawites and the Sunni majority has been the real threat here. After all, Assad governed by putting the minority in power and punished the majorities and made on purpose the relations hostile (as that Alawites would have to get protection from him). Also do note that the HTS drove to Damascus and didn't go through the region where the Alawites live. Now perhaps the to take that part?
And do note one thing. USAID aid stopped to Syria, right? Might add something to the equation.
To be honest, the only believable sources are the UN and enough credible news sources giving the same information. And actually some Israeli newspapers, as they still hold to the values of journalism. Netanyahu government obviously wants to keep Syria as a failed state, which I personally object.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Even if I haven't looked at the issues, for starters:
Where have been for hmmm.... decades? EU has totally different views from the US on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. There's no AIPAC running the Middle Eastern policy. There's only Germany with their anxiety of having killed all those Jews. And that's basically it. But as we have been allies, naturally the differences have been pushed aside.
So when Trump leaves NATO (which Elon wants him to do and naturally Trump does what Elon says), then I'm sure that EU will be likely more like Ireland in this issue, since it doesn't have to keep in line with the US as the US isn't an ally anymore or a Superpower.
So yes, Europe and the US will likely drift separate ways in many issues as there isn't the alliance anymore between the US and Europe.
There is a narrative coming out of Russia which we can assess. Which is basically saying our safety, autonomy, sovereignty etc can only be protected, secured, with the emasculation of Ukraine.
Any negotiations which Putin agrees to which does not achieve this is sure to be reneged on. Presumably this is why Trump is pushing for this. Whether he is happy to facilitate this end for Putin, or he is being blackmailed, or conned into it.
When two countries have been at war, there is no trust. It needs to be built step by step after a cease-fire is agreed. First by small, non-commital actions, then larger actions, etc.
This is a basic principle of peace negotiations.
This is not about enthusiasms for outcomes, but rather looking for trends. I gave you my reasoning before for why the U.S. turning against her closest allies in Europe puts her in a weak position globally, resulting in a pincer movement whereby the U.S. becomes distracted by developments in Europe while she becomes overstretched in her pivot to the east. That thinking that Russia is powerful is flawed out of date thinking. She is small, ie, the state and run by a tinpot dictator, who relied on oil and gas revenues. There may have been a time a generation ago when Russia was a world power. But that time is long gone. Although by turning against Europe the U.S. may enable Russia to regain her world power status.
So for the U.S. there are two choices. A powerful U.S. allied with Europe as a counter to China, with an inconsequential Russia. Or a powerful U.S. alone in the world against a powerful Russia allied with China, with an inconsequential Europe.
Now if the U.S. sees China, rightly, as the greatest threat. Then the first option is the logical one and the second is insane.
Do you think he will go there?
Here is an expert to explain the situation,
https://youtu.be/vyCS1GSLqzk?feature=shared
Something analogous could be said for Trump's US recently.
Trust gone or eroding.
I'm not sure whether Russia is categorically against peacekeeping forces. I don't think they are. They're against a NATO peacekeeping force, for reasons which should be obvious. They do not want Minsk 3.
All parties to the conflict should have a say in the peacekeeping process, and ideally a potential peacekeeping force consists of combined force of all involved parties, or a party which all agree is neutral - possibly Turkiye.
Quoting Punshhh
He won't, because he can't. I recall seeing your mention in other posts that the Russians are militarily in a weak spot and can be pressured. I think the opposite is true.
Russian Deputy Proposes Renaming Black Sea to ‘Russian Sea’ (— UNITED24 Media · Jan 21, 2025)
Russia discusses renaming the Black Sea (— ?????·?? · Jan 22, 2025)
All Trump needs to do is say if Russia doesn’t compromise, U.S. support for Ukraine would be doubled. Or they would give them full air support. A Strong U.S. leader would be able to do this. I suspect Trump is weak.
But Boris, what about Moose and Squirrel?
Everything points to this. Forget even the talk, forget the "great television", if we just look at the actions that Trump actually has done, they all favor Russia and hinder the ability for Ukraine to defend itself.
Now it really is about if Europe truly see the urgency here, because Ukraine will start having real problems soon, not just that more missiles and drones get through the air defense and Russian aircraft can fly closer as now.
To cut off the updates to F-16 fighters actually sends a quite nasty message to all clients of American weapon systems. If Trump can so easily stab in the back Ukraine here, how easily will the US do this to any of the so-called allies? Trump has shown that he can easily stab in the back his allies. Just like he doubted that if US would seek Article 5 protection, that France would come really to help. Likely he didn't remember that France did come to help the US when Article 5 was implemented after 9/11. But the comment does hint that the US wouldn't come to help France.
And the possibility of Trump exiting NATO is growing. Because the next issue is when Europe starts to replacing US systems with it's own to help Ukraine, Trump might get angry about it.
Already the idea is floated around that the US should leave NATO:
On the good side, Musk backed down from shutting down starlink from Ukraine. At least Elon understood that his commercial product will face problems, if the producers shuts down the service from customers so easily.
Insane it is then. Will this mean all the U.S. military bases in Europe being put under wraps.
We’ll Tesla stock is tanking, he’ll have to keep his Starlink clients on board to avoid bankruptcy, or at least to keep his ambitions in space flight going.
Also going back to the point about how feeble Trump is about worries of economic recession. Has it not occurred to him that the economic prosperity the West has enjoyed over the last 80years is reliant on peace and stability and good relations between trading partners around the world. And that all this strong man disruption that he’s doing is only going to disrupt that peace and stability resulting in recession, or depression?
I bet that in the minds of the republicans driving this madness forward. Everyone is equally prosperous, indeed the economy is booming and by cutting all the bureaucracy, red tape and global supply lines. All their consumer goods will still be supplied on time and with up to date tech’. In the minds of the Brexiters we were going to alight in the sunlit uplands of free trade and prosperity, freed from the shackles of the single market. The reality was the exact opposite.
The prospect of Europeans re-arming still looks more like a knee-jerk reaction under emergency than a raising trend spanning over years, if not decades (as it was the case for Russia and China), right? We will see how persistent, consistent and integrated the European effort will be in building up a credible deterrent against the big sharks.
The US has a greater interest in having Europeans buying US weaponry, intelligence, troops than having European military capabilities that could fully replace the US… its US security as a service ([I]"If they don't pay, I'm not going to defend them.”[/i] https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-if-nato-members-dont-pay-us-wont-defend-them-2025-03-07/)
[quote="Echarmion;974922”]Scaring Europe into investing significantly more into defense is a workable strategy, as current events demonstrate. Yet the US would have to start injecting itself back into the debate before the European plans have really solidified. Or else bet on European attempts failing. Which I guess could be a way to go about it but seems like an unnecessary risk.[/quote]
Or worse, the US may try to indirectly interfere with the European debate (as much as Russia did/does) to sow division among Europeans, since this may help keep in check both Russians and Europeans.
[quote="Echarmion;974922”]Yeah, that does seem plausible. Though Trump is only part of the mystery to me. There's also Elon Musk and JD Vance, who seem to be pushing US policy towards Russia and Ukraine in the same direction. Thus this seems to be more than just a personality quirk in Trump.[/quote]
Well, Musk may see Trump as a way to pressure Europe into opening to his multi-pronged business.
For Trump, Musk’s transnational business plans can help to explore and bridge margins of cooperation with Russia and/or China (https://apnews.com/article/musk-putin-x-trump-tesla-election-russia-9cecb7cb0f23ccce49336771280ae179). Yet, the liaison between Musk and Trump may be more ambiguous than it looks so one can’t really tell who is manouvering whom (https://theconversation.com/how-elon-musks-deep-ties-to-and-admiration-for-china-could-complicate-trumps-beijing-policy-249988). Indeed, even though Musk can help and helped Trump via X, X can be used also by Russian and Chinese trolls. Musk may have his own political agenda. So if Trump feels the need to have his own social network, maybe that’s also because he doesn’t feel like to fully trust Musk.
JD Vance looks more prone to isolationist views, as fas as I’ve understood, and because of that his role may be to Trump as Medvedev’s role is to Putin: namely, to be more outrageous than their leaders. It can be convenient to strong leaders like Trump and Putin to showcase more extremist views than theirs. So theirs can appeal to their target audience as more moderate.
[quote="Echarmion;974922”]Is Putin offering support for a US autocratic turn in the form of Russian information operations and possibly some kind of public gesture? That's a frightening possibility.[/quote]
Frightening indeed.
[quote="Echarmion;974922”]My issue is that the changes we actually see are haphazard and chaotic. In particular, apart from the suppression of internal dissent, there seems to be little reason to rush decisions as much as they're doing.[/quote]
All right, but there are two hints that could make this behaviour more intelligible: one is the “madman theory”, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory#Donald_Trump. The other is timing: Trump may feel pressed to reach results as soon as possible by institutional factors (mid-term elections and congress/supreme courts interventions can weaken/obstruct his power), political competition (democrats and/or pieces of the deep state could sabotage him), international competition (Trump’s window of opportunity is constrained by the reaction time of other actors like Russia, China, Europe, so as long as these actors feel to be some steps behind his moves, he can play them better), and… terrorist threats? (Trump has survived an assassination attempt, so we can’t exclude extremists on the loose who would want his head). Given how deeply revisionist his approach to domestic and international politics is, he may find himself caught in a situation where he has lots to do in so many directions yet in too little amount of time.
Then of course you can always add bluffs, whims, poor execution, unforeseen consequences, etc. on top of this.
I can readily concede that Trump’s approach is not immune from risks. But we can agree on the fact that the US doesn’t look in danger of being aggressed and occupied as other European countries bordering with Russia, right?
Said that, given the Russian cultural prejudices and security concerns, it’s plausible to assume that no matter how much Putin hates the US, still he wishes to deal with Trump way more than with Xin. Besides, Putin has always been looking for a US confirmation for precluding to Ukraine a future inside NATO, no matter what France, Germany, Hungary could say against it, right? After all Putin is a nostalgic of the Stalin and the Cold War era where the US and the Soviet Union were the superpowers deciding the fate of the rest of world. Putin’s endorsement of Trump and waving at business prospects seem to confirm a convergence of interests.
On the other side, Trump seems willing to concede Russia its sphere of influence, differently from his predecessors. In addition, he seems also willing to remove sanctions against Russia. All this in exchange for a strategic partnership that his predecessors (especially the democrats) couldn’t much afford to sponsor as Trump can. The hidden bug I see in this approach , as I said in another post, is that Trump is not an autocrat like Putin, his power is way more constitutionally and temporally constrained than Putin’s, so Putin may not be willing to play along as Trump wishes if this partnership won’t survive Trump’s mandate and whims. Still, turning down Trump’s offer may trigger a bitter reaction from him as well.
Quoting ssu
I don’t mean to discount the gravity of this predicament or to dismiss concerns about Russia military aggressiveness in Europe (nuclear threats against Europeans could be already enough). Still threat perception is not the same in all Europe. And European public opinions, especially on the Western side of Europe, may be very reluctant to abandon their comfort zone when thinking about risks of war with Russia. We can’t ignore this fact. (Side note: it’s interesting to note that Trump is meditating to push the US troops not only closer to Russia but inside pro-Russian Hungary which may be bad news for Germany but also for Russia)
Quoting ssu
Trump’s aggressive approach is alienating many Europeans and may end up being overall counterproductive as a negotiation strategy, ok. But you keep forgetting that it’s not only Trump who is averse to NATO and EU. Also many vocal Europeans (people and politicians) are/were averse to NATO and EU or to engaging with Russia.
https://youtu.be/5QyOiYAkWPM?feature=shared
No. Absolutely not. Likely as old he is and when surrounded by sycophants, he won't get the message.
For example, there's absolutely no reason to believe that anybody would dare to say to him just how bad the Doha peace agreement with the Taleban was and how it totally pulled the rug from under the Republic of Afghanistan. No, what he thinks is that only Biden fucked it up and everybody around him repeats this. And hence he is doing the bidding of Putin now with Ukraine, intentionally or unintentionally.
Trade and tariffs? Let's remember that this has been what he has been talking all his life, earlier it was how Japan was ripping the US off and how the US should have trade barriers. Now it's just China and Europe. Everybody is ripping of the US. Why wouldn't he believe that, because he himself is more of a scam artist? Things like the market crashing and US facing recession doesn't just stop him for a while in his tracks, but he cannot let go of the tariff-stupidity. And hence the markets waver and we head more likely to a recession.
The idea, which history has proven again and again, is that trade and commerce between countries is the thing that creates prosperity to all doesn't get to him. He genuinely believes that Europe has been a free rider and that the West being an alliance hasn't been beneficial to the US. And that the European Union was formed to rip off the US. Not that the whole idea of European integration was a result of the Great War and it's sequel, WW2 and the millions of dead Europeans, not just a trick for the rich to get richer.
Apart of Trump and the populist rhetoric, I think here I would find one real culprit is how the US government itself. It has been incapable of getting the message through to it's citizens about just why the US has had a foreign policy of engagement. The foreign policy establishment, the blob, has simply resorted to paint only threats that the US has to respond to. And that kicks up a patriotic fervor especially after something like 9/11. And then it's off to the races. And then the people forget just why was the fighting something that seems to be a forever war
European governments have acted differently. They've always repeated to their citizens about how important working together is. And just to reaffirm this reality, the UK showed to all Europe just what an epic failure Brexit was. And this shouldn't be underestimated: the absolute failure of Brexit showed other Europeans just how much it would suck to get out of the EU and just how little benefits would there be.
All right. Look, I can get that the business model of the military industries in a capitalist society introduces some moral hazards and it can somehow railroad US foreign policies into certain directions, also in Ukrainian-Russian conflict. However I still find very questionable the explanatory power of your beliefs.
First of all, historical evidence doesn’t seem to fit well with your theory. Concerning the current conflict, why can’t the drip feed approach continue another year or another 10 years? The longer the conflict lasts the better is for the US defence industry business. So if they managed to push Biden in keeping the conflict with Russia alive and sustainable, they could do the same with Trump. Yet Trump now wants peace (and not only in Ukraine but also in the Middle East).
Besides, If “socialism is a far more efficient and strategically sound approach to arms production”, yet it’s socialist Soviet Union which collapsed not the capitalist US at the end of Cold War.
Secondly, and most importantly, your conceptual framework is plagued by oversimplification for reasons that I’ve already laid out in previous posts. In short:
1 - Lobbies can directly influence politics to the extent they can finance politicians to win the political competition or grant results that are politically marketable by politicians. The defence industry is one powerful lobby, but in the US capitalist society there are many powerful lobbies (financial, energy, big tech, trade, ethnic, agricultural, labor union, etc.) that can compete with the defence industry lobby and even overtake them by far (https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252498552/Big-Tech-eclipses-telecoms-and-arms-giants-as-biggest-lobbying-spenders). Besides Ukraine is rich on resources (energetic, alimentary, metal and mineral, etc.) that can be exploited by the US (instead of the EU). And also rebuilding Ukraine is a source of business. So other lobbies could benefit from that more than the defence private companies. Besides the US can feel the financial burden of engaging in neverending conflicts, however geographically contained.
2 - Any state concerned about its own security has to offer a credible deterrence against potential enemies. So either they build such deterrence themselves or they get it from others. Hence the importance of having a solid military industrial complex to create credible deterrence because it ensures defense + strategic independence + power projection (making others dependent on your defense industry and win over competing foreign military industrial complexes). And there are also other benefits with a domestic military industrial complex: technological progress and work opportunities. Being security a paramount collective good, it can hardly be driven just by strictly market logic. So psychological reasons (the greediness of defense private industries) are relevant to the extent they are proven to be disfunctional to the US national interest (from national security to hegemony). Not only you didn’t provide any compelling evidence to support that, as far as I’m concerned, but...
3 - The current geopolitical predicament is such that Trump is determined to brutally cut down on imperial overstretch which brought internal instabilities, and empowered both China and Russia. So now the strategy is arguably to focus on China’s containment with the help of Russia (and in the literature I’ve always found more convergence on this explanation than on the perceived risks of a nuclear escalation). So also the defense private industries must adjust their business strategies according to national interest as perceived by Trump, not the other way around.
To me, deeper structural factors bear a greater explanatory power over geopolitical collective dynamics, then just the psychology of leaders or business people.
A lot of countries aren't danger of being occupied by Russia, but they sure can feel Russian hybrid warfare and the political pressure. Don't think that this only about direct military confrontation. What the US is doing, is just destroying it's own credibility and it's own base of power, that has grown from having such wide alliances. Russia has just one ally willing to fight alongside it: North Korea. China doesn't have even that. Yet the US has many that have been willing to fight it's wars. But this naturally Trump doesn't understand: that it has been the military alliance that has made the West, the largest competitors to the US in trade, to agree on things like the US dollar being the reserve currency.
Quoting Punshhh
This is the reality. There is no need for Russia to negotiate anything while Trump is giving everything to them. It's only in these hallucinations of Trump that Putin would want peace and be willing to sit down for negotiations. For surrender, he might be willing to sit down.
But do the MAGA-people get this? Of course not.
I agree on this, see my my previous post:
Quoting neomac
Quoting ssu
I think you are looping over the same arguments. From the US perspective, such military alliance with Europeans was more a burden than a deterrence to rival powers, do you deny that? And if Trump's manages to bring Russia on a strategic partnership to contain China, this may be an acceptable compensation. If it doesn't, well Russia will remain the primary incumbent threat to the Europeans wrt the US, and this will keep Russia occupied on its western front. So the US will still rip some benefits off without indebting itself further toward Europe.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7cbb26a-57b8-4fd5-ac5b-00de25d53a0e
That article is behind a paywall, I don’t need to read it though. The Reform party is Nigel Farage, this is what Musk doesn’t understand. Just like the way that the Republican Party is Trump. Take Farage out of the party and Reform reverts to some form of the BNP. A fringe party of racists that the electorate won’t go near.
You obviously don’t understand the European people, Germany has flung open the doors to over a €trillion for defence spending. Including large grants for member states to invest. The U.K. with the EU is looking at some kind of associate membership of the Single Market so as to streamline the process of cooperation in this endeavour. This development itself will bring the EU into new economic growth in one move. The U.K. and France alongside some others already have the skills to usher in a military industrial complex.
You do understand don’t you why European countries haven’t re-armed significantly over recent decades? And that the reason for this “complacency” has disappeared in an instant.
You keep repeating this, it would only have some validity as an argument if Trump had become an authoritarian dictator. At the moment, Trump’s “rule” is looking like a temporary aberration and we will be back to business as usual come the next election. But the trans-Atlantic alliance will be in a much stronger position with a re-arming Europe.
But you suggest the U.S. for some reason would want to strengthen Russia,, have a blind eye to her expansionism and the resultant turmoil this might engender in Europe. Lose the alliances with Europe. For some notional strategic goal re-China. It’s a weird take, even if Trump were a dictator.
The evidence still serves to better understand Trump's administration strategy in Europe, which includes supporting far right movements. So, bold and repeated attempts of interfering with European politics by Trump and his entourage (Musk, Bannon, etc.) should be expected.
Quoting Punshhh
Focus. If you are talking “trends”, I’m talking “trends”. Bringing up what you wish to see in an “instantaneous” change of attitude, even if it is true, it’s not very compelling as a counterargument.
Quoting Punshhh
I keep repeating because you keep ignoring. Do you deny that pivot to Asia and the danger of overstretch (which includes the burden transatlantic alliance) are major issues for American administrations, and especially for Trump? I’ve argued about this on several posts, I don’t remember you bringing pertinent evidence or arguments against my claims. And I take into account great powers’ actual strategic reasoning over their foreign policies way more seriously than your imaginative future scenarios grounded on instantaneous decisions made under emergency. Decisions may be instantaneous the collective impact of such decisions can take years to materialise, if they ever materialise, since things can go wrong in so many ways (see, also the Ukrainians’ expectations about Western support).
Yes, I definately do!
If the US walks away from NATO alliance, that past American leaders worked so hard for, it will leave 31 countries 633 million people simply being competitors, which don't have much incentive to adjust their policies to the US foreign policy or basically even listen to the US as they have done now.
Secondly, the US just lost a HUGE, REALLY HUGE (as Trump would say) defense market that the Europeans will now try frantically to bring up, because the US is so unreliable. The US has been selling more weapons and arms to Europe that it has sold to the Middle East. Tell me, how on earth has that been a burden to you? 1/3 or so of arms exports going to Europe EVEN when Europe was spending so little on defence. You think it's a little thing that you lose more than a third of your arms exports to Europe, really? Even now, there like 500 aircraft still being in the lines to be delivered to Europe. That should tell you something. Now there's going to be a dramatic change, just like there has been with Tesla sales. But you can go with the "Europe is a burden for us" narrative.
Thirdly, France has already said that it can enlarge it's nuclear deterrence (as there is no credible US nuclear deterrence) to other EU/NATO member states. This is called strategic autonomy. It means simply: don't rely on America. And now other European countries have to agree with this. Crucial weapon systems like the nuclear deterrent should be 100% in your own hands. The UK's
Fourth, when for the first time since basically 1945 you voted in the UN against your allies and with your adversaries like North Korea, which btw you have only a cease-fire agreement, it seems that the US doesn't stand anymore for those ideals that it stood with alongside it's Western allies. If it's all just transactional, then it's quite evident that the Russia/US will ideologically.
That all above just shows how the Great Weakening of the US will happen. Why Americans want to emasculate themselves, drop their values and just serve few billionaires is beyond me. In fact what Trump (and seems that you too) don't understand at all is the following: keep your largest potential rivals as friends and allies to you. That is how you had Pax Americana, or the US as a Superpower. Now thanks to Trump, the MAGA-crowd is destroying this.
If you have the time, just listen this speech by Ursula von der Leyen about the urgent need for rapid rearming of Europe. And do notice that she talks of EUROPEAN military industry, EUROPEAN joint acquisitions and never, ever, talks about the US or relying on it's defense industry. Perhaps what Trump in his senility doesn't understand that if he demands Europe to pay, Europe will increase it's defense spending, but that won't come to him...
Quoting neomac
And just where do you get this sort of hallucinations from? Why would Putin do that? What fucking delusional incentive would he have for that? At least one third of Russia's exports go to China now. Russia has a huge long border with China and a nearly empty Siberia facing populous China. It makes absolutely great sense for Russia to be good friends with China. What the hell do you think Russia would gain from opposing China and braking the warm ties the countries have? That China could then demand back the territories that belonged to it earlier in Siberia? It makes absolutely NO SENSE at all.
Quoting neomac
Aren't you forgetting, that the parasitic Gay Europe wokesters aren't going to be around like they were in Kuwait/Bosnia/Kosovo/Indian Ocean (Somali pirates)/Afghanistan/Libya/Iraq? So go to fight your fight with China, because even Australia doesn't seem worth as an ally to you:
Either we have the "agent Krasnov" case or then, well, I don't know the reasoning here.
It's like a leader of a wolfpack that has gotten tired of it's position and see's his own pack as just a futile bunch of meaningless followers, who don't even stand up against him. Well, if the leader then decides to bite and attack every of pack members and decides to go it alone, it's should know it leaves a pack of wolves behind it. And good hunting all alone.
A 30-day cease fire.
Wonder how long that will last.
Thanks for laying it out ssu, I don’t really have the time to go through all this with neomac right now. It certainly does seem that the U.S. has got some big problems to sort out. Her greatest enemy at the moment is the U.S.
And if Ukraine is slaughtered by a Molotov-Ribbentrop, sorry, Trump-Putin agreement, and given to Russia, it will stiffen the European response to a whole new level.
Quoting Punshhh
Add to that how Trump is behaving his own Constitution and the separation of powers, this all could end up very ugly.
You are offering reasons which could plausibly be compelling to many Europeans (people and politicians). Still “31 countries 633 million people” are not a DE FACTO compact front where each and everyone is thinking and feeling exactly the same things that you think and feel on these matters. So I’m simply pointing out the fact that there are enough frictional factors like European Nationalisms (which were fueling anti-NATO and anti-EU rhetoric even before Trump), demographic decline, all sorts of economic vulnerabilities (trade/energetic dependencies, etc. which can also impact the defense industries) which could obstruct a European collective strategy in the short, medium or long term. And both Russia and the US could profit from that.
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
These are all consequences that you anticipate not accomplished facts.
The US didn’t lose yet the entire European market (whose demands increased during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but prior to that the trend was decreasing), France has not yet extended its nuclear deterrence, a EUROPEAN military industry is not yet a reality.
It will take several years and financial/technological/cultural efforts to Europe to build a credible deterrence based on its own military industrial complex. Consider just Russia’s nuclear arsenal which dwarfs the combined Anglo-French stockpile warheads. And the asymmetry isn’t just quantitative but also doctrinal. Moscow’s “escalate to de-escalate” strategy is designed to coerce adversaries into concessions, while British and French nuclear arsenals, are just meant for minimal deterrence.
I’m not saying the Europeans are doomed to fail. Nor that Trump’s decisions won’t backfire as you suggest.
I’m saying that the problems I pointed out (imperial overstretch, pivot to Asia, and European “parassitism”) are of paramount importance to the US, and in order to address them a strategic revision of the US foreign policy was necessary. Besides Trump can pursue this revision in ways which preceding administrations committed to the globalization (Western-style liberalism, democracy, universal human rights, international law, multilater partnership) couldn’t easily afford.
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
Many geopolitical analysts and U.S. foreign policy advisors have critiqued NATO’s role in the years prior to Trump’s presidency, emphasizing that the U.S. bears a disproportionate financial and military burden and questioning NATO’s strategic relevance in the post-Cold War era. They argue that NATO's expanded responsibilities and military commitments have not always aligned with U.S. interests, and that a reduced U.S. commitment or a restructured NATO could better serve American national security.
Maybe these are good summaries of burden sharing issue within NATO:
https://cdainstitute.ca/back-to-the-past-a-critical-review-of-nato-burden-sharing-from-1949-to-the-present/
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=ohiou1658418238274699&disposition=inline
Quoting ssu
I already told you what possible incentives Putin may have. Cultural prejudices and security concerns may compel Putin to unwelcome a strategic dependence on China. Russia is forced into such a partnership by the circumstances due to their costly ambitions to assert a sphere of influence in Ukraine which was about to fall under the Western sphere of influence, right? So Trump can use Ukraine as a bargaining chip. Also letting Russia expand its political influence in other parts of Eastern Europe could be a bargaining chip. Also removing sanctions to let Russia sell oil/gas to Europeans (a greater price than what he sells to China) and weaken Russophobic sentiments is a bargaining chip. Also establishing a strategic partnership to contain China (Siberia, Central Asia and the Arctic region over Russia can be contended by China if Russia is weak enough and isolated) and grant Russia a superpower status for deciding the fate of the rest of the world like in the Cold War era may be a bargaining chip for Russia. And I think that other forms of business/technological cooperation can be offered by Trump to lure Putin and vice versa (like the rare earth extraction and trade)
In any case, it’s not on you to establish if these bargaining chips are enough but on Putin.
Quoting ssu
But the US would not be alone if Russia partners with the US. Besides countries near China (like Japan) may still be compelled to contain and fight China as much as Europeans are compelled to contain and fight Russia, no matter how embittered the partnership with the US is.
What’s so special about Ukraine’s minerals? A geologist explains
Maybe someone can correct/confirm or offer insights?
Russia’s War Economy
[sup]— András Rácz, Ole Spillner, Guntram Wolff · DGAP · Feb 14, 2023[/sup]
The Russian economy on a war footing: A new reality financed by commodity exports
[sup]— Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Iikka Korhonen, Elina Ribakova · CEPR · May 2, 2024[/sup]
Russia’s Wartime Economy isn’t as Weak as it Looks
[sup]— Richard Connolly · RUSI · Jan 22, 2025[/sup]
Exclusive: Putin growing concerned by Russia’s economy, as Trump pushes for Ukraine deal
[sup]— Darya Korsunskaya, Guy Faulconbridge, Gleb Stolyarov, Andrea Shalal, Frank Jack Daniel · Reuters · Jan 23, 2025[/sup]
Economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
[sup]— Wikipedia[/sup]
No I don’t deny it, but getting into bed with Russia doesn’t reduce overstretch. It increases it. If the U.S. really doesn’t want overstretch, all she needs to do is enable Europe to take on the role of policing Europe and Western and Northern Asia. Then the U.S. can pivot. Although that pivot will trigger an arms race and increased tensions between U.S. and China. Again, more overstretch of a different kind.
In this unholy alliance between the U.S. and Russia, Russia will be planning the downfall and Balkanisation of the U.S. from day one. She was planning the same for Ukraine from the day that Ukraine began to disarm following the Bucharest memorandum. https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3lk5qg6eh5c2e Putin will continue and increase his efforts to destabilise Europe. Europe will become a thorn in the side of the U.S., while Russia cannot be trusted. Just to deal with this is level of global overstretch would require a vast army of spies to keep Europe under check, see that Russia doesn’t undermine the U.S. and to manage the new arms race with China. And of course none of this will have occurred to Trump, or his sidekicks.
You see, Russia is an imperial expansionist, can’t you see that? Just talk to a Kremlinologist or something. She has been doing it for hundreds of years, it’s not going to stop. As far as she’s/Putin is concerned if the whole world is in disarray and fighting amongst themselves the Soviet Union will stand proud. She will be great again.
All your talk of mineral deals is just trade and money, Trump is a used car salesman, he has no idea about the geopolitical implications of his wheeler dealing. He will mess up big time, although it looks as though the U.S. economy will implode before he does too much damage.
Also Trump is out on a limb, as I was pointing out, Putin is Kriptonite to most people in the West. Trump is pretty much going it alone. While the West (including 99% of the U.S. population) looks on in horror with a bitter taste in its mouth.
Not surprising when a secessionist is put into the Oval Office. America has elected an enemy of the state to lead the state. He’ll work on destroying the state under the pretence of reforming it. Oddly, many people can’t see this.
It will be interesting to see how Putin plays the ball that is ostensibly now in his court. If this discussion succeeds in persuading Putin to temporarily cease fighting and firing weapons into Ukraine then it might have traction. But I would be very surprised.
Yes, Putin will play the idiot Trump like a fiddle. He knows that come the next election and Trump leaves office, that the U.S. might be back to business as usual. That this is his only chance/opportunity to break NATO and the Western alliance. He will probably lead Trump down the garden path right into a trap and champagne corks will be popping in Moscow and Beijing.
I expect the people in the U.S. are surprised at this turn of events, MAGA May feel a bit odd when they realise that they are not MAGA any more, MRGA. And Putin will get his hands on Ukraine’s resources and bread basket ( just as climate change starts to bite).
Just look at how the US northern neighbors are taking Trumps nonsense. Most stupid to harm good ties with your neighbors. All this 51st state humbug really worth it?
Quoting neomac
That is quite a hypothetical.
I do have the feeling that not everybody that is in charge of the American foreign policy is so eager as some Elon Musk to withdraw the US from NATO (and the UN btw). And a lot of those critique about NATO that I've read from Americans is usually their anger that it hasn't worked as tool of the US because it genuinely is an international organization where members aren't obligated to follow what the US president wants. This is something that many anti-American commentators forget. A lot of the critique was about the mission: in the 1990's and 2000'stalk of it being a defensive treaty (against Russia or other threat) was totally outmoded. If Finland would have joined NATO when the first enlargement happened, NATO likely would have demanded us to get rid of conscription and have a professional army, that can give forces to outside the area operations. Back then Russia wasn't a threat, you know.
And of course, you might take into account the possibility that Russia, which just last year declared the US being an enemy and it being at war with NATO, might not be so trusting with the US and so eagerly become it's loyal sidekick, but simply might want to fuck the US up as much as possible.
So let's just see how they react to the Trump peace treaty. As Marco Rubio said, the ball is now in their court. Let's just see if there's a 30 cease fire and if the Russians will respect the cease-fire.
And of course, as stupendously outrageous it might seem, Trump's actions have really lead to the European mainstream media to question if "Agent Krasnow":
Deutsche Welle:
France24:
Quoting Punshhh
I totally agree with both of you.
I think it would be valuable to think just why all of this can happen. Why are Americans so OK with ruining their alliances and creating themselves misery with the tariffs? This goes further than Trump.
I think at least one reason is that US Foreign policy has been marketed to the American people basically only with fear, with the threat of Communism and later with the threat of Islamic Terrorism. The basics aren't at all put into the minds of everybody like that having international trade creates prosperity, because you aren't making stuff or selling a service just to your own people, but the whole World. Or that international institutions, the rule based order, or things like safety of commerce on the World's seas creates that prosperity. When the income and benefits of globalization have gone to the richest Americans and not to the ordinary people, hatred towards globalization and the international liberal order increases. Yet this is a question of distribution of income inside the US, not because of globalization itself. Yet would this be given as the true reason here? Of course not! Whipping up xenophobia against foreigners is far easier.
And that's why Trump echoes this delusional falsehoods that alliances are a burden, that the EU was created to screw over the US, or that the US would be better with high tariffs. Every other Western country understands that trade barriers aren't good, only if you haven't basically got your own industry or it's in it's infancy. Otherwise it's all about being competitive in the global market and specialization with only the exception of having as safety enough own production for instance to feed the society, if international trade receives shocks.
As these policies are extremely harmful for the US, it's totally understandable that an adversary like Russia would want to promote this kind of populism, where the enemy is the US government itself.
They shouldn't have been surprised. In his debate with Kamala Harris, he was asked if he wanted Ukraine to win the war. He refused to answer yes/no; he said he just wanted the war to be over.
It appears he will get his wish- Ukraine is likely to surrender much of the territory Russia has seized. A loss for Ukraine is a "win" for the Trump-Putin coalition.
Quoting Sergei Markov · Mar 11, 2025
Quoting Konstantin Kosachev · Mar 11, 2025
Always interesting to hear from the boogeyman.
Seems accurate to me.
Also always funny to hear from people go on about how awful the invasion was, yet was fully supportive of the US invading Iraq back in 2003.
Principle is always the same: when you do it it’s terrorism; when I do it, it’s counter-terrorism.
What would be more sensible to do for the US to re-balance trade deficits and security issues with Canada? See, to many Americans, if these problems persist from previous administrations, then it means that previous administrations couldn’t do much to fix them with a more conventional and soft approach. So Trump and the US he represents may be persuaded that time is running out for dealing with pressing issues of national interest. And since soft-power didn’t faire well to solve them so far, then it’s time for brute force. This can be as ugly as it gets given Trump’s aggressiveness. The strategy can still fail, but Americans are willing to try it, as much as Putin was willing to try it against Ukraine.
Did Putin succeed or fail? What do the Russians think?
Quoting ssu
Still:
[I]"It is often overlooked, but NATO’s collective strength isn’t just in its ability to defend its members from an attack (Article V of the 1949 Washington Treaty) but also in its requirements to ensure members are undertaking necessary domestic activities to prepare for crisis response and, potentially, military action (see Article III of the Washington Treaty). This allows for resilience, something which, in a dynamic world, needs to be more deeply invested in and more comprehensively approached.”[/I]
[I]”Allies should spend 4 percent of their GDP on defense and security annually: States should spend a minimum of 2 percent of GDP on defense, though NATO should continue to explore and allow more flexibility in the way those monies are spent nationally, particularly for states that do not have sufficient absorptive capacity to spend 2 percent on their defense capabilities and programs. The balance—between 2 and 4 percent—should be allocated toward activities that are strategically vital to the alliance but are not accounted for in NATO’s methodologies for defense spending, such as peacetime preparedness and resilience.”[/I]
(Source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/burden-sharing-responsibility-sharing)
And remember that what you claim to be holding for the transatlantic relations, it may very much hold also within EU. EU can take decisions, mediate and change rules to facilitate individual EU member states' spending for their defense and implementing a collective strategy. But then it’s still on EU member states to act accordingly, and EU members aren't obligated to follow what the EU president wants.
Quoting ssu
Maybe one thing is the pre-Trump US , another is Trump’s US, right? I’m not sure Putin dislikes Trump’s US as much as he disliked pre-Trump US. The problem to me is less about who’s liking whom or who is playing whom, and more about the fact that Trump’s power is constrained by constitution and time, and this is what’s complicating Putin’s dilemma about Trump’s trustability, even assumed that Trump’s bargaining chips were appealing to Putin.
What should Trump do to enable Europe to take on the role of policing Europe that previous US administrations didn’t do already and still failed?
Quoting Punshhh
I don’t doubt that Putin will pursue his goals at the expense of the Europeans and, possibly, of the US.
But here is the thing: Trump may not be interested to keep all Europe under US hegemony.
Trump could just be fine with having Europe as a contested territory for hegemonic competition, because the US could have greater chance to “win” this competition anyways, to the extent Europeans are more Russophobic than USphobic, and to the extent Russia can afford to overstretch even less than the US. Local nationalisms can be played either way to partially appease Russia’s ambition to a sphere of influence at least in Eastern Europe, but also to contain Russia’s expansionism (it’s sort of an updated version of Cold War era, without ideological implications). What Trump may hope for is just to turn enough European states into complacent clients of the US, opening their markets to the US products (including a lot of weaponry), instead of snobbish allies. I think Putin and Trump’s shared wet dream would be a puppetization of Europe.
Quoting Punshhh
Again, Trump has his pool of advisors (see Stephen Miran), He's not alone, nor he enjoys autocratic power yet. The problem is that as long as Trump’s foreign policies are supported by the Americans and his entourage, Europeans have to deal with it as much as they have to deal with Putin.
Yes, the signs were there. But what I think is a surprise is that they were now to become supporters of Putin. They were voting to make America great again and all that involved. But now they are having to endure inflation, to alienate America’s staunched allies and support Russia instead. They were actually voting to make Russia great again. MAGA is actually MRGA.
And you think anything like that can be made with a demented and crazy idea of annexing Canada? They aren't willing to be Americans, it's just extremely offensive. And if by a magical wand Canada would be a part of the US, they'd be hardcore Democrats against the MAGA-cult. And Canada isn't so "white" anymore that the racists would get a response to the "browning" of the US. It's simply utterly crazy and you just sidelining the whole issue as it wouldn't be the reason for the anger in Canada simply shows it.
Quoting neomac
Well, what are the Europeans doing? In fact this is the most logical response. When Trump is wanting them to spend more on defense, they are spending more on defense. If the US is leaving NATO -> spend more on defense. This is a no-brainer.
But Trump leaving NATO, perhaps on similar invented reason like the fentanol-issue with Canada, is that they don't spend 5%, which even the US doesn't spend. So Trump can walk away. In fact, it seems that Trump is walking away from every alliance the US has, except Israel.
Yet even the allies of the US on the other side of the World do think that supporting Ukraine is important, like Japan.
Quoting Wayfarer
Trump's treatment of Ukraine has just increased the support from Europe as without the US, Russia is a real threat to Europe. The largest army that is opposing Russia in Europe is Ukraine.
One thing Putin could do is to agree on a cease-fire, then continue the attacks and blame Ukraine for breaching the cease-fire. Guess on whose side the US would be? Yet this has a lot of disadvantages. Any ceasefire would have a massive effect on the domestic front in Russia. Many Russia do want the war to end and with a cease-fire their hopes would go up. Also it would put the warhawks in Russia in a bad position. Now the call that Russia is winning can be repeated and the war continued as the US and the West have "shown their weakness".
[i]The Deputy Speaker of the Duma: "Our enemies are being tamed by the animalistic fear of our army"
"If you Europeans were capable of looking at things objectively, you would have to admit that you have already lost this war." Always a pleasure, Pyotr Tolstoy. Great-great-grandson of the great writer. But above all, Deputy Speaker of the Duma, head of his country's delegation to the OSCE, a name of some weight within United Russia, Vladimir Putin's party. The depth of his personal curriculum has never prevented him from making statements as a pure hawk, a tough guy among the tough guys. "I say what my people think. We know very well that Europe has now advanced its anti-Russian delirium so far, that you are all rooting for the continuation of the war."
What do you think of Trump's ultimatum to you if you don't accept the truce?
"That any serious negotiation takes a long time, and Russia is certainly in no hurry. It seems to me that there is exaggerated concern for the results of the meeting in Jeddah. While they were talking, our heroes are outlining a new negotiating scenario, completing the cleanup of the Kursk region."
So should Russia go all the way?
"In my opinion, we should give less importance to the well-groomed faces of American negotiators or to the always identical suit of that gentleman in Kiev. We should never again look to the West with hope, always looking for a subtext in the speeches and gestures of their leaders. What difference does it make to us what the Americans think, or the Ukrainians, who said what during their negotiations or how much you Europeans intend to spend? They will not be the ones to end this war."
Who will do it then?
"Us. A simple Russian soldier, capable of walking for fifteen kilometers inside a gas pipeline and then winning (referring to an episode of recent days much celebrated in Russia, ed.). Our enemies are made docile only by their animalistic fear of our army. It has always been this way, it will always be this way."
What a beautiful prospect.
«Russia is proposing peace. We can stop the war on our own, but a return to the previous situation and a return of what we have conquered is out of the question. Once this principle is established, let's make peace».
Do you think Putin shouldn't accept the truce proposed by Trump?
«I'm not speaking for the president. But whatever the enemies propose,Russia must win. I'm sure we will be able to reason calmly, with confidence, and without regard for the programs and timetables imposed from abroad. This is exactly what our army is doing. It would be good for all of us to learn this».
Do you consider Trump an enemy?
«The new American president is as concrete as a real estate agent. He immediately understood what you don't: the regions of the former Ukraine that have passed under Russian control, and which are now part of Russia in accordance with our Constitution, will remain with us, as I said. We are trying to trust him, but you know, trust is always the result of tangible actions, especially in foreign policy. Trump has not yet said anything about what he really has in mind regarding the negotiations. Russia will never agree with certain proposals that are circulating in Western public opinion. Let's wait and see."
What could be the Russian counterparts for the peace offered by Trump?
"Why should we offer anything? Trump says every day that Ukraine has lost. Even Europe implicitly admits it: in three years, you have gone from the desire to bring the Russian aggressor to its knees with two thousand economic sanctions and massive aid to Ukraine, to the proud intention of considering a capitulation by Kiev unacceptable. But if necessary, we can wait another three years, to give you time to understand that, sooner or later, Ukraine will lose."
Do you think Trump wants to give you more time?
"At least he immediately said: let's discuss. He is not doing it for the love of our country or Putin. He simply does not want the West, and especially the US, to emerge as losers from this confrontation."
Are you convinced that Putin’s delaying strategy will lead you to victory?
“Time is on our side. We remain focused on the main objectives: winning the war and ensuring Russia’s security for generations. We don’t need anyone but ourselves.”[/i]
I’m not sidelining anything. I’m giving you my understanding of Trump-style imperialism as much as I did about Putin’s imperialism a while back. Canada as much as Ukraine may respond to imperialist aggressions the way they see fit, but then they have also to be ready to pay the consequences. If there are no peace agreements, then they have to fight it out. Besides, given the issues I’ve spoken about: the burden of overstretch and the pivot to Asia, I find it unlikely the US will start a conventional war with Canada to occupy and annex it as Russia did with Ukraine.
Finally, your outrage could be more myopic than you seem to realise. Indeed, there could be paradoxical benefits for the US historical allies in Trump’s “crazy ideas”: more security self-reliance and strategic initiative. If the liberal/peaceful West must win against the challenges posed by predatory foreign foes, then it has to earn it also through actual brute force.
Quoting ssu
Focus. From the US perspective, the problem is that responsibility sharing among NATO members should have happened WHILE the US is in NATO, not after the US leaves NATO. The US would be no longer interested in NATO if there is no responsibility sharing (even more so if the compensation/benefits for the US security support are not equivalent to its perceived efforts). And if Europeans increase their efforts in a defensive alliance which doesn’t include the US, still there are benefits for the US: Europeans may still need to buy for their security from the US to speed up readiness, Europeans will still take the burden of containing Russia (while Trump could still propose his assistance/mediation to Putin), and Trump can still meddle in European national politics via European pro-US populist bootlickers.
Quoting ssu
Why do you think Trump is making such an exception for Israel?
Hmmm... :chin:
Kind of funny that most arguments against peace assume this premise, of which there’s no evidence. Glad Trump, in his own idiotic way, isn’t buying it.
Pax Ruski: i'll kick your ass now, so you'll be finally at peace under my ass in the future
I'm kinda amazed that you're managing to spin Russia asking for concessions before they agree to a ceasefire as evidence of their good intentions.
By that logic, Ukraine refusing a ceasefire deal without substantial security guarantees was also them ensuring a lasting peace right?
Quoting Reuters
Signaling goodwill while emphasizing the need for a long-term peace - typical imperialist shit.
Obviously giving the Russians what they want, long-term peace, would be nothing short of appeasement.
Just imagine it's the US saying these things about a war they started, say in Iran, and see how it sounds in your head.
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-kremlin-elections-our-democracy-is-the-best-in-the-world/
Signaling democratic spirit while emphasizing the need for respect - typical authoritarian shit.
Lavrov is just trotting out the same old b?llsh?t that everyone has heard and taken into consideration already, more than once.
Right, so, Russia is a fine democracy, and he tops it off with the old Ukraine is ruled by the Nazi Kyiv regime.
Maybe an old dog can't be taught new tricks? :) He should catch up on Shevchenko, ol' influential Ukrainian symbol or folk hero.
Stalin killed the most Slavs in the 20th century. Putin has killed the most Slavs in the 21st century. :death:
By the way, my impression is that the invasion of Iraq doesn't have many defenders, maybe I'm wrong.
Notably after the nuclear weapons threat was shown false?
One of Bush's supposed rationales was plain b?llsh?t.
Hardly.
Quoting jorndoe
Yeah, now. Not back then. Back then the very people condemning Russia today were defending the US.
Typical good guy bad guy stuff. That’s seemingly the limit of political imagination. Putin is an evil guy by bent on conquering Europe and re-establishing the Soviet Union. “Same old bullshit.”
And that's why Canada can see the total bluff of Trump. If the US might be so delusional to occupy Greenland and it's 50 000 inhabitants, then face the consequences. But this Canada thing is demented, delusional and silly. If there are any Americans here, just ask them how many American soldiers they are willing to have killed for Canada and how many Canadians they want to be killed in the process. How much better would they feel about their country? Because that's what you would need to do. They simply aren't given their land without a fight, and especially a non-military fight. So a war of invasion? Would the American troops go through with this kind of nonsense? I'm sure that Trump wouldn't get it through Congress.
But here's some people actually talking about these loony ideas of Trump:
If people have been against the Vietnam war or something... how much would they be against this. With a Trump recession and Trump invading Canada... yeah, I could see a civil war in the US.
Anyway, You can already see what this insane bullshit from Trump is leading the US. There's a global recession starting and the dollar is weakening. Usually in times when there is fear of recession, the stock market sinks and the dollar goes up as people put into safety their investments. Now the dollar is sinking. And that is new.
And those thinking that this isn't because of the political situation, they are wrong. The whole status of the US dollar being a reserve currency was a political decision. And when Nixon ended the Gold standard, the dollar continued it's role because oil was sold in dollars.
Where's the flight to safety?
The initial move from Ukraine to quickly agree to the ceasefire and the fact it was hammered out in a few hours with the US was excellent diplomacy and cornered Russia to only be able to react in favour of Ukraine (either agree or become the obstacle). From the country that was an obstacle to peace in the narrative in the US, they were now leading for peace. That was handled well by the diplomatic corps in both Ukraine and the USA - and dare I say it: Rubio.
Of course, anybody ever having negotiated with Russians knows the caveats are an effective no to any just peace. There will be no peace unless the Russians get shit for free: Ukraine joining NATO or EU being off the table, annexing land, whatever. It's more important than ever there's a single front and it's impossible due to the orange monkey but also shit holes like Hungary and the Netherlands.
Are you saying there is no means to compare actions by nations because they all get wrapped in political messaging?
I have objected to crappy things the U.S. has done as well as many other nations. If there is no other measure than messaging and agenda, there does not seem to be a point to judgement at all.
I also quite plausible that Putin will wring further concessions out of Trump and the deal for Ukraine changes.
But even if they agreed to the 30 days outright, that would still leave open the question of where to go from there, and as far as I can see no-one has much of an idea. This is a risk for both sides but I figure that Putin thinks that he can play the West like he did after the Crimean and Donbas invasions.
Quoting Mikie
So why were they wrong and you're right? Putin's not an evil guy, but Bush of Cheney or whoever we want to select was?
Or is neither evil and it's all relative?
It's just really confusing to me why you feel that Russia's (third) invasion of Ukraine is the case that's in dire need of nuance.
I would correct that:
Russian negotiations tactics: demand something ridiculous, don't move an inch and wait for Trump to bully and pressure to give it over to Russia. Because this is "realpolitik". Yay for free stuff.
We surely will here after Trump talks more to his friend, Vladimir, how understandable Putin's line is and how much Putin and Trump want peace. But it's that damn warmongering Zelenskyi!!!
Good lord.
In March/April 2022 we said "no negotiations, let's fight it out on the battlefield", and they did. Ukraine lost, and of course that's going to have a cost.
But what "free stuff" are you talking about? Aren't you aware we're fighting a bitter war over there - that it's the Ukrainians who are dying to impose a cost on Russia so we can tell ourselves some sort of fairy tale that "aggression wasn't rewarded"? This is the ego talking here, not the brain.
What versions are there? How much did Iraq keep of Kuweit? How much did Germany keep after losing WWII? Or for that matter, how much did the Allies keep after WWII? Only East Germany felt oppressed and when the Mauer fell it was cause for celebration. On the face of it, there are only two options that will give us a just peace: total defeat of Russia or a negotiated peace where Russia gets nothing and Crimea is returned.
More likely, Crimea will not be returned but since that was already the status quo before the start of the last war, that is not really a bargaining chip anymore. And since any negotiation suggests compromise, Ukraine is expected to give away more. Ukraine won't do anything without security guarantees, which Trump obviously is not going to give which requires a stronger Europe. What do you give an aggressor without giving him anything? Words at most. But will it be enough?
If I turn to ReArm Europe there might be an interesting leverage here. If ReArm Europe is successful, I think Putin got exactly the opposite from what he wanted. Sure, a bit of land but suddenly a very powerful anti-Putin war machine next door. Avoiding that coalition materialising is probably worth quite something to him, which might just be the pressure he needs to go along with peace talks or at least manage that process in such a way that the willingness to arm the EU will peter out to near-nothing. That last situation is in my view a considerable risk where a lot of Europeans don't seem to understand the geopolitical landscape (in fact more than half of Dutch parlementarians don't). Weakness under pressure reveals the lack of clear vision and understanding at least in the Netherlands. The exception is Frans Timmermans but he's an academic "elitist" fronting a labour party that sold out labourers decades ago and he's not winning back their trust.
It's free as far as Putin is concerned. Ukrainians and Russians dying aren't his problem. If you want to talk about ego, maybe you should be analysing him instead of me. You might recall I'm an international law trained lawyer; what you call "ego" is what is laid down in many treaties since Bretton-Woods. No annexation of land through force. Ever. No exemptions. If we want to move beyond a "might is right" or "real politik" system of international relations, fighting for those principles is important. Probably more important now than ever due to the shifting geopolitical power. After WWII leaders understood such a principle based relation between nations would avoid wars but most seem to have forgotten. Apparently, so have you.
Ukrainians have made a choice to fight as long as there's no certainty on containing the threat that Russia keeps posing. They've become less interested in the return of land than the beginning of the war and are now looking primarily for security guarantees. Without ReArm Europe there will be no country capable of doing so since Trump clearly isn't willing and considering his disdain for agreements made in the past, it reflects the inherent unreliability of the US political system. Relying on the US to fulfil its commitments is past.
This all took a lot of intense negotiations, done in private in the week following the Oval Office incident.
That's a process the West itself set in motion with its finger-wagging "rules-based order" while operating on a principle of 'rules for thee, but not for me' - synonymous for the exact 'might makes right' we're supposedly trying to avoid. The West has ZERO credibility in that regard.
Also, you've been educated on international law, so surely you have also been taught that it doesn't function in the same way a system of national law does.
Idealism that is not balanced by realism is dangerous, and leads to the very conclusions you seem to be putting forward: Ukraine must continue on the path of its own destruction, to save a 'rules-based order' which we ourselves never were sincerely committed to, and still aren't.
In fact, you seem to believe we must double down and get directly involved ourselves, risking WW3 over this 'rules-based order' we never believed in - anything short of that would be 'appeasement' and 'rewarding aggression'.
My answer to that would be: let's not.
If you're serious about this whole "making a stand" thing, I expect you'll be leading from the front?
Name the countries that the US or European countries have invaded and (partly) annexed to their territories after the end of WW2, through war. Here are the ones for Russia:
Chechnya (Russian Federation, after wars of independence in the 1990s and early 2000s)
Abkhazia and South Ossetia (De facto control since 2008, and open for annexation, though not internationally recognized)
Crimea (Annexed in 2014, internationally unrecognized)
Donetsk and Luhansk (Annexed in 2022, though internationally unrecognized)
In your opinion. We haven't nearly reached rock bottom there mostly because of course we don't have the logistics to project military power. But the idea that inconsistent application of principles means we have no credibility is simply nonsense; there's no instance where any EU member invaded another country.
Quoting Tzeentch
Don't confuse the US with the EU. The EU is committed to that order, especially within what it considers its sphere of influence. And Ukraine mustn't do anything; if they want to give up, they can. But they won't and as long as they won't, the EU should support them.
Like good little schoolboys to the US, we supported invading and wrecking a whole bunch of countries - entire regions of the world even. We supported overtly genocidal regimes, and are still doing so to this day.
The idea that we have any credibility in this regard is, I'm sorry to say, laughable. The EU isn't taken seriously anywhere.
Quoting Benkei
I don't see any sign of commitment. Why aren't we slapping sanctions on Israel, which is guilty of the most black and white case of systemic, large-scale human rights violations and has been for decades?
We're just selectively applying our "ideals" whenever it suits us.
When it suits us, we will "take a stand" by letting some other country fight our battles for us. But when it comes to our "allies" we are content to cry foul and angrily shake our fist, if even that.
I think the danger of the current situation for Ukraine is that there's not much either the EU or the US is able and willing to do to pressure Russia in the short term.
There are a lot of things the US can do to pressure Ukraine in the short term.
This imbalance would be hazardous at the best of times, since there'd always be the temptation to pressure Ukraine into more concessions. With Trump it's much worse because it's obvious he wants a deal fast and he does not see any way to pressure Russia into it. He said as much, and it was also pretty clear from his reaction to Putin's polite rejection of an unconditional ceasefire.
Unfortunately, most European countries did not use the past three years of war the way they should have. It should have been possible to build the military industrial capacity, particularly in the are of munitions and drones, to create serious deterrence potential. European militaries do have deeper and harder to solve issues around manpower and certain capabilities, but pure production capacity is not a hard problem to solve.
So Europe too lacks the kind of tools it would need to make a difference. Which once again means the only thing that can be used is the threat of several more years of war until Russia is exhausted. So far Putin seems willing to take that chance.
https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-crisis-slovakia-donald-trump-hungary-slovakia-national-defense-academy/
Russia is conducting ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ against Europe, EU chief diplomat warns
[sup]— Antoaneta Roussi, Laurens Cerulus · POLITICO · Mar 12, 2025[/sup]
Furthermore, European diversity makes it easier to attack.
https://tass.com/economy/1926787
That was how it started. Putin doesn't want Berlin, but he certainly thought he could take Kiev. Who would have predicted that after several years, Russia would have suffered a million casualties, have their own land taken from them, and only occupy 20% of Ukraine? Everyone thought Kiev would fall quickly.
That's the situation now. Putin would be thrilled to walk away from this disaster with a fifth of the country. What a strategic blunder it's been for him: his military wrecked, 100,000 dead, the economy groaning under sanctions, inflation, and high interest rates, NATO expanded, an attempted coup. The war couldn't have gone better for America and Europe if we had planned it.
A majority of House Democrats voted against the war. Obama beat out Clinton mostly because he was against the war from the start. The Democrats have been consistent in their opposition to Iraq.
Why would Zelensky go for that deal? If I'm Zelensky, and I can count on EU support and probably U.S. support, aren't I hoping Russia will get tired of all this, like in Afghanistan? Or there will be another coup against Putin? Or Putin might die and be replaced by a moderate? Or the Russian economy suddenly implode? Or a WW1 style French mutiny happen? There are a lot of ways this could end in Ukraine's favor and not all of them are fanciful.
It seems to me that both sides are like exhausted bloody boxers, and Russia is ahead on points, but Ukraine is thinking, if we can hold on another three rounds, and just get a knockout blow....
Who said anything about Democrats?
And no, they’ve been far from consistent. 40% voting for the resolution in 2002 is hardly what it would receive now.
:lol:
Ukraine has been losing for literally years now. If you call annexing territory “losing on points,” that’s an interesting spin indeed.
Russia will keep what they’ve taken. It’s not fair, but it’s what will happen.
There are two political parties in America. I'm pointing out that one of them has not lost it's mind when it comes to foreign policy.
Quoting Mikie
It would receive 0 support. Are you saying the Democrat party now would support a war against Iraq? Or Iran?
And who said anything about political parties?
Afghanistan was losing for years too. Until they weren't. That's my point.
Quoting Mikie
Maybe. Or maybe Putin has a date with an open window in the near future.
They would likely support a war against Iran, many of them. They’ve already thrown in their support for genocide. We call that “sane” behavior now.
The Democrats would support a war against Iran??? Do you live in America?
Well yes. Maybe the Chinese forget about Taiwan too. Who knows?
40% supported a war against Iraq. So why not?
46 is more than 33. But glad to see the popularity of genocide slipping downward a bit.
"In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?"
Democrats: Israel 21%, Palestinians 59%.
Do you see why what you said was really stupid? Democrats would not support a war against Iran.
You were talking about democrats.
Quoting RogueAI
Many would. As always, if the pretense is right, they’ll go right along. Probably not with Trump in office though.
Quoting RogueAI
Given that you say some of the stupidest things on this forum, and can barely keep up in this conversation without making up diversions, I’d be weary of accusing anyone of stupidity.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungarys-orban-vows-fast-crackdown-media-ngos-over-foreign-funding-2025-03-15/
Romanians rally to show support for Europe amid election tensions
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romanians-rally-show-support-europe-amid-election-tensions-2025-03-15/
Tens of thousands converge in Serbia's capital for protest against corruption
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/03/15/large-crowds-converge-in-serbia-s-capital-for-protest-against-corruption_6739183_4.html
Mass protests against PM Fico’s pro-Russian turn continue across Slovakia
https://intellinews.com/mass-protests-against-pm-fico-s-pro-russian-turn-continue-across-slovakia-370809/
?
, some protests in the US also:
https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2025/03/14/va-veterans-cuts-doge/82418660007/
None reported in Russia, though. That'd be dangerous or illegal.
What I’m talking about is Trump’s efforts to agree a ceasefire. He’s been blackmailing Zelenskyy and offering Putin whatever he want’s.
If Trump wasn’t doing this, then the war would probably end in some sort of stalemate. But both sides are quite entrenched, so it would have a high cost in human lives.
Well, the arms shipments and intelligence sharing is back on, so Zelensky's position is status quo, and the status quo is Ukraine is not going to cede territory, not if they can keep counting on EU and U.S. support. But let's say Trump cancels all aide to Ukraine and won't offer any security guarantees for any peace deal. Would Zelensky give up 20% of Ukraine then? Why would he? He knows that Putin will simply regroup and rebuild his military and come at him again.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2g8v32q30o
Yet another coup by the CIA... dah
https://europewithoutamerica.substack.com/p/the-charade-of-ukraine-ceasefire
providing Ukraine with whatever it needs to defend itself, either supplied from Europe where possible or bought by Europe from elsewhere and given to the Ukrainians if not
European action must now start from the premise that the US cannot be trusted, or relied upon
OK where else should Europeans buy weapons for Ukraine from? China? If China accepts. And Turkey? If Turkey accepts (South Korea too). But if China accepts, then this may set greater pressure on the relation between China and Russia, and between the US and the EU. The same goes with Turkey, because Turkey could be a problem for Russia: since Turkey aims at expanding their sphere of influence in Central Asia. But Turkey could be also a problem for Israel (US ally), since Turkey aims at expanding its sphere of influence in Syria.
If Europeans buy from the US, the problem is still there: dependence on the US + the US (as unreliable partner) could impose constraints on selling weapons to Europeans to help Ukraine. (By the way what if the US sells weapons/intelligence to Russia against Europe/Ukraine?)
Quoting Punshhh
For Putin the first objective is to destroy NATO, the secondary objective is to destroy the EU.
Quoting neomac
Unlike Saudi-Arabia, which has money but no industry or professional workforce, EU can make everything that they need, if they just want it. Including yes, starting from nukes.
You do understand that when European NATO countries agree to raise their defense spending, that spending will go mainly to their own defense industry and NOT to the US defense industry.
A little thing that Trump doesn't understand...
I was ironic... remember pro-Russians complaining about Euromaiden as a coup?
However I think Trump may be interested to stir far-right European (anti-EU) nationalists on his side and also steal them from Putin's grip.
Quoting ssu
What is the time frame given the Ukrainian urgent needs?
Quoting ssu
I understand the need for this to happen, but I'm less sure to what extent this is feasible in the short term. Poland and Italy for example look more vulnerable to Trump's demands than France or the UK. On the other side, while the European countries that are less reluctant to engage with Putin, are likely more compelled to pursue strategic independence from the US defense industry than those more reluctant to engage with Putin, the latter could also be less interested to re-arm against Russia in general.
https://balticsentinel.eu/8207598/finnish-researcher-the-baltics-and-nordic-nations-should-discuss-acquiring-their-own-nuclear-deterrent-with-poland
That's the real question. Basically they first have to dip even more into their own equipment. But for example Finland is sending prototype equipment there to be used in real war, which is far more better than the occasional limited testing of a weapon system. Basically something can be done in six months, a lot in 12 months. Basically in six months Ukraine will be in a very difficult position, if the US basically leaves it on the mercy of the Russians. So the question is basically what Europe can do in few months and in a year.
The money is there, but now it's a question of sending equipment and production bottlenecks.
Non-US users of the F-16 have pledged 85 flyable F-16s for Ukraine, which 18 have been sent. I guess at least one has been lost. Before, Biden's US trained the pilots, gave ALQ-131 ECM pods and so on.
European replacement (or addition) is an aircraft like Mirage 2000, which is now in service with Ukraine. What is notable that these can fire Storm Shadow missiles and are far more survivable than the old SU-24 fighterbombers that Ukraine has used as a missile platform. In the future, one really good fighter would be the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen, which would fit the needs of Ukraine perhaps better. But even few Mirage 2000-5F do make a difference to nothing.
(Ukrainian Mirage 2000 shooting down a Russian missile)
Quoting neomac
This is the logical outcome of what Trump has put rolling. Trump simply hasn't understood the effects of what he has just done. But this (nuclear weapons, going off the non-proliferation treaties) is still behind closed doors and something that likely politicians aren't ready to market people. For now, it's just something that researchers can talk about.
But it is quite evident is that the US wouldn't go to WW3 over the Baltic States. At least with Trump at the helm. So this is a real issue. Poland takes this dead seriously. Sweden would have the capability, they already did produce nuclear weapon, yet there would have to be huge discussion about this. Or then things would have to get a lot more worse.
An European nuclear weapons crash program wouldn't take many years to do. It would be something done very rapidly. The real issue is to make the people accept a nuclear program. The option of just sticking one's head in the sand and repeating that the US will be there (and France's nuclear weapons are enough) is very tempting denial.
And we can thank Donald & JD for all of this.
https://tass.com/world/1929567
Donald Trump Said He'd End Ukraine War in First 24 Hours. He Hasn't
[sup]— Brendan Cole · Newsweek · Jan 23, 2025[/sup]
We've never been closer to a Ukraine peace deal, White House says ahead of Trump-Putin talks
[sup]— Johanna Chisholm et al · BBC · Mar 17, 2025[/sup]
I guess it turned out differently. Well, he was just "a little bit sarcastic".
[i]16:11 Right now, 500 million Europeans are begging 300 million Americans for protection
16:17 from 140 million Russians who have been unable to overcome 50 million Ukrainians for three years.”
16:24 Well, when you put it like that, it’s almost embarrassing.[/i]
Impressive summary
During the debate, prior to the election, Trump said that if he is elected, the war would be ended before he even takes office, because he knows Putin really really well.
Yet that promise was understandably in the promises like "Build a wall and have Mexico pay for it."
What really changed everything was the US to truly align with Russia, as Kremlin has acknowledged itself. And then...
- Bully and harass Zelenskyi
- block all support for Ukraine, upgrades to weapon-systems, satellite information, weapons deliveries alreadt been on the way to Ukraine (even if afterwards resumed, naturally without any additional help to be given)
- even at Rubio and Elon belittling the Polish foreign minister when he dared to say that actually Poland was paying for the commercial use of the Starlink in Ukraine.
End result: the US is an untrustworthy ally that likely with Trump at helm won't lift a finger in the defense treaty. Trump may even walk out of NATO, if he would have his wish. Europe has to act and understand just like Canada, that Trump's regime isn't a friend or an ally.
I’m not qualified to answer these questions. What I would say those is that it is a very fluid situation. They may buy from the U.S. initially while they build up their own capacity. U.S. foreign policy might change back in favour of supporting Ukraine at any time( it is continuing now). The Democrats might win the next election.
Also it might not require a lot to contain Russia as things are progressing in Ukraine now.
A pause on strikes on energy infrastructure will probably save civilian lives, which is a good thing. It's unclear to me who gets the most advantage out of it currently in military terms, but even if we take it as limiting Ukrainian options it's far from the worst concession that could be asked of them.
‘No one has been played as hard as Trump’: Reaction to Trump and Putin’s phone call (— MSNBC · Mar 18, 2025 · 10m:45s)
But, OK, the 10-minute clip didn't have Trump to comment. Starting to feel sorry for the guy.
Trump is basically agreeing with everything Putin says, while probably saying pretty please, I want a ceasefire, so I can claim my Nobel Peace prize.
I doubt Trump and the yes men surrounding him have any idea what game Putin is playing, as they will have sacked any Kremlinologists that were near government.
Putin is playing a classic game of diversion and delay while picking up any concessions he can along the way. He’ll end up with a long list of things Trump agreed to, conceded, or didn’t oppose before he(Putin) agrees to anything. And he’ll wave the list in Trump’s face and say, my first requirement is that this list is fully agreed to before I come to the table.
Plus he will be convincing Trump of the narrative about Nazi’s trying to take over Ukraine, necessitating a special military operation to remove them etc etc.
[i]Pro-Kiev Italians Collapse
Regarding the conflict in Ukraine:
57% of Italians do not support either side (three years ago it was 28%);
32% of Italians support the Ukrainian cause ;
11% of Italians are on Russia's side .[/i]
source: https://eurofocus-adnkronos-com.translate.goog/politics/crolla-sostegno-italiani-kiev-sondaggio-ipsos-dati/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Zelenskyy might consider calling Trump's bluff by offering Ukraine as the 51st state, threatening the US with a direct conflict with Russia, but with the benefit of a huge wealth of what the Orange Emperor calls "raw earths".
Trump is seeking to manipulate the war to benefit 'merican business. Zelensky might consider giving him what he wants. Then Trump might develop an appreciation of the complexity of the problem.
I really don’t think that’s in him. He doesn’t do complexity or nuance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/travel/us-border-crossing-international-visa.html?partner=slack
Russia tried to jail me for making this video in Kursk (— Caolan Robertson · Mar 20, 2025 · 13m:26s)
, shouldn't that be over in the Trump thread?
Quoting Putin (2006)
Quoting Surkov (2020)
Quoting Musk (Feb 24, 2025)
:D Thought there was something familiar here
[sup]Musk got unlucky, various onlookers grabbed his post before he deleted it[/sup]
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/26/brussels-ask-eu-citizens-to-put-together-a-72-hour-emergency-kit-to-face-crises
https://bsky.app/profile/veertjephilips.bsky.social/post/3lle7ng36c22g
I don’t see this ending well for Trump.
https://on.ft.com/42fuMdA
The link should have been a gift article, but doesn’t open the article. This link should take you there.
https://bsky.app/profile/snellarthur.bsky.social/post/3llf6e32oe22x
Trump doesn't seem to want to gift Ukraine to Russia, nor does he want to leave Europe to Russia. He wants to take Ukraine from both Europe and Russia, and to make them both dependent on the US.
How Northern Europe is preparing for war with Russia
[sup]— Le Monde in English / youtube · Mar 15, 2025 · 30m:48s[/sup]
[sup](the original French report is pay-walled)[/sup]
Typical modus operandi of hybrid attacks mentioned in the report:
• set up social media groups, anti-Europe pages
• post stickers, flyers, conspiracy files
• organize fake protests (cost ? 500 €)
• cyberattacks
• bomb threats via email against schools, ports
The report is fairly recent. Additional resources have been allocated in some of these areas. I expect these efforts to continue/increase while Russia is on the offense.
Ukraine’s clandestine book club defies Russia’s push to rewrite history
[sup]— Peter Pomerantsev, Alina Dykhman · Guardian · Mar 22, 2025[/sup]
Micro-resistance to Russification?
Millions deceased. God help us.
The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine
Original:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html
Supporter high-ups, ministers, presidents, should have told Kyiv something in the spirit of ...
We'll give you what you need (implicitly including Wiesbaden work), provided that there will be no unacceptable civilian casualties. Internal transparency matters. Treating others well, friend or foe, will further incentivize us. The objective is an unoccupied Ukraine.
... and kept promises.
Why would they talk about peace if they aren't under pressure or face the consequence of losing? Basic Russian thinking, which the "useful idiots" don't seem to understand.
EU finance ministers to discuss joint fund to buy and own defence gear
[sup]— Jan Strupczewski, Richard Chang · Reuters · Apr 7, 2025[/sup]
Due to Putin and Trump. Expect anti-EDM/Europe campaigns/rhetoric from the Kremlin. Expect haggling and bureaucracy. We'll see what comes of it.
Ukraine captures two Chinese nationals fighting for Russia, Zelenskyy says
[sup]— Al Jazeera · Apr 8, 2025[/sup]
Will need outside verification. Would Zelenskyy make it up? Could they be Chinese mercs?
Putin just conscripted a slightly higher number than the last time.
Vladimir Putin signs decree calling up 160,000 Russians for military service
[sup]— Euronews · Mar 31, 2025[/sup]
They're not supposed to go to the frontlines. Maybe they're running low on bodies.
Should they be confirmed Chinese soldiers, what might be expected in response? Will Xi disown/deny them? Either way, there seems to be at least some justification for Ukraine's allies to put soldiers on the ground, though perhaps not that much.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-s-trade-chief-admits-us-running-up-the-score-with-tariffs-on-australia-20250409-p5lqap.html
Russian propagandist warns Brit and French troops 'we will kill you all' and threatens to sink London under a nuclear tidal wave in TV rant
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14507187/Russian-propagandist-warns-Brit-French-troops-kill-you-threatens-sink-London-nuclear-tidal-wave-TV-rant.html
Russian State TV Host Threatens Strikes on NATO Countries
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-host-threatens-strikes-nato-countries-1991581
Putin Ally Threatens to 'Erase' NATO Ally 'Off the Face of the Earth'
https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-vladimir-solovyov-threatens-germany-nato-2037345
Russian TV Says Europe Will Be 'Destroyed' By 2029
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0unhxkWkiKY
Russian propagandist targets EU Parliament VP with harsh insults
https://decode39.com/10155/russian-propagandist-targets-eu-parliament-vp-with-harsh-insults/
Putin Threatens To Send Arms To Countries That Could Attack Kyiv's Allies
https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-russia-ukraine-nuclear-europe-us/32980827.html
State TV says Russia will divide Europe if JD Vance wins in 2028
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFBvas94-ps
https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/the-mysterious-case-of-the-bagram-airbase-1503420373.html
Such a good Christian.
But anyway, 36 hours is better than nothing, if it lasts.
Then they just stop firing and sit where they are. Or is Ukraine the aggressor?
That's the insane bullshit promoted. And I guess many MAGA diehards believe that.
If only people would listen and look what Russia and Putin actually say, the case would be more clear. Russia has declared Ukrainian oblasts to be integral parts of Russia. And these oblasts have territories that are still in Ukrainian hands, so even the minimum objectives aren't yet met. Better objective would be that Ukraine would lose it's entrance to the Black Sea. And then of course Putin wants that rump Ukraine would be controlled by a Russian puppet regime. Putin already had a puppet in waiting, but that didn't make it.
With Trump assisting Putin, why wouldn't Putin continue the war?
Trump Tower Moscow, Rare Earths and Geopolitical Perks: How the Kremlin Plans to Bait Trump Into a Grand Bargain
[sup]— Pyotr Kozlov · The Moscow Times · Apr 21, 2025[/sup]
Is Putin going for a Molotov-Ribbentrop type deal with Trump?
I guess it's up to the Ukrainians.
Europe better get its act together.
Putin would be drooling to get one. And yes, basically that's what he is trying to get.
Quoting jorndoe
Hope it will do that.
If the US commitment wanes and the US won't supply, what will happen? The rounds used in the war are in the millions. Will be a very difficult late summer and fall.
Also, there seems to be more focus on defensive weaponry, like detecting and shooting down incoming bombs and drones. With less (effective) weaponry to strike back, it's a precarious situation. Sufficient aid to put the invaders on the defense would help.
Inside North Korea’s vast operation to help Russia’s war on Ukraine
[sup]— Tom Balmforth, Mariano Zafra et al · Reuters · Apr 15, 2025[/sup]
Recently, Kryvyi Rih (Republic World, AP, Reuters) and Sumy (AP, Oneindia News, Al Jazeera) were the "sitting ducks".
The positive thing is that Ukraine's defense industry is really kicking into gear too. It's said to have 300 000 working in the military-industrial complex and producing like well over million drones annually, which production is increasing. FPV drones are now killing more than artillery, which indeed is quite a revolution in military affairs. Yet these drones are controlled by human drone flyers, the next step is likely going to be swarms of drone controlled/assisted by AI. The main weakness is control: hence optical wires are usually needed, even if naturally there is also the issue with short range and payload limitations.
What is notable is that the losses that Russia has endured has lowered it's abilities. The casualty rates have had a toll on Russia. Rarely do Russians operate at night and vast numbers of the new recruits seem to get inadequate training. Once Russia basically put itself behind the Gerasimov-line, it also hindered it's ability to do maneuver warfare.
Word on the street is that Team Trump was going to present the following in London:
• de jure recognition by the US of Russia's control over Crimea
• de facto recognition of Russia's occupation of most of Luhansk, parts of Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia
• guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO
• lifting of sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014
• a (vague) security guarantee from a handful of European countries, no US involvement
• return to Ukraine of a small portion of the Kharkiv region currently under Russian occupation
• ambiguous promises of reconstruction aid
Won't fly. And then Team Trump would likely blame it all on Ukraine (is my guess), still without standing up to Putin. Maybe that's why it was postponed.
It's essentially giving Russia a bunch of pre-emptive concessions in return for a status quo ceasefire.
Since there's no operable European coalition to actually provide security (that we know of), such a "guarantee" would be pretty useless. The members of such a coalition would have to be willing to get into a shooting war with Russia without US backing. If such a coalition was feasible, the war wouldn't be in the state it's in in the first place.
Still the question is how Ukraine plays this to avoid another cut off of US support (if it can). The deal is also odious to Russia in that it would entail a small retreat and run counter to the propaganda campaign. So if Putin is put on the spot I think he'd have trouble accepting it publicly. Yet Zelensky doesn't seem the type for such moves as he's already made clear de jure cession of Crimea is out of the question (as if would be unconstitutional).
Europe has no choice, they will get into a shooting war with Russia, unless they can assist Ukraine to defeat Russia in the meantime.
I’m wondering what all the U.S. troops in bases all around Europe are going to do. Order in some buckets of popcorn. Or return home in a hurry.
How drones, data, and AI transformed our military—and why the US must follow suit
[sup]— Valerii Zaluzhnyi · Defense One · Apr 10, 2025[/sup]
War gear is for anyone to own.
And, in the US, head over to Walmart, pick up ammo, and you have what you need to make your own drone attack force.
NATO has missed the drone revolution
[sup]— Anders Puck Nielsen · Logic of War · Apr 18, 2025[/sup]
Russia is getting everything from the US and Ukraine has lost since day one, Putin has achieved all his goals the same ones he had since the beginning of the war, Zelensky is a catastrophic corrupt clownish American-lapdog looser whom all Ukrainians hate. Why is Putin not stopping this fucking war?
[sup]— Nathan Decety · Res Publica · Apr 23, 2025[/sup]
Europe is behind, except perhaps in some hybrid warfare.[sup]†[/sup] Ukraine is ahead in some areas (e.g. above). The Baltics and Poland are a bit nervous.
[sup]† caveat: it's easier for Russian operatives/propagandists to go to Europe and do something, than for operatives/propagandists to do much in Russia[/sup]
[sup]— Karl Sexton, Timothy Jones · DW et al · Apr 24, 2025[/sup]
'He's just tapping me along' — Trump admits Putin may not be interested in ending war on Ukraine
[sup]— Martin Fornusek · The Kyiv Independent · Apr 26, 2025[/sup]
Is Trump finally growing a spine? One might hope, though I wouldn't hold my breath.
But overall, a better outcome than Trump walking away muttering about 'that dictator Zelenskyy'. Let's hope it sticks.
Russia is ‘recycling’ wounded troops, sending some to the frontline on crutches
[sup]— Nick Paton Walsh, Darya Tarasova, Kosta Gak · CNN · Feb 22, 2025[/sup]
Aren't there laws or something against that?
North Korean Deployment in Kursk: A Window into the DPRK Military
[sup]— Lorenzo Fedrigo · Geopolitical Monitor · Mar 21, 2025[/sup]
Vladimir Putin signs decree calling up 160,000 Russians for military service
[sup]— Euronews · Mar 31, 2025[/sup]
[sup]— Zvezda via ZOV Mariupol News Feed · Apr 27, 2025 · 1m:11s[/sup]
So said Lavrov. (Or will Trump reconsider?)
Chinese coast guard says it seized sandbank in the South China Sea amid land tussle with the Philippines
[sup]— AFP/Reuters via ABC (Australia) · Apr 27, 2025[/sup]
Well, why not? Why couldn't China grab the island, when Putin seems to have gotten away with grabbing Crimea (in Trump and Lavrov's eyes at least)?
? Russia's youngest cadets (— CBS · Apr 23, 2014)
They've stepped up these efforts.
? How Russia Prepares Children In Occupied Ukraine For War Against Their Own Country (— RFE/RL · Dec 3, 2024)
? Extraction (— Jade McGlynn, Illia Riepin · Feb 11, 2025)
? Is Putin’s brainwashing of Ukrainians into Russians even a crime? (— The Economist · Feb 21, 2025)
? Russia’s forcible deportation and indoctrination of Ukrainian children (— Bergen Global CMI/UiB · Feb 21, 2025 · 1h:55m:2s)
? The children of Severomorsk are told that neighbouring Nordic countries support Nazism (— The Barents Observer · Apr 15, 2025)
? Teaching children to march and shoot: Russians prepare children in Mariupol for war with Ukraine (— Mariupol City Council / UNN · Apr 18, 2025)
Insidious.
https://kyivindependent.com/shoigu-threatens-europe-with-nuclear-weapons-if-russia-is-faced-with-unfriendly-actions/
https://tass.com/politics/1948611
https://en.belsat.eu/86255589/russian-intelligence-service-suggests-us-and-russia-fight-eurofascism-together
Incidentally, it goes well with Vance's Munich tirade. :chin:
Maybe someone should round up comparisons.
[sup]Soviet/Russian World War 2 poster[/sup]
[sup]Soviet/Russian World War 2 drawing[/sup]
[sup]— Stuart Anderson · Forbes · Apr 27, 2025[/sup]
From the article ...
Quoting Serhii Plokhy
Quoting Brian Taylor
Quoting Mick Ryan
Quoting Michael Kofman
Quoting Stacie Pettyjohn
Quoting Mike Pence · Apr 24, 2025
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence/status/1915432808366981276[/tweet]
But on a more positive note, Ukraine has agreed to sign the minerals deal. Presumably, now that Trump (or anyway America) has a financial stake in Ukraine, this can be used to leverage military support - to protect their joint asset.
[quote=WaPo]The deal will establish the “United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund,” which will allow the “two countries to work collaboratively and invest together to ensure that our mutual assets, talents, and capabilities can accelerate Ukraine’s economic recovery,” Bessent said in a statement.[/quote]
Smart move by Zelenskyy, I think.
[sup]— Katya Adler · BBC · Mar 20, 2025[/sup]
Theiner speculates away, yet, the Baltic folks have understandably become a bit nervous:
Which is just continuing.
And not only Vance, but Rubio too:
I'm usually pretty critical when some European party is marked as being far-right or extremist, but with the "Alternative for Germany" AfD, it's quite obvious and I totally agree with the German domestic intelligence service, the BfV, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. When a political party starts segregating citizens of the country on the base of their race or ethnicity and wants to sent somewhere away German citizens, that is a clearly a threat to democracy. There's no way to look away from that. That AfD leader Weidel used the term remigration, a term popularized in the German-speaking world by Austrian neo-Nazi Martin Sellner, which refers to forcibly removing immigrants who refuse to integrate with German culture, regardless of their citizenship status, isn't just an error. The AfD leadership had met Sellner himself and afterward used the term. And there's many incidents to show just how neo-nazi many in the leadership of the party are.
Perhaps the US should btw need a Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution?
Russian networks flood the Internet with propaganda, aiming to corrupt AI chatbots
[sup]— Annie Newport, Nina Jankowicz · Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists · Mar 26, 2025[/sup]
Empire and Revenge: Outlining Vladimir Putin’s Motivations for War (html)
[sup]— Athanasios Hristoulas · ITAM · May 2023[/sup]
Ferraro argues that Putin primarily had domestic motives ...
Why Russia invaded Ukraine and how wars benefit autocrats: The domestic sources of the Russo-Ukrainian War (alternate)
[sup]— Vicente Ferraro · University of São Paulo · Dec 28, 2023[/sup]
That Putin’s hold on power was becoming weak and the distraction of war was needed. To galvanise his hold on power and create the myth that he was a strong leader and necessary to protect the integrity of Russia.
He found an ally in Trump who admired his authoritarian status and would give legitimacy to Putin’s anti European rhetoric.
So in a very real sense this whole geopolitical crisis is a joint venture between Trump and Putin. Even while Trump might not be cognisant of the fact.
When the war ends, Putin has a problem (archived)
[sup]— Philip Piatov, Paul Ronzheimer · Bild · May 5, 2025[/sup]
Putin’s endgame in Ukraine – and why it won’t finish there
[sup]— Sam Kiley · Independent · May 5, 2025[/sup]
For what it's worth, end of war seems a good pretext to ease up on sanctions.
Sorry, Great Satan but not sorry.
(Meanwhile in Poland: https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/04/30/poland-promises-appropriate-response-to-russian-military-exercises-in-belarus/)
[sup]— Frank Gardner, Jessica Rawnsley · BBC · May 9, 2025[/sup]
Ukraine expels 2 Hungarian diplomats over alleged espionage. Budapest responds in a tit-for-tat move
[sup]— Justin Spike, Illia Novikov · AP · May 9, 2025[/sup]
What's the deal anyway? Well, the EU and NATO, of which Hungary is a member, are Ukraine's allies. Despite being bombed daily, Ukraine is reforming towards EU membership. Say, you may have Spanish and Swedish intelligence folks in Ukraine, that the Ukrainians know, who talk now and then, with no particular reason for dis/mistrust, all part of a network. But not Orbán's Hungary. They have more or less befriended the invaders of Ukraine, Putin's Russia, instead, and can now be suspected informants, feeding the Kremlin intelligence. Consequences could extend throughout EU- and NATO-related intelligence networks, but perhaps more will come out about what happened.
It is a very serious problem that is affecting the entire world. There are many analyses of the conflict, of the war that is currently taking place in Ukraine, but from my point of view it is a true imperialist invasion, where Russia wants to conquer a territory for reasons of power, and well, Russia's own advantage due to the issue of strategic location as well as the great value of what Ukraine is culturally, as well as historically and also in production for Russia. Crimes against humanity are being committed, it has already been proven, there are crimes that are being committed in Ukraine. We must ask God a lot for peace, but I believe that we must be clearer too, even some politicians in our country do not want to recognize the horrors of this war and the evil that Russia is carrying out in all its actions there in Ukraine.
source: https://www.outono.net/elentir/2025/05/11/the-words-of-robert-prevost-the-new-pope-leo-xiv-on-the-invasion-of-ukraine/
Beyond rhetoric: Interrogating the Eurocentric critique of international criminal law’s selectivity in the wake of the 2022 Ukraine invasion
[sup]— Patryk I Labuda · Leiden Journal of International Law · Jun 6, 2023[/sup]
Evidence - SDIR (44-1) - No. 52 - House of Commons of Canada
[sup]— SDIR · House of Commons, Canada · Jun 4, 2024[/sup]
Foundations laid for tribunal to try Putin for Ukraine invasion, EU says
[sup]— Jennifer Rankin · Guardian · Feb 4, 2025[/sup]
Create 'aggression' tribunal for Ukraine now: Nobel Peace winner
[sup]— Anthony Deutsch · Reuters · Feb 23, 2025[/sup]
There is no peace without justice: High-level event on holding Russia accountable for its crimes in Ukraine
[sup]— Council of the European Union · Mar 27, 2025[/sup]
Today, representatives of about 40 countries publicly announced the creation of a special tribunal on the crime of aggression within the Council of Europe. [...]
[sup]— Oleksandra Matviichuk · May 9, 2025[/sup]
Watch out for polonium, though. And Novichok. And balconies.
A glimpse inside Putin’s secret arms empire
[sup]— The Economist · May 8, 2025[/sup]
... indicate that Putin doesn't have peace in mind.
No one has suggested marching on Moscow (which seems like madness in any case); the Kremlin has something else in mind.
More European adventures?
Bosnia: Moscow’s Second Front in Europe
[sup]— Stephen Blank · CEPA · May 7, 2025[/sup]
Some European countries have reacted, ramping up capabilities.
I'm guessing that some concerted efforts are required to avoid (minimize) further instability.
If Russia won, Russia would impose their conditions unilaterally on the losers.
The latter claim doesn't look true yet, so neither the former.
If Russia wanted peace, Russia would agree on what the US (with a pro-Russian president) has proposed. The latter claim doesn't look true yet, so neither the former.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/world/europe/russia-finland-border.html
But the Great Satan has been propping Ukraine and the corrupt clown Zelensky all along to fight against Russia?
Not to mention that peaceful Russia has already won the war for the past 3 years and want now peace to become the laughing third with Europe while the US and China are fighting to death, while Trump is just fine with making all concessions requested by Russia (namely the Ukrainian capitulation).
In any case, the BLOB is behind both the Ukrainians and the Russians: for continuing the war, for ending the war, for making deals with Russia, for provoking Russia, for the invasion of Ukraine, for the European rearming, for expanding NATO, for leaving NATO. As predicted infallibly by our experts on morality, propaganda, military, economics, politics in this thread since day one.
"Trump calls Putin 'absolutely crazy' after largest Russian drone attack on Ukraine".
(source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2wz74jdzo)
When the Kremlin expresses "righteous revenge against terrorists" or whatever, I'm wondering why more observers aren't calling them out.
Here's a story of contemporary colonization, or attempted at least. (archived)
Quoting Huseyn Aliyev
Contrary to what Putin said, the Donbas (still) isn't independent, it's being colonized on Kremlin orders. Stands to reason that was the plan.
Gross and disgusting. Open expansion of non-democracy/authoritarianism, and Putin now holds the 21st century record of most Slav lives on his conscience (record holders of the 20th century were Hitler, then Stalin, I think).
First of all, destroying the Ukrainian military is actually very difficult with nuclear weapons. Above all, what if Ukraine doesn't immediately seek peace. You escalate? How many nukes will you use after the the first strike? You go and demolish Kyiv?
Then once tactical nukes are used, you cannot go through the radiated area. Then you have the question of radiation fallout: what if the winds start moving the fallout into Russian territory? How will the Russians take that? China has said it's against the use of nuclear weapons. What then will be the response of your most important ally?
Once Russia would use nuclear weapons, basically the Pandora's box is opened. Likely many European countries would take defense against Russia just as seriously as Finland, the Baltics and Poland do. Enlarging nuclear deterrence in Europe would be likely. Germany or Poland acquiring a nuclear deterrent might happen then.
If people have not noticed, two nuclear armed countries, India and Pakistan, just a brief time ago went and had a limited war. They exchanged missiles and artillery fire, but then stopped. Let that above just sink in: we have already witnessed how two nuclear armed states fight each other conventionally without the conflict escalating to nuclear weapons. (This was actually the second or third time for those two countries.)
NATO can indeed respond to a Russia nuclear strike on Ukraine. Even if you have TACO as POTUS. The assumption that this will lead to an all out war and to a total nuclear exchange is a false assumption. The likeliest outcome is that NATO will make some hard hitting and crippling strikes that are indeed annoying to Russia, but then they will stop. Likely as they have said, without using nuclear weapons.
And then what will Russia do? How would the situation be then better for Russia? Likely it will be in a worse situation. And this is something that clearly Putin and the Russia military staff has already thought about. "Escalate to de-escalate" is something that the West already knows and has thought about for a long time. If it wouldn't be so, then it could really be that "Escalate to de-escalate" could work. That Russia used tactical nukes against Ukraine and this would make Europe to panic and insist that Ukraine takes the Russian "peace" deal alongside TACO.
Yet that's something that Russia cannot count on to happen. Thus the use of nukes is unlikely in my view.
Large cities are easy targets.
Ukraine conducted successful ballistic missile test in mid-May — military expert
[sup]— Espreso · Jun 6, 2025[/sup]
Ukraine tests new ballistic missile
[sup]— Dylan Malyasov · Defence Blog Magazine · Jun 7, 2025[/sup]
... But no doubt the Ukrainians want more independence from supporters.
Valentyn Badrak on the threat of an attack on Europe (Apr 16, 2025 · 2m:52s)
Ukraine: Russia Using Drones to Attack Civilians
[sup]— Human Rights Watch · Jun 3, 2025[/sup]
New Report Reveals Russian Campaign to Cripple Ukraine’s Grain Trade and Economy
[sup]— Global Rights Compliance · May 21, 2025[/sup]
UKRA?NER | In its unprovoked war against Ukraine, Russia weaponises everything within its reach, including food. Before the invasion, Ukraine supplied... | Instagram (Apr 25, 2025 · 1m:58s)
@ssu Reports of sabotage in Sweden. Probably by Russia. Fits the string of increasing sabotage. Leiden university is keeping track of it. See here: https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2025/01/research-europe-increasingly-targeted-by-russian-sabotage
includes raw data and infographics.
To the Russians, best defense is active offense.
Anyway, the good folks of the Baltics might be concerned.
Here's a trail:
• Russia demands NATO roll back from East Europe and stay out of Ukraine (Reuters · 2021 Dec 17)
• NATO flexes muscle to protect Vilnius summit near Russia, Belarus (Reuters · 2023 Jul 9)
• NATO’s Baltic exercises are part of preparations for military clash with Russia — diplomat (TASS · 2025 Jun 3)
• INTERVIEW: NATO expansion must stop to resolve conflict with West — MFA (TASS · 2025 Jun 9)
• Future of Ukraine conflict to show if US willing to restore ties with Russia — diplomat (TASS · 2025 Jun 9)
• Russia Won't End Ukraine War Until NATO Scales Back Eastern Flank: Moscow (Newsweek · 2025 Jun 9)
• Russia could send "little green men" to test NATO's resolve, German intelligence boss warns (Reuters · 2025 Jun 9)
• Russia Setting Up to 'Test' NATO in Baltics: German Intelligence (Newsweek · 2025 Jun 10)
• Moscow views Western military biological activities as security threat — senior diplomat (TASS · 2025 Jun 10)
... Pretext/prelude/excuse?
• Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia are European countries’ puppets, says Lavrov (TASS · 2025 Jun 10)
Crap coming out of the Kremlin circle will be propagated, might even be paraphrased by US officials.
Putin doesn't have peace in mind.
[sup]— AP · Jun 14, 2025[/sup]
Their shadow fleet needs more attention.
When Russia says your country is merely a puppet, it rhymes quite with the country being "purely an artificial construct", just like in the case of Ukraine was said for years.
The Baltic States should indeed worry.
U.S. Support for Ukraine Would be Cheap at Twice the Price
[sup]— Doug Beck, Nate Fick · The Cipher Brief · Jun 11, 2025[/sup]
[sup]— Marcel Gascón · EFE · Jun 17, 2025[/sup]
The Kremlin sending a message?
Report for Tuesday, June 17, 2025
[sup]— New York Times, Politico, Bloomberg, Reuters via The Cipher Brief · Jun 17, 2025[/sup]
Trump :up: s Putin and Netanyahu.
1. Russia wrecking Ukraine until exhaustion of both, allowing then the US to exploit Ukraine’s resources under Russia’s nose (Ukraine split in two spheres of influence like Berlin during the Cold War ) and conveniently encourage a longstanding antagonism between Russia and Europe. While maintaining an influence over Europe and Russia isolated, the US could still keep it in friendly terms with Russia, playing both sides to maximize the US strategic advantage and global leverage.
2. Israel wrecking Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian regime to benefit not only Israel and Arab countries (eager to normalize relations with Israel), which fear the Iranian influence in the region, but also to further weaken Russia’s and China’s political and economic partnership with Iran. If Trump could impose a deal to a capitulating Iranian regime (ostensibly focused on nuclear issues, but likely also targeting oil and gas exports), the US would not only cement its status as the world’s leading oil and gas producer, but also gain the power to influence Middle Eastern energy production and markets. This would sideline Russia and China, undermining their influence and economic interests in the region, and further consolidating/preserving American dominance on the global stage.
"As to NATO enlargement, we have no concerns regarding the security of the Russian Federation."
— Putin, 2004 · via Die Zeit · via SAGE
"Crimea is a part of the Ukrainian state, and we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of another country. We must be aware of this."
— Putin, 2006 · via the Kremlin
"Crimea is not a disputed territory. There has been no ethnic conflict there, unlike the conflict between South Ossetia and Georgia."
"I think questions about such goals for Russia have provocative undertones."
— Putin, 2008 · TV interview via RFE/RL
"Donbas is certainly Russian-speaking, but there was no organised separatism in Donbas before 2014. It's not a region that had organised separatist aspirations before that."
— Huseyn Aliyev, 2024 · via France 24
... all part of the story.
Germany is building a big scary army (archived)
[sup]— The Economist · Jun 4, 2025[/sup]
New Report Reveals Russian Campaign to Cripple Ukraine’s Grain Trade and Economy
[sup]— Global Rights Compliance · May 21, 2025[/sup]
This adds to previous reports, going back three years or so [sup](2022, 2022, 2022, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2025, ongoing)[/sup].
Land-grabbing and colonization attempts, theft, entitlement and destruction.
Part hybrid warfare, part other-than-war, illegal, organized and systematic at scale, in Europe.
The less assertive the world is, the more the Kremlin will do.
- NATO was enlarged and revived [1].
- Loss of influence over the Middle East (see Syria and Iran) and the Mediterranean sea (see the fate of the Black Sea Fleet [2]).
- Weakened control over Central Asia (thanks to Turkey and China [3]).
- The war in Ukraine to gain control over the WHOLE of Ukraine isn't over yet (after 3 years) and unlikely to succeed given that the US is looking forward to stepping in once the war is over.
- Growing dependence on China [4]
- Also economic recession is looming [5]
[1] "Nato leaders confirm defence spending will rise to 5% of GDP and say support for members is ‘ironclad’": https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/25/nato-donald-trump-mark-rutte-europe-latest-live-news
[2] "Ukraine has ‘significantly degraded’ Russian Black Sea fleet" https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ukraine-has-significantly-degraded-russian-black-sea-fleet/
[3] "China’s influence is growing in Central Asia. What does that mean for Russia?" https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3315092/chinas-influence-growing-central-asia-what-does-mean-russia
"Turkey’s Pivotal Moment With Azerbaijan"
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/04/30/turkey-influence-azerbaijan-armenia-treaty/
[4] "Xi in Moscow: China's role in Russia's economic survival" https://www.dw.com/en/xi-jinping-china-russia-trump-tariffs-trade-economy-oil/a-72460014
[5] "Russia’s economy minister says the country is on ‘the brink of recession’" https://apnews.com/article/russia-economy-recession-ukraine-conflict-9d105fd1ac8c28908839b01f7d300ebd
Now it’s just a matter of how many more Ukrainians have to die for a hopeless cause. I’m hoping not many more…
You mean:
- "Denazification" of Ukraine
- Demilitarization of Ukraine
- neutral status of Ukraine
- no NATO access for Ukraine
???
None of these have been achieved so far.
Occupying/annexing land that is not internationally recognized so far is what Russia has managed to achieve. And it's highly questionable the idea that the strategic goal of Russia was just about occupying and annexing Ukrainian land, as if Russia didn't have enough land already.
Breaking the international order the way Russia did is really serving Russia's national interests? We have reasons to doubt it (see my previous comment)
Quoting Mikie
It didn't need to conquer the all of Ukraine to control and justify their control of the WHOLE of Ukraine.
Looking forward to reading more of your imbecile comments.
Anyone else? Preferably someone who knows something about this issue?
I questioned your imbecile comment with pertinent arguments.
And that's why you deserve no pity.
:lol:
:lol:
• the Kremlin repeatedly said that Kyiv is a Nazi rule, which is decidedly false
• Russia has seen regress (for decades), Ukraine is trying and has seen progress (for years)
• on investigation, Russia turns out more extremist/Nazi infected than Ukraine, some of which have been or are in Kremlin employ
• Russia brought Putin's authoritarianism, colonization, and Russification to Ukraine
• Ukraine has been and is attempting to shed the shackles of the dominating neighbor
Putin has raised his "one people" rhetoric often enough. Maybe he even believes it, and thinks it's relevant. The Kremlin's hostilities extend beyond Ukraine (including mala fide statements).
Russia demands NATO roll back from East Europe and stay out of Ukraine (— Gabrielle Tétrault-Farber, Tom Balmforth, Andrew Osborn, Vladimir Soldatkin, Maxim Rodionov, Robin Emmott, Joanna Plucinska, Natalia Zinets, Steve Holland, Trevor Hunnicutt, Mark Trevelyan, Timothy Heritage, Frances Kerry · Reuters · Dec 17, 2021)
Appeasement politics:
Miseram pacem vel bello bene mutari (117)
Nunuku-whenua (1835)
Fallen Hero (1935-1941)
"Peace for our time" (1938)
Why die for Danzig? (1939)
The Failures of Appeasement (2013)
Ukraine repeatedly told the Kremlin "No", and most of the world concurred. Ukraine became a sovereign nation in 1991, de jure and de facto. Changing that isn't up to the Kremlin including by their own law.
Quoting Sergey Lavrov · Zvezda via Mariupol News · Apr 27, 2025
Quoting Marco Rubio · POLITICO · Jun 25, 2025 (“them” is the Kremlin)
They don't have much further to talk about. It's their way or the highway. Or deterrence. But the negotiation table remains open, a phone call away. I guess Rubio thinks they can "crush them with more sanctions". DeCriminalizing Ukraine includes deKremlinizing Ukraine.
Anyway, the repetition gets tedious. Now some 600 pages.
Deaths are estimated to be over 200,000, which is like ten Afghanistans (or three Vietnams). Russia is going to be dealing with hundreds of thousands of badly wounded men for decades, and that's excluding all the mental issues. I wonder when the Russian people are going to get tired of all this.
Russia captures key lithium deposit in Ukraine in move that could impact US mineral deal (— New York Post · Jun 27, 2025)
A Russian media outlet is raided in Azerbaijan’s capital as tensions rise between Moscow and Baku
[sup]— Aida Sultanova · AP · Jun 30, 2025[/sup]
Azerbaijan arrests journalists at Russian state outlet as tensions with Moscow rise
[sup]— Nailia Bagirova, Dmitry Antonov, Lucy Papachristou, Andrew Osborn, Ros Russell, Ron Popeski, Sandra Maler · Reuters · Jun 30, 2025[/sup]
NEXTA also reports arrests, allegedly "members of two organized crime groups suspected of drug trafficking, moving narcotics from Iran, and cyber fraud".
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1940023555845951751[/tweet]
Naturally, Ukrainians are cheering. :)
I'm curious what younger Russians would think, like their Millennials.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/30/why-is-ukraine-withdrawing-from-the-ottawa-treaty-banning-landmines
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2025/05/08/lithuania-s-parliament-votes-to-withdraw-from-landmines-treaty_6741049_143.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/estonian-parliament-votes-withdraw-landmines-treaty-2025-06-04/
https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/06/26/parliament-approves-polands-withdrawal-from-international-anti-landmine-treaty/
https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/19/finlands-parliament-votes-to-withdraw-from-landmine-treaty-due-to-russia-threat
Let's all thank Russia which is working so hard for a better world, free from Western imperialism
Trump administration redirects 20,000 anti-drone missiles meant for Ukraine, Zelensky confirms (— MDAA · Jun 9, 2025)
US won’t send some weapons pledged to Ukraine following a Pentagon review of military aid (— AP · Jul 1, 2025)
Ukraine voices concern as US halts some missile shipments (— Reuters · Jul 2, 2025)
US halts weapons shipments to Ukraine over fears stockpiles are too low (— Guardian · Jul 2, 2025)
Researchers home in on origins of Russia’s Baltic GPS jamming (— Defense News · Jul 2, 2025)
Chances of bona fide talks would improve if they didn't keep up these mala fide acts.
Noteworthy comments from the interview:
-Empires fall when they try to bring on some kind of a democratization process or democratic reforms.
-The present Russia has now an expansionist regime which is more dangerous than during the Cold War when Soviet Union was basically just defending what it had in Europe behind the Iron Curtain and where the rest of the World was the playground for Superpower competition.
Quoting jorndoe
For Putin's Russia, there is no line were actual hostilities start from their side, but just something that can be stretched as far it can be. Yet we have to understand that Putin has said that it is in war with NATO. And this guy usually means what he says.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-azerbaijan-putin-aliyev-tensions-relations-627104d770071082be26c189161b1ac9
"We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin," Trump said during a meeting with cabinet officials at the White House.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-says-not-happy-russias-163357554.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABxuYhHS9Ol6enuivxctaFxdKEwyAAe6q5u7vVuAuD8hnvPBR5qhWPaV6V8sdg76U2pO-EdfGCabRxTL7fjXVgYIVCBZ1oyLoOprugJStwv8nVGHSeG3SAvuYWexrmKBhjZYJk2o0SCv2M4u9GdQMhqt-8gyRf-EROnbO9Rju6EW
US. "ok."
Ukraine: "Thank you."
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/08/politics/video/trump-fundraiser-threats-moscow-beijing-src-digvid
Inside the far-left media that, backed by Moscow, Damascus, and Tehran, attacks Israel
[sup]— Nicholas Potter · Jerusalem Post · Dec 12, 2024[/sup]
Germany says Russia using media platform Red to sow discontent
[sup]— Rachel More, Miranda Murray, Madeline Chambers · Reuters · Jul 2, 2025[/sup]
German authorities: Russia supported Islamist portal in Berlin (in Russian)
[sup]— Nikita Oshuev · Deutsche Welle · Jul 9, 2025[/sup]
Seems inconsistent for the Kremlin to operate against Israel bombing Gaza, while at the same time bombing Ukraine, but their aims are of a different nature, not about bombed victims.
An article regarding some history for the so inclined:
A Piece of Theater: West German–Arab–Israeli Relations Staged by Intelligence Services, 1955–1967
[sup]— Tilman Lüdke · International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence · Jun 4, 2025[/sup]
The comment, to the EU’s Kaja Kallas, would confirm what many in Brussels believe to be Beijing’s position but jar with China’s public utterances. The foreign ministry regularly says China is “not a party” to the war. Some EU officials involved were surprised by the frankness of Wang’s remarks.
However, Wang is said to have rejected the accusation that China was materially supporting Russia’s war effort, financially or militarily, insisting thatif it was doing so, the conflict would have ended long ago."[/i]
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/china-tells-eu-it-cannot-afford-russian-loss-ukraine-war-sources-say
On the 4 Jul 2025, apparently China still doesn't know that Russia has already succeeded in its goals in Ukraine. How imbecile is this Chinese minister? Where are your emojis @Mikie? We need them.
It would, yes, but the contention that China's top diplomat made such a blunt and frank declaration to the EU's top diplomat sounds extremely implausible. It seems a lot more plausible that someone in Brussels put their own opinion into Wang Yi's mouth.
If you are serious, what makes you think that? The source I'm quoting is SCMP:
The South China Morning Post (SCMP), with its Sunday edition, the Sunday Morning Post, is a Hong Kong-based English-language newspaper owned by Alibaba Group.
Since the change of ownership in 2016, concerns have been raised about the paper's editorial independence and self-censorship. Critics including The New York Times, Der Spiegel, and The Atlantic have alleged that the paper is on a mission to promote China's soft power abroad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post
Not sure what your wiki reference is supposed to add here. So, it's a Hong Kong newspaper with a dubious reputation. The journo is referencing anonymous sources.
What makes me say that is that diplomats don't talk like that, least of all, Chinese diplomats, who are known for their exemplary circumspection.
If a Chinese source like SCMP controlled by the Chinese authority validates a report to me that's enough relevant evidence of what the Chinese authority wants the audience of SCMP to believe. At least, until it is not officially disclaimed by the Chinese authority. It's not even that SCMP echoed some Western report. They were the primary source as far as I can tell.
Quoting SophistiCat
Sure. Until they start making blunt and frank declarations. Tensions between China and EU may be the background circumstances which could motivate a more assertive posture by China, also in the Ukrainian conflict. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/marktemnycky/2025/07/11/european-trade-tensions-rise-ahead-of-the-july-summit-in-china/)
Russia has no interest in conquering Ukraine, and never did— despite the assurances of our media and their parrots online — so whatever territory has been taken (illegally) they will keep and defend for years to come.
That’s the current state of things.
The threat of Russia's force in Ukraine
[sup]— Sava Jankovic, Volker Roeben · Journal on the Use of Force and International Law · Oct 23, 2024[/sup]
We have examples of both hostile buildups and otherwise. The Russian buildup starting in 2021 near Ukraine was preparation for the all-out 2022 invasion (main topic of the article). The Feb 2022 Belarusian buildup was a Russia-Belarus military exercise, and not itself directly offensive. The NATO buildup in Lithuania, Jul 2023, was a summit. ... Hostile intent was denied for the three examples (2021 was a lie).
Besides, anyone can claim defensive measures are provocations (if not offenses). Anyway, the international community failed Ukraine in 2014.
Two foreigners detained for displaying Nazi symbols in Pechersk, Kyiv, - police. PHOTOS — Olena Gulayeva · Censor.NET · Jul 8, 2025
[sup]Police detained two foreigners for demonstrating Nazi symbols in the capital's Pechersk district.[/sup]
Public display of Nazi symbols in Kyiv: police detained two men — Yevhen Ustimenko · UNN · Jul 8 2025
[sup]In Kyiv, police detained two foreigners, aged 25 and 27, for publicly displaying Nazi symbols.[/sup]
Two foreigners walked through the streets of Kiev with Nazi symbols — EADaily · Jul 9, 2025
[sup]In Kiev, two citizens were detained who walked through the capital of Ukraine with Nazi symbols — one of them was holding a flag with a swastika, the other was wearing a T-shirt with the banned Nazi emblem.[/sup]
Why would they parade a Ukrainian flag with unmistakable Nazi symbols on it?
Your post is questionable on many points (“Trump is now basically Biden 2.0”, really?!) but I’ll comment just this snippet.
A part from the fact you are not in Putin’s mind so what interest Russia has is matter of speculation and trying to downplay the evidence that goes against your narrative won’t change the fact that your conviction is parroting pro-Russian biased speculations. And a part from the fact that counter-propaganda against Western media is totally instrumental to Russia as more propaganda against the West, no matter how pro-peace, pro-life or impartial you want us think you are.
You are completely missing the whole point: annexing territories (like in the case of Israel), no matter how small, it is a very concerning violation of the international order to all geopolitical actors. Even more if they have territorial claims or are exposed to other actors’ territorial claims. Besides the annexed territory may be more or less relevant for a country to increase its sphere of influence in a wider region in terms of security and access to resources. And geopolitical actors act also on anticipated moves even independently from stated intentions by political leaders. So OBVIOUSLY hegemonic powers like the US and China are compelled to take position wrt Russia has done. And cornered itself to keep doing.
Putin’s DECLARED goals concern what OTHER COUNTRIES (especially, the Western alliance backing Ukraine and Ukraine) must do: neutral status of Ukraine (e.g. rejection of Ukraine's NATO membership or ambition), demilitarisation, denazification of the Ukrainian regime (i.e. regime change), recognition of the annexed territories (+ some more which is not even occupied). Literally NONE of them has been reached so far, after 3 years of war that Russia has INITIATED with estimated hundreds of thousands of death between soldiers and civilians (+ 8 of illegal occupation of Ukraine).
And it is very much questionable the idea that Russia has increased its sphere of influence in its near-abroad just because Putin has occupied some Ukrainian territory "(illegally)" as you say.
Your long, tedious posts are an automatic “ignore” for me. You’re just way too stupid. But thanks anyway.
I'm not writing for you. I enjoy hitting your imbecile claims hard. You deserve no pity. Don't waste time begging for mercy. Suck it up and move on.