Aha!

So now we see the true colours of PF. Green.

Wonder when we will have flaming red.

Or black.

Whether the EU is safe, or whether you're happy are not the question. You claimed soft imperialism was 'better'. — Isaac

With the meaning by "soft imperialism" I referred to a situation where countries have the influence over others (political and economic) without territorial annexations or war. It is possible, but far more difficult. Hence US actions in the Middle East or Central Asia (Afghanistan) aren't examples of this.

You support the US and Europe involving itself in this dispute in the way it has because that benefits you, and yours, and it's harming others is not your concern. — Isaac

Lol.

Of course! Assisting the one side that has been attacked and was no threat to the attacker hell bent on regaining it's former empire is shameful and "harming others".

Your concern over Putin is well noted.

Last Tuesday I went to a local cafe down the street. People sitting in one table had put a little NATO flag on the table. Basically people had been informed the day before that Finland will be accepted, so the timing came as a surprise. Once Erdogan was going to accept Finnish membership, Hungary acted very quickly the same way as not to be the last country standing out. Hence at least now it ought to be a different matter if Russia makes threats to Finland.

Of course Sweden is still out, which basically just shows that NATO is an international organization, not something that the US can dictate on itself (as history has shown well). I consider it more of an awkward issue for NATO than a genuine threat for Sweden, because the US among others have already. I think that it Finland could had waited for Sweden to be ratified too, but I guess that would have made the ratification process more dramatic as it actually is. Countries simply haggle in international organizations, hence Turkey's and Hungary's actions aren't totally out of context.

Btw, Finnish foreign minister gave in the signing ceremony immediately Finland's ratification of Swedish membership. One of my friends mentioned that this was an mistake: Finland ought to have asked Sweden for consultations in order that Finland could accept them into NATO. Obvious issue would have been Juha Mieto losing the gold medal to Swedish Thomas Wassberg in Lake Placid Olympics by one hundredths of a second. Hence Sweden should nullify Wassberg's performance. :grin:

The argument is directly and entirely related to the war in Ukraine - the topic of this thread. It is that promoting Europe's and the US's systems of soft imperialism as a solution to this war - the current war, the one this thread is about — Isaac

Yeah, there you go...

Well, EU has kept EU members from fighting each other. And btw, NATO members have also done that, thus the member states have followed Article 1 of the organization.

I'm just happy that I'm not living in an expendable buffer state anymore.

Collectivism of the national sort does compel one to conform, and conformity does work well towards “social cohesion”. Many embrace it as it can give one a sense of belonging in an otherwise alienating world. — NOS4A2

That sense of belonging and social cohesion is important in an otherwise alienating world, especially when we inherently have different ideas of how things should be and we actually might not share much in common with others.

But wherever a group is represented in people’s minds through its more salient features, whether it be shared government, religion, race, and so on, those features will invariably be used against that group in a fashion that blinds one to the unique and original characteristics of any individual person. — NOS4A2

Invariably?

One could argue that invariably every idea considered moral or just can be abused. Yet that doesn't give us much.

One need not adopt another collective myth to find affinity with other others, especially one that is exclusive to a vast majority of human beings. — NOS4A2

And what would be that kumbayah-thing? I don't think "my-myself-and-I" would be that.

Oh, I see ... what's happening in Afghanistan right now is the Afghanis fault? — boethius

If you know about Afghan history, you will know just how difficult it has been for the country to modernize, even without the European powers trying to conquer it. Hence even if the country would have been left alone, likely would have a lot of problems.

We (NATO) had our hearts in the right place and did all we could but just, — boethius

Did we? What I gather was the US reason was that the forces had to be there to prevent the country becoming a terrorist safe haven. And the US was from the start exiting the place ...and was there for the longest time.

Let that absurdity just sink in. Because compared to this thinking, the "Domino theory" was quite logical.

No, You're talking about Europe in order to avoid talking about the misery their policies have caused other nations in the developing world. I'm talking about humanity and the effect certain approaches to foreign policy have on them as a whole. — Isaac

Lol. Really? I'm talking about Ukraine and Europe to avoid talking about other issues???

This is a thread about the war in Ukraine... hence, it is about the war in Ukraine. It's a silly argument to make then that I'm talking about the war in Ukraine in order to avoid something else.

A far better thread to talk about it would be the various US threads, btw.

I think that is a good point. What’s missing from both is the morality. It would be nice if we didn’t need both, either state-enforced cooperation or private interest, to tackle social ills such as poverty and redistribution. — NOS4A2

You can argue that both are forced upon the individual, but I think a lot of it isn't forced upon us.

Citizenship of a country and the idea of nation-state does create social cohesion were there wouldn't otherwise be much if any. It can unite the rich and the poor and with it we overcome our ethnic and racial differences. It's not something that was invented in the 19th Century, the idea of being "Roman" being something else than just having been born in one city is the obvious historical example of this. In fact, before the 19th Century when various people in the Balkans got their independence, a lot of them had still referred themselves as being Romans, even if having lived under the Ottoman Empire and East-Rome having died a long time ago. The idea of a nation, and citizens making the nation, is quite a successful one. Yes, some young people are surprised when they understand the fact that it's all a made up thing, but often they then don't understand just how important as a "made up thing" this is. A lot of things similarly "made up" by people are essential. The World of "post"-everything hasn't arrived yet and actually will never arrive.

The existence of an eternal afterlife is proven definitively. It’s a place of unimaginable bliss, fulfillment, wonder etc and is governed by a generic, deistic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God. Every person that dies goes to this afterlife regardless of their virtue or immorality while alive. — Captain Homicide

Just a question: how would eternal life would be so nice? I guess the first few billion years could be nice, but then?

(Oh right, you said it would be unimaginable)

So? In what way does that make it any better? — Isaac

We are talking about Europe... and especially Ukraine. As I've said, other developments in other continents deserve and have gotten their threads.

Part of the problem here is that the 'peace and prosperity' enjoyed by the West is bought at the expense of exploitation elsewhere. — Isaac

Just like the rich stealing the wealth from the poor?

Sorry, but especially "peace and prosperity" isn't a zero-sum game. It hasn't been stolen from others. In fact, you can see that for Spain and Portugal their colonial posessions didn't create that prosperity compared to other countries without colonies (like Switzerland and Sweden etc.). The prosperity of a country usually comes through trade.

There's still the very real question boethius raise above as to whether Ukraine is sufficiently 'Western' for America to treat it as being 'part of the club'. — Isaac

Was Poland? Were the Baltic States? I think you have to make the argument why Ukraine cannot be what the people want it to be. (Russia won't allow it, yes, that's one argument.)

Bluster. Does it even cross your mind what you're suggesting the world should tolerate on the basis of you're speculation here? — Isaac

Ukraine has resources, it has an educated people. The problems aren't so great as they are in let's say Afghanistan. That's not bluster.

So yes, opinions so far.

Here's another...

https://jacobin.com/2023/02/ukraine-censorship-authoritarianism-illiberalism-crackdown-police-zelensky

One year after Russia’s invasion, Ukraine is backsliding away from democratic freedoms and liberal pluralism. — Isaac

Of course, Ukraine is in a state of war... :roll: But the cases are worrying.

If there would be peace and then similar things would happen, then by all means that would be a real problem. And that's what I agree, if Ukraine really wants to be part of the West, then it has to be a justice state with the same norms as other Western countries have. I wouldn't just overrule the possibility that Ukrainians can change their political system. Political systems have changed, there are good examples of this in history.

A fundamental problem in this thinking is to assume that the government just gives out services, which are paid in taxes. Services that we "the people" could buy from private entities. Behind those two wide oceans Americans can think that this is what governments and nations exist for.

Yet being a citizen and being a consumer aren't synonyms.

Why would it be different in Ukraine? — boethius

Yeah. There's actually many differences between Ukraine and Afghanistan, if you haven't noticed. You can see from the examples of the Baltic states and East Europe that these countries can get their act up after the disasterous Marxism-Leninism they had to endure. Ukrainians have that chance too.

Is the mere possibility worth any cost to Ukrainian lives and welfare in the meantime. — boethius

Their other option is Putin's rule. Which actually many in the east now have to suffer. The Ukrainians are defending themselves and fighting this war. You would want them to stop?

And this question ignores entirely the possibility of Ukraine losing the war and we don't even get to the part your talking about. — boethius

Of course Ukraine can lose the war. So then the aggressor would be victorious. Then we have a huge diaspora of Ukrainians living in the West, the country in shambles and a very tense situation in Europe.

they can't "vote with their feet" — boethius

Wrong.

They can. Just like the Afghan National Army voted with it's feet when the Taliban launched their final offensive. The Ukrainians didn't react as they did to the occupation of Crimea. That is a fact you cannot deny.

For example, does NATO have a "right" to offer membership to other countries to join their club, sure.

Likewise, do other countries have a "right" to join the club, again sure.

Do countries have a "right" to buildup military infrastructure and capabilities. Yeah, why not.

However, can the result of exercising such rights lead to tensions and wars the nominal purpose of those actions was to avoid in the first place. That's what history teaches us. — boethius

Yet we can see that without exersizing this "right" to apply for NATO membership, hasn't made a country like Moldova to be left alone. And this really questions here the assumption that if there wouldn't be a NATO expansion, Putin's Russia would be a totally different country that would have left it's neighbors alone.

The reasons given to the Ukrainian war by Putin and the irrefutable territorial annexations have made it now obvious that Russia isn't just "countering" a threat made by NATO expansion. And naturally the action of both Sweden and Finland clearly show that this isn't some question of was the chicken before the egg: the Eastern European countries had all the reasons to seek NATO membership from a resurgent Russia, whose leader see the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophy" 20th Century.

WWI is in no way comparable to what is happening now, likewise fighting Japan (which is an Island), and certainly the peace of Riga 1921 following disastrous losses in WWI and the creation of the Soviet Union is not comparable. — boethius

Russia can lose wars, just as anybody else. The idea that somehow Russia cannot lose is simply delusional.

Was any one of your examples the resolution of a proxy war? — boethius

You should read more about the Polish Soviet war, just to give one example. And guess who built admiral Togo's battleships?

5. Then support people openly preaching their destruction such as the Nazi groups in Ukraine (suddenly when Ukrainian Nazi's say Russia doesn't have a right to exist and they want to basically wipe it off the map, that's now ok in polite society). — boethius

You should really show how this has any link to the current Ukrainian government, if any.

But the biggest difference, in any case, is nuclear weapons which did not exist in 1921, 1918 or 1905. — boethius

Nuclear weapon armed nations have lost wars. Especially when Russia isn't fighting on the outskirts of Moscow or in such perilous situation, but is de facto fighting outside it's territory trying to reconquer territories it has lost. Besides, using nuclear weapons would alienate China, Russia's most important ally.

I agree. — Isaac

Well that's something to note!

And if the US, and Europe are any example, those 'ways' will have caused more death and destruction than wars and annexation. The civil war in Yugoslavia wasn't something that happened because of the West. The record is in black and white. Deaths, ill-health, famine and ecological destruction wrought by the Us and Europe's 'soft' imperialism outnumber that wrought by Russia's 'hard' imperialism. — Isaac

The dismal reckord of the West has taken place especially in the Middle East and also in Africa and earlier in Asia, not actually in Europe. In fact what is usually forgotten is the effect of NATO's 1st article and that these countries have committed there defense to a common system. Turkey and Greece might be the exception, but they haven't dared to have a full blown war at each other. Something that actually otherwise would have likely happened (we just have to look at the Caucasus).

. I've given solid evidence about Ukraine's human rights record, arms dealing, corruption, and oppression and you've come back with nothing but bluster. — Isaac

Bluster? Not actually, assuming when this war ends and the EU would start the process of Ukraine coming to be an EU member, that indeed will be difficult and painful for Ukraine. Corruption as "law of the land" is something that doesn't go away easily. And there is a real threat that the pouring of billions into rebuilding Ukraine will just increase the corruption, especially if the West will turn a blind eye to it.

Afghanistan is the perfect example of this. The bloated army rampant corruption and a totally wasteful administration that basically had trouble to operate anywhere else than in Kabul, was totally out of it's budget limitations on what Afghanistan itself could finance. Corruption was rampant, thanks to the West. This created huge scandals and nobody basically cared about them. Now if the EU assumes a similar approach in Ukraine, it could be devastating. In war throwing the everything and the kitchen sink into the norm, in peace-time it's different.

Yet I think there is the possibility that Ukraine can transform itself just like the Baltic States or Poland has.

The American fascination with guns is a political one.

There is this myth held by Americans that they are more free and have more liberties than others, thanks to their constitution, and the "free ownership" of guns guaranteed to them is a sign of this for many. Secondly, guns are seen as defense of their home, not something you have for hunting or for a shooting hobby. It is as if you would be naive and totally dependent on the government without a gun, but with a gun you can independently defend your home and family. And then you have a gun culture that harks back the frontier era.

And one has to say that owning a firearm is quite popular: nearly every third American owns one and nearly half of the American households have a firearm. That means that arms manufacturers hope for some politician coming into power to attempt to "ban firearms" in the US. The demand spike would be great for them.

It would not have been better had they adopted "the tools to continue with the "modern" approach to imperialism". The modern approach to imperialism demonstrably kills and immiserates more people than Russia's current old-school method. — Isaac

Ukrainian war has been very costly.

What I was referring to was that Russia would have had ways to influence it's neighbors to keep them out of NATO without resorting war and annexations. Finlandization of Ukraine would have been totally possible, especially when Putin was quite popular in Ukraine. But that would have meant that he wouldn't have gotten such popularity as he got by the annexation of Crimea.

You keep wanting to focus only on one party to this crisis. Ignoring Ukraine, ignoring the US, ignoring Europe. — Isaac

I would be happy to talk about Ukraine. And we have had a discussion about the "neonazism" of the current administration, which actually was (and is) one of the main lines of the Kremlin.

Yes, Russia's actions are tragic and will cause a lot of misery. But your fundamental error is that you assume that the mere tragedy of an action is sufficient to justify any response designed to mitigate it, and that's clearly false. — Isaac

When have I said that? I have simply said that as Russia has attacked independent Ukraine (and not vice versa), Ukraine should get the military hardware it needs to fight on itself to defend itself.

We have to compare the tragedy of continued war with the tragedy of our options to end it. Continued war (and Russian control of Dombas, Crimea) will be a tragedy. But avoiding that tragedy by flooding the world's top black market arms dealer with untraceable weapons, destroying an economy and making it servile to US and European banks, devastating global food and fertiliser supplies, increasing US dominance of the energy markets, and risking nuclear war... are more tragic.

Hence we must find another way of minimising the tragedy of Russian land-grabbing. — Isaac

I do get your point. (Btw, Ukraine doesn't need black market arms dealers, they are getting the weapons with the blessing of the governments of the countries where the arms manufacturers are.)

First issue would be for Russia to seek a cease-fire and for what I know, they are still trying to take more of Ukrainian territory. However, if the war would be stopped now, do notice the bleak situation where Ukraine would be left. First of all, if it wouldn't be the Ukrainians themselves being OK for a cease-fire, but the West demanding Ukraine to a ceasefire and cessation of operation, that would be damaging. If Ukrainian leadership comes to the conclusion that they should accept a cease-fire with Russia holding all territory it has now, it's up to them. Not the West. In this situation they would have of their citizens under the rule of Russia, which they do not want. Nobody would invest in Ukraine as the conflict could spark again at any moment. For Putin the war would be a success, and he could finish the job once he has restocked his weapons and munitions. How it would be viewed is that even if the operation didn't go well at the start, it was successful thanks to Russian persistence and the utter weakness of the West. After all, in Russian propaganda the West is faltering on collapse.

Never underestimate how tolerant of difficulties people are.

Let's take for example unemployment: now you would think that high unemployment would make people revolt. Actually it isn't so, in this society unemployment is a stigma for the individual, that something wrong with him or her. And so with financial difficulties. As long as there is a majority that holding on somehow, there won't be a problem. Above all, Canadians (as other people in OECD countries) think that instability, political upheaval and so on happen in other countries, not in Canada. Hence people will be in denial. It happens also here in the Nordic countries too.

I don't see how that's a 'tragedy'. — Isaac

Oh you don't see this war and the Russo-Georgian war of 2008 etc. as a tragedy? Well, objectives like containing NATO for Russia would have been easy without any war. Just as easy as kicking out the US from Central Asia. Assuming that would have been the only objective.

The problem likely is that then Putin would have had to face the problem of Russia's economy directly. But because he didn't have answers to that, then I guess empire building was an answer. And it did make him popular in Russia, no denying of that.

the US's approach to 'modern' imperialism takes a far greater toll on human well-being than Russia's version. — Isaac

I'm happy at least that you aren't denying Russian imperialism. And naturally the actions of the US have far more reach than the actions of Russia. The US has had a real trainwreck of a policy in the Middle-East for sure, which has brought death and misery there even if there would be instability and wars even without an active US there. Yet the policy failure is obvious: first from CENTO (Iran, Iraq and Pakistan as allies with Saudi-Arabia) to "Twin pillars" (Saudi-Arabia and Iran as US allies), then to "Dual containment" (of Iran and Iraq) and now troops on the ground still fighting the "War on Terror", which Americans have forgotten about. But that's another topic we could discuss. Yet when it comes to European security, the desire to join NATO in North and East Europe has happened because of Putin's actions.

Air pollution kills more people in a few weeks than the war has so far. The West's 'imperialist' habit of offloading it pollution, labour, waste, and extraction costs to its modern 'colonies' kills whole orders of magnitude more people than Russia's border skirmishes. — Isaac

There's a climate change thread on the Forum among others, which would be better for this topic. And you think India and China are still colonies of the West? And I don't know if it is tactful to compare any war to something that actually has been killing people for a long time (as cooking food with an open fireplace creates an air pollution hazard).

... We're hurtling toward global war not because of Russia's petty border disputes. We're hurtling towards global war because hawks see an opportunity to profiteer from crisis and it seems to take so little now to convince gullible idiots to cheer-lead the whole process. — Isaac

If you disregard the politics (just as the actors in this conflict) and stick to Smedley Butler's line "that war is a racket", that answers far less than you think. But it's one point.

I mean, does anyone actually defend a system where a billionaire can go years without paying income taxes? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Some real estate investors are like Trump: anything they get, any money, they put into new buildings and take as much debt as they can. Then when the building is finished and the sell it and they would basically make that profit that would be taxed, they can deduce their interest and debt and basically start a new project. Hence they can make no profit ever, but increase their assets with billions.

When there is a housing shortage, it automatically will become less attractive to buy up real estate, curbing the positive feedback loops that keeps leading to bubbles. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Now I don't understand this. If there is a housing shortage, why discourage renting flats / investing in real estate?

Then revenue raised from this tax goes to a special fund used for building housing units. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Even if this would be the case, even if the tax would go to a special fund, it would be peanuts and very inefficient to have any effect on housing. After all, profits are only taxed, and profits are a small cut from the actual investment to real estate. If the incentives for building apartments or renting them is nonexistent, then no matter where the taxes would go will not matter. There will continue to be a housing shortage.

Housing markets work if investing in housing is simply made easy and profitable enough for people and possibly companies to investment in real estate. Usually government micromanagement doesn't work. It is the ground rules and the effectiveness of the institutions that governments should be concerned about.

Housing bubbles happen because of loose monetary policy and because usually some smaller banks or alternative financial institutions try to grow "aggressively" by ditching all caution on just who to shovel money at: if anybody that can walk into the bank (or go to the website) can get a mortgage, .

Arguments have been made that the invasion was an attempt to retain power (in a region Russia previously had power over) — Isaac

Oh they want to retain it.

That's what Putin has been talking about all the time: how illegal it was for the Soviets to make Ukraine a republic and then to give Crimea to Ukraine. How Ukraine should be part of Russia, or at least Novorossiya (which is now part of Russia).

And that's the whole problem. That's why my country is joining NATO. And that's why the Baltic States have been so lucky that they were able to join NATO. All these countries are pretty upset because for Russia retaining that power means literally being part of Russia (at least for former Soviet Republics). We Finns know what kind of world it is to live in the sphere of influence of the Kremlin. It really sucks.

Once the Soviet Empire collapsed, Putin didn't choose the softer approach like France did with it's colonies. France granted it's colonies independence, but France has pretty much stayed in it's colonies (except Algeria and Vietnam, for obvious reasons). But France has accepted that these countries are not it's colonies, not part of it, and understand such rhetoric would basically cut the friendly ties it can enjoy now.

That's were Russia differs and that's why all the fuss. Putin really sees the collapse of the Soviet Union as a mistake, an accident, something he has to be repair. No other former imperialist power, UK, France, Austria etc. have such delusional ideas that their old empire could be repossessed and put back together. Once some territory gets independence, that's a divorce for life.

The real tragedy is that if only Russia would have had leaders that accepted that the empire was lost and the states given independence weren't coming back, it would have all the tools to continue with the "modern" approach to imperialism. Sweden and Finland would have never joined NATO and the EU would have continued to disarm itself.

Thanks for good commentary, @Count Timothy von Icarus

Every time they have begun to eclipse that number there has either been massive tax cuts or a recession. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the recessions haven't happened because of tax increases, but lowering taxes in hope of increasing economic activity can happen and has happened. Just as lowering the price of money (the interest rate).

Also, it is somewhat spurious when marginal rates are represented only for income taxes, not the regressive payroll tax or effectively regressive capital gains tax. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Income from a job may be important to many ordinary people, but for the rich it is the capital gains. And this presents a problem with taxation. Let's say for some reason the Leftist party would win here and would triple the capital gains tax here (that would be then a tax percentage of 99%). My reaction would to F-them and not sell anything before those crazies are out of office and the capital gains tax are normal again. For the rich, well, their assets can suddenly be then in a tax haven.

I only bring this up because it is sometimes claimed that much higher levels of migration to developed countries from the developing world can fix the pensioner crisis and relieve global inequality. This is highly unlikely to work. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, at least those countries that have a steady inflow of educated young working emigrants don't have problems, if these foreigners are accepted. And they basically are accepted, if it is perceived that they bring more to the economy than they take. I mean, nobody hates tourists, even if there are those foreigners all the year around. Now if those tourists wouldn't spend anything, just hang out on the streets, people in any country wouldn't like them.

* * *

The fundamental problem in economics is that however preposterous the spending spree and debt bubble we have, it's always the normal, the "new economy", and we simply don't accept the natural market correction that would happen if we would let free markets to roam. And I'm not talking here about the little guy, who usually get's trampled, but a severe short recession, a deflationary correction, isn't accepted as it would transfer wealth from those having it now. And those who have the wealth usually have also the power and the strings to influence the government in their desperation.

Great, that's a lot of definitions in many replies.

And what doesn't fit aptly to the actions of Russia?

Yes. good Isaac.

And oh, look how it starts, which you haven't put to bold: The extension of a nation's authority by territorial acquisition.

So, I think we should agree that Russia is imperialistic in it's actions? The other actions, trying to influence and so on also are on the mark...

an land invasion to take territory is not a very good example of modern imperialism, — Isaac

But it is a perfect example of classic 19th Century and earlier imperialism, which Russia has gone back to. This makes it so obvious. The annexation of land territory, is indeed something that isn't something much seen in post-WW2 history, but hence this should make obvious and quite clear the fact that Russia is imperialistic. The rhetoric coming from the Kremlin is surprisingly similar to the kind of attitudes you could hear in the start of the 20th Century in Imperial Russia, starting from the exceptionality of Russia and the threat that Western culture and Western style democracy poses Russia.

You just carry on... — Isaac

And you should accept the definition that dictionaries give for the word imperialism, for starters. :wink:

So you won't give own reasons, why you think as you said above?

And yes, in many ways there is this longue durée in Russia security policy thinking starting from basic facts about Russian geography. Would there be a sea between Europe and Russia, or the Ural mountains between Poland and Russia, then there would be logical defensible border for Russia, a place easy to define where Russia stops. But on a steppe, you can easily travel with a horse or a tank.

Some remarks on the good comments made by @Count Timothy von Icarus:

We also need austerity. It is trivial to cheat Medicaid and Medicare right now and attempts to recoup costs are arbitrary. $500,000 worth of heart surgery at age 85, step right up, that's the right sort of ailment. $500,000 worth of long term care for Alzheimer's? We need to liquidate all your assets to pay for things. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The US simply should look just why it's health care costs are so insanely more than in any other country. When this has been discussed on PF, very obvious and clear reasons, like with people without proper medicare then being first treated at the ER. Among other obvious problems.



And of course there's the military spending. But the problem is that I cannot see any other way for these to be dealt than a huge crisis.

The reason you need to mostly target the income and taxes of the wealthy isn't ideological or moral. I think framing it this way hurts attempts to deal with the structural deficit, making reforms less politically palatable. You go after high networth households for the same reason you rob banks, "that's where the money is." — Count Timothy von Icarus

If the bank gets robbed too many times, people will not put money into the bank. The basic problem is that even if tax rates have varied, the tax income hasn't change as much as you would think. So doubling the tax rate will increase your revenues, but won't double them.

Overall price level increases can't be wholly due to growing wages for the the bottom half of the income distribution, since they only account for 12-14% of all income and their wage gains only outpaced inflation for a few months. Their real wages have since experienced negative growth. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Wages are the perfect culprit for central banks and governments. Anything else than loose monetary policy is given as the reason for inflation.

The problem is that when the proper understanding of how our debt-based monetary system works is limited in public to basically to nearly conspiracy theories, it is no wonder that the people do not understand where the inflation really comes from. In schools, in universities, the example given is the wage increases etc. Not the financial sector controlled by the central banks.

Would you want to give us the reason why you think this isn't an imperialist war and why it is incompatible with imperialism?

But they're all so distant that their existence has no real significance, other than as scientific data. — Wayfarer

And earlier have had to be really big ones very close to a star or then have been in the perfect angle towards us (going in front of the star).

I've yet to read something more presumptuous in this thread. — Tzeentch

How about

This is clearly not an "imperialist war".

and

Do you think that's incompatible with imperialism? — jorndoe

In this context, yes. — Tzeentch

It only shows you've not read much about Russian history, Russian politics or Russian security policy.

Like the fact that in Russian military doctrine no.1 threat has been, hence obviously an "existential threat", NATO enlargement far longer than from the year 2008. So that idea that only in 2008 was this so is misinformed, even if obviously someone has said that in an interview etc.

JWT spots dust storm on exoplanet. — Wayfarer

And just how few years ago exoplanets were a hypothesis? I guess some 30 years ago, but I'm not sure just when it was generally accepted that we had proof. Now we have evidence of dust strorm on exoplanets.

Now Russia is fighting a classic imperialist war of aggression. Empire nostalgia is rife in the Russian public sphere, and Putin likes to compare himself (favorably) to Catherine and Peter, and revels in his territorial conquests. — SophistiCat

And this is the reason why you get a country like Sweden to throw away it's 200 year neutrality, that it has avoided both WW1 and WW2. Finland tried long and hard to keep good relations with Russia, but that doesn't matter to Putin.

This is clearly not an "imperialist war".

The Russians have stated from 2008 onward that they considered Ukraine joining NATO to be an existential threat. They were promptly ignored, and the US only intensified their efforts to incorporate Ukraine.

It takes some special tunnel vision to simply ignore that. — Tzeentch

It takes extreme tunnel vision and lack of reading comprehension not to understand that Russian imperialism has always been defined as a defensive measure. And not understanding that nearly all imperialist actions are sold as defensive measures. Catherine the Great's so apt saying that "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them." puts in a nutshell the deeply internalized Russian thinking of empire and security, that hasn't changed for hundreds of years. Also to simply ignore the militaristic imperialism of Russia is quite a feat to do. But of course, one can simply skip everything that happens in Russia.

Anyway, to "defend Russia against Western attack" goes perfectly with joining Novorossiya to the country where it belongs to.

Or countries on Russia's border wanting access to NATO? Right now in particular, apparently. NATO can't colonize (like land grab), it's a defense pact among member countries, not a country. Countries may or may not apply for NATO membership. — jorndoe

Some just absolutely love the rhetoric coming from the Kremlin.

The point is simply one about the varied nature of modern imperialism. — Isaac

Best example of it being Russia's attack on Ukraine. :smirk:

You didn’t mention that Trump spoke with Abdul Ghani. That’s because the propaganda you dine on doesn’t tell you these things. — NOS4A2

What??? That's your counter line?

If he spoke with the ghost of Mullah Omar, the deal he made was really a surrender.

The propaganda tells you the deal is bad; you think it’s bad. — NOS4A2

Yeah, right.

Listening to the WHOLE news conference that Putin and Trump made seems to you propaganda. Well, that's how I came to the conclusion that Trump has some perverse relationship with Putin, because that wasn't normal.

Or the actual written document of the "peace" with Taleban. Have you read the actual terms? Likely not.

Interesting to that all the NATO countries wanting access to Russia's border, are all post-colonial countries — boagie

?
Finland or the Baltic States, or Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Crotia etc. have not had colonies.

The other half of the world, the BRICS, are post-colonies and are now saying no to their past masters. — boagie

Russia has been and one can argue is still a colonizer: there are parts that it annexed through force in the 19th Century just as other European colonizers were doing (starting with Chechnya, that was occupied as late as 1859). China has had some ports colonized, but never has been colonized (the Mongol Horde didn't have colonies).

Not en vogue? — jorndoe

Well, we've finally seen the ugly head of inflation come up and take a place in the World economy. Hence the monetary policy and the spending during the pandemic, even without the war in Ukraine, has made it that natural resources have gone up in price, which then is good for the producing countries. Hence the Saudi's, Kuwaitis and others having their economies grow isn't just because of the Ukraine war. (Although the real estate boom in UAE does have something to with rich Russians leaving their country.)

And to say something positive about Trump, he did scare the Europeans into thinking of raising the defense expenditure (far more better than Obama had) and warned correctly the Germans about trusting the Russians with their energy needs, but it was only Putin on Feb 24th 2022 who accomplished the turnaround.

Effectiveness is no measure for leadership, for me anyways, unless one adheres to some statist or collectivist foundation. Hitler was effective. Who cares? — NOS4A2

Uhh... the German people and others too, I guess. So much, that they still have these Hitler-Welles of every generation asking just what the hell hapened with them.

Honestly it was just nice to have someone who wasn’t an utter coward, for a change. — NOS4A2

Personally I've never seen such a humiliating performance of fawning and spinelessness from an American President when Putin and Trump met in Helsinki. Trump had to immediately afterwards back away from what he said in the press conference. On the same day afterwards. It was like the leader of the Soviet Union meeting a Warsaw Pact member country leader. Have to say that it was one of the best performances of Putin, he really enjoyed the whole spectacle.

He reasoned with the Taliban leadership. — NOS4A2

LOL! :rofl:

Trump surrendered to the Taliban. Have you ever read the "peace-deal" done with the Taliban? It basically goes like this: Oh, please, please PLEASE...don't attack us and we will leave you in peace and you can do whatever you want with Afghanistan. If you just put on a charade that you would talk to the government we installed, but that's it and anyway it's not so important.

I bet Kim Il Sung would have accepted a similar peace-deal to end the Korean War, and we wouldn't have been surprised that in a few months South Korea would have collapsed! But hey! Kim Il Sung would not have attacked the US!

And here the best issue is that Biden then continued on with this policy, so obviously people shut up over this as it cannot be taken as an partisan issue to attack the other side. Yes, obviously the Afghan war was a mistake from the start, it was a disaster and the whole reasoning to go to Afghanistan was in error. But really, reasoning with the Taliban???

The T-54 has finally shown up in Ukraine. I suppose a tank from 1948 is better than no tank. The inexhaustible supply of Russian tanks seems to be getting exhausted. It can't be that they are out of more recent tanks, it must be that some more modern ones are in too rough of a condition to repair.


I also saw a video of a Ukrainian using a Maxim Gun. I wonder if it was pulled from a WWI museum. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I saw on a Finnish fortress island in 2002 maxim machine guns still in stock, and now they have been finally taken away. If you have water and bullets, you can continue firing a maxim for hours... it won't heat up or stop functioning. The whole thing is very heavy and difficult to move, yet on an island you simply cannot have movement so much. And warfare on islands and in the archipelago means that normal supply routes by road don't exist and everything has to be moved either by ship or by air. So if you have very reliable weapon system that you can fire all day along, why not use them, if you don't have anything else to place on a forgotten remote piece of land surrounded by water?

Same is with the thinking of using a T-54 in Ukraine today.

If the Ukrainians have basically infantry in trenches and bunkers in the countryside, then a movable armoured gun is quite useful. Using an old tank like T-54 is preferable to an unarmored truck having some gun installed to it. That T-54 is useful if you don't have anything else, as long as you don't think that the old tank could go and face up an modern MBT.

What exactly have you 'understood' differently to how you came into this discussion 450 pages ago? — Isaac

Look above your post the post I write. Nice to know something new. I think that's enough of an answer to your ad hominems etc.

It doesn’t make him a bad one, either. — NOS4A2

The leadership qualities of Trump can be seen just how effective he was when he had also the legislative branch in control, with both houses with a Republican majority. Or how much wall he actually got built.

Abraham accords? Well, Morocco is happy to get a green light for the annexation of Western Sahara and Sudan is happy to get out of the list of states sponsoring terrorism (let's remember that OBL used to be in Sudan earlier). Yet UAE and Bahrain aren't the biggest players on the bloc.

Perhaps keeping the Saudis and other GCC members from invading Qatar, a country with one important naval base for the US, might actually have been far more important than the Abraham records.