I’m not going down your rabbit hole.

Eh? What does 'send infiltrators' mean, and how does joining NATO defend against it?

Like the infiltrators they sent into Donbas prior to the special military operation in 2014.

Russia won’t invade Finland, it will send in infiltrators. Haven’t you realised yet that Russia knows that the planet is warming making their northern coasts viable for exploitation and development. While many tropical regions will become inhospitable. This will turn Russias focus towards the Barents Sea. Finland had better watch out.

And sure, one should fear countries and organizations that have nukes, especially if they tend to be aggressive, as Russia and the US/Europe have shown.

I’m not sure fear is the right word here. Protect from might be more appropriate.

The lines are being redrawn between Europe and Russia and a new Cold War/Iron curtain built. It is the only way to stop the proxy wars. Which are to destabilising.

That was already happening before the oil shock. Doesn't that situation look unstable to you?

Not in terms of hyper inflation. These trends will stabilise and the economies in question are quite healthy.

Good article, part of the inevitable covid shock. An economic Tsunami caused by a supply crisis. Those countries with a more libertarian/free market exploitation model are more exposed to corporate dominance.

Yes and we see Putin pronouncing the truth in Red square today. Somehow it brought Nazis to mind.

The oil shock is expected to continue and worsen.

Yes, but I don’t see a route to hyper inflation in NATO countries.

In Putin’s head;

“ I want to bring Ukraine under my control, I know I’ll send in infiltrators to agitate, destabilise the political situation and then I can mount a special operation to liberate the Ukrainians from their descent into political turmoil.”

The trouble is when it happens in more than one place, it becomes repetitive.

I meant high inflation.

Agreed, like the high inflation in Russia in the late 1990’s to bring it back on topic. When this happened in Russia whoever owned large assets which used to be owned by the state remained wealthy by acquiring those assets and everyone else became extremely poor.

It's not that trivially simple. Big capital can get unequivocally fucked over too by changes in monetary and fiscal policy, which is why they're so active in trying to control it. If someone wants to start a thread I'll contribute but let's not go too far off topic here.

Yes that’s probably why capital tries to influence policy. Also economic shock is problematic. I’ll leave it there.

Capitalists hate inflation. How do you not know that?

I’m afraid Streetlight is right on this one. There’s one rule about capital and big money. It doesn’t matter what’s happening if it’s up, or down, inflation, interest rates, etc etc. It’s always good news and more profit. It’s those who don’t have capital, or know how to use it who lose out.

We call it: "the Special Military Operation in the North".

Ahh, that’s alright then. Let’s just go back to the history written by the victors then. Nothing to see hear.

Cromwell only did half the job, he gave us the House of Commons, but in short order that house became packed with the aristocracy and the common folk had no vote, or representation.

The Harrying of the North.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

You'd be worse off. The French brought you civilisation.

What? the French imported the aristocracy to Britain and then took the guillotine to their own. You should have brought it across the channel while you were at it.

I think most politicians, and people with power and influence in general, see themselves above the law. Your "Norman" system doesn't really seem any worse than others.

Agreed, although in Britain there was an acute case of the people who were treating the people in a brutal way were foreigners who invaded and they literally were above the law for hundreds of years. You see Boris Johnson literally believes he is morally above the law, the law is for the plebs. Eton college drums this mentality into their students, it’s morally corrupt.

All or most systems have some form of social and economic hierarchy, including supposedly "egalitarian" ones like Marxism-Leninism.

Yes, in Britain though the architects of the hierarchy were these invaders. I see in the U.K. the unprivileged classes as traumatised following a thousand years of abuse. This trauma manifests in the hooliganism, base ignorance and populist politics. I doubt that if the Normans had lost in 1066 we would be like this.

Yes, Churchill probably considered himself "upper-class"

That is irrelevant to the argument. Many of our ruling class were corrupt, decadent, self destructive. In a sense victims of the system they were born into.

I have no argument with you about how and who built the empire. They worked in and were a product of the system I described.

America largely took over from Britain and continued the Anglo-Saxon or "Norman" imperialism by financial, economic, and military means. Organizations like NATO and the EU are manifestations of US imperialism a.k.a. Atlanticism or Transatlanticism.

Again, no argument here. Although I would put the emphasis on some positive and constructive aspects of this. Rather like what made Roman imperialism successful, Transatlanticism worked with those who they influenced, often made them more prosperous.

You see “The West” offers something good, provided you comply with some basic obligations, you have piece, prosperity and personal liberty. This is why it is known as the free world. I know it’s not perfect and is going through a rocky period at this time.

But what is the alternative?

... are we ... are we the peace mongers?

Why of course, Putin is trying to re establish peace in the region. Talk that he’s desperately trying to build a legacy before he becomes to ill to continue in power. A legacy which includes the sacred city of Kiev, is just that, talk.

Well, hang on a second. Your argument seemed to be that the descendants of the Normans are "still totally in control of the population", and "did the global empire building you refer to".

Ahh! this is the sentence I wrote which gave you that impression;

“Who’s descendants, still totally in control of the population, did the global empire building you refer to.”

I was describing the people who initiated the empire building (in the 17th century) in Britain.

The fact that there was some interbreeding, or the occasional outsider was welcomed into the fold doesn’t alter the course of history here. So there isn’t a pure bloodline. Also if you quote passages and articles from academic history, you are repeating the history which was written by the victors. The truth of the history is just beneath the surface, but ignored by these scholars.

For example, you describe Churchill’s flirtation with some notional Anglo Saxon roots. Take a look at his family home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blenheim_Palace

He was deeply rooted in that class system created by the Normans.

In reality the Normans carved up the country following the invasion in 1066 and shared it out between them. Then followed 300 or 400 years of brutal rule with an Iron fist. By the 15th century this way of life had become normal. The class system was long established, no one remembered the Britain before the Normans. The “upper classes” (code for our Ruling overlords) then became sanitised into the landed gentry. It’s true that the middle classes and industrialists etc subsequently built the empire etc, but the institutions and the class system was already long established, which they worked within.

There is a history of the upper classes being above the law. Law breaking, infidelities where always hushed up. The establishment was subservient and turned a blind eye. This is a hang over from the days of Norman rule in which the rulers literally where above the law.

Take a look at our glorious leader, Boris Johnson, the son of immigrants, but schooled at Eton and Oxford. Institutions established by the upper classes for their offspring. He sees himself above the law.

I referenced the caste system as an example of the rigidity of the class system.

Of course, there were some individuals of Norman extraction among the imperialists, but even they were hardly your "pure-bread Normans". The Norman element would have been increasingly diluted over the centuries.

You miss the point, the point is class and privilege, not blood lines (I said institutions) The structure of the British class system was virtually as rigid as the caste system, going right back to the year 1066.

Where do you think this class system (and therefore British imperialism) originated?

Maybe it's a longer-term plan of Putin's after all to connect the Donbas and Transnistria, enrolling them in Russia.

Yes, it would isolate Ukraine from the Black Sea. Leaving Ukraine to transport their grain and fertiliser exports through the EU via rail. It would probably destroy their main market for grain in Africa. It would certainly push up the prices in both commodities.

It could cause Ukraine to join the EU and NATO as a response. Resulting in a new iron curtain between Russia and Europe. This would be bad news for the prosperity of Russia. Putin will be dead soon (he doesn’t look at all well), before the Russian people realise what he has done.

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.