The evidence is the expansionism of US-created instruments of US foreign policy like the EU and NATO. If an entity is officially expanding, it makes little sense to deny that it is expanding.

EU is an instrument of US foreign policy? This is evidence of your wearing of anti US tinted glasses. This weakens your case.

Regarding NATO, it has expanded in Europe. I refer you a second time to my reply to Streetlight, that you didn’t address.

“ I draw your attention back to the theatre of Eastern Europe. What is happening here is a reordering of coalition/allegiance between states which used to be either members of, or influenced by the USSR. Any discussion of the Ukraine crisis which doesn’t place this process at the heart of the issue is entirely missing the point.”

Any expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe is part of this process. It is not as part of an anti Russian master plan, or plan for world domination.

I think it is better to omit the Normans than to omit everything else in European history. But I don’t think I “omitted” them. The British Empire was built by the United Kingdom regardless of the ethnic group that was in charge of it.

If you ever find yourself looking into the history of Britain, I would suggest you consider how the history was written by the winners to paint them in a positive light. The Normans are the last conquerors of Britain and we are still living under the history they wrote and the institutions they and their decedents introduced.

Nonsense. The British Empire was a capitalist as well as imperialist entity. Imperialism can perfectly well be a manifestation of capitalism. Ditto the desire of British capitalists to exploit Russia’s natural resources.

You clearly are equating anything emanating from the US, or the U.K. as imperialist expansionism. Can you distinguish between socio cultural movements which are popular and adopted by people in far away countries and the invasion of independent states by the US and U.K.?

Those rose tinted glasses again.

Im not sure prominence is suitable phraseology for this crisis. Erection might be more apt.

This simply won't happen so long as the US retains its world imperial ambitions - ambitions which it not only holds, but continues to actively pursue

I don’t see expansion of a US empire, there are the claims about corporate exploitation and and litigation by US companies around the world, the spread of capitalism as an economic model etc etc. Again I don’t see evidence of imperial expansion there either (unless one conflates economic developments with imperialist expansion).

I’m not excusing some unpleasant involvement in some other countries around the world by the US. This is likely a hangover from the anti Communist interventions and proxy wars following WW2. This was about a paranoia about Communism which resulted in numerous destructive activity around the world for decades. As I said this activity focussed on combating Russian Communism ended a few decades ago.

Western invention continues to help stave children to death in Yemen, treat Palestinians like animals, subjugate Iraq, agitate for 'regime change' in places like Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, produce famine in Afghanistan, fund and produce global Islamic terrorism, and deprive and debase its poor and "middle class" at home as a condition of all of the above.

Of course, but US military intervention with the aim of occupying and rebuilding states in their own image have not happened for a long time. Following the disaster of the Iraq invasion and the destruction of the whole region from the fallout. The US has withdrawn from such ambitions, culminating in the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. So no US imperialist expansion there either.

It is precisely because Putin sees the US withdrawing from interventions and the failures where they have. That Putin has been emboldened to carry out a full scale invasion of a neighbouring state.

The idea that there have been some univocal set of "Ukranian wishes" - either for or against both Russia and the West - is a complete back-projection that is largely a myth.

Yes I know, the Ukrainians where going to shower the Russian troops with flowers to welcome them.

I reiterate what I said to Streetlight earlier,

“ I draw your attention back to the theatre of Eastern Europe. What is happening here is a reordering of coalition/allegiance between states which used to be either members of, or influenced by the USSR. Any discussion of the Ukraine crisis which doesn’t place this process at the heart of the issue is entirely missing the point.”

So a failed attempt in the 1990’s by the US to somehow control Russia, is evidence of an overarching US expansionism. I’m not convinced I’m afraid.

I don’t disagree with your historical insights apart from the glaring omission of the Norman conquest and colonisation of England. Who’s descendants, still totally in control of the population, did the global empire building you refer to.

Also your conflation of geopolitical issues with the spread of the capitalist economic system confuses the issue at hand. One might as well say that Britain is conquering the world through spreading the adoption of the English language globally.

I watched an excellent documentary about the effects of Fentanyl in social breakdown in St Louis last night. (U.K. Channel4, Unreported World). The social collapse in such areas of the US is breathtaking.

I don’t see evidence of this expansionist US imperialism that you allude to. The US abandoned their proxy wars with Russia before the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. If they wanted to subjugate Russia, they would have done it long before now, when Russia was weak.

The so-called "progressive change" you want is nothing but a regressive change to the days in which Western intervention could simply call the shots as and when it likes. Those days are over. And thank God.

By progressive change, I mean live alongside their neighbours peacefully. With some kind of basic cooperation. Nothing else. It’s not a big ask.

Western intervention hasn’t worked for 40yrs or so. And wasn’t directed against communism for longer than that. The fact that Russia still seems to think that it is is rather strange and may be for an ulterior motive. I note that the US doesn’t start proxy wars in opposition to Maoism, which is an invidious form of communism.(there is an issue of capitalism as a kind of conquering force, which I’ll deal with separately*).

I draw your attention back to the theatre of Eastern Europe. What is happening here is a reordering of coalition/allegiance between states which used to be either members of, or influenced by the USSR. Any discussion of the Ukraine crisis which doesn’t place this process at the heart of the issue is entirely missing the point.

I agree that there is a creeping influence, even expansion from the EU. However this was either at the request, or with agreement with the nations concerned. At one point Putin flirted with such an allegiance. By counterpoint, Russia has been seeking to regain influence, or assimilate these states back into a Russian federation. I note, that this is usually against the wishes, or agreement of the peoples of these states. These two processes have been on a collision course for some time. This crisis was inevitable and has been prepared for by both sides for some time as well.(although, I suggest that the EU was asleep at the wheel and enfranchised it’s security to NATO)

There is no grand conquering of Russia, or Eastern Europe in the mind of Americans. Likewise in the minds of Europeans. However there is a blindness as to how the hand of beneficial coalition, cooperation and economic prosperity with a neighbour can get under the skin of an adjoining neighbouring autocratic state.

I have no particular argument with your hatred of US behaviour and policy. Other than that you do seem to put all the worlds woes at their door, which clearly is not the case.

* as for “capitalism in principle” as a conquering, expanding force. Yes this is the case, one only need look at the prosperity experienced in the Far East to see this in action. But one mustn’t conflate this with Western Imperialism. It is not, it is simply a system of economic prosperity and growth which some populations adopt willingly and on their own terms.( there is a side issue of corporate power and oligarchy, but this is not really an issue of nation states, so I don’t include it here).

The end of states and the reign of private property. But this is not quite the thread for that.

Well, in an ideal world….

One might begin modestly by calling for the US to fuck right off outta Ukraine.

And to be fair, also asking Russia to fuck right off outta Ukraine.

But this wouldn’t resolve the issue (on the assumption that sanctions would be eased on Russia). Russia and the West are on a collision course since the collapse of the USSR and the breakdown of the Cold War. Either the Cold War is resumed and an iron curtain erected again, or these proxy wars will continue in a different place each time. The later is expensive, gratuitously destructive and risks wider escalation, Armageddon.

There is a third option, progressive change in Russia. This is what many hoped for after the end of the Cold War. But something turned sour.

I think "far left" is an actual political perspective.

If one views the world from a far left position, rather like the far right. All you see is failure, or things getting worse. While what you would want to happen, will never happen because it’s to idealistic, theoretical to be successfully applied. This powerlessness can be frustrating.

Yes, this is what conservatives always believe. It is always wrong.

Describe an alternative then.

I don't know.

Ahh, we’ll excuse me for sticking with US/EU hegemony then.

The veiled point I’m making is that this is probably as good as it gets. If the US is neutered on the world stage, it leaves a geopolitical vacuum. Who steps in to fill that vacuum?

China, (not my cup of tea)

Russia in alliance with other authoritarian states (prepare for global mafioso)

Competing corrupt right wing states (recipe for continued warring)

Also there would likely be a rapid erosion of democracy and human rights globally. Including in Blighty and Australia.

I’ll stick with what we have.

Streetlight is a far left, it can be a burden if taken to far.

Illegal to protest in the UK? I missed that, and also if you could explain Boris Johnsons' actions - I am a little behind the curve here.

A bill has recently been passed in U.K. enabling any protest to be disbanded and deemed illegal if someone complains that it is to noisy. This provides a loophole by which any protestor could be convicted for illegal protest. Whether it will result in any change has yet to be established. There have been some very noisy protests in response, but no convictions for noisy protest, that I know of.

...not sending $33b in blood money, say?

Do you really find this so hard?

You are being obtuse, you remember what I was asking don’t you.

What is the alternative? ( to US/EU hegemony). That is the question I was asking.

Well?

The US ought to fuck right off forever.

I’m not wholly averse to something along those lines. But what would it look like?

Anyway, those who think: the best solution is just low level continued fighting in which a certain population of Ukranians are subject to ongoing arbitrary death, humilation, and fear are probably monsters and should not offer an opinion on anything ever again.

As I said, I would have neutered Putin 20yrs ago. I don’t like this situation, but is there a better alternative?

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that you are comfortable with the buggest threat to world peace that has ever existed insofar as you benefit of the blood it spills globally.

And your alternative to this?

I won’t hold my breath.

Oh wow how coincidental that your views are exactly those of the US imperial agenda wow its like you haven't simply regurgitated US propaganda verbatim at all so cool how you probably came to this view entirely on your own.

Yes it’s amazing.

Although I wouldn’t have started here. I would have neutered Putin 20yrs ago.

You ought to be aware that some people do consider all these issues and views and what history can tell us and yet still miraculously to come to this view.

I am happy with US and soon to become US/EU hegemony for many reasons. It’s not perfect, but preferable to any of the alternatives.

You're completing missing the escalation point. Russia has strategic objectives, which don't necessarily involve levelling Ukraine.

The problem is that this was always going to come to a head. If Putin had successfully assimilated Ukraine without military involvement. He would feel empowered and immediately look to the assimilation of a number of other previous USSR states. Growing in confidence at each turn. Meanwhile there would have been no significant sanctions and the EU would not have decided to stop buying oil and gas asap. In another five years we would have been confronted with a more powerful and confident Russian provocation. If Trump were in office at the time, or Marine LePen had won in France things could have been far worse a few years from now.

We should count ourselves lucky that the threat is currently being contained and defused. Yes there is the real threat of nuclear war, but this is nothing new and we just have to live with it. It looks to me that the best outcome from here is Russia getting preoccupied and bogged down in eastern Ukraine with continued strict sanctions on Russia and to keep Putin’s army stuck there until they are sufficiently degraded.

Remember, Russia attacked Ukraine once and nobody thought much about it.

Why is this time so different?

I would think it is the explicit attack on the Kiev, with the rhetoric that Ukraine should not exist, which is different. Following the annexation of Crimea, I realised how nasty Putin was and was surprised how little Western leaders seemed to care.

It's good that you mention Trump, because that hasn't gone unnoticed. And even if Johnson's UK wants to be part of the defense of Europe (through NATO), being out of the EU does mean a lot. (Just like, well, Canada)

I wouldn’t trust a populist like Johnson as far as I can throw him. Also he has been actively hostile to the EU and many of his backers including in his own political party and government would like the EU to collapse.

I know that at this point, the stability of NATO isn’t threatened, but if a few bad political steps occur, it could be. I don’t think the EU will take that risk.

Here in the U.K. there are concerns about the Orbanisation of U.K. politics. Which is moving at a scary pace at the moment. Just yesterday a bill was passed removing the independence of the electoral commission, which is now answerable to the government.

If this is true, then nuclear weapons are the next step. Why would Russia just call it quits?

I’m not getting into the likelihood, or not of such scenarios, there is so much we don’t know and so much unpredictability. My point was that if Putin is legacy building, that legacy won’t include instigating nuclear proliferation, or annihilation. A climb down would be preferable, with a renewed conviction that Russia was the victim in all this. So not so bad for his regime.

It needed a jolt to wake them up. Re’ Germany’s dependency on Russian gas.

Trump spoke of leaving NATO, Johnson has become disingenuous about the EU and Putin sees the EU as a threat. The EU can’t rely on the US/U.K. axis any more, for their security.

As I was saying the biggest story emerging out of this crisis is Germany and therefore the EU waking up to the necessity to provide their own security.

Thanks to Putin, Trump and Johnson.

Excellent article on how Johnson’s move in the last chance saloon could mark the end of his premiership and the failure of the Brexit project.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/26/boris-johnson-northern-ireland-brexit-protocol

The Putin apologists are proving unhinged.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that peace talks with Ukraine would continue, while warning there was a “real” danger of a World War III.

There is no prospect of World War III, Russia’s army is in chaos, ill equipped and poorly trained. Largely a spent force. There is no sign of powerful allies of Russia joining the fight. So this talk of WW III is actually code for nuclear conflagration.

Lavrov is just sabre rattling with idle threats of nuclear conflagration. That’s all they’ve got left to scare NATO with. As for wether Putin is insane enough to press the button, I doubt it. Although if cornered it’s possible. But would he want to go down in history for such mindless destruction? I have been forming an opinion that he is legacy building and the legacy he has in mind is not that.

That made me chuckle. You're a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Just what I was thinking.

I don’t know exactly what you were arguing as I haven’t followed that line of reasoning. My comment was about the use of imperfections in western countries as a point of argument in the morality or justification of their support for Ukraine, or criticism of Putin.

Every country is deeply flawed and imperfect in many ways. Geopolitics is about these imperfect regimes rubbing along together without trying to destroy each other.

That Johnson isn’t micro managing events in the U.K. as party of his propaganda initiative. And that Putin isn’t short of propaganda ammunition.

It’s irrelevant because it’s the result of an internal social and political failure within a failing U.K. Any international affairs don’t shape it. It predates the Ukraine crisis anyways.

It might be an example of something Putin can point to and shout look how bad they are. But he was not short of propaganda material to begin with.

I would agree that Johnson is one of Putin’s most lucrative assets.

A little taste of just how much 'support' we in the west have for Ukrainian welfare

This is irrelevant to the political discussion. It is well documented how sick the U.K. economy and work practices are.
The government’s position is to prevent as many refugees arriving as possible.

Not to mention that the U.K. government is dysfunctional atm. We are returning to our place as the sick man of Europe.

I vehemently disagree, but this is not the place to hash that out. I will say though, that until you recognize capitalism as the problem, you will be only ever be left with non-solutions like 'rebuilding the manufacturing base', whose calls simply end up an ever more murderous pitching of nations against nations, workers against workers, such that you get a suicidal bellum omnium contra omnes - a war of all against all. Which is exactly the cloth that this current conflict in Ukraine is cut out of.

I’m referring to capitalism as a monetary system (capitalism in principle) rather than “capitalism” the political system of the West. I’m talking about it as a monetary system which supports markets and the use of capital to generate economic growth. This is practiced successfully by Vietnam and China for example.

Without the adoption of a capitalist monetary system across large populations we are doomed to the next dark ages (much worse this time due to overpopulation and climate change, perhaps existential).

Is this what you are referring to?

idea of 'rebuilding the manufacturing base' is nothing but Trumpian nationalism meant to hide the fact that the destruction of the manufacturing base has in every case enriched powers in the West, and been carried out deliberately by Western power holders

So you are describing an oligarch feudalism?

This, or anything like it would soon collapse any large scale political organisation, erode that wealth and power they crave and we would descend into another dark age. I know some ghoulish oligarchs might look as though that where they’re headed. But I doubt it. They are heading back (in their minds) to a rose tinted view of 19th century imperialism.

This must be thrown out, but capitalism in principle is essential for such a densely populated planet to live in any semblance of peace and prosperity.

like the way that some European countries have provided revenue for Russia by buying gas and oil. The West has provided revenue for China by buying their cheap consumer goods. It’s even worse because China has been dumping cheap goods on Western countries , making it very difficult to compete from their own production. This economic warfare has had a very destabilising and weakening effect. What I describe is just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s time for the West to rebuild its manufacturing, industrial and social base. And wean itself of China’s succour.

As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it.

I’m surprised to hear this here. It’s back to front, upside down from the reality.

In reality “Putin’s duty to fight for the honour of his country”, is Putin playing the saviour of the people allegedly receiving hate from outside, so as to boost support and cement need for his autocracy to continue. This is strait from the autocrat playbook.

The idea that the Russian people have been kicked around on the world stage is also false. It may have happened more recently. But for many years before that, there had been many moves to be more inclusive to Russia, for example sporting tournaments have been held there, even an international football tournament was to be hosted by Russia at the moment. This is now cancelled. A colleague of mine who is a curator for the V&A museum in the U.K. was due to stage an important museum exhibition in Moscow prior to the Salisbury poisonings. Which was immediately cancelled at that time. There was lots of socio-cultural (along with economic) integration going on with European people.

It is solely the aggressive and accusative behaviour of the Putin regime over a number of years which has caused the breakdown in this cooperation, leading inexorably to this crisis. Behaviour taken from that same autocratic playbook.

Yes, but with the effects of our modern civilisation it’s the rate of change which is different and destabilising. We may see some extreme weather events and growing in number.

It would be chaos. The climate we’re used to had stabilised over millennia. Now it’s becoming less stable again fast. A nuclear winter would make no difference, or make it worse. But we’re past the tipping point now, so there’s no stopping it.

I’m not receiving any which are not beneficial to my cause, on this issue. Although, I am largely causeless, ambivalent, in relation to the Ukraine crisis.

It is more of an issue in regard of internal British politics. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.