Ukraine Crisis

We must make war, in fact all violence, a very expensive business, it must be made unaffordable. That's the Western world's latest tactic - economic sanctions!

Russia: Invades Ukraine and annexes Crimea in 2014.
Ukraine: There is a hostile country at our borders. We want to join NATO for protection.
Russia: Unacceptable! We don't want a hostile military alliance at our borders.
Also Russia: Increases hostility

The Ukraine is a nation split right down the middle in terms of the views and cultural make up of the people. Crimea is/was basically made up of Russian speaking pro Russian people and the eastern half of Ukraine is basically the same.

If they just let people vote maybe the war would finally end. Instead it has been another ongoing proxy war between Russia and US.

I think both sides are wrong btw. Ukraine should never have existed in its current form due to the opposing positions of the people within its borders.

Reply to pfirefry There is plenty of sense in Russia’s view that the US has been steadily encroaching on Russian territory. The US has no good reason to help strengthen Europe and the most powerful nations play a game to keep the status quo not to bring others up to their level.

I think this will fizzle out. US will back off eventually and pretend they didn’t (kind of like Vietnam). If Ukraine joins NATO I don’t see things getting better any time soon.

Reply to I like sushi

The way the USSR was broken off was very problematic, leading - in part - to the mess we are in now.

The USSR collapsed.

From the last story -

‘Please note that all of that is not happening because of what we, Russia, do. This is happening because of the actions of Nato and the United States and the information they release.’

They further say the deployment of troops and armaments on the border are likewise defensive in nature.

So if Russia attacks Ukraine it will say that it had no choice due the aggression of NATO, and that they are only seeking to defend their sovereignty.

The mendacity of it.

Quoting I like sushi

The Ukraine is a nation split right down the middle in terms of the views and cultural make up of the people

That was quite true in 2014. After that, Ukraine started Ukrainianizing the eastern half by promoting the Ukrainian culture and language. Many native Russian speakers started switching to Ukrainian, from social media to their everyday lives. Those who aren't comfortable with using Ukrainian full time still need to know it well enough to use in some situations. E.g. if you're on people-facing job and you've been asked to speak Ukrainian, you need to comply, or otherwise you'll be penalized. It's not a convenient process for Russian-speakers, but it makes sense in the current landscape of things. Probably should have happened much earlier.

This is from Fiona Hill, the intelligence officer whose forthright testimony at Trump's impeachment trial I'm sure everyone will remember.

In the 1990s, the United States and NATO forced Russia to withdraw the remnants of the Soviet military from their bases in Eastern Europe, Germany and the Baltic States. Mr. Putin wants the United States to suffer in a similar way. From Russia’s perspective, America’s domestic travails after four years of Donald Trump’s disastrous presidency, as well as the rifts he created with U.S. allies and then America’s precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, signal weakness. If Russia presses hard enough, Mr. Putin hopes he can strike a new security deal with NATO and Europe to avoid an open-ended conflict, and then it will be America’s turn to leave, taking its troops and missiles with it.

...Mr. Putin plays a longer, strategic game and knows how to prevail in the tactical scrum. He has the United States right where he wants it. His posturing and threats have set the agenda in European security debates, and have drawn our full attention. Unlike President Biden, Mr. Putin doesn’t have to worry about midterm elections or pushback from his own party or the opposition. Mr. Putin has no concerns about bad press or poor poll ratings. He isn’t part of a political party and he has crushed the Russian opposition. The Kremlin has largely silenced the local, independent press. Mr. Putin is up for re-election in 2024, but his only viable opponent, Aleksei Navalny, is locked in a penal colony outside of Moscow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/opinion/russia-ukraine-putin-biden.html

Reply to Wayfarer
Trump/Putin for 2024! :yikes:

Quoting I like sushi

The Ukraine is a nation split right down the middle in terms of the views and cultural make up of the people. Crimea is/was basically made up of Russian speaking pro Russian people and the eastern half of Ukraine is basically the same.

If they just let people vote maybe the war would finally end. Instead it has been another ongoing proxy war between Russia and US.

They did let people vote in Ukraine. Guess what? Pro-Russia candidates were given the boot. Since that unpleasantness over Crimea and the ongoing war in Donbass, Ukrainians' attitudes have shifted significantly, and not in Russia's favor.

In Russia the annexation of Crimea was hugely popular (although the initial euphoria is now gone, displaced by other concerns). A large proportion of the population views Ukraine as either an enemy or a wayward child that needs to be brought to heel.

Quoting I like sushi

There is plenty of sense in Russia’s view that the US has been steadily encroaching on Russian territory.

Just how far do you think Russia's territory stretches? Or do you mean something like Lebensraum? If we are talking about actual Russian borders, with or without Crimea, there hasn't been any encroachment since WWII. Russia, on the other hand, has been encroaching on its neighbors since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It occupies or effectively controls parts of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.

Quoting Manuel

The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.

I agree, and I don't know what the Nato group should do next, or what the Russians will do.

Reply to Manuel Yes. Some people simply want to focus on Putin as the singular reason for the turbulence.

I'm by no means siding with Russia or NATO. I just know the whole thing has very little to do with the actual people and there is a lot of politicking involved all over (France and Germany are being tested it seems). The ball is in Russia's court and they are in the better position.

Quoting SophistiCat

They did let people vote in Ukraine. Guess what? Pro-Russia candidates were given the boot. Since that unpleasantness over Crimea and the ongoing war in Donbass, Ukrainians' attitudes have shifted significantly, and not in Russia's favor.

Ukrainian attitudes in what section of the country?

From wiki:

The two main candidates were neck and neck in the first-round vote held on 31 October 2004, winning 39.32% (Yanukovych) and 39.87% (Yushchenko) of the votes cast. The candidates who came third and fourth collected much less: Oleksandr Moroz of the Socialist Party of Ukraine and Petro Symonenko of the Communist Party of Ukraine received 5.82% and 4.97%, respectively. Since no candidate had won more than 50% of the cast ballots, Ukrainian law mandated a run-off vote between two leading candidates. After the announcement of the run-off, Oleksandr Moroz threw his support behind Viktor Yushchenko. The Progressive Socialist Party's Natalia Vitrenko, who won 1.53% of the vote, endorsed Yanukovych, who hoped for Petro Simonenko's endorsement but did not receive it.

I don't know for certain but I'd bet the voting was divided between Russian speakers in the East and Ukrainian speakers in the West.

War has been ongoing since this time I believe. With both US and Russia supplying men and arms to the fight (although both denied doing so).

Reply to Bitter Crank I think it is basically down to what the Ukraine government decides to do regarding setting up future military camps in their country. Russia has repeatedly stated - truthfully or otherwise - that they are concerned with the US creeping closer and closer to their border with missile sites capable of hitting their capital and ask how the US would feel if they started do the same to them (think Cuban missile crisis).

If the Ukrainian leaders want to flex then I think it will be a mistake. If they can make an independent deal with the US and Russia regarding military placement within their borders then it will all blow over and nothing will happen for a few years. If they insist on joining NATO with no conditions (something apparently against an agreement Russia had with US?) allowing military creep towards Russia I expect we'll see more proxy wars spark up around the globe soon enough involving China and Russia ... that would be how I would 'go to war' without having to 'go to war'.

Overall the threat from NATO is just sanctions. I think that is just code for something else though as if it was ONLY about threatening sanctions if they invaded I think Russia would happily invade and take the sanctions - they don't need trade with Europe or US really.

There is a good deal of information here on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

It's the same old brinkmanship that's been used by gang-sized to nation-sized groups for centuries.
It's those in power trying to find ways to ensure they or their legacy stay in power.

It will never end until we become one planet and one species and there are no nations.

The danger is as always, the fact that we have the technology to destroy ourselves.
If Russia invades Ukraine then they will be initially successful, and then we will enter the guerilla warfare stage and many soldiers and civilians will die on all sides.
This will continue until enough general revulsion occurs and they come to an agreement to end the conflict.
Then all the powers will assess the outcome from the standpoint of who gained what and who lost what. This informs future tactics.
A child could accurately predict subsequent events if Russia invades Ukraine, including noting that M.A.D(mutually assured destruction) is always on the table for our species.
The 'hawks' within each of the major powers, safe in their offices/bunkers always like to probe/prod their enemies.
The arena involved does not really matter.
All the sides involved will send their best new materials and employ their best new strategies.
The goal is to find out how much each player has improved since the last encounter.
M.A.D is nonetheless unlikely (but not impossible) as the powerful rich on each side, don't mind the death or misery of the 'ordinary' people but they don't want to cause their own destruction.
That would 'not be cricket'!

Quoting I like sushi

There is a good deal of information here on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

Good video. This article in Foreign Policy from a few days ago makes the same points:

Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis

It seems the most reasonable assessment, and this is from American academics. It goes back to what I was saying over a year ago here, that there's a basic disconnect between the (ostensibly, at least) ideologically-driven American foreign policy and the Russian realpolitik.

Russia is intending to hold naval drills off the coast of Ireland in about 1 month's time. Amazing opportunity. The bulk of the Russian navy gathered in one spot, and the bulk of the Russian army in another. Two barrages of cruise missiles, and the whole thing could be put to bed. Or trigger thermonuclear war! Meh! Doomed by climate change anyway!

Quoting jamalrob

It seems the most reasonable assessment, and this is from American academics. It goes back to what I was saying over a year ago here, that there's a basic disconnect between the (ostensibly, at least) ideologically-driven American foreign policy and the Russian realpolitik.

Is there some overlap between political realism (from the article) and realpolitik? Sorry if that was answered in the article, a paywall kept me from reading the whole thing.

There is realpolitik scattered through the west's Russia policy post WW2. Is Russia likewise adulterated with a certain amount of ideals? That would be weird if they aren't, although I'm not sure what those ideals would be.

Quoting frank

Is there some overlap between political realism (from the article) and realpolitik?

Yes, in internal relations they use the term realism or political realism now for what I was referring to as realpolitik. I'm not sure there's much difference. Maybe it's theory vs practice, respectively.

@jamalrob
It makes me uncomfortable to know that there are governments who don't truly know their people, their morals, their ethical compasses, their feelings about other people the world over, yet the governments behave as though they have our best interests at heart. How do they know what we think if they never ask?
We as people have much more in common than our governments will ever admit. If they admitted that, negotiations would be a lot less visible, a lot more productive and with a lot less stress for everyone involved. Peace :heart:

Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff :up:

Quoting frank

a paywall kept me from reading the whole thing.

I caught it before the paywall kicked in. Anyway, sushi's video pretty much covers it, and even though it's from 2015 it's remarkable how much it all still applies.

Quoting jamalrob

I'm not sure there's much difference.

Political realism is about what influence and power are, among other things. It's a view at odds with constructivism.

Reply to frank Cool.

U.S. Puts 8,500 Troops on High Alert as Tension Rises Between NATO & Russia over Ukraine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwEfqRa7uXk

Reply to Bitter Crank

Nobody does. Ideally NATO could back off wanting to include Ukraine while boasting that they "stopped Russian aggression", whereas Russia can then claim that they "stopped NATO expansion."

But at this point, given these political times, anything can happen...

Reply to jamalrob Quoting jamalrob

Good video. This article in Foreign Policy from a few days ago makes the same points:

Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis

It seems the most reasonable assessment, and this is from American academics. It goes back to what I was saying over a year ago here, that there's a basic disconnect between the (ostensibly, at least) ideologically-driven American foreign policy and the Russian realpolitik.

The article is good. Yet, it explained the current course
of Biden’s administration regarding the Ukraine crisis just by the decades of ‘liberal politics of hubris.’ The administration has demonstrated a priority of diplomacy and a willingness to compromise on different occasions. But here, the US discloses a harsh and uncompromising approach.

The two main candidates were neck and neck in the first-round vote held on 31 October 2004

That was 2004; a lot has happened since then, like the "Orange Revolution" that happened right after that 2004 vote. 2014 was a watershed year. If there was any ambivalence or indifference towards Ukrainian statehood before, post-2014 the mood is very different. And yes, that varies by region, but the overall shift is massive.

Reply to I like sushi

This is a problem, one need not say for the millionth time, why Putin is bad person, war criminal, etc. As far as I can see, this applies to all leaders of Big Powers. It comes with the territory. Not excusing it, though placing it in proper context.

On the other hand, why does NATO need to expand? What for? It was founded on the idea of "containing" the Soviet Union. Well, that fell, but NATO is still here.

Who's the enemy for the US and Western Europe? Russia and China? Yeah, maybe. But with nuclear weapons involved, all this becomes very silly.

As for Russia, yeah they're going to exercise power near its border, and those countries have a right to defense and help, but this should be done carefully. That's not what's happening now.

It's lunacy.

The American’s in power right now are the same ones who meddled in Ukrainian affairs during the Euromaidan events. Par for the course, for them, so this is no suprise.

At any rate, American leadership already has the Afghanistan disaster under its belt, so I’m not sure why Putin should care one straw about Biden’s saber-rattling.

Quoting Manuel

On the other hand, why does NATO need to expand? What for? It was founded on the idea of "containing" the Soviet Union. Well, that fell, but NATO is still here.

Who's the enemy for the US and Western Europe? Russia and China? Yeah, maybe. But with nuclear weapons involved, all this becomes very silly.

Wasn't NATO more like a response to the second world war? So it's purpose is to deter any rogue state from becoming too aggressive. Therefore it has no particular enemy, as its mandate is to prevent the arising of an enemy. So if there becomes a particular enemy it has failed in its mandate.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

It was part of a way for the US to take over Europe's security concerns, probably to prevent another war. But its mission was explicitly to stop the USSR's sphere of influence. But of course, WWII caused all of this.

But after the USSR collapsed, it doesn't have a good reason to exist. more so with the overwhelming military advantage the US has over other countries.

Quoting Manuel

Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022

I did some reading here and encountered the proposition that atomic bombs are for defense only (even saw it mentioned that the use of these toys can be understood when that use is in non-urban area...). Whether you place these bombs in a frame of complementarity or deterrence, fact remains that they are still there, ready for launch or drop.It has to be admitted though that their destructive power has been reduced: the face of the Earth can now be destroyed only x (x >1) times instead of 10x... There are still 15 000 active warheads.

Reply to Cornwell1 Yeah, in theory. But once one goes off to a civilian population, and another is returned, all go off. It’s playing with fire, to put it very lightly.

Quoting jamalrob

This article in Foreign Policy from a few days ago makes the same points:

Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis

Counterpoint in the same magazine: There’s Plenty of Blame to Go Around on Ukraine

[hide="Reveal"]

Realists are sometimes criticized for ignoring weaker states’ agency, but Walt takes the argument to its absurd conclusion by denying the agency of everyone but U.S. policymakers. It’s U.S. officials who make the choices that matter—bad ones—while the rest of the world, Russian President Vladimir Putin included, are simply enacting the eternal laws of history.

Realists argue that regional powers always seek primacy in their neighborhood. According to this logic, a recovering Russia would seek to reestablish regional hegemony regardless of U.S. actions. Western accommodation would have only sped up the process. It’s incoherent for Walt to claim that liberal illusions caused the Russia crisis while also arguing that regional powers naturally seek control over their neighborhood. The rise in tensions would be expected unless Washington abandoned all interest in the region.

What national interest do realists think Putin is defending by escalating this crisis? What is the existential threat he faces that justifies war and tens of thousands of casualties? Even if NATO is a worry, it’s hard to credibly portray it an as immediate danger, especially since Russia’s concerns center on an expansion that hasn’t happened and doesn’t look likely to happen. If you argue that Putin is merely reacting to Western pressures and his reaction is understandable and expected, you are also arguing that his decision to wage war is justified on realist grounds. Which is, sorry to say, a questionable way to explain a war of choice, fabricated and pursued for reasons unknown.

[/hide]

What Russia is trying to accomplish with this sudden burst of hysterics is still an open question. Everyone here is taking their rhetoric at face value, but that could be a mistake. Perhaps the entire (un)diplomatic theater is to serve as a casus belli when their blatantly unacceptable demands are not met. Aggressors from Napoleon to Hitler have used such sudden ultimatums as a pretext for an invasion. Russia's very visible preparations could be the real thing, and not just a big stick that they are waving to gain leverage in negotiations.

I guess we'll find out within the next few weeks.

From sticks and stones to clashing hydrogen.

I think that Putin is trying to split the Western alliance. He thinks that the US public has turned against involvement in foreign wars - one of the reasons he favoured Trump is because Trump denigrated NATO and hated spending money on foreign wars. The Germans, meanwhile, are trying to appease Putin for very unclear reasons - see Germany’s appeasement of Putin risks disaster in Ukraine. So I think Putin's imagined best case scenario is that he installs a puppet government in Ukraine, the US is humiliated and its role in Europe vastly diminished. He in effect restores one part of the former USSR and extends his sphere of influence. However the vast majority of Ukrainians are looking West and want no part of Putin's plans, outside the Russian-speaking ethnic enclaves in the East. And whether Putin can engineer this outcome is still far from clear.

Reply to Manuel
Ok, so the conflict is at the point that here in PF it got a dedicated thread!

Actually, I genuinely hope that this (or similar) threads aren't going to be very long or as long as the COVID thread. Everybody understands what would make this thread go on for long... I myself have commented the Ukrainian on the Biden adminstration thread two months ago (starting here), so it's not something out of the blue.

The bottom line is that the demands Putin put on the table were obvious non-starters, they simply won't be achieved, and that's the worrying issue. In fact, when Saddam Hussein decided to "solve" his financial troubles by annexing Kuwait, the fig leaf for deploying a huge army on the Kuwaiti border was far better than now with Putin. Hussein accused Kuwait of drilling into Iraqi oil fields and demanded OPEC countries to stick to their quotas in order to get the oil price up. This got several countries to support his actions...until he invaded the small neighboring country that had actually assisted it during the Iran-Iraq war (another war he started). Making demands you know the other side won't accept at start seems very, very worrying.

Now many might argue that this is a negotiating tactic, that Putin will now milk concessions from the West. Might be, but then, this is a guy who started his political career with war, has relied on wars and hasn't avoided using military force. And has actually sinister views about Ukraine, especially on the validity of the country's sovereignty. And above all, what's to stop a nuclear armed power doing whatever it wants, when the other side has already said it will only respond with economic sanctions.

As Neil Ferguson said, the chances for an enlarged war is 50/50. I agree, it's very worrisome.

Reply to ssu did you live through the Cuban missile crisis? I didn't and for my generation Ukraine is a generally terrifying prospect if you consider it for extended periods.

But this is a time for clear-headed, measured, assiduous communication between all sides involved. Upon initially going through this thread I felt like insulting those I believe to be backing Putin (something about taunting certain people about not having a real Russian tradwife like another particular member presumably does), however, this ultimately gets no one nowhere. Just a microcosm of the overall discussion, but worth noting.

One reason this is different to the Cold War is that Russia is not the USSR. Russia is a large nation, but it's not the massive aggregation of nation-states that the USSR was. It is also no longer driven by an ideological opposition to capitalism that characterised the Soviets. And there's critical dependencies on either side - Europe can't get by without Russian gas, but Russia can't get by without access to the SWIFT banking system. It's not quite the same as the dreadful Mutually Assured Destruction scenarios of the Cuban Missile Crisis days, although it's still plenty frightening. :scream:

Reply to Wayfarer

As long as we are speaking of nuclear powers it doesn't matter much. I don't know how they plan to fight a war without quite soon threatening to use them if one side sees itself in trouble...

Isn't there still a sense of there being mutual destruction if nuclear weapons are deployed? I don't think, or rather I hope, that Putin would not risk it.

Not only Putin, he's bad enough. The US destroys countries, as seen by mid 20th to early 21st century history. It can do that because it has the power to do so, the UK before them and France, Spain, etc. were no better.

No one wants to risk it, but then do you think Russia (or anyone else) will stand for mass casualties loss in terms of troops and complete humiliation in a war against NATO?

Nor would the US. Nevertheless, we've had awfully close calls before. A repeated high risk situation cannot sustain itself without error. Hope I'm being paranoid....

Quoting Manuel

Hope I'm being paranoid....

me too, but I can't say I blame you, it's very dicey.

Quoting The Opposite

did you live through the Cuban missile crisis?

Nope, I've been born in the early 1970's.

Quoting The Opposite

But this is a time for clear-headed, measured, assiduous communication between all sides involved. Upon initially going through this thread I felt like insulting those I believe to be backing Putin (something about taunting certain people about not having a real Russian tradwife like another particular member presumably does), however, this ultimately gets no one nowhere. Just a microcosm of the overall discussion, but worth noting.

I think there's nobody here who is genuinely backing Putin, but many of course are very critical about US foreign policy and the West in general. This can then make people to actually mouth the views of what Putin is saying.

Yet one should really think twice just how "aggressive" the West is here. The Soviet Union collapsed. The countries that emerged from that rubble didn't genuinely want be part of any Russian-lead union and the idea of CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) was a non-starter. Ukraine, which was as wealthy as Poland when the Iron Curtain fell, has seen the East European countries and the Baltic States become far more prosperous countries while it hasn't basically gone anywhere economically. The desire to join the West is real among the people of Ukraine, it isn't some astroturf movement concocted by the US using George Soros as a front.

(How Polish and Ukrainian economies have been on totally different tracks, with one being a member of the EU and one not.)


This is the issue that those "understanding" the Putin line of NATO expansion forget: that a) these are independent countries have wanted to join NATO and b) Russia's actions, especially it's now several annexations of parts of it's neighbors, has just reinforced the reasoning why to do this. Putin's Russia obviously wants to have the power that the Soviet Empire once had. The denial that Russia lost it's empire is the crucial issue here.

To say that Russia has a right for a "sphere of influence" is basically an imperialist argument that Russia deserves somehow to have it's old empire. It doesn't and it surely hasn't tried to be friends with it's new neighbors. It has lost it just like Austria has and should face reality. And as it has been a real bully, it hasn't had the success that the UK has had with the British Commonwealth with CIS.

Judging by the latest news it looks like there will be war sadly.

If NATO is meant to be about protecting and preventing war then perhaps they should not look to expand towards the only country they deem as a threat and wait a few more generations so the nonsense of the Cold War is a memory or a memory rather than recalled by those playing power games right now?

Of course this won't happen so either the Ukrainian government will ease off or Russia will wreck the Ukraine one way or another in order to prevent NATO expansion.

I think war is pretty much what the US government is looking for. Why? Who knows. Maybe it is not Russia looking to destabilase Europe?

Either way this is looking unlikely to blow over as I first thought unless the media reports are exaggerating the tone of what is going on.

Quoting I like sushi

I think war is pretty much what the US government is looking for.

Would do you think so?

Did the US put over 100 000 troops on a border of Ukraine?

Did the US annex territory of Ukraine?

Has the US expressed doubts of the sovereignty of Ukraine?

A bit illogical.

Reply to ssu I'm not saying it is logical.

The way Biden has spoken sounds a lot like they are trying to provoke/encourage Putin into a war. The remarks made don't seem sensible to me and so I assume they are doing exactly what they want them to do. Why? no idea. Even the Ukrainian leader has asked them to tone it down.

Undoubtedly there is a lot going on we don't know about. I do know Putin has remained fairly consistent regarding his dislike of NATO expansion and has not exactly been undiplomatic in his tone by repeatedly pointing out that he has been concerned about the creep of US military forces ... apparently that was a condition the US has offered to them but I think it has come to the imminent threat of war for the US to even bother doing that ... so, yeah. It looks to me like they are asking for it.

As for annexing Crimea there was a whole lot of unhanded US and Russian business going on in the Ukraine at the time where both were actively in disagreement about the Ukraine's position as a kind of 'buffer state' between Russia and the West.

Anyway, we could argue and disagree forever. I'm not here to debate one way or the other as this is not a pleasant situation. I just tend to not to assume too much nor get drawn into one camp or another when it comes to these kinds of disputes.

Both the US and Russia have some serious hang ups over the results from WW2 and the people in the area are still very much in the grip of what has passed since then and will remain stuck in it for another century or so ... I just hope 'nationhood' ends for a positive reason rather than as a final hurrah.

Main point being I find this whole thing more and more disturbing by the second. I'm much more concerned here than with what happened with Yugoslavia at that time (and that was pretty nasty!).

Reply to I like sushi

This is f*cking crazy. It boils down to who has more projected power and a bigger phallus (to not use the more vulgar word).

And for what? I don't see how this doesn't escalate if they start shooting bullets.

Quoting I like sushi

I do know Putin has remained fairly consistent regarding his dislike of NATO expansion and has not exactly been undiplomatic in his tone

So are you saying that demanding that independent countries have no right to make decisions on their own security policy is diplomatic?

One can say those things without ranting as Putin does. But they are threats.

Quoting I like sushi

As for annexing Crimea there was a whole lot of unhanded US and Russian business going on in the Ukraine at the time where both were actively in disagreement about the Ukraine's position as a kind of 'buffer state' between Russia and the West.

And just why would there be a right for Russia for a 'buffer state'?

Is Canada a 'buffer state' of the US?

After the war of 1812, when the British kicked the asses of the young upstart US, the US hasn't had claims for Canadian territory or had ideas that Canada ought to be part of the US. If the US still had such aspirations, I can guarantee US-Canadian relations wouldn't be so warm and friendly. With Ukraine, the present Russian leadership has quite different and in fact hostile ideas, starting from the idea of them being the same people. (Putin won't have Russia to join Ukraine, you know...)

And seems one has to remind that a de facto state of war already exists between Ukraine and Russia. So it's ludicrous to assume that Russia wouldn't be here the aggressor, but it somehow is the US and NATO. The sad fact is that prior to all this, prior to the annexation of Crimea, Putin actually was very popular in Ukraine.

He isn't anymore.

Reply to ssu

Quoting I like sushi

I'm not here to debate one way or the other as this is not a pleasant situation. I just tend to not to assume too much nor get drawn into one camp or another when it comes to these kinds of disputes.

Quoting I like sushi

Main point being I find this whole thing more and more disturbing by the second. I'm much more concerned here than with what happened with Yugoslavia at that time (and that was pretty nasty!).

Quoting I like sushi

The way Biden has spoken sounds a lot like they are trying to provoke/encourage Putin into a war.

Of course. The US will strike first, deny it, and blame Russia.
For over 70 years, the West has worked hard to build up an image of Russia as The Bad Guy. They can't just let it go.



Quoting ssu

And just why would there be a right for Russia for a 'buffer state'?

Either this, or Russia has every right to put tanks on its borders with the Ukraine.

The US has always worked hard to make it clear that it considers Russia an enemy. Why should Russia not take this seriously?

The US _wants_ to be on enemy terms with Russia, it accepts no other way of relating to it.

Reply to ssu

Yeah, I also agree that I wish this thread would close sooner rather than later. We're going to be in suspense for some time though...

I don't like Putin. He's authoritarian, brutish, savage and all other insults which are appropriately thrown his way. That doesn't mean that I think the US Administration is much better - in fact, in regard to foreign policy, arguably worse, due to having much more capacity for the use of force.

This for me isn't a "I'm with X side", I understand others will feel differently. If I were Ukrainian I may very well have a different opinion, likewise if I were Russian, I would likely have a different perspective.

Using "realpolitik", I don't think any powerful state would want an enemy military force at its border - it doesn't make any sense. Like, the US would not like Mexico to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

I think it's sensible to demand that Ukraine not join NATO.

At the same time, I also think it makes sense for Ukraine to ask for help on its borders to Europe.

But now this has gotten too big, and we aren't speaking about rifles anymore.

I hope cool heads prevail. I just don't like such situations to arise with such frequency, as cool heads will eventually not prevail, and then we're all in serious trouble.

Quoting ssu

I think there's nobody here who is genuinely backing Putin, but many of course are very critical about US foreign policy and the West in general.

Russia's covert online ops teams are also active in propogating false narratives about Western democracies through social media, and amplifying memes like the likely imminent collapse of American democracy and 'America the real aggressor' and so on, which people echo.

Here's a (rather reassuring) analysis in today's NYT by journo with long experience in covering Putin.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

As to building up an image as a bad guy, the Russians nee Soviets did, have done, a more than adequate job all on their own.

Riiight, let's not take any responsibility for our ideas about others. It's not like this is a philosophy forum or anything like that.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/01/russia-invasion-imminent-threat-hysteria-panic-washington

In other words, we have Ukraine’s president, its foreign and defense ministers, and a top national security official all urging calm, while denying there’s sufficient evidence to expect a coming Russian invasion, contrary to the tidal wave of messaging from US officials and the press. Of course, you could dismiss this as a country’s leadership playing down a threat they know is real to prevent panic and disorder. But they’re not the only ones saying it.

Earlier this week, the Center for Defense Strategies — a think tank headed by a former Ukrainian defense minister and on whose board sit a variety of other defense and diplomatic officials from both Ukraine and the United States — published an analysis of the risks of a Russian invasion. Its conclusion? That “a full-scale invasion capturing most or all of Ukraine in the near future seems unlikely,” citing the insufficient number of Russian troops and a number of other indicators, including the lack of mobilization of medical infrastructure and strategic military units. (There have been some more troop movements since then).

European governments have said likewise. The EU’s top diplomat accused Washington and Westminster of “dramatizing” the situation, saying that the EU would not evacuate its embassy “because we do not know any specific reasons.” The Dutch embassy in Kyiv similarly told the Telegraph it saw “no reason” to do so, while a French official said they’d “observed the same movements” but “cannot deduce from all this that an offensive is imminent.” And just today, Germany’s spy chief also contradicted the Washington line, telling Reuters he “believes that the decision to attack has not yet been made.”

Remember, the US are warmongering murderers and nothing they say ought to be taken seriously.

With the black hole of Afghanistan no longer supplying the American arms industry, what better opportunity to make up for lost profits?

Reply to StreetlightX

:sweat:

Finally, a post I agree with you with! It's been a while! :joke:

No, but seriously, it was even reported that the Ukrainian PM told Biden to tone down the rhetoric. I think Germany and France have to step it up big time and lower tensions.

If Europe merely goes along with US admirals, then it's hard to prevent a war.

I think this can only be stopped if they can find a solution in which each side saves face to the public.

Not making a "both sides are equally wrong" claim. Diplomatically, you need to give something to each side.

Reply to Manuel The amount of consent manufacturing over conflict with Russia is insane - and obvious to anyone who has seen this happen over and over with every country America has fucked up time and time again.

This article nicely documents much American fucks-ups in the area has directly engineered the so-called 'crisis' going on today. The ultimate bad actor in this whole situation is the US, and anyone who looks at Russia being an active 'bad guy' with Western powers merely 'reacting' to Russian agression has no fucking idea what they are talking about.

In Ukraine, the IMF had long planned to implement a series of economic reforms to make the country more attractive to investors. These included cutting wage controls (i.e., lowering wages), “reform[ing] and reduc[ing]” health and education sectors (which made up the bulk of employment in Ukraine), and cutting natural gas subsidies to Ukrainian citizens that made energy affordable to the general public. Coup plotters like US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland repeatedly stressed the need for the Ukrainian government to enact the “necessary” reforms.

In 2013, after early steps to integrate with the West, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych turned against these changes and ended trade integration talks with the European Union. Months before his overthrow, he restarted economic negotiations with Russia, in a major snub to the Western economic sphere. By then, the nationalist protests were heating up that would go on to topple his government.

After the 2014 coup, the new government quickly restarted the EU deal. After cutting heating subsidies in half, it secured a $27 billion commitment from the IMF. The IMF’s goals still include “reducing the role of the state and vested interests in the economy” in order to attract more foreign capital.

The IMF is one of the many global institutions whose role in maintaining global inequities often goes unreported and unnoticed by the general public. The US economic quest to open global markets to capital is a key driver of international affairs, but if the press chooses to ignore it, the public debate is incomplete and shallow.

This kind of history is totally absent from almost any mainstream discussion on this topic, the latter of which is slavishly regurgitated by people on this forum, among others.

Reply to Manuel

Manuel, read the NYT. The US is only threatening sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine.

StreetlightX is deranged as usual.

Reply to StreetlightX This reminds me of court hearings, where both prosecution and defense try to paint the most exaggerated versions events, which has little to do with the reality. One either plays by these bizarre rules or gets smashed by the system. Has this ever been discussed on the forum?

Quoting The Opposite

not having a real Russian tradwife like another particular member presumably does

As far as I can see this is just your prejudice about Russian women.

However, I commend you for this:

Quoting The Opposite

Upon initially going through this thread I felt like insulting those I believe to be backing Putin [...] however, this ultimately gets no one nowhere.

Reply to StreetlightX :up:

Quoting StreetlightX

This kind of history is totally absent from almost any mainstream discussion on this topic, the latter of which is slavishly regurgitated by people on this forum, among others.

And yet they make a hand-wringing show of being concerned, worried, etc. It's hard to stomach. Liberals :roll:

Reply to StreetlightX

Familiar story.

Listen, I agree with the overall thrust of your argument, I don't think the US, has any business with this Ukraine situation. All one hears about is how bad Putin is. Yeah, he's bad, but that doesn't cause a thought to pass through anyone's mind. Everyone nods and adds another insult.

That's easy to do. Much harder is to speak of the many crimes committed by the US, far worse ones.

Having said that, agreed with it, and always keeping it in mind, I do think that Ukraine - and any country really - has a right to security, in case something goes wrong with Russia. If I were Ukrainian, I would like to know my country will be ready for defense, in case anything arises, which might happen, given the current tensions.

Russia, far weaker than the US, is interested in expanding the power they have over each region, that's just a fact. That's what power centers do. But an invasion would be total lunacy, and I don't think Putin is a suicidal maniac. He's a war criminal and a authoritarian, but not suicidal.

What doesn't help, is having NATO go to war with Russia, there are several options to consider first, many of them. But power centers don't like to "look weak".

Each side needs a way to posture to each respective population to "look strong", regardless of how's at fault. I don't know how that's going to come about.

It's mad.

Reply to frank

I lean to StreetlightX's approach here in general, though I would express things in a different manner, perhaps emphasizing different things.

Yes, that's what the US keeps saying, that there will be consequences if Russia invades Ukraine. As I see it, they'd have to be crazier than the Taliban to do that, given who they're up against. I mean, it would be inconceivable to me that they would risk it.

It may happen anyway, but I'd be totally shocked.

I hope Germany can help tone down the situation.

It seems simple enough to me, but maybe I gloss over some details. Putin wishes to weaken American influence on former Soviet states because he believes them to be rightly under Russian control and he blames US policy on the destruction of the formerly great Soviet superpower. Any suggestion that the US will tighten its grip on the Ukraine, especially by protecting it under NATO, therefore would be further insult to Russia.

The more the US asserts control, the more Russia must assert control. Neither want war, but that's where the tug of war ends up without some diplomatic solution. The Ukraine has been staring down the barrel of the Russian gun long before today.

It doesn't help that Biden is facing a credibility crisis of his own and that his party is floundering, so he must find a way to look bold and maybe do something desperate.

Reply to Manuel

The US military is mainly interested in getting American citizens out of Ukraine. They don't want to a war with Russia.

Putin knows that, so he's exploring his options.

Yes, the US has a bloody history. You can use that as a reason to become completely blind to what's happening in the present. I don't understand why you would want to do that, though.

Reply to frank

Because the issue is framed as "Russia bad", "NATO good". That's not real life. I always think it's a good exercise to think "how would I think if I were Russian, or Ukrainian, etc.?"

That's not done nearly enough in Western media, imo.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, one of the conditions for its dissolution was that a promise was made to Russia that "NATO would not move an inch to the East". Well, now NATO is knocking on Ukraine's door.

Sure the US would want to get its citizens out.

But consider this, would the US want Mexico to become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? This is a very rough equivalent of NATO for China and Russia.

I think it's clear that the US wouldn't like it, for obvious reasons.

I think if diplomacy was considered more seriously, we needn't have gotten here.

Quoting Hanover

It doesn't help that Biden is facing a credibility crisis of his own and that his party is floundering, so he must find a way to look bold and maybe do something desperate.

I agree with your analysis but I’d really like to think that is not a driver.

Quoting Manuel

Because the issue is framed as "Russia bad", "NATO good". That's not real life. I always think it's a good exercise to think "how would I think if I were Russian, or Ukrainian, etc.?"

That's not done nearly enough in Western media, imo.

The Pentagon doesn't control the Western media. Beware of click bait

Quoting Manuel

But consider this, would the US want Mexico to become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? This is a very rough equivalent of NATO for China and Russia.

It's not equivalent because the US is a superpower. Russia is not.

Quoting Manuel

I think if diplomacy was considered more seriously, we needn't have gotten here.

I don't think so. Putin is not the victim here. If you need to believe he is for some reason, so be it.

Quoting frank

The Pentagon doesn't control the Western media. Beware of click bait

CNN and MSNBC are an extension of Pentagon PR. Have you ever seen them not wanting go to war? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, China Rand now Russia.

The one guy who spoke against the Iraq war was fired. Donahue, I believe.

Quoting frank

It's not equivalent because the US is a superpower. Russia is not.

Russia has nukes. If a war broke out, I don't see how there isn't an analogy here.

Actually - we can use a real life example, which serves as direct evidence here - the Cuban Missile Crisis highlights just how high the stakes go if a nearby country joins with an enemy.

Quoting frank

I don't think so. Putin is not the victim here. If you need to believe he is for some reason, so be it.

What I'm saying is that there's rarely innocence in International Relations when it comes to powerful states.

Quoting Manuel

, I do think that Ukraine - and any country really - has a right to security, in case something goes wrong with Russia. If I were Ukrainian, I would like to know my country will be ready for defense, in case anything arises, which might happen, given the current tensions.

Agreed - but the fearmongering coming from the Western media - and then transmitted by those who promote the NYT (lol) as a credible news source - is absolutely insane. It strikes me that this bluster of an aggressive war-footed Russia is designed precisely to distract from US agency in dictating how this plays out; distracting too from the fact that the main energies of war are coming precisely from American backed forces.

Reply to Manuel

You're pretty grossly misinformed. Pm me if you want discuss it further.

Reply to StreetlightX

That's what's likely happening, we'll find out soon enough I'd guess.

It's very dangerous. I mean, they have to know the consequences of fanning the flames, this isn't Afghanistan anymore.

Europe must step up for once and be assertive, if they care about living.

Reply to frank

Ah, ok.

Thanks frank. I'll pass for now, but if I find myself being confused, I'll shoot you a PM. :up:

Ukraine to US: STFU please you're going to get us all killed

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday accused the West of threatening the health of the nation's economy by causing "panic" over the threat of a Russian invasion. "We don't need this panic," Zelensky said during a press conference in Kyiv, according to BBC News. "There are signals even from respected leaders of states, they just say that tomorrow there will be war. This is panic — how much does it cost for our state?" Zelensky said the Western media's portrayal of the situation gives the impression of "tanks in the streets of Kyiv." He emphasized that part of Ukraine is already occupied by Russia, while contending that Russia poses a constant threat to his country that isn't necessarily higher at present.

https://news.yahoo.com/volodymyr-zelensky-accuses-west-causing-202633897.html

--

Handy rule of thumb: if you find yourself rooting for the US when it comes to *wink wink* defensive actions outside its borders, you are almost certainly objectively wrong and should rethink your life and never offer an opinion on anything ever again.

Quoting jamalrob

As far as I can see this is just your prejudice about Russian women.

Not so. Putin's ultra-conservative treatment of women in Russia has led to the emergence of that stereotype about them.

Reply to Manuel To be fair to frank, the news isn't run by the Pentagon. In fact, they bypass the Pentagon altogether and go straight to the arms manufacturers.



This is capitalism you know. We don't need Big Government to tell the press what to say. I remember coming across the fact that Alex Ward, one of the writers of that piece, also happened to be an ex-contractor at one of those firms, but I can't find the source anymore. All very cool and normal.

Yeah I wonder if Lockheed Martin built the missile that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

Reply to Wayfarer I don't play the 'pick my favorite mass murder' game, but you're welcome to choose the US.

Always nice to see liberals use the death of others as an intellectual plaything to justify warmongering too.

Quoting baker

Either this, or Russia has every right to put tanks on its borders with the Ukraine.

Actually, Russia can do whatever it wants with it's tanks inside it's own borders. But usually camping over 100 000 men on the border of another country is extremely rare and extremely suspicious. Just like if your neighbor would come and stand on his side next to your backyard armed with a shotgun staring at you and your house. Not typical behavior, but the neighbor can argue that he has the right to do that...

As if Ukraine would constitute a threat for Russia.

Quoting Wayfarer

Russia's covert online ops teams are also active in propogating false narratives about Western democracies through social media, and amplifying memes like the likely imminent collapse of American democracy and 'America the real aggressor' and so on, which people echo.

Here's a (rather reassuring) analysis in today's NYT by journo with long experience in covering Putin.

In 2014 the information campaign succeeded and went through well. To tell the truth, if Putin hadn't admitted that "the little green men" were Russian paratroops, but had insisted that they were "Crimean citizen volunteers who had taken up arms" as was the first Russian reply, some idiots would still insist on them not being Russian soldiers. I think this time people are more ready for this. But still, a lot of people will be fooled by total fabrications and outright lies.

Quoting baker

The US _wants_ to be on enemy terms with Russia, it accepts no other way of relating to it.

Well, what do you call then all those times that the US has wanted to "reset" the relations? Or how the US helped Boris Jeltsin when he asked for help (for instance in the elections). Just like with China, the US has had a lot of hopes for Russia, hope it would democratize and become more like the West, hopes that had then turned out to be a wishful thinking. And only then things turn sour.



There is consistency in the Russia view, but just compare the diffefence how Russia handled Central Asia (and the US involvement there). Compared to the brute bullying and open hostility against Ukraine and Georgia Russia had a different stance in Central Asia. It even had military bases in the same country with the US (in Tajikistan). Russia kept silent when the US built bases all around in Central Asia. It simply swept back and had it's "sphere of influence" when the US withdrew and now can say simply "No" to any US requests now. As I mentioned before, well before 2014 Putin was very popular in Ukraine. Not anymore. Russia could have prevented NATO far more successfully by simply NOT DOING ANYTHING AGGRESSIVE. The Western powers would have continued to weaken their militaries and NATO would have been focused on the War-on-Terror and other outside operations.

Of course then it wouldn't have Crimea. Which looks like to be what Putin is around for: to make Russia great again. Physically greater.

Quoting Wayfarer

Yeah I wonder if Lockheed Martin built the missile that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

It was actually shown to be a Russian BUK-M1 missile. They used an equivalent missile given by the Finnish armed forces (as Finland had the same system) and found that the blast marks and the shrapnel were similar. And even found parts of the missile matching the Russian missile. The missile is produced by Almaz-Antey in Russia. The Dutch did they work well.


(And accidents happen in wars...)

Quoting ssu

Russia could have prevented NATO far more successfully by simply NOT DOING ANYTHING AGGRESSIVE.

Russia is in an excellent position now to keep Ukraine out of NATO pretty much indefinitely. Everyone here (everyone else, not you) unthinkingly swallows Russian propaganda line about NATO on their doorstep. But as all sides knew even before this brouhaha started, Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO any time soon, if ever. For one thing, joining NATO is a consensus decision of all current NATO members, and whatever was said years ago, few want Ukraine there now. Just the other day the president of Croatia made this very clear (Croatia is a NATO member). All Russia has to do to practically guarantee that Ukraine doesn't join NATO is to maintain the status quo. A country that is continually being bled by its hybrid war with Russia, including a low-intensity armed conflict on a large part of its territory, has no chance of being admitted to NATO or to EU.

Reply to SophistiCat

Putin is pissed that NATO won't promise to never accept Ukraine. That's the horrific western aggression causing him to need to rip a new one for Ukraine.

Reply to StreetlightX

Correct.

The point I wanted to make is that they pretend to be "objective", but when it comes to war, they never cease to find one they don't like.

Quoting SophistiCat

But as all sides knew even before this brouhaha started, Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO any time soon, if ever.

Exactly. Ukrainian NATO membership was like the potential EU membership of Turkey. And if it wasn't for the invasion into Ukraine, the situation would be totally different. Yet Putin making demands NATO simply couldn't meet is what makes it so sinister. In fact, Russia's demands go against Article 10 of NATO, that goes by the following:

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Some even seriously thought in the 1990's (before the Kosovo war) about Russia joining NATO, which basically would make it an organization which would be for Article 1, not Article 5.

However smart Putin has otherwise been, the temptation to annex Crimea when Ukraine down on it's knees during the Maidan revolution was too great. This had enormous effects. You see, Georgia (and the Russo-Georgian war of 2008) would have been de facto tolerated. Just remember all the attempts to "reset" the relations. And if Russia uses force in Central Asia and sends troops to Kazakhstan or Tajikistan, it's a non-issue. Just like the US sending troops into Haiti. Good if people even notice it. Ukraine was different.

Quoting SophistiCat

A country that is continually being bled by its hybrid war with Russia, including a low-intensity armed conflict on a large part of its territory, has no chance of being admitted to NATO or to EU.

And for that reason both Sweden and Finland cannot write off the possibility, however small, that Russia could stoke a problem in either in the Swedish island of Gotland or the in the Finnish Åland Islands.

My real worry is if Putin sees the situation with Ukraine as "closing window of opportunity": that Ukraine is still beatable, but the further time will go Ukraine will strengthen militarily that would put military victory into serious doubt. Who knows what he is thinking. But then on the other hand, Russia attacking Ukraine doesn't make any sense logically.

Those troops might be positioned close to the border for a long time.

Reply to frank It's hard to see what it is that he is pissed about, what he is trying to gain, and why now. I think that Western diplomats aren't being coy when they say that they are baffled.

Is he enraged about military aid to Ukraine? Well, Russia has been arming, supplying and otherwise aiding and directing rebels inside Ukraine for years, and everyone knows it, and the Russians know that everyone knows - they aren't being particularly sneaky about it. One has to be a terminally oblivious Putinversteher to think that Russia is the wronged side here.

Is he just doing it to keep the West on its toes, as some say? But this is too dangerous and too costly an adventure for such a modest payout. And what would be his end-game? After all these hysterics and military escalation he can't just back down or settle on a reasonable compromise. He is spoiling for a fight. This is the scariest aspect of the whole thing.

Reply to SophistiCat

I'm guessing he's testing the American commitment to Ukraine and NATO. If he guesses that the US, post pandemic, has zero will to fight a war, he's right. So this is his opportunity.

This is a little article about his PR methods.

Quoting SophistiCat

Is he just doing it to keep the West on its toes, as some say? But this is too dangerous and too costly an adventure for such a modest payout. And what would be his end-game? After all these hysterics and military escalation he can't just back down or settle on a reasonable compromise. He is spoiling for a fight. This is the scariest aspect of the whole thing.

The idea that Putin put over 100 000 Russian soldiers on the border of Ukraine just to get attention and have a conversation with Biden doesn't make any sense. But who knows what Presidents-for-life think.

On the other hand, the Ukrainian government accused last November that Russia was plotting a coup attempt in Ukraine. And now also stockpiles of ammunition and field hospitals, the logistical tail needed for a major offensive, are deployed to the border. It's really an enormous effort just to get the attention of the US. It does also look like Putin has gone through many options.

Quoting frank

If he guesses that the US, post pandemic, has zero will to fight a war, he's right. So this is his opportunity.

The US is not going to fight, that is totally clear. After all, the war is already been fought (which many here seem to forget).

The US will only make sanctions that won't hurt itself and send weapons to Ukraine. The dying will be done by Russians and Ukrainians, if it comes to that.

Reply to ssu My reckoning is that Putin was preparing for an invasion but underestimated the reaction from the West. So he is now caught in a situation where he doesn’t want to launch the invasion but also doesn’t want to be seen to back down. That’s what this journalist is arguing.

The ~13,000-odd casualties of the already-existing Ukraine conflict ought not to be forgotten. My understanding is that this conflict is wholly and solely a consequence of Russia’s territorial incursions - would I be wrong in thinking that?

Where is @swstephe? That user mentioned collusion between the US and Russia. Perhaps this is all a big lampoon in order to keep all respective powers that be in power... they're all éminence grises!

Reply to The Opposite You have a long memory….

Quoting ssu

The dying will be done by Russians and Ukrainians, if it comes to that.

There's another pending death: that of the Ukrainian language. I wonder if Putin will try to finish that job.

Quoting Wayfarer

So he is now caught in a situation where he doesn’t want to launch the invasion but also doesn’t want to be seen to back down.

It wouldn't actually be so hard. A victorious speech in front of Russian soldiers and an Iskander-missile launch vehicle behind him and he can declare that NATO has backed down. Because, let's think about this, would Biden or especially the Germans have the stomach to focus on Ukraine when trainloads of soldiers and equipment is withdrawn from the border? Nope. They would sigh relief, pat themselves on the back of job well done and forget more quickly the issue than we would forget this thread.

Besides, let's remember that the first troop surge of forces happened early last year. A lot of the equipment has been parked on the border for a year. Now it's just an issue of organization, that you permanently rotate troops to the Ukrainian border and train them there. It's costly, but it would be possible. So in the end (and let's hope for it) all this can become a nothingburger.

Quoting Wayfarer

The ~13,000-odd casualties of the already-existing Ukraine conflict ought not to be forgotten. My understanding is that this conflict is wholly and solely a consequence of Russia’s territorial incursions - would I be wrong in thinking that?

Oh but they are forgotten. Or it's a statistic that doesn't bother people. Putin can use the deep and longstanding skepticism in the West about the Western (US) intentions and objectives. Hence as you said, the idea that Putin and Russia is the victim and NATO basically the aggressor here can be easily accepted. Let's say even I understood a lot more Russia's argumentation when the Kosovo War happened, when actually the US-Russian relationship first soured. But annexing Crimea, that is quite different.

Reply to frank That's on the to do -list at number 22 if Putin would annex Ukraine.

Quoting Manuel

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.

It would be nice if it was that simple. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is.

Prices may be rising in Russia, but they are also rising elsewhere, especially oil and gas prices. And this is what it really is about.

The fact is that Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas to Europe.

This means three things:

1. America would prefer Europe to buy American oil and gas.

2. Europe would prefer to control Russia’s oil and gas (or at least prices) by incorporating Russia into the European Union (EU).

3. If Russia loses a war with NATO and its regime is toppled, US and UK energy corporations will be the first to get their hands on Russian resources. And, possibly, China, if China remains neutral or sides with NATO.

The EU already tried to incorporate Russia in the 90’s. It didn’t succeed because of opposition from the Putin government. But the EU and NATO have been constantly expanding and the only logical conclusion to permanent expansion is the incorporation of Russia and the resulting control over Russian resources.

If we think about it, Ukraine has nothing to do with the North Atlantic or NATO, and Russian occupation or control of Ukraine poses absolutely no threat to the national security of America or Britain. So, why are these two countries leading the crusade against Russia, with some even calling for regime change?

Reply to Apollodorus

There are many factors, of which I don't know of, but you bring up which are important.

It's not unlike Venezuela in some respects. Why do major powers care about Venezuela so much and not Colombia? They rabble on and on about "communism", but it's about oil. No oil, no big power would care about Venezuela.

Quoting Apollodorus

If we think about it, Ukraine has nothing to do with the North Atlantic or NATO, and Russian occupation or control of Ukraine poses absolutely no threat to the national security of America or Britain. So, why are these two countries leading the crusade against Russia, with some even calling for regime change?

Exactly right. What's the big threat? For Ukraine, I can understand the fear. But to think that Russia is going to pose any kind of military threat to the West, is incoherent at best.

Quoting Apollodorus

If Russia loses a war with NATO and its regime is toppled, US and UK energy corporations will be the first to get their hands on Russian resources. And, possibly, China, if China remains neutral or sides with NATO.

Well, here is my fear. How long could a war last between Russia and NATO before nukes are used? It's not as if Russia can beat NATO and would stand for mass causality loss and national humiliation.

It will be interesting to see if China shifts its views, as the situation in Taiwan is pretty bad too. Not as bad as Ukraine right now, but not good.

Quoting ssu

It's costly, but it would be possible. So in the end (and let's hope for it) all this can become a nothingburger.

I suppose, as Russia has been insisting all along that it isn't preparing for an invasion, if there is no invasion it will be able to say 'See? Western hysteria all along. These maneuvers are just business as usual.'

Quoting Manuel

It's not unlike Venezuela in some respects. Why do major powers care about Venezuela so much and not Colombia? They rabble on and on about "communism", but it's about oil. No oil, no big power would care about Venezuela.

Absolutely correct. Venezuela, Iraq, and many other places ...

We know that the "Ukraine crisis" is not happening in a geopolitical vacuum, because there was US opposition to Russia building a gas pipeline to Europe already in the 80's under Reagan.

At the time there was US opposition because "Russia was communist", now it's because "Putin is a dictator". But China's Xi is a dictator, too (as well as a communist) so why not topple him first? Because China hasn't got oil and because US corporations have made large investments in China (which is why China has become a regional power and is now on the way to becoming a global power)!

So, communist or not, America objects all the same to Russia selling gas and oil to Europe because it's about billions of dollars that US energy corporations could pocket while at the same time putting up oil and gas prices at home. A nice double profit for the monopolist clique, in other words.

And we know (1) that NATO has been constantly expanding since its formation and (2) that the EU has been equally expanding and even tried to incorporate Russia. See the 1997 EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), that included financial, economic, and cultural cooperation as well as political dialogue, and expressly aimed to “provide an appropriate framework for the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe”.

If Putin hadn't come to power in 1999, Russia would now be part of the EU and do as ordered by Brussels, whilst its vast resources (oil, gas, aluminium, gold, etc.) would be exploited by the likes of American Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and others that are already in next-door Kazakhstan.

So Putin may be a kind of dictator, but I think it is fair to say that he is defending Russia's interests (as well as his own). In any case, it is wrong to say that it's got nothing to do with oil and gas.

As I pointed out on the other thread, what tends to happen is that certain interest groups in America or Britain decide to label someone “enemy”, after which they mobilize NATO followed by scores of smaller countries that depend on the bigger guys for financial assistance or military “protection”.

And that's how an international crisis leading to military intervention and "regime change" happens. But if people are fixated on Ukraine which is what the US-UK propaganda and disinformation is trying to achieve, then they are completely oblivious of what is really happening in the world and why .... :smile:

As regards Ukraine, its economic situation isn't exactly brilliant, so it is doubtful that it would be any worse under Russian control. What EU membership usually means for a country like Ukraine is that millions will emigrate to Germany, France, and other EU countries with stronger economies whilst its own economy will be taken over by multinational (mainly Anglo-American) corporations.

Quoting Apollodorus

If Putin hadn't come to power in 1999, Russia would now be part of the EU and do as ordered by Brussels, whilst its vast resources (oil, gas, aluminium, gold, etc.) would be exploited by the likes of American Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and others that are already in next-door Kazakhstan.

I agree. There really are human rights concerns, but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation. The notion that naive idealism is up against realpolitik here is overlooking this.

Quoting Apollodorus

So, communist or not, America objects all the same to Russia selling gas and oil to Europe because it's about billions of dollars that US energy corporations could pocket while at the same time putting up oil and gas prices at home. A nice double profit for the monopolist clique, in other words.

Absolutely. Though there's the extra factor of "nationalistic pride", that's just present in all confrontations between power states. It's natural, I suppose, but it's very dangerous. Sure, US moneyed interests want a bigger stake of the profits, but there's also the "you do what we say" element. Again, applies to all powerful states, in varying degrees.

Quoting Apollodorus

So Putin may be a kind of dictator, but I think it is fair to say that he is defending Russia's interests (as well as his own). In any case, it is wrong to say that it's got nothing to do with oil and gas.

As I pointed out on the other thread, what tends to happen is that certain interest groups in America or Britain decide to label someone “enemy”, after which they mobilize NATO followed by scores of smaller countries that depend on the bigger guys for financial assistance or military “protection”.

That's the way to view conflicts, I think. From the perspective of each states' elite interests. That's what drives foreign policy.

And what's ironic or strange or whatever word you want to use, is that, as soon as one enemy is dealt with or ignored, a new one pops up. Remember Obama making fun of Romney in 2012 for saying that he was focusing too much on Russia and was "living in the Cold War era". How quickly did those comments sour.

Quoting Apollodorus

As regards Ukraine, its economic situation isn't exactly brilliant, so it is doubtful that it would be any worse under Russian control. What EU membership usually means for a country like Ukraine is that millions will emigrate to Germany, France, and other EU countries with stronger economies whilst its own economy will be taken over by multinational (mainly Anglo-American) corporations.

Yeah, they have it very tough. It's not as if the EU is paradise, as an institution. Better than Russia, sure, but it's far from being ideal.

It's hard to say what Ukraine should do, in terms of how to compromise and how to have some element of autonomy, which they should have. Not an enviable position to be in.

Quoting Apollodorus

America objects all the same to Russia selling gas and oil to Europe because it's about billions of dollars

Russia has plenty of oil and gas to sell to anyone who pays. Isn't the US objection really about the many billions of euros that are flowing back up the pipe to arm Russia rather than about the already low US oil and gas prices?

Quoting Apollodorus

certain interest groups in America or Britain

You need to name those 'certain interests' if you want to be taken seriously. The oil companies are owned by a million stock holders

Quoting magritte

You need to name those 'certain interests' if you want to be taken seriously. The oil companies are owned by a million stock holders

So, what exactly are you suggesting?

Are you seriously arguing that if (a) a corporation has "a million stockholders" (which would need to be established in the first instance) then (b) it has neither interests nor influence on foreign or domestic policy?

The fact is that both Atlanticism and NATO have represented oil (and banking) interests from the start.

Atlanticism was a joint project of America, Canada, and England, designed to represent oil interests. The Atlanticist Movement was headed by Paul Cravath who was an employee of Standard Oil.

The creation of NATO was suggested at the 1945 UN Conference on International Organization in San Francisco by Nelson Rockefeller who together with other Rockefeller men was advising Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.

So let’s not pretend that oil interests have no influence on US foreign policy or that they would have nothing to gain from selling oil and gas to Europe at higher prices.

In fact, they are at it already:

U.S. LNG Cargoes Flock To Europe Amid Record-High Gas Prices

Quoting Manuel

That's the way to view conflicts, I think. From the perspective of each states' elite interests. That's what drives foreign policy.

Exactly. And the states that are most powerful (economically and militarily or both) dominate international relations either on their own or with the assistance of their satellites, as the case may be in a given situation.

US, UK, OZ, NZ, and CANADA is one such international group that only needs to put pressure on Germany and other European puppets to get a "majority" in all the key international organizations and dictate world policy. And that's called "freedom and democracy" ..... :grin:

I think Ukraine should stay out of the EU and NATO as by joining them not only it puts itself in the anti-Russian camp but it loses its own freedom in the process. The EU is relatively easy to join but almost impossible to leave as shown by the case of Britain. It would be much more difficult for countries that are economically weaker like Ukraine. They would have to turn to China or other countries with a strong economy and sooner or later lose their independence anyway.

Quoting Apollodorus

As regards Ukraine, its economic situation isn't exactly brilliant, so it is doubtful that it would be any worse under Russian control. - I think Ukraine should stay out of the EU and NATO as by joining them not only it puts itself in the anti-Russian camp but it loses its own freedom in the process.

One can be cynical, but I just am amazed how in their criticism of the US some people are outright contemptuous and how much they show disdain and disregard for others when it comes to things like their rights and their hopes of economic prosperity. The Ukrainians, or those protesting Belarussians (that are forgotten now) obviously could see how joining the EU has made the Baltic States and Eastern Europe far more prosperous. From the name Euromaidan this should be obvious. Their demands for democracy weren't some CIA covert operation and in Ukraine we have seen how the Ukrainians have voted in new political parties in elections hoping for improvement. But for some reason, for them, and of course for the Russians, the firm grip of a president for life seems to be the "rational", obvious and acceptable choice. Contrary to being part of the West, which would be so bad.

At least I remember that @the Opposite here has been quite consistent in keeping up the discussion about Hong Kong protests or the protests in Belarus earlier. I would suppose that kind of thinking would prevail in a Philosophy Forum, not acceptance and understanding of the views of a President-for-life who leads a kleptocracy made up of KGB spooks and spies.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Wasn't NATO more like a response to the second world war? So it's purpose is to deter any rogue state from becoming too aggressive. Therefore it has no particular enemy, as its mandate is to prevent the arising of an enemy. So if there becomes a particular enemy it has failed in its mandate.

It hasn't failed in its mandate. Do note what NATO's first and second Article are about:

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Now you might ask, what's the point if we have such organizations as OSCE? Well, do notice that NATO puts the militaries to work together. They train together, they make their plans together, they simply know each other. That's a huge thing when you consider how hostile nations can be in the end to each other. For example, with the case of Greece and Turkey it's obvious that NATO membership has refrained these two countries from going to war. Once you have such alliance, the countries militaries won't be making war plans for hypothetical wars between them, just like the US had warplans to fight the United Kingdom after WW1 (War Plan Red).

It really should be hammered in that NATO is the security policy option for West European countries. Just to look at NATO as a tool of the US isn't the total picture. It's not similar to the Warsaw Pact: NATO isn't going into it's own member states to crush popular uprisings.

In the West, NATO enlargement wasn't done because of Russia. Russia was...past, an old story. People selectively forget how NATO was looking for a new mission, that article 5 wasn't so important and how there was talk about Russia joining NATO. The above articles (1 and 2) were really thought to be the important thing for the countries emerging from behind the Iron Curtain not to go the path Armenia and Azerbaijan have gone (actually even under the last moments of the Soviet Union). At least until now, NATO members haven't gone to war with each other.

Article 5 only came important after the annexation of Crimea. But then, you might believe Vladimir Putin, who tells a different story.

Reply to Wayfarer @swstephe last online 2 hours ago after a 5 year absence... Spooky.

Reply to The Opposite :yikes:

Reply to ssu You’re beacon of sanity in a very confused world.

Lol I'm sure Ukraine can't wait to be subjected to more IMF 'structual adjustment' and austerity and have whatever democracy they do have utterly demolished and controlled by a bunch of neolib bureaucrats in Brussels. Can't wait to make Ukraine another factory for my shoes as they utterly destroy workers rights so they can join enlightened Europeans.

Western liberals like to harp on about 'respecting sovereignty', right before they economically devestate a country to turn them into a financial fiefdom for transnational corporations. But Russia Bad and Very Scary oooooo. Ukraine's economy is even worse than the Greeks, who have been collectively shat on by "the West" in a way that a Russian invasion couldn't even match if they tried. But I'm sure they will treat Ukraine much better because they are the Good Guys!

Quoting StreetlightX

Lol I'm sure Ukraine can't wait to be subjected to more IMF 'structual adjustment' and austerity and have whatever democracy they do have utterly demolished and controlled by a bunch of neolib bureaucrats in Brussels. Can't wait to make Ukraine another factory for my shoes as they utterly destroy workers rights so they can join enlightened Europeans.

Well, Ukraine indeed has better worker rights than in the US (or in Australia) according to the Labour rights Index, yet the wages are quite low. EU countries close to Ukraine have higher minimum wages than in Ukraine (220 USD per month) and the average salary there is a bit over 800 dollars. In Poland average salary is 1800 dollars (in the US close to 6000).

Yet do notice the absence of any enthusiasm from the EU for Ukraine to join the union. Or any talk about it. Even the whole 2014 mess was about only a trade deal between EU and Ukraine.

And do notice that Turkey has SINCE 1987 applied to join the EU and still is viewed as a candidate country even if this is quite remote now and time has truly passed. Other candidate countries are Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Potential candidates are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo (Iceland has requested not to be regarded as a candidate country, so I guess it has opted to join the exclusive club of European non-EU countries).

In fact, especially after 2014, but even before that Ukraine not joining NATO could have been avoided as all NATO members have together agree on the membership. Some members could have simply dragged their feet, just like with Turkey's EU bid, and Putin would have been a respected leader in European eyes. But that's not an option anymore.

Quoting ssu

It hasn't failed in its mandate. Do note what NATO's first and second Article are about:

I agree with what you are saying. My post was directed at Manuel who implied that Russia was the "enemy", and NATO was formed for the purpose of containing this enemy. Notice in the articles you've quoted. the mandate is international "peace", and I said if there becomes a particular "enemy" their mandate has failed.

What is important is the meaning of "enemy". Any rhetoric which refers to a particular entity as "the enemy" implies hostility toward that entity. And open hostility toward another state is not consistent with international peace.

Economic sanctions are a strategic tool developed under this mandate of "peace". They are applied without declaring war, and without declaring an enemy. They seem to be meant like a sort of punishment, like a parent would punish a child, banished to their room, grounded, no dessert. You punish your child without thinking of them as the enemy. But when you are on the receiving end of the punishment, you may interpret the punishment as a hostile act, and apprehend the inflictor as the enemy. With a harsh punishment the child might wish the parent dead, but at the same time, the deeper relationship of dependency is usually recognized. So in the application of such sanctions the assumed "peace" is not necessarily two-way, it may only be from the perspective of the one side. That this is just an illusion of peace has been demonstrated in the past by acts of guerilla warfare and terrorism.

Quoting ssu

One can be cynical, but I just am amazed how in their criticism of the US some people are outright contemptuous and how much they show disdain and disregard for others when it comes to things like their rights and their hopes of economic prosperity.

Well, your pro-EU and anti-Russia stance is well-known, which isn't in the least surprising coming from someone from Finland, a country that depends on EU subsidies and loans, and that thinks that it is about to be swallowed up by the "bad Russian ogre".

Strangely, you seem to systematically ignore the role played by economic interests. However, the reality is that you can't separate economy from politics, especially in America where economic interests have long dominated foreign policy. Leading industries like oil and defense have always had and continue to have influence on US foreign policy.

I can understand your concern for Ukrainians, even though it doesn't seem to extend to other European nations including Russia, but I think your analysis would be more credible if you didn't deliberately leave some key factors out of the equation ....

Reply to Apollodorus

There have been some instances in which the EU has managed to stop the US doing its most possible damage, I'm thinking of the time the UK refused to join the US in bombing Syria, that stopped a large(er) scale operation from developing.

Not that the US and, in this case, even more Russia, didn't do its fair share of atrocities in Syria, but it could have been even worse, which is kind of hard to say given how bad Syria is now.

But I think there should be at least some attempts by a few EU countries to stop this inertia, something, is better than nothing, obviously.

But signs aren't good.

Quoting Manuel

But I think there should be at least some attempts by a few EU countries to stop this inertia,

Yea, like what? :rofl:

Reply to frank

Refusing to cooperate by not sending more weapons, as Germany has done. Asking for more diplomacy instead of causing tensions to rise by repeatedly saying an invasion is imminent.

Is wanting to stop escalations to a potential nuclear catastrophe funny somehow?

I'm missing in on the joke.

Quoting Manuel

Refusing to cooperate by not sending more weapons

That's not going to accomplish a whole lot.

Quoting Manuel

Is wanting to stop escalations to a potential nuclear catastrophe funny somehow?

If that's where we are, there's not a damn thing Europe can do about it.

If you weren't so hell bent on seeing the world through the lens of the Cuban missile crisis, you might notice the plethora of signs that the USA is in decline. Putin noticed it. That's why he's preparing to invade Ukraine.

smh

Quoting frank

If you weren't so hell bent on seeing the world through the lens of the Cuban missile crisis, you might notice the plethora of signs that the USA is in decline. Putin noticed it. That's why he's preparing to invade Ukraine.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive

Reply to Manuel Yea?

Quoting ssu

Well, Ukraine indeed has better worker rights than in the US (or in Australia) according to the Labour rights Index, yet the wages are quite low.

Well yes, because they haven't been neoliberalized to shit by the bloodsucking Western Powers. And yes of course no one wants Ukraine and Turkey in the EU. They are economic basket cases, with the latter being run by an increasingly religious nutjob who fancies himself the next Sultan while blackmailing Europe over immigrants. As they Ukraine, they will no doubt dangle the distant prospect of membership to bash their economy into neoliberal submission in the meantime.

Reply to frank

That's comparing the US military to all the other ones in the world. Has the budget for the Pentagon gone down?

What does China emerging as the bigger market have to do with Russia's plan's with Ukraine? Russia's power has vastly diminished since the USSR.

I don't know how this has anything to do with the crisis in Ukraine.

Quoting Apollodorus

Finland, a country that depends on EU subsidies and loans

Finland pays roughly over 700 million euros more to the EU that what it gets back in subsidies and other payments. Finland, just like Sweden, Denmark or Germany, has been a net contributor (not big, but still a net contributor) to the union during it's time in the union.

Quoting Apollodorus

Strangely, you seem to systematically ignore the role played by economic interests.

Strangely you seem to think that no other reasons are in play especially in security policy, but everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be.

Quoting Apollodorus

However, the reality is that you can't separate economy from politics, especially in America where economic interests have long dominated foreign policy. Leading industries like oil and defense have always had and continue to have influence on US foreign policy.

And how about taken into considerations the foreign policies of European countries as we are talking about European countries? The US is just one player here, not the only player. Russia is a country where the oil industry is a servant of the state.

Quoting Apollodorus

I can understand your concern for Ukrainians, even though it doesn't seem to extend to other European nations including Russia

Do you think all Russians are happy with having a President for life? In truth, Russian are even more skeptical about their government than Americans are of theirs.

Quoting Apollodorus

I think your analysis would be more credible if you didn't deliberately leave some key factors out of the equation ....

That's why we have these debates on this Forum, don't we?

Quoting Manuel

That's comparing the US military to all the other ones in the world. Has the budget for the Pentagon gone down?

So you're reading that as a sign of American aggression in the present, instead if the result of global conditions throughout the 20th Century, which is what it really is.

Quoting Manuel

What does China emerging as the bigger market have to do with Russia's plan's with Ukraine? Russia's power has vastly diminished since the USSR.

I don't know how this has anything to do with the crisis in Ukraine.

You're not making much sense to me at this point.

Quoting frank

So you're reading that as a sign of American aggression in the present, instead if the result of global conditions throughout the 20th Century, which is what it really is.

It's the condition of the US as of last year. If you can show me massive cuts in military spending, then you can say that US power is going down, literally.

If they maintain bases all over the world, there isn't a measurable decrease in power.

Not to mention the US is essentially the driver of Japanese and South Korean foreign policy and the vast majority of Western Europe too, to this day.

Quoting frank

You're not making much sense to me at this point.

You're saying that the reason Russia wants to invade Ukraine is because the US is in decline. I don't see the evidence for this claim.

The biggest factor I've seen, is that Ukraine want to join NATO. Which renders a hostile military force at the borders of Russia.

What should they say "yes thank you?"

Quoting ssu

Strangely you seem to think that no other reasons are in play especially in security policy, but everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be.

Well, how about Russia's security when it is being surrounded by Nelson Rockefeller's NATO?

And I never said “everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be”. That’s your own spin that you keep putting on it.

The fact is that oil already stands at a seven-year high of more than $90 a barrel and top banks and oil companies are saying it may soon pass $100.

Obviously, someone is making an awful lot of money from the crisis and it is preposterous to try to deny it.

We also need to remember that British prime minister Boris Johnson is fighting for his political survival after being stabbed in the back by his own party and attacked by the opposition, so the crisis comes in handy. He didn’t order the intelligence services to claim that “Russia poses a threat to Europe and Britain” for nothing. And I bet Biden wouldn’t mind presenting himself as the “savior of America” after not doing much about China and the US economy not doing so well, etc., etc.

Plus don’t forget the many billions of $'s the West could seize if it finds a convenient pretext to freeze Russian assets in London and elsewhere.

So, the situation is far more complex than you are alleging, and not everything can be “Russia’s fault”.

Quoting Manuel

If they maintain bases all over the world, there isn't a measurable decrease in power.

So post WW2, the British had a global military presence, just like they had for the preceding century, but they were in decline. A global presence does not indicate aggression.

The US is still a great power, but it's in decline because it has neither the will nor the means to maintain its position.

The US has been the world's peace keeper since WW2. As it declines, there will be turmoil.

That's a pretty standard political analysis. I'm kind of confused that you don't understand it.

Quoting frank

I agree. There really are human rights concerns, but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation. The notion that naive idealism is up against realpolitik here is overlooking this.

Correct. It's a well-known fact (or ought to be) that Western, especially Anglo-American, interests have always been after Russia's resources. It was England's and America's "liberal" capitalist monopolists who supported a socialist revolution in Russia so that they could bring the whole country under their economic and financial control.

See Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by A. Sutton

The problem with the average American is (a) that he or she has zero understanding or knowledge of international relations and (b) they don’t care about other countries as long as US foreign policy serves the perceived interests of America - which are usually the interests of the political and economic establishment rather than of the American people.

The result is that America has screwed up much of the world in the same way former empires like Spain, France, and England did that in the past. And the same applies to the EU which sees itself as a reconstructed Roman Empire controlled by financial interests and their political collaborators.

Quoting frank

A global presence does not indicate aggression.

You are right.

Britain was destroyed in WWII and the last solo act they tried at Suez in 56', was sternly rebuked by Eisenhower, who was stuck with the war in Korea. Since then, they essentially follow Washington's orders, with very marginal exceptions.

Quoting frank

The US has been the world's peace keeper since WW2. As it declines, there will be turmoil.

That's the way it's framed.

It was good for parts of Western Europe (though there were problems here, often glossed over), Australia and Japan.

Latin America, Africa, The Middle East and South East Asia might beg to differ.

I think the US has serious internal troubles it could fix first, instead of getting into everyone's business, especially in this day and age.

I think an alliance with Europe makes sense for certain circumstances. As would an alliance with any other country make sense for other circumstances.

Risking a nuclear war to make a statement is insane to me.

Quoting Apollodorus

If we think about it, Ukraine has nothing to do with the North Atlantic or NATO, and Russian occupation or control of Ukraine poses absolutely no threat to the national security of America or Britain.

Didn't Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security assurances?

Quoting Apollodorus

Correct. It's a well-known fact (or ought to be) that Western, especially Anglo-American, interests have always been after Russia's resources.

The US doesn't need Russia's resources.

Quoting Apollodorus

It was England's and America's "liberal" capitalist monopolists who supported a socialist revolution in Russia so that they could bring the whole country under their economic and financial control.

No. The British and French established banks and industry in Russia prior to revolution. The same British and French were preoccupied with a world war when the shit hit the fan. After the revolution, western Europe had no Influence over events in Russia.

Quoting Apollodorus

The problem with the average American is (a) that he or she has zero understanding or knowledge of international relations and (b) they don’t care about other countries as long as US foreign policy serves the perceived interests of America - which are usually the interests of the political and economic establishment rather than of the American people.

The problem with the average non-American is that they take their anti-American angst as a sign of insight, when it's really their own psychic shit projected out like a fucking global comic book. All of you idiots do it.

Quoting frank

The US doesn't need Russia's resources.

It isn't a matter of needing them as a nation. It's a matter of some groups who have a lot, wanting more.

Quoting frank

The British and French established banks and industry in Russia prior to revolution. The same British and French were preoccupied with a world war when the shit hit the fan. After the revolution, western Europe had no Influence over events in Russia.

Not quite. The British and the French had set their sights on Russia long before the revolution of 1917. Don't forget the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 in which the French, British and Americans supplied Japan with war loans, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902 before that, etc., etc.

See:

R Smethurst, Takahashi Korekiyo, the Rothschilds and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1907 - Rothschild Archive

G D Best, Financing a Foreign War: Jacob H. Schiff and Japan, 1904–05, American Jewish Historical Quarterly Vol. 61, No. 4 (JUNE, 1972) - JSTOR

Reply to Apollodorus But you said the Russian revolution was supported by American and British capitalists. Why do you think that?

Quoting frank

But you said the Russian revolution was supported by American and British capitalists. Why do you think that?

It isn't about what I think as I wasn't there. It's about what historians say. :smile:

There was a Western effort to contain Russia and, if possible, to overthrow the czars. Western capitalists held mining, oil, and other interests in Russia and they wanted more as that's what monopolistic capitalists do.

They supported Kerensky's socialist revolution of February/March 1917 but the communists (Bolsheviks) under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin staged a coup in October/November and took over.

The liberal capitalists wanted the March revolution, not the October one. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance against Russia, the Russo-Japanese War, the French, British, and American loans to Russia's rival Japan, etc., all paved the way for Kerensky to launch his revolution.

Quoting Apollodorus

It isn't about what I think as I wasn't there. It's about what historians say. :smile:

I've read a couple of histories of the Russian revolution. One British, one Trotsky's.

Quoting Apollodorus

They supported Kerensky's socialist revolution of February/March 1917 but the communists (Bolsheviks) under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin staged a coup in October/November and took over.

The initial revolution was just social breakdown in St Petersburg. There were a number of reasons for it. Western capitalists did not instigate it and were never in control of what happening.

Quoting frank

The initial revolution was just social breakdown in St Petersburg. There were a number of reasons for it. Western capitalists did not instigate it and were never in control of what happening.

Well, historians call it "February/March Revolution" not "just social breakdown". Kerensky's party called itself "Socialist Revolutionary" and there was an earlier revolution in 1905 after Russia lost the war with
Japan.

1905 Russian Revolution - Wikipedia

No one says Western capitalists were in control. But they created the conditions that facilitated the February revolution, they financed anti-czarist propaganda in Russia, they provided Kerensky with loans, etc.

You stated the reasons yourself:

Quoting frank

but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation.

Quoting Apollodorus

Well, historians call it "February/March Revolution" not "just social breakdown".

:grin:

It started as a general strike in honor of International Women's Day. The women goaded the men into joining them. St Petersburg workers went on strike pretty frequently. This one just never ended. There was no functional government after that. The men who stepped forward to lead were not sure how to do it.

Lenin arrived with a plan. That's the Russian Revolution in a nutshell.


Quoting Apollodorus

No one says Western capitalists were in control. But they created the conditions that facilitated the February revolution, they financed anti-czarist propaganda in Russia, they provided Kerensky with loans, etc.

They created the factories in St Petersburg. So yes, there couldn't have been a general strike without the British and the French (I don't think there were any Americans there). There wouldn't have been any factories.

Quoting Apollodorus

You stated the reasons yourself:

but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation.

Neoliberalism is post WW2. And there couldn't be any exploitation of Russia until after 1987.

Would you stop squashing the 20th century into a surrealist graphic novel dammit?

Reply to frank

Well, if you want to rewrite history, feel free to do so! :smile:

In the meantime, the events of February/March 1917 are referred to in history books and in the mainstream media as "February/March Revolution" (depending on the calendar used):

The October Revolution along with the February Revolution comprised the Russian Revolution of 1917, and led to the creation of the world’s first socialist state and the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922.

- March 8, 1917 | Russia’s February Revolution Begins in St. Petersburg - New York Times

Quoting frank

Neoliberalism is post WW2. And there couldn't be any explanation of Russia until after 1987.

There is no need for neoliberalism to have existed in 1917 as there was liberalism at the time to do the job. The motives were the same: to open up Russia to Western exploitation. The czar was opposed to this and that's why he had to go ....

Quoting frank

Neoliberalism is post WW2. And there couldn't be any explanation of Russia until after 1987.

There is no need for neoliberalism to have existed in 1917 as there was liberalism at the time to do the job. The motives were the same: to open up Russia to Western exploitation. The czar was opposed to this and that's why he had to go ....

Quoting Apollodorus

The motives were the same: to open up Russia to Western exploitation. The czar was opposed to this and that's why he had to go ....

This is exactly wrong. Nicholas II was in favor of the economic "modernization" that was allowing the British and French to exploit Russia.

Reply to frank

These guys were capitalist monopolists but they were liberals. Britain was run by the Liberal Party (which was the party of the capitalist elite) either on its own or in coalition with the Conservatives (the party of the aristocracy). Russian society was seen by both as one of the most backward on the planet. The Western liberals wanted economic and social reforms that went far beyond what the czar was prepared or able to accept.

The American and British press which was controlled by the liberal capitalists was anti-Russian. There were millions of Russian emigres in New York and London calling for revolution and inciting the locals. There were revolutionary organizations like the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom with branches in London and New York, sponsored by liberal capitalists like Schiff, agitating for revolution, etc., etc.

Society of Friends of Russian Freedom - Wikipedia

The anti-czarist movement on both sides of the Atlantic was massive. Public opinion alone put pressure on liberal capitalist leaders to do something.

Quoting Apollodorus

The Western liberals wanted economic and social reforms that went far beyond what the czar was prepared or able to accept.

What's your source for this?

Reply to frank

Russia was an absolute monarchy up to the Revolution of 1905, after which a semi-constitutional government was introduced that was merely nominal. The czar still had absolute power. The British and American liberal capitalists saw this as a form of dictatorship compared with their own forms of government.

Obviously, had the czar wanted to introduce reforms, he would have done so of his own accord, and there would have been no revolutions.

Likewise, had British and American liberal capitalists been happy with the czar, they wouldn't have supported revolutionary movements in Russia.

Quoting Apollodorus

Likewise, had British and American liberal capitalists been happy with the czar, they wouldn't have supported revolutionary movements in Russia.

:lol: It would make an interesting novel, but you'd need to drop the American involvement. America was nobody in the 1910s. It was the British and the French.

Reply to frank

Well, America financed Britain's war effort (via J P Morgan) which in turn financed France and other allies.

In August 1914, J.P. Morgan & Co. partner Henry Davison (1867-1922) travelled to London to arrange a deal with the Bank of England that made his bank the official sponsor of all credits to the British government floated on American markets. J.P. Morgan & Co. underwrote $1.5 billion in war loans to London over the course of the war. As an investment bank, Morgan was not the largest American bank, but it was the most well-connected. It had already floated credit for London once before, during the Boer War in 1900. In the fall of 1914, the US government initially barred Morgan from floating French government loans in New York, forcing Paris to look to the City of London for credits instead. However, by the spring of 1915, France too was funding itself on Wall Street. Once Russia also picked Morgan as the intermediary for its borrowings on the American market, the House of Morgan had become the credit-broker to the entire Entente. For its services to the alliance it obtained an 8.3 percent commission, which netted it over $200 million in profits.

- War Finance - International Encyclopedia of the First World War

America may have been "nobody" because it had no world empire but it had the cash to fund the war. So, it was a "nobody" without whom there would have been no war! :grin:

Reply to Apollodorus There's a popular conspiracy theory in Russia, especially prevalent among Putin supporters and often promoted by the state media, that sees the 1917 revolutions, especially the October revolution, as part of a foreign plot. You seem to be saying something similar. The "Society of Friends of Russian Freedom" that you linked to seemed to be a group of liberals and social reformers, which perhaps did not represent a significant portion of the Western elites.

The primary foreign involvement on the side of the Bolsheviks was German, but it was minimal. Germany funded some of the revolutionaries because it was at war with Russia, but they had no influence or control over the movement.

And obviously, once the Civil War really got going, Western capitalist states intervened on the side of the Whites: Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

EDIT: I just noticed that in another post you made a distinction between February and October, stating that Western capitalists supported the former but not the latter. Fair enough, my mistake.

Quoting Apollodorus

Well, how about Russia's security when it is being surrounded by Nelson Rockefeller's NATO?

Well, having the biggest nuclear arsenal in the World should deter that.

Quoting Apollodorus

And I never said “everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be”. That’s your own spin that you keep putting on it.

But yet you do talk about Rockefeller's NATO. :smile:

Quoting Apollodorus

The fact is that oil already stands at a seven-year high of more than $90 a barrel and top banks and oil companies are saying it may soon pass $100.

Obviously, someone is making an awful lot of money from the crisis and it is preposterous to try to deny it.

And it's preposterous to think that the oil price is what it is because of the Ukraine crisis. There's many other things at play here. And just a while ago the future oil price was negative. In fact, the money is made from those fluctuations.

Quoting Apollodorus

So, the situation is far more complex than you are alleging, and not everything can be “Russia’s fault”.

If the West is just hyping a Russian attack, then there is a perfect answer to this: not to do anything. That's how the issue then goes away.

And it's totally possible, perhaps the likeliest outcome of this. The issue just is forgotten, news things capture the focus of the media and life goes on as it has.

I don't think Putin is going to be invading Ukraine, this is a geopolitical chess move, many reasonable theories have been circulated but nobody can know for sure. Ukraine seems like a political hostage, the message is clear that Ukraine will not be allowed to join EU or NATO and maybe Putin will try some repeat of Crimea but there will not be a full-scale invasion. The realism of Putin's demands seem irrelevant tbh, it doesn't matter if the West agrees to block Ukraine from joining NATO, the West isn't going to let Ukraine join NATO when Russia is acting this way. Whether Putin actually cares about any of that, or whether this is something to do with his domestic situation or his legacy, I dunno but does it really matter if the West says no to Russia's demands? Putin may just be making it obvious to his neighbours that these ambitions of EU or NATO membership will be blocked and "get used to it".

Putin wants Western reaction, put on a big show, everything is about Putin, Ukraine knows its place and now back to normal.

There is no greater threat to Russia as a state and Putin as a leader than an actual, large-scale invasion and occupation of Ukraine. The war with Afghanistan led to the demise of the USSR, Ukraine would be worse, Russian-speaking Ukrainians are not yearning to join mother Russia, there would be insurgency and terrorism, it is not a worthwhile risk to take. No way Putin tries it.

Quoting jamalrob

I just noticed that in another post you made a distinction between February and October, stating that Western capitalists supported the former but not the latter.

Correct. IMO it is a very important distinction to make which, unfortunately, a lot of people fail to do.

Anyway, organizations like the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom (SFRF) did not necessarily represent Western elites. They may have simply wanted to free Russia from the czars, which was the main thing.

However, first, this shows that there was an anti-czarist movement in London and New York, where many Russian emigres had settled (and where organizations like SFRF were headquartered).

Second, it shows that anti-czarist organizations existed, which Anglo-American elites could use to influence events in Russia and facilitate the overthrow of the regime, thus serving a double purpose: (1) enforcing economic and social change that was demanded not only by Russian emigres but by the general public in England and America, and (2) opening up Russia to unlimited development by Anglo-American capitalists.

Socialism was becoming increasingly popular in the West and anti-czarist agitation in London and New York also threatened to become a destabilizing factor domestically. Just think of thousands of foreign extremists, with links to armed groups, agitating in your own country at a time when police forces were neither particularly efficient nor very numerous. After all, the British already had India and Ireland on their plate. So it does make sense that Anglo-American elites wanted to solve the Russian problem sooner rather than later.

It is obvious that Britain and America were happy with Kerensky as they provided him with loans after the February revolution. In fact, there was no other alternative to czarism as no large or organized centrist opposition existed. So this point ought to be beyond dispute.

The confusion arises from the November revolution led by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, which was backed by Germany in an attempt to take Russia out of the war.

But the confusion is easily dispelled if we consider that there were two rival revolutionary factions in Russia: (1) the more moderate Socialist Revolutionaries led by Kerensky and (2) the radical Social Democrats (later renamed “communists”) led by Lenin and his clique.

The first group was supported by the Allies, the second was supported by Germany. Lenin did take Russia out of the war as his German backers wanted, but America joined the war instead, and that sealed Germany’s fate.

In any case, historical evidence suggests that there was some foreign involvement in bringing about the two revolutions. This does NOT mean that Western powers “controlled” anything. Only that they supported the groups that played a key role in the overthrow of the czars.

In fact, the events of February and November 1917 were not even proper revolutions like those of, say, France or America. In the first place, because the vast majority of the population was not interested in revolution and did not participate in the events. And second, because the February event was more like a breakdown in administration and the November one was more like a coup.

But it is wrong to say that foreign powers had no preference for this or the other revolutionary group or that they were not involved, for example, by providing financial assistance.

The West intervened on the side of the counterrevolution only after Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin had seized power and it had become clear that things were not working out in favor of the liberal elites in the West.

However, Lenin agreed to a compromise by introducing state capitalism (in collaboration with Western industrialists) as the means of achieving socialism, which rendered Western intervention unnecessary. Some foreigners did lose their investments in Russia, but on the whole, the situation was not entirely unfavorable to leading Western capitalists like Ford Motors.

Unfortunately, Lenin died (possibly after being poisoned) in 1924 and Stalin who was basically a gangster and train-robber became Russia’s sole dictator.

Quoting Apollodorus

In any case, historical evidence suggests that there was some foreign involvement in bringing about the two revolutions. This does NOT mean that Western powers “controlled” anything. Only that they supported the groups that played a key role in the overthrow of the czars.

This is quite reasonable, although I don't think that foreign involvement was decisive in bringing about the events. I think it would have happened anyway, under the political and social circumstances.

Otherwise, I would probably dispute your characterization of the revolutions, but I don't want to get into it here. Basically I don't have any huge disagreement with the main thrust of your post. Originally, I thought I was seeing merely the influence of Russian state propaganda about the revolution as foreign plot, but maybe your view is more subtle.

Quoting Apollodorus

In fact, the events of February and November 1917

I'm being a bit pedantic here, but ... if you're going to apply the Gregorian calendar to the October revolution, then to be consistent you should call the earlier one the March revolution.

Quoting ssu

But yet you do talk about Rockefeller's NATO

Why would I not talk about "Rockefeller's NATO" when the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (RIO Pact), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), all were established at the suggestion of Nelson Rockefeller?

And I never said that it is "only" oil and banking interests. It it you who is implying that they have nothing to do with anything. As if industry and finance played no role in the economy and economic interests played no role in foreign (and domestic) policy.

Reply to jamalrob

Well, people do sometimes tend to jump to conclusions. The fact is I've got absolutely no connections with Russia and as I have pointed out in other discussions, I actually disagree with many of Putin's foreign policies, such as collaboration with anti-Western regimes like Turkey.

Yes, the 1917 events in Russia might have happened anyway "as a result of the political and social circumstances", as you say. But they wouldn't necessarily have happened the way they did. For example, it may be argued that without German support, Lenin's group wouldn't have seized power.

Another thing is that historical research is a very slow process and for new evidence or interpretations of evidence to find their way into mainstream opinion can take many years. As a result, text books published decades ago are not always entirely up to date and this may lead to new data being dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

But I agree that this is beyond the scope of this thread .... :smile:

Quoting Apollodorus

As a result, text books published decades ago are not always entirely up to date and this may lead to new data being dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

Yes, but even among the newer books there's a big range in the interpretation of the new information, especially with regard to the Lenin-as-German-agent idea.

Reply to Apollodorus If I remember correctly, you were of the view that NATO enlargement, just as EU enlargement has been driven by the motives Rockefeller and similar. The issue I just point out is that one should add to that the actual countries joining NATO or EU have had their own motivations for joining in. Especially with NATO it comes to this: do you see NATO as an extension and a tool of the US or NATO as a security arrangement of European countries and the US?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting jamalrob

Yes, but even among the newer books there's a big range in the interpretation of the new information, especially with regard to the Lenin-as-German-agent idea.

Correct. However, my view is not that Lenin was a “German agent”. On the contrary, he wanted to extend the revolution to Germany itself, which is why after seizing power he founded the Communist International (COMINTERN) to establish a Socialist United States of Europe which had long been a key objective of European socialists:

In connection with the slogan of “a workers’ and peasants’ government”, the time is appropriate, in my opinion, for issuing the slogan of “The United States of Europe”. Only by coupling these two slogans shall we get a definite systematic and progressive response to the most burning problems of European development…

- Leon Trotsky, The First Five Years of the Communist International

Lenin was particularly interested in a German revolution as he needed German industry to build socialism in Russia and Europe. Russia had neither the industry nor the class of industrial workers a.k.a. “proletariat” to establish a socialist system.

However, unlike Kerensky who wanted to carry on with the war, Lenin and his group hoped that Russia would lose the war as this in his view would have created the conditions for a wider revolution. And it is on this point that his interests coincided with those of the German government.

That Lenin received large amounts of money from the German government seems to be established fact. This does not mean that, from his perspective, he was a “German agent” in the sense that he represented German interests. It only means that the Germans used him for their own purposes in the same way he used them for his own purposes. It happens all the time that rival interests use one another and collaborate on projects that are seen by both sides as advancing their respective interests.

But if the evidence shows that Lenin received money from a foreign power, then it is incorrect to say that he didn’t.

The incident may not yet be in school books but it is in the mainstream press and on history channels:

How Germany got the Russian Revolution off the ground – Deutsche Welle

Was Lenin a German agent? – New York Times

I for one tend to doubt that DW and the Times are mouthpieces for Putin or peddlers of "conspiracy theories" ….

Reply to Apollodorus Yes Apollo, I know all of that, but thanks for the neat summary.

Quoting Apollodorus

If we think about it, Ukraine has nothing to do with the North Atlantic or NATO, and Russian occupation or control of Ukraine poses absolutely no threat to the national security of America or Britain.

What do the Ukrainians say about it? Bearing in mind that if Ukraine were annexed by Russia, then this would become a meaningless question, as they would have no longer have any say whatever.

I think Ukraine is begging the West to 'shuddup already' because it doesn't want to further annoy the bear.

Today's NY Times headline: The Russian president blamed the United States for the crisis in Ukraine, saying Americans were goading the Kremlin to start a conflict as a pretext for enacting harsh sanctions.

So, get this: Russia, having already invaded Ukraine once, in 2014, and annexing Crimea, leading to a guerilla war which has killed thousands, assembles a massive invasion force right on the border, with tanks, troops, artillery and air force, and then blames the US for 'stoking war in the Ukraine'.

And the amazing thing is, there are those who will swallow it.

//there's a top selling book in Australia about domestic violence and partner abuse. It's called 'See what you Made me Do?'//

Yeah gee, it's so unlike the most blood-hungry and blood-soaked nation on the planet to be stoking war! So out of character! Must just be good ol' Russian propaganda.

Maybe Ukraine is begging the US to shut the fuck up because the US should... shut the fuck up.

Reply to StreetlightX That's correct. Gonna nuke Ukraine because why not?

Quoting ssu

Especially with NATO it comes to this: do you see NATO as an extension and a tool of the US or NATO as a security arrangement of European countries and the US?

Well, why don’t you start with a more logical question like, in what sense could NATO not be a tool of its founders?

Of course NATO is a tool of those who founded it. That’s exactly why they founded it, to serve as an instrument or tool of their interests. Perhaps you would like to argue that they founded NATO for no reason?

And “NATO as a security arrangement of European countries and the US”? Are you suggesting that NATO is just about “security”?

If you are, then you will be surprised to hear that NATO thinks otherwise. It thinks that one of its objectives is the political integration of Europe!

The Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

- A short history of NATO

BTW, this is from NATO’s own website so I don’t think it is Russian propaganda ....

Reply to Wayfarer

If you ask me, I think for objectivity's sake (if nothing else) we need to look at Russia's case too, not just what "the West" says.

The fact is that both NATO and the EU have been constantly expanding ever since they were founded. Both of them refuse to set any limits to their expansion. So, what should Russia do? What would you do if you were Russia?

Russia is asking for guarantees that the EU and NATO will not expand any further within its own space or sphere of influence, a guarantee it apparently believes it had already received.

But let's leave Ukraine aside for a second and ask the EU and NATO not if they are prepared to give guarantees on Ukraine but on Russia itself. Are they prepared to guarantee that they will never expand to incorporate Russia?

If the answer is "no", as it is regarding Ukraine, then I think we need to ask ourselves what the EU's and NATO's true intentions are. Where does unlimited expansion lead to if it is carried to its logical conclusion?

Reply to Apollodorus You say 'we should consider what Russia wants.' You don't think the democratic will of the Ukrainian people has any role in to play?

[quote= Why Putin has such a hard time accepting Ukrainian sovereignty; https://theconversation.com/why-putin-has-such-a-hard-time-accepting-ukrainian-sovereignty-174029] When Ukrainians voted for independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, all of its 24 “oblasts,” or regions – including Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea – supported independence. The large minority of ethnic Russians – 17.3% of the population at Ukraine’s last census in 2001 – were included as Ukrainian citizens in an independent state. For the most part, they too voted for independence.

For most of the first two decades after independence, ethnic Russians have lived peacefully with Ukrainians and the country’s other ethnic minorities.

But that changed in 2010 when Viktor Yanukovych, a politician from Donetsk, became Ukraine’s president. Though he did not state outright that he preferred a pro-Russian future for Ukraine, many of his policies marked a move away from the pro-European policies of his predecessors and played into Vladimir Putin’s designs on Ukraine.

Ukraine was on track to sign an association agreement with the European Union in 2013. Instead, Yanukovych decided to join an economic union with Russia. This set off mass protests around the country that resulted in Yanukovych’s being ousted. Putin then annexed Crimea on the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians living on that peninsula.

Meanwhile, pro-Russian separatists took over multiple cities in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the hope that Russia would have a similar interest in protecting Russians in eastern Ukraine.

....Most Ukrainians see their future as a sovereign country that is part of Europe. But this directly contradicts Putin’s goals of expanding the Russian World. They are conflicting visions that help explain why Ukraine remains a flashpoint.[/quote]

Note the bolded passage.

Quoting Why Putin has such a hard time accepting Ukrainian sovereignty

Ukraine was on track to sign an association agreement with the European Union in 2013. Instead, Yanukovych decided to join an economic union with Russia.

Maybe one should look into these 'association agreements', hastily papered over in this propaganda piece, before recognising that they amounted to economic imperialism from 'the West' that was designed to fuck over Ukrainian workers:

In Ukraine, the IMF had long planned to implement a series of economic reforms to make the country more attractive to investors. These included cutting wage controls (i.e., lowering wages), “reform[ing] and reduc[ing]” health and education sectors (which made up the bulk of employment in Ukraine), and cutting natural gas subsidies to Ukrainian citizens that made energy affordable to the general public. Coup plotters like US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland repeatedly stressed the need for the Ukrainian government to enact the “necessary” reforms.

https://fair.org/home/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/

Maybe consider that the Ukrainian turn to Russia was on account of the Europeans offering a terrible, dehumanising, deal.

So why did the Ukrainians revolt against Yanokovych? Surely if they thought Russia was a better deal, they would not have done that.

Quoting Apollodorus

Well, why don’t you start with a more logical question like, in what sense could NATO not be a tool of its founders?

As long as you observe its founders are an assortment of sovereign states, not just few individuals that already have died. And it's a process as the leadership in those sovereign states change as does the political situation in Europe.

Reply to Wayfarer First, because Russia sucks too. Second, because the US and Europe was agitating for regime change precisely on account of Ukrainian resistance to neoliberal 'reform', to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars:

During the tug of war between the US and Russia, the Americans were engaged in a destabilization campaign against the Yanukovych government. The campaign culminated with the overthrow of the elected president in the Maidan Revolution—also known as the Maidan Coup—named for the Kiev square that hosted the bulk of the protests.

As political turmoil engulfed the country in the leadup to 2014, the US was fueling anti-government sentiment through mechanisms like USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED), just as they had done in 2004. In December 2013, Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European affairs and a long-time regime change advocate, said that the US government had spent $5 billion promoting “democracy” in Ukraine since 1991. The money went toward supporting “senior officials in the Ukraine government…members of the business community as well as opposition civil society” who agree with US goals.

Quoting StreetlightX

First, because Russia sucks too.

Yeah. And all things considered, I still they suck more.

Reply to Wayfarer Like I said, I don't play pick my favourite murderous imperialist.

Reply to StreetlightX You have the luxury of not living under the boot - you’re in a system where you can scream protests at the ruling party. You wouldn’t be in that position were you living under the other murderous imperialists.

Reply to Wayfarer What does this even mean? It's gobbldegook.

Quoting StreetlightX

What does this even mean? I

Hopefully, you'll never have to worry about it.

Quoting Wayfarer

You don't think the democratic will of the Ukrainian people has any role in to play?

Of course I do. But if we consider the interests and will of Ukraine, we must also consider the interests and will of Russia.

After all, if two parties go to court over a grievance, it is the duty of the court to hear both claims as impartially as possible. This is why I'm saying that a degree of objectivity is absolutely imperative if we want to have a proper discussion.

And you haven't answered my question. If NATO and the EU refuse to set a limit to their expansion, where will this end? In what position will it leave Russia? And how is Russia supposed to react?

Quoting ssu

As long as you observe its founders are an assortment of sovereign states, not just few individuals that already have died.

Well, I see zero consistency or logic in what you are saying.

You first implied that NATO was not a tool of US interests.

Now you are admitting that it was a tool, but a tool of "sovereign states".

I have no doubt that America was a sovereign state when NATO was founded. But you neglect to observe that European states after WW2 were (a) heavily indebted to America and (b) made to comply with American policy as part of the European Reconstruction Program (ERP) a.k.a. Marshall Plan.

The Plan was American and European states obediently complied with it. So you can draw your own conclusions.

And don't forget that not all European states were "sovereign". Germany and Austria joined the Marshall Plan and agreed to the US conditions attached to it while under Allied military occupation.

Quoting ssu

And it's a process as the leadership in those sovereign states change as does the political situation in Europe.

Same lack of logic as above.

If the leadership in those states changes and the political situation in Europe changes, it doesn't follow that NATO's (and the EU's) original plan of bringing about the political integration or unification of European states has also changed. On the contrary, the plan clearly remains to increase the political integration of Europe and to keep incorporating new states. Hence the Ukraine debacle.

(without having read the entire thread, as it's massive).

There are lots of clashing values here. The Ukranian administration obviously has popular support, and (if you're fan of states - I'm luke-warm, myself) if they want to join NATO, as a sovereign state, why should they not be able to?

A rejoiner is that you can't expect Russia to be happy with this. Whatever proportion of the Russian population actually supports The Kremlin, simply from fear most probably wouldn't want NATO forces (including potentially nukes) right next to them and encircling them - for (as someone pointed out) the same reasons that it was intolerable to the Americans to have soviet nukes on Cuba.

From the perspective of myself, as a CND member, this situation is especially tragic. Ukraine voluntarily gave up it's nuclear weapons in the 90s, on basis of an agreement involving both Russia and the US that they would not infere with it's future political development. Perhaps this was naive (of the Ukrainians), but it hardly encourages other regimes to give up their weapons now, does it?

One thing at the back of all this is: if the West hadn't been so stupid when the U.S.S.R. collapsed in their economic reconstruction advice, perhaps things may have been different. But then, that this the same economic approach which continues to widen inequality and to increase poverty levels in any place where it is unchecked, east or west.

From my perspective, we have an anti-democratic kleptocracy and it's adjuncts, verses a number of genuine democracies but which are quite imperfect as democracies (as illustrated by how their civil society's are decaying), but which are also imperial actors on the world stage (just look at what has been done to Africa etc.) The only defence the Russian regime can give is "if you let the West in, it will be even worse." And you know what, when we were last there, it was worse. I think if I was forced into a binary choice, I would choose to defend liberal democracy and self-determination, and so Ukraine, as at least that has the chance of improving our situation by democratic means. But that is a bitter pill to swallow. As this entire system keeps billions of people in poverty around the world, and is quickly ruining our environment. So perhaps we should simply let these monsters we support with our taxes - on both sides - exhaust themselves, and hope we survive to the other side.

Quoting Apollodorus

But if we consider the interests and will of Ukraine, we must also consider the interests and will of Russia.

When it comes to invading Ukraine, why should anyone consider that? Ukraine is a sovereign nation, why should Russia's territorial ambitions be considered? If Ukraine or some other country were to invade Russia, then sure, the interests of Russia are being infringed on.

Quoting Apollodorus

If NATO and the EU refuse to set a limit to their expansion, where will this end? In what position will it leave Russia? And how is Russia supposed to react?

Russian agitprop. Russia has economic opportunities for trade and peaceful economic cooperation, or would have, if it managed its affairs properly. In case you haven't noticed, it's a kleptocracy run by a dictator who routinely murders any legitimate political opponent.

I agree that American foreign policy is utterly dreadful in very many ways, and that the situation overall is a dire predicament, but keep in mind the fact that Russia has assembled an invasion force adjacent to a struggling democratic state and may well have already begun to use it, had not the Western democracies spoken up about it. Could so easily have been, and might still be, the Prague Spring all over again.

I read that Russia probably won't do a full scale invasion because of logistical challenges. IOW they could overwhelm the Ukrainian defenses, but they couldn't really occupy it.

Quoting Wayfarer

Russian agitprop. Russia has economic opportunities for trade and peaceful economic cooperation, or would have, if it managed its affairs properly. In case you haven't noticed, it's a kleptocracy run by a dictator who routinely murders any legitimate political opponent.

NATO agitprop. In case you haven't noticed, there are lots of similar, or worse, regimes everywhere: China, North Korea, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc.

And you are not answering my question .... :smile:

Quoting Apollodorus

Well, I see zero consistency or logic in what you are saying.

You first implied that NATO was not a tool of US interests.

Now you are admitting that it was a tool, but a tool of "sovereign states".

Yes, those sovereign states are the member states. It's totally logical. Now the US formed various similar Treaty organizations, NATO, SEATO and CENTO and only NATO is still working. The idea of it being just a tool of the US isn't the whole picture. It is that European countries are happy with the arrangement of NATO that ought to be mentioned also. the organization had so much elan that it didn't dissolve once the Soviet Union went away. CENTO basically dissolved because of revolutions, and SEATO member countries just didn't see it as relevant. Once the other countries don't want to play, then the organization goes to the dustbin of history whatever the US would want. I'm sure the US would be all happy if there would be a SEATO nowdays. Now it has to stick with bilateral aggreements and AUKUS.

If you mean this question:

Quoting Apollodorus

If NATO and the EU refuse to set a limit to their expansion, where will this end? In what position will it leave Russia?

As I understand it, ‘their expansion’ in this case is simply leaving the door open to sovereign nations who wish to join them. NATO partners are not seeking to expand by invading Ukraine of forcibly occupying other nations. The issue at hand is Russia’s ability and implicit threat to do exactly that, whilst then hanging the blame on America for doing it. It’s transparently duplicitous.


I do agree that the militarism of NATO - America, Europe and of Russia - and the obscene amounts of money spent on weapons of mass destruction, and all of the research on new instruments of death and ways of mass casualty infliction, is a terrible evil which might yet be the death of all of us. The missiles that NATO has directed at Russia, if they’re offensive weapons, ought to be removed forthwith.

Quoting Wayfarer

As I understand it, ‘their expansion’ in this case is simply leaving the door open to sovereign nations who wish to join them. NATO partners are not seeking to expand by invading Ukraine of forcibly occupying other nations. The issue at hand is Russia’s ability and implicit threat to do exactly that, whilst then hanging the blame on America for doing it. It’s transparently duplicitous.

Unfortunately, it isn't quite as simple as you are painting it. Russia has NOT been expanding. NATO and the EU have, by constantly incorporating new countries. NATO had 12 members in 1949. It now has 30. They may not have done this by means of military force, but expanded they have. This is the FACT we need to start with.

Take a look at a map of the region and you will see that NATO and the EU have largely encircled Russia, NOT the other way round.

http://www.socialistaction.net/2022/02/02/a-short-history-of-nato-eastward-expansion-and-the-current-tensions-in-europe/

Given that the EU and NATO (1) have been expanding, (2) have now reached Russia's borders, and (3) are refusing to set a limit to their expansion, I think Russia is perfectly entitled to be concerned. I know that I would be if I were Russia.

At the very least, it is proper to ask why the EU, NATO, and associated organizations are expanding? Where does the logical conclusion of permanent and unlimited expansion (i.e., incorporation of new states) lead to? World government???

We have seen that you are citing Russia as being a "dictatorship", but you omit to mention many other dictatorships that are even more repressive than Russia: China, North Korea, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, etc., where atrocities against political opposition and religious or ethnic minorities are perpetrated on a daily basis. IMO it doesn't make sense to single out Russia.

I think that for a better understanding of the situation it is important to understand exactly what the EU and NATO are, because to me they don't look like charitable or philanthropic organizations.

The fact is that NATO (= North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a product of the Anglo-American Atlantic movement.

Atlanticism manifested itself most strongly during the Second World War and in its aftermath, the Cold War, through the establishment of various euro-Atlantic institutions, most importantly NATO and the Marshall Plan.

Atlanticism - Wikipedia

We also know who was behind the Atlantic movement:

Following World War I, New York lawyer Paul D. Cravath was a noted leader in establishing Atlanticism in the United States. Cravath had become devoted to international affairs during the war, and was later a co-founder and director of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Cravath was a former employee of Standard Oil subsidiary Globe Oil and was presiding partner at Guthrie, Cravath & Henderson, a leading law firm representing banking and oil interests.

Anyway, if you look at the English-language Wikipedia article on Atlanticism, it reads almost like an advertisement. In contrast, the German version offers a much more balanced analysis with a whole section on Criticism of Atlanticism.

Moreover, the German version makes some disturbing claims that I don't think should be simply brushed off:

Research by historian Dov Levin, for example, found that between 1946 and 2000, the United States manipulated the democratic elections of other countries more than 80 times, including in European countries such as Italy and Greece … From a strategic point of view, there is criticism, among other things, that relations between Europe and the USA are unequal, as the US enforces its foreign policy with little consideration for European interests …

- Atlantiker – Wikipedia

So, I think it would be wrong to accept Atlanticism and its manifestations like the EU and NATO too uncritically, as you and @ssu seem to be doing.

The point I was making earlier was that if representatives of oil and banking interests initiated and led the Atlantic movement, then it is incorrect to say that Atlanticism has nothing to do with those interests.

But the main point is that the overarching objective of Atlanticism (a.k.a. Trans-Atlanticism) was to bring North America, Britain, and Europe closer together. Some Atlanticists, especially on the British side, were even advocating union (or re-union) of Britain with America and, above all, world federation or world state. This is an important point to remember because we can see that unlimited expansion of NATO, EU, and associated organizations inevitably leads to world government when taken to its logical conclusion.

This is why the architects of Atlanticism founded all those organizations like NATO, European Coal and Steel Community (precursor to the EU), Organization for European Economic Co-operation (precursor to the OECD), etc., etc.

If you look at these organizations, you will see that their memberships are largely overlapping, especially at the top. For example, among the 29 OECD member states, 16 are also NATO members.

List of OECD member countries - OECD

There is a top tier of the Five Eyes (FVEY) consisting of the Anglophonic sphere, US, UK, OZ, NZ, and Canada, followed by European collaborators like France, puppets like Germany, and the lower ranks of smaller satellites.

The FVEY association itself demonstrates the Atlanticist (i.e. Anglo-American) origins of this highly influential network of organizations. The original (unofficial) association in the early 1900s consisted of the very same countries plus South Africa!

In any case, when you have a wide network of multiple international organizations stretching across the globe, all of which aim for economic, military and political integration of member states, all having the same top tier with America at its apex, and you know that they were founded at America’s instigation, then this can only mean (a) that America is the top dog in all of them and (b) that their primary purpose is to serve US interests.

It was American interest groups that convened the national and international conferences at which they proposed the establishment of the UN, World Bank, IMF, Marshall Plan, European integration, and all the other top intergovernmental organizations that are now organizing the world and setting the rules by which the world has to abide.

For example, according to its own mission statement, the OECD (which was originally set up to administer US Marshall Plan funds) aims to “establish international standards” and “provide advice on public policies and international standard-setting”. Obviously, countries have to abide by those standards if they want to be allowed to join these organizations (which they may do under economic or political pressure) so they are accepting standards, rules, and laws, set or made by others ....

The Western narrative revolves on “human rights and democracy” which, if we think about it, has been used as an umbrella slogan (or pretext) for some questionable international operations. What is certain is that if Ukraine joins the EU it will be ruled not by Kiev but by Brussels. This is precisely why Britain conveniently left the EU!

On its part, Russia is basing its case on the principle of “indivisible security” according to which while NATO has a right to expand its membership, this right should not be absolute, and non-NATO states should have the right to oppose NATO expansion when it affects their own security.

Russia is referring to the 1999 European Security Charter and the 2010 Astana Declaration, both of which were signed by the US and Russia. The 1999 Charter (Article II, Paragraph 8) says countries should be free to choose their own security arrangements and alliances, but that they “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states”.

- Istanbul Document 1999 – OSCE

So, we can see that though the US has a point in insisting on “human rights and democracy”, Russia also has a point in insisting on security matters which the US chooses to ignore. I don’t know of any states which think that human rights should have precedence over national security. This is why I believe that a reasonable US government ought to be able to come to some kind of compromise. The problem is that it is easy and tempting for political leaders to style themselves “defender of freedom and democracy” in order to boost their ratings in the polls or to push other agendas.

But to revert to the point I was making. Since NATO and the EU are (1) expanding and (2) refusing to set limits to their expansion, I think it is safe to assume that it is their objective to keep expanding. And unlimited expansion ultimately leads to world government.

We can get an idea of the means by which this is achieved by looking at how the EU was formed.

The EU was established in 1993 on the basis of the European Economic Community which in turn was based on the European Coal and Steel Community:

The union and EU citizenship were established when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993. The EU traces its origins to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), established, respectively, by the 1951 Treaty of Paris and 1957 Treaty of Rome. The original member states of what came to be known as the European Communities were the Inner Six: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany.

- European Union - Wikipedia

The largest member countries with the strongest economies were Germany and France. Germany was under Allied (i.e. US) military occupation and France joined under US pressure.

Germany was controlled by US High Commissioner John McCloy, a Rockefeller lawyer and partner of the same Cravath law firm that initiated the Atlantic movement in America.

Another Rockefeller operative, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson, was a director of the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations and the main architect of NATO (the establishment of which had been proposed by Nelson Rockefeller in 1945). In 1949, during a meeting of the Allied Occupation Powers in West Germany, he put a gun to French foreign minister Schuman’s head, ordering him to form a United States of Europe with Germany.

Oct 22 1949, Meeting of United States Ambassadors at Paris (attended by McCloy):

As for US policy, it must be directed towards pressing for the acceptance of Germany into the European Councils. We must put pressure on the French to let the Germans come in on a dignified basis…

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers, Oct. 22

Oct 30 1949, Acheson letter to Schuman (in which he tells Schuman to take action “to promptly and decisively integrate US-controlled Germany into Western Europe”):

Whether Germany will in the future be a benefit or a curse to the free world will be determined, not only by the Germans, but by the occupying powers. … Our own stake and responsibility is also greater. Now is the time for French initiative and leadership of the type required to integrate the German Federal Republic promptly and decisively into Western Europe … We have also reserved to ourselves in the Occupation Statute very considerable powers with respect to the action of the German Federal Republic …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) – CVCE

Once Germany and France had been “persuaded” to form the core of European integration, the other smaller countries whose economies depended on German and French industry, had no choice but to join. In fact they were obliged to do so as part of the Marshall Plan deal which stipulated European integration in exchange for financial and other assistance.

And we know that the Marshall Plan and associated schemes were intended to serve US economic interests, because the guys involved – from State Secretary George Marshall to Acheson - openly admitted it!

In a 1947 speech, Acheson himself stated:

These measures of relief and reconstruction have been only in part suggested by humanitarianism. Your Congress has authorized and your government is carrying out, a policy of relief and reconstruction today chiefly as a matter of national self-interest … There is no charity involved in this. It is simply common sense and good business. We are today obliged from considerations of self-interest to finance a huge deficit in the world’s budget … The International Trade Organization must be established … The fourth thing we must do in the present situation is to push ahead with the reconstruction of those two great workshops of Europe and Asia – Germany and Japan ….”.

Dean Acheson, The Requirements of Reconstruction, May 8, 1947 – Truman Library

Both Marshall and Acheson clearly explain in their speeches that the US economy needs to import goods from Europe and it needs Europe as a market for US exports, otherwise US economic growth would be unsustainable. And because US business preferred to deal with one single market, the US government put pressure on European states to form a single market. It was a form of blackmail sugar-coated with loans.

So, we can see under what conditions the “European integration project” came about. EEC and EU enlargement has happened along similar lines, mainly under economic and financial pressure.

US domination over Europe continues as before. London is Europe’s largest financial center, but the largest investment banks operating there (and in other European cities) are mostly American: JPMorgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citi Group.

There is also the issue of cultural domination. Apart from English being increasingly used all over Europe, some Europeans feel that their culture is being gradually replaced with an US-imposed, alien substitute.

According to some observers:

As the unrivaled global superpower, America exports its culture on an unprecedented scale. From music to media, film to fast food, language to literature and sport, the American idea is spreading inexorably, not unlike the influence of empires that preceded it.

- The American world: U.S. culture's dominance is a mixed bag

From a European perspective, it is arguable that European culture is being replaced with US-made violent hip hop, rape rap, and the war drums of the slums. Not by force of arms, of course, but through the overwhelming influence of the US-dominated social media and entertainment industry.

Exactly how “democratic” this process is, is a matter of debate, but I don't think there has been a referendum on it yet .... :smile:

Quoting Apollodorus

rape rap,

Is that what Christian clergymen listen to when they're molesting boys?

Reply to frank

Well, I don't know any clergymen so I can't tell. But I think that kind of stuff would be more like Nation of Islam style ....

[tweet]https://twitter.com/snowden/status/1489361112923619334?s=21[/tweet]

*

Quoting Wayfarer

*

I see your point (or asterisk) :smile:

However, I think the current problems tend to be caused by the fact that in a normal world, Europe should be dominated by the continental state with the largest population and strongest economy, and that is Germany.

Unfortunately, as Germany was destroyed after two world wars, there is no proper European balance of power. This has led to a highly anomalous situation with the resulting power vacuum leaving the whole of Europe in a position of subservience to America, China, Turkey, and other non-European (and anti-European) powers.

As for Ukraine, it will never be independent. It will be dominated either by Russia or by Western Europe, i.e., Brussels.

But I wouldn’t be overly concerned over Ukraine as such. I doubt very much that the Russians will round up all Ukrainians and send them to the gas chambers. They’ve been part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries and they’ve survived and will continue to survive. Life goes on, after all. And Putin is not Stalin.

A bigger concern seems to be that Western pressure on Russia forces Russia to gang up with China, which can only serve to strengthen China's hand vis-à-vis the West. Ultimately, the US-UK-EU combine may be shooting itself in the foot ....

Russia and China show united front amid rising tensions with West - Sky News

Quoting Apollodorus

Well, I don't know any clergymen so I can't tell. But I think that kind of stuff would be more like Nation of Islam style ....

Except they don't have a reputation for sexually assaulting children the way Christian clergymen do.

Maybe they keep it in the family .... :grin:

In any case, my suspicion is that Muslims do it even more than other religious denominations:

The hypocrisy of child abuse in many Muslim countries - The Guardian

Child abuse also among Senegal's Muslim clergy - Afrol News

Child abuse case rocks Pakistan's clergy - TRT World

But perhaps you should start a thread on it, as I don't think it's got much to do with the OP?

Wrong thread....

Reply to Apollodorus That's terrible!

But I got you to stop whining about hip-hop you racist slob!

Reply to frank

I can't stop what I never started, Einstein. Maybe you should quit drinking and start thinking. It might do you good .... :wink:

Reply to Apollodorus
I don't drink
. :wink:

Reply to frank

Then quit whatever it is that causes you to make irrational comments! :roll:

My reference to "violent hip hop, rape rap, and war drums of the slums" was NOT about race but about this US-made subculture that celebrates violence, especially violence against women, that is alien to European culture and that many Europeans object to, which clearly is their right.

If this kind of "culture" appeals to you, that's your problem, but don't impose it on the rest of the world.

And if you are talking about "racism", it is a well-known fact that Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X liked to beat up white women.

Reply to Manuel

I pray that my country (US) will stop provoking Russia. I support the latter in the protest against NATO expansion (bullying).

I generally support Biden but his hawkishness is the one thing I worry about, though God bless him for finally extracting our country from Afghanistan.

Reply to Photios

I agree with that. While Biden has done decent things - at the very beginning - for people, his foreign policy in action, not in rhetoric, is not much different from Trump's.

Which is scary considering how bullish Trump was.

Not much good will be achieved by escalating tensions even more.

Reply to Manuel Reply to Photios

It looks like China is now siding with Russia on NATO expansion, so it will be interesting to see what Biden is going to do about it.

Incidentally, the way I see it, the typical US government logic is something along these lines:

(A). There is a situation somewhere in the world.
(B). We’ve got absolutely no idea what the causes are and we don’t give a dime – unless it affects us.
(C). And this situation affects our business interests.
(D). Therefore we must intervene.
(E). And we must intervene in a way that advances our business interests without caring about anyone else ....

So, basically, this is why the world is the way it is, because it is based on an upside-down kind of “logic” based on US self-interest. It used to be the same when Britain was a world empire, before America took over. The only difference is that America has simply replaced Britain.

A saner kind of logic would organize the world in a much more rational, coherent, and equitable way.

Such a logic would acknowledge that Germany occupies a central position at the heart of Europe, and therefore it should also hold a central position in political and military terms as it does in economic and demographic terms.

Unfortunately, the problem seems to be Britain because it acts as an extension (or as some say, “poodle”) of America and disturbs Europe’s natural balance of power. Whenever Britain has an issue with other European powers, it runs to Uncle Sam for help, like a kid to his or her nanny.

This necessarily means that the European order really is an American order. And this is why despite all the "democracy-and-freedom" propaganda, Europe cannot be truly sovereign and free unless and until it stands up for itself and stands on its own feet.

Reply to Apollodorus

It makes sense for China to support Russia here, given the Taiwan situation, which surely merits its own thread. In that case, I think there is more room for considerable nuance, but still tense.

In any case, it's not as if NATO is giving Russia much of a choice in terms of having partners. Incidentally, as you know, the US has been losing power since WWII, so they just can't stand other countries defying "the international community" [aka whoever supports the US]. The opinion of the rest of the world, doesn't fit into this scheme.

What gets me is that, pointing these things out, somehow makes others think that one is "Pro Putin" or "Pro Xi". This is silly.

Ugh the EU, what a mess. It could be a great example for the world, but having a monetary union without a political one may lead to its disintegration, following fanatical market thinking.

I hope Germany could persuade cooler head to prevail. The UK is lost cause at this moment.

Quoting Manuel

What gets me is that, pointing these things out, somehow makes others think that one is "Pro Putin" or "Pro Xi". This is silly.

Not just silly, but totally preposterous IMO :smile:

The way I see it, Europe, Russia, and America should be partners and allies, not enemies. But this is impossible so long as America only thinks of its own self-interests, which usually means the interests of US banking, oil, and defense industries.

It was American business that started investing in China in the 1970's. Others followed suit, and China is now a major power and growing. China will also be the main winner in a military conflict between the West and Russia. It is already watching the West very closely and identifying all our weak points so it will know exactly where to strike when its turn comes, which is going to be pretty soon.

NATO and EU might try to bully Russia now, but they won't bully China.

I agree it would be nice if Germany could talk some sense into the other Europeans, but without a proper military, Germany doesn't count for much these days. Just imagine, it has to depend on Turkey and other NATO members to defend it!!! And how can Europe be free and independent if Germany is not free and independent?

If we think about it, the EU has a population of some 450 million. And yet it plays second fiddle to America with a population of only 330 million. Surely, this can't be right. Shameful and disgraceful, really. And definitely undemocratic.

Reply to Apollodorus

One of the positive consequences of Trump, totally freak-ish, but, could have led to something, was when Germany (and maybe France too) said, essentially, it's time for Europe to have it's own defense. Which makes sense, but, never materialized. I doubt the US would permit it, because NATO has to have a reason to continue existing.

As for bullying China, well, they're getting bullied with Taiwan, with serious provocations on both sides, but more incendiary for the West, generally. Not that I think China should just invade Taiwan, which has a pretty decent government, and so on. But even if they wanted to invade, that would also lead to a nuclear war, Taiwan could not defend itself against China for too long.

I know, the Germany thing is a pipe dream, but, at least its being vocal about it. It's nice to have some opposing voices when this situation is so tense. I totally agree that the US, Europe AND Russia should form a coalition.

I believe Putin once asked Clinton, only half jokingly, if Russia could join NATO, I think Clinton asked the generals, they didn't like that idea.

Man, once you dig into the EU as an institution, you just see a total tragedy. They out of all people in the world, because of two World Wars, should now better. The leadership, apparently does not.

Quoting Manuel

Man, once you dig into the EU as an institution, you just see a total tragedy. They out of all people in the world, because of two World Wars, should now better. The leadership, apparently does not.

I think the leadership know exactly, but they don't care because they've been brainwashed to believe in a United States of Europe that is subservient to the United States of America. It's like a cult.

If we think about it, the whole situation makes no sense whatsoever. An association of states with the population and economic power of the EU, has to depend on America financially and militarily!!! Are you kidding me???

So the EU has a population of 450 million and an economy much larger than Russia which has a population of only 145 million and a much weaker economy (though it is rich in natural resources like oil and gas). And yet the EU is totally dependent on America, Turkey, and other NATO countries to defend it.

No wonder the world is such a screwed-up place. IMO this is totally insane and it has got to stop. Europe needs to grow up and get a life.

And you are absolutely right. The more you dig into the history and facts of this EU business, the more skeletons in the European (and US) cupboard you discover ....

The Ukrainians and the Russians have got to work out their issues on their own.

Reply to Apollodorus

Varoufakis' And the Weak Suffer What They Must? his book and many lectures on Adults in the Room, and Mody's Eurotragedy are very eye-opening.

Euro leadership is essentially a power struggle in which they French thought they would be able to command the German economy. And no political union worthy of the name, was ever seriously considered.

The bureaucrats in the EU in the end had a far more conservative (neo-liberal) approach to the economy compared to the US! It's insane, some kind of market worship. Germany mostly wins, at least the German elites.

But it's hard to see them turning around. A crisis like this does not help.

Quoting Apollodorus

The way I see it, Europe, Russia, and America should be partners and allies, not enemies. But this is impossible so long as America only thinks of its own self-interests, which usually means the interests of US banking, oil, and defense industries.

The absolute inability for you to understand Russia leaves me nearly speechless.

You have a Russian leader, a president for life, that sees the main enemy number 1 the United States. A former intelligence chief that started his political career as a President by killing Russian citizens in order to start again a war that Russia previously had lost. Then has annexed parts both from Georgia and Ukraine, considers the fall of Soviet Union the worst disaster in the 20th Century and openly writes about Ukraine should be part of Russia and how an independent Ukraine is an artificial country. And now has had a proxy war with Ukraine for 8 years and has massed a nearly third of the Russian army ground forces on the border of Ukraine, and you see the problem in the US to be too hawkish, re-urgitating the line that Putin says.

Yes, Russia could be an ally with the US, if the regime of Putin would fall itself. Even then it would be extremely difficult, which can be seen how cool Navalnyi and other Russian opposition leaders (the few if any) are to the West. And the Putin apologists in the West don't make that better. For some reason you cherish the current totalitarian regime so much.

And if that would happen, if the Russians would have enough of their dear leader for life, likely some people would be screaming how awful it is and how it has to be a CIA lead "color revolution" and how bad it is that the West has "taken over" Russia. Because, obviously, nobody else has a say than " the interests of US banking, oil, and defense industries".

Quoting ssu

by killing Russian citizens in order to start again a war that Russia previously had lost

Still peddling that dumb conspiracy theory? Although it's interesting that a while ago you presented it more as a mere possibility, but now present it as established fact.

Following the fall of the USSR the view was that a cordon of neutral countries could act as a barrier to avoid tensions. Russia was still respected as an important player in world politics and their interests were therefore strategically considered. Several decades later, the respect is gone and it's basically Western hubris they can just intervene in the geopolitical sphere of a strong regional power without consequences - or so they thought until Russia annexed Crimea.

Russia's internal politics are irrelevant. I don't give a shit that Putin is a criminal. I care about avoiding needless bloodshed and accepting that regional powers project a sphere of influence in which you cannot fuck around without consequences. So all this IMF and NATO shit should be called out for what it is : provocations.

The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate.

Quoting jamalrob

Still peddling that dumb conspiracy theory?

Well, I think it hasn't been refuted and it makes sense. Those former intelligence people who did say that the conspiracy theory was true have been killed by Putin. And what terrorist would choose for a terrorist strike (that basically is a media event) sleepy suburbs? Wouldn't they pick a central downtown spot? And it does make sense as there was a peace agreement with the Chechens, so just ripping it off without any provocation would look bad. And if the Chechens had already de-facto won (then the first) Chechen war, why would they then plant bombs in Moscow suburbs? They had repelled the Russian attack.

Quoting jamalrob

It's interesting that a while ago you presented it as a mere possibility, but now present it as established fact.

I put in the category of being more likely to be true than false. But thanks for the correction. We naturally don't know as the archives haven't been opened.

Quoting ssu

Well, I think it hasn't been refuted and it makes sense. Those former intelligence people who did say that the conspiracy theory was true have been killed by Putin. And what terrorist would choose for a terrorist strike (that basically is a media event) sleepy suburbs? Wouldn't they pick a central downtown spot? And it does make sense as there was a peace agreement with the Chechens, so just ripping it off without any provocation would look bad. And if the Chechens had already de-facto won (then the first) Chechen war, why would they then plant bombs in Moscow suburbs? They had repelled the Russian attack.

That's one way of looking at it, but it seems to me you don't know much about it. Anyway I just wanted to make a quick point that it's a disputed account, and one that is denied not only by Russians in Putin's sphere, but by other observers. I'm not going to argue here though. Maybe another time.

Quoting Benkei

Following the fall of the USSR the view was that a cordon of neutral countries could act as a barrier to avoid tensions.

Yes. Like the Netherlands in the 1930's. But hey, it worked just splendid during WW1!

Being a buffer state sucks. But it reinforces the truth that foreigners genuinely truly don't give a shit about you or your people or about values.

Quoting Benkei

The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate.

So the "de-escalation" would be that NATO would withdraw troops or never deploy troops to Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, The Baltic States, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania and North Macedonia?

That's what Russia is saying it wants.

Quoting jamalrob

That's one way of looking at it

Well, let's hope that we don't get some similar event in this crisis justifying for Russia to respond.

Yet on the other hand, if nothing happens, then nothing happens. NATO was bellicose with Serbia, that's a historical fact. Then it was desperately looking for a "new mission". But when the opponent has the most nukes in the World, I don't think there is that desire, which people seem to see. The motivation would be to have normal relations, which can be seen from all the efforts and attempts to reset the relations by several US presidents. Nothing like that has happened with let's say Iran and the US.

But apparently Russia has a right for it's historical empire, I guess.

Quoting ssu

So the "de-escalation" would be that NATO would withdraw troops or never deploy troops to Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, The Baltic States, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania and North Macedonia?

That's what Russia is saying it wants.

Do they have the will and the means for that?

It's speculated that they don't have the means to fully occupy Ukraine, much less spread eastward.

Although it would be cool if there were 130,000 Russian troops surrounding the Netherlands rights now. :grimace:

Reply to ssu

This article says Russia suppressed economic activity in Ukraine and half the population has left. Why?

Reply to frank The article talks about Donetsk and Luhansk, the rebellious states that opted out (with Russian help) from Ukraine. And the situation in these regions is bleak. One article said that Russia is pouring about 1 billion dollars into these areas, but naturally that when they are cut out from Ukraine, it isn't easy to realign the economy to work for Russia (just like Crimea has a tough time without the Ukrainians coming in for a holidays etc). Everything basically comes from Russia (and Belarus) and the natural issue of commerce isn't happen now. Russia is givin Russian passports to the people, so it's easy for them to go to Russia. As, well, there is a war going on. If there are no jobs and artillery shells may land on your doorstep, a lot of people will opt to move.

Basically the Minsk accords/protocol have not been ratified, especially with the Minsk II being left open from 2015. Basically what is left open are the following terms:

1)To ensure an immediate bilateral ceasefire.
2)To ensure the monitoring and verification of the ceasefire by the OSCE .
3)Decentralization of power, including through the adoption of the Ukrainian law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts".
4)To ensure the permanent monitoring of the Ukrainian-Russian border and verification by the OSCE with the creation of security zones in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
5)Immediate release of all hostages and illegally detained persons.
6)A law preventing the prosecution and punishment of people in connection with the events that have taken place in some areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts.
7)To continue the inclusive national dialogue.
8)To take measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Donbas.
9)To ensure early local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts".
10)To withdraw illegal armed groups and military equipment as well as fighters and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine.
11)To adopt a program of economic recovery and reconstruction for the Donbas region.
12)To provide personal security for participants in the consultations.

The issue is that Ukraine is very fearful of giving autonomy (above decentralization) that then Russia could use.

Quoting frank

Do they have the will and the means for that?

The only thing worrisome to me is that Russia makes demands it knows NATO cannot accept to. Now it might be a negotiation tactic, but still.

Quoting frank

It's speculated that they don't have the means to fully occupy Ukraine, much less spread eastward.

The whole reason to invade Ukraine seems illogical, but who knows. Some say a partial invasion would be the likeliest, happening in the east, basically on the eastern side of the Dniepr. But who knows what will happen or not happen.

As I've said, I'm so optimist that I think that the likeliest outcome is that there is no war. It ends up in just as one of those scares. But that there is some kind of conflict is unfortunately a genuine possibility. Russia has been now multiple times been accused of a coup plot, and at least in history it has intervened quite aggressively into Ukrainian politics (even before 2014). So what is certain is that Russia will continue to be a bully to Ukraine.

Quoting ssu

The only thing worrisome to me is that Russia makes demands it knows NATO cannot accept to. Now it might be a negotiation tactic, but still.

Putin is a butthead. We'd elect him president if he was American.

Reply to frank

That must be why you've elected Biden then ... :grin:

Reply to Apollodorus

I guess so.

Quoting ssu

The absolute inability for you to understand Russia leaves me nearly speechless.

And what leaves me nearly speechless is your absolute inability to understand anything relating to international relations. You're obviously looking at it from the distorted perspective of a self-radicalized Finnish Russophobe.

For starters, I never said that I "cherish Russia's totalitarian regime". so, as far as I'm concerned, that's a lie.

If, by your own admission, even Russian opposition leaders are "cool toward the West", what does that say to you?

The fact is that Russia is the largest country on earth. A country of Russia's geographic dimensions inhabited by distinct ethnic and cultural groups would fall apart very fast without a degree of central authority, and that's for Russian citizens to decide, not for Finland.

Moreover, Putin still has the backing of the majority of voters. Russians in general are more concerned about the economic situation than about Putin's alleged "totalitarianism".

It is economic factors that motivate countries to join the EU, but once they realize the ramifications of the political strings attached to EU membership, many have second thoughts. That's why Britain has already left the EU and other member states like Hungary and Italy, are beginning to think of leaving the sinking EU ship by looking for alternative partnerships.

Anyway, by definition, joining the EU means losing some of your sovereignty and abiding by EU laws made in Brussels. And unlimited expansion can only lead to (US-controlled) world government. If countries have the right to join the American world state, they also have the right to preserve their freedom and independence.

Countries like Russia, India, China, have a strong sense of national identity and independence and they aren't going to be turned into satellites of the US or EU without a fight.

So no, I'm not "pro-Putin" at all. I am for national freedom and independence and against liberal capitalist world government. This may be inconvenient to you, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Reply to Apollodorus

Please follow my Black History Month posts in the shout box. It might help you.

Reply to frank

I doubt that this has much to do with the Ukraine crisis, but I will follow it when I get the time.

Reply to Apollodorus Well for some strange reason American music has something to do with the invasion of Ukraine :lol:

Thus Black History Month.

Reply to frankOh you'd love him. Or at least many Republicans (democrats?) would love him. I guess here in PF would be people that absolutely would hate him (even more than Trump). And you would have him for President for two terms and then you would have him as vice-president of the following administrations for a long, long time. After all, there was a time he did have that role and Medvedev was the President (for one term).

(Do notice where Vladimir is sitting in this picture.)

Quoting ssu

I guess here in PF would be people that absolutely would hate him (even more than Trump)

I don't think so. He seems to be viewed as only looking after Russia's interests in preparing for invasion, or at least that's what I think some were saying

Quoting Apollodorus

If, by your own admission, even Russian opposition leaders are "cool toward the West", what does that say to you?

I've always said that there was a brief window of opportunity when the Soviet Union collapsed when Russia and Russians were truly open for a new relationship with the West. It was the time when Dzerzinsky's statue was taken out of the front of the KGB headquarters. But the West, self centered and haughty as usual, thought Russia was over and nothing would come of it. You simply would have had larger than life politicians to make these two countries friends as they were no American tanks on the Red Square. Then Russia has always had two sides, the Westernizers and those who see the West as trouble. These two views go long into Russian history. (And should be noted, that the West Europe has also had this difficult relationship to Eastern Europe and especially Russia, to Orthodoxy and East European culture since the time of East-Rome, which we called Byzantium)

And then two things happened. NATO went into finding "a new mission" for itself with "peace-enforcement" and if the intervention to Bosnia was somehow tolerated by Russia, what was the end point was the Kosovo war. That broke the camel's back and you had the first direct confrontation between Russia. I think that was the time it all went south, so don't assume Russia would even want to be an ally of the US. NATO enlargement was one thing, but an active NATO not only confined to defending itself and having it's members not to fight each other, but active somewhere else was the issue (do note for example that the Gulf War wasn't a NATO mission).

(Why the incident in Pristina airport was important can be seen how Russians view it now)

or see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzZm2zdZ9_U

And the second reason of course is that an intelligence service chief who saw the fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest disaster of the 20th Century into power. He needs an enemy to justify the power grab he has done. Simple as that.

Quoting Apollodorus

A country of Russia's geographic dimensions inhabited by distinct ethnic and cultural groups would fall apart very fast without a degree of central authority, and that's for Russian citizens to decide, not for Finland.

LOL! Oh yes, as we would have any say about that.

And Umm...my point is that countries should themselves have the right to decide themselves their future.

Reply to frank I guess if he would be the US President Vladimir would have been born in a place like New York or Chicago, then joined the CIA and now would protect American interests all around the World.

Reply to ssu

I don't know if a member of the CIA has ever run for president. I would think such a president would prefer to back a coup rather than deploy the military . It's cheaper.

Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target.

Reply to pfirefry
It's almost as if a nation cares for its own aspirations over some global justice

Quoting Manuel

Euro leadership is essentially a power struggle in which they French thought they would be able to command the German economy. And no political union worthy of the name, was ever seriously considered.

Well, even economic union was only considered under US pressure, which really exposes the undemocratic nature of the whole EU project.

But there were unionist or federalist elements that were talking about “ever-closer union”.

The 1957 Treaty of Rome which established the EU’s precursor, the European Economic Community, states in the Preamble that the signatory countries,

are determined to establish the foundations of an ever-closer union between the peoples of Europe (déterminés à établir les fondements d'une union sans cesse plus étroite)

TRAITÉ instituant la Communauté Économique Européenne et documents annexes

Note that there is no English version of the treaty as the Brits had no intention of signing it due to French opposition and because the British people didn’t want to be part of a European Union. It took a massive propaganda campaign by Churchill’s United Europe Movement and associated organizations to get Britain to apply for membership in 1961 and it finally joined in 1973.

However, the project was actually referred to as “United States of Europe” already in the early 1900’s and long after the project had began to be implemented in the post-war decades, including by Churchill himself.

Soon after Britain joined, the European Commission established the European Monetary System and in 1981 it proposed closer links between the central banks of the European Community and the US Federal Reserve System - which shows the direction in which things were moving. If closer political integration didn’t happen, this is because of public opposition and divergent national interests. But it is absolutely clear that the “United States of Europe” was to be modeled on the United States of America.

In any case, Germany remained Europe’s strongest economy. In 1982 France’s trade deficit with West Germany, its main trade partner, accounted for more than 40 percent of the total!

This is why I’m saying that it is unacceptable for a country with Germany’s population, economy, and central location in Europe, to have no military comparable to weaker economies like Britain and France, and for Europe as a whole to depend on its rival America for its defense.

Why is it Europe that depends on America on defense matters, and not America on Europe, or Russia on America? WHY is Europe always the weaker partner even though it has a larger population???

It is this totally abnormal, unparalleled, and unacceptable situation that has created a dangerous power vacuum right in the center of Europe, and has enabled non-European powers like America to bully the whole of Europe into submission.

The end result of this insane situation is that Europe is unable to be an equal partner either to Russia or America and this leads to situations like the Ukraine crisis.

In a saner, more democratic, and more equitable world, Europe and Russia who are next-door neighbors and have close historical and cultural links, ought to be close partners and allies. But this is not possible with the EU and NATO's policy of unlimited expansion, and with America constantly sticking its nose in other people’s business and telling them what to do.

So, we can see that the tensions between Europe and Russia are ultimately the result of America's self-interested divide-and-rule policy. If we think about it, cooperation between Europe with its population of 450 million and strong economy (especially under German leadership) on one hand, and Russia with its huge natural resources on the other hand, would make an unbeatable economic and military bloc that no one would dare even think of bullying and pushing around.

And this is precisely why America and its British poodle are sowing division between Europe and Russia and prefer war to peace.

In any case, NATO is definitely up to something because there is a lot of military movement all over Eastern Europe where locals clearly don't want a war. I wouldn't be surprised if Britain arranged for Croatia to attack Serbia in order to get Russia to retaliate after which Britain and America will move in.

Turkey obviously has its own plans and may use the situation to occupy parts of Southeastern Europe in exchange for intervention in Ukraine on NATO's side, etc., etc.

So, there is a lot of potential for the situation to develop into something like WW1. If it does, we must bear in mind that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a very limited, local conflict. In contrast, NATO intervention would amount to world war.

Reply to Apollodorus

Of course, the US needed allies and a market for exports. The Marshall plan was not done out of pure charity.

Reply to Manuel
Mark Blyth says it's the other way around: the world needed the US to buy its goods and establish stability after the war.

There is no reason to doubt the conventional wisdom regarding the Marshall plan: it was to get the British and French back on the job of securing the infrastructure of global trade. Only after it became clear that that wasn't going to happen did the US government start thinking about doing that job itself (with zero experience and a second rate economy).

Just note that you have a tendency to let your biases caus

Reply to frank

Correct. Same with Japan, they had an internal debate as to how to handle the post WWII world.

The world needed supplies, the US needed market for surplus production.

Quoting Manuel

The world needed supplies, the US needed market for surplus production.

You're saying that on the heels of a devastating depression and fighting two wars simultaneously, the US was worried about excess production, so they invested in reindustrializing Europe.
:up:

Reply to Manuel

That's right. As openly admitted by George Marshall and Dean Acheson, it was US self-interest, even though this was naturally denied in Europe.

But one of NATO's main objectives was "to keep the Germans down". And if you look at a map of Europe, you will see the devastating effect this has had, and continues to have, on the whole of Europe.

In military terms, you've got nuclear powers Britain and France on the western flank, then you have this huge almost empty space all across Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe, after which you have non-European powers Russia and Turkey on the eastern flank.

Britain is an extension of America, France likes to do its own things, and Russia and Turkey each have their own interests. Obviously, it is impossible to have a stable balance of powers in this situation. The end result is that non-European powers from America to Turkey feel almost invited to meddle in European affairs.

And we can see that from a Russian perspective, if Ukraine joins the EU and NATO, NATO (i.e., America) will be right on Russia's western borders, which will force Russia to keep a permanent military presence to guard its western flank and will reduce its defense capability in other areas like Central Asia where the EU and NATO are also trying to expand ....

Reply to Apollodorus

These power systems don't go down without a fight. And as usual, the so called "national interests" reflect the interests of the elite within that society, US, UK, etc.

When elites differ, you can have divergent policies in economic and military affairs, though these aren't too common.

Quoting frank

Mark Blyth says it's the other way around: the world needed the US to buy its goods and establish stability after the war.

Mark Blyth? This is not how George Marshall put it. He said European cities were unable to produce goods that European farmers wanted, so the farmers who had no problem feeding themselves, refused to sell food to the urban population.

The result was that European cities were unable to buy US goods and this was bad news for the US economy:

The truth of the matter is that Europe’s requirements for the next three or four years of foreign food and other essential products–principally from America–are so much greater than her present ability to pay … Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all.

The Marshall Plan Speech – Marshall Foundation

So it was US self-interest, at least this is how the Marshall Plan was sold to Congress, and only after a big propaganda campaign as many Americans were neither particularly impressed nor interested ....

Quoting Apollodorus

So it was US self-interest

Sure. It was about defense, not economics.

Quoting Manuel

These power systems don't go down without a fight. And as usual, the so called "national interests" reflect the interests of the elite within that society, US, UK, etc.

Correct. And the US-UK new world order that was supposed to ensure "world peace" is once again plunging the world into war ....

Quoting frank

I don't know if a member of the CIA has ever run for president.

A director of the CIA has actually been later the President of the US. (Not a career spy, but anyway)


...and btw, a far more cautious foreign policy with him than with later Republican presidents, even if he invaded Panama.

Quoting frank

Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target.

And costly. Put into the field over 100 000+ troops and then have them there for months is expensive. Usually armed forces don't do it. Just to put things into context, the largest military exercise the Soviet Union held towards the West had 150 000 troops (Zapad-81). The largest military exercise since WW2 held in the West was Reforger 1988 with 125 000 troops.

Yet Russia has persistently trained it's troops in huge formations not seen in Western military exercises and hence can adapt to the troops being there. And of course, tanks assembled row after row in vehicle depot means that they aren't fielded tactically.

It should be remembered that the Zapad exercises (same name as with the exercises the Soviet Union held) with Belarus have nearly always stoked fears (after 2014) about Russian motivations in the West, yet nothing has happened so far. So perhaps the Russian army simply adapts to live in tents for a prolonged time. Which actually isn't such a bad idea for an army...

Quoting Apollodorus

Why is it Europe that depends on America on defense matters, and not America on Europe, or Russia on America? WHY is Europe always the weaker partner even though it has a larger population???

It is this totally abnormal, unparalleled, and unacceptable situation that has created a dangerous power vacuum right in the center of Europe, and has enabled non-European powers like America to bully the whole of Europe into submission.

A good question.

I think the reason is that only the UK wasn't defeated, wasn't occupied, during WW2. The only two European countries that think they are Great Powers, that see themselves to be in a position that they should use the military as an extension of their foreign diplomacy are UK and France.

For (West) Germany it was a traumatic experience and they truly had to search their souls after Hitler and nazism (while East Germany denied it had anything to do with them and Austrians suddenly noticed that they weren't actually Germans). Just like Japan, it has been cautious of not looking militaristic. Italy suffered a humiliating defeat and the other smaller countries that participated in WW2 lost and were occupied (with only one avoiding occupation). And Spain had lost it's Empire a long time ago (and had even a civil war after that). For Soviet Union and Russia it of course was different.

Yet it truly affects the psyche of country when it's defense fails and the huge sacrifices, if there were those, were for nothing. And WW1 and WW2 have made an impact. Hence Europe simply doesn't have the will or the stomach to carry that "big stick", be bellicose and genuinely is all but happy with the US handling those issues. And do notice that the US behaviour in Europe is totally different from let's say it behaves in Central America and Caribbean. Something like the Berlin Airlift did show the Germans that the US were friends.

A similar story from history would be when Rome at first defeated the Carthaginians and the Carthaginians adopted a non-militaristic approach. While they weren't fight Rome anymore and didn't have a huge army as an expense, the city-state prospered in trade. In they found it totally acceptable. Yet of course the Romans didn't, and they decided to annihilate the city altogether as there could not be any successful competitor in trade with Rome.

Western Europe is simply happy to be the junior partner with the US, just like the UK. After all, how many times has the US toppled British governments, backed up military coups, assassinated it's Prime Minister's, made open threats about intervention or sent cruise missiles into London?

If it had done any of the above, I would guarantee that the British wouldn't like you as much as now. And that's the bottom line just why the US can in your own words, "bully the whole of Europe into submission". Let's say it has used silk gloves and not an iron fist to handle West Europe.

Reply to ssu

I think it is clear that you have no intention or interest in quitting the pro-EU and pro-NATO narrative or propaganda.

As I said, it is very easy to trace the history of the EU (and NATO) IF there is a will to do so.

Regarding the Marshall Plan which was announced in 1947, (1) it was devised by America to serve US economic self-interests, and (2) it stipulated European economic integration.

This means that the European countries that subscribed to the Marshall Plan deal pledged themselves to working toward the establishment of a united or federated Europe often referred to as “United States of Europe” after the US model.

Germany was under Allied (US) military occupation and was run according to the Occupation Statute that expressly put German foreign policy under the control of the Allies.

France was under US pressure to join the United States of Europe project and to take a leading role in it by merging its coal and steel industries with those of Germany.

Once Germany and France had been made to comply, smaller countries whose economies depended on German and French industry, namely Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, had no choice but to join Germany and France to form the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).

In the Messina Declaration of June 1955, the Six ECSC states resolved that their governments:

believe that the establishment of a united Europe must be achieved through the development of common institutions, the progressive fusion of national economies, the creation of a common market, and the gradual harmonization of their social policies

Next, ECSC president Jean Monnet set up the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE). The official press statement said:

by the Committee’s intervention and that of the organizations grouped within it, its action will consist in demonstrating to governments, parliaments and public opinion their determination to see the Messina resolution of June 2nd become a veritable step toward a United States of Europe … To achieve these objectives, it is necessary to put aside all specious solutions. Mere cooperation between governments will not suffice. It is indispensable for States to delegate certain of their powers to European federal institutions. At the same time the close association of Great Britain with these new accomplishments must be assured …

Press release on the creation of the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (Paris, 12 October 1955) - CVCE

The next step was to get Britain to join. This was not easy because the British public had zero appetite for being part of Europe.

However, Churchill was a close collaborator of America and his private secretary Arthur Salter who was a key figure in the Foreign Office, had published a book called The United States of Europe in 1931.

Churchill himself had been campaigning for European union since 1946. In 1947 he organized the United Europe Movement (UEM) with his son-in-law Duncan Sandys and together with the French they set up the Joint International Committee of the Movement for European Unity (JICMEU).

We know exactly what Churchill’s ulterior motive was, namely to incorporate Europe into a US-led world government:

We are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world organization of the United Nations … We are not in any way the rival of the world organization. We are a subordinate but essential element in its ultimate structure.

Address to the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, Aug. 17 1949

We also know that Churchill’s propaganda campaign was funded by the US government agency, the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) which had been set up to administer Marshall Plan funds.

On its part, Russia identified the whole project as a creation of US capitalist interests and decided to prevent European states under its influence or control, namely East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Yugoslavia, Finland, from joining the project.

So, essentially, half of Europe was ordered by America to join the United States of Europe, and the other half was ordered by Russia not to join. Either way, European countries had to cede their powers to supranational institutions ....

And there are still some who claim that Europe was (and is) “sovereign, independent, and free”!

IMO true European sovereignty, independence, and freedom can be restored ONLY if the peoples of Europe resolve to stand up for their rights and fight against all forms of foreign domination.

And for this to happen, Europe must know the truth about the institutions that make it subservient to foreign interests and that keep it in an unacceptable condition of servitude and slavery. Imperialism and colonialism in all forms and shapes must be abolished once and for all.

Quoting ssu

Yet Russia has persistently trained it's troops in huge formations not seen in Western military exercises and hence can adapt to the troops being there.

Odd. Maybe he was reading War and Peace and thought it would be fun to get out there and camp in the mud.

So the Ukrainian military is saying that Russia is getting close to invasion-ready.

Looks like it's going to be a blood bath.

Quoting frank

Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target.

Well, you can't mount a full-scale invasion in secret, so this is neither here nor there. If they were in fact preparing for an invasion, it would look pretty much how it looks today.

Quoting ssu

And costly. Put into the field over 100 000+ troops and then have them there for months is expensive. Usually armed forces don't do it.

Which is why in the earlier stages of the buildup they were mostly moving armor, and artillery, which take longer to transport and deploy - with skeleton crews and little support. (This actually prompted some commentators to dismiss the possibility of an invasion.) But now it looks like they are deploying additional infantry, military hospitals, support units.

No one knows whether this is a monstrous bluff or the real thing, but some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making.

Quoting SophistiCat

some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making.

They also say it's going to be a blood bath. Maybe it will be quick.

Quoting Apollodorus

As I said, it is very easy to trace the history of the EU (and NATO) IF there is a will to do so.

You seem to be simply a bit illogical or confused here, even if I think you have the historical facts correct.

For example, let's take how you see French involvement:

Quoting Apollodorus

France was under US pressure to join the United States of Europe project and to take a leading role in it by merging its coal and steel industries with those of Germany.

You don't realize how loonie what you say is.

So if it's the French Foreign Minister that first proposes an European Coal and Steel Community in 1950 in order to to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible", then somehow, somewhere, you concoct this idea that France WAS FORCED to take A LEADING ROLE in this project.

That's how it goes? Forcing France to take a leading role? How do you force a country to take a leading role? I've never heard about such micromanagement. What was the pressure? How was France forced to do that? Or is impossible for you to think that they might have themselves also seen this as something good?

You see, the vast majority of history books say and I agree that the US encouraged European integration for obvious reasons, as Europe had just gone through a devastating war. Encouraging a person or state to do something is a bit different than to force them to do it. But of course, you don't see it that way (I get it).

The basic problem is that you see all West Europeans as puppets of the US that behave just how Washington wants them to act! Starting from agent Churchill, who obviously is just a mouthpiece of the Americans that served loyally his masters in Washington.

As if Europeans would have been utterly unable to see themselves how devastating two World Wars had been to their continent and that France and Germany ought to do something else than prepare for the next war against each other. Oh no! For @Apollorodus, that was just a machination of the Americans! The French had to be forced into these kind of ideas.

And naturally, any other view than his is Pro-EU, Pro-NATO propaganda.

Quoting Apollodorus

[b]So, essentially, half of Europe was ordered by America to join the United States of Europe, and the other half was ordered by Russia not to join.

And this shows clearly your bias. As if Europeans didn't have anything to do with this. Also leaving obviously out that the actual orders and commands, more than just not to join the West, were given in the countries that the Soviet Union occupied tells a lot too.

Quoting SophistiCat

Which is why in the earlier stages of the buildup they were mostly moving armor, and artillery, which take longer to transport and deploy - with skeleton crews and little support. (This actually prompted some commentators to dismiss the possibility of an invasion.) But now it looks like they are deploying additional infantry, military hospitals, support units.

No one knows whether this is a monstrous bluff or the real thing, but some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making.

This I've read now from many various references. When Russia occupied the Crimea in 2014, the lack of a logistics tail fooled Western observers (and they were then focused hunting terrorists anyway). Now the arrival of that logistical tail, field hospitals, ammo depots etc. sends a message.

Of course what is totally lacking here is the strategic surprise (which they had in 2014). This might genuinely make Putin to weigh his options here. Or then, let's hope, that this genuinely is a huge bluff to get the US and NATO to sit down and talk (or as others put it, a Western media hype) and a huge camping out of the Russian military.

(A pro-Ukrainian demonstration in Kharkiv yesterday)

Reply to ssu

Well, I think you are confusing yourself, aside from having an unusually short or defective memory ....

By your own admission, I "have the historical facts correct" so, presumably, you accept those facts. As for how America put pressure on France, I have explained that to you on other threads already as well as here at page 6!

We need to begin with the fact that France was opposed to integrating its economy with that of Germany. The original French idea was for Germany to be dismembered and its coal and steel industries placed under French control.

France was on the Allied Control Council in Germany and used its veto power to oppose German reconstruction, let alone unification with France. That’s where the frictions with the Americans started. This went on until the Marshall Plan was proposed in 1947 when France suddenly changed its mind under US pressure, but only agreed to merge its Occupation Zone with the American and British ones in 1949.

US remarks about French objections and the need to put pressure on the French are well-documented as can be seen from the records in US and EU archives.

Oct 22 1949, Meeting of United States Ambassadors at Paris (attended by McCloy):

As for US policy, it must be directed towards pressing for the acceptance of Germany into the European Councils. We must put pressure on the French to let the Germans come in on a dignified basis…

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers, Oct. 22

Oct 30 1949, Acheson letter to Schuman (in which he tells Schuman to take action “to promptly and decisively integrate US-controlled Germany into Western Europe”):

Whether Germany will in the future be a benefit or a curse to the free world will be determined, not only by the Germans, but by the occupying powers. … Our own stake and responsibility is also greater. Now is the time for French initiative and leadership of the type required to integrate the German Federal Republic promptly and decisively into Western Europe … We have also reserved to ourselves in the Occupation Statute very considerable powers with respect to the action of the German Federal Republic …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) – CVCE

You are saying that the French proposed a European Coal and Steel Community in 1950:

Quoting ssu

So if it's the French Foreign Minister that first proposes an European Coal and Steel Community in 1950

Obviously, this is one of your usual straw men, because Marshall proposed his Plan in May 1947 and France started receiving US aid in December, even before the Marshall Plan became effective in April 1948.

If you are unaware of the fact that 1947 is chronologically prior to 1950, this is your fault, not mine.

Moreover, European economic integration was stipulated in the official Congress act as a precondition for Marshall Plan aid. This means that, by definition, when France signed up to the Plan, which it did at the Franco-British Paris Conference of July 1947, i.e., even before the plan officially came into effect, it committed itself to abide by the plan. There is nothing unclear about that.

Of course, France could have refused. But it depended on US financial and military assistance in its wars in Indochina and Algeria. So it had no choice but to comply with US demands. And once it had accepted US aid, it was obliged to deliver what it had agreed to.

In any case, the Americans clearly asked France to see to it that Franco-German integration went ahead, and we've got the documents to prove this.

So, denying the facts, especially after accepting that they are correct, seems pretty irrational to me.

And, as I've said many times before, posting irrelevant pictures does absolutely nothing to support your spurious arguments. :grin:

Quoting Apollodorus

Of course, France could have refused. But it depended on US financial and military assistance in its wars in Indochina and Algeria. So it had no choice but to comply with US demands. And once it had accepted US aid, it was obliged to deliver what it had agreed to.

Oh right.

This is something that happened far earlier than Suez. You see, if you have the US forcing something on France and the UK, there you have the example. Not here.

How you interpret for example the Dean Acheson letter as "forcing France to do" is beyond me, or anyone that reads the letter.

Now you might refer to historical events, but we disagree in the interpretation. Where you have a total blindspot can be seen from many of your comments, just like the following, for example:

Quoting Apollodorus

If we think about it, the EU has a population of some 450 million. And yet it plays second fiddle to America with a population of only 330 million. Surely, this can't be right. Shameful and disgraceful, really. And definitely undemocratic.

You see, I gather you understand well the policy of "divide et impera", divide and rule. Yet you have really problems to understand the opposite, a policy to encourage integration and union, and how it actually works. It has been very successful for the US. Yet this strategy only works when there is a mutual desire to do it and when those to be encouraged to integrate don't view the other (here the US) as a threat. Divide and rule "works" when otherwise the people would form an alliance against you.

And why it is shameful and disgraceful not to aspire for World domination and be a team player I really don't know.

Reply to ssu

:rofl: I think it is you who has no understanding of how international relations work and that it is a give-and-take process in which the party that holds the weaker bargaining chips has to give in to the party with the stronger hand.

France was fighting a war with the Vi?t Minh in Indochina (1946-1954) and with the National Liberation Front in Algeria (1954-1962). Therefore, it depended on US financial and military assistance and had to comply with US demands. Nothing to do with Suez!

Your argument was that European states were “sovereign” at the time they joined the economic integration process leading to the European Union (EU).

My counterargument is that “sovereign” in this context cannot be used in an unqualified sense.

To begin with, some European states like Germany and Austria were under Allied military occupation which really means US control, as the US held the supreme Allied command.

Germany, which was the focus of US interest and at the very core of the European project, got a constitution in 1949 but it was never put to public vote and the US expert involved in drafting it, Prof. Friedrich, observed that it was “not the creation of a free people”:

On May 8, 1949 – the fourth anniversary of unconditional surrender – the Parliamentary Council - adopted at Bonn the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany … Any consideration of this Basic Law should start from the fact that the charter is not the creation of a free people …

- Carl J. Friedrich, “Rebuilding the German Constitution, II”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 43, No. 4 Aug. 1949, p. 704.

Moreover, as Germany remained under Allied occupation, its relations with the Allies were dictated by the Occupation Statute that was in force until 1955.

Article 2 of the Statute says:

2. In order to ensure the accomplishment of the basic purposes of the occupation, powers in the following fields are specifically reserved, including the right to request and verify information and statistics needed by the occupation authorities:
…
c) foreign affairs, including international agreements made by or on behalf of Germany

Text of Occupation Statute promulgated on the 12th May 1949 by the Military Governors and Commanders in Chief of the Western Zones – CVCE

So, the law that was in force at the time placed German foreign policy and international agreements under the control of the US-led Allied military commanders.

US State Secretary Acheson admits that the Allies were making decisions on behalf of the Germans.

Oct. 30 1949, Acheson to Schuman:

These difficult problems involve direct and indirect interests of our own, and in most of them we have grown accustomed in the past four years to making decisions for the Germans …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) - CVCE

US High Commissioner in Germany, John J. McCloy himself admitted that he had "the powers of a dictator":

I had the powers of a dictator as High Commissioner of Allied Forces in West Germany, but I think I was a benevolent dictator. I think the rebuilding came off very well, with no significant problems.

John J. McCloy, Lawyer and Diplomat, Is Dead at 93 – New York Times

Surely, you can see that you cannot possibly simultaneously have (a) a sovereign Germany and (b) a Germany controlled by a (self-confessed) US dictator?

I think the evidence is overwhelming that Germany was NOT a “sovereign” state.

France was under US pressure, as already explained.

Smaller countries that depended on the economies of Germany and France had no choice but to join them.

By definition, the states involved (1) had to comply with the economic integration program stipulated in the Marshall Plan and (2) had to cede some of their sovereign powers to supranational institutions as the said institutions could not have functioned otherwise.

It follows that it is incorrect to insist that these European countries were (or are) unqualifiedly “sovereign”. At the very least, given America’s economic, financial, and military dominance, they were less free to manifest their sovereignty than America, especially vis-à-vis the latter.

What you are claiming there doesn't make any sense and is inconsistent with both logic and the historical evidence ....

I don't get what all the fuss is over Ukraine. Russia wants a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO - NATO will not agree to that. There's an easy solution - compromise.

Russia
Give back Crimea
Agree to a demilitarized zone on Ukraine border - to be monitored by UN

NATO
Ukraine will not be invited to join NATO for some period of time - say until 2050.

There - wasn't that easy? I'm gonna take off the rest of the day. Tomorrow I'll solve the Middle East crisis . . .

Quoting EricH

There - wasn't that easy?

Not quite.

In 1951, China invaded, occupied and annexed Tibet.

In 1974, Turkey (a NATO member!) invaded and occupied North Cyprus.

I think Tibet and Cyprus must be returned to their original and rightful owners before any demands are placed on Russia.

Quoting Apollodorus

Therefore, it depended on US financial and military assistance and had to comply with US demands. Nothing to do with Suez!

You didn't understand.

The Suez crisis was the time when the US used real pressure on UK and France to stop their military operation. That's the time when the US used pressure. Not when they asked France to take leadership on an issue both countries agreed on. Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that sometimes countries can find policies they both find beneficial.

Quoting Apollodorus

To begin with, some European states like Germany and Austria were under Allied military occupation which really means US control, as the US held the supreme Allied command.

And others were not defeated Axis powers.

Quoting Apollodorus

I think Tibet and Cyprus must be returned to their original and rightful owners before any demands are placed on Russia.

Who do you think their rightful owners are? Independent Tibet? And with Cyprus? UK? The Ottoman Empire? The Venetians?

Back to the actual topic of the thread:

Macron held talks with Putin. I think France is also in charge of the EU presidency now. At least France and Russia agreed on something. Perhaps the way out of this threat of war is for the Normandy process to continue and the Minsk peace agreement to be ratified. If this is done, of course the West ought to support Ukraine that the agreement isn't used as a Trojan horse by Russia (which Ukraine fears). And Putin would show to his domestic public that he has showed it again to the West and the border camping-trip of perhaps 170 000 troops was needed.

(They couldn't find a longer table?)


Or then he could perhaps just annex parts of Donbass that he already has and nobody basically can do anything about it. At least the shelling might stop then.

Quoting ssu

Who do you think their rightful owners are? Independent Tibet?

That’s just more weasel words and straw men, isn’t it?

Of course Tibet should belong to the Tibetans! Who do you think Finland should belong to? Sweden maybe? :grin:

You are obviously unaware of the fact that there is a Tibetan government-in-exile (based in India) and that in 1991, US President George Bush signed a Congressional Act that explicitly called Tibet "an occupied country", and identified the Dalai Lama and his administration as "Tibet's true representatives".

Your comments merely expose the inconsistency and double standards of the anti-Russia camp. And as I said before, irrelevant pictures should not be mistaken for rational argument.

If we put to one side the political activism, the “nuke-the-Russians” sloganeering, and the pro-EU and pro-NATO propaganda, we must admit that unlimited expansion as insisted on by the EU and NATO (a) logically leads to world government and (b) is bound to lead to conflict with those nations that decline to submit to EU or NATO rule, like Russia and China.

This means that national sovereignty isn’t something that should be ignored. If we base our arguments on the national sovereignty of Ukraine, then we should also consider the sovereignty of other countries, including Russia, and above all, the sovereignty of the European countries that are part of NATO and the European Union (EU).

We have seen that Germany, which was at the core of the US-led European integration project, was not a sovereign country. When it signed the 1951 Treaty of Paris which established the European Coal and Steel Community which pursued “ever-closer union among European nations” and formed the foundations on which the EU was built, Germany was under Allied military occupation.

Germany’s 1949 constitution was not submitted to popular vote, it was simply approved by the occupying powers.

Article 24 (of the original version) says:

The Federation [of German Länder] may join a system of mutual collective security; in doing so, it will agree to restrictions on its sovereign rights.

Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 23. Mai 1949 - DokumentArchiv

At the Treaty of Paris, the signatory countries also issued the Europe Declaration which stated:

By the signature of this Treaty, the involved parties give proof of their determination to create the first supranational institution and that thus they are laying the true foundation of an organised Europe. This Europe remains open to all European countries that have freedom of choice. We profoundly hope that other countries will join us in our common endeavour.

But, first, as we have seen, this “freedom-of-choice” formula merely served to mask the fact that the signatory nations themselves were not quite as “free” as one might think.

Second, they ceded some of their sovereign rights to the supranational institutions they were creating, and so did new members.

Third, as later became apparent, this supranational and “organized” Europe was open not only to European countries but also to sundry non-European ones, like Turkey, a Mid-Eastern (or West Asian) country, and even to Russia itself, a country that stretches as far east as China and North Korea!

Indeed, EU-related institutions and programs like the European Neighborhood Policy, the Eastern Partnership, the Union for the Mediterranean, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe, and many others, demonstrate the EU’s insatiable appetite for expansion.

And fourth, this constant expansion is not simply a matter of candidate countries opting to join. It is a gradual and highly intricate process in which a country is drawn into a spiderweb of agreements, treaties, rules, regulations, and laws, often without the general public even being aware. Even governments may be unaware of all the legal, financial, and economic ramifications.

A country becomes a member of EU-related institutions years before it joins the EU. And every time it does so, it gives up a chunk of its sovereignty, so that it becomes debatable exactly how “sovereign” a country is at the moment it “freely” becomes an EU member.

Here is a BBC article from 2016 when Britain was still part of the EU:

Britain is a parliamentary democracy. That means we all get to choose the parliaments that make decisions on our behalf at Westminster.
And between elections, those parliaments are sovereign. But in 1972, the UK Parliament decided to give up some of that sovereignty.
It chose to pool some power with other countries in what was then called the European Community. And that means that on some issues, it is the EU institutions in Brussels and not MPs in Westminster who have the final say.
There is disagreement over how many of the laws that govern our lives originate in the European Union. Some of those campaigning to remain in the EU claim that only 13% of laws passed by Parliament implement the UK's obligations under EU law.
This figure ignores the many EU regulations that are automatically binding on the UK and do not pass through Parliament ....

- UK and the EU: Sovereignty and laws, stats and facts – BBC News, May 31, 2016

Note that this is the BBC, not Russian propaganda. It took Britain about four years to leave the EU and it is still mired in legal wrangles with member countries, some like France even demanding that Britain be “punished” for leaving.

And we mustn’t forget that this “free and sovereign” Europe remains dominated by and dependent on America and US-dominated or -controlled organizations like NATO.

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.

If America wants Russia to get out of Europe, then it should lead by example and go first. And Europeans should encourage it to do so ....

Reply to ssu

So it was all a negotiation tactic?

Reply to frank We'll see what it was.

The likeliest thing is that this hasn't gone as Putin planned earlier, the moves of the game are still going on.

Quoting Apollodorus

Your comments merely expose the inconsistency and double standards of the anti-Russia camp. And as I said before, irrelevant pictures should not be mistaken for rational argument.

Lol.

I think an Independent Tibet would be great. There is Nepal, Bhutan etc. so why not an Independent Tibet! On the status of the government-in-exile I didn't know. China is another of these countries who see as a victim of history and having the right to it's "old provinces".

Quoting Apollodorus

we must admit that unlimited expansion as insisted on by the EU and NATO (a) logically leads to world government

:roll:

-Wasn't that already the UN? :snicker:

Quoting Apollodorus

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.

Oh sure, @Apollodorus. But apparently they are not allowed to make organizations and collaborate with each other.

Quoting ssu

The likeliest thing is that this hasn't gone as Putin planned earlier, the moves of the game are still going on.

You mean about splitting the US off from NATO? Or what?

Quoting ssu

There is Nepal, Bhutan etc. so why not an Independent Tibet! On the status of the government-in-exile I didn't know.

This only demonstrates that you don't know. And that your earlier question about who the rightful owners of Tibet are was a rhetorical one, which seems to be your idea of "discussing" things.

The fact is that those who want to see sanctions or military action against Russia for invading Ukraine, are being inconsistent and duplicitous if they refuse to call for action against China for invading and occupying Tibet or against Turkey for invading and occupying Cyprus.

These are unacceptable double standards, especially coming from NATO of which Turkey is a member.

Plus, you are misrepresenting my statements. I never said European countries can't form alliances. What I'm saying is that EU and NATO unlimited expansion can only lead to world government and that countries objecting to this have a right to take countermeasures.

And I was objecting to Europe being dominated by America and its British and German puppets. Not everyone in Europe wants to be ruled by Washington and NATO, in the same way not all Americans want to be dominated by Paris or Berlin.

There have been protests in Slovakia against a defense treaty with NATO

And France’s Macron has said:

Can NATO solve the whole question of Europe’s collective security? I don’t believe so. There is no security for Europeans if there is no security for Russia. Russia is European. Whoever believes in Europe must know how to work with Russia and find the ways and the means to construct the European future among Europeans

Macron: No security for Europeans if there is no security for Russia – Peoples World

Note that he said to construct the European future among Europeans.

Clearly, not all Europeans want to be America’s puppets. In fact, most Europeans want a free and independent Europe, which is only natural if we think about it. IMO their voices need to be heard and respected.

Quoting Apollodorus

What I'm saying is that EU and NATO unlimited expansion can only lead to world government and that countries objecting to this have a right to take countermeasures.

And hence it's OK for Russia to annex parts from Georgia and Ukraine?

Or do you condemn that kind of action, just as invading Tibet? (Do notice that the Turkish part of Cyprus hasn't been annexed by Turkey, but is a republic only recognized only by Turkey).

Quoting Apollodorus

Clearly, not all Europeans want to be America’s puppets.

Not either Russia's puppets, but that I gather you see Putin only "defending the interests of Russia". And Brussells? It might be a huge bureaucracy, but it isn't imperialist and de facto confederation however much they would want to be a federation.

Quoting Apollodorus

And I was objecting to Europe being dominated by America and its British and German puppets.

You talk easily of puppets. Or see just puppets and puppet masters everywhere.

The Normandy format can be a way to solve this crisis.

Quoting frank

You mean about splitting the US off from NATO? Or what?

Of course Putin would really want to see NATO going the way of SEATO or CENTO. If Russia can engage European countries on a bilateral basis, it will be strong. That's why Putin absolutely hates to face Western Europe in the form of EU. Or in security issue talk to NATO. Yet let's not forget that both CENTO and SEATO are not anymore.

But do note the difference between those treaty members: CENTO dissappeared in revolutions and later two former member states, Iraq and Iran, had a bloody war. In SEATO there was hardly much if anything unifying in the security worries of it's members: for Pakistan the central threat was India, for South Korea North Korea and for New Zealand nobody I guess. The members simply started jumping out of the treaty.

NATO here is different. European countries have gotten content with the organization and wanted to have it around even after Soviet Union collapsed. (Let's not forget that an unified Germany still got some to be worried about the militarily harmless economic giant.) So Putin has a lot to do.

Reply to ssu :up:

Reply to ssu

What you need to understand is that there is a difference between stating your personal opinion and denying or misrepresenting the facts.

I think it is clear from your comments that either (a) you don’t know the facts or (b) you don’t care about the facts because you’ve got a political agenda.

The fact is that NATO member Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus and installed a puppet state under Turkish military occupation:

The international community considers the TRNC's [Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus] territory as Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. The occupation is viewed as illegal under international law, amounting to illegal occupation of European Union territory since Cyprus became a member. The international community found this declaration [of TRNC independence] invalid, on the ground that Turkey had occupied territory belonging to Cyprus and that the putative state was therefore an infringement on Cypriot sovereignty

Turkish invasion of Cyprus - Wikipedia

This is precisely why Turkey is the only country on the planet that recognizes its own puppet state in Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is a classical example of puppet state!

According to the European Court of Human Rights, the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legitimate government in Cyprus, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a [u]puppet state under Turkish effective control

Puppet state - Wikipedia

And if Turkey is allowed to do that in Cyprus, I don't see on what basis you object to Russia doing the same in Ukraine. What you are saying doesn't make any sense.

And you seem to have some difficulty grasping the concept of national sovereignty. You claimed that the countries that formed the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) which laid the foundations for the European Union (EU) were “sovereign”.

I demonstrated to you that Germany, which was at the very center of the European integration project was NOT a sovereign state. The Eastern half was under Russian and Polish occupation and the Western half was under American, British, and French occupation. From 1945 to 1949 Germany was not even a state, consisting of separate occupation zones.

In 1949, the Western Allies, US, UK, and France, merged their three zones, ordered the Germans to draft an (interim) constitution under US direction, elect a president, and created the “Federal Republic of Germany”.

However, the German constitution was never submitted to popular vote, the new German state remained under US-led military occupation, and simultaneously with the constitution, the occupying powers issued the Occupation Statute that gave them the final say in all German legal matters and gave them control over Germany’s foreign policy and international agreements.

The supreme authority was US High Commissioner for Germany McCloy, who publicly admitted that he had the powers of a dictator:

I had the powers of a dictator as High Commissioner of Allied Forces in West Germany, but I think I was a benevolent dictator.

Who gave McCloy those powers? Not the German people, but the US government of Harry Truman!
Please note that “dictator” here is not meant metaphorically but literally, McCloy having been granted absolute authority by the said US government.

From the start, Germany had ZERO sovereignty, the sole sovereign authority in Germany until 1948 being the US-led Allied Control Council after which it passed over to McCloy.

When Germany signed up to the Marshall Plan that obliged it to work for European integration (see the 1949 Petersberg Agreement) it was still at war with the Allies (because the Allies refused to end the state of war), it was under Allied military occupation and under US control, it did not have a foreign office, it was not a diplomatic entity, and it depended on US financial aid.

Ditto, when Germany signed the 1951 Treaty of Paris that established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), it was NOT a sovereign state.

The other countries that joined the European integration project were not fully sovereign either. They depended on US financial aid, they pledged themselves to European integration by accepting US aid, and by the very act of joining the various European institutions, they legally ceded some of their sovereign powers. This is precisely what has been a subject of intense controversy and debate that seems to have escaped you.

Moreover, the sovereignty of Europe itself is being questioned, with leading EU members like France and Germany demanding greater European sovereignty vis-à-vis other powers, in particular, greater strategic sovereignty vis-à-vis America:

France and Germany bear a “special responsibility” to make the European Union a stronger world power as Paris assumes the bloc’s rotating presidency, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock told AFP on Friday.
Germany’s coalition government has said it wants to increase the bloc’s “strategic sovereignty” as rivalries between world powers such as the United States, China and Russia adversely affect the EU.

Germany backs France for ‘more sovereign’ Europe – Euractiv

And this is the core of the current crisis. NOT Finland’s concerns, but the balance of power between global spheres of interest.

While demanding greater independence from America, the European Union has been constantly expanding, from the original ECSC Six to currently 27, and it is clearly aiming to expand far beyond Europe proper.

The EU attempted to incorporate the whole MENA (Mid East and North Africa) region through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) of 1995, and Russia through the EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) of 1997. Clearly, after European integration come Euro-Mediterranean, Euro-African, and Euro-Asian integration, the logical end result being world state and world government.

And just as Russia rejected EU membership after Putin came to power, it now objects to endless NATO expansion on its borders.

French President Macron has publicly recognized the legitimacy of Russia’s security concerns, and even leading Americans have done the same.

Bernie Sanders has said:

I am extremely concerned when I hear the familiar drum beats in Washington. Putin may be a liar and a demagogue, but it is hypocritical for the United States to insist that we do not accept the principle of 'spheres of influence’. Even if Russia was not ruled by a corrupt authoritarian leader like Vladimir Putin, Russia, like the United States, would still have an interest in the security policies of its neighbors. Does anyone really believe that the United States would not have something to say if, for example, Mexico was to form a military alliance with a US adversary?

Bernie Sanders Says U.S. 'Hypocritical' To Reject Russia Concerns Over NATO Expansion - NewsWeek

The 1999 European Security Charter (Article II, Paragraph 8) that was signed by the US and Russia says countries should be free to choose their own security arrangements and alliances, but that they “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states”.

- Istanbul Document 1999 – OSCE

So, even leaving aside all other considerations, Russia has a point in terms of international law.

The way I see it, in this particular case, even if NATO refuses to set limits to its expansion, Ukraine should sign a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia. If it refuses to do so, then I think it is obvious that there are some ulterior motives there, probably instigated by the EU and NATO's expansionist intentions.

Reply to Apollodorus I'll ask you again.

Do you condemn the annexations that Russia has done concerning Georgia and Ukraine?

Do you view them equivalent to what Turkey did? Both countries (Turkey and Russia) "came to the help" of their ethnic minorities, just with Russia going past the puppet state phase and made direct annexations.

You have accused me of double standards, which is false. I don't accept Chinese annexation of Tibet or Turkish actions, but seems that for you the above is extremely hard to do when it's Russia doing similar actions. But of course I could be wrong, but I wish you would reply to this and not brush it aside again.

Quoting Apollodorus

The way I see it, in this particular case, even if NATO refuses to set limits to its expansion, Ukraine should sign a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia. If it refuses to do so, then I think it is obvious that there are some ulterior motives there, probably instigated by the EU and NATO's expansionist intentions.

Obviously Russia and Ukraine could make a peace agreement. Russia is fighting already a proxy war with Ukraine, which you seem not to understand.

Who has attacked whom? Conveniently forgetting the Budapest memorandum from 1994 along with a multitude of international laws and agreements, yet somehow you see Ukraine as the aggressor and Russia as the victim, hence you sure talk like a Russian troll.

Let's just remember what Russia and the US agreed with Ukraine and other ex-Soviet countries that posessed nuclear weapons in order to have their nuclear weapons to be given to Russia:

According to the memorandum, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they would:

- Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

- Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

- Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.

- Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

-Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

As Russia doesn't respect the sovereignty and borders of it's neighbors, there urge to join NATO is totally logical. Your total inability to understand this is obvious as the actions of the dominant country does have an effect on how countries view it.

Quoting ssu

Conveniently forgetting the Budapest memorandum from 1994 along with a multitude of international laws and agreements, yet somehow see Ukraine as the aggressor, hence you sure talk like a Russian troll.

Well, just because you are a troll, it doesn't mean that others must be trolls. :grin:

I NEVER said that Ukraine is the aggressor. So, clearly, that is another straw man of yours and a lie.

Moreover, we've discussed this many times before. See Is China going to surpass the US and become the world's most powerful superpower?

So I don’t know how you can pretend that you don’t know my position when I stated it very clearly:

Quoting Apollodorus

Given that Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus, and China invaded, occupied, and annexed Tibet with impunity, it doesn’t make sense to call for war on Russia for annexing Crimea.

I think this is perfectly logical and easy to understand to most thinking people (though perhaps not to Finnish activists). Your reply was to suggest that I was a “Russian silovik”!

And you did appear to defend Turkey’s actions in Cyprus by invoking Ataturk and by falsely claiming that Europe attacked Turkey, when it is a well-known fact that it is the other way round. It was the Seljuk Turks who came from Central Asia to invade Iran, Iraq, and most of the Mid East, after which they invaded Anatolia which was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and other local populations:

From their homelands near the Aral Sea, the Seljuks advanced first into Khorasan and then into mainland Persia, before eventually conquering Baghdad and eastern Anatolia. The Seljuks won the battle of Manzikert in 1071, and then conquered most of the rest of Anatolia, wresting it from the Byzantine Empire.

Seljuk Empire – Wikipedia

This is elementary knowledge that is in the public domain and easy to access by anyone who takes an interest in the facts. But it takes someone like you to deny the facts, which I think we have already identified as your habit and method.

I also stated in very clear and unambiguous terms the following:

Quoting Apollodorus

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.

Yet you chose to deride me for it!

Anyway, you can say whatever you want, the issue isn’t going to be resolved by Finland or Ukraine.

In order to solve a problem of this type you need to understand the real causes and the wider geopolitical ramifications.

As far as I am aware, most people on this planet believe in a free, democratic, and equitable world. But such a world isn’t going to fall out of the sky and into our lap, it needs to be built through hard work.

To achieve this, European countries need to have more power within the European Union, and Europe needs to have more power in the world.

We are in 2022, not in the 1940’s. We can’t apply the standards of post-war Europe to the 21st century. Europe cannot be eternally dependent on, and subservient to, America. I know that Britain loves being America’s poodle because it is an extremely Americanized nation, but this is not what the rest of Europe wants.

Britain has left the European Union. In my view, this was the right thing to do in view of the referendum results, and hopefully others will follow soon. But Britain must now decide whether it is on Europe’s side or on America’s side. It can’t keep acting as an extension of America for ever, as this upsets the continent’s balance of power, which will be exploited by others.

The other step that needs to be taken is to establish greater equality - economic, political, and military - among European states. It is unacceptable to have some European countries getting poorer and poorer, and others richer and richer, often at the former’s expense. Germany must be allowed to have the same military capability as Britain and France.

Last but not least, Europe needs to finally gain independence from America and stand on its own feet and in a relation of economic, political, and military parity with America, Russia, and China. This is why it is imperative for Europe to quit kowtowing to America and urgently start making its own arrangements with Russia, as a sovereign power, not as an extension of Washington or Wall Street.

In addition to having close geographical, historical, and cultural links, Europe and Russia are natural allies and partners. Europe needs Russia’s resources, especially in the energy sector, and Russia needs Europe’s economy. It is in the interest of both to foster peaceful economic cooperation between them.

As part of this process, Europe must persuade Ukraine to come to a compromise. There is no other way. France and Germany have shown that they understand this well. The rest of the world must begin to understand it, too. And that includes America and its British poodle ….

So you do you or not condemn the annexations that Russia has done? Do you think it is similar to what Turkey has done in Cyprus or China in Tibet?

Please answer the question.

Quoting Apollodorus

And you did appear to defend Turkey’s actions in Cyprus by invoking Ataturk and by falsely claiming that Europe attacked Turkey, when it is a well-known fact that it is the other way round.

Nonsense. I don't know what you are blabbering about.

The Ottoman Empire, the sick man of Europe, had huge parts of it made Western colonies. If you refer to earlier history, well, weren't we talking about the present, not the siege of Vienna or the fall of Constantinople.


(Of course, in the above map some parts were lost even earlier than WW1)

Quoting Apollodorus

It is in the interest of both to foster peaceful economic cooperation between them.

Of course. European countries do want to have good relations with Russia.

Perhaps Russia then should stop annexing parts of other countries make demands on just what other countries can do with their own foreign and security policy and what kind of military exercises they can have inside their own borders. Russia surely can have whatever exercises inside it's own territory. The simple fact, that you are incapable to fathom or more likely, deliberately don't want to understand, is that the aggression Russia has shown has altered the relations with Europe.

Quoting Apollodorus

I NEVER said that Ukraine is the aggressor. So, clearly, that is another straw man of yours and a lie.

Well good that we cleared that. Do note that you still said this:
Quoting Apollodorus

Ukraine should sign a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia.

It's a bit strange to sign this when the other country is fighting a proxy war against you. (And even the proxy part is dubious as there are Russian forces in Donetsk and Luhansk.) I mean really: would Ukraine, that has a weaker army and no nuclear weapons, take hostile action against the country that has the most nuclear weapons in the world?

A peace treaty would be the more fitting word for this, not "mutual non-aggresion pact". Comes mind the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Quoting ssu

Well good that we cleared that.

That's exactly what I'm saying. We've established that it was a lie, and it's good that you agree! :grin:

Quoting ssu

Nonsense. I don't know what you are blabbering about.

Really!? This is your statement:

Quoting ssu

It's been a long time since the Ottomans were trying to take Vienna. And do remember that they do have their history of Western aggression and the West wanting to divide into colonies the whole of their country. The whole westernization of the Atatürk era was first and foremost done to make the country strong enough to defend the country from outside aggression

That was your response to my comment on Turkey's invasion of Cyprus! Are you retracting that now?

I also stated in very clear and unambiguous terms the following:

Quoting Apollodorus

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.

Yet you chose to deride me for it! Read your own posts:

Quoting ssu

Who do you think their rightful owners are? Independent Tibet? And with Cyprus? UK? The Ottoman Empire? The Venetians?

We know that you've got an anti-Russian bias from your own statements and the "discussions" you have started:

Quoting ssu

Even as a young teen I found it whimsical and totally attached from reality. Soviet propaganda, that is ....

Sounds like you haven't grown up yet.

And as I said, posting irrelevant pictures does NOT "validate" your spurious arguments. But it may indicate troll behavior .... :smile:

Quoting Apollodorus

hat was your response to my comment on Turkey's invasion of Cyprus! Are you retracting that now?

That is totally false. Your making up things.

What you said and what I actually responded to was you very hostile statement about Turkey:

Quoting Apollodorus

Turkey is anti-European and anti-Western, and Europe's enemy No 1.

Therefore I am against Turkey.

This statement wasn't at all about Cyprus. This statement shows what you think of Turkey in general. To this I responded how Turkey hasn't been actually a threat since the Ottoman's tried to take Vienna.

Quoting Apollodorus

That's exactly what I'm saying. We've established that it was a lie, and it's good that you agree! :grin:

What we established was only that both agree that Ukraine hasn't been the aggressor.

So, are you going to answer my question:

Do you or do you not condemn the annexations that Russia has done? Do you think it is similar to what Turkey has done in Cyprus or China in Tibet?

Quoting Apollodorus

We know that you've got an anti-Russian bias from your own statements and the "discussions" you have started:

Even as a young teen I found it whimsical and totally attached from reality. Soviet propaganda, that is ....
— ssu

This is not an anti-Russian bias. :roll:

Quoting ssu

This statement shows what you think of Turkey in general.

My statement clearly refers to the fact that historically, Turkey has been the enemy of Europe and Turkey invaded Europe and continues to do so as evidenced by its invasion of Cyprus and, more recently, its designation of the Mediterranean as "Turkey's blue homeland", its plans to invade Greek islands, etc., etc.

And because I am against countries invading and occupying other countries, I am against Turkey's actions vis-a-vis Europe, or any other country. Very simple and logical IMO.

Quoting ssu

What we established was only that both agree that Ukraine hasn't been the aggressor.

No. Not "only". We also established that your baseless accusation that I "see Ukraine as the aggressor" was false. And this applies to many other statements of yours, as I have demonstrated many times ... :grin:

Reply to Apollodorus Again false. Do understand that "mutual non-aggression pact" obviously refers to a situation where either side could show aggression towards the other, or that there is the potential for it. That somehow really Ukraine would show aggression towards the largest nuclear power is beyond reason. As I have said again and again, the proper term would be to make a peace agreement. There is nothing false in that, but you keep just strawmanning.

And any way, it's now clear you won't even answer the question if you condemn or not Russia's actions of annexing parts of it's neighbors, which are quite similar to those examples of Turkey and China we referred to.

And that tells actually a lot about you.

Quoting frank

This is not an anti-Russian bias. :roll:

But for some it seems that to be opposed to Soviet propaganda is the same as being against the Russian people.

Btw, @frank, do notice what I said about Russia hating to engage in talks with European countries by using the EU. Or the EU giving answers on behalf of it's member states. This kind of response limits Russia's ability to find weak spots or put EU members against each other. As Russia also approached the Nordic countries, it was obvious from the start that there would need to be cooperation to answer to Russia's inquiries.

(REUTERS) Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Thursday said a collective response from the European Union to Russian security proposals would lead to a breakdown in talks, but insisted Moscow was in favour of diplomacy to ease tensions over Ukraine.

Well, EU minister Joseph Borrell answered on behalf of the member states.

“We remain gravely concerned about the current situation and firmly believe that tensions and disagreements must be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy,” the EU leader writes. “We call on Russia to de-escalate and to reverse its military build-up in and around Ukraine, and in Belarus.”

Reply to ssu Did you see news that sanctions could somehow limit the ability of Russia to pay off debt? The country with the biggest liability is France.

Quoting ssu

That somehow really Ukraine would show aggression towards the largest nuclear power is beyond reason.

It isn't "beyond reason" at all. Though I admit that it may be beyond the reason of those with limited powers of reason! :grin:

Ukraine itself may be no threat to Russia. But the situation will be different when NATO parks its nuclear missiles on Ukrainian soil. Russia is NOT objecting to Ukraine, it is objecting to Ukraine becoming a member of America's NATO, don't you get it?

Your problem is that the more you go down your chosen path of activism and propaganda, the more irrational you become. That’s why your arguments lack objectivity and logic.

EU and NATO infinite expansion may sound “legitimate” at first sight. But only if you don’t think it through. Because if you think about it, it is a form of imperialism that can only lead to world government. This is what you’re logically subscribing to if you side with NATO and the EU.

And that’s why you fail to grasp the situation and you refuse to ask yourself some basic questions. For example, if Russia has not threatened America or NATO, why is America getting involved?

Moreover, by definition, if you take the position that Russia’s demands are unacceptable to America but America’s demands should be accepted by Russia, (a) you are siding with America and (b) you are saying that Europe should abide by America’s rules.

And you have failed to explain why Europe and the world should abide by America’s rules, so you can’t even back up your own argument!

I think it makes much more sense for America to get out of Europe and for Britain to stop acting like an extension of America. Britain thinks it can do anything it wants to in Europe because it knows that Uncle Sam will always come to the rescue of his faithful poodle as well as his own self-interests (or the interests of Wall Street).

Europe can only return to sanity and become a normal place if foreign powers stop interfering in its internal affairs. If there was no US-instigated EU and NATO, the “Ukraine crisis” wouldn’t exist and Europe and Russia would have normal economic relations like good neighbors. It follows that the problem is not Russia, but America.

Unfortunately, you have clearly taken an anti-Russian stance from the start by comparing Putin with Saddam Hussein:

Quoting ssu

The bottom line is that the demands Putin put on the table were obvious non-starters, they simply won't be achieved, and that's the worrying issue. In fact, when Saddam Hussein decided to "solve" his financial troubles by annexing Kuwait, the fig leaf for deploying a huge army on the Kuwaiti border was far better than now with Putin.

That’s a total straw man. How is invading Ukraine going to solve Putin’s “financial troubles”? I think it's the other way round, waging war on Russia will bring profits of many trillions of dollars to America's defense and energy industries.

As for Turkey, it’s a well-known fact that it has expansionist plans in Europe. It has declared the Mediterranean Sea “Turkey’s blue homeland”, it has drafted plans to invade Greek islands, and it has similar plans for other parts of Europe. If that isn’t hostile, I don’t know what is.

The purpose of the Blue Homeland strategy is that Turkey should dominate the Mediterranean and reclaim the mercantile and maritime power once held by the Ottomans

Blue Homeland: Turkey’s Strategy in the Eastern Mediterranean – Euractiv

Turkey has a plan for the invasion of Greece, secret documents reveal – Nordic Monitor

This is why Turkey nearly started a war with France last year and it only backed down when Macron put Erdogan in his place. France understands Europe’s genuine interests. America, its British poodle, and Finland, don’t.

And don’t forget the criminal and genocidal activities of the Ottoman Empire which you are trying to justify.

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

In any case, the situation is obviously far more complex than anti-Russian propaganda is trying to paint it:

NATO is uncharacteristically divided on how to deal with Russia in the escalating crisis over Ukraine. The US and the UK favor deterrence and a hard line; Germany, France and Italy are emphasizing dialogue, and a third group, including Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia, wants to stay out of the conflict and any troop deployment

NATO and Russia: Conflicting views in southeastern Europe

And despite the official propaganda, there is in fact widespread opposition to NATO’s expansionist and imperialist designs, including in Britain:

No War in Ukraine - Stop The War Coalition

IMO you really need to get your head out of your Finnish bunker and see that not everybody has the same Russophobic mentality as you do. In fact, most people outside the Finnish outback don’t.

Quoting Apollodorus

Russia is NOT objecting to Ukraine, it is objecting to Ukraine becoming a member of America's NATO, don't you get it?

You didn't explain why this justifies an invasion.

Reply to Manuel

If you really want to exercise your anti-America, you should say, "This is just the sort of aggression we've come to expect from America. And just as it's wrong when America does it, it's wrong for Russia now."

You see, if you give Russia a pass for placing an army around Ukraine because they have a right to increase their sphere of influence, you're basically laying that same right on America.

Don't be morally ambiguous, condemn wrong wherever and whoever is doing it.

Reply to frank

What's this out of the blue?

It's not black or white. We can say things clearly: Ukraine has a right to self-defense, Russia has a right to safe borders, what NATO is doing is extremely dangerous and leaves Russia with little option.

The reason they have an army there is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. If they just sit back and bend over, they'll get it, as they have been since the USSR collapsed, NATO moved, not inches to the East, but hundreds of miles, when they were promised "not an inch".

What's crucial here is that Ukraine does not border the US - in fact, it's very far away.

If Russia was seriously considering joining a military alliance with say, Mexico, then they would be the aggressors and the US would have the right to place troops on its borders.

Nothing to do with being "Anti America", that's an empty phrase, with virtually no meaning.

Quoting Manuel

It's not black or white. We can say things clearly: Ukraine has a right to self-defense, Russia has a right to safe borders, what NATO is doing is extremely dangerous and leaves Russia with little option.

What is NATO doing that's extremely dangerous? I honestly don't know.

The US military has had the ability to level Moscow for the last 50 years. They could do it any time day or night. They don't need access to Ukraine for that. Why is Putin suddenly feeling threatened?

Reply to frank

Building up forces around and in Ukraine. Putin may be many things, but he isn't stupid, much less suicidal. If he invades Ukraine, it's game over. Nevertheless, if he doesn't put troops in the border, Ukraine may feel it could join NATO without consequence, seeing Russia doesn't seem to mind.

He is feeling threatened because Ukraine was gesturing towards joining NATO. As would the US feel threatened if Mexico gave signals it wanted to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Quoting Manuel

Putin may be many things, but he isn't stupid, much less suicidal. If he invades Ukraine, it's game over.

What do you mean? What do you think will happen?

Quoting Manuel

Nevertheless, if he doesn't put troops in the border, Ukraine may feel it could join NATO without consequence, seeing Russia doesn't seem to mind.

So you think he's just going to leave 130,000 troops on the border from now on? To keep Ukraine from joining NATO?

I'm interested in why you and I see such a different world, so thanks for responding.

Reply to frank

I don't know what will happen, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that diplomacy will work.

I believe that if an agreement is made that Ukraine will not join NATO, the troops will leave. Otherwise, it's suicide.

I don't know, people differ a lot in politics. I tend to avoid thinking in terms of "good guys" or "our side" vs. "bad guys" or "them". It's just a different set of (very often) elite interests.

That's how I view it anyway.

Quoting Apollodorus

Ukraine itself may be no threat to Russia.

Exactly. You said it even yourself. It isn't may be, it is no threat to Russia.

And NATO?

What you utterly (and intentionally) fail to notice is that the actions of annexing parts of other countries, starting and continuing a proxy war in Ukraine ARE THE REASONS why Russia's western neighbors are contemplating joining NATO. The Baltic states and Eastern Europe countries surely see now that joining NATO (when there was the chance) was the right thing. Without those annexations, that you are silent about, Sweden wouldn't have gone back to conscription and would have just focused on international missions. There wouldn't be a discussion here in my country about possible NATO membership. NATO genuinely would have been focused on outside theater peacekeeping / peace-enforcing mission. Likely there wouldn't have been any thought to given for article 5 in NATO circles and there had been no exercises in the Baltic states. In fact, prior to the occupation of Crimea, Putin actually was very popular in Ukraine. And European countries would be far more interested in trade relations with Russia and the hawks in Washington would be a minority now. NATO membership of Ukraine would be like EU membership of Turkey. Nope, not going to happen. The security environment has changed.

Annexing parts of other countries just does that.

This is where Putin utterly failed. If he would have just stood back and patiently waited just as it did in Central Asia, let the Americans do their thing, and then he would be out. But I guess the lure to re-establish a greater Russia, snatch Crimea, was too seductive for him. You fail to notice that the US had bases all around the Central Asian states...and no it has none.

And you still have not answered if you condemn or not the annexations that Russia has done.

Quoting Manuel

If Russia was seriously considering joining a military alliance with say, Mexico, then they would be the aggressors and the US would have the right to place troops on its borders.

Don't forget Cuba or Venezuela. Or Nicaragua. You see, bullying and starting a "hybrid attack" (like we saw with the Bay of Pigs etc) simply puts these countries into a corner. And then they can have those Russian bombers visit them.

(Russian Military Aircraft in Venezuela Satellite photos provided by DigitalGlobe show two Russian nuclear-capable Tu-160 Blackjack bombers along with a heavy-lift AN-124 cargo plane and an Il-62 passenger plane outside of Venezuela's capital on Dec. 10, 2018.)

Quoting Manuel

I don't know, people differ a lot in politics. I tend to avoid thinking in terms of "good guys" or "our side" vs. "bad guys" or "them". It's just a different set of (very often) elite interests.

I agree. The mechanics of world events is fascinating to me. I just thought you were anti-American because you said you agreed with one of the more staunchly anti-American characters on the forum.

I think I misunderstood that.

Reply to ssu

Makes sense, they need international partners after all.

Reply to frank

As I've told him, I don't agree with the way he expresses himself and some of his claims, I wouldn't agree with. I don't think this is helpful analytically or for communication purposes.

However, I'm fully aware that I could be called a coward or lacking a spine or convictions. It's a matter of temperament.

However, he's obviously very knowledgeable, has always been nice to me and reads some very interesting books.

Quoting ssu

This is where Putin utterly failed. If he would have just stood back and patiently waited just as it did in Central Asia, let the Americans do their thing, and then he would be out. But I guess the lure to re-establish a greater Russia, snatch Crimea, was too seductive for him. You fail to notice that the US had bases all around the Central Asian states...and no it has none.

I disagree this was a failure. It was strategically a brilliant move. He ensured access to the Black Sea and it cost him almost nothing. Your idea of just "waiting patiently" leaves things to chance; it's not a real strategy. I also happen to think the Crimea annexation was a reaction to Western meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine when it refused to bend over and get anally shafted by the IMF.

Quoting Manuel

Nothing to do with being "Anti America", that's an empty phrase, with virtually no meaning.

I totally agree. Frankly, I find it quite surprising that on a philosophy forum it is difficult to exchange views without people losing their temper (and, apparently, sometimes their marbles) just because someone else takes a different stance. One would have thought that philosophers would take a more philosophical approach to life .... :grin:

IMO, the problem with the pro-NATO and pro-EU views expressed here seems to be that they are too provincial and semi-educated, in addition to being biased and misinformed. It is clear from @ssu's statements that he experienced what he calls “Russian propaganda” in his teens after which he decided to start his own anti-Russian propaganda campaign.

His suggested “solution” to the Ukraine crisis isn’t really a solution, for the simple reason that it leaves too many things unresolved. A real solution requires a global, comprehensive vision and a degree of objectivity and impartiality than he is not prepared to bring to the table.

As already stated, my position as a general principle is that in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Tibet is under Chinese occupation, Northern Cyprus and parts of Syria and Iraq are under Turkish occupation, Kurdish territories (Kurdistan) are under Turkish, Iraqi, and Iranian occupation, etc., etc.

The question that arises from this is, if the international community does absolutely nothing about Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Kurdistan, and many other issues, on what logical basis does it choose to attack Russia over Ukraine?

The answer is that it is not the international community that wants to go to war with Russia, but America and its EU and NATO puppets, Britain in particular.

America’s interference in European affairs is not a democratic initiative. The EU and NATO are not democratic institutions. Their political and military expansionism is not an expression of democracy but of militarism and imperialism. The EU and NATO are instruments of American imperialism.

America is now claiming that a Russian invasion of Ukraine jeopardizes Indo-Pacific stability and puts the post-World War Two global order at risk!

U.S. Warns Allies That Ukraine Crisis Puts Post-World War II Order at Risk – Wall Street Journal

But whose order is this post-WW2 World Order? America’s, of course! And it is a militaristic, imperialist, and undemocratic order. To restore peace and democracy in the world, we need to oppose, not support this order.

This is why, though I am, in principle, against any country being invaded and occupied by another, I think Russia should be allowed to do this in Ukraine unless Ukraine is prepared to guarantee that it will not join Russia’s enemies EU and NATO.

Taking into consideration that post WW2, it has been America and its instruments EU and NATO that have been expanding and NOT Russia, I believe that siding with Russia on this matter would be more conducive to world peace, democracy, and equity than siding with America.

As a matter of principle, it is unacceptable in a free and democratic world for Europe’s foreign policy to be dictated by America and Britain.

We know that Germany and France have a much more nuanced and moderate approach to Russia, which is in their own interests, than Britain whose main interests lie elsewhere. German Chancellor Scholz was initially more accommodating of Russian concerns and so were members of the German military. However, Germany’s position changed when Foreign Minister Baerbock intervened on the US side and Scholz was summoned to the White House by Biden.

Who exactly is Annalena Baerbock? And why does she, and not the Chancellor, dictate her country’s foreign policy?!

Well, in her youth, Baerbock used to take part in anti-NATO and anti-war demos organized by the Green Party. Unfortunately, she later completed an exchange year at Lake Highland Preparatory School in Orlando, Florida. She completed internships at Anglo-American outfits like Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Deutsche Presseagentur and the Council of Europe (founded by Churchill). She completed a master course in public international law at the London School of Economics (LSE). She worked on a thesis at the US-founded Free University of Berlin. And she was a trainee at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL).

And this person who openly advocates eastward expansion by NATO and close collaboration with America, has been put in charge of German foreign policy!

This, of course, has a long tradition going back to Allied-occupied Germany and its first ministers for foreign affairs, US-collaborator Conrad Adenauer and Heinrich von Brentano (member of Churchill’s US-funded European Movement and Council of Europe), followed by the Anglicized, pro-UK and pro-US Gerhard Schröder (who had been indoctrinated at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and then re-educated in Allied POW camps), Willy Brandt (co-founder of the British-controlled International Bureau of Revolutionary Youth Organizations and operative of the US Counterintelligence Corps), and many others down to Baerbock.

Obviously, a Europe that is dominated by America, Britain, and Anglo-American puppet governments like Germany, cannot be described as “sovereign”. This is why it is time for Europe's US-imposed post-WW2 order to be dismantled and rebuilt, not in the interests of America or Russia, but in the interests of the European people. I think this is perfectly logical and morally just, don't you?

Anyway, Finland’s views on this topic are completely irrelevant. So, @ssu is wasting his time IMO.

Quoting Manuel

However, I'm fully aware that I could be called a coward or lacking a spine or convictions. It's a matter of temperament.

I think it's more a matter of how much a person wants to reduce to the world to a cartoon. Germany instigated war in the 1940s so Germans are evil. Russia killed 40 million of its own people in the early 20th century so Russians are evil.

On the other hand, pointing out real victims of real crimes: that I can get behind.

Reply to Apollodorus

It's an interesting tension. The EU could have it's own military alliance, not dependent on NATO. Yet they don't do it, I think they don't want to pay the bills when they have very strong military support.

I also think that in principle all these things should be left to a free and open democratic community. But we still have the problem of making the EU democratic, which is very far away. I don't know how the EU could be made to change internally, because it's a mess. They need more transparency, more communication with the population and much more.

And an EU FP could still be aggressive, like all major states are. Nevertheless, they should have the option, of course. It's just amazing to see that after two World Wars, they can't organize together.

Russia is acting according to its own interests, of course, and what they're doing makes sense from a "real politick" perspective. And they don't merely back down because they're threatened.

And sure, Russia also has serious internal problems with corruption, inequality and undemocratic aspects. I hope they can improve, it's a tough situation.

Reply to frank

Yeah. The Nazi's did what they did for a reason, as did the Soviets. Had legitimate German concerns been listened to years before WWII, the whole thing could have stopped the war. It's easier to just label them as evil (which they were, no doubt) and not think about it anymore.

Same with the Soviets, in the end, elite interests within the Party overthrew democratic institutions in favor of strong, authoritarian state bureaucracy.

There are no "good guys" in world affairs, or it's very rare. There are good people and groups and acts, and many horrific ones too.

Quoting Manuel

There are no "good guys" in world affairs, or it's very rare. There are good people and groups and acts, and many horrific ones too.

I think recognizing that is the best way to see the world clearly.

Quoting ssu

This I've read now from many various references. When Russia occupied the Crimea in 2014, the lack of a logistics tail fooled Western observers (and they were then focused hunting terrorists anyway). Now the arrival of that logistical tail, field hospitals, ammo depots etc. sends a message.

Crimea was (or, let's hope, would have been) a very different operation though. There wasn't a large-scale invasion and hardly any military confrontation. That "stealth invasion" was like nothing anyone had seen before, but then the circumstances were pretty unique. This time it looks like (or is made to look like) a classic land and sea invasion on a scale not seen since WWII.

Quoting Benkei

I also happen to think the Crimea annexation was a reaction to Western meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine when it refused to bend over and get anally shafted by the IMF.

what

Quoting Benkei

I disagree this was a failure. It was strategically a brilliant move. He ensured access to the Black Sea and it cost him almost nothing.

Almost nothing?

Let's start from that prior to the annexation of Crimea and the push, Putin was actually very popular in Ukraine. He really isn't now. Remember the situation before 2014.

I should remind that they changed the G7 to G8 to get Russia into that Club, NATO was looking at "new security threats" and Article 5 style defense was of an already past time. NATO had NEVER exercised in the Baltics. There actually were no plans to defend the Baltics. Or with Sweden and Finland in their territory. NATO countries were disarming. It was the time of new security threats: terrorism, climate change and so on.

(Earlier Vlad was part of the gang)


And then there are the sanctions, which do have had an effect.

Western sanctions and Russian counter-sanctions reduced Russian real gross domestic product (GDP) initially by 1–1.5% and that prolonged sanctions would lead to an even larger cumulative output loss. In 2019, the IMF estimated that sanctions reduced Russia’s growth rate by 0.2 percentage points every year in 2014-2018.

While a number of academic studies give different estimates of the extent of the economic loss, most of them support the view that sanctions have clearly reduced Russia’s economic development. The prohibition of long-term financing for certain large state-owned companies, including the major banks Sberbank and VTB, has been particularly significant. Another notable measure has been the export ban on certain sensitive technologies that can be used for oil production, because it hinders the exploration of important future resources in deep water, Arctic, and shale deposits.

So what did Putin really get in return? A naval base? Well, there are the straights of Bosporus, hence the Black Sea hasn't been as important as the bases in Kola peninsula and Vladivostok. The economy of Crimea isn't good and Russia has to spend roughly 1 billion into Luhansk and Donetsk.

Quoting Benkei

Your idea of just "waiting patiently" leaves things to chance; it's not a real strategy.

I disagree. Do note that that strategy really did work. The US withdrew all it's bases from Central Asia. Yet especially now it would want to have a base to check the Taliban, but Russia said no. Now I do think that Russia had to be active in this, so it surely wasn't passive on this. But Russia simply wasn't openly bellicose and hostile at the former Central Asian states. How can you say that a strategy that actually did work wouldn't have worked here? Russia could have done similar things as there as really there wasn't much enthusiasm for Ukraine in the West.

All Russia had to do is to have one NATO country being against the membership of Ukraine. To simply to postpone it to such a distant future that IT NEVER HAPPENS. Just like the EU has done with the Turkish membership talks. I think they started in the 1980's, well before my country joined the EU. That is how things are done. The EU simply won't say NO to Turkey. But it surely won't take in into the union. Ukraine on the waiting list for perpetuity is actually something that easily could have happened.

And more to it, with Crimea and Donbass in Ukraine, even NATO membership there would have been questionable. And do notice just how much the US has been talking about on shifting the focus to the Pacific and China and not in Europe. And lastly, just look at the GOP hawks in Washington. John McCaine is dead. The old GOP hawks are few and far between as Trumpism reign supreme in the party.

The idea that Ukraine would have joined NATO as George W Bush had stated is highly speculative also. After all, the US focus is (and even more would be) in China.

Quoting SophistiCat

Crimea was (or, let's hope, would have been) a very different operation though. There wasn't a large-scale invasion and hardly any military confrontation. That "stealth invasion" was like nothing anyone had seen before, but then the circumstances were pretty unique. This time it looks like (or is made to look like) a classic land and sea invasion on a scale not seen since WWII.

Talk of a true strategic surprise. That the VDV airborne troops had only to take off their Russian flags from their uniforms and instantly, they were "little Green men". That is still a total mystery for me: how could the reporters be so clueless? And the propaganda effort worked as a charm. But that kind of surprise works only once: when it comes out of the blue as it did back then.

Here indeed there isn't much strategic surprise. Ukraine hasn't mobilized it's reserves, but still. In 2014 it didn't have the ability to defend itself. It got only a paratroop brigade to move to the east and for the first Ukrainian main battle tanks to be deployed into the Donbas it took six months or so. Not so now.

Hence there is the possibility that this will go for far longer than anticipated and Russia will just try to milk everything out of the present. Because going into war with Ukraine is simply a bad idea. Or if Putin really wants to get those old borders, then it's a great idea.

Quoting Manuel

The EU could have it's own military alliance, not dependent on NATO. Yet they don't do it, I think they don't want to pay the bills when they have very strong military support.

I’m sure that this is part of it. However, it isn’t unconnected with your observation that they can’t organize together.

And they can’t organize together because of external interference. Germany is not allowed by other European states to have the same military capability as Britain and France, or its own foreign policy, and Europe is not allowed by America to have a proper military, or its own foreign policy. This is just one of the many issues that are right at the root of the festering European problem.

Turkey is a NATO member with clear militaristic and expansionist objectives. In addition to systematically suppressing political opposition, as well as religious and ethnic minorities, Turkey has invaded and occupied Cyprus, it has declared the Mediterranean Sea “Turkey’s blue homeland”, it has drafted plans to invade Greek islands, it has similar plans for other parts of Europe, and it has millions of Turkish citizens in Germany, France, and other European countries, many of whom are organized in violent neo-fascist outfits like the Grey Wolves which are affiliated to the Turkish secret services and the Nationalist Movement Party which in turn is connected with the Turkish government and military, as well as with organized crime groups. Turkey also has long-standing close links to international Islamic terror organizations like Hamas.

Turkey allowing Hamas to plot attacks on Israelis from its soil – Times of Israel

Erdogan’s purge: 50,000 ousted, arrested, or suspended – The Globe and Mail

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

And let’s not forget the havoc other NATO members like America and Britain have created in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places.

And yet, inexplicably, there are some who claim that NATO is somehow morally (and, presumably, racially) “superior” to Russia and has a God-given right to rule the world! :smile:

Anyway, Kiev is only about 140 miles from Belarus. If the Russians launch a lightning operation on Kiev from the north, it can be over in a matter of hours with very few casualties. It is simply wrong to believe that Russia has any intention to massacre the Ukrainian population. The reality is that Ukraine and Russia are two friendly nations with close cultural, linguistic, and historical links to one another. The true cause of the conflict is foreign, i.e., US and UK interference ....

Reply to Apollodorus

Yes, Germany has it tough in terms of military. France used to have an independent path in world affairs - more or less - and did not join NATO until rather recently. If they so wished, they could theoretically form a kind of military union with the UK, though again, one would have to see what the US says about this.

I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. The USSR no longer is a threat, not that was a big threat before - compared to US power anyway.

What you say about Russia doing a quick attack - yeah maybe, but it would be very, very risky. I highly doubt this would happen, but we don't know. NATO should soften a bit, in return for some Russian troops leaving, ending with a formal signed statement that Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO.

Something like that.

Quoting frank

The US military has had the ability to level Moscow for the last 50 years. They could do it any time day or night. They don't need access to Ukraine for that. Why is Putin suddenly feeling threatened?

Actually, for over 77 years now. And Russia has had the ability to cause similar harm to New York and Washington DC since 1949. Yes, there was a missile gap in favor of the US for a long time, but the Soviet Union surpassed the number of nuclear weapons (and ICBMs) finally in the late 1970's I guess.

That Biden won't even think to deploy US troops to assist in a hypothetical evacuation of US citizens from Ukraine if a war would start shows that the Russian nuclear deterrence works.

(Now the US has similar amount of nuclear weapons it had in the 1950's and Russia the amount it had in the 1960's)

Reply to Manuel
Appeasement is also dangerous, as I think we'll see as this unfolds.

Quoting ssu

And Russia has had the ability to cause similar harm to New York and Washington DC since 1949.

Russia's nuclear capability went into decline after the cold war. Whatever capability they have now is recently aquired.

Quoting Manuel

I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice.

Do notice the importance of NATO articles 1 and 2, not only 5. Having the European militaries working together is important force peace. That was a reasonable thing to have as EU isn't a military pact. Don't forget that the US did have plans for a war with UK after WW1 (as it had with Japan), even if they just had been allies in the Great War.

Actually, it was the basic reason why they didn't dissolve the organization when Russia wasn't so bellicose as now and everybody didn't thing it would stand up anymore.

Quoting frank

Russia's nuclear capability went into decline after the cold war. Whatever capability they have now is recently aquired.

Actually no. The ONLY thing they DID preserve was their nuclear deterrence. That was the last thing they let to crumble apart and they have, unlike the US, have had a persistent program to renew their nuclear deterrence. Having over 40 000 nuclear weapons was indeed a burden, but thankfully there were the huge reductions with the US and a lot of those Russian nukes ended up as fuel in US nuclear power plants giving energy to the cities they were intended to demolish. (A really happy true story, which are rare in this World)



Russia hasn't forgotten nukes...as basically the US has (and focused on hunting Islamic terrorists and fighting wars abroad) and now, as usual, has to spend a lot more perhaps to upgrade it's existing systems that work on 80's technology. I remember someone saying that Russia develops these new nuclear weapons, like the Avantgard, in order for having them as bargaining chips.

Quoting Manuel

what NATO is doing is extremely dangerous and leaves Russia with little option.

This is propaganda koolaid. Nato is an alliance of defense. If Russia keeps being Russia, keeping the current borders, then Nato isn't doing anything, regardless of how many nations become members. Russia tries to blatantly change the narrative into Nato being an offensive alliance, which it isn't. Russia would never be attacked by Nato, but Russia and Putin benefit from spinning that narrative as Putin wants to expand into previous Soviet borders. So by using "the threat from Nato" as an excuse, he can (in his mind) explain to the world why he's invading Ukraine. But it's just foolish to think people outside of Russia fall for this because it's very clear what Nato stands for and Russia has nothing to worry about. Nato builds defensive lines, if Russia were to ever send missiles into Europe, that's when Nato comes into play. It's not Russia that "needs to defend the borders from Nato forcers", it's the rest of Europe that needs to defend the borders towards Russia. It's Russia that acts as the aggressor, not Nato, not Europe and not Ukraine.

Invading and occupying another country as a way to defend your own borders is not considered a defensive act in peacetimes. Russia is the aggressor, the invader, the attacker. If they invade Ukraine, THEY are breaking peace.

There is no way Russia could argue themselves into being the good guy here, whatever narrative they try to spin as propaganda.

I just think all of this is stupid. Russia has the potential to be a tremendous partner in alliance with the rest of the world. But Putin and his compadres from the old KGB are so delusional in their quest for Soviet empire ideals that they hold their own nation hostage. Killing opposing political figures and keeping Russia in a slowed economy due to their actions internationally. It's plain stupid.

Quoting Manuel

I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. The USSR no longer is a threat, not that was a big threat before - compared to US power anyway.

Totally correct. Putin has said that the West wants to destroy Russia, and I believe he is right.

What is important to understand is that NATO’s (and the EU’s) policy vis-à-vis Russia is the heritage of British imperialism which had two basic objectives: (1) to contain Russia by preventing it from expanding into India, the Pacific, Europe, or the Mid East and (2) to get access to Russia’s resources.

I think it is undeniable that the West has a keen interest in Russia’s resources, especially oil and gas, as Europe is buying large quantities from Russia. We also know that Western oil giants like ExxonMobil, Total, and Royal Dutch Shell were operating in Russia, often in joint ventures with Russian companies, until 2014 when the West started imposing economic sanctions on Russia.

Some of them are still there. For example, BP (British Petroleum) owns nearly 20% of Russia’s Rosneft and nearly 50% of joint ventures with Rosneft: 49% of Yermak Neftegaz, 49% of the Kharampur Project. Similarly, Shell is a partner of Russia’s Gazprom, etc. And the same is true of aluminium and other resources.

It follows that to say that the West has no interest in Russia’s resources is totally false. If the Putin government were to fall due to military conflict with NATO (which has superior capabilities) or due to economic and financial sanctions, the first to get their hands on Russian resources would be Western corporations, primarily American and British ones, which will then be able to control energy prices (and energy-dependent economies) even more than before.

As I have already demonstrated (see page 6), NATO was founded by representatives of oil interests including Shell which also initiated the Atlantic Movement of which NATO was a product and instrument. And it is Shell (as well as US companies) that has announced its intention to supply gas to Europe in case of disruptions caused by the Ukraine crisis.

Obviously, it isn't just oil corporations. The defense industry also stands to make trillions of dollars from a conflict, as it did in WW1 and WW2, and even from the threat of a conflict, as it did throughout the Cold War era, etc. But I think it is pretty clear whose interests NATO really represents and what its overarching agenda is. This is why a more comprehensive analysis is required in order to form a more accurate picture of the situation, instead of reiterating the pro-EU and pro-NATO narrative (or fairy tale).

As for Ukraine, Russia clearly has the capability and technology to deal with the situation without any major problem. The 130,000 troops are there only in case something goes wrong.

In any case, Ukraine is merely a symptom of the wider geopolitical problems whose causes are definitely not Russia's creation. If we think about it, even if the EU and NATO knew that they are the main cause, would they openly admit it? I don't think so. Let's not forget that the West, US and UK in particular, has a long history of black propaganda and lies, like Saddam Hussein's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction":

In a phone conversation on February 20th, 2003 – a month before the invasion – Dr. Blix [who was in charge of UN inspections] expressed his doubts to Tony Blair. ‘I said explicitly to him that it would be paradoxical if we were to invade Iraq with 250,000 people and find very little. He said no, no, no they are all convinced it will be there.’ Precisely a month later American and British troops entered Iraq. They found nothing

What Did Happen To Saddam’s WMD? - History Today

It follows that it is incorrect to say that the West does not use propaganda and lies to further its self-interest and justify its actions ....

Quoting ssu

Actually no. The ONLY thing they DID preserve was their nuclear deterrence.

Not after the collapse of the USSR.

Reply to frank

NATO's not going anywhere regardless of what should happen. What I fear is that the hawks inside this situation think that using diplomacy to settle this is the equivalent of appeasement.

Reply to ssu

It would be beyond crazy if Western Europe got itself in another war with itself. I don't think this would happen anymore. Germany is now extremely reluctant to use military force, and would likely be somewhat of a restraint to others.

But again, NATO is not going anywhere.

Reply to Christoffer

Ok.

Reply to Apollodorus

The "West" merely want a president who is favorable to them economically as you say, and which doesn't protest with actions, against powerful actors. I think saying that they want to destroy Russia is a bit much, they want a client state. One may argue that this destroys a countries autonomy, and sure, this makes sense.

While I understand the troop deployment, it's a tense situation. One mistake by a soldier or general and this would get very ugly. I wouldn't want to be Ukrainian right now.

And yes, I agree. I'd only add that it not only applies to NATO, EU and the US, ANY major power wouldn't admit to making mistakes or admitting faults in international affairs. It's almost never done. Exceptions being WWII, to some extent.

It's mind boggling that after Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS, people who normally lambast the media for being BS artists, now rely on these same sources as being a good source of info for yet another potential war. Craziness.

Quoting frank

Not after the collapse of the USSR.

What do you mean?

The R-36 missile was deployed in 1988 and has continued up until now in service with Russia (to be replaced with the RS-26 Sarmat). A lot of Cold War systems continued in Russian service. Yes, some systems fell into the hands of Ukraine and Kazakhstan, but they were given back to Russia and both countries didn't have the incentive to try to upkeep such a costly weapons system (with horrific consequences to Ukraine, as we have seen now).

The reductions happened because of START I and START II agreements.

Quoting Manuel

It would be beyond crazy if Western Europe got itself in another war with itself. I don't think this would happen anymore.

It's not at all so crazy in a couple of instances...

Remember what we heatedly discussed with @Apollodorus about Cyprus. If Greece and Turkey wouldn't be NATO members, I think they we surely would have had a war or two between them. (After all, the Greek Cypriots wanted to join Greece)

Then there are the border issues that Hungary and Romania have had over Transylvania:

Soon after the demise of the Communist regimes in Hungary and Romania, in March 1990, violent ethnic clashes in Transylvania strained the relationship between both countries to the brink of war. As a result, the first Open Skies Treaty in the world to mutually assess the strength and disposition of opposing military forces was worked out and became effective in 1992. This is considered a direct precursor of the 2002 multilateral Treaty on Open Skies that once included Russia and the United States.

And then both countries joined the EU and NATO. Now the relations have improved.

Quoting ssu

What do you mean?

The R-36 missile was deployed in 1988 and has continued up until now in service with Russia (to be replaced with the RS-26 Sarmat).

Yea. They still had staff and "in service" equipment, but they weren't prepared to actually use it. Not sure why this is important to pursue, though.

Quoting Manuel

NATO's not going anywhere regardless of what should happen. What I fear is that the hawks inside this situation think that using diplomacy to settle this is the equivalent of appeasement.

What you were describing is appeasement.

Reply to ssu

Maybe.

Then again Greece doesn't have much of a military itself, so a war in that situation would be rather quick and favor Turkey. Of course, if you have alliances then it can become a big problem.

Reply to frank

I think they need to save face on both sides and Ukraine should stay out of NATO, maybe get some "concessions" from Russia. If that's appeasement then, I rather that than war.

Quoting frank

Yea. They still had staff and "in service" equipment, but they weren't prepared to actually use it.

Ummm...yes! That the whole idea with nuclear weapons. They are for deterrence, not for use.

And if you have doubts on Russian missiles working? Well, a glimpse on Russian missile technology working can be seen either from the Soyuz-rockets or from the banned medium range nuclear missiles: the latter the US decided to just demolish, but the Russians shot every missile as testing (without warheads, of course). None of them had any problem in functioning.

And btw, the US nuclear weapons are very, very old. Far older than their Russian counterparts.

(Military.com, Jan 2021) The aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles that have formed the land-based leg of the nation's nuclear deterrent triad for half a century can no longer be upgraded and require costly replacements, Adm. Charles Richard, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said Tuesday.

"Let me be very clear: You cannot life-extend the Minuteman III [any longer]," he said of the 400 ICBMs that sit in underground silos across five states in the upper Midwest.

"We can't do it at all. ... That thing is so old that, in some cases, the drawings don't exist anymore [to guide upgrades]," Richard said in a Zoom conference sponsored by the Defense Writers Group. Where the drawings do exist, "they're like six generations behind the industry standard," he said, adding that there are also no technicians who fully understand them. "They're not alive anymore."

The submarine ICBM's are younger though: the missile system was deployed only 30 years ago and the upgraded version of the Trident is planned to be in service until 2042.

Quoting Manuel

Maybe.

Then again Greece doesn't have much of a military itself, so a war in that situation would be rather quick and favor Turkey. Of course, if you have alliances then it can become a big problem.

A war that didn't / hasn't happened is in history naturally unprovable, but when talking about wars, that "maybe" is a good thing. But do note that PRIOR to Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 NATO was genuinely focused in everything else but Russia.

In fact, even if the Baltic States joined NATO in 2004 there was no plans to defend them. One NATO member considered it too "provocative" to even have plans for a defense of the new member states. Russia might get upset! What really got Russia alarmed was the "new mission" when NATO started a war in Kosovo. That was the real red-line they crossed for Russia. Yet NATO member countries understood Russia's worries.

That changed when Russia had it's war with Georgia in 2008. And finally, actual real training, US troops in the Baltic states, started when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.

So the idea of NATO hawks going all these years for the jugular of Russia simply is wrong. And this is why I do have the opinion that Russia could easily have prevented the membership of Ukraine in NATO with smart diplomacy (which the US would have found utterly annoying) and not with wars and annexations. It's Putin himself that is basically hammering NATO back to it's original role.

Quoting Manuel

. If that's appeasement then, I rather that than war.

History teaches us that appeasement frequently invites further aggression and war.

Quoting frank

History teaches us that appeasement frequently invites further aggression and war.

Only with those who want war and have imperial aspirations.

Quoting ssu

Only with those who want war and have imperial aspirations.

Who else would you appease?

Quoting frank

Who else would you appease?

Someone who thinks you are going to attack them or have those imperial asperations yourself!

States usually try to have good relations...because if they don't have those, then you know what military planners have to (it's their job, you know) prepare for.

Reply to ssu

I'm not seeing your point.

Quoting Manuel

It's mind boggling that after Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS, people who normally lambast the media for being BS artists, now rely on these same sources as being a good source of info for yet another potential war. Craziness.

Not only that, but the same people systematically manipulate and distort media reports and even historical records in order to paint Russia as the “incarnation of evil” and “enemy of the human race”!

And in the same way they demonize Russia, they seek to dehumanize and demonize anyone that disagrees with them by calling them “Russian trolls”!

Clearly, this is a diversionary tactic intended to deflect attention from justified criticism of America’s New World Order.

In particular, what they are trying to hide is (1) that Western powers had a hand in the revolutionary events of 1917, and (2) that the same powers planned to dismember Russia and place it under their control.

In his annual news conference of December 23 2021, Putin stated that in 1918 US government advisers proposed the dismemberment of Russia.

Of course, the Western press correspondents pretended not to understand what Putin was saying, but he was absolutely right. In fact, already in 1917, the same proposal had been made by Britain and France who even came to an agreement (signed by Lord Milner and Georges Clemenceau) detailing Russia’s dismemberment into zones of control (exactly as they did with Germany):

A careful study of the latest and most authoritative documents dealing with the allied intervention in Russia in 1917-1920 reveals the startling designs of Great Britain and France to bring about the complete dismemberment of the Russian realm for their own political and commercial advantage … France and Great Britain came to an actual understanding and agreed to an actual dismemberment of Russia in L’Accord Franco-Anglais du 23 Decembre, 1917 … ‘The zones of influence assigned to each government shall be as follows: The English zone: The Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan. The French zone: Bessarabia, the Ukraine, the Crimea … ‘

L. I. Strakhovsky, “The Franco-British Plot to Dismember Russia”, Current History, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 839-842

See also:

Louis Fischer, The Soviets in World Affairs, p. 617

W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166

P. Walsh, Battle for the Caucasus: Britain versus Russia 1918-20

Obviously, if implemented, the plan would have given Britain and France, and their American associates, control over Russia’s resources, such as the oil fields of the Caucasus, control over Ukraine and Crimea, hence control over the Black Sea, etc., etc.

So THIS is what the pro-EU and pro-NATO propaganda is trying to cover up. Without much success though …. :grin:

Reply to Apollodorus

It's part of the same old playbook, if you agree with out economic policies, you're in the club, if you don't, we don't care.

Some European countries can ignore this on some occasions. As can China and Russia, but not others. Obviously this isn't liked by the powers at be.

Because history, and/or geography, 'we', the righteous, will not be defending Ukraine. So Putin's calculation will be the cost/benefit analysis of invasion and occupation. War with Europe and the US is not a risk, but sanctions are, and the possibility of a protracted destabilising resistance also. As against the prospect of an uncontested win against the West, consolidation of gains in Crimea, Kudos from the folks, respect from China, and the prospect of Europe getting gas hungry. What else? Or the laugh of the ungodly getting their knickers in a twist over some military manoeuvres.

Quoting unenlightened

Or the laugh of the ungodly getting their knickers in a twist over some military manoeuvres.

Well, if America wins, you might have to say "panties" instead of "knickers" :smile:

But the reality is that Ukraine is located right on Russia’s south-western flank which would be exposed to NATO (the world's largest military alliance, not some charity organization!) if Ukraine decided to join.

If Ukraine is justified to fear Russia, Russia is equally if not more justified to fear NATO nuclear systems potentially stationed on Ukrainian soil. The ideal solution would be for NATO and/or Ukraine to give Russia some kind of reassurance. NATO's refusal to do so doesn't bode well.

History is important because it reveals patterns of behavior that show that the West is not always a bunch of cute and cuddly angels.

Quoting Apollodorus

if America wins,

If America wins what? You think Russia and America are going to war?

Wars aren't always fought by military means. There are culture wars, economic wars, propaganda and info wars, some wars are overt, others are covert, etc., etc.

We can only hope that reason will prevail on all sides.

The Russian economy is in the toilet and with the pandemic and rising inflation it's obvious that war becomes a way to distract the Russian people from those problems.

Putin, with his KGB roots, is an expert in disinformation. His whole power is based on a shadow play to lure the people into believing the nation is better off than it actually is. And plenty in the west look upon Putin as a strong leader and Russia as a powerful entity. This is exactly how Putin wants himself and Russia to be viewed, both internationally and nationally.

But you can only take it so far. Many in Russia are right now on the brink of poverty, barely able to make it. And what might the result of a Ukraine conflict be? If the US and the west initiate their sanctions, and if Germany is able to cut off Nordstream, then the economic collapse of Russia is probably very likely.

Putin could try and wage war all he wants to distract even further, but there will come a time when the emperors' clothes fall off and his KGB methods won't work anymore and the people will initiate a revolution. He can try disinformation, he can try and kill off his own people if they oppose him, but that can only go so far before he's publically hanged on the Red Square.

All it takes in that chaos, is another leader who gets enormous popularity within that chaos and there will be a massive shift in how Russia operates.

If Putin attacks Ukraine full-on, it could very well become the starting point for a Russian collapse and Putin's fall from power.

Of course, there's also a chance he escapes all of this unscathed. But how much shit can the Russian population take before they have enough? All leaders who make their own people suffer will eventually be taken out by the people.

Quoting Apollodorus

propaganda and info wars

These are even the main starting point of every war. We live in an era full of fake news and disinformation. Spreading a lot of lies can lead the people to follow the wrong path.
This conflict is clearly a good example. There are a lot of information floating around that makes a paranoia feeling when we do not really know if a war would happen in the coming months.

Reply to Christoffer This is a very good point.

The most offensive view that still goes around is that Russia and Russians cannot have democracy and that they need a strong leader, a tough central government or otherwise the country collapses. That somehow democracy cannot work in Russia. Of course Russia is a mixture of various people and ethnic groups and is the largest country. Yet we aren't thinking that India will collapse, even if it too has a multitude of different people and languages. And for Canada or Brazil the size of the country isn't a huge problem. The so-called "strong leaders" usually suck.

An Russian opposition leader (now living in the West) said once that Russians are very like Americans in their distrust of big government. Those Russians we just don't see, the people that might be fed up with war all the time. The Russians weren't so excited about Russia going to Syria, and note that all the deaths of the "volunteers", meaning the Russia forces that fought in the Donbas, were kept out of the media, sometimes so that the families had problems to get their sons bodies back.

Just as in Belarus, the amount of love Russians have to their leaders is an open question, but it is doubtful it's as high as said. On the other hand, they are those who support Putin and I guess later when Vladimir isn't around, you will have the babushka on some demonstration carrying the photo of the "saviour" of Russia, who gave them Crimea back.

Reply to ssu

Logically there are also lots of people with good memories of Soviet russia. They're old and dying off, younger people without memories of the Soviet era don't have that kind of attatchment and just want better living conditions. They view other nations and see the potential they can have and they don't like Putin at all.

On top of that, the retaking of natural resources from the oligarchs into Putin's inner circle of KGB people have made Moscow extremely rich and the view from the outside is that Russia is a rich nation with western standards. This is so far from the truth. The money flow goes through the largest cities and the front propaganda of the nation. The real population around these areas is living in third world standards. With falling infrastructure and unable to live on their wages or pensions, especially now with inflation and the pandemic as well as how it could be if the US cut Russian banks ability to transfer internationally or with dollar currency.

So everything with Putin and Russia is just a big smokescreen. If nothing is properly done to remedy this situation, I think Russia will fall in a couple of years. As the elders die off, young people take over, the economy collapses and soldiers are killed in the Ukraine conflict.

The worst thing about this is that Putin is acting like a deranged child. If Russia collapses, he could very well just hit the big red button and send off nukes just because things didn't go his way. If people were afraid of what Trump could do, just imagine the manchild that is Putin.

Reply to Christoffer Reply to ssu
:cool: :100:

Quoting Christoffer

I think Russia will fall in a couple of years.

There's has been for a long time a tendency to write off Russia, as it cannot overcome it's real problems. Well, perhaps it cannot find solutions to truly solve and overcome it's fundamental problems, but it doesn't mean Russia will go away or cease to exist. It can simply hang on. Russians are good at that.

The tragic thing here is that Putin needs the huge, larger than life enemy in order to justify his position and to justify his crackdown on civil liberties etc. The US has to be the great evil... or at least America's evil foreign policy community. And I assume he truly thinks that the West is out to destroy Russia, to carve it up and has that the West has this fixation on doing this. Hence any kind of opposition or civil disobedience that emerges in Russia is instantly seen as something artificially created by the intelligence services of the West or their proxies, people like George Soros and the like. This naturally isn't the case, but the truth doesn't matter.

What is also lacking in this mindset is the understanding that third parties and countries can have independent agendas and objectives. For example: NATO bombs couldn't overthrow Milosevic, but the little assistance to the Serbian opposition that the US State Department gave was highly successful and Milosevic was ousted. This is something that Putin clearly observes as an example of a "color revolution" and hence the whole "Gerasimov doctrine" is viewed only as a counter to US hybrid warfare: because they do it, we have to do it also. Yet what here is forgotten that despite of this, Serbia is still a close ally to Russia and isn't at all wanting to join NATO. You see, bombing a country does have an impact on the way the people think of you and if the opposition does take money from an outside entity, it doesn't mean they obey you afterwards.

And then there is the way how Putin's Russia sees NATO. In a testimony for the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe just this month, Fiona Hill puts quite well:

As far as NATO is concerned, Russia sees the institution as an extension of the United States, not an alliance based on mutual interest, collective defense, and voluntary association. Moscow continues to view the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Cold War terms, as the equivalent of the Warsaw Treaty Organization that USSR created as a mirror image and coerced Eastern Europe into. Russian officials and commentators routinely deny any agency or independent strategic thought to any NATO member other than the United States. Note, for example, that Russia has not sent any similar documents to our North American neighbor, Canada, challenging its role in European security, despite its membership in both NATO and the OSCE and close ties to Ukraine. Canada and other countries barely exist in Russia’s calculations.

Similar views (as the current regime in Russia has so aptly described by Hill) have been given even in this thread.

Quoting javi2541997

These are even the main starting point of every war. We live in an era full of fake news and disinformation. Spreading a lot of lies can lead the people to follow the wrong path.
This conflict is clearly a good example. There are a lot of information floating around that makes a paranoia feeling when we do not really know if a war would happen in the coming months.

Correct. America and Britain's wars are always "just" and "holy" (and never have anything to do with oil :smile: ). Anyone else's wars are "evil". This divides mankind into two diametrically opposed worlds. Propaganda and fake news are the means by which this is achieved.

Quoting Manuel

Yes, Germany has it tough in terms of military. France used to have an independent path in world affairs - more or less - and did not join NATO until rather recently. If they so wished, they could theoretically form a kind of military union with the UK, though again, one would have to see what the US says about this.
I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. The USSR no longer is a threat, not that was a big threat before - compared to US power anyway.

That’s a very good observation, actually.

I think the importance of Germany to the correct assessment of the nature and function of the EU-NATO combine cannot be emphasized strongly enough.

We must stop pretending that Germany’s situation and position in Europe are “normal”, because they aren’t. In fact, Germany is a perfect illustration of why the whole European system is rotten to the core and from top to bottom. A continental system (Europe) that is dominated by a foreign power (America) is, by definition, based on inequality. And inequality leads to injustice, corruption, propaganda, and lies.

When Germany signed up to the Marshall Plan (1949) that obliged it to work for European integration, and to the European Coal and Steel Community (1951) that laid the foundations on which the European Union (EU) was built, it was NOT a sovereign state.

When Germany joined NATO in 1955, it was nominally sovereign. However, (1) it had been under absolute Allied control for ten years, as a consequence of which it was run according to a system and by leaders that had been put in place by the Allied military governors (which was the whole purpose of Allied occupation!), and (2) it had already ceded some of its powers to Allied-controlled institutions.

In addition to pledging itself to European integration when it accepted the Marshall Plan, and to “ever-closer union among European nations” when it signed the 1951 Treaty of Paris, Germany in 1952 signed the Bonn-Paris Conventions that ended Allied occupation (effective 1955), and granted it some sovereign powers while restricting others:

Article 1
1. The Federal Republic shall have full authority over its internal and external affairs, except as provided in the present Convention.
Article 2
1. The Three Powers retain, in view of the international situation, the rights, heretofore exercised or held by them, relating to (a) the stationing of armed forces in Germany and the protection of their security, (b) Berlin, and (c) Germany as a whole, including the unification of Germany and a peace settlement.
2. The Federal Republic, on its part, will refrain from any action prejudicial to these rights and will cooperate with the Three Powers [US, UK, France] to facilitate their exercise …

Convention on relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany (Bonn, 26 May 1952) – CVCE

Similarly, the Paris Agreements of October 23, 1954, state:

The Federal Republic shall accordingly [after termination of the occupation regime] have the full authority of a sovereign state over its internal and external affairs.

However, the truth of the matter is that Germany acquired “full national sovereignty” only in 1990 (!) with the Treaty of Final Settlement a.k.a. Two Plus Four Agreement signed in Moscow that allowed the reunification of Germany which until that point had been divided into an US-controlled Western half and a Russian-controlled eastern half.

Moreover, in addition to ceding some of its sovereign rights, Germany also renounced some of its eastern territories, and the manufacture, possession of, and control over nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, while at the same time allowing the continued presence of Allied forces on its soil, including US-controlled nuclear systems.

Already the 1954 Convention on the Presence of Foreign Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany, which replaced the Occupation Statute, allowed eight NATO members, including the US, to have a permanent military presence in Germany, and this remains in force even now.

In short, what actually has happened is that while Germany officially became a “free and sovereign state”, in reality, it has been transformed into America’s European Command (EUCOM) headquarters (based at Stuttgart) that controls all US military forces across 51 European (and other) countries.

The mission of EUCOM, of course, is NOT to protect Germany or any other European country, but to protect and defend the US by deterring conflict, supporting partnerships such as NATO, countering transnational threats, and keeping Germany down. It follows that Germany is an instrument of US interests and so are NATO and the EU.

During the Cold War with Russia into the 1980’s, America had some 250,000 troops in Germany, i.e., about twice as much as Russia has now on Ukraine's borders. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, US military presence in Germany was reduced to less than 100,000 and to currently 35,000.

However, even though East Germany, Poland, and the Baltic states gained their independence from Russian control, shifting “free” Europe’s eastern flank much further east, US troops remained in Germany. Why? Either Russia is a problem or it isn’t. If it is a problem, then the US troops should be moved eastward to Poland and the Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), or even Ukraine if they want to, NOT Germany!

Not only does Germany continue to hold the largest number of US troops in Europe but, as demonstrated above, Germany’s foreign policy continues to be dominated by US interests. So, basically, Germany which is at the center of Europe is the headquarters of the armed forces of America - the architect of the post-WW2 New World Order and creator of NATO as an instrument for the enforcement and defense of the American world order.

This is why Germany cannot be a sovereign nation and Europe cannot be a sovereign continent unless and until America gets out of Europe.

I don’t think this is being “anti-American”. I think it is perfectly logical, democratic, and just. If Europe has no troops in America, then America should have no troops in Europe. Otherwise, there is no equality, and no justice. And without justice there is no peace.

IMO it is unacceptable, in a free world, that European (and other) countries can do nothing without kowtowing to Washington or Wall Street. It's time for some radical changes in the world order, otherwise conflicts much larger than Ukraine will soon be on the horizon.

Russia says it is pulling back some of its troops stationed near Ukraine's border

What do you think? Are we closer to finish this tension? Is it a strategic plan from Putin?

Reply to javi2541997
Perhaps he'll look like a hero to his fans. He looks kind of silly to me at the moment.

Reply to frank

Yes, you are right. This situation is even useless. I don't even know why he did this. It looks like he is kind of negligent

Reply to javi2541997

But maybe that's just what he wants us to think!

Quoting javi2541997

What do you think? Are we closer to finish this tension? Is it a strategic plan from Putin?

Well, of course Putin has a strategic plan. But we need to avoid focusing exclusively on Ukraine if we want to avoid missing the wood for the trees. As I said before, taking a narrow, politically-motivated outlook is not a particularly philosophical approach, and a more comprehensive analysis is needed.

The way I see it, far more important than Putin’s actions is America’s response, as this is what makes the difference between (a) a limited, local conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and (b) regional or world war.

If the two world wars are any guide, America’s options tend to be (1) not to get involved, (2) to get involved via proxies, and (3) direct involvement, in that order.

Regarding option (1), one of the facts that tend to get ignored or forgotten is that, for all the propaganda and drum beating coming from the direction of the White House, America is not prepared to fight Russia.
Biden has told Putin that if he invades Ukraine, the US would “impose swift and severe costs on Russia”.

In other words, Biden is saying that he is not prepared to stop Russia, but that he will make Russia pay “a heavy price”. The logical implication of this is that it remains for Russia to decide whether or not it wants to pay that price. And Russia may well think that the price, though “heavy”, is nevertheless worth paying. In any case, the whole situation boils down to a question of economic price.

Regarding options (2) and (3), America could, if it wanted to, engineer a civil war in Ukraine and then expand it to a wider conflict that would engulf Russia and, possibly, other parts of the world.

For now, America is certainly considering option (2) as it has relocated 3,000 troops from Germany to Romania, etc. So it looks like America wants others to fight its wars before it gets involved directly. And this demonstrates that the EU and NATO are instruments of American militarism and imperialism.

Within this US- or Anglo-Saxon-dominated European structure, Britain is squarely behind America in a conflict with Russia, Germany would prefer to stay out, and France is somewhere in between.

France has always been allowed much more freedom than Germany. France withdrew from NATO's military command structure in 1966 and only rejoined in 2009, while still maintaining an independent nuclear defense system. Germany not only has no nuclear weapons, but the nukes on its soil are under US control!

Nevertheless, if France doesn’t toe the line, America uses Britain and Germany as a lever. If Britain doesn’t toe the line, America uses Germany and France. And if Germany doesn’t toe the line, America uses Britain and France to enforce its agenda.

Additionally, America has a high degree of control over the German media, most of which was set up under US occupation either directly by the US (often with the involvement of the secret services) or indirectly through the US-controlled licensing system.

America also has a wide network of influential institutions like Atlantik-Brücke, American Council on Germany, German Council on Foreign Relations, German Marshall Fund, European Council on Foreign Relations, Global Public Policy Institute, etc., as well as pro-US operatives within the German Foreign Office (like Baerbock) and the German embassy in Washington, through which it exerts influence on German and European foreign policy by promoting America’s Atlanticist agenda.

The case of Olaf Scholz is a perfect illustration. Scholz became Chancellor of Germany in December last year. As Germany has strong economic links with Russia, especially in the energy sector, Scholz was not particularly perturbed by Russia’s plans on Ukraine. As a result, the US media and its European and German associates immediately attacked him, accusing him of being “out of step” with Washington, as if the first and foremost job of Germany’s leader was to be “in lockstep” with the US!

As for the chancellor, he has made himself conspicuously scarce in recent weeks — so scarce that the newsmagazine Der Spiegel described him as “nearly invisible, inaudible” … Mr. Scholz’s team announced that after returning from Washington, the chancellor will pivot to a full schedule that he hopes will shift German diplomacy into high gear … But patience is running thin, and Mr. Scholz will have to bring something to the table …

Germany’s ‘Invisible’ Chancellor Heads to Washington Amid Fierce Criticism - New York Times

The situation soon reached not only hysterical but also irrational heights, with Foreign Minister Baerbock siding with Washington against her own chancellor. On February 7th, Biden summoned Scholz to the White House like a dog, paraded him in front of a baying press mob, and when Scholz was asked about Germany’s plans about sanctions on Russia, Biden – NOT Scholz – announced that “we will bring an end to” the Nord Stream 2 gas pipe line from Russia to Germany,

Biden was then asked, given that the project is under German control, how exactly does he intend to “bring an end to it”? To which he replied, “I promise you we’ll be able to do it.”, later reiterating that “it just isn’t going to happen”.

President Biden, German Chancellor Scholz take questions during joint news conference – WPRI

Meantime, the EU has proposed the founding of an European Security Council headed by Britain.

EU hands Britain post-Brexit olive branch – an offer to lead new security council – The Telegraph

In other words, Britain has left the European Union, but still insists on playing a leading role in Europe’s defense and foreign policy, as an extension of America. This clearly shows how Europe is being dominated by America and Britain with France coming third and Germany playing fourth fiddle, and being dragged along or frogmarched more than “marching in lockstep".

And it isn't just Germany. Other countries, like Spain, don't have much of a say either. Like Germany and many other European countries, Spain's national interest lies in friendly relations with Russia, not in blindly following American militarism and imperialism. Remember NATO's 1999 war on Yugoslavia that was engineered by Clinton (US) and Blair (UK), and executed by Solana (who was secretary general of NATO) ....

So it turns out American and Western hysteria about entirely made-up threats have done more damage to Ukraine than the dreamed about Russians to the tune of a double-digit billions:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1494139762143371277[/tweet]

Wonder who will be waiting in the wings to provide some helpful 'aid money' in return for a bit of 'structural adjustment'?

Quoting StreetlightX

Wonder who will be waiting in the wings to provide some helpful 'aid money' in return for a bit of 'structural adjustment'?

Oh wow, I wrote this without looking, but of course:

The United States has offered a sovereign loan guarantee to Ukraine of up to $1 billion to support the country’s economy as the Eastern European country prepares for a possible Russian invasion any day, the Department of State announced on Monday. ... In addition, The State Department said the Export-Import Bank of the United States plans to free up $3 billion “to facilitate procurement of U.S. goods and services for projects in Ukraine.”

https://nypost.com/2022/02/14/us-offers-ukraine-1-billion-loan-to-support-economy-amid-tensions-with-russia/

These fucking warmongers are so predictable.

It pays to remember just how many WMDs were found in Iraq and what the intelligence community thought it knew and how that was spun by politicians and Powell in particular.

Edit: let me translate that "anybody who believes the US and UK narrative is an idiot".

What! Governments exaggerating a threat so that powerful industries can benefit. Sounds like some kind of crazy conspiracy theory to me.

Best just trust what the official experts have to say on the matter...

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/russia-ukraine-news-latest-today-nato-us-reject-putin-claims-withdrawl/

...so that's settled then. The experts say Russia is preparing for war and I'm sure the billions that the [s]pharmaceutical[/s]arms industry will make is just a coincidence.

Of course, you might find some experts disagreeing, but with none of you being military strategists, you wouldn't want to be 'doing your own research', would you?

Besides, have you not read the news? Those nasty truckers are funded by the Russians, best be on the safe side, lest they fund any more [s]peaceful protests[/s]domestic terrorists.

In case the point remains opaque.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-neocons-primary-war-tactic-branding

Yeah, Zelensky's administration is so unconcerned about a possible Russian invasion that, after all their resolute posturing, they now seem to be backpedaling on Ukraine's NATO aspirations.

Scholz, Zelenskiy play down talk of NATO membership for Ukraine

Zelenskiy said NATO membership was a remote “dream.”

Ukrainian government floats prospect of holding referendum on NATO membership.

A possible diplomatic path out of the Ukraine crisis came into sharper focus on Wednesday when a minister in the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine floated the possibility of a referendum that could keep his country from joining NATO.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the totally made up threat promulgated by Western imperialists.

(It should be noted that Zelensky is treading a very fine line with these overtures. The actual prospects of a Russian invasion are debatable, but he faces a very real threat from within if he is seen to be giving in to Russian demands.)

Zelenskiy said NATO membership was a remote “dream.”

Whenever I read news or quotes related to this selfishness conflict, I feel bad about Ukrainian citizens. They are the only one that truly would lose in this issue. They live with a flawed coin monetary system and a puppet Prime Minister of who...?
I don't if I would be able to get rid of such uncertainty all days of the week

It's only Ukraine

Even if Vladimir Putin decides not to invade Ukraine, as he has signaled the past few days, that might not mean he’ll end the crisis peacefully or diplomatically. The Russian president has another card he might play—a brusque, brutal move that would end the standoff to his advantage.

On Tuesday, the Duma, Russia’s parliament, passed a resolution authorizing Putin to recognize the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republic—the two provinces of Ukraine’s southeastern Donbas region, which are occupied by armed pro-Russia separatists—as independent states. He could next move thousands of troops, tanks, and other weapons into the territories, at the “request” of their leaders, to defend their people from Ukrainian assault.

In this way, Putin could keep up the military pressure on the Ukrainian government without facing the many risks of a full-scale invasion. He could also further obstruct Ukraine’s already-forlorn prospects for membership in NATO—Putin’s main goal—since, in order to join the U.S.-led military alliance, a state must have stable borders, among other qualities.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/putin-backup-plan-in-ukraine.html

Quoting SophistiCat

Yeah, Zelensky's administration is so unconcerned about a possible Russian invasion that, after all their resolute posturing, they now seem to be backpedaling on Ukraine's NATO aspirations.

New membership in NATO should be accepted by all existing members and when you have Germany openly saying that even if "each country should be able to make decisions on which alliances to join" it was important to “look at the reality” and "de-escalate" the situation, I think the message is obvious for the Ukrainians. (That it has been obvious for a long time seems to escape many even here) But it seems that Scholz has directly stated this again to the Ukrainians.

After shutting down it's nuclear reactors Germany has made it's own mess in it's energy policy and likely will want to avoid any kind of sanctions at all costs and hold on to Russian gas imports. Otherwise it's a bit cynical to say that these Germany wants to "avoid a war" at any cost to a country that is ALREADY fighting a war with Putin's Russia and has lots large parts of it's territory to Putin.

So if the huge Russian army picnic on the Ukrainian border really was all for this, great. But of course NATO membership of Ukraine already wasn't going anywhere after Russia started a war in Eastern Ukraine AND has forces already there inside the country (even if we don't account the annexed Crimea being part of Ukraine, but talk about the Donbas region). Which leads me to think that Putin simply will try to milk for as long as he can the situation. Or at worst, go ahead with salami tactics if he gets an excuse for it. But that seems unlikely, as it simply is a stupid idea from start once the strategic surprise has been lost (and Putin already has Crimea).

Putin will go as further as he can and his objective is to control Ukraine, to show that the West won't come to the help. He may hope that after Zelensky a more favorable government comes to office. Good examples of how Russia operates can be seen from how it has dealt with Georgia and Armenia. As a president for life, he has the time to wait.

Reply to Isaac Reply to javi2541997 Reply to Wayfarer

I think it is necessary to have some understanding of the complexities of the situation.

“We’re in an information war with the Russians and we have been for some time” - Angela Stent, director of Georgetown University’s center for Eurasian, Russian and east European studies.

The current U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) and National Defense Strategy, which have traditionally focused on conventional military might, highlight the importance of information warfare in international conflicts. In the past couple of decades, the information environment has become one of the main battlegrounds of great-power competition. That’s because information warfare has the power to shape not only public opinion but also perceptions about how states are competing in key issue areas, such as public health and international development. In effect, major powers are using information warfare to sow domestic discord and distrust on their adversaries’ soil, rendering governments unable to focus on external threats.

The United States Isn’t Doomed to Lose the Information Wars – Foreign Policy

The first thing that is imperative to understand is that there is an info war going on between America and Russia, and this means that not only Russia, but America, too, is involved in disinformation and propaganda.

Second, we need to understand why Russia is threatening Ukraine with war. Some of the reasons are as follows:

1. NATO has encircled Russia, especially on its western flank.
2. If Ukraine were to join NATO, this would further expose Russia’s southwestern flank to NATO.
3. Ukraine as a NATO member would be a direct threat to Russia’s Black Sea fleet and to Russian access to the Mediterranean.

Most of the Black Sea coastline is already under the control of NATO members Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania. If Ukraine joined NATO, this would place major Russian naval ports like Sevastopol in Crimea, into NATO hands, and the Black Sea under almost complete NATO control. Russia needs the Black Sea to access the Mediterranean. I don’t think any government in the world would accept this if it was in Russia’s place. This is precisely why Russia annexed Crimea which had been part of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire anyway.

NATO member Turkey has its own designs on the Black Sea and may occupy Crimea in a deal with Ukraine against Russia, in addition to stirring up anti-Russian opposition in Turkic speaking areas of Russia.

Turkey has taken steps to keep Russian influence in the region in check. Ankara supports pro-Western countries such as Ukraine and Georgia and backs NATO’s enlargement. In the last few years, Turkey has cultivated close defense and economic ties with Ukraine … Speaking at a 2016 Balkan security conference in Istanbul, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked his NATO allies to step up efforts to balance Russia. Threatened by growing Russian influence, Turkey abandoned its long-time policy of keeping NATO out of the Black Sea and supported efforts for a stronger alliance presence there. Turkey backed Romanian calls for a permanent NATO fleet in the Black Sea to counter Russia.

Balance in the Black Sea: The complex dynamic between Turkey, Russia, and NATO – Middle East Institute

Map of Black Sea - Welt Atlas

I think even NATO’s “useful idiots” can see that the Crimean Peninsula is absolutely central to the Black Sea and the Black Sea is vital to Russia ….

Reply to ssu

Putin proved that no one but Russia cares about Ukraine. Russian domination hasn't been a positive experience for Ukrainians so far. Could that change in the future?

Quoting Apollodorus

America could, if it wanted to, engineer a civil war in Ukraine and then expand it to a wider conflict that would engulf Russia and, possibly, other parts of the world.

You do know that there is a war that could be defined as a civil war ALREADY going on in Eastern Ukraine with Russian forces involved?

Quoting Apollodorus

NATO member Turkey has its own designs on the Black Sea and may occupy Crimea in a deal with Ukraine against Russia

A very, very strange idea. Please give references to back up this idea.

Quoting Apollodorus

in addition to stirring up anti-Russian opposition in Turkic speaking areas of Russia.

Perhaps just to add here that modern Turkish isn't spoken in Russia. Closest come Crimean Tatar, and Azerbaijani that are Turkic languages. Yes, the Crimean Khanate was a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire for three hundred years, yet it lost it in the late 18th Century. And a lot of borders have changed all around since the 18th Century.

And conveniently forgetting that Turkey and Russia have had also warmer relations too in their oscillating relationship? Just from September of last year:

Relations between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Biden administration may be frayed, but on Wednesday the Turkish leader made abundantly clear his access to an alternative partner for trade and military deals: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

At a three-hour meeting in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi, Russia — the first for the two presidents in more than a year — Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan discussed weapons deals, trade and a nuclear reactor Russia is building in Turkey.

Turkey and Russia have been both friends on energy and arms deals and enemies in multiple Middle Eastern wars. Through mercenaries and proxies, the countries are on opposite sides in the wars in Syria and Libya, while both Turkish and Russian troops are serving as peacekeepers in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Quoting frank

Putin proved that no one but Russia cares about Ukraine. Russian domination hasn't been a positive experience for Ukrainians so far. Could that change in the future?

I think here Georgia would be a good alternative example. The two countries have had no formal relations since the war, but still Georgia has had to adapt to the new situation. And Russia

It was telling that when Georgia and Russia had it's war, Georgia had to quickly withdraw it's troops from Iraq to fight in their own country. Later Georgian governments have tried to normalize the relations, but that isn't so easy as Russia continues the bullying. An interesting event sparked protests in 2019, when a Russian MP sat in a chair reserved by protocol for the Head of Parliament and delivered a speech in Russian extolling "the Orthodox brotherhood of Georgia and Russia". It was a bit too much for at least part of the Georgian people. Likely the protesters had also other issues against the government.

Reply to ssu
I meant that Russia has weakened the Ukrainian economy where it has control and has left the area dependent on Russian subsidies. Its picnic surrounding Ukraine is further weakening its economy.

If you control through economic dependence (a strategy used by the US for decades), you don't really need to invade.

Quoting frank

I meant that Russia has weakened the Ukrainian economy where it has control and has left the area dependent on Russian subsidies. Its picnic surrounding Ukraine is further weakening its economy.

Do note that both in exports and in imports EU countries altogether are far more important to Ukraine than Russia. Yes, by some stats Russia is the largest country in both exports and imports for Ukraine, yet in imports China is nearly as big and with exports just Germany and Poland are both combined are bigger than Russia. And then there are the other EU countries, like Italy, Netherlands, etc.

And this is important to understand just why even when pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was President, he tried to balance between the EU trade deal and Russia. Russia simply isn't so important and it's really a lousy deal just to be in the Russian camp.

Quoting ssu

Perhaps just to add here that modern Turkish isn't spoken in Russia

Perhaps we should also add here that I never said that “modern Turkish is spoken in Russia”! That’s another straw man of yours.

I said “TURKIC” by which I meant people of Turkic ethnicity, whom Turkish president Erdogan regards as “brother Turks”. Erdogan has founded the Organization of Turkic States a.k.a. Turkic Council, consisting of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, and Uzbekistan, with a population of 172 million.

Organization of Turkic States - Wikipedia

Spoken by more than 180 million people across Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Siberia, Turkic is one of the widely disseminated language families in the world.

Interestingly, half of the Turkic speakers inhabit Russia and in territories comprising the former Soviet Union

Turkic languages spoken in large parts of Russia – Anadolu (TURKISH News Agency!)

We are always standing with our cognates, including our cognates in the Balkans, Meskhetian Turks, Crimean Tatars, Gagauz, and Uyghurs. We will continue to stand by them hereafter. Our priority is to serve our compatriots, together with our citizens – Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavu?o?lu

Turkey is one of the leaders in Crimea issue – QIRIM News (Crimean News Agency)

Russia has about 12 million people of Turkic ethnicity, plus Islam is Russia’s second-largest religion and Turkey sees itself as the leader of the Islamic world:

Why Turkey Will Emerge as the Leader of the Muslim World – Washington Institute

Turkey has been aspiring to create a "Turkish world from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China" since the 1990s which is why it has founded the Turkic Council of which Hungary, a European state, is an observer member.

There is absolutely no doubt that Turkey has a significant (and growing) naval force in the Black Sea that aims to restrict the movement of Russia's own fleet:

Due to Turkey’s procurement of S-400 air defense missiles from Russia in 2019, Turkey, NATO and the United States have some issues; yet Turkey is still a critical member of NATO. Turkey has developed an indigenous Atmaca guided missile, and the Gezgin cruise missile has increased the firepower of the Turkish Naval Forces. To limit the use of Russian naval power in the Black Sea against NATO, Turkey can reduce the operational effectiveness of the Russian Navy in the Black Sea by deploying Reis-class submarines armed with Gezgin and Atmaca cruise missiles.

NATO needs Turkey’s submarine force to balance Russia in the Black Sea - Turkish Minute

And it's a well-known fact that Turkey has an interest in Ukraine:

Ankara believes it has fundamental interests in Ukraine. Every Turkish official who spoke to MEE was quick to mention Crimea and the brotherly Crimean Tatars, who are seen as Turkic, as something that necessitates Turkey’s full attention on Ukraine. Erdogan said last week that Turkey will never recognise Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea ... The second issue is Ankara’s drone cooperation with Kyiv. Ukrainian firms are supplying engines to Turkey for a variety of advanced unmanned aircraft projects, with Kyiv beginning to co-produce the famed Bayraktar TB-2 armed drones last month.

Ukraine conflict: Why it really matters to Turkey - Middle East Eye

Turkey is simply waiting for a major conflict between NATO and Russia to start, after which it will side with NATO.

And as I explained to you already, the idea of a Turkish world from the Adriatic to North China was in fact an American idea introduced by Henry Kissinger who was Turkey’s best friend:

From the Adriatic Sea to the Great Wall of China – TEPAV (TURKISH Economic Policy Research Foundation)

Unfortunately, trolls never learn … :smile:

Reply to ssu Are you agreeing or disagreeing about Russia weakening Ukraine economically?

Shelling a kindergarten, then blaming the Ukrainians for starting it. Classy!

Watch MSNBC shill for Ukraine’s Azov Battalion.



Suspiciously enough, Congress removed a ban on funding them back in 2015. It looks like it's paying off.

Another aspect to the problem that I think is worth familiarizing oneself with, is the Clintons’ “RussiaGate” scandal.

In the 1980’s the Soviet Union was experiencing economic difficulties that were aggravated by Reagan’s anti-Russian policies. When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he introduced reforms aimed to address the economic issues but that also involved democratizing the Soviet system, including greater freedom of speech and press, etc. One of the results of this was that Soviet-controlled Eastern Bloc countries and even Soviet republics began to demand greater independence, leading to the collapse of the Union in 1991 and the creation of the Russian Federation under President Boris Yeltsin.

The European Union (EU) was created in 1992 on the basis of the European Economic Community (EEC) that consisted of the original Coal and Steel Community Six (Germany, France, Belgium, Netherland, Luxembourg, Italy) plus Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, and Greece.

From inception, the EU aimed to take advantage of Russia’s weak position and sought to expand as much eastward as possible by incorporating former Eastern Bloc countries, including Russia itself. See the EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) of 1994 – which came into effect in 1997.

At the same time, the EU aimed to expand southward, into the Mid East and North Africa (MENA) through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) program launched in 1995.

Meantime, in America, Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992. The first thing Clinton did in terms of Russia policy, was to put his old school buddy Strobe Talbott in charge, first as Ambassador-at-Large and then, from February 1994, as Deputy Secretary of State.

Talbot turned to George Soros who had extensive business experience in Eastern Europe. In an interview with The New Yorker, Talbot said:

We [the US government] try to synchronize our approach to the former Communist countries with Germany, France, Great Britain – and with George Soros (Talbot’s emphasis).

The World According To George Soros – The New Yorker

Soros hired economist Jeffrey Sachs of the Harvard Institute (for International Development) and his team was tasked by Clinton’s US Agency for International Development (USAID) with overseeing Russia’s transformation from state control to market economy. So, the principal architects of America’s Russia policy in the 90’s were Clinton, Talbot, Soros, and Sachs.

The main planks in their policy were “shock therapy” and “privatization”. “Shock therapy” involved the lifting of all price controls, which resulted in an inflation rate of 2,500% that wiped out the savings of millions of Russians overnight. “Privatization” involved the sale of state-owned companies to private buyers, both Russian and foreign (C. Freeland, Sale of the Century: The Inside Story of The second Russian Revolution).

Russia expert Peter Reddaway of George Washington University wrote that between 1992 and 1996, “although 57 percent of Russia’s firms were privatized, the state budget received only $3-5 billion for them, because they were sold at nominal prices to corrupt cliques.”

Soros and Sachs’ Harvard Institute became a hotbed of corruption that facilitated the transfer of Russian assets worth many billions of dollars to ownership by a handful of oligarchs.

The US Justice Department launched an official investigation into the Institute’s Russian operations, Sachs was forced to resign, and the Institute was charged with misuse of USAID funds and it was shut down in 2000.

The investigations revealed that operatives of the Clinton administration acting as “advisers” to the Russian government requested and received loans from the IMF, World Bank, USAID, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and Export-Import Bank that were transferred to agents in Russia, while billions of dollars were illegally transferred out of the country via US banks like Bank Of New York.

The head of the House Banking Committee, Rep. Jim Leach, said that the Russia scandal was “one of the greatest social robberies in human history” and that at least $100 billion had been laundered out of Russia (“’Dirty Money’ Scandal Could Top $100 Billion, The Times (London), Sep. 1 1999; “Hearing of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee,” Federal News Service, Sep. 22 1999).

Richard Poe, Remembering RussiaGate: Never Have So Few Stolen So Much From So Many

Already in 1997, Russia’s Central Bank announced that it would no longer do business with leading US banks. When Putin came to power in 1999, Russia’s economy was dominated by a handful of local oligarchs in close collaboration with criminal elements, corrupt politicians, and foreign interests, and it took several years to bring key strategic assets back under state control.

Of course, in order to get rid of some oligarchs, Putin had to ally himself with other oligarchs as well as with foreign corporations, especially in the energy (gas and oil) sector. But, on the whole, it is indisputable that he ended the economic and financial chaos of the 90’s and has done his best to make Russia a world power again. And this is why, despite some opposition, he still enjoys the support of the majority of the Russian people.

And precisely because Russia is regaining its status as world power, it is becoming a thorn in the side of America, NATO, and the European Union which are resenting Russia’s challenge to their world hegemony.

As for Turkey, it is essentially an Islamist, militaristic, and expansionist dictatorship that is far worse than Russia in terms of democracy and human rights. France understands the need to contain Turkey. America, Britain, and their German puppet don’t. But any reduction in Russian power will put Turkey in a very strong position vis-à-vis Europe and this will have a destabilizing effect on the whole continent with disastrous long-term consequences.

IMO the situation is much more complex than it appears to be, and those who uncritically side with America against Russia may be doing more harm than good.

Quoting Wayfarer

Shelling a kindergarten, then blaming the Ukrainians for starting it. Classy!

Well, as in WW1 and in every armed conflict, each side will blame the other. Unless we were there or have hard evidence, I think it is unwise to jump to conclusions. After all, both sides have been firing at one another for years now. And supplying the Ukrainians with more weapons can only make it worse. Maybe this is NATO's plan ....

Quoting frank

Are you agreeing or disagreeing about Russia weakening Ukraine economically?

Obviously Russia is trying to weaken Ukraine by every means and also economically. So I agree with you. My point was only to show that the EU is far more important to Ukraine than Russia even before the current crisis.

Quoting Apollodorus

I said “TURKIC” by which I meant people of Turkic ethnicity

And I only wanted to clarify that, that Turkic and Turkish are two different things.

Turkey obviously upholds it's role with the Turkic people. I'm not sure that goes so far to have territorial ambitions about Ukrainian territory, like it obviously has closer to it's border.

(And you still have not answered if you condemn or not the annexations that Russia has done.)

Quoting ssu

My point was only to show that the EU is far more important to Ukraine than Russia even before the current crisis.

I don't think this will be true going forward.

One of the last good Australians left:

The Russians are coming. Russia is worse than bad. Putin is evil, “a Nazi like Hitler,” salivated the Labour MP Chris Bryant. Ukraine is about to be invaded by Russia – tonight, this week, next week. The sources include an ex CIA propagandist who now speaks for the U.S. State Department and offers no evidence of his claims about Russian actions because “it comes from the U.S. Government."

The no-evidence rule also applies in London. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who spent £500,000 of public money flying to Australia in a private plane to warn the Canberra government that both Russia and China were about to pounce, offered no evidence. Antipodean heads nodded; the “narrative” is unchallenged there. One rare exception, former Prime Minister Paul Keating, called Truss’s warmongering “demented.”

Truss has blithely confused the countries of the Baltic and Black Sea. In Moscow, she told the Russian foreign minister that Britain would never accept Russian sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh – until it was pointed out to her that these places were not part of Ukraine but in Russia. Read the Russian press about the buffoonery of this pretender to 10 Downing Street and cringe.

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/17/war-in-europe-the-rise-of-raw-propaganda/

Februrary 18th already. Typical Russians. Late as usual. Too busy organising Canadian truckers and missed their deadline most likely.

If we're all going to be annihilated in world war three it could at least start on time. I had tickets...

Reply to Isaac

WW3 has been called off. Again. :worry:

Quoting ssu

And I only wanted to clarify that, that Turkic and Turkish are two different things.

Turkey obviously upholds it's role with the Turkic people. I'm not sure that goes so far to have territorial ambitions about Ukrainian territory, like it obviously has closer to it's border.

I think you should clarify that to Erdogan, not to me. :smile:

I know you like to whitewash Turkey but I don’t think you should deny what is established fact.

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

One of the longest, yet least remembered (at least in the West) slave trades of history centered around the Crimean Khanate, a Muslim state that was a vassal of the Ottoman Turks. Existing from 1449 until 1783, the Crimean Khanate was both a giant repository for slaves (most of whom were Slavic Christians) and one of Europe’s largest slave markets.The Crimean Tatars and the Turkic Nogai people were responsible for one of the largest slave trades in history.

10 Little-Known Facts From The Crimean Slave Trade

The Crimea, a peninsula on the border between the Christian West and the Muslim East, was a place where merchants from all over the Black Sea region, East and West Mediterranean, Anatolia, Turkey, Russia, and West European countries came to buy,sell, and exchange their goods. In this trade “live merchandise”—reluctant travellers,seized by the Tatars during their raids to adjacent countries—was one of the main objects to be negotiated.

Slave Trade in the Early Modern Crimea From the Perspective of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources – Academia Edu

The slave trade was the backbone of the economy of the Crimean Khanate. For a long time, until the early 18th century, the khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, exporting about 2 million slaves from Russia and Poland–Lithuania over the period 1500–1700.

Crimean Khanate - Wikipedia

Parts of Ukraine including Crimea were under Ottoman occupation. Erdogan wants to reestablish the Ottoman Empire. Therefore he has designs on Ukraine and Crimea.

[Sultan] Selim died 500 years ago in 1520. It was during his lifetime that the Ottoman Empire grew from a strong regional power to a gargantuan global empire. For Erdogan, this sultan from half a millennium ago serves his contemporary needs. Selim in many ways functions as Erdogan’s Andrew Jackson, a figure from the past of symbolic use in the present. Selim offers a template for Turkey to become a global political and economic power, with influence from Washington to Beijing, crushing foreign and domestic challengers alike. He helps Erdogan too to make his case for Islam as a cultural and political reservoir of strength, a vital component of the glories of the Ottoman past, which he seeks to emulate in contemporary Turkey.
We should be wary of Erdogan’s embrace of Selim’s exclusionary vision of Turkish political power. It represents a historical example of strongman politics that led to regional wars, the attempted annihilation of religious minorities, and the monopolization of global economic resources ….

Why Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Love Affair with the Ottoman Empire Should Worry The World – TIME

Erdogan is not shy to publicly chase his Ottoman dream and to reinvent himself as a Caliph. If Erdogan is out to overshadow the legacy of Ataturk, then undoing the Lausanne Treaty is what will help him accomplish this goal – even if it means declaring war. Once the 1923 treaty expires, Erdogan will immediately seek to reclaim the territories the Ottomans lost.

Erdogan’s mission to revive the Ottoman Empire – Muslim Vibe

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an’s chief aide said the Treaty of Lausanne, which ended the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies and established the modern border between Turkey and Greece, had “expired,” freeing Turkey up to seize rich resources including those in northern Iraq.

Erdo?an’s secret keeper says Lausanne Treaty ‘expired,’ Turkey free to grab resources - Nordic Monitor

Ankara is currently facing off against Greece and Southern Cyprus over oil and gas exploration rights in the eastern Mediterranean. "They are going to understand that Turkey has the political, economic and military power to tear up the immoral maps and documents imposed by others," Erdo?an added, referring to areas marked by Greece and Southern Cyprus as their economic maritime zones.

Erdo?an: Turkey has power to tear up immoral maps imposed by others – A News (Turkish TV channel)

Erdo?an's foreign policy has been described as Neo-Ottoman and has led to the Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, One of the most cited scholars alive, Noam Chomsky, said that "Erdogan in Turkey is basically trying to create something like the Ottoman Caliphate, with him as caliph, supreme leader, throwing his weight around all over the place, and destroying the remnants of democracy in Turkey at the same time"

Recep Tayyip Erdo?an – Wikipedia

Crimea is an important Russian naval base in the Black Sea and is vital to Russia for access to the Mediterranean. It has no importance to Turkey or NATO whatsoever except to contain Russia and dominate Eastern Europe. Giving Crimea to Ukraine and incorporating Ukraine into NATO means making the Black Sea a NATO, i.e. American sea. IMO it isn't rocket science to see that this is unacceptable to Russia.

...

Quoting frank

I don't think this will be true going forward.

Remember we were talking about the economy and trade. Both Italy and Canada have a larger GDP than Russia. The German economy is many times larger. If Russia would have an economy the size of Japan, which is also many times larger than the Russian economy (which theoretically would be totally possible as there are more Russians than there are Japanese), then it would be different. To focus your trade totally with Russia simply doesn't cut it.

But that would mean that Russia would have to have those trade relations and manufacture stuff just like well, Japan or Germany does. And that would mean focus on something else than physical territory, but things like competitiveness, innovation, R&D and export sector. Something also than just weapons. As the old political saying which Clinton used against older Bush (who just had won the Gulf War) goes, "It's the economy, stupid!".

This is why Putin is actually so detrimental to Russia.

Quoting Apollodorus

I know you like to whitewash Turkey but I don’t think you should deny what is established fact.

Erdogan is one of those leaders who is ruining his country and tries to hide it with bombast nationalism and obviously wants grandeur. That's true and I assume you agree at least with that.

Quoting Apollodorus

Giving Crimea to Ukraine and incorporating Ukraine into NATO means making the Black Sea a NATO, i.e. American sea. IMO it isn't rocket science to see that this is unacceptable to Russia.

Who gave Crimea to Ukraine was Nikita Khrushchev. And Russia accepted in multiple occasions and treaties that Crimea belonged to Ukraine. Until Putin saw an opportunity and annexed it back. (Which, I'll remind you again, you haven't answered if you condemn or not).

It isn't rocket science either that Putin's own actions of annexing parts of neighboring countries has changed the dynamic totally within the West. Prior to the wars in Georgia and Ukraine, NATO didn't even have any military plans to defend the Baltic States, which had become members of the alliance. That was thought to be far too hostile towards Russia and was blocked by one NATO country. Do notice that when Bush made his declarations, not all NATO countries were enthusiastic about it. Back then NATO countries were dismantling their armed forces and NATO was desperately looking for new missions. Article 5 and the old Cold War NATO that was a past thing.

Reply to ssu I meant that Russia appears to be suppressing economic activity in the areas they influence. Ukraine will have nothing to trade with anyone when Russia is done with it (possibly).

War is certainly immanent, though I hope I eat these words. If so, it will no doubt be a self-fulfilling prophecy premised on projection.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1494795545751212033?s=21[/tweet]

Reply to frank Yes.

Well, if Putin does that, he'll do it with his armed forces.

And it doesn't really look good.

Putin is accusing Ukraine of genocide. We already had the "kindergarten bombing incident" noted by Reply to Wayfarer. That the rebel enclaves say they are evacuating 700 000 people to Russia isn't either a good sign.

What Russia is saying about Ukraine should is alarming:

(TASS) It is highly probable that Kiev will embark on a combat operation in Donbass, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday.

"The attention of our interlocutors is drawn in every possible way to this dangerous concentration [of the Ukrainian troops at the engagement line in Donbass] and the attention of our interlocutors is drawn to the fact that a military operation and an attempt to resolve problems with the use of force in the southeast [of Ukraine] are quite real. This probability is high and real and, unfortunately, all of us and the entire world were witnesses when Kiev unleashed a military operation in Donbass, that is, it started a civil war in the country," the Russian presidential spokesman said.

The Ukrainians are saying their side:

(Jerusalem Post) The military intelligence of Ukraine announced Friday that it has information that Russian special forces have planted explosives at a number of social infrastructure facilities in separatist-controlled Donetsk.

Donetsk is located in eastern Ukraine, where Ukrainian forces have been fighting pro-Russia rebels since 2014 in a conflict that has killed some 14,000 people.

“These measures are aimed at destabilizing the situation in the temporarily occupied territories of our state and creating grounds for accusing Ukraine of terrorist acts,” the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine said in a tweet.

Comes to my mind Finland attacking Soviet Union in 1939 and the famous the artillery shelling of Mainila. Right from the Stalinist playbook.

Reply to NOS4A2 This time Biden and his secretary of state Blinken would be just fine and happy if they would be wrong. They were wrong about Wednesday, you know.

Hopefully a war doesn't start...

Reply to ssu
They're such brazen liars.

Reply to frank They are KGB. All that matters is that the Russian people accept it and go publicly with the lie, even if they would have doubts about it in private.

You show strength by believing in your own lies, I guess.

Reply to ssu

I don’t know who to believe.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said she would like to “request to the mass disinformation outlets of the USA and Britain – Bloomberg, the New York Times, the Sun etc – announce the schedule of our ‘invasions’ for the coming year. I’d like to plan my vacation”. And these predictions have so far been worthy of such mockery. No doubt some incident will occur before anything happens, but it is unclear who will do it first.

Reply to ssu

As expected, more straw men from you, isn't it? Every one of them more transparent and easier to debunk than the others! :smile:

It isn’t just Erdogan, it’s the whole AKP party, plus allied far-right and ultra-nationalist (or neo-fascist) parties allied to it like MHP, the military, terror and criminal organizations, the Islamist religious mafia, and basically, the whole Turkish system.

Turkey is converting Christian churches and monasteries into mosques (Agia Sofia Cathedral, Monastery of Chora, etc.), it suppresses religious and ethnic minorities, it routinely jails journalists, academics and political opponents (many more than Russia!), etc. In other words, a neo-fascist state with an Islamist twist, i.e. a Frankenstein monster created by Kissinger and his anti-Russian policies.

Critics have accused the AKP of having a 'hidden agenda' despite their public endorsement of secularism and the party maintains informal relations and support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Both the party's domestic and foreign policy has been perceived to be Pan-Islamist or Neo-Ottoman, advocating a revival of Ottoman culture often at the expense of secular republican principles, while increasing regional presence in former Ottoman territories

Justice and Development Party (Turkey) – Wikipedia

Of course, because of Russia, Erdogan isn’t openly saying that he will occupy Crimea - for now. But if there is a war between NATO and Russia, there is no doubt that Erdogan will show his true colors. And his expansionist plans are well-known:

Erdogan confidant and adviser Metin Kulunk declares on Turkish TV that Turkey will occupy Greece in five hours:

Turkish Politician: We can take Greece in 5 Hours – You Tube

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavu?o?lu'nun explains on Turkish TV his “Extraordinary Strategy” plan for Turkey to take the Greek islands from the Greeks:

Türkiye'den Adalar ç?k???: Yunanistan bundan vazgeçmezse... – YouTube

Since 2015, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has exuded historical revanchism in justifying Turkish interference in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia—his discourse peppered with flowery mentions of “geography in our heart” and “our spiritual borders.”
Turkey today seeks to become a great power able to negotiate on equal terms with the rest of the great powers and, wherever possible, impose its will by resorting to faits accomplis.
All in all, Erdogan’s agenda encompasses much more than mere defense and survival. His ultimate goal is to alter the geopolitical status quo in ways he believes benefit Turkey. In this sense, Turkey is now a revisionist state: It embarks upon military interventions and seeks to control foreign territory, as in Syria and Iraq …

What Erdogan Really Wants in the Eastern Mediterranean – Foreign Policy

As for Crimea, don’t you see that the very fact that Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine in 1954, demonstrates that it cannot be Ukrainian??? Crimea had been invaded by Mongols (Tatars) and Turks in the Middle Ages and was under joint Tatar and Ottoman control until Russia took it back in 1783. It had never been “Ukrainian” before 1954!

Obviously, when Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine, this was not a major problem as it was still part of the Soviet Union. However, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of Ukraine as an independent state, followed by EU and NATO relentless expansion, the situation obviously changed completely. It isn’t Russia that changed, but EU and NATO expansion.

I don’t know if NATO “didn't have any military plans to defend the Baltic States”, as you claim, since NATO isn’t sharing its plans with the public. But I do know for a fact that the EU aimed to incorporate Ukraine, Georgia, and Russia itself, into its system. And after the experience of the 90’s explained above (RussiaGate Scandal, p. 12), Russia obviously had no appetite whatsoever for becoming part of the West. It’s as simple as that.

Richard Poe, Remembering RussiaGate: Never Have So Few Stolen So Much From So Many

In any case, Russia cannot logically be expected to accept the Black Sea being turned into a NATO lake (controlled by NATO states Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and possibly Georgia). In your opinion, how is Russia going to access the Mediterranean through NATO-controlled waters??? Doesn’t this amount to encircling and containing Russia??? Is Russia encircling and containing America, or the other way round???

Reply to StreetlightX :up:

So having started by shelling a kindergarten, let's follow up by evacuating an orphanage. Very soon it will be clear to the whole world that Russia will have to send in peacekeepers to maintain civil order, while the West falsely accuses it of war-mongering.

Reply to NOS4A2

I mean, if they (US and UK intelligence) continue saying such non-sense, it would not be surprising if they'd actually do some false flag operation and blame it on the Russians.

Things aren't as easy for them since the Iraq intel fiasco.

Reply to Manuel
You actually believe the Russian propaganda. I don't understand that. Can't you see that it doesn't even make sense?

The Ukrainians are begging for help. Why do you think they're doing that?

Quoting ssu

They are KGB. All that matters is that the Russian people accept it and go publicly with the lie, even if they would have doubts about it in private.

You show strength by believing in your own lies, I guess.

Some commentators say it's a kind of abuse: to undermine any kind of rational discussion. Obviously it works.

Reply to frank We have a resident specialist here.

Reply to Wayfarer Who?

Reply to frank @swstephe

Quoting NOS4A2

I don’t know who to believe.

But this is easy.

1) If Russia doesn't attack Ukraine, then it can be said that the outing of the Russian army on the Ukrainian border got the West to sit down with Russia and talk about Russia's security issues. An attack that doesn't happen isn't an attack.

2) If Russia is "forced to respond to the grave threat" and performs a military operation, then Biden told the truth.

Of course you could look at previous history at what the sides have said. Starting from that Russia (and Putin) has denied any involvement of Russian army in the Ukraine. And those Russian soldiers that have been captured their were just volunteers, who went to fight alongside the separatists on their spare time.

And if you think that Ukraine would launch a military strike to Donbass when Russia has deployed the largest army on it's border since the Cold War, then, how does the saying goes... "I'd sell you some real estate in Florida".

Reply to frank

Frank, it's propaganda on both sides, we happen to choose which one we think is most plausible. I'm not pretending to be viewing this thing from a "view from nowhere", which we know doesn't exist.

I'm basing my comment on the fact that there have been many reports of an imminent Russian attack, which has not materialized each time it was stated. It got to the point that the Ukrainian president told the West to tone it down, or it would increase tensions.

It's not as if there's no lack of history of this with the Gulf of Tonkin, or Iraq's WMD.

Having said that, it would be really stupid to actually engage in such an act. But it's no less smart to keep saying that things are really immanent, and they haven't happened.

Reply to Manuel

Radio evangelist Harold Camping famously predicted that the Apocalypse would occur on September 6, 1994, then again on September 29 of the same year, and then again on October 2. In 2005 he revised his claim and said the real Rapture was coming on May 21, 2011, and then when that failed to pan out he said it was happening on October 21 of that year. Whenever he got a prediction wrong he'd just do some more magic Bible math and move the date into the future.

Camping was one of many exploitative Christian cult leaders who've falsely predicted the Second Coming over the years amassing thousands of followers with an early form of tabloid clickbait. The difference between the Harold Campings of history and the Ukraine invasion prognosticators of today is that Harold Camping died disgraced and disdained instead of being elevated to lucrative positions in the most influential news media outlets on the planet.

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/russian-invasion-prognosticators?utm_source=url

Quoting Manuel

Things aren't as easy for them since the Iraq intel fiasco.

Correct. Isn't it strange that the pro-NATO camp keeps conveniently forgetting the West's own psyops and false-flag operations? :smile:

US national security adviser Jake Sullivan has said that “In the situation in Iraq, intelligence was used and deployed from this very podium to start a war. We are trying to stop a war, to prevent a war, to avert a war". Whether starting or "preventing" war, it amounts to an admission that "intelligence is being used" to shape the narrative and manipulate public opinion!

Of course the Russians themselves are doing this, but why shouldn't they given that the US-UK are at it as well?

Plus, the UK has deployed troops to Ukraine, ostensibly to "train" Ukrainian forces. But the truth of the matter is that all such deployments are a cover for special operation forces and other elements who have a specific task on the ground, including reconnaissance, intelligence, sabotage, etc.

And there is no doubt that they are playing on people's emotions by suggesting that the Russians are indiscriminately murdering old women and children.

Remember they did the same in Yugoslavia in 1998-1999 when they claimed that the Serbs had committed "genocide" on Albanians in Kosovo when in reality they had simply fled over the border to Albania because there was a war going on!

In the end, they got caught out when the UN ruled that there had been no genocide!

Kosovo assault 'was not genocide' - BBC

A United Nations court has ruled that Serbian troops did not carry out genocide against ethnic Albanians during Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of aggression in Kosovo from 1998 to 1999.

So, Iraq, Kosovo, and all the way to WW1 and "German atrocities in Belgium" when in reality it was all about Britain wanting to keep Africa and Europe for itself!

Reply to Apollodorus

Yes. I remember the Kosovo situation, Western Intellectuals really went crazy in that one. As if anyone really believes they actually care about Muslims. Not if you look at the Middle East and other parts of the world.

They are playing a dangerous game, likely to win some political points (Russia too, but they have security concerns, as does Ukraine), but this is not the place to do such things.

The Western Intelligence community is extremely ideological, though they pretend to be "neutral".

Reply to StreetlightX

Yeah. It's really dangerous and stupid.

Quoting Manuel

The Western Intelligence community is extremely ideological, though they pretend to be "neutral".

Yep, "neutral" my left foot! Shamelessly (and clumsily) fabricating "evidence" of Iraqi WMD's is sooo incredibly "neutral" that only idiots can swallow it without getting sick. :smile:

And why do they do it? To manipulate public opinion, obviously! But, oh no, the West couldn't possibly ever tell lies, could it now? It's only evil "subhuman species" like Russians, Germans, and Japs that tell lies, so they need to be taught a lesson that they will never forget!

Reply to Apollodorus

It's the common theme for super powers. Britain, Spain, etc, is the same thing, but now there's more tech involved.

In other words, no matter what Russia does, it's always the West that is at fault.

Reply to Wayfarer

Not at all.

Russia has committed war crimes in Chechnya and also in Afghanistan and most recently in Syria. There are no innocent states.

But the crimes committed by states is proportional to the power they have.

Reply to Manuel Oh good. That was just an impression from reading some of the comments. Glad that I'm wrong about that.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-has-plans-for-post-invasion-arrest-and-assassination-campaign-us-officials-say?ref=home?ref=home

Reply to ssu
Biden is now saying he thinks Putin is committed to invasion. Who is he targeting with that? What is he trying to accomplish with that statement?

To rob Putin of justification?

Quoting Manuel

I'm basing my comment on the fact that there have been many reports of an imminent Russian attack, which has not materialized each time it was stated. It got to the point that the Ukrainian president told the West to tone it down, or it would increase tensions.

You're right. We both look at the available facts and draw the conclusions that are most reasonable to us respectively. We're just coming to very different conclusions on this.

Quoting Manuel

Not at all.

Russia has committed war crimes in Chechnya and also in Afghanistan and most recently in Syria. There are no innocent states.

But the crimes committed by states is proportional to the power they have.

Well, this is about a war that is going on Ukraine and the possible enlargement of that war. For the Russian involvement, just to give one example of a battle in 2015:

in February 2015, separatist militia attacked Mariupol from the east with only limited success. A Russian tank battalion was committed to the fight to capture the town before the Minsk II ceasefire was signed, but a company(-) of Ukrainian Army tanks were able to defeat them. The infantry attack continued for three more months, with support from Russian artillery and multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS), but the separatists were unable to penetrate the city’s eastern outskirts. Ukrainian volunteer infantry, backed by army tanks and long-range artillery, prevented a Russian success because there were insufficient local separatists, and Russia was unwilling to commit enough regular infantry.

Do notice that actually there hasn't been accusations of war crimes, mass killings, against Russia and there hasn't been ethnic cleansing as in the Yugoslav wars. Far more soldiers have been killed on both sides than civilians have died. But note the use of entire tank battalions, and heavy artillery. Even if there has been an obvious restraint (starting from that Russia hasn't used at all air power), the Russian role and participation in fighting is obvious.

The case of the Kosovo war is important to this as that was basically the braking point of Russian and NATO relations. But then NATO was interested in these "new missions" as it tried to reinvent itself, and the Russian response came as a surprise. Note back then it was Yeltsin, not Putin in power.

Quoting frank

Biden is now saying he thinks Putin is committed to invasion. Who is he targeting with that? What is he trying to accomplish with that statement?

To rob Putin of justification?

Something like that.

I think (and many commentators have noted this too) it is the tactic that the US hopes to deter Putin from attacking. Likely Biden is telling what his intelligence services are reporting. They are saying that a lot of those forces have now moved from depots to field deployments. And obviously if those armored vehicles now photographed in depots spread out to the countryside into their battalion combat teams, then that is something that you have to do in order to use those forces in war.

I guess Biden makes these statements because if Putin doesn't attack, then he can say these statements deterred Putin from attack. Obviously if there's no attack, then those who think that Putin had no intention of attacking can stick to their argument. No attack is no attack.

Putin can put his forces all ready...and then call it off later. If he wants.

For Ukrainians this obviously is annoying as the markets starting from their currency get a hit from a possibility of a war braking out (even more). That explains why the Ukrainian president has said for the US to calm down. It really isn't a role for a president of a country to spread fear around.

Quoting Wayfarer

In other words, no matter what Russia does, it's always the West that is at fault.

I don't know by what logic you arrive at that conclusion. People do tend to become emotional when loss of life or property, alleged or factual, is involved. But being in the grip of emotions is exactly what makes us easy to manipulate and why a cool head is needed. After all, philosophy is about thinking, not emoting - or so I was brought up to believe.

The fact is that things don't happen out of the blue. There is usually a historical background to any political and military situation. Like people, countries have a history, and without knowledge of that, you can't understand their present actions.

Britain was the largest world empire in the history of mankind, and it didn't become that through philanthropic activities, but by force of arms and by defeating, conquering, and enslaving other nations. Don't forget how they treated the Boers and how they put them in concentration camps just because they dared to defend their own territory against British greed.

The Boers' farms and fields were burned to the ground, their livestock killed, the men deported overseas, women and children put in concentration camps where many thousands died from lack of shelter and hygiene, malnutrition and disease. In short, a deliberate policy of physical extermination.

And War Secretary St John Brodrick had the impudence to claim in parliament that the concentration camps were "purely voluntary" and that the inmates were "contented and comfortable"!

Second Boer War concentration camps - Wikipedia

That's a nice example of British lies and propaganda for you, right there. And there are many more, enough to fill volumes. Don't forget the British government's political and psychological warfare department during the world wars, and the special operations. Britain may have lost its empire, but the propaganda goes on. And the same goes for America.

In addition to ignoring US-UK-EU actions that may have contributed to the situation, some on here seem to be unable (or unwilling) to honestly answer a simple question: What would they do if they were in Russia's shoes, and why?

Quoting Manuel

It's the common theme for super powers. Britain, Spain, etc, is the same thing, but now there's more tech involved.

Correct. The lies and the propaganda may be more subtle and easier to conceal under the cover of "democracy and human rights" than in the past, but it is very much there all the same.

The "colonial mission" to "civilize the barbarians" has remained unchanged. The only difference is that Africans and Indians have been replaced as the target of "Western philanthropy" by Germans and Russians .... :smile:

Reply to ssu

Russia behaves as would any other country given its size and military.

Quoting Apollodorus

The "colonial mission" to "civilize the barbarians" has remained unchanged.

Fisk's The Great War for Civilization is a masterclass on this, though it focuses in the Middle East, it's an amazing book.

Reply to Manuel

I don't agree with everything Fisk says, but he is a keen observer and focusing on the Middle East isn't necessarily a problem as the region is one of the keys to understanding the current situation.

People like to imagine that empires no longer exist, but they very much do, only in different forms. And so do colonized and subjugated nations.

If you look at the Germans as a nation, they are totally paranoid, schizophrenic and in self-denial. They can’t even breathe without worrying what America and Britain might say. And this is the result of systematic British and American indoctrination, conditioning, and brainwashing - a broken and zombified nation with no mind or life of its own and no future.

For all its flaws, Russia is the last European nation that is still free and has not fallen into the New-World-Order spiderweb woven by the Anglo-Saxon “master race”. And this is why I think Russia has a point.

And, exactly as I predicted, Western pressure is forcing Russia to align itself with China, which is a win-win for China (and potentially for Turkey) and a lose-lose for Russia and the West. In other words, the West is shooting itself in the foot by antagonizing Russia ….

Incidentally, Britain in WW1 had been hoping that if it dragged America into the war, it would be allowed to rule the world as before, with America as an equal partner. Unfortunately, it got the shock of its life after the war, when it discovered that it had become indebted to America up to its neck, that New York had become the world’s financial center instead of London, and that America now ruled the world instead of Britain!

Now, Britain’s Turkish Prime Minister Boris Johnson, whose great-grandfather was none other than Ali Kemal who was in the government of Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, was hoping that being a good poodle to America was going to earn him America’s goodwill.

But, like Churchill and many other predecessors, Boris has been forced to discover that America doesn’t give a fig about anyone except itself. He had been dreaming of a trade agreement with America which he had promised to the British voters. Instead, Biden told him that Britain must make separate agreements with each American state!

The EU’s situation isn’t much better, either. America and the EU are each other’s largest trade and investment partners. This means that US-EU relations are dominated by economic considerations. And as the US is the dominant partner in this relationship, this means that it is dominated by US interests. The World Bank whose main members are US, UK, France, Germany, and Japan, is dominated by America. The IMF is a US-UK creation. The global stock-market is dominated by America. European investment banking is dominated by US banks, etc.

Many of Europe’s current problems were directly created by America and its anti-Russian policies. In order to contain Russia, America in 1952 made Turkey a NATO member, after which it sought to bind Turkey and Europe closer together. In the 60’s America forced Germany to accept migrant workers from Turkey who are now four or five million. In the 70’s, in order to keep Russia out of North Africa and the Mid East, America sought to bind the region closer to Europe by launching the Euro-Arab Dialogue followed by the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (1995) and the Union for the Mediterranean (2008), and together with Turkey instigated the civil war in Syria as well as meddling in the Arab revolutions across North Africa, eventually creating a tide of millions of refugees all heading for Europe.

Turkey is now hosting refugee and migrant camps on its soil amounting to millions of people that are funded by Europe and that Turkey threatens to send to Europe unless Europe complies with its demands.

It follows that the situation is as complicated as it is volatile and dangerous, and any weakening of Russian power can only serve to embolden Turkey and its North African and Mid Eastern allies to interfere more and more in European affairs, destabilize the whole continent, and bring about its downfall, while America is watching and counting its petrodollars - until al-Qaeda and Islamic State rise again from the ashes ….

Well, that's just great. :/

Ukraine conflict: Rebels declare general mobilisation as fighting grows (Feb 19, 2022)

Quoting Manuel

Russia behaves as would any other country given its size and military.

Actually...no. Not at all.

China isn't as bellicose as Russia has been. China doesn't send it's forces to train to a third country and participate in a civil war as Russia does in Syria. Occupying contested uninhabited islets isn't the same as annexing a peninsula as large as Crimea or annexing South Ossetia.

Last time China had a war it was against Vietnam. China did this because Vietnam had intervened in Cambodia and hence attacked an ally of China. And that border war basically didn't go well for China. If I remember correctly, China has just one naval base outside China and that's in Djibouti, where a multitude of nations have a naval base.

China can feel every bit as threatened about the US with all the talk coming from Washington. However it's ways to deal with the situation aren't as aggressive as Putin's Russia.

India also has a large military, nuclear weapons and also it hasn't been as bellicose as Russia. After all, it has been the pacific where the US has put the focus. It's not projecting power further than it's borders and the ocean named after itself. Or have you seen India sending troops (or mercenaries with close links to the people in power in India) to the Middle East or Africa?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to ssu

I should've specified, a country in Russia's context would be acting as Russia is.

Look at Taiwan, for instance, both sides are doing military drills in the straight all the time. There is an analogue to Ukraine in that instance.

But it's true that China has been significantly less involved in border issues. India has the problem with Pakistan, no easy situation to be in. They've been rather harsh in Kashmir (Pakistan too), that's a really hard situation.

Part of it has to do with wanting to maintain regional power, as it had for most of the 20th century. It surely did not handle the collapse of the USSR in the best manner, and they're paying for it now.

I think they're "punching above" as it is.

Quoting Apollodorus

For all its flaws, Russia is the last European nation that is still free and has not fallen into the New-World-Order spiderweb woven by the Anglo-Saxon “master race”. And this is why I think Russia has a point.

So behind all the dissimulation and circumlocution and fallacious comparisons, you’re basically an apologist for Russia.

Reply to Apollodorus

Sure about Russia not joining the Western sphere of influence. But Russia itself is hardly a paradise. I think they right in this situation.

But Russian elites are no better than Western ones.

Of course, the West has committed most of the crimes in the 20th century, because they've had the power to do so. But most states with power, do similar things.

Russia is not a free and functioning democracy. It’s a kleptocracy run by the rich oligarchs who were able to exploit the collapse of communism by privatising state-owned assets and taking control of them. Putin is an ex-KGB operative who has effectively made himself President for Life. Russian elections are not free and fair, political opposition to Putin is hounded with opposition leaders and activists routinely murdered, jailed or exiled. So I’m not buying any of this crap about Russia being ‘free’. In no sense is Russia a free society.

Ukraine voted to become part of the European Union by its own free choice, and an overwhelming democratic majority oppose any form of Russian interference or intervention, aspirations that have already been thwarted by Russia which has already carved off part of Ukraine and has been engaging in a guerrilla war since 2014 which has cost 14000 lives. It has no reasonable claim over Ukraine whatever and if and when it decides to invade, it will be an act of flagrant criminality and nothing more than that.

Quoting Manuel

Look at Taiwan, for instance, both sides are doing military drills in the straight all the time. There is an analogue to Ukraine in that instance.

My bad to forget Taiwan!

Well, Taiwan would be similar to that there would be an island or territory where the White Russian forces would have treated to and where the Imperial Russia would still claim a foothold to the Soviet Union. The Island formerly known as Formosa is truly a thorn in the side of China. After all, if the mainland China would have the same per capita as Taiwan, China would have surpassed in GDP the US long time ago. Above all, it's now quite democratic, more prosperous, than the mainland.

And you are correct that there is an analogue to Ukraine. Namely that Taiwan is no real threat to mainland China. It simply cannot build an army and invade and defeat Communist China. It simply isn't any kind of threat. The only threat is that Chinese, just as Russians, can observe that things are there better. Of course in the case of Russia and Ukraine, Russia is the more prosperous example (which explains why there could be a separatist movement in the Donbass at the first place).

Quoting jorndoe

Well, that's just great. :/

And that is also reported by TASS, the Russian news agency. So it can't be just "NATO propaganda".

LUGANSK, February 19. /TASS/. Head of the self-proclaimed Lugansk People’s Republic Leonid Pasechnik has ordered general mobilization.

"General mobilization shall be announced on the territory of the Lugansk People’s Republic," he said in a decree published online. "The People’s Council of the LPR, the LPR government shall be immediately notified about the announcement of mobilization".

The decree said the mobilization aims to create conditions for repelling an aggression against the LPR by Ukraine. It orders full battle readiness for the People’s Militia and other military units. The republic also prohibited men aged 18 through 55 from leaving the region.

Donetsk People’s Republic
Head of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic Denis Pushilin has ordered general mobilization.

"I’m urging fellow citizens who are in the reserve to report to military conscription offices," he said in a video address on Saturday. "I have signed a decree on general mobilization today.".

"We will protect Donbass and all Russian people," he said.

And furthermore, accusations that Russia has been shelled by Ukraine:

(Russia Today) Two explosions reported on the Russian side of the border with Ukraine were the result of incoming artillery shells, officials have claimed, amid an escalating military stand-off across the border in the Donbass.

In a statement issued on Saturday, the FSB security service in the southern Rostov Region said that local border guard officials had recorded “ammunition strikes” near two rural settlements.

“One of the shells exploded two kilometers from the Russian-Ukrainian border on the outskirts of the village of Mityakinskaya,” authorities said. “Another shell destroyed an outbuilding on the ground of a private home in the Manotsky farming community.” No injuries have been reported, and a criminal investigation is said to be underway.

While officials have not yet publicly declared who they believe to be responsible for the alleged incidents, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba has insisted they had nothing to do with Kiev’s armed forces. “We resolutely refute all accusations of any alleged Ukrainian shells falling on Russian territory,” he wrote on Twitter. “Ukraine has never opened any such fire. We call for an immediate and impartial international investigation of the incidents reported by Russian media.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also cast doubt on the news.

Looks really like Putin wants to enlarge the war.

So crazy. Absolutely crazy.